'andra

external account

Devayānist

['andra @useoneonly]

@Kul_Mimansaka Sure, on this point everyone will have to agree. Thus we go back making sure our interpretations conform to all our pramana-s

['andra @useoneonly]

I've seen variations of this "Logicians can't agree with each other, so their method cannot be reliable" argument and don't really understand how it can be used when there is comparable disagreement over scripture

[. @ghostofUGK]

shankara's critique of pure reason

['andra @useoneonly]

@Kul_Mimansaka This is also the doctrine of the Bauddha-s. Basically everyone says they take the base experience of everyone as primary, including opposing Mimamsaka-s. Naiyayika-s also appeal to certain areas where we have to trust in scripture because anumana has limited power

['andra @useoneonly]

@shardula23 Basically no one will say that their doctrines are illogical per se unless you follow their compiled scriptural citations, and illogical conclusions are used to argue against the ideas of other schools

['andra @useoneonly]

@shardula23 supported by being theoretically established by something approximate to "pure reason"

[Heliotroph☀️🍇 @Heliotrophy]

Read Hymn to Magna Mater and Against the Galileans by Emperor Julian and you too can be jacked and dripped out like this New Age Healer

['andra @useoneonly]

@Kul_Mimansaka no philosophical reason*

['andra @useoneonly]

Kumarila & Shantarakshita's back-and-forth on the snake & mongoose metaphor

['andra @useoneonly]

@Kul_Mimansaka There is philosophical reason to believe that massive mistakes could not have been made like in Bhartrmitra when it comes to grammar, exegesis, transmission, or all of the above. We have to go back where we started rely on ordinary methods of evaluating fellow humans

['andra @useoneonly]

@Kul_Mimansaka Apaurusheyatva is accepted by Shabdika-s like Patanjali, Bhartrhari but what they mean by it is completely different than the Mimamsa view; the word alone doesn't mean much. Anyway none of this detracts from my point that even Vedantin sects found PM views lacking

['andra @useoneonly]

@Kul_Mimansaka And that's before getting into the fact that the ways the PM argue for apaurusheya were to great extents not even accepted by UMs; the KA view of apaurusheya is closer to Jayanta Bhatta than it is to Shabarasvami

['andra @useoneonly]

@Kul_Mimansaka precisely that in their attempt to show the necessity of an apaurusheya scrpture, citing dosha-s that make humans unreliable as an ultimate pramana. There is no philosophical reason that Jaimini is omniscient or the tradition of Mimamsa is not corrupted

[āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha @GhorAngirasa]

Neither science nor dry reasoning is of real use in religion.

Scripture-centric reasoning (including analogous reasoning), Śraddhā/faith, inspiration born of fervor, intuition, ability to exercise discretion in determining the good faith testimony of Āptas/Śiṣṭas, one’s own inescapable svabhāva (& of course Īśvarānugraha)—these are what really take you into the higher and deeper levels of religion, be it Kriyā/Yoga (ritual practice or Sādhana/Upāsana) or Vidyā (the deep theology that provides the framework for the former).

Barring the first, the other things simply cannot be taught. And even for the first, no amount of teaching can cover every possible instance of exegesis. There are insights waiting to be uncovered and none of the methods taught by one’s Guru at lead you to it but divinely guided inspiration might.

The problem arises because skeptical and cynical individuals fail to approach scriptures & rituals as they would a person in whom they are genuinely interested.

Be it Veda or Āgama, if you see it as a mere text, you will never make any progress and may in fact regress. You have to start from a place of good faith and admiration and then build a deep and life-long relationship with the divine scriptures and if you are sincere, you can see answers coming to you and find the Vedāgama “talking back to you”. Which is why a guru is important because if you start on your own without appropriate guidance and you also don’t have it in you to start off on the right foot by yourself, you will end up getting disillusioned.

The same goes for mantras. A Sādhaka has to worship the mantras themselves with deep devotion; not just worship *with* the mantras. This is not some later Tāntrika idea as well.

Even as early as the Śatapatha, the Śruti tells us that the supreme being is worshiped as the Yajus (Yajur verse) by the Adhvaryus (Yajurvedic priests) and so on.

['andra @useoneonly]

@Kul_Mimansaka against also have "precise cognitions"

['andra @useoneonly]

@Kul_Mimansaka You've completely missed the point on the epistemological question. The Mimamsaka-s have no way of knowing the validity of their exegesis and have to rely on an infallible human authority (Jaimini) to understand the Veda. The people who have understands of the Veda they argue