[Advaita-l] Fw: How shruti is antya pramANa in advaita vEdAnta??
Siva Senani Nori
sivasenani at yahoo.com
Mon May 7 03:32:47 CDT 2007
praNAms to Sri Bhaskar.
Many of the prakaraNa granthas, including those written by Sri Sankara, clearly set out the path to moksha. To cut a long post short, * FAITH * in Sruti - as opposed to courtesy or pride that our fore-fathers worked out the system and as a mark of respect we grant that collection of gems of wisdom the highest status - is essential to understand Sri Sankara's teachings. Vedanta is an Astika school, the asti part referring to the prAmANyata of vedas.
If anubhava is * REQUIRED * for establishing Vedanta, as opposed to also being available to the sAdhaka for firmly establishing the knowledge revealed by Sruti; or if Sruti has to be interpreted in a way consistent with anubhava, then there would be no need for Sruti, and all that AchArya did was pay lip service to Sruti. Why should the Acharya pay lip service to a tradition (of giving Vedas the antya-pramANa status) going out of fashion at that time, just because he was born in it? Surely to give birth to a new tradition is a greater joy.
As to the other sub-schools of vedanta, plainly they are mistaken and try in so many ways to work around the basic fact that the central message of the Vedas is that Brahman is ekamevAdvitIya. Just look at their accusations: Advaitins accord the highest importance to Vedas without regard to practical reality, or to the other pramANas they try to bring in like the pAncharAtras or the Bhagavatam.
I would also like to reiterate some basic facts here: Advaita is established by the prasthAna trayI, the bhAshyas on the daSopanishads, Brahma Sutras, and BhagavadgItA, two of which are totally based on Vedas, and the third is analysed with numerous quotations from Sruti. It is also interesting to note that among proponets of the rival sub-schools of vedanta, except Madhvacharya, none of the other founders wrote commentaries on the Upanishads - largely because there was no need to differ with Sankaracharya except at a few places, which were touched upon while analysing Brahma Sutras. Thus, Sankaracharya's interpretation of Upanishads is important, not just to advaitins, but also - directly or indirectly (because others like the commentary of Sri Rangaramanuja Muni, a Sri Vaishnavite, follow the Acharya's commentary closely most of the time,) - to other sub-schools as well: such is the objectivity and standard of the Acharya's commentary.
>From this, it is clear to even those who did not read the Acharya's writings in depth that the Acharya's teachings are based on the Vedas. For those with even some exposure, that aspect is abundantly clear anyway.
----- Original Message ----
From: "bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com" bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
We have seen arguments like shruti is the ultimate (antya) pramANa & there
is no substitute for shruti vAkya pramANa in brahma jignAsa..etc.. But I'd
like to know in what sense we should consider vEda-s are antya pramANa in
determining our true nature...some of my doubts are as follows :
(a) it is coz. shAstra-s being apaurushEya (not man made) & direct
exhalation of bhagavAn, we should have faith in it & to be believed it as
antya pramANa in determining the nature of some unknown thing ??
(b) whether mere intellectual understanding & memorising some shruti
vAkya-s are enough in determining our non-dual nature or
(c) is it continuous repetition of shruti maNtra-s by heart till we get
knowledge of brahman?? or
(d) is it enough to take saNyAsa & just take one of the upanishad
mahAvAkya-s mantrOpadEsha (initiation) from a traditional Acharya do
meditation on that till we get realization??
(e) after studying & textual understanding of shruti vAkya-s, do we have
to go to an isolated place like forest, cave etc. to *gain* the practical
*experience* of shruti purports?? or
(f) after studying *whole* vEda-s, do we have to meditate on the upanishad
mahAmaNtra-s like tattvamasi, ahaM brahmAsmi etc. to realize that I am THAT
(g) after vEdAdhyayana, to get the true experience of our non-dual nature
do we have to practise patanjala ashtAnga yOga & gain practical
*experience* of our non-dual nature in some peculiar state called
*nirvikalpa samAdhi*?? or
(h) should we first learn pUrva mImAmsa, sUtra, tarka, vyAkaraNa etc. &
then perform some yAga, hOma, havana etc. and then approach a guru to do
shAstrAdhyayana & then do something else to reap the fruit of
If any one of (e) to (h) is true, then we cannot consider shAstra as
*antya* pramANa coz. after the studies, there is still *some* work pending
that needs to be done to reap the fruit of adhyayana...
If any one of (a) to (d) is true then it is shraddhAmAtra & more
importantly with regard to siddhAnta of vEdAnta, it is only our belief
(advaita followers) that upanishads have been teaching us nirguNa,
nirAkAri, niravayava brahman where other schools like dvaita &
vishishtAdvaita & AcharyA-s from the respective schools too do have *faith*
in the shAstra vAkya & believed it as *antya pramANa* & argued against
non-dual, attributeless, formless nature of brahman & identity of jIva &
brahman & propagated saguNa, sAkAra brahman & eternal difference between
jIva & brahman!!!
So, what exactly is the role of shAstra pramANa in advaita vEdAnta?? how
can it be considered as ultimate means of knowledge in brahma jignAsa??
What is the special tool that we are holding to prove that shankara's
advaita philosophy is *sarvakAlika pAramArThika satya* ?? kindly
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list