[Advaita-l] Fw: On rationality; was "Vedas are not apauresheya according to the Vedas ?"

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

Dear Sri Ramesh Krishnamurthy, Namaste.



>

> brahman is absolutely real (satya) precisely because it is none other
than the

> svataHsiddha and abAdhya Atman. If brahman were pramANasiddha, it would be

> bAdhya and not absolutely real. In other words, if brahman were an
objective

> reality, it would be bAdhya.

>

> Likewise, the world is mithyA (i.e. bAdhya) simply because it is not
svataHsiddha.





In a nutshell, your position is akin to "whatever is pramANa-siddha it is
bAdhya, whatever is svataH-siddha it is abAdhya"



If we were to accept vEdAnta-pAribhAsha's definition of pramANa, the
abAdhitvam is already factored into it (along with anadhigatatvam etc.).
Now if you were to make pramANasiddha things as bAdhya, it goes against
definition of pramANa as defined in VP.



Also, from another angle, since the truth in your above stand is not svataH
siddha as such, it can be considered as yet another pramEya in itself and
begs for a pramANa.



> advaita-vedAnta is not a thesis in the sense that it does not concern

> itself with making any objective statements about Atman/reality.

>Instead, it actually negates the very need to make (and the

>possibility of making) any objective statements about Atman/reality.



I agree in a limited sense. No doubt Atman is svataHsiddha, but you need
pramANa (shruti in this case) to tell more about it -- such as making
 aikya (identity) statements of myself with Brahman etc. In this sense, not
sure how you shield advaita-vedanta from being a thesis.



Regards,

Srinath