[Advaita-l] Function of Pramana
venkat_advaita at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 9 03:05:48 CDT 2004
I still fail to understand how all these replies are an answer to the question posted originally in this topic.
How do we understand the opposite stands taken in the Mandukya 7 Bhashya and the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya (sa deepa Ghatasya upalabdhatvat)
ken knight <anirvacaniya at yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
> --- kuntimaddi sadananda
> > Inherent in the discussion of ignorance and its
> > analogy with darkness is
> > the assumption about the nature of the knowledge;
> > and the nature of
> > knowledge in the format of the advaita,
> > during the post
> > Shankra period. Knowledge is considered as
> > sidhham and hence
> > Ramas reminder from bhashya- s that it is vastu
> > tantra. Here one is
> > faced with the distinction of knowledge of
> > knowledge itself.
> > Knowledge of a pot or any object for that mater
> > that it can be vastu
> > tantram, but pot can not be swatah siddham -
> > hence it is
> > puurvaabhaava patriyogini counter to its
> > non-existence.
> > Removal of darkness or ignorance does not
> > necessarily imply the vision
> > of pot unless the pot is preexisting, and then
> > it becomes vastu
> > tantram as Rama rightly pointed out. The removal
> > darkness and
> > simultaneity of the vision of pot in the light can
> > occur for a
> > pre-existing objects which of course is implied
> > but for deeper
> > analysis it has be recognized, otherwise objectors
> > will jump on it.
> > Hence the vision of the pot although vastu tantram
> > is not independent of
> > pramana- This is inherent in any examples which
> > involves
> > objectification.
> > The pure knowledge( in contrast to knowledge
> > of..) is swataH siddham
> > since it is chaitanya swaruupam; and that is
> > aprameyam as no means of
> > knowledge is required to know itself.
> > The confusion of the knowledge of where a
> > has to operate
> > (even if it is vastu tantram) and self-knowledge
> > which has aparameyam
> > has in my opinion led to the confusion of bhava
> > ruupa aj~naana in
> > contrast to abhaavaruupa aj~naana.
> > Any thoughts on that?
> You correctly point out the difference between
> self-knowledge and other kinds of knowledge. But as
> sha.nkara says in his upadeshasaahasrii
> pramaayaa.h nityatve anaityatve cha
> ruupavisheshha-abhavaat |
> Knowledge, whether eternal (i.e., self-knowledge) or
> non-eternal (i.e., of the transitory non-self) do
> differ in their fundamental nature.
> Namely, a pramaaNa merely destroys ignorance or
> misconceptions. The "object" itself may or may not
> undergo change before and after removal of the
> obstruction (example a pot in darkness is covered
> light when the darkness is removed).
> A whole lot of confusion seems to stem from not
> understanding the much maligned "two levels of
> reality". Also many people think that shruti vaakya
> "more important" in advaita and somehow invalidates
> our perception of a seemingly real world. Another
> pitfall is understanding what is acceptable
> "reasoning" and the *basis* for *classifying* types
> reasoning as either acceptable and un-acceptable.
> I hope to post a detailed article on this sometime
> this year, comparing the reasoning advaita uses with
> the vishishhTaadvaita. The spirit is not vaada
> (argument), but rather to bring out the point that
> advaita method is so unique, it's pointless to argue
> with schools such as vishishhTaadvaita. The basic
> approach is completely different.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
Need assistance? Contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Thanks & Regards,
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list