365bet

Pratyabhijna and Shankara’s Advaita (comparative study)

by Ranjni M. | 2013 | 54,094 words

This page relates ‘The concept of Prama and Pramanas� of study dealing with Pratyabhijna and Shankara’s Advaita. This thesis presents a comparative analysis of two non-dualistic philosophies, Pratyabhijna from Kashmir and Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta from Kerala, highlighting their socio-cultural backgrounds and philosophical similarities..

Go directly to: Footnotes.

5. The concept of ʰ and ʰṇas

In all Indian philosophies ʰ or Pramiti is defined as real knowledge which is unaffected by any other wrong cognition. It occurs only from ʰṇas (valid sources of knowledge). In both ʰٲⲹñ and Advaita the peculiar knowledge (recognition or realization) of oneself as the ultimate self is considered as the real and ultimate knowledge. Even though there is no distinction of ʰ, ʰṇa, Prameya and ʰtā in the ultimate level, both have developed their own epistemology and defined these concepts. One basic difference is that ʰٲⲹñ has given emphasis to the ʰtā while Advaita gives emphasis only to the ʰ.

ʰٲⲹñ defines ʰ as a single expression of an object unaffected by temporal and special limitations, provided it is not contradicted by another act of cognition.[1] It accepts that the ʰṇa is containing its ʰ as like the ʰś principle always contains the վś principle (Գٲśٳ). In Vimarśini, ʰ is described as having a nature of effect (ṇa󲹱屹).[2] According to ʰٲⲹñ, ʰṇa is always self luminous and arises afresh in every moment ('-Բǻ岹ⲹ�).[3] ʰṇa is the extrovert light of the same consciousness (ʰ), which is introvert.[4]

Advaita also accepts ʰ as the uncontradicted knowledge of a thing.[5] But Advaitins neither accept the novelty as an essential factor for the valid knowledge nor oppose the view of considering novelty as a mark of valid knowledge. Advaita holds that the ultimate principle, which has a nature of consciousness, is devoid of all distinctions like ñԲ, ñⲹ and ñ�.[6] The self luminous knowledge itself lightens all objects.[7] Both systems use the metaphors like snake-rope, conch shell-silver and dual-moon for denoting illusory knowledge.[8]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

iha jñātṛkartṛrūpa� tāvaccittatvasya ū貹� tasyāpahāro nāmāṇava� yenāsau aṇu� saṃkucito ٲ� | Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vimarśini, 첹ī, Part II, p. 248.

[2]:

Torella Raffael, op.cit. p. 198.

[3]:

tatra karturabodharūpasya dehāderbhinnavedyaprathane sati 󲹰󲹰ū貹� malam | yato janmabhogaśca sa ca Ծⲹ- 󾱰첹�, iti jātyayurbhogaphala� karma ٲܰٲ� bhavati | Īśvarapratyabhijñā-vimarśini, 첹ī, Part II, p. 249.

[4]:

māyāśaktyaiva tat trayam | Īśٲⲹñ-, 3.2.5.

[5]:

This is known from the words of Śṅk: śٰ� avidyākṛtapañcakośāpanayanena �.annarasa- mayādityadi | Taittirīyopaniṣad-śṅk-ṣy, 2.2.

[6]:

For details vide Sensarma, Dr.Debabrata, Tran., ṢaṭtṃśaٳٲٳٱԻdz, Kuru-kshetra University, 1977, pp. 21-27.

[7]:

na hi ٲ parameśvarasya sraṣṭṛtva� siddhyati | 󳾲ūٰ-śṅk-ṣy, 1.4.3.

[8]:

O� neil, Thomas, in Śṅk, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1980, pp. 141-147.

Let's grow together!

I humbly request your help to keep doing what I do best: provide the world with unbiased sources, definitions and images. Your donation direclty influences the quality and quantity of knowledge, wisdom and spiritual insight the world is exposed to.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Help to become even better: