Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Shastra is Pramana

  1. #31

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    Namaste Believer,

    Your assumption is wrong that by calling a Sampradaya dogmatic it is being portrayed in a negative light not so , it only means that when stating another Sampradaya as dogmatic we only say that questioning and inquiry into certain domains of that Sampradaya is not encouraged. Does not mean that it is belittling it. It also shows my disagreement with it but not necessarily belittling it. If a statement like "Vedas came from the mouth of Vishnu" is true for a Sampradaya and taken to be the final word for it. Obviously they will not even agree at looking at the statement from a rational perspective or they will say that logic cannot be applied here nor can it be verified. Hence such a statement if taken literally by that Sampradaya it is a dogma of that Sampradaya. Hence I find nothing wrong in calling such statements dogmatic. Dogma or dogmatic is not necessarily a negative connotation, it simply means that it is an uncompromising belief of that Sampradaya for which even if rationally is not acceptable is generally stated to be beyond reason.

    However if you still feel that the word "dogma" is something negative then another term I would use is "story like" this will not necessarily be a negative connotation but it will only mean that if statements are made in such a way that both my reason and experience are not able to accept then I categorize it as "story like" the statements may be true but till they come to my experience such statements are just a story or "story like" to me.
    Last edited by Sriram257; 10 June 2015 at 05:36 AM.

  2. #32

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    Dear Sriram ji,
    Namasthe!

    you are correct on that. The cognition is there, but misinterpreted to be "something else" !
    So shastra only serves to negate that... and even when it says "This is IT", its merely negation of all
    that is not "IT" !

    Love!
    Silence
    Come up, O Lions, and shake off the delusion that you are a sheep

  3. #33
    Join Date
    July 2010
    Location
    The Holy Land - Bharat
    Posts
    2,842
    Rep Power
    5499

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    Namaste,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sriram257 View Post
    ........when stating another Sampradaya as dogmatic we only say that questioning and inquiry into certain domains of that Sampradaya is not encouraged.

    Obviously they will not even agree at looking at the statement from a rational perspective or they will say that logic cannot be applied here nor can it be verified.

    ......if statements are made in such a way that both my reason and experience are not able to accept then I categorize it as "story like"
    Every sampradaye has a set of non-negotiable tenets at its core. Even you have some non-negotiable parts of your personality which states that everything must pass 'your rational perspective' and must pass the test of 'your reason and experience'. Now are you the present day Bhagwan who is going to validate everything in the scriptures? Should we forget about the teachings of all the scriptures, seers, sages and acharyas and follow you from now on? This debate has gone beyond the point of any sanity. "My rational perspective', 'My reason and experience', is all about My, My, My. Please read what you offer and how you think. It is unbecoming of a Hindu to put his limited intelligence before all else. I do hope you will reflect on all this and find something positive in this discussion. You and I are small potatoes when it comes to understanding and practicing spiritual knowledge. Let us control our egos and not put ourselves ahead of everything else.

    Pranam.

  4. #34

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    Namaste Silence Speaks,

    Post removing Ajnana is when you get Pratyabhijna hence recognition.

  5. #35

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    "Every sampradaye has a set of non-negotiable tenets at its core. Even you have some non-negotiable parts of your personality which states that everything must pass 'your rational perspective' and must pass the test of 'your reason and experience'. Now are you the present day Bhagwan who is going to validate everything in the scriptures? Should we forget about the teachings of all the scriptures, seers, sages and acharyas and follow you from now on? This debate has gone beyond the point of any sanity. "My rational perspective', 'My reason and experience', is all about My, My, My. Please read what you offer and how you think. It is unbecoming of a Hindu to put his limited intelligence before all else. I do hope you will reflect on all this and find something positive in this discussion. You and I are small potatoes when it comes to understanding and practicing spiritual knowledge. Let us control our egos and not put ourselves ahead of everything else."


    Now you are taking this from a completely wrong perspective, experience and reason are universal to every person, all I am saying is that even the Shastra should have come within human experience, it is only then that it was heard. If the Rishis did not get the Shastras within human experience they would have not been able to sing it. The Rishis are human beings, similarly all human beings have the Rishi potential, hence it should be possible for all human beings to get the Shastras into their own experience, if not in this life time, may be after many life times. Now your argument is that certain things are beyond the human reasoning and experience, beyond reasoning yes I agree, but beyond human experience definitely not. Otherwise Rishis would not see the Mantras.

    The Taitreya Brahmana clearly states that the human being is great due to his own rational faculties. Hence rational faculties must be given priority when a seeker is seeking the ultimate reality. I would also like to add that man does not belong to any Sampradaya, every man from childhood is a seeker to truth. The problem is that education and other things kind of stifle his seeking.

    If a Sampradaya or lineage says do not seek and that seeking is a crime then yes I reject such a Sampradaya, I will definitely respect it, but I will not accept it as I disagree with it, having disagreements is absolutely fine. There is nothing wrong in having them. May be that Sampradaya has a different way of embodied knowing, I don't know but it would only show my disagreement with it not my disrespect to it.

    For eg: many Buddhists might not agree with Advaita Vedanta, but that does not mean they don't respect people from the Sampradaya. What is required is not mere agreeements but even though there are disagreements, we respect each other. Your whole problem started with the word "dogma" which I have replaced with the term "story like".

    If your question is that should Shastras come within human experience then my answer is yes. They should come within human experience otherwise they are just mere beliefs , which I would respect no doubt but definitely not accept.

  6. #36

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    Namaste Believer,

    I also feel you have twisted what I said to suit your own charge against me this is what I clearly said

    "However if you still feel that the word "dogma" is something negative then another term I would use is "story like" this will not necessarily be a negative connotation but it will only mean that if statements are made in such a way that both my reason and experience are not able to accept then I categorize it as "story like" the statements may be true but till they come to my experience such statements are just a story or "story like" to me."


    With which I find nothing wrong, so please don't unnecessarily twist my statements to justify that I am being egoistic.

    In fact it is you who is twisting my statements to suit your ends.

  7. #37

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    Dear Sriram ji,
    Namasthe!

    Ajnana Nivritti is itself Realization. There is nothing else like "Recognition". Pratyabijnya , shankara uses with reference to remembrance that "I WAS" in deep sleep ! It just means remembrance and remembrance is of what ? Remembrance is of the fact that limitations do not belong to me !

    I quote the following from Gita Bhasya of Sri Adi Shankaracharya... Verse 2.18.

    अप्रमेयस्य न प्रमेयस्य प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणैः अपरिच्छेद्यस्य इत्यार्थः। ननु आगमेन आत्मा परिच्छिद्यते प्रत्यक्षादिना च पूर्वम्। न आत्मनः स्वतःसिध्दत्वात्। सिद्धे हि आत्मनि प्रमातरि प्रमित्सोः प्रमाणान्वेषणा भवति। न हि पूर्व इत्यँ अहँ इति आत्मानँ अप्रमाय पश्चात् प्रमेयपरिच्छेदाय प्रवर्तते। न हि आत्मा नाम कस्यचित् अप्रसिद्धः भवति। शास्त्रँ तु अन्त्यँ प्रमाणँ अतध्दर्माध्यारोपणामात्रनिवर्तकत्व न प्रामाण्यँ आत्मनः प्रतिपद्यते न तु अज्ञातार्थज्ञापकत्वेन। तथा च श्रुतिः - यत् साक्षादपरोक्षाद् ब्रह्म य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः इति॥

    'Of the unknowable' means 'of that which is not knowable by means of right cognition like percepttion and so forth'
    objection: (by purvapaksha) : The self is knowable or is determined by aagama [scriptures/revelations] and earlier by perception etc.
    Answer: No. For, the Self is Self Evident. Indeed its only when the Self is given that there is a possibility of search for the means of knowledge on the part of a seeker of Self Knowledge. Without knowing the Self earlier as "Such and such I am", None attempts to secure clear knowledge. to note at all is Self altogether unknown. The final means of right cognition, the Sastra or scriptures, acquires validity as regards the Self by negating the superimposed attributes [non-attributes] of self , not by revealing what was altogether unknown. Thus the Sruthi declares "That which is unknowably present is Brahman, the Self in All" [brhadaranyaka 3.4.1)
    The point to understand here is ... Even when i call it recognition ... and say "soyam devadatta" ... "this is that devadatta" ... Self cannot be pointed to as "This", an object. Pointing to Self is via negation always. I see a wave and the content is water... for me to see the content, the name and form are negated ... not rejected. When we say "recognition is required" ... its really "Right cognition" ... Cognition being already there and right cognition means cognition as it is, sans the wrong ideas or notions. cognition , not seeing through the lens of name and form . All the time its water alone we see. So, Recognition ... we may use that word ... is really negation of the limiting adjuncts or superimposed wrong notions. "I AM" is there ... on that i superimposed "I am a mortal" ... in the experience of "I am a mortal"... the experience if "I AM" is inherent... but the conditioning called "mortality" gives an inaccurate picture. So when this conditioning is negated ... "I AM" remains ever evident and shining. "I am this" , "I am so and so"...irrespective of what "so and so..." is, is really a superimposition. That "so and so.." is negated. Infact, even when i say "I am sat-cit-ananda", its really saying that I am NOT "Asat", "Jada" or "Limited" ! I am sat-cit-ananda is also a negation, because anything positive we may say ... it becomes dualistic. Self cannot be "described"... Self need not be described. Self cannot be known through mind. Self need not be known through mind, because Self is what gives mind the ability to know ... so Self is Ever Self Evident... Infact its only the Self that is known... though we may say Self cannot be known through mind, it just means it cannot be known as "This" or an object... thats why its said: yatra yatra mano yaati tatra tatra samadhinah ... wherever the mind goes there itself is Samadhi ... coz to the one who is able to recognize the Self ... recognize Self not as "This" ... recognize Self means to "Be" Self ... that is whose ignorance or ajnana is done away with... To get back to the wave ocean example: to be the water even when one sees the wave form ! Infact what else can one be ? So recognize Self is not as "This" ... but by not superimposing any name, form, notion on it ... by Just "BEING" ... when one recognizes Self as Such ... wherever the mind goes ... all the superimpositions ... are merely a play of names and forms ... what was once a restriction has now become a sweet rule of a game. If we want to play football we draw artificial lines for the purpose of the game. Those lines do not create a separation in the ground ... but they allow for some fun ... some game ... likewise ... when i abide as the Self , all the adjuncts are mere toys for playing this game of life ! Wherever I am, what ever i
    do ... i am the Self ... i may use "I am awareness" to negate a few limitations now and then or I may choose to just be... for I am what I am irrespective of whether i remind myself of it or not ! Life becomes a joy ride, since I being the Self, there is no where to go, nothing to do ... and yet as a part of the game, i may go anywhere and i may do many things !!


    Love!
    Silence
    Come up, O Lions, and shake off the delusion that you are a sheep

  8. #38

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    Namaste Silence speaks,

    So where are we disagreeing on this, notice that you have also used the words recognize, the recognition over here is not something objective but subjective. The problem is that you are too fixated on words, now when we use "soyam devadattaha" this devadatta is that devadatta, it is applied to the self , this is similar to "Ayam Atma Brahma". This atma is Brahman or Sat Chit Ananda. Knowing that this Atma is Sat Chit Ananda is the Pratyabhijna or recognition. It is simply me knowing who I am, knowing who I am is Pratyabhijna or recognition of who I am. So taking out Ajnana and getting Pratyabhijna are not 2 separate processes they occur simultaneously. I had told you before it is like a king who forgot his kingship but then regained the knowledge. It is like the story of the tenth man where prior to ignorance of the tenth man knowledge was present. But now due to ignorance the tenth man is lost as it were but with knowledge the tenth man who was not recognized has been recognized now. Hence Pratyabhijna. Which means I have forgotten myself as it were then I regain knowledge of who I am. This regaining of knowledge is what is called Pratyabhijna or recognition
    I simply have to recognize who I am. This what I meant by recognition. Another thing is that I must be there to even affirm Aham Brahasmi. Hence post removal of ignorance I recognize who I am. Hence removal of ignorance and recognition are simultaneous not different
    I recognize who I am, since the cognition of who I am (right knowledge about myself) is not some thing new.

  9. #39

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    Dear SriRam ji,
    Namasthe! We may not be disagreeing. We may be on the same page ... was just not sure from your previous post if we agree to it that "Recognition" is not as "This" ... since "This" is me would make it an object.
    since you pointed out that "Ajnana nivriti" and "recognition" are not two steps ... I think we are on the same page.
    But when you say "Post removal of ignorance I recognize that I am " ... Removal of ignorance is the recognition. Coz cognition is already there !

    most probably we are on the same page ... just a difference in language.

    Love!
    Silence
    Come up, O Lions, and shake off the delusion that you are a sheep

  10. #40

    Re: Shastra is Pramana

    Namaste Silence Speaks,

    Where did I explicitly say that recognition is of an object ? Do you mean to say "Soyam Devadattaha" i.e this devadatta is that devadatta. From the example point of view it may be objective but I also gave a subjective example as well which is the king forgetting his kingship and remembering it again. I also gave an example of the tenth man. In both the examples the recognition is completely subjective. So I don't understand where I said the recognition is objective ?

    I think you did not read my posts carefully this is the same problem I have been having with believer as well.


    So that you don't get confused again I just wanted to say with removal of ignorance we have simultaneous recognition, there is however one more point I would like to stress, although the self is self evident and we do not need Shastra to tell us that the self is self evident, we definitely need the Shastra to tell us what we are about. Hence a method has to be followed to realise that I am everything, this method is the method of investigation and teaching. Once I disassociate with my body , mind and life I must get the feeling that I am every where. If such a positive experience has been had then it is Pratyabhijna.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 19 July 2012, 05:16 PM
  2. Shastra quotes!
    By Harinama in forum Scriptures
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10 May 2011, 03:05 AM
  3. Vastu shastra Web site
    By Astrologernepal in forum Dharma-related Websites
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 July 2009, 10:32 AM
  4. Sabda-Pramana
    By galaxy18 in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09 July 2009, 07:12 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •