[Advaita-l] karmasrishTi vAda

[Venkatraghavan S]

I didn't want to argue earlier, so I let it go. However there is a risk
that a wrong idea is perpetuated if I do not clarify.

By svAnubhavam kritvA, AchArya is not saying veda janya jnAnasya satyatva
nishchayam svAnubhena kritvA - that is, he is not saying that one should
verify the veracity of the knowledge generated from veda by means of
individual experience.

What he means by svAnubhavam kritva is that one should abide in the
knowledge generated by the Veda pramANa, and that abidance is what he calls
svAnubhavam. What is the purpose of abiding in this knowledge? It is not to
prove that this knowledge is valid, it is to get rid of the habitual false
notions that the mind has accumulated due to anAdi avidyA vAsana - those
habitual erroneous beliefs that one is a paricchinna jIva, the association
of the self with anAtma such as the mind body, family, possessions, and the
transposition of the faults of these anAtmas as my faults, etc - all these
habits need to be removed, and for that reason one needs nidhidhyAsanam,
svAnubhavam or abidance in the self.

svAnubhavam is neither needed for knowledge of Atma or for verifying the
shruti. Why?

1) Because Atma can never be the object of experience, it can only be
claimed as the subject, the experiencer. That is why the very same
Upanishad says anyadeva tadviditAt atho aviditAtadhi - it is neither that
which is known, nor that which is not. So experience of self is never as an
object, only as the subject.

Further, Atma is self- evident as I. It is pratibodhaviditam matam, and
does not need any specific experience to know it.

So Atma svAnubhavam is not any objective experience of Atma.

2) Secondly, no pramANa needs another pramANa's support to reveal the
truth. If it does, the pramANa is no longer a pramANa. So shruti does not
need anubhava support to establish the Atma. So why do we use logic? The
purpose of logic is not to prove shruti, it is merely to refute the natural
doubts that come up when what shruti says is apparently in contradiction
with experience. Experience cannot contradict shruti, nor does shruti
require experience to validate it.

In essence, svAnubhava as used by AchArya is neither the verification of
shruti through personal experience, nor is it a special experience of Atma.
It is the non-forgetfulness of Atma jnAnam.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok thank you.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 9 Dec 2016 6:57 a.m., "sreenivasa murthy" <narayana145 at yahoo.co.in>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sri Venkataraghavan,
>>     I thank you for the reply. I have used the word "anuBava" in the
>> sense of "svAnuBavkRutam" , a word which is used by Sri Shankara in his
>> commentary to Kena Upanishad. The word "svAnuBavagamyam" appears in kena
>> Upanishad Chapter 2. As a prelude to mantra 2-2 Sri Shankara writes:
>>                 Evam AcAryOktaH SiShyaH EkAntE upaviShTaH samAhitaH san
>> yathOktamAcAryENa Agamam arthatO vicArya, tarkataSca nirdhArya  *svAnuBavaM
>> kRutvA* AcAryasakASamupakamyOvAca manyE^hamathEdAnIM viditaM brahmEti ||
>>
>>       It is absolutely necessary for a writer to establish the doctrine /
>> metaphysical truths ,which he shares with others or communicate to others,
>> as a fact of life.By quoting mere Sruti mantras or using intellectual logic
>> , one cannot establish a doctrine as a living fact. It may please be noted
>> that Upanishads reveal to the qualified student existing facts about him
>> which are LIVING ONES in the life of the student himself but which he is
>> not aware of.
>>
>>        This fact should always be kept in mind when someone writes or
>> posts posting about metaphysical Truths.
>>
>> With respectful namaskarams,
>> Sreenivasa Murthy
>>
>