|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 17, 2011 11:04:20 GMT -6
This is an interesting discussion of the bases of our knowledge similar in many ways to some of the discussions we have had here. Here.Are we CVs in any better position than the Christians?
|
|
|
Post by cuckoo4cocopuffs on Feb 11, 2012 9:04:00 GMT -6
It depends on what you mean by "we". We do not all think alike, nor have our life experiences been identical, nor do we share common opinions of our tradition (or our tradition vis a vis other traditions) across the board.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 13, 2012 9:43:54 GMT -6
It depends on what you mean by "we". We do not all think alike, nor have our life experiences been identical, nor do we share common opinions of our tradition (or our tradition vis a vis other traditions) across the board. You're confusing what is known (prameya) with means of knowing (pramana). Yes, there are many differences among us when it comes to what is known. But the means of knowing are all the same: praytaksa, anumana, sabda, and arthApatti (this one can be taken as a special form of anumana).
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Feb 13, 2012 20:02:33 GMT -6
Like you have pointed out before Nitai ji, I don't understand how sabda can be considered a different sort of pramana. At best, it is refined pratyaksha and anumana. I know that the Vedanta Sutra refutes the Yoga school on the allegation that they rely too much on the refined pratyaksha though apaureshya texts is the ultimate pramana and all conclusions should follow those texts. Given that the argument for apaureshya text is pretty weak and bleak, I don't know how much can we back this view of sabda being different from refined pratyaksha and anumana or at least a way to refine your pratyaksha (for example chanting may help your pratyaskha to change)
|
|
|
Post by cuckoo4cocopuffs on Feb 19, 2012 10:26:45 GMT -6
I was going off topic with my earlier remark, but let me revisit that. CV versus Christian: How can there be any difference with respect to knowledge itself and its sources? The deeper question I think is what we take as evidence and how it can be overturned upon further investigation. Case in point: Eyewitness testimony in criminal proceedings in our courts. Until fairly recently it was considered to be the golden standard in incriminating evidence. Now many studies have show just how unreliable it tends to be. The witness is providing testimony on the pratyaksha basis (direct perception), but the perception itself and the memory of it are more often than not faulty due to being clouded by the fuzziness of consciousness and processing of the information coming in through the optic nerves by the brain, let along emotional responses that come along with the perception itself. There is always the barrier between the self and that which lies outside the self. Is the order we impose upon the chaos truly reality, or just a construct by which we make sense of the universe? It then becomes a question of the knowledge we think we have. Is it really knowledge or just another belief about the nature of reality? I think there are no simple answers to such questions.
|
|