[Advaita-l] Fwd: Re: "VEDA IS NO MORE veda "

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Srinath ji,

On 5 Mar 2018 20:27, "Srinath Vedagarbha" <svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:


Neither I said you are saying pramANa shouldn't be abAdhita.

I am not saying  anadhigatatva and abAdhitatva are dependent on "each
other". Instead I am saying anyone of them on their own is not sufficient
criteria (for definition of pramANa as laid out in VP). There is a "and"
clause between these two criteria of   anadhigatatvaM and abAdhitatvaM.

Yes, agreed. The context was my statement was not properly understood which
led to the incorrect conclusion that I view anadhigatatva as a necessary
and sufficient condition for pramANatva. It is necessary, but not
sufficient. I am not responding to the other points in your email relation
to this as they are based on an incorrect assumption of my position.

In that case, the statement "earth is round" becomes purushatantra and not
vastutantra. It is pramaNa only for someone who does not know earth is
round. For others who knows it so, the vAkya is apramaNa.

So, what is your paxa on the earth's shape? Is it vastutantra jnyAna or
purushtantra jnyAna?

The difficulty does not end there. For people who already know earth is
round, since the statement "earth is round" is apamANa, then it would
negate what they knew so far (that earth is round). This very negation
makes them being equally  anadhigatatva about earth and hence that vAkya
becomes pramANa all of sudden. This make them adhigatatva/knowledgable
about earth and suddenly make that vAkya apramANa. This pramANya and
aprAmaNya switches to and fro instantaneously indefinitely!

Hence other vedantins does not consider this criteria of  anadhigatatvaM in
their definition of pramANya for a good reason.

The statement "earth is round" is still vastu tantra, in the sense that it
generates jnAna for everyone (ie everyone who understands the word
meanings), but the pramANatva of that statement is dependent on the person.

Secondly, please note that just because a pramANa reveals something I know,
does not mean that what it says is wrong. All it means is that for me it is
not a pramANa . Thus the example of prAmANya and aprAmANya switching to and
fro is not applicable here.

For example, a person who knows that fire is present in the mountain
because he sees it directly, has no need for an inference of fire from the
sight of smoke. Such an inference is not pramANa for him then.  Secondly,
ShaDvidha tAtparya lingas which are accepted by most schools, including
dvaita, have apUrvatA as one of the six indicatory marks of tAtparya. This
is precisely because if something is already known, that is not accepted as
the tAtparya of shruti, and shabda which is not tAtparya is not accepted as
pramANa. Thirdly, all schools, including dvaita, accept that shruti
statements such as 'agnirhimasya bheShajam' are not pramANa because they
reveal something that is already well known through pratyaksha (the remedy
of cold is fire).

Thus anadhigatatva is certainly a necessary condition for pramANatva, but
not sufficient.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan