[Advaita-l] Shruti prAmANya and jnAna

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

Namaste,



On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Srinathji,
>
>>
>> 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.
>

It does not.

Testing only removes shanka of aprAmANya (in some case testing confirms
aprAmaNya if the initial jnAna is ayathArtha). Testing does not introduce
prAmANya afresh.

So, parIxa is for aprAmANya shankAnivrutti / aprAmANya siddhi, not for
prAmANya utpatti.


>
>
>> 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?
>

No, you do not use same bahEndriya-s for dream, but manas is involved in
dream.


>
>
>> 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.
>

That exactly was my point. When you are dening everything, but why
introduce all sort of apourushEya/prAmANya etc? Why not deny it right away
without pulling nirduSTa vEda? At least bOudha-s are doing right thing.



> 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.
>

But such dream king does not know his world is kalpita neither. Neither he
does not use any of dream texts and use fancy words as prAmANya/apourushEya
to deny reality to his domain. All denial of dream is after the fact.

In the same line, if you are denying this jagat while in it, there is no
value using fancy & convoluted concepts such as prAmANya/apourushEya etc.



>
>
>> 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.
>
>
It was not.

I argued back then -- if avidya and its result kalpana is said to be no
beginning, logically it must be co-exist with that chaitanya vastu and
hence must be self-same nature (svabhAva).

/sv