Source: TW
Brahman is the Eternal subject it is eternally a subject as awareness it [[56:57]] illumines everything and the entire universe including the mind, the body, AAAAAAAAAthe [[57:02]] sense organs are its objects. Brahman is the light of even the lights.
Not pratyakSha and anumAna
Shankaracharya says [[57:38]] does not deny the validity or the capacity of the pramanas like perception [[57:44]] and anumana inference to produce valid knowledge in their respective spheres of [[57:51]] the empirical World. In fact, he says that practical affairs would become impossible if the pramanas were rendered [[57:58]] to be fundamentally useless.
It is only in the matter of Dharma and Brahman that [[58:04]] he says that these pramanas are useless. So Brahman is prior to the Sense organs, [[58:11]] it is prior to the identification of the body mind complex; so it cannot be known [[58:16]] through any of these instruments.
So shankaracharya says [[58:35]] that in order to declare that Jiva and Brahman are different the sense organs, [[58:41]] must first make contact with Brahman there must be sunny between the indria and Brahman in order [[58:49]] to declare that there is a difference between Brahman and Jiva [[59:02]] - but that is not the case here the sense organs don’t really truly perceive the [[59:09]] difference between Jiva and Brahman. They don’t truly contradict the shrutis - not [[59:15]] that it would matter if they did because their sphere of application is entirely [[59:20]] different.
Anubhava vs shruti
They Accord Primacy of anubhava - direct [[33:54]] experience - over Shruti pramana. They argue that the truth claims of advaitha [[34:01]] are based on direct experience rather than on revelation; that the Declarations [[34:10]] of Shruti need to be verified confirmed by the knowledge gained through direct [[34:18]] experience. So the authority of Shruti is only secondary. [[34:24]] The emphasis on anubhava on Direct experience has resulted in the [[34:31]] downgrading of Shruti pramana.
Anubhava is not a pramana in the technical sense of the [[36:40]] term - it’s not an instrument to know Brahman - it is Brahman, it is the [[36:45]] experience of brahman; it is what it is. It is not technically a pramana - so if we [[36:52]] have to admit of a pramana to know Brahman - [[36:57]] one does not need a pramana - but that’s okay - if we must admit to a pramana [[37:03]] then The Vedas are the only pramANa. There is no other pramana for Brahman [[37:09]].
I’m [[34:37]] certainly not contesting the Primacy of anubhava pramana here - but I’m saying [[34:42]] that Shruti pramana is extremely significant in advaita vedanta; extremely [[34:48]] significant in shankaracharya’s writings and it cannot be brushed aside as Faith [[34:54]] or theology or faith-based Revelation. It is not that. See - any pramana must satisfy two conditions for it to be a Pramana [[35:02]] two conditions in order for it to be a pramana
- [[35:07]] it must inform us of something which cannot be asserted by any other pramana [[35:14]] and
- its claims must not be contradicted by any other valid source [[35:22]].
So one is novelty and second is non-contradictiveness. [[35:31]] these two are considered as the crucial characteristics of valid sources of [[35:37]] knowledge, and Vedas fulfill both criteria according to shankaracharya.
Shankara on two categories of knowledge & the Vedas. [[35:45]] Categories of knowledge inaccessible to all other pramANas, available only [[35:52]] through the vedas are Dharma and Brahman. [[35:57]] The knowledge of Dharma and adharma, the knowledge of the relationship between [[36:03]] the performance and non-performance of prescribed ritual actions and their [[36:10]] unseen results which they produce - this is derived from the karmakANDa section [[36:16]] of the Vedas. This cannot be known by any other pramana and this is what purva [[36:22]] mimamsa deals with. jnAna Kanda or the upanishads on the other hand they reveal [[36:28]] the knowledge of Brahman, the absolute. Technically there is no other instrument [[36:34]] to know Brahman.
Words and brahman
Now this position raises a few questions. How is an entity like Brahman to be [[37:17]] known by words of The Vedas? Can Words Be a logical source of knowledge for such a [[37:25]] reality? How can a subject, the knower, that can never be objectified, how can it [[37:31]] be known through words?
These words are not [[38:07]] required to create a Brahman or to even prove the existence of Brahman. Words [[38:13]] alone cannot bring a non-existing entity into existence; and in this case they are [[38:19]] not required to do so. So the problem does not involve knowledge of an [[38:26]] entirely unknown unrevealed or remote Brahman. The problem is of incomplete and [[38:33]] erroneous knowledge of an ever-available, ever-attained entity. The function of [[38:40]] words of upanishads lies primarily in the negation of attributes imposed [[38:47]] through ignorance upon Brahman. The upanishads do not reveal an unknown [[38:53]] being. They impart correct knowledge about the self that is immediately [[38:58]] available, but whose nature is misunderstood.
So shankaracharya writes [[39:04]] in his Sutra he says [[39:16]]
इति चैवमाद्याः श्रुतयो मोक्षप्रतिबन्ध-निवृत्ति-मात्रम् एव +आत्मज्ञानस्य फलं दर्शयन्ति।
So the challenge is of understanding what is already available.