#134: Is the Self also substantiated by means of an evidence or not? Though the Self Itself is independent of evidence, evidence is necessary in order to know It.
Evidence is necessary to know it. Must that be the case because there are so many theories of the Self some argument must place some evidence, some chain of reasons above the others, more cogent than the others. How else are we to be persuaded or convinced. What does evidence mean in this case? Could you miss it? It’s all there, all that is to be known but you have missed something, a factor that you have discounted perhaps.
What are the means of knowledge (pramanas) that can precipitate some evidence, some knowledge. There is the dog that didn’t bark in the night time, the non-apprehension of existence. Is it something like that, an inference maybe from the immediacy of memory My memory now is of my experience then. That indicates the apperceptive unity of experience but not I think the Self in Vedanta.
Sankara is being as usual very condensed, an inspiration to ‘atma vichara’ (inquiry into the Self) and not offering solid answers that give us full marks without true insight. Substantiation for instance, does that mean establishing that the Self exists? Our intuition is that the Self is self-evident but is it, so to speak, free standing? Can the knower be known, can the hand grasp itself?
More anon on #135 etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment