Discussion on question by Keshav Srinivasan: How do different Vedantic philosophies prove the soul is different from the body?

3:07 PM

3

Q: How do different Vedantic philosophies prove the soul is different from the body?

As I discuss in this question, by far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy is the Vedanta school, which bases its tenets on the doctrines laid out in the Brahma Sutras, a work by the sage Vyasa that summarizes and systematizes the philosophical teachings of the Upanishads. You can read the...

Rohit.

Why O why? Saying both "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman" & "Brahman can't be proved" is mutually contradictory. In fact, Brahman doesn't need a proof to exist.

When you have already declared - everything is Brahman alone, then what has left to prove. 🏇🏇🏇🏇🏇

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. To be clear, the Vedanta school agrees that statements of scripture like "Sarva Khalvidam Brahma" are the proper way to prove that Brahman exists. It's only non-Vedantic Astika schools, like Nyaya and Vaisheshika, who think that Anumana is the proper way to prove the existence of God.

Rohit.

Proving God is like proving existence of water using water alone. God must be omnipresent to be called as God, & the moment it is omnipresent, you can't prove it because with whatever means you would prove, it too turn out to be manifestation of God. There shouldn't be any question of prove or disprove God as it is self evident.

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. The fact that everything is a manifestation of Brahman does not imply that you can't use those things to prove the existence of Brahman. On the contrary, observing manifestations of a thing can be helpful in inferring the existence of a thing. Like observing various objects made out of carbon might help you infer the existence of carbon. Now this is not how the Vedanta school proves the existence of Brahman, but one cannot rule such a proof out a priori.

@Rohit. And the existence of God is certainly not self-evident, or everyone would already believe it. It's not self-evident that the world has an intelligent creator, or that its material cause is intelligent.

Rohit.

And the existence of God is certainly not self-evident, or everyone would already believe it. It's not self-evident that the world has an intelligent creator, or that its material cause is intelligent. See, when I say God is self-evident, I meant with immanent aspect of God is self evident. Transcendental aspect is surely not self evident, because if it were self evident it couldn't be called as transcendental aspect.

Keshav Srinivasan

3:07 PM

@Rohit. No, I don't think the fact that God is omnipresent is self-evident. When you see a rock, it is not self-evident that there is an intelligent being in the rock.

Rohit.

The fact that everything is a manifestation of Brahman does not imply that you can't use those things to prove the existence of Brahman. On the contrary, observing manifestations of a thing can be helpful in inferring the existence of a thing. Like observing various objects made out of carbon might help you infer the existence of carbon. - Now, To prove existence of a carbon using the objects of carbon, you will have to presume Carbon is not immanent or in other words, objects made up of carbon are different from carbon itself - by which immanent aspect as carbon is abolished 1/n

And if immanent aspect of carbon is abolished, it can no longer be called as Carbon(presuming definition of carbon involves its immanence), even if the existence of carbon is proved. In other words, deriving one aspect of God to prove another aspect distorts the immanence(very aspect) of God, which is like to prove something metaphysical but not an immanent entity.

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. "Now, To prove existence of a carbon using the objects of carbon, you will have to presume Carbon is not immanent" Why is that?

Rohit.

@KeshavSrinivasan certainly, looking at the rock you can't sat there is an intelligent being in a rock. And I agree to this point because the intelligent being you are referring is transcendental in nature. And transcendental aspect of ultimare reality can be proved only through self realization or Pratyabhijna.

@KeshavSrinivasan Yes, to establish a fact that X is made out of Y you will have to presume X is different from Y OR X is not inclusive in Y.

I live in PG & dinner time. & just have arrived from the office. See you later.

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. "And I agree to this point because the intelligent being you are referring is transcendental in nature." Well, the intelligent being I'm referring to is both immanent and transcendent.

@Rohit. Well, a clay pot is made of clay, and clay is present in a clay pot. And yet by observing a bunch of objects made of clay you can infer that there is a substance called clay.

@Rohit. "So, for believers God is self evident (like for those who have sight, light is immanent), but since belief is based on scriptures, I think self evidence boiled down to AgAma." Well, different people believe in God for different reasons. People from the Nyaya school believe in God due to logical arguments.

@Rohit. And people from the Vedanta school believe in God due to Sabda Pramana. But neither someone from the Nyaya school nor someone from the Vedanta school would say that the existence of God is self-evident.

@Rohit. OK, talk to you later.

Rohit.

Wait. Taking dinner. :)

nd you cant take analogy of things for replacement of God without presume the things are immanent otherwise analogy would be incompatible. Yes, wait will return.

Rohit.

3:40 PM

@KeshavSrinivasan What is self evident according to you? Is there anything which can be called Self-evident for everyone?

because Sun is not self evident for blinds

Rohit.

3:55 PM

@KeshavSrinivasan Agama means Sabda Pramana here.

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. Yes, the fact that they themselves exist is self-evident for everyone.

Rohit.

@KeshavSrinivasan Okay, I think I have framed my own definition of self evident which is different from your's definition of self evident. What I was saying in the last - Self evident will reduce to Sabda Pramana (AgAma here) because Sun is not perceptible to a blind guy, he would be knowing about the sun's existence due to someone's valid knowledge. Sun being a self evident for the guy who has eyes, will become self evident for the blind also (considering what I meant by self evidence).

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. I don't think the existence of the Sun is self-evident. I think the existence of the Sun is known through Pratyaksha.

Rohit.

But If Self evidence is synonymous to the Direct Perception than, yes God is not. (At least so far, what I can think)

@KeshavSrinivasan Not Pratyaksha for blind one

Can you tell me one thing which is Pratyaksha for everyone? @KeshavSrinivasan

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. Yeah, I'm just saying the existence of the Sun is known by a seeing person through Pratyaksha, it's not self-evident even for a seeing person.

@Rohit. Well, for each person, their own consciousness is known through Pratyaksha.

LakshmiNarayanan

4:04 PM

Blind can tell existence of Sun from warmth

Rohit.

@KeshavSrinivasan But yours consciousness is not pratyaksha for me. Again , tell me one thing which is Pratyaksha for everyone.

@KeshavSrinivasan Oh, what do you mean by Self Evident?

@LakshmiNarayanan That is Anuman. And there can be fire also :P

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. Yes, there isn't one thing that is Pratyakshafor everyone.

@Rohit. Well, to me self-evident means something that is obvious without using any Pramanas.

LakshmiNarayanan

walking away from fire will not make you feel its warmth

unless you are in forest fire :P

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. Well, both the sense of sight and the sense of touch are included in Pratyaksha.

Rohit.

@KeshavSrinivasan Means Pratyaksha?

@LakshmiNarayanan :P

Keshav Srinivasan

4:07 PM

@Rohit. No, I'm saying self-evident is something which is known even without using Pratyaksha or the other Pramanas.

Rohit.

@KeshavSrinivasan Can you give example which is not Pratyaksha but self evident. It would help me to understand better.

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. Like 1=1.

Rohit.

7 mins ago, by Rohit.

But If Self evidence is synonymous to the Direct Perception than, yes God is not. (At least so far, what I can think)

LakshmiNarayanan

@KeshavSrinivasan Does the fruit of all reasoning come under Anumana?

Rohit.

@KeshavSrinivasan And why it is not Pratyaksha?

Keshav Srinivasan

4:10 PM

@Rohit. So if you agree that God is not known through Pratyaksha, then what exactly are you claiming?

Rohit.

@KeshavSrinivasan I was claiming God as self evident framing wrong definition of Self Evidence in my mind, (The definition based on which I was claiming now reduces my definition of self evidence as Sabda Pramana). Now, as I have just realized there is nothing Self evident for everyone, I accept I was wrong for now. Leave God, there is nothing which is self evident for everyone .

And 1 =1 is Pratyaksha being a letters, self Evident as I was student of Maths. It is both Pratyaksha & Evident.

LakshmiNarayanan

self is self-evident.

Rohit.

So Conclusion is - Defining self evident object being an object which is self evident for every sentient & insentient object in the universe, there is nothing which is self evident - not even GOD. :)

@LakshmiNarayanan But not for me. :P

I can even remove - insentient from the above definition.

Cya, Good night all.

LakshmiNarayanan

@Rohit. Who is me then?

Rohit.

@LakshmiNarayanan Means? You are Lakshmi

there?

LakshmiNarayanan

4:28 PM

@Rohit. I'm sorry, i think you didn't understand my question.

Rohit.

@KeshavSrinivasan You said 1=1 is self evident (for you & we here) but not Pratyaksha. Can you tell why?

Does Pratyaksha excludes analytical power or apprenension?

@LakshmiNarayanan Oh. I was telling there is nothing which is self evident for everyone.

You are not self evident for evryone.

आत्मेन्द्रियमनोर्थानां सन्निकर्षात्प्रवर्तते |
व्यक्ता तदात्वे या बुद्धि: प्रत्यक्षं सा निरुच्यते || च. सू.११/
“ātmendriyamanorthānāṃ sannikarṣātpravartate |
vyaktā tadātve yā buddhi: pratyakṣaṃ sā nirucyate” || sū.11/

Key Words Meaning:-
आत्मा इति चेतना धातु: | ātmā refers to soul.
इन्द्रियाणि इति चक्षु: आदीनि | indriyāṇi refers to sense organs – eyes, nose, ears, skin and tongue
मन: – सत्व संज्ञकम् | mana: refers to mind.
अर्था: इति – शब्दादय विषया: | arthā: refers to the five sensory objects – shape, smell, sound, touch and taste.

They are including mind also in Pratyaksha praman

LakshmiNarayanan

@Rohit. Once it is realised that there is something self-evident for everyone even though they might not agree at a glance on what that is, it is self-evident that that self-evident thing is evidently the self in everyone.

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. See here:

A priori and a posteriori

The Latin phrases a priori (lit. "from the earlier") and a posteriori (lit. "from the latter") are philosophical terms of art popularized by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (first published in 1781, second edition in 1787), one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy. However, in their Latin forms they appear in Latin translations of Euclid's Elements, of about 300 BCE, a work widely considered during the early European modern period as the model for precise thinking. These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from...

Rohit.

Have posted a question on this.

0

Q: What is Pratyaksha PramANa to be precise?

Can anyone tell what is pratyaksha pramANa? What does it include? Only 5 sense organs or even intellect or mind also? Can apprehension power be termed as Direct Perception aka Pratyaksha pramANa?

pramana

Keshav Srinivasan

@Rohit. OK, so if you've accepted you are wrong now, then what do you think is the proper way to prove the existence of God? Anumana or Sabda Pramana?

Rohit.

4:37 PM

Sabda Pramana.

But Still,

Send me some scriptural shloks on Pratyaksha PramAnas or post answer there.

I think this sentence is wrong on wiki. Correct me if I am wrong. @KeshavSrinivasan

A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs).[3]

All these are not independent of experience.

One knew in prior how to sum to arrive at the obviousness 3+2 = 5

2- One knew the sociology that unmarried are bachelors. this is also a knowledge although fed into mind right from the childhood, so mistaken as obvious usually.

@LakshmiNarayanan Oh, sorry. couldn't get clearly.

LakshmiNarayanan

4:53 PM

@Rohit. I explain later.

Rohit.

5:07 PM

@KeshavSrinivasan One more thing. What I meant with self evident earlier is capability of someone to cognize God. Going with the definition, I still believe God is self evident. it's like, Sun is self evident for the one who can see. But if I change the definition of self evidence as defined in above replies by me then God isn't self evident.

That's why I say my previous definition of Self evident reduces to Sabda PramAna. My definition of Sabda PramAna includes my earlier definition of self evidence, not merely scriptures.

Transcript for

Discussion on question by Keshav Srin…