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

[V Subrahmanian]

The following extract from the book 'srIdakShiNAmUrtitotram' Vol.I in
English that gives the overall purport of the bhashya of Shankaracharya on
the Prashnopanishad 6.3 would be useful in understanding the Advaitic
position.

Quote:

// The import is this:  It should not be thought that if the non-dual Atman
alone exists, there would then be the contingency of the shAstra being
invalidated.  That would be so in that system in which the shAstra is
deemed to have an existence apart from the universal Self, but not so in
the present case (VedantashAstra).  Even prior to and after the realization
of the Universal Self, it is held that the shAstra or its validity has no
existence other than that of the Self.  The shruti itself declares 'But
where to him all becomes Atman alone, there, who could see what and by what
means?'  The appropriateness of compiling the shAstra is also pointed out
when dealing from the standpoint of ignorance, without the knowledge of the
real existing entity. Thus, at length, the Brihadaranyakopanishad says
'Where he sees as if duality exists' etc.  Here, in the Mundakopanishad
also, a division of the shAstra is made at the very beginning relating to
the parA and the aparAvidyA.  That the shAstra is regarded as being
different from Self is only because of ignorance.//
Unquote

It is in this light that one should understand the Advaitic view of the
entire Veda(anta) being valid only in the vyavaharic state which is
characterized by the tripuTee : pramAtR, pramANa and prameya.  In the
pAramArthika state this tripuTee has no reality and hence the VedAnta
pramANa too is deemed to be invalid.

regards
subrahmanian.v



On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha
<svedagarbha at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Sri Ramesh Krishnamurthy, Namaste.
>
>
> > 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
> _
>