Guest guest Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Sekhar-ji wrote: Dear sir He must be trying to explain what is indirect perception since all language we speak and write functions only in a indirect fashion so that our vision is partial. SANKARA Acharya said that group of symbols is a word and expression of these words is creation. However, mature logical ideology may be still it is partial and different from the real. Negation of all psychological impressions is to be wise. thank you sekhar ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Namaste Sekhar-ji, Which he are you talking about? I see three candidates, Sada-ji, Shankara, and D.A. What do you mean by logical ideology? Give an example. Best Wishes, Michael P.S. Anumana cannot be indirect perception for then it could not be a separate means of knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 > > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > Namaste Sekhar-ji, > Which he are you talking about? I see three candidates, Sada-ji, > Shankara, and D.A. What do you mean by logical ideology? Give an example. > Best Wishes, > Michael > P.S. Anumana cannot be indirect perception for then it could not be a > separate means of knowledge. > >>>>>>>>>>> Knowledge it self is a separate means of knowing Rupam Rupam maghava bodhaveethi is beginning of Veda, means two forms combine to make us know a thing. 1 word or symbol or sound or sign or all these combined form 2 Real shape of a jar or car or banana First one identifies the second one to form an image in the head for further explanation of the properties of the second one.Thus two unite as one such as apple is apple. Primarily all this process depends on Anumana Pramana only. Doubt that god(s) exist may form the basis of agnosticism — the belief that one cannot determine the existence of god(s). It may also form or affect the basis of atheism, which can entail either not believing in god(s) or believing that no god(s) exist(s). Alternatively, doubt over the existence of god(s) may lead to acceptance of a particular religion: compare Pascal's Pensées. Doubt of a specific religion, scripturally or deistically, may bring into question the truth of that religion's set of beliefs. On the other hand, doubt as to some religious doctrines but the acceptance of others may lead to the growth of heresy and/or the splitting off of sects. Thus proto-Protestants doubted papal authority, and substituted alternative methods of governance in their new (but still recognizably similar) churches. All this comes under anumana pramana thank you for reading sekhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 > > |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > > Namaste Sekhar-ji, > You write: > Knowledge it self is a separate means of knowing > > What can that mean? To me it seems to be along the lines of - a banana is > a fruit, an apple is a fruit, a pear is a fruit and fruit itself is > another form of fruit. That can't be right. You can't reduce a genus to > a species. > > What you are doing is offering some examples of comparing and contrasting > but your mistake leads me to consider that you perhaps have not got _why_ > anumana is a separate means of knowledge or why it differs from perception > and inference. To put it another way unless you already have the concept > (i.e. capacity exercised in acts of judgement) of _likeness_ how are you > going to discover likeness in the manifold objects that you encounter. > > Accustom your eyes to the dim light of the cellar and the form of the > black cat will be revealed to you. > > Best Wishes, > Michael. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since language can not function without combinations and permutation there is every likeliness of misconceptions. How one can derive a (pramana) and later says that pramana is prameya? We require distinction between two objects or subjective experiences to notice or to feel.Distinction based on pramanas and this is based on examples.All this implied in grammatical structure. So any way pramana is separate means of knowledge. We require a name or symbol or a sign to identify a thing or a feeling.But that mark can not be the thing identified.It stays apart from what is identified like word moon identifies certain properties of moon that does not mean word moon is real moon. In social,economic,religious fields you can find clearly the exercise of combinations and permutations. As you know computer got a virtual world.We fabricate several designs with several tools.Later design is applied else where in physical world.So also anumana pramana. thank you sir I may be wrong if you feel it is not sufficient you are welcome sekhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.