[Advaita-l] Shruti prAmANya and jnAna

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Srinathji,

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> True, that pramA is by own merits because it was tested to have come from
>> valid pramANa. That changes nothing. In fact, it strengthen the case of
>> being tested.
>>
>
> It does not.
>
> Testing only removes shanka of aprAmANya (in some case testing confirms
> aprAmaNya if the initial jnAna is ayathArtha). Testing does not introduce
> prAmANya afresh.
>

Why would anyone have a shankA in a pramANa at all? I am not talking of
whether eyes are pramANa for seeing but whether eyes are seeing the right
thing.


>
> So, parIxa is for aprAmANya shankAnivrutti / aprAmANya siddhi, not for
> prAmANya utpatti.
>

No one talked about prAmANya utpatti. Only tested prAmANya was mentioned.
aprAmANyashankAnivRtti results in right prAmANyabuddhi. Else it is mere
faith.

>
> No, you do not use same bahEndriya-s for dream, but manas is involved in
> dream.
>

As opposed to no manas in waking?! The indriyAs are part of the
sUkShmasharIra which last throughout the journey.


>
>
>> Finally, we will deny everything, since we have only one reality. The
>> kalpita doctrine is an explanation used for those who perceive duality and
>> cannot understand the single reality there is.
>>
>
> That exactly was my point. When you are dening everything, but why
> introduce all sort of apourushEya/prAmANya etc? Why not deny it right away
> without pulling nirduSTa vEda?
>
Why deny it right away? Everything has a purpose. This is like saying I am
going to die anyway, why live?!


> At least bOudha-s are doing right thing.
>

You seem to be obsessed with baudhAs; why not follow them if you really
think they are doing the right thing? This is like saying that dvaitins are
like chArvAkas, since they also consider the world as real.


> But such dream king does not know his world is kalpita neither.
>
Thats precisely the entire problem of a jIva.


> Neither he does not use any of dream texts and use fancy words as
> prAmANya/apourushEya to deny reality to his domain.
>
Who's to say that what a dream king does? He does exactly what the waker's
saMskAras offer him to build. For a dreamer, all his sources of knowledge
are given. A dreamer who knows that he is dreaming is no longer a dreamer.
He has woken upto the reality.


> All denial of dream is after the fact.
>
This itself is assumption based on the waking analysis, which may very well
be a dream! You cannot be sure, just as the dreamer is not. If one's
saMskAras of this avasthAtraya parIkShA is strong, his dreamer counterpart
could also analyse whether or not he is dreaming.

Similarly then, you can stop analysing anything that happens after death.
Why should you, since it should all after a fact? What Vaikuntha and what
Lord! All these are also equally fancy words that have no value to one
living.


> In the same line, if you are denying this jagat while in it, there is no
> value using fancy & convoluted concepts such as prAmANya/apourushEya etc.
>
As above. The words that you find fancy have no value for you may well be
true, but we do find value in them, since its serves a great purpose.
Suppose you convince yourself before sleep that if you see a dream lion,
that is not going to harm you at all. Not only that, suppose you further
tell him: if you have a gun, that is useless there. Its just a fancy word,
having no value, your dreamer counterpart is not going to stop running away
from a lion, or shooting the lion with this "fancy" gun, is he?


>
> It was not.
>
> I argued back then -- if avidya and its result kalpana is said to be no
> beginning, logically it must be co-exist with that chaitanya vastu
>
True.


> and hence must be self-same nature (svabhAva).
>
Not true. Why should all that co-exists be of the same nature! The levels
of reality are different.

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */