[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 10 06:11:15 CDT 2011


pratyaksha is direct and immediate while the rest are indirect and mediate. anumaana depends on pratyaksha, since it requires a dRiShTanta to establish vyaapti or concomitant relation between hetu and saadhya.

shabda pramaaNa does not depend on pratyakhsa for validation. It depends on the faith that the aapta vaakyam is dependable and true - just as we have a faith in the statements of reporters about what is happening in Iraq. The knowledge is neither pratyaksha nor anumaana based. Faith is essential ingredient in all shabda pramANas that includes apourusheya vedas and their apourusheyatvam too. Any other argument is just purely correlative and justification involving why my faith is better than others. By the very faith, there is no further justification is required nor even justified to support faith. 

Knowledge is eternal - relative or absolute. Relative knowledge is transcended not negated as mithyaa by the knowledge of absolute. 

Hence, in principle, all knowledge is apourusheyam only. Discovery is only removing the cover of ignorance using an appropriate pramANa.

In principle, Yaduji is right - with faith we proceed to discover even the absolute knowledge using Vedanta as pramANa.

The truth of the absolute is aprameyam, since 1. It is about Brahman which being infinite cannot be a prameyam and 2. It is about the subject I, which also cannot be a prameyam and 3. It is about the identity of these two, which cannot be established by another means other than aprameya vaakyam such as tat tvam asi, etc. 4. It is not about the world which is neither real nor unreal and therefore not absolute. 5. Finally Vedanta provides the knowledge, not directly since the truth being the self-I or Brahman, the infinite, is self-revealing only when the wrong notions about I or Brahman are dropped. Hence Vedanta is pramANa by 'as though' revealing the aprameya satyam of the identity of the self I with the totality Brahman, only by eliminating the misconceptions about Brahman and about myself. It is not a direct pramANa since the truth is aprameyam but it is a pramANa in the removal of misconceptions about myself and the world. For that faith is the basis
 since it is shabda pramANa. Any further discussion is entertainment, at best. 

This is of course my opinion.

Hari Om!
Hari Om!

--- On Sat, 9/10/11, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 00:17, Omkar Deshpande <omkar_deshpande at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Even if we call the third option I mentioned (where shabda and anumAna
> derive their validity from pratyakSha) by the name of parataH-prAmANya, I
> don't know why svataH-prAmANya is preferable to it, especially given that
> there is no infinite regress now. How would you argue that?
What I know is :
sA~NkhyavAdin-s say that prAmANyam and aprAmANyam both are innate.
naiyAyika-s say both are regulated by other.
bauddha-s say aprAmANyam is innate and prAmANyam needs others.
mImAMsaka-s say opposite.

Anyway, I'm replying your question(by asking some questions).
Why pratyaxa is svataH-pramANa and others not ?
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list