[Advaita-l] Shruti prAmANya and jnAna

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Srinathji,

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes, such contradiction can come from knowledge which has been
> comprehended by any pramANa (pratyaksha,anumANa, aagama etc). But there is
> one catch though -- such correcting knowledge itself has to be without any
> bhAda from other knowledge. That means to say -- all correcting knowledges
> themselves has to be pramA.
>
> When your vision of 'snake' is contradicted by knowledge that 'it is a
> rope', that rope knowledge itself must be pramA (yathArtha) by its own
> merits. Otherwise it does not have a potency to invalidate snake knowledge.
>
True, that pramA is by own merits because it was tested to have come from
valid pramANa. That changes nothing. In fact, it strengthen the case of
being tested.


> In dream, it is not same pramAnas at play.  Otherwise when I see I am the
> king in the dream, why others will not see I am the king? But in waking
> state when I see myself a king, others also see I am king. So, the
> conclusion is that my "pratyaksha" in the dream is not the same kind of
> pratyaksha in waking state.
>
Why? Don't you see in dream with the sense organs? Which other pramANas
than the six do you have in dream? The golakA may be different "kalpita"
ones, but its the same senses. Else why would you wake up to say I saw
myself as a king? Its the same you who saw in the dream with the same set
of pramANas you have in waking.


> If authorship is denied based on anAdi argument, so also kalpita doctrine
> has to be denied, for after all any kalpana has to have a starting point.
>
Finally, we will deny everything, since we have only one reality. The
kalpita doctrine is an explanation used for those who perceive duality and
cannot understand the single reality there is. In your dream, the king was
kalpita, but that king didn't think that he had a beginning with your
dream. He doesn't understand the time that you do. He thinks he has taken
birth in a royal family and became the successor king.


> Another problem is that, in anAdi argument for kalpana, at least the time
> itself must be kept outside kalpna domain. Otherwise anyOnAShraya.
>

This non-existing anyonAShraya problem you think there is, and keep coming
back to was refuted by Subbuji at least once. If you have forgotten, please
refer back. Your assumption that time must be kept outside of kalpanA is
incorrect. You assume that kalpita should have a beginning and then based
on an erroneous assumption, you make more errors.

--praveen