[Advaita-l] Is difference known by perception?

[Srinath Vedagarbha]

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 1:13 PM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:20 PM Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, you seems to be not informed on davita darshana and their bAshya on
>> dashOpanishats.
>>
> For once, you are right! Informed through study overview, yes;
> well-informed through detailed study, no. I get more by studying advaita-
> than by refuting dvaita-darshana beyond those done in bhAShya and TIkAs.
>

That's fine.


>
>
>> Pratyakska is upajIva for shruti. Unless you cognize the *difference*
>> between shruti and non-shruti texts, you cannot even arrive at non-duality
>> let alone anything else in the name of "vedAnta".
>>
> So by that you would be saying that one who has studied only Shruti and
> not any non-Shruti text cannot arrive at anything! That doesn't even seem
> close to right. All that one needs is his indriyas working to study shruti
> under an Acharya and I am sure one can get vedAnta, vedAnAM antaH nirNayaH
> and thereby, mokSha. OTOH, those who study non-shruti texts and call that
> as Vedanta find themselves answering the question as to why is their
> darshana called Vedanta at all!
>
>

Missed the point. The reason I brought the difference between shruti and
non-shruti is that unless you know (and convince) shruti is a valid pramANa
for our final purushArtha, you cannot even venture to study vedAnta. Why
would anyone? Having said this, there is this fundamental difference you
need to recognize between shruti as pramANa and non-shruti (other
scriptures or texts) as apramANa. Otherwise why do you reject Kuran or
Bible or Toraha etc.? So, the pratyaksha is indeed the adhistAna on which
the entire topic of vEda-pramANya is established. Do not forget the
'shruti' aspect of Veda is indeed a pratyaksha aspect of "shravaNatvaM"
(hearing). You cannot negate pratyaksha in the name of vedanta.



> Given this fact, a given pramANa (shruti) cannot override another pramANa,
>> that too the later is upajIva for the former.
>>
> Thanks for confirming the dvaita-stance, which is why I think that your
> main pramANa is not Shruti and hence I wondered why it is called as
> Vedanta.
>

Did I say main pramANa (what is the "main" means anyway?)  is pratyaksha
and not shruti?



> Please enlighten me, if possible, as to why is dvaita-darshana called
> Vedanta as each time a dvaitin says something I find myself more and more
> curious.
>

No problem, read advaita siddhi to begin with.



>
>
>> What one can say is a pramANa can extend the knowledge provided from
>> another pramANa and never contradict it.
>>
> I don't agree. shukti-rajata has multiple pramANas working and
> contradicting all the same. If you insist there is rajata, I will have to
> remind you that you are still to provide me with silver from last time's
> discussion!
>
>

rajata darshana is not yathArtha jnAna hence not pramANa. Dvaita defines
pramANa is 'yathArtham pramANaM'. So, the rajata you think you see is in
fact a brAnti and hence the final perception of shukti is contradicting
your brAnti and not another pratyaksha per se.

Davita is not saying all perceptions are valid.



> Interpreting shruti in terms of absolute non-duality is upajIva-virodha
>> flaw.
>>
> Perhaps so for a non-Vedantin. Still, better that than shruti-virodha for
> a Vedantin.
>

 Even for you to say this, you need to see the difference between Vedantin
and non-Vedantin. Then the question is -- where are you seeing this from?
from Pratyaksha or Shruti? If former, you are indeed non-vedantin as per
your own rule. If later, there is no difference between you and other
"non-vedantins" as your position id absolute non-difference!

/sv