[Advaita-l] Is difference known by perception?

[Praveen R. Bhat]

On Mon 6 May, 2019, 23:48 Srinath Vedagarbha, <svedagarbha at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Missed the point.
>
You or me?!

The reason I brought the difference between shruti and non-shruti is that
> unless you know (and convince) shruti is a valid pramANa for our final
> purushArtha, you cannot even venture to study vedAnta. Why would anyone?
>
shraddhA. Now if you say that also has dependency on pratyakSha, I'll ask
you how do you trust pratyakSha without shraddhA that indriyas give you
right knowledge?!

Having said this, there is this fundamental difference you need to
> recognize between shruti as pramANa and non-shruti (other scriptures or
> texts) as apramANa. Otherwise why do you reject Kuran or Bible or Toraha
> etc.?
>
Vedas are apaurusheya. Beyond that, no comments. This is going all over the
place, except where it needs to be.

So, the pratyaksha is indeed the adhistAna on which the entire topic of
> vEda-pramANya is established.
>
Not so. If any pramANa depends on another for its prAmANya, it's not
pramANa. pratyakSha being necessary for all pramANas to function doesn't
mean that their prAmaNya is due to it!

Do not forget the 'shruti' aspect of Veda is indeed a pratyaksha aspect of
> "shravaNatvaM" (hearing). You cannot negate pratyaksha in the name of
> vedanta.
>
This is like saying that I'm born due to my parents and therefore my
parents are always right! You should necessarily accept pratyakSha in all
cases when anumAna opposes it too then!

>

>>>
> Did I say main pramANa (what is the "main" means anyway?)  is pratyaksha
> and not shruti?
>
Main means what you confirmed in your very next mail to Venkatji by calling
it prAbalyam/strongest. You may kindly use that word if it helps.

>

>>
> No problem, read advaita siddhi to begin with.
>
No need, that's neither the purpose of AS nor is it to be "begun with" as
pointed to you in an earlier discussion. Moreover, since you've directed me
to advaitagrantha to understand dvaita, I already know it from such
sources. Thanks, my conclusion has become firmer.

rajata darshana is not yathArtha jnAna hence not pramANa. Dvaita defines
> pramANa is 'yathArtham pramANaM'. So, the rajata you think you see is in
> fact a brAnti and hence the final perception of shukti is contradicting
> your brAnti and not another pratyaksha per se.
>
Why is shukti not bhrAnti? Why is one pratyakSha stronger than the other?
Haven't you used anumAna here? If so, why is anumAna stronger than
pratyakSha? Isn't it upajIva?


> Davita is not saying all perceptions are valid.
>
Exactly so. Take it all the way says Vedanta.


>  Even for you to say this, you need to see the difference between Vedantin
> and non-Vedantin.
>
Then the question is -- where are you seeing this from? from Pratyaksha or
> Shruti?
>
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We don't use one
pramANa for everything.

If former, you are indeed non-vedantin as per your own rule.
>
Not so. We have sattA-bheda that you cannot take Ashraya of!

If later, there is no difference between you and other "non-vedantins" as
> your position id absolute non-difference!
>
True. There's no difference in absolute reality. ekamevAdvitiyam.