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/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |