[Advaita-l] Parmana

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Anandaji - there seems to be some confusion about pramaanas. Pratyaksha is direct where as anumaana requires prathyaksha for drushtanta or example. 
You can study the discussion on pramaanas - giving urls for my study of Vedanta Paribhasha that I mentioned before. 
Hari Om!Sadananda

 Introduction Part 1


| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Introduction Part 1

Critical analysis of vedAnta paribhAshA Part I - Introduction Part 1 - Dr. K. Sadananda.
 |

 |

 |




    On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:25:50 PM GMT+5:30, Anand N via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 Namaste,

If we take the example of I see smoke on the mountain, so I infer there may
be a fire. When I start moving towards the mountain, I notice that it is
actually mist rising.
Here Anumana is then corrected by Pratyaksha. That's what I was trying to
say when I meant one Pramana was not enough. Maybe this is technically
wrong when one is
using the word Pramana. Please correct me.

Regarding Rasananda, as all of you are pointing out, it is limited and
should be eventually given up, since it can then be an obstacle.
I understand and agree with that. However I think the importance of Rasa is
also to be seen. Otherwise we wouldn't have
Stotrams from Sannyasis or Gurus in beautiful Chandas, or songs composed by
them in different ragas etc.

Om Namo Narayanaya,
Anand


On Fri, 1 Jul 2022 at 07:10, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Anandji,
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 1:45 AM Anand N via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Also as Jaldharji pointed out, it can happen that one Pramana is not
>> enough
>> and hence some more pramanas
>> come into play in order to arrive at valid knowledge or truth.
>>
>
> I don't think that is what Jaldharji meant as there can be only one
> pramANa for one viShaya. If one pramANa is not enough, then it is not a
> pramANa at all! If one is led to doubtful knowledge, it is not pramA, valid
> knowledge, but bhrama. And since pramAyAH karaNam =pramANam, the means is
> not valid either. Any knowledge by svataH prAmANyam may be considered
> valid, and is usually considered so, as long as it is not contradicted
> later. Yet, in analysis as to what is certainly a pramANa for a certain
> thing, there can be no doubt.
>
>
>> Then Jaldharji raised an interesting point which is, if Rasa can be
>> considered a pramana.
>> So my response to that was that Aesthtetics and the Rasa experience there
>> plays a huge rule, since it is Ananda, which is considered
>> close to Brahmananda.
>>
> If rasa is an emotion in the mind, it is no different than sukha or duHkha
> that is sAkShi-pratyakSha. If it is like samAdhi-rasa too, it is not any
> different really to count as a separate pramANa. If it is said it is close
> to brahmAnanda, every Ananda being a manifestation of brahmAnanda alone,
> viShayAnanda is also brahmAnanda, yet the former is to be shunned. If it is
> due to Ishvara-bhakti, it would be better than all other viShayas, but
> still with bheda, it is not brahmAnanda itself. Kena calls out this
> objectification in the refrain नेदं यदिदमुपासते। As an aside, it reminds me
> of Taittiriya mantra रसं ह्येवायं लब्ध्वानन्दी भवति also.
>
> gurupAdukAbhyAm,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org