[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 14 06:31:12 CDT 2011
Shree Raghav Kumar - PraNAms
First thanks for de-coding the message of Shree lalitaalaalitaH. I made few comments on what you have written.
--- On Wed, 9/14/11, Raghav Kumar <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:
SrI lalitAlAlitaH ji is saying that (let us for the moment ignore Vedanta
operating as the antyam pramANam which sublates the triputi etc.) and
compare perception and Veda-vAkya-s.
Visual perception merely produces an 'experience' (He has used the word
"knowledge" for such mere experience implying that it need not be "valid
knowledge") of a certain form/color. At that point in the preceptual
process, we have not yet arrived at the conclusion that "there is a
vyAvaArika object out there due to which I am experiencing the form". To
reach this latter conclusion, we have to either say "I have shraddhA that my
eyes produce pramA of a real external object and not bhrama." (so why single
out the Vedas alone as involving shraddhA, all means of valid knowledge take
for granted such shraddhA) or if we wish to avoid using the word shraddhA,
we can say each pramANA whether it is eyes, inference or Vedas should be
assumed to be valid and enjoy svataH-pramANyam, self-validation.
KS : There is an extensive analysis of errors in perception. When we say based on the sense input of the attributive knowledge of an object, there is perception, volition and cognition that take place when a VRitti forms. Recognition of the object takes place with the memory. If the sense input is defective then cognized object need not be the true. But the one who perceives it is true until another experience contradicts the previous cognition. If there is further experience that contradicts the pervious perception then that precious perception remains as his knowledge. This is the nature of error analysis in Pratyaksha. The pramANa definition is - anadhigata abhaadita arthavashaka jnaanatvam pramaanam - involving non-negatability of the knowledge besides the fact that it is cannot be known by any other pramANa.
Vedas are pramANa not because they are apoursheyam but they provide the knowledge that cannot be obtained by other pramANas. In the case of reporter reporting the war, the truth of the reporter can be established by another pramANa such as perception by going to the place and really see and get first hand information. Till then the faith in the reporter’s words is only the means of knowledge. Hence shabda is called aapata vaakyam - where trustworthiness is implied in the pramANa. In the case of Vedas the truth that is being pointed out cannot be confirmed by any other pramANa since the truth itself is aprameyam. It is not a knowable in the sense of prameyam that is different from pramaataa - but it is also not unknowable as in my gaagaabuubu - it is aparokshaanubhuti since it is myself that I am. But Vedanta pramANa comes more in terms of tat tvam asi where not only knowing the tvam padaartham (the subject) but tat padaartham - that which involves the
whole world or totality. Then only the understanding aham brahmaasmi takes place. For that faith in the words of Vedas is essential for knowledge to takes place - since it is not objective reality but understanding of the substratum of the pramaata-prameya and pramANa.
This faith is different from knowing what I see is what is there as in pratyaksha where vyavahaara confirms perceptual reality and transactional reality.
Anyway thanks for your comments.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list