Pramana - Doctrine of the Criterion -

[Guest guest]

Sadananda Namaste Sadaji:

 

I would like to provide my understanding of Prof. Ranade and I do

believe that his framework of thought on " Anubhava " is quite

different from your framework. I would like to point out that there

can be Transient Anubhava and Transcendent Anubhava – sunrise and

sunset are transient anubhava where as Sun is Transcendental Anubhav.

As a matter of fact, knowledge also falls into transient and

transcendental categories. Transient experiences such as sunset and

sunrise entertain duality until one experiences the Transcendental

experience of Sun. In Sankara's framework, sunrise and sunset are

experiences at the vyavaharika level and the experience of Sun at the

Paramarthika level. Any experience that is with the limited

identification (at the level of body, mind and intellect) will likely

transient and they bring the notions such as sunrise and sunset. This

notions will get erased with the Transcendental knowledge of Sun and

we are able to discover the falsehood of the appearance of sunrise

and sunset. In other words sunrise and sunset are just sensual

perceptions and one has to get go beyond such sensual perceptions to

get the Truth about the Sun.

 

In conclusion, I do not see any inconsistencies in what you are

saying and what Prof. Ranade is saying. It is quite interesting to

that Pramanas do vary according to philosophical (religious)

framework. For those who believe a particular philosophical

framework, the Pramanas (se the list provided below for different

schools) will be necessary and sufficient.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Nyaaya-Vaisheshhika: 4 Pramanas

1. Pratyaksha (direct sense perception)

2. Anumana (knowledge from inference)

3. Upamana (Analogy)

4. Shabda (Testimony--Sacred [shruti And Smrti] & Secular)

Saankhya-Yoga: 3 Pramanas

1. Pratyaksha

2. Anumana

3. Shabda (Shruti)

Prabhaakara Miimaamsaa: 5 Pramanas

1. Pratyaksha

2. Anumana

3. Upamana

4. Arthapatti (Implication)

5. Shabda (Shruti)

Kumaarila Miimaamsaa: 6 Pramanas

1. Pratyaksha

2. Anumana

3. Upamana

4. Arthapatti

5. Shabda (Shruti)

6. Anupalabdhi (Non-Apprehension)

Shankara (Advaita) Vedaanta: 6 Pramanas (Same of Kumarila

Mimamsa

Raamaanuja (Vishishht.Aadvaita) Vedaanta: 3 Pramanas

1. Pratyaksha

2. Anumana

3. Shabda (Shruti)

Madhva (Dvaita) Vedaanta: 3 Pramanas

1. Pratyaksha

2. Anumana

3. Shabda (Shruti)

 

Jainism: 3 Pramanas

1. Pratyaksha (Perception)

2. Anumana (Inference)

3. Jinashasana (Teachings Of 24 Tirthankaras)

Buddhism: 3 Pramanas

1. Pratyaksha

2. Anumana

3. Buddhavacana (Teachings Of The Buddha)

Christianity: (Bible both the old and new testaments)

Islam: (Qur'an )

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

 

> Thanks for posting Prof. Ranade's notes on PramANa.

> With all due respects to professor, I have to differ from what I

understood from the notes.

> If Anubhava is translated as experience - then experience itself is

not a pramANa - but only provides one to inquire knowledge of that

experience. I experience sunrise and sunset - but the knowledge of

that experience is Sun never rises and sets. That knowledge also has

to explain why I do see sunrise and sunset when there is no sunrise

and su

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thank you Ram-ji for the clarification.

 

" ...There is no otherness at this stage.... " This is the

penultimate sentence in the excerpt. It can only mean 'aparokSha

anubhUti' (unmediated experience).

 

Vamadeva exclaiming (Brihad.Upan. 1:4:10) " I was Manu, and the

Sun too... " ; or Trishanku (Taittir. Upan. 1:10:1) " I am the mover of

the tree.... " ; or again (Taiittir. Upa.n 3:10:6) - " ...I am food, I am

the food-eater.... " ;

 

Or Krishna in the Gita " aham AtmA... " ; or

Shankara's " ....shivo.ahaM " , can have no Pramana except one's own

realization/experience, which is what I understand to be Prof. Ranade's

point.

 

As Reality is beyond the senses and the intellect (atIndriya and

buddheH param), the Pramanas are only pointers as.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Sadananda Namaste Sadaji:

>

> I would like to provide my understanding of Prof. Ranade and I do

> believe that his framework of thought on " Anubhava " is quite

> different from your framework. >

>

> advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:

> >

>

> > Thanks for posting Prof. Ranade's notes on PramANa.

> > With all due respects to professor, I have to differ from what I

> understood from the notes.

> > If Anubhava is translated as experience - then experience itself is

> not a pramANa - but only provides one to inquire knowledge of that

> experience.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

What Prof. Ranade has in mind when he speaks of criteria for truth is the

answer to the question 'What makes a proposition a true proposition'.

Various theories are there, correspondence i.e. as implied, a congurence

with the way things are, coherence i.e. it fits in with other propositions

in the same theoretical stream viz. Copenhagen Interpretation for Quantum

theory, Gaililean, Newtonian etc.

 

There are other ideas of what truth is based on your metaphysics as Ranade

points out. How does this apply to Advaita? What is known by a valid

means of knowledge and is uncontradicted by further experience is taken as

true in the conventional sense of true. " The validity of knowledge is

also spontaneously apprehended " . (VP)

 

From the point of view of truth as the satisfaction of some criterion

sabda is not true in this sense. You believe that it is true by a

commitment of the will. A valid criterion for truth would be publically

applicable eg. Something like the way we can justify the judgment that

'here we have a case of smallpox'. Ranade is trying to make the

foundation of sabda experience-able as pranava or some such. This is not

a tenable position because someone at that level of trancendental

attainment would have no need of sabda as Shankara reiterates.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunder-ji.

 

I can notice an intrinsic connection between your previous post on

sAdhana sampatti and the Prof. Ranande quotes.

 

The last part of the quote excerpted below is most appealing to me.

It has come as real breather to the tight chamber we have placed

ourselves in with our unending preoccupation with pramANAs.

 

If one acquires sAdhana sampatti through a very pious and austere

living or is born with it due to past samskArAs, one should then

spontaneously have the 'anubhava' of the Self, referred to by Prof.

Ranade, without the need for any external criteria including

shabda. That pretty well explains the frequently reported

phenomenon of persons possessing immense chittashuddhi attaining

self-realization without even a guru.

 

It thus derives that cleaning the mirror to its original glory is

all that is needed for it to reveal its true nature. Listening,

contemplation and assimilation can catalyze the creation of

chittashuddhi only in a favourably pious and austere environment.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

quoted Prof. Ranade:

 

> ....The mystical criterion : If we were to enquire about the psych-

> metaphysical nature of Anubhava, we find that it is an immediate,

> first-hand, intuitive apprehensin of Reality.

> It satisfies all the requirements of a good criterion that we

noted

> in the beginning. It alone gives truth and does not require any

other

> criterion for its validation. It is self-evident. We have seen

that a

> criterion has only an instrumental value. When there is direct

> approach to Reality there is no necessity of an intermediate

> criterion and it can be dispensed with forthwith. The direct

> experience becomes its own criterion. Reality though ineffable is

> experienceable. Therefore, Anubhava is the only appropriate

criterion

> of it. There is no otherness at this stage. Here the faculty of

> intuition leads us on to the beatific

vision. ...................... "

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> I can notice an intrinsic connection between your previous post on

> sAdhana sampatti and the Prof. Ranade quotes.

>

> The last part of the quote excerpted below is most appealing to

me.

> It has come as real breather to the tight chamber we have placed

> ourselves in with our unending preoccupation with pramANAs.

 

Namaste All,

 

The reason for my posting was that I am trying to prime myself

up in anticipation of Ananda-ji's forthcoming series on Bhartrihari.

It is intriguing that Shankara has not referred to Bhartrihari in any

of his works, though he preceded him by some centuries.

 

Shankara's references to Shabda in Brahmasutra Bhashya seem to

refer only to the Vedas [1:2:5,26; 1:3:24,28; 2:3:4; 3:4:31].

Hopefully, those who have studied these under a teacher would explain

these when relevant to the thread.

 

I have also been puzzled by this line in Gita:

 

jiGYaasurapi yogasya shabdabrahmaativartate .. 6\-44..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

>It is intriguing that Shankara has not referred to Bhartrihari in

any

> of his works, though he preceded him by some centuries.

>

> Shankara's references to Shabda in Brahmasutra Bhashya seem

to

> refer only to the Vedas [1:2:5,26; 1:3:24,28; 2:3:4; 3:4:31].

> Hopefully, those who have studied these under a teacher would

explain

> these when relevant to the thread.

>

> I have also been puzzled by this line in Gita:

>

> jiGYaasurapi yogasya shabdabrahmaativartate .. 6\-44..

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

Dear Sunder-ji,

In the brahmasutras you have quoted the word `shabda' means a

particular word or sentence in the upanishads.

In gita 6.44, shabda-brahma means the karma kANDa of the vedas. This

is evident in the bhAshya and is made more specific in the

commentary of Madhusudana Sarasvati. The idea is that, while th

general rule is that one should perform the karma laid down in karma

kANDa until he attains total detachment and becomes a yogArUDha, a

yogabhrashTa is straightaway fit for jnAnayoga because of the karma

and sAdhana performed in his past life.

The word `brahma' itself has the meaning `veda'. This is the sense

in which it is used in the word `brahmopadesha', upadesha of the

gAyatri mantra, an item in the upanayanam ceremony. The

word `shabdabrahma' can also mean the entire veda, depending on the

context.

The word `shAstra' appears in only three of the brahmasutras—

1.1.3, 1.1.30, and 2.3.33. In the fiirst it means the entire veda;

in the second it means only the jnAnakAnda (upanishads). In the

third it means only the karma kANda. Thus the meaning depends on the

context.

As regards the question why Sri Sankara has not referred to

Bhartrihari, he has referred only to shruti and smriti and even

among them, only to some.

S.N.Sastri

 

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

 

> In the brahmasutras you have quoted the word `shabda' means a

> particular word or sentence in the upanishads.

> In gita 6.44, shabda-brahma means the karma kANDa of the vedas.

 

Pranams Shastri-ji,

 

Many thanks for the clarifications.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder