rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com
Tue Jun 26 19:22:11 CDT 2007
Here is some more food for thought on what forms a justification.
As I mentioned before, anumaana is based purely on data from
pratyakSha. But anumaana reveals something other than what pratyakSha
does. The role of pratakSha is only immediate apprehension by the
senses. anumAna is based on pratyakSha, but reveals something which
cannot be grasped immediately by the senses. So they are independent
means of knowing with regard to the *results they produce*. Both
reveal the true nature of some object under consideration.
Even shruti, notwithstanding its eternality, is dependent on the
senses of the person hearing it. However, the knowledge it conveys is
of something which cannot be grasped by the senses, or inferred by
anumaana. Just because we depend on the senses to hear shruti does not
mean it is subsidiary to pratyakSha Thus, it is an independent means
Similarly anubhava is something direct. But the minute we start
reasoning based on it, namely the dream state and waking state
contradict each other, etc., we are going beyond anubhava itself,
since we are using a reasoning process. Just because the advaitic
reasoning process seems so natural and familiar to us, it does not
mean there is no justification required for it. As pointed out by
Sankara, we can use only shruti-anugR^ihiita-tarka. It's not
anubhava-anugR^ihiita-tarka, or anubhava-anusaarita-tarka.
Also, this tarka only serves to reinforce what is already revealed by
shruti, for the people who cannot grasp the truth by shravaNa alone.
This is made clear by Sankara in 1.1.2.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list