No subject

antaHkara & it has nothing to do with socalled jIva which is in reality
non-dual self according to advaita vEdAnta.

* Actually, we see that all the above is a confusion of frame-works, presupposition of an agent of action, and conclusions based on unsound reasoning.

SSN prabhuji :

3. You use the terminologies of nyAya and mImAmsA freely and yet do not
want them to be used in the discussion; if we note both the darSanas were
used freely by the bhagavatpAda, it is strange as to why you don't want to
admist them to the discussion.

bhaskar :

Using terminologies which are being used in pUrvapaxa schools is not a big
sin...
 
* I did not imply that it is so.
 
for that matter Sri GaudapAdAcharya used plenty of words that we can
find in buddhistic texts...that does not mean Sri gaudapAdAchArya is a
buddhist!!  vEdAntic terms like jIva, brahma, jagat, avidyA etc. etc. have
equally been used by other dualistic Astika schools too but that does not
mean they are talking advaita...Likewise using terminologies of nyAya &
pUrva mImAmsa to refute those schools or substantiate vEdic school quite
normal & its a regular practice.
 
* And hence, my question: why do you want to bar those terms in the discussion?

BTW, we are not against tarka but our insistence is that this tarka should
be shrauta tarka or upanishadic reasoning 
 
* No problems till here.
 
which is also in consonance with intuitive experience.
 
* Here starts the difference. If we can agree on what can be used a pramANa, then a discussion can happen. Let us say, one person says the Quran is the ultimate authority, and the other says Vedas are; those two can exchange mails any number of years, without agreeing on anything.
 
  The tarka *without* the support of shruti & anubhava
is shushka (dry), vain or empty logic for which the *intellect* alone is
predominant one.  Whereas in shrauta tarka (shrutyanugruhIta anubhavAtmaka
tarka)attaches all the importance to intuitive experience. See mAndukya for
example, see, how shruti through detailed analysis of our three states
*experiences* establishes the *turIya* nature of ours...

* SrutyanugrihIta tarka is fine; anubhavAtmaka tarka is a new imposition, and I am sure you understand that the whole burden of the analysis of differences is that.

SSN prabhuji :

There might be others (I had not tried a focussed analysis), but to start
with if you can show the pramANa for the above positions either from Sruti
or bhAshyavAkya, it would be easier to accept the rules you set for
discussion and discuss your Mail.

bhaskar :

If your time permits kindly do the focussed analysis of my mail & let me
know where exactly I strayed from *lOkAnubhava* & bhAshya vAkya siddhAnta.
 
* Thanks, Bhaskarji, that you attach importance to my analysis. You perhaps have overlooked that the original context of my comment about focussed analysis is to show the differences in assumption between your Mail and Sri Ramakrishnan's Paper, which I thought, you do not want. Never mind that and needless to say, I do not consider lokAnubhava / anubhava / sArvatrika anubhava / a-vyAktika anubhava, as different from pratyaksha as a pramANa.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar





8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121