Let me ask what may seem to be a foolish question? Do you use the means of knowledge, the pramana, when we know something. Is it simply that you know something and on examination you discover that your knowledge has such and such a shape as it were.
I might use an axe to chop wood but I do not use pramana in the same instrumental way.
Knowledge exists and it has this form. Am I labouring the obvious?
Many elements may be at work in a single awareness. Is this why in other than the advaitic account of the pramanas categories are conflated. Presumption (arthapatti) becomes inference (anumana).
You saw that your friend was not present at the expected rendezvous. Was it that you perceived this or is it a case of non-apprehension of existence (anupalabadhi)?
You go from the thing itself, our knowledge, and then you can see the shape of that knowledge.
Nobody denies (sunyavadins?) perception and the thing itself as an independent entity which can exist as an unknown object. That is primary reality or realism pur sang. There is experience, there is knowledge. It has a form. Experience fills the form, so to speak.
Conversation at the Epistemological Counter of the Knowledge Department:
Do you have a form for that? I couldn’t possibly let you have that experience without a form. In duplicate, one for your mind and the other for the external world.
No comments:
Post a Comment