Shastra - as a pramana?

[sadananda]

Anand I appreciated your thoughtful answers.  I jot down the following in a
hurry - but the statement you raised which Vidya endorses, is that only by
Sastra we can prove consciousness is single and not plural.  I am not sure
about that. Here is the quick reply.  But this is a crucial question  on
which the other philosophies, dwaita and Vishishtaadvaita rest.  Will be
back next week and discuss more this important question?

Anand wrote:

>    As far as I understand, using logic, it is possible to conclude that
>    advaita is *plausible*. Shriharshha has shown in his khaNDanakhaNDa
>    khaadya, in arguing with the realism of Nyaaya, that logic is
>    insufficient to prove certain things, for example, the reality of the
>    world. Logic can give us a perfectly *plausible* theory, but that is
>    it. There is always scope for counter-arguments.
>
>    It follows that you cannot conclusively prove that there is a thing
>    such as Brahman, and you are That Brahman. You make a good case in
>    proving that the "I" (Atman) is devoid of all associations and
>    relationships.  But that does not conclusively show that the Atman
>    is the same as the ultimate reality and that the Atman in you is the
>    same as the Atman in me and the Atman in the next person. Is the
>    Atman in me and the Atman in you the same? Are they different?
>    Are they the parts of a bigger Atman? Or are they somehow
>    simultaneously the same and different?  Many such difficult
>    questions assail the  purely logical approach. If you say
>    my Atman is the same as yours, I can use logic to support some other
>    theory, such as, the two are parts of a bigger Atman. Even if the
>    Atman in you is the same as the Atman in me, I can still say they
>    are no doubt identical, but parts of the bigger Atman. This bigger
>    Atman will have many such identical Atman's as parts.

I am not sure I agree with the above logic. (this disagrement is logical!)
Taking as a reality as that which cannot be negated, (trikaala abhaadhita
vastu) everything can be negated including the concept of Brahman.  Only
thing that remains that is the eternal is I. Why do I need to know that I
am Brahman when I know that I am the only that remains with out any
duality.  I am sure you realize that Brahman is the concept to account for
the creation and the changing world.  But when everything is negated as
non-real  what remains is only I - call it self, Atman, Brahman any do not
call anything.  What I am searching mostly through all pravRiti and
nivRitti is only happiness and experience teaches me that happiness is not
out there - it is ones owns self.  The realization stops the very search.

Are there many Atmans or one Atman?  First the scriptures do not
categorically state that either.  If so there would not haaave been several
theories based on the same scripture.  In fact Sri Ramanuja rests mostly on
scriptural statements to prove that advaitic concepts are not scripturally
based.   Same pramana is used to extract different meaning.  If logic
cannot provide it the scripture cannot either atleast convincingly to
others.

In fact, it is easier for me through logic to prove that there cannot be
more than one consciousness and every thing is unreal including the world
since it exists only in the mind.- ( I am stating this here since there is
another thread by Allan Curry etc. on the proof of the unreality of the
world). Consciousness cannot be an object since object is a jada vastu with
each object reducing to an associated thought in the mind as this is or
that is.  Hence every object is nothing but a thought and every thought is
nothing but perturbation in the consciousness with the seer/seen artificial
distinction.  All seens can be dismissed with the seer remaining alone.
"This" thought  itself is illumined by the consciousness and nothing is
needed to illumine consciousness just as the light does not another light
to light it up. Ultimately there is only one thing that remains without any
partitions, divisions.  Since I am the one who is consciousness of all
those divisions and partitions in consciousness if they at all exist?  I
cannot be divided.  Seer/seen I, are  only apparent divisions but on
inquiry this divison also disappears.

>    So what we need here a mahaavaakya from the Vedaanta that tells us
>    conclusively "tat tvam asi, shvetaketo!" (You are That.)
>    Your Atman is the same Brahman as my Atman is. The Atman of
>    everybody is the same. There is no bigger Atman which includes the
>    sum of all these identical Atmans. There is just one Atman and
>    everybody's Atman is It. This Atman is all there is.

But remember Sri Ramanuja and others interpret the same pramana statement
differently using a self-consistent model different from that of advaita.
The pramana including Brahma Sutra has not categorically endorsed advaita.
Sankara discards or interprets some statements as related to vyavaharika
satya and not at the Brahman level while Ramanuja takes the statements more
literally and juggles with them to come up a model that satisfies in his
mind most of scriptural statements.  But looking logically with the help of
current understanding of the scientific laws, Ramanuja's arguments are more
questionable than Shankara's.
But from the point of sastra as the sole pramana, that pamana is not
categorically clear as the truth.

I realize that dependence on logic for realization can taken one no where
until I realize that the proof of my existence is not by logic as a thought
but as a fact.  Everything else is some pramana or the other based but not
my existence or I am consciousness and I am ananda is not based on logic.
But that is also logical.   In a way I fully appreciate the logic of
Bhagavan Ramana into the inquiry of who that I without worrying about any
other pramana.
>    how do you guarantee that this individual, who imagines the
>    world, is eternal? As long as the individual exists, there is
>    only one entity that exists, but if and when it perishes,
>    there will be a void (shuunyataa).

Individual can perish since it is just the ego, but I cannot perish for the
sunya vada to operate!  If I perish who will know?  If Sunya state exists,
consciousness is required to illumine that state otherwise who can tell
there is a sunya state?  That consciousness in which light the state of
sunya is illumined is I that is ever present.  It is the same as the
absence of I can only known by I which is present.  Hence I can never be
absent.

>So we will be dangerously
>    close to nihilism, if we make a purely idealist argument.
>    Again, Vedaanta comes to the rescue, because it says,
>    "etasya vaa aksharasya prashaasane gaargi!", "by the
>    command of this imperishable, O Gaargi!" (Br. Up.), and also
>    the Giitaa, which says,  "aksharaM brahma paramaM",
>    "The supreme Brahman is imperishable."

>     In conclusion, logical thought must be *guided* by Shruti. Logical
>     thought independent of Shruti can *point* to the *possibility* of
>     advaitic conclusions, but cannot conclusively prove them. That is
>     because, just as logic can make advaitic conclusions *plausible*,
>     it  can also make other theories so.


As I argued by looking at the current interpretations of the sruties the
above statements seems to be more applicable to sruties than logic.


>
>     Now, some people may be perfectly happy with accepting something
>     which is *plausible*  to be indeed the truth. But no
>     true seeker will accept it. However, the true seeker will accept
>     something as the truth, if it is both logically plausible and
>     supported by the words of the infallible Veda.

I agree with that statement.  But question is do I really need shastra as
pramana to know my self.


>     I will try to find out more from Shriharshha's work. His main
>     arguments are directed at the Nyaaya realists, but they also
>     apply to subjective idealists. Modern philosophers classify
>     him as an idealist, but this is inaccurate. Shriharshha was
>     an advaitic logician par excellence. advaitins are neither realists
>     nor idealists. They are just that -  advaitins!

Great.  I will be looking for your discussion of Shriharshha's work.  Is
there any good English translation of the works available?

>
>  Anand


Will be backin a week from now, from travel - would be interested in
further thoughts.

Hari Om!
Sadananda