[Advaita-l] Parmana

[Anand N]

Namaste,

I think the connection here is that rasa leads to ananda/happiness.
This happiness in the aesthetic pursuit, where one loses oneself, is
close to the atmananda that brahman is. Hence the importance of the
classical
arts which lead to rasa anubhava.
When it through these means brings us closer to our true nature
it can be given the importance of pramana.

That's at least the way I can reason it out for myself.

Om Namo Narayanaya,
Anand


On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 at 09:33, <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Anand N via Advaita-l wrote:
>
> > Namaste,
> >
> > When we talk about the 6 Pramanas, where do emotions like love, anger or
> > sensations like hunger, thirst etc land?
> > Are they in the category of Pratyaksha?
> > Are they Aparoksha?
> > Can someone please elaborate more on this.
>
> This is an old thread which I didn't have the chance to reply to at the
> time.  There is one element which I think should be mentioned but wasn't
> in that discussion.  Namely pramana is not just a means of knowledge but a
> means of, atleast potentially, knowing truth.  For example usage of
> eyesight is pratyaksha but if a person has cataracts they will not be able
> to accurately see so their observations are not pramanika.  A person who
> mistakes a cow with a gavaya is correctly using pratyaksha but is mistaken
> so it is pramanika but incomplete. It requires some other knowledge to be
> correct.
>
> So the question is, are emotions capable of generating truth?  I think
> most darshans astika and nastika would reply no because emotions are
> subjective, turbulent and ill-defined.  On the other hand emotions do
> provide some kind of information so they are not meaningless.  But that
> meaning cannot be assigned a true or false value so that means they cannot
> be pramana without backup from some other pramana.
>
> One possible counterpoint to this might be from kavyashastra.  I have very
> basic knowledge of this field but my understanding is that the
> theoreticians believe that one who has carefully cultivated the aesthetic
> sense (a suhrd) is capable of perceiving in a poem, play, story etc. rasa.
> This rasa (there are 9 altogether.) is an emotional state.  Do they
> consider rasa to be a pramana?  Someone who has studied more than me
> should explain further.
>
> Many philosophers have linked aesthetics to philosophy.  For instance The
> famous Kashmiri Shaiva Abhinavagupta is also the author of Abhinavabharati
> on Bharat's Natyashastra and Lochana of Anandavardhanas Dhvanyaloka which
> is an important kavayashastra.  The North Indian Vaishnavas, Chaitanya,
> Vallabhacharya, Nimbarka, etc. also have elevated rasa to the highest
> position in their systems particularly the Shrngara or erotic rasa as
> applied to Krishna Bhagvan.  But atleast Vallabhacharya who I am the most
> familiar with has not as far as I know claimed that rasa is a pramana.
>
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>