[Advaita-l] Is difference known by perception?

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,
On upajIvya virodha, see
http://www.advaitasiddhi.com/blog/pariccheda-1-upajivyatvena-pratyaksha-prabalya-nirakaranam

In short, the reality that shruti is dependent upon (vyAvahArika satya of
the world) is not being denied by shruti. The reality of the world that
shruti denies (pAramArthika satya of the world), shruti is not dependent
upon to convey its teaching. There is no basis to argue that the world
should not be sublatable at any point in time for the veda to convey its
import now.

Moreover, there is no pratyaksha virodha at all, because pratyaksha can
only reveal the present - it does not have the ability to reveal the
pAramArthika satya - a reality unsublatable at any point in time, past
present and future - of anything. So if the veda says the world has no
pAramArthika satya, where is the pratyaksha virodha?

Let's be clear here. The classification of Veda as tattvAvedaka and
atattvAvedaka is not done by the advaitins themselves, it is something that
dvaitins claim the advaitins to be doing.

The answer to that charge is that we never say what the veda teaches is
wrong, so how can it be atattvAvedaka - teaching a wrong thing?

Where do we deny karmakANDa's teaching? We agree that karmakANDa reveals
valid means to produce results and those means, when performed, do produce
the results that veda says they do. We never deny prAmANya of karma kANDa
for you to charge us with atattvAvedaka.

If the veda had taught a mithyA thing as satya, then you can say we are
implying that the Veda is atattvAvedaka, but we are saying that the Veda is
teaching a mithyA thing as mithyA. So it is tattvAvedaka only.

The  quote about tarka below is completely irrelevant, from this you cannot
conclude that shankarAchArya is arguing that tarka can independently
establish advaita.

What he is saying is that tarka, when it is in line with shruti, can do so.
Elsewhere, he makes the full argument - a logician cannot independently
establish AtmajnAna, only a teacher who is well versed in shruti can impart
that knowledge.

See the commentary to kaTha mantra 1.2.9 'नैषा तर्केण मतिरापनेया
प्रोक्तान्येनैव सुज्ञानाय प्रेष्ठ ।'

अतोऽनन्यप्रोक्त आत्मन्युत्पन्ना येयमागमप्रभवा मतिः, नैषा तर्केण
स्वबुद्ध्यभ्यूहमात्रेण आपनेया नापनीया न प्रापणीयेत्यर्थः ; नापनेतव्या वा ;
नोपहन्तव्या । तार्किको ह्यनागमज्ञः स्वबुद्धिपरिकल्पितं यत्किञ्चिदेव
कल्पयति । अत एव च येयमागमप्रभूता मतिः अन्येनैव आगमाभिज्ञेनाचार्येणैव
तार्किकात् , प्रोक्ता सती सुज्ञानाय भवति हे प्रेष्ठ प्रियतम ।

Translation from Swami Gambhirananda -
"Therefore esa, this-this wisdom about the Self, as presented by Vedas,
that arises when the Self is taught by one who has become identified with
It; na apaneya, i.e. na prapaniya, is not to be attained; tarkena, through
argumentation-called up merely by one's own intellect. Or (reading the word
as a-apaneya, the expression na apaneya means), should not be eradicated,
should not be destroyed. *For a logician who is not versed in the Vedas,
talks of all sorts of things that can be called up by his own
intellect. *Therefore,
prestha, O dearest one; *this wisdom that originates from the Vedas,
sujnanaya (bhavati), leads to sound knowledge; when prokta, imparted;
anyena, eva, by a different person indeed-by a teacher who is versed in the
Vedas and is different from the logician.*"

On your other question, whether pAramArthika satya is different from
vyAvahArika satya - the bheda between the two is itself vyAvahArika. What
appears as vyAvahArika satya is pAramArthika satya.

Kind regards,
Venkatraghavan


On Tue, 7 May 2019, 00:53 Srinath Vedagarbha, <svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:35 AM Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Re your point on role of Shruti in dvaita, both dvaita and advaita agreee
>> that Shruti reveals what pratyaksha does not / cannot reveal.
>>
>> Similar to our प्रत्यक्षेण अनुमित्या वा यस्तूपायो न बुध्यते। एनं विन्दति
>> वेदेन तस्मात् वेदस्य वेदता।
>>
>> Where we differ is that where pratyaksha and Shruti are in conflict, they
>> hold that pratyaksha will prevail.
>>
>>
> The difference does not just that -- advaita's paxa is that shruti pramANa
> (any pramANa for that matter) is itself in the realm of avidya and chooses
> Shruti selectively, mislabeling some
> as "atatvaavedaka" and "anuvaadaka." etc. On the other hand, Dvaita vAdins
> accepts entire sprecturm of vEdic texts as conveying ultimate reality as
> per Shruti's own saying 'sarvE vEdA yatpadamAmananti ......tadviShNOH
> paramam padam'. There is no artificial division of karama kAnDa and jnyAna
> kAnDa, tavavEdaka & attavavEdaka etc.
>
> Logic is not a primary tool for Tatvavaada; Madhva quotes Vyaasa as saying
> "praabalyam aagamasya eva," and accepts this dictum fully; Scripture is the
> strongest of the pramaanas. when it comes to atIndritya tatva vivhAra.
> However, logic does have an important supporting role, in showing
> self-contradiction in other possible hypotheses, etc. Logic cannot be be
> discarded otherwise why MS and others relay on nyAya?
>
> When shruti is denying realizing Brahman via any other than Shruti "*nendriyANi
> nAnumAnaM vedA hyevainaM vedayanti tasmAdAhuH vedAH"  Shankara in totally
> opposite stand says "**advaitaM kim AgamamAtrENa pratipattavyam AhOsvit
> tarkENApi **ityata aha - SakyatE tarkEnApi  j~nAtuM;
> tatkathamityadvaita- **prakaraNam ArabhyatE...." (**Sankara's
> introductory commentary **to Chapter 3 advaita prakaraNa of kaarika)*
>
> Swami NikhilAnanda's translation -- Now it is asked whether nonduality can
> be established only by scriptural evidence or whether it can be proved by
> reasoning as well.
> It is said in reply that it is possible to establish nonduality by
> reasoning as well. How is it possible? This is shown in this chapter of
> Advaita.
>
> There are many instance to show how the non-duality proponent opposed to
> very vEdic stand, but too little time to mention here.
>
> /sv
>
>