You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Jul 2006

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00113 Jul 2006

 
Jul 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Criticism of the view that sense perception is nullified by the sruthi
Advaitin says that the sense perception which shows diversity is due 
to a defect and can be explained otherwise, anyaTHAsiddha, because it 
is sublated by the testimony of the veda. Ramanuja asks him to 
explain what is this defect. If this defect is due to  
anAdhibedhavAsana, the beginningless avidhya, causing the perception 
of difference, by the reason that it is anAdhi there could not have 
been any experience to the contrary. So one cannot be sure that it is 
a defect. If it is argued that the bhedhavAsana is sublated by the 
sruthi texts denying all differences, Ramanuja says that it is a case 
of  anyOnya AsrayaNA, and therefore   cannot be valid proof. That is, 
the sruthi texts deny difference because the perception is defective 
and the perception is defective because the sruthi denies it.  
Moreover  if sense perception is wrong because of anAdhi vAsana, the 
sasthra is also affected by the same defect because it is made up of 
words which are in their turn made up of root and prefixes etc. which 
denote bhedha only. 
Advaitin may come up with the reply that sruthi sublates prathyaksha, 
sense perception, as it is later. that is,at first one sees the 
difference and then by reading the sruthi text, understands that it 
is unreal. But merely because it is later, a knowledge cannot be 
taken as defectless. A person experiencing fear on mistaking a rope 
as a snake will not become fearless by mere words unless he 
experiences that it is only a rope. So too mere sravaNa of sruthi 
texts is not enough to sublate the experience of the difference as 
the texts themselves are contaminated by the same defect, being based 
on difference. That is why manana and nidhidhyAsana is prescribed. 
Then Ramanuja  questions the basis for the conclusion that sasthra is 
not afflicted by any defect but sense perception has a defect.He says 
that there can be no proof for this statement. Anubhuthi which is 
self-proved and devoid of differences  cannot cognise this because it 
is said to be unconnected with any object of perception and hence not 
connected with sastra either. Sense perception proving the point is 
of course ruled out as claimed to be defective and for this reason no 
other pramAna can provide proof as they all depend on prathyaksha. 
Advaitin accepts that the sasthra is also under the realm of 
ignorance based on difference, but the bhedha cognised in prathyaksha 
is sublated by the veda while the Brahman, the 'sat' and 
adhvitheeya,' without a second,  is not found to be sublated. Hence  
the difference is unreal and Brahman alone is real.But Ramanuja 
says 'abhAdhithasyApi doshamoolasya apaAramArthyanischayAth.' Just 
because a knowledge is not sublated it cannot be assumed as real. One 
who is affected by eye defect and sees two moons and has  never 
encountered another without defect will continue to have the 
defective vision. Just because his knowledge is not sublated it 
cannot be taken as real. 
Ramanuja says that it could be argued thus: brahmajnAna arising from 
the sasthra, which is itself unreal, being under the influence of 
avidhya must also be unreal Hence it is possible to forward a 
syllogism in the form ' brahma miThyA 
asathyahethujanyajnAnavishayathvAth, prapanchavath,' Brahman is 
unreal being the subject of the knowledge rising out of unreal cause.
Advaitin gives a reply that as in the example of elephant seen in the 
dream, even though the knowledge may be unreal being under the realm 
of avidhya,  it may lead to the real knowledge of Brahman  as the 
dream elephant signifies some real event that is going to happen. 
Ramanuja refutes this saying that  the knowledge in the dream is not 
unreal but only the  object experienced is. No one denies  their 
experience and the knowledge of  the dream but only that 'darsanam 
thu vidhyahtE arthA na santhi,' the perception was real but only the 
objects seen were unreal. The experience of fear or joy on seeing a  
magic show is real though the objects that caused the feelings are 
unreal. So are the effects experienced in the illusion of a serpent 
in a rope  real, such as being bitten and the possible death due to 
suspected venom. Similarly the face reflected on water is seen as 
being in it though it is not. 
In all these instances the perception is real because it originates 
and does the work expected but the objects are not real for the same 
reason. Moreover the objects are only sublated by subsequent 
perception but not the experiences.
Advaitin comes up with yet another example of unreal giving rise to 
real knowledge. The symbols denoting letters give rise to the 
knowledge of the sound eventhough the symbols are not real. That is, 
the symbol 'ka' represents the letter 'ka' and gives rise to the 
respective sound. Advaitin says that the symbol representing the 
particular sound is not real but it gives rise to a real sound. But 
Ramanuja says that the symbol is real, which gives rise to real 
sound  and hence the cause of the sound is the symbol only  and hence 
real. In the case of a word say, gavaya giving rise to the knowledge 
of   the entity called gavaya is due to its   similarity to the cow 
and hence it is the sAdrsya, likeness that produces the knowledge and 
not the word and the sadrsya is real.
Here it needs explanation as to what is meant by the reference to 
gavaya. It is usually found in the work on epistemology. One sees an 
animal in the forest similar to a cow and he has heard that such an 
animal is called gavaya and that it is similar to a cow So on the 
basis of the sadrsya the knowledge about gavaya arises through the 
perception of that entity.This is what is referred to here and 
upamAna which depends on sadrsya is a valid means of knowledge in 
advaita but in visishtadvaita there are only three pramANas, namely, 
perception, inference and verbal testimony, that is, prathyaksha, 
anumana and sabda.
Therefore if the unreality of the scriptures is accepted, as it is 
under the realm of avidhya as claimed by the advaitin, it cannot 
produce real knowledge of Brahman.



















































------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list