365bet娱乐

In the experiences of the pot and others, Pratyaksa or perception is the superior authority or valid means of knowledge or means of valid knowledge. And this perception cannot be sublated by any other Pramanas. If at all there are some defects then the experience of this perception is not valid. A defectless perception is the superior valid means of knowledge to others. In the experiences of pot and the like as there are no defects, perception is unobstructed. Perception in such cases reveals and confirms the reality of those objects. Thus, perception helps to prove the reality of the things of the world. Since the nescience is not related with insentiency, it 1086 cannot be a defect in respect of insentient things. } Even according to the Advaita, nescience cannot be there as a defect. Because, at the time Chatapratyaksa, nescience concealing the Adhisthana caitanya underlying the pot, is - withdrawn. Therefore, in the Ghatapratyaksa there cannot be nescience as a defect. As already stated perception being Upajivya or supporting evidence is stronger. Accordingly the perception of the world becomes Upajlvya and testimony cannot invalidate it. Vadiraja says that even the Brahmaparoksa and the AikyaBrutis of the Advaita cannot invalidate the perception

S 368 of the world because in the Advaita, Brahmaparoksa is Nisprakaraka and the srutis are Akhandarthabodhaka. If it is held that these two contradict the perception then, the very nature of Nisprakarakatva of Brahmaparoksa and Akhandarthatva of the srutis would be no more. Hence, these do not invalidate the reality of the world which is substantiated by perception. And on the other hand, passages Ekavijnanena sarvavijnana and others prove the reality of the world. Because, Sarvavijnana or the knowledge of all is possible only when there is Sarvasatyatva or the reality 1087 of all. And this is none other than Visvasatyatva. If inference contradicts perception then, it is sure that concerned inference is fallacious. Hence, inference cannot invalidate the perception since perception is superior to inference. And moreover, inference functions on the basis of the source of information already ascertained by perception. Perception free from defects cannot be invalidated by testimony (Agama). 1 Further, superficial meaning of Agama or scriptural statements is not valid always and every where. The expressed meaning of Adityoyupah, Yajamanah prastarah and such other passages serves no purpose. If this literal or superficial meaning is insisted on, then there is no practical utility of these statements. Hence, it becomes i t

369 rather clear that whenever there is a conflict between Agama and perception, Agama is to be reinterpreted in accordance with perception. Vadiraja points out that even the Advaitins do not interpret the passages- Tattvamasi and the like literally, Because, in that case the literal interpretation conveys the Visistaikya which is not at all accepted by the Advaita. In the same way, the literal import of the passage Sarvam khalvidam Brahma appears to convey the identity of the insentient and the sentient. 1088 f But the Advaita does not accept this identity. Vadiraja refers to the scope of the grammar and asserts that there is every possibility and also sanction of the grammar to understand the particular case meaning with regard to another in the Veda, He also quotes the reference of usages of the Gita and the Mahabharata where the word Sarva is used in connection with different case-meaning, confirms that there is scope to reinterpret the scriptural passages to avoid their conflict with perception. perception of the world is defectless, it cannot be disproved by any other means of knowledge.