[Advaita-l] Apaurusheyatva of Vedas.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 18:55, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Pratyaksha is direct and immediate


Correct.


> - there is no shraddhaa involved there other than the fact that what I see
> is what is there.


'What I see is there' is fact or shraddhA ?
You are presenting it as fact. This clearly shows that you have shraddhA in
pratyaxa.
Why this is not a fact ?
Because eyes generate knowledge of pot,etc. only and they don't produce the
determination 'what I see is there'.
What you are missing here is that word 'knowledge' doesn't denote pramANa
essentially.
I leave it for others to show to you.


> This is part of transactional knowledge in the sense that jnaanedriyas
> which provide the attributive knowledge of the object out there, is
> confirmed by the karmendriyas involving transacting with the object that is
> perceived.


Don't you confirm 'direct and immediate' knowledge of snake in rope by
trembling out of fear.

The objects are transactionally real as much as perceptually real.


OK. So, snake is true for you.
Great.


> That is part of vyaavahaarika satyam. Here we are excluding hallucinations
> of the mind or bhrama where the knowledge is not based on jnaanedriyas.


That's your definition.
How can one know that pratyaxa of snake was not generated by eye at that
time ?


> The errors in perception have been discussed elaborately in the Vedanta
> paribhaasha.


Don't take name of revered texts to hide your misunderstanding.


> These bhramaas come under praatibhaasika not vyaavahaarika satyam.


Do you know this when illusion of snake was taking place ?


> The distinction should be understood between prama and bhrama.
>

I prescribe same for you.


> Shabda points out the pramA


Points pramA or subject ?


> via the words of aapta vaakyam which I take it as pramaa not by any
> transactions but by mere word of the mouth of the speaker.


OK.
So, if you don't see your mother giving you birth, you are not going to
believe her as mother. Humm...
And are you going to take snake as true because you feared and trembled ?


> The example of reporter on TV I gave illustrates the fact. The propaganda
> missions are successful only because of what the listeners hear is believed
> to be true.
>

Same is true for snake illusion.


> anumaana depends on pratyaksha for validation in terms of vyaapti – here
> there is no faith involved since vyaapti establishes the basis for
> validation.
>

In case of shabda, the innate relation of word and meaning does it and not
your shraddhA. Read vedAntaparibhAShA again.

Shabda is pure faith in the words of the trust worthy.


pratyaxa is pure faith in eyes, etc.


> Its subsequent confirmation or non-confirmation would only establish the
> trust worthiness or non-trustworthiness of the speaker.


How are you going to confirm veda-s which talk of svarga, etc. ?
As you can't confirm, so veda must be words of some deceiver.

Another thing,
Confirmation of knowledge generated by eyes or it's non-confirmation proves
knowledge generated as pramANa or apramANa and it doesn't say directly
anything about defect of eyes. You have to infer it.
So is the case of shabda. If it is not confirmed, it will prove knowledge
apramANa and you will infer error in vaktA from that. What about texts where
there is no vaktA ?

Vedanta with jiivan muktas establishing the trustworthiness of the teaching.
>


How do you come to know someone is jIvanmukta ? This is being talked in
other thread.
And why should I bear faith in people advertised as jIvanmuktas? Many
imperfections were seen in there life.
And it may be that they were not at jIvanmuktas, just posing to be
jIvanmukta.So, why should one believe them?
And, if they were jIvanmuktas, how could you say that they were because of
knowledge of vedAnta according to advaita system. They may be practicing
some different things without disclosing it ever.
And, if you say that they were jIvanmukta-s because they never said false
things, then it will prove them truthful and not jIvanmukta.
If you say that they forbore such and such thing, then it proves them titixu
and not jIvanmukta.
In this way, I can say that there is no sign of jIvanmukti which you can
present.
So, you can't confirm upaniShad part too.

You will say that practice yourself and realize.
I will say : Why should I practice at all before determining truth about
words of upaniShad? Why should I waste my many valuable years in such thing
?
No intelligent person will go to do anything without determining validity of
words of you or upaniShad.

If anyhow I accept that jIvanmuktas are reality and they confirm validity of
upaniShad part of veda-s, what about other parts of veda-s which say about
svarga, etc.
If you say that you have nothing to do with that part, then think again
about telling yourself vedantin. No traditional vedantin does it. You can't
get half old and half young girl as one for you.

In that sense advaita doctrine stands tall since liberation
> is possible right here and right now, not after death confirmation that
> liberation is possible while living here is a refressing faith.
>

What is liberation ? Do you see it or feel it ?
You learned about it from vedanta. Why you believe such scripture which
bounds you first and then releases?
You are too much faithful to upaniShad, up to blindness.

the validity of pratyaksha is not based faith in the sense of the word used
> for aapta vaakyam in the shabda pramANa. Pratyaksham is vyaavahaarika
> satyam.


If
pratyaxam = vyAvahArikam satyam
Then
snake in rope = vyavahArikam satyam


> Vedanta points not about vyaavahaarika but paaramaarthika where no
> validation is possible until one realizes himself – for that full faith in
> the words of Vedanta is required. Hence faith comes first before validation.
> I hope I am clear.
>

As no validation is possible, so vedAnta are useless and apramANa. See your
post above for this.
I replied following your footprints at many places.