[Advaita-l] Fw: How shruti is antya pramANa in advaita vEdAnta??

[sriram]

Dear Members
I could see this mail only now.I think Faith in  the Sruthi means a positive
one that Its sayings are hundred percent true and following the same will
definitely lead to Liberation/moksham.A guru is required to understand the
sayings of the Sruthi  in the right manner.
Sri Sachidanendra Saraswathi Swamigal is attributed to have said that Sri
Adi Sankara had held the view that Anubhava also plays a part and that this
is more valid than the Sruthi.I think this debate appears to me as an
avoidable one as we all
know that Adi Sankara illuminated the Advaitha Siddhanta ONLY from the
Sruthi Vakyas and how one should read them and understand.Our logic may not
be sufficient to fully get at what exactly is meant by  the Sruthi when it
says Aham Brahmasmi,Tatvamasi,Aham Athma Brahma ,Prajnanam Brahmethi etc
.Sri Adi Sankara for our own benefit dwelton
these Maha Vakyas and gave His Bashyas on them  so that these are understood
in the
right manner.Those who seek mumukshathvam follow His Path.Anubhava is
one`s own self experience need not necessarily verifiable by others under
lab
conditions.The sadhaka   is content and he derives the benefit/satisfaction
by
following the Path shown by his Master .That is that. Mother only shows to
the child that so and so is its  father and the child accepts that.No
further examination of Dna and all that.Sruthi is called as Matha and it
shows that Brahman is verily cognisable.That is that.Sri Sengalipuram
Brahmasri Anantharama  Dikshithar always will say Veda  matha.
R.Krishnamoorthy.
----- Original Message -----
From: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fw: How shruti is antya pramANa in advaita
vEdAnta??


> praNAms.
>
> My response on Sri Bhaskar's original post was somehow not picked up by
the list; now Sri Bhaskar has replied to my response. I am reproducing the
whole thing for the convenience of members who might be interested, and also
summarising it for the majority who would not be interested that keenly.
>
> Summary: Sri Bhaskar wants to know if Sruti is a hypothesis, or an article
of faith (faith); whether we should blindly accept something like
'tattvamasi' or verify it (accept it and internalise it); the basis for
considering Sruti as antya-pramANa (it is axiomatic); and whether faith is
Sruti is essential to understand Sri Sankara's teachings (yes).
>
> He then clarifies that he did not say that one should verify Sruti out of
mistrust (I think he has), that SSS does not hold that "the vEdic
declaration would require subsequent verification by some other accepted
means of right knowledge" (fair enough) and that it is not Sri Bhaskar's
stand that "*after* reading & understanding  shruti we have to go to some
other place to do something else to realize its truth!!"
>
> The above led me to conclude that Sri Bhaskar and I agree on the fact that
the word of Vedas is final, does not require any further investigation or
verification. To me, it then follows that only SrutyanugrihIta tarka can be
used, not anubhavA~Nga tarka.
>
> Regards
> Senani
>
> My present response starts with two asterisks, in the post below.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com" <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> To: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 6:04:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fw: How shruti is antya pramANa in advaita
vEdAnta??
>
>
> praNAms Sri Siva Senani Nori prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> SSN prabhuji :
>
> Kindly pardon me I have never questioned the authority of scripture in
> shankara vEdAnta.  My doubts are there with a genuine interest to know
what
> exactly does it mean when we say *shruti is the antya pramANa*....If I
take
> your words & say it is ONLY blind faith in scriptures just coz.
>
> * Faith is belief that is not based on proof. If you are told something,
> and will believe it after proving it then such a thing is called a
> hypothesis. Or to paraphrase you, faith is by definition blind.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> Thanks for the clarification prabhuji...now tell me, whether shruti is
> hypothesis or faith??
>
> ** The Acharya taught that SraddhA, which includes FAITH, in Sruti is
essential; the orthodox do not view the propositions of Sruti as hypotheses.
>
>   and also kindly clarify my doubt :what exactly does
> it mean when we say *shruti is the antya pramANa*??  You said below : *The
> Sruti is called antya pramANa precisely because no further "verification"
> is required*  OK I agree with this..but now tell me shruti says tattvamasi
> (thou art that).  You mean to say here we simply accept it without
> verifying it further with our intuitive realization??
>
> ** Yes we simply accept; the doubting do not, but the faithful do.
However, listening is not comprehending, and hence SravaNa has to be
followed up by manana and nidhidhyAsana; once the teaching of Sruti is
comprehended, the differences of agent, object, and action vanish.
>
> SSN prabhuji :
>
> it is our fore fathers collection of gems in their highest status.
>
> * I guess speed-reading has its problems. I used the above phrase in a
> context which condemns that; it does not state my belief.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> pardon me for misreading...Kindly clarify in simple language
*on_what_basis
> you consider shAstra as antya pramANa...you have said in your previous
mail
>
> ** Because after all the sAdhana, a sAdhaka would realise the Brahman
revealed by Sruti, by internalising the teachings of Sruti.
>
> // quote //
>
> * FAITH * in Sruti - as opposed to courtesy or pride that our fore-fathers
> worked out the system and as a mark of respect we grant that collection of
> gems of wisdom the highest status - is essential to understand Sri
> Sankara's teachings.
> // unquote //
>
> If I connect the first & last sentences of your above statement, it reads
> as * FAITH * in Sruti is essential to understand Sri Sankara's teachings
> ...is it your stand prabhuji??
>
> ** Absolutely.
>
> SSN prabhuji :
>
> It leads to the conclusion that shAstra has to be believed to be an
> authority just as we
> put faith in the declarations of champions in that field..In other words,
> that would imply the dependence of the scriptures on some other source of
> right knowledge for its efficacy.  What does it mean??  if some Rishi
> cautions us that there is a big giant on the other side of the country,
the
> truth of that statement either should have to be believed blindly or that
> statement would have to be investigated by actual perception or through
> some other means of knowledge
>
> * In case of Apta-vAkya, we assume it is true, till we know better, but do
> not go about verifying out of mis-trust.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> Kindly clarify when did I say we have to verify shruti vAkya-s out of
> mis-trust??  I've been only telling vEdAntic intuitive realization should
> go hand in hand with scriptural verdicts...
>
> ** I have been forewarned that I must expect splitting of hairs; very
well. Out of what motive do you then "investigate by actual perception  or
through some other means of knowledge" the cautioning of the Rishi that
there is a giant on the other side of the country? The answer is mistrust.
If you had trust in the Rishi, you would take it at face value. Say, our
father tells us that he has robbed of his wallet in the market. Do we then
investigate this, by say, asking mother whether she has seen father take the
wallet while going out, or checking the bank transactions to investigate and
know that the wallet contained the amount father claimed it contains, or do
we trust our father? A Rishi is like our father, and should be similarly
trusted.
>
> SSN prabhuji:
>
> ...If our case is former, then we are *blind
> followers* of shruti, if our case is later, the vEdic declaration would
> require subsequent verification by some other accepted means of right
> knowledge!!!
>
> * This is the crux of the difference. I guess you would attribute the
above
> stance to His Holiness Sri Satchidanenra Swami. *** SRUTI VAKYAS DO NOT
> *N*E*E*D* VERIFICATION BY OTHER MEANS *** (it is a different matter that
> they being the Truth are capable of being verified)
>
> bhaskar :
>
> No prabhuji I didnot mean that...may be coz. of my language constraints
you
> might have understood like that!!  I've been telling shrutyAdi &
anubhavAdi
> pramaNa-s required in brahma jignAsa & in dharma jignAsa only shAstra
> suffice...It does not mean *after* reading & understanding  shruti we have
> to go to some other place to do something else to realize its truth!! I am
> afraid...that is not at all my stand...you might have seen my private mail
> with regard to anubhava...this does not have anything to do with pratyakya
> & anumAna pramANa-s & does not have dependence on pratyaksha pramANa.
>
> ** Great. If you are saying that the word of Sruti is final, and that it
does need verification by any other means, we are saying the same thing, and
have no difference of opinion. That also leads us to therefore accept only
SrutyanugrihIta tarka, and not anubhavA~Nga or anubhavAtmaka tarka in
brahma-jij~nAsA.
>
> SSN prabhuji :
>
> ; other means like anubhava are also available to understand / interpret
> Sruti vakyas correctly with respect to Brahma-jij~nAsA, which is not the
> case with dharmajij~nAsA. The mere availability of other means does not
> make those means of understanding, more important than what is to be
> understood.
>
> In that case it is not an antya pramANa. As said earlier,
> after hearing the truth in scriptures, there is some work still pending to
> verify truth behind this declaration....
>
> * The Sruti is called antya pramANa precisely because no further
> "verification" is required.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> Then why shankara said shrutyAdi & anubhavAdi & precisely NOT ONLY shruti
> but anubhavAdayaH ...
>
> ** One gentleman of great learning had earlier pointed out on this list in
elaborate detail that Sruti, li~Nga, vAkya, prakaraNa, sthAna and samAkhyA
are the six ways in which mImAmsakas interpret Vedas and that the Sruti in
your phrase of "NOT ONLY shruti but anubhavAdayaH" does not refer to Vedas
but a way of understanding Vedas. And, anubhava and others are in addition
to "this technique of understanding vedas", not in addition to Vedas.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org