 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
> Shrisha Rao (shrao@nyx.net) wrote:
> : Well, no. There are no direct equivalents of either `pramANa' or
> : `lakshaNa' in the English language.
>
> Is not pramANa same as "proof"!! I am not sure about lakshana. But
> how is pramANa different from proof. I am very interested to know.
> Please elaborate.
I suppose at a certain level one could translate it as "proof." But
as I'm sure you are aware, many Sanskrit words used in scripture are
endowed with powerful meanings that can only be understood if one has
the requisite background, and there are meanings that cannot be
translated because the equivalent concepts simply do not exist in
English or other languages. For instance, `OM' is not translateable,
and it is even said that `OM' is the mantra using which Brahma creates
the universe, but this power of the mantra -- or the causes of the
same -- are not obvious to oneself because one does not have a
comprehension of the universe, the creative potency of Brahma, etc.
One gets only as little or as much as one's understanding allows.
Similarly, `pramANa' is even a name of Vishnu, as per the
Vishnu-sahasra-naama. Understanding all the meanings of `pramANa'
therefore involves an understanding of Vishnu, which one cannot claim
to possess. Thus, to say that `pramANa' is the same as "proof" is at
best an oversimplification.
In the case of the `pramANa lakshaNa', the word is used to convey
"exact," as I said earlier:
yathArthaM pramANam.h |
The exact is pramANa.
tad.h dvividham.h |
That is of two kinds --
kevalAnupramANaM cha |
-- `kevala' and `anu' pramANa-s.
yathArthaj~nAnaM kevalam.h |
Exact knowledge is kevala (pramANa).
tatsAdhanamanupramANam.h |
The source of that is anu-pramANa.
kevalaM chaturvidham.h |
`kevala' is of four types.
-- etc.
Thus, a `pramANa' (here) is an epistemic entity, either exact
knowledge, or a source of exact knowledge. In most classical usage,
`pramANa' is used as a substitute for `anu-pramANa' (source of exact
knowledge), and that is what the most common Vedantic usage is.
A "proof" is defined by Webster's Third in several ways, of which this
one is fairly representative of the general tenor: "the process or an
instance of establishing the validity of a statement esp. by
derivation from other statements in accordance with accepted or
stipulated principles of reasoning." This is a procedural, or
evidentiary, principle rather than one having to do with knowledge per
se.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Nachiketa Tiwari
http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|