[Advaita-l] Function of Pramana

[ken knight]

--- Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <balasr at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> --- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Inherent in the discussion of ignorance and its
> > analogy with darkness is
> > the assumption about the nature of the knowledge;
> > and the nature of
> > knowledge in the format of the advaita,
> particularly
> > during the post
> > Shankra period.   Knowledge is considered as
> swataH
> > sidhham and hence
> > Rama’s reminder from bhashya- s that it is vastu
> > tantra.  Here one is
> > faced with the distinction of ‘knowledge of’
> versus
> > ‘knowledge’ itself.
> > Knowledge of ‘a pot’ or any object for that mater
> –
> > that it can be vastu
> > tantram,  but ‘pot’ can not be swatah siddham  -
> > hence it is
> > puurvaabhaava patriyogini – counter to it’s
> previous
> > non-existence. 
> > Removal of darkness or ignorance does not
> > necessarily imply the vision
> > of pot unless the pot is preexisting, and then
> only
> > it becomes vastu
> > tantram as Rama rightly pointed out.  The removal
> > darkness and
> > simultaneity of the vision of pot in the light can
> > occur for a
> > pre-existing objects – which of course is implied
> –
> > but for deeper
> > analysis it has be recognized, otherwise objectors
> > will jump on it.   
> > Hence the vision of the pot although vastu tantram
> > is not independent of
> > pramana- This is inherent in any examples which
> > involves
> > objectification. 
> > 
> >  The  pure knowledge( in contrast to ‘knowledge
> > of..’) is swataH siddham
> > since it is chaitanya swaruupam; and that is
> > ‘aprameyam’ as no means of
> > knowledge is required to know itself.  
> > 
> > The confusion of the ‘knowledge of’ where a
> pramaana
> > has to operate
> > (even if it is vastu tantram) and self-knowledge
> > which has ‘aparameyam’
> > has in my opinion led to the confusion of ‘bhava
> > ruupa aj~naana’ in
> > contrast to ‘abhaavaruupa aj~naana’.
> > 
> > Any thoughts on that?
> 
> You correctly point out the difference between
> self-knowledge and other kinds of knowledge. But as
> sha.nkara says in his upadeshasaahasrii
> (gadyabandha.h
> 2.102):
> 
> pramaayaa.h nityatve anaityatve cha
> ruupavisheshha-abhavaat | 
> 
> Knowledge, whether eternal (i.e., self-knowledge) or
> non-eternal (i.e., of the transitory non-self) do
> not
> differ in their fundamental nature. 
> 
> Namely, a pramaaNa merely destroys ignorance or
> misconceptions. The "object" itself may or may not
> undergo change before and after removal of the
> obstruction (example a pot in darkness is covered
> with
> light when the darkness is removed). 
> 
> A whole lot of confusion seems to stem from not
> understanding the much maligned "two levels of
> reality". Also many people think that shruti vaakya
> is
> "more important" in advaita and somehow invalidates
> our perception of a seemingly real world. Another
> pitfall is understanding what is acceptable
> "reasoning" and the *basis* for *classifying* types
> of
> reasoning as either acceptable and un-acceptable. 
> 
> I hope to post a detailed article on this sometime
> this year, comparing the reasoning advaita uses with
> the vishishhTaadvaita. The spirit is not vaada
> (argument), but rather to bring out the point that
> the
> advaita method is so unique, it's pointless to argue
> with schools such as vishishhTaadvaita. The basic
> approach is completely different.
> 
> Rama
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 
> _______________________________________________
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
>
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


=====
‘From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.’


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/