[Advaita-l] Shruti prAmANya and jnAna

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

It appears that Srinath Vedagarbha and his friends are trying to run their
own private thread with me.
The tone of Srinath is not of an insider, as it appears from his usage in
third paragraph.

There is some other dvaitin, either barred from this group or not a member,
who is posting directly to me CC-ing to Srinath. He thinks that I've
imagined the division. That's another superimposition done by a person who
has just touched surface of leaves.

I'm not here in a vAdasabhA, and you have not yet proved your worthiness to
know anything from me, at least provocation and arrogance are not going to
help you. The present thread was started by a fellow advaitin, and he got
his reply.

If someone is willing to test my views, and to find an answer from me to
understand, then come to me in a way which shows that you are worthy. Who
cares to reply to people whose life runs on translations or hatred!? Who
know how much hatred you have and how much deafness it is causing. Once I
understand that your ears are clear, I'll utter words.

Generalising all vedavAdin-s to fit your simplistic view of prAmANya is
insult of your own intelligence. Use your brain to find answers of
questions which svataHprAmANya can't solve. If you think svataHprAmANya and
apauruSheyatva are enough, then count that you are a part of another group
of blind people/believers.

The cause of division of prAmANya was well hinted by me. Believers will
find it difficult to understand. Careful people know the purpose of the
same, so they will feel it assuring.



> There are no such thing as two types of prAmANya. It is either prAmANya or
> aprAmANya.
>
> If you argue one of the prAmANya is tested one, then there is no
> difference between your position and a bhOudhAs -- for whom prAmANya is
> parataH. Then anavasthA dOSha will be applicable with equal force.
>
> All schools in vEdAnta agrees prAmANya is svataH only, whether it is
> comprehended via channels of pratyaksha or anumAna or shabda (or other type
> for different schools)
>
> Btw, how does advaitins justify apauruSheyatva concept in general? The
> reason I am asking is that when this entire jagat is considered as arOpita
> and a brAnti, and it is partiyOgi for niShEda, then is there any real
> meaning for apauruSheyatva or otherwise? apauruSheyatva make sense only for
> someone who is realists. One cannot argue apauruSheyatva is valid now (in
> vyavahAra) but not later. Let's not forget, this jagat is pratiyOgi for
> negation in all three time frames  (trikAlika-nishEdha) including in this
> vyavahAra. So there is no point in arguing apauruSheyatva is valid now but
> not later. There is no temporal aspect to validity itself. If something is
> found/attested to be valid (via svatastva route) it is valid always. If
> there is no niSchaya in its validity to begin with, it may be rendered
> aprAmANya later, that is ok.  But cannot get invalidated after it has got
> such niSchayatva.
>
> Has this issue been addressed in any classical works?
>
> /sv
>