Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 01:10:42 EDT 2022
On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:45 AM Anand N via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Also as Jaldharji pointed out, it can happen that one Pramana is not enough
> and hence some more pramanas
> come into play in order to arrive at valid knowledge or truth.
I don't think that is what Jaldharji meant as there can be only one pramANa
for one viShaya. If one pramANa is not enough, then it is not a pramANa at
all! If one is led to doubtful knowledge, it is not pramA, valid knowledge,
but bhrama. And since pramAyAH karaNam =pramANam, the means is not valid
either. Any knowledge by svataH prAmANyam may be considered valid, and is
usually considered so, as long as it is not contradicted later. Yet, in
analysis as to what is certainly a pramANa for a certain thing, there can
be no doubt.
> Then Jaldharji raised an interesting point which is, if Rasa can be
> considered a pramana.
> So my response to that was that Aesthtetics and the Rasa experience there
> plays a huge rule, since it is Ananda, which is considered
> close to Brahmananda.
If rasa is an emotion in the mind, it is no different than sukha or duHkha
that is sAkShi-pratyakSha. If it is like samAdhi-rasa too, it is not any
different really to count as a separate pramANa. If it is said it is close
to brahmAnanda, every Ananda being a manifestation of brahmAnanda alone,
viShayAnanda is also brahmAnanda, yet the former is to be shunned. If it is
due to Ishvara-bhakti, it would be better than all other viShayas, but
still with bheda, it is not brahmAnanda itself. Kena calls out this
objectification in the refrain नेदं यदिदमुपासते। As an aside, it reminds me
of Taittiriya mantra रसं ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति also.
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list