No subject

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

SSN prabhuji:

* 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.

bhaskar :

I am afraid, you have not done the justice to your judgements...

bhaskar :

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.

SSN prabhuji:

* And hence, my question: why do you want to bar those terms in the
discussion?

bhaskar :

Where did I say we have to *bar those terms* in the discussion...I dont
have any problem with terminologies used in those two schools & usage of
the same in our discussion...I only said since shankara himself refuted
those schools of thought (pUrvamImAmsa & nyAya)let us not bring in those
theories in our discussion...

bhaskar :

which is also in consonance with intuitive experience.

SSN prabhuji :

* 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.

bhaskar :

prabhuji you mean to say anubhava & shruti are like vEda & Quran & never
meet each other :-))  Kindly share with us the definition of Anubhava that
you have in mind..I've shared what I meant by anubhav in my mail to you...

bhaskar :

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...

SSN prabhuji :

* 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.

bhaskar :

Its all depend upon how do you understand this term *anubhava* when I say
anubhavAtmaka tarka...As you know, in our day to day affair we have
different types of anubhava like :

(a) *I am writing this mail to you*, it is my pratyaksha anubhava coz. I am
sitting in front of the computer monitor, using keyboard & typing a reply
using my official time:-))...This is my perceptual experience or knowledge.
When I go home & remember this event, then those monitor, keyboard, mouse
etc. etc. donot appear physically to me, the event & the experience of it
is mere 'smruti' (memory) to me.  Thus, we can say jnAna is of two kinds
one is anubhava that is through my direct perception and another is smruti
rUpa (in the form of memory)... Also called as *pratyakshAnubhava*

(b)  Yesterday I was in my office gym & while jogging on the treadmill, I
felt bit pain in my knee joint..This pain I felt is not pratyakya, it
cannot be perceived like computer monitor, it is only a feeling...Hence
this *vEdanAnubhava* is not pratyakshAnubhava..this type of anubhava does
not mean the cognitive form or pratyaksha rUpa of knowledge. ..It is called
*pratyayAnubhava*

And Now, please note, the anubhavA that which I have been insisting for the
*tarka* is neither of these two types of anubhava-s...The
sArvatrikapUrNAnubhava or sAkshi anubhava is something different from the
above two categories..The nature of this anubhava I've explained to the
best of my ability in my private mail to you.  Based on this anubhava
(which is a valid premise I believe since this anubhava is *universal* in
nature) we have to do tarka.

SSN prabhuji:

* 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.

bhaskar :

Since this mail is stretched too long already, in short, sArvatrika
sAkshyanubhava is not restricted to pratyaksha pramANa...it takes the whole
scenario into consideration.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar