[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sat Sep 10 12:19:48 CDT 2011
Shree shreemallallitalaalitaH - PraNAms
In response to your comments I suggest ou yto look into say Vedanta Paribhaasha where the nature of each pramANa is thoroughly discussed.
Shabda is purely faith as far as the listener is concerned. From the point of the teacher, the prameya that is being communicated could depend on other pramANas including sabda depending on the nature of that knowledge he is communicating using the shabda. That is not part of the shabda pramANa analysis. Thus how the reporter found of the fact is still a faith on the part of the listener who is gaining the knowledge of the prameyam from shabda pramANa that is by listening to the reporter. In the court of it is called hearsay evidence- not valid as direct proof of the fact.
Shabda as a faith is accepted as pramANa if the faith is strong enough. Even in Vedanta it requires a frame of mind to accept it as pramANa. If it is accepted as true, everybody would have realized by now. Shravana and manana are required to establish faith in the statements of the pramANa since what is being said is counter to the normal experience - hence the interpretation of even- a tat tvam asi - too exists.
Sorry I am not trying to confuse anybody nor intend to do that. What I stated is what I understood based on PramANa analysis. If I am wrong, will be happy to change. I have discussed the pramANas extensively in the critical analysis of Vedanta paribhaasha. You can find the discussion up to upamaana in the attached url
Hope this helps
--- On Sat, 9/10/11, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com> wrote:
From: श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Saturday, September 10, 2011, 9:57 AM
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 16:41, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
What about the words of a person who is saying something after seeing it ?
> It depends on the faith
Saying that a pramANa needs faith shows that you are not accepting it as
Don't say shabda as pramANa, instead use some other word for not confusing
Moreover, every other pramANa needs faith in this way. What if you have no
faith in your eyes ?
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.
Everyone knows that knowledge of conditions of Iraq is born of words. But,
words are based on pratyaxa of reporter.
> Faith is essential ingredient in all shabda pramANas
Say 'in all pramANa-s' instead. I'm following your foot-prints, sir.
> that includes apourusheya vedas and their apourusheyatvam too.
This shows that you have no idea of meaning of word pramANa according to any
> Any other argument is just purely correlative and justification involving
> why my faith is better than others.
People who are not biased should not follow any faith without testing. And
faith on 'mere words' telling something alaukika is impossible for anyone
with a sound mind.
> By the very faith, there is no further justification is required nor even
> justified to support faith.
By saying 'not required', I think, you mean for you and people like you. If
so, then true. Believers don't need any test of anything, just like Muslims
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.
GYAnam is called vastu-tantram. Saying it 'not puruSha-tantram' doesn't make
apauruSheyatvam is a term used for denoting a special quality of pramANa-s
and it doesn't say anything about knowledge. This is what we use in
scriptural-talks. If you are using it for GYAnam, either you don't know what
it means or you have some free thoughts. I was expecting talk according to
> 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
> since it is shabda pramANa. Any further discussion is entertainment, at
These all were replied directly or indirectly in previous posts.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list