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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste
Every true statement need not be pramA janakam. It can be just anuvAda of
knowledge from some other source. In such a case we don't say that the
statement is a pramANa for that person. It's just an anuvAda. But that does
not mean it's anRtam.


Another thing is that a statement like the earth is round is later
bAdhitam. But the old statement is still modified and accepted/utilized for
vyavahara by saying
'the earth is (approximately and at short distances) flat ' . And that is
how people go about their lives.

Similarly the statement that the world is absolutely real, is modified and
we say that the world merely appears to be real.

On another note I was wondering how the dvaitins deal with the advaitic
example that the GYAna vRtti which takes place within vyavahAra which is
mithyA, can still lead to prabodha or removal of avidyA, by giving the
example of a dream tiger causing a man to wake up i.e., leading to a change
in the order of reality. That person who wakes up might say that even the
tiger which woke him up is actually just an a-tiger, i.e., not really a
tiger. (a la 'vedah becomes avedah')

Om
Raghav




On Tue 6 Mar, 2018, 1:57 AM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namsate,
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Srinath ji,
> >
> >
> >
> > No. You are arguing against something I did not imply. I never said
> > pramANa should not be abAdhita, so this objection is unwarranted.
> >
>
> Neither I said you are saying pramANa shouldn't be abAdhita.
>
>
>
>
> > anadhigatatva and abAdhitatva are independent concepts. If one was
> > dependent on the other, mentioning any one would be sufficient as the
> other
> > would automatically be implied.
> >
> >
> 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.
>
> So, what I am saying is you cannot just apply  anadhigatatvaM  and ignore
> abAdhitatvaM in giving your "earth is round" example.
>
> You might argue (not sue you do so) that  anadhigatatvaM alone is
> sufficient enough for the definition of pramANa without invoking
> abAdhitatvaM.  In such paxa you will run into ativyApti dOSha. This is
> because,  both the statements "this earth is round" and "this earth is
> triangle"  should have been considered as pramANa as both of them are
> anadhigatatva
> as for as the listener is concerned!
>
> So, my contention is that criteria ( anadhigatatvaM  and ignore
> abAdhitatvaM
> )  should not  be applied in isolation, but should be applied together.
>
>
>
>
> > Also, if the pramANya of a pramANa is so dependent on knower's knowledge
> > (or lack there of), then you are literately refuting the doctrine of
> > "pramANya-svathastva", which incidentally accepted by Advaita!
> >
> >
> > No. pramANyam is svatah, apramANyam is paratah. anadhigatatvam is
> > necessarily dependent on the knower's knowledge and is thus an extraneous
> > factor that can rule out pramANya.
> >
> >
> 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.
>
> /sv
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>