The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c5.s5.t2.3

c5.s5.t2.3

As for Bâdarâyaṇa, he expresses his rejection of the secular means of knowledge, *Pratyaksham* and *Anumânam* with the drastic brevity which characterises him, in this, as we have already remarked (above p. 23), that he uses the two words to indicate something altogether different, namely the *Çruti* and *Smriti*; thus in the Sûtras 1, 3, 28. 3, 2, 24. 4, 4, 20 (supposing, naturally, that Çankara has explained them correctly). The *Çruti*, therefore, the holy scriptures, in the narrower sense the *Brâhmaṇas* and *Upanishads*, but also the *Mantras* presupposed by them, that is, hymns and formulas,⁵⁵ are for Bâdarâyaṇa the *Pratyaksham*; the revealed is for him self-evident, needing no further authority. It is otherwise with the *Smriti*,⁵⁶ under which name Çankara quotes testimonies from the Sâṅkhya and Yoga systems, from the law-book of Manu, from the Mahâbhâratam and Purâṇas, as also from the Vedic Sûtra literature. For while the Veda, like the sun, which has its own light, possesses unconditional authority (*nirapeksham prâmâṇyam* p. 414, 6), the *Smriti* is called *Anumânam* because, as Çankara, p. 287, 11, explains, for its support another basis of authority (*prâmâṇyam*) is necessary. As, namely, the secular "the scripture can one plunge into this deepest, highest Brahman; one "cannot plunge into Him by reflection." Of passages where the *Pramâṇas* are mentioned, we have noted, besides these the following: the *pramâṇâni, pratyaksha-âdîni* are *avidyâvad-vishayâṇi* (p. 17, 13); they are frail (p. 448, 1); are common to us and animals (p. 19, 6): *pratyaksham* is *rûpa-âdi, anumânam* &c. is *liṅga-âdi* (p. 426, 8. 438, 1); of different character is *anubhava*, permissible, according to 42, 4, in the investigation of Brahman, cf. 419, 2 *anubhava-avasânam brahma-vijñânam*; the monstrosity of an absolute perception (subject without object) occurs on p. 671, 2; cf. 96, 5.