Question on method of arriving at conclusions

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

anand wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
>> I have a question on the method of coming to conclusions in advaita. In my
> debate about the apaurusheyatva of the vedas with Shrisha Rao, he claimed
>that
>> vedantins accept "what cannot be disproved beyond doubt as the truth". Does
>> this method of analysis find acceptance among advaitins?

[snip]

>  contradicted when the illusion is removed. So nothing in the illusory
>  world is true. Everything in the vyaavahaarika world too is
>  contradicted in the paaramaarthika state. What is never contradicted
>  is the nondual Brahman alone. Brahman alone is the truth.
>  Coming back to Shrisha's statement, it is unclear what "disproved
>  beyond doubt" means. If it means "contradicted by some means to
>  valid knowledge, such as perception, inference, shabda pramaaNa,
>  comparison, etc.", then his definition is partially right.

Thanks for the detailed reply. The question came about because of the
following:

shruti has the "reputation" of being un-authored. With this basic "fact"
aananda tiirtha has "proved" that the shruti is apaurusheyatva. When I pointed
out that the arguments finally meant only that shruti may have been written and
their authors' names lost or that shruti may have been un-authored, shrisha
replied that since un-authordness cannot be dis-proved beyond doubt, it must be
accepted! This doesn't make any sense to me. The situation itself has two
possibilities and neither can be disproved beyond doubt. I don't know if I am
making myself clear.

the exact quote:

--- begin
And the point really hinges upon your acceptance -- or lack thereof
-- of the notion that anything which cannot ever be concretely disproved
must be considered right.
--- end

This doesn't make sense to me. Atleast gauDapaada does not admit such notions
as far as I can see.

> An advaitin who is yet to experience
> Brahman, and a dvaitin can have no argument about the status of the
> world. It is real!

Also there is another difference, viz, atleast the dR^ishTi shR^ishTi vaada
school maintains that the "dreams" are no different from "waking" as far as
the respective realities in the two states goes. This is the position adopted
in the kaarikaa, yoga vaasishTa and the upadeshasaahasrii. For this one need
not have experienced brahman. However, I guess vidyaaraNya et al have a
different view in their books.

Ramakrishnan.
--
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
undermine your entire philosophy)           -- strong Vulcan curse