brahman
25 September 2013, 07:14 AM
1/3
Dear Memebrs,
Studies on Sankara’s metaphysics and Sankara’s metaphysics are two distinct topics that need to be differentiated by every studious seekers of wisdom. Here is our brief input on this topic for our own deeper understanding.
His metaphysics clearly reveals to critical judgement the dissatisfaction he had with the common sense view or the ‘naive’ realism of common sense;
What is said holding the shruti as authority is also not correct, for the shruti is an authority in matters that are unseen. In matters which cannot be perceived by means such as pratyksha pramana(direct means of perception), the shruti, describing the means, end and relation is indeed an authority, not in matters perceived directly, for the shurti’s purpose is to show what is unseen (i.e it shows what lies beyond the range of ordinary knowledge) Bhashya, BG XVII: 66
neither is he a militant proponent of the scriptures on Indian soil.
Never indeed would it constitute an authority even if a hundred shrutis say that fire is cold or that is not bright. If, however, the shruti says that the fire is cold and that is not bright, then the meaning which the shruti intends to assign to it might be different, for it cannot constitute a valid proof of knowledge otherwise. It is not proper to attribute to the shruti a meaning which contradicts other means of knowledge or its own standpoint. Bhashya, BG XVII: 66
Dear Memebrs,
Studies on Sankara’s metaphysics and Sankara’s metaphysics are two distinct topics that need to be differentiated by every studious seekers of wisdom. Here is our brief input on this topic for our own deeper understanding.
His metaphysics clearly reveals to critical judgement the dissatisfaction he had with the common sense view or the ‘naive’ realism of common sense;
What is said holding the shruti as authority is also not correct, for the shruti is an authority in matters that are unseen. In matters which cannot be perceived by means such as pratyksha pramana(direct means of perception), the shruti, describing the means, end and relation is indeed an authority, not in matters perceived directly, for the shurti’s purpose is to show what is unseen (i.e it shows what lies beyond the range of ordinary knowledge) Bhashya, BG XVII: 66
neither is he a militant proponent of the scriptures on Indian soil.
Never indeed would it constitute an authority even if a hundred shrutis say that fire is cold or that is not bright. If, however, the shruti says that the fire is cold and that is not bright, then the meaning which the shruti intends to assign to it might be different, for it cannot constitute a valid proof of knowledge otherwise. It is not proper to attribute to the shruti a meaning which contradicts other means of knowledge or its own standpoint. Bhashya, BG XVII: 66