intelligence tarka the right understanding of **reincarnation

[Guest guest]

(1) breath control (pranayama)

(2) sensory inhibition (pratyahara)

(3) meditation (dhyana)

(4) concentration (dharana)

(5) examination (tarka)

(6) ecstasy (samadhi)

 

what is tarka the 5-th leg of yoga?

 

"(Jayaratha) says that tarka is

what is in harmony with sruti, in otherwords, in accord to what is

revealed by the seer. Further, in this context, tarka is seen as being the

shortest route to higher consciousness; since it reveals what to accept and

reject, and linked by some with the saktipata (descent of grace) and

suddhavidya (wisdom).

 

The above shows that in some forms of

early Yoga, tarka formed a repository

of knowledge accumulated by seers that became very useful to certain groups if

the lineage of seers should ever come to end."

--------

I think tarka means a systematic form

of understanding,logic and/or argument,

to prove or disprove something, which

when applied to your quote makes sense.

 

M

------

All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness.

 

Like waves rising are not different

than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of

Awareness.

 

Awareness does not come and go but is

always Present. It is Home. Home is

where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the

Heart to be the Finality of

Eternal Being.

 

A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

Self-Knowledge,

spontaneously

arising from within into It Self.

 

from: a.

------

Tantric Argument: The Transfiguration

of Philosophical

Discourse in the Pratyabhijna System of

Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta

by Lawrence, David

 

Introduction

The Enlightenment dichotomy between the detached, universally intelligible and

cogent discourse of science and

philosophy on the one hand and the devout, reasonless, emotional or mystical

discourse of religion on the other has greatly influenced

 

Western understandings of Indian and

other non-Western philosophies. Wilhelm

Halbfass has observed that Indian philosophy was excluded until recently

from most Western histories of

philosophy because of its religious nature (i.e.,its common purpose of

facilitating the pursuit of salvation)

as well as its situation outside the European historical development of Greek

thought.

 

The former has been

viewed to contradict a "twofold concept

of freedom" definitive of philosophy:

1.a freedom from practical interests--from soteriological motives

and from ordinary utilitarian interests;

i.e., a "purely theoretical" attitude in which knowledge is sought for its own

sake.

 

2.a freedom from the grip of dogma,

from myth, and from

religious and other traditions;

i.e., the freedom to

criticize, to think rationally,

and to think for

oneself.[1]

This criterion has operated equally in

the exclusion from serious

consideration of other non-Western philosophies.

 

Though for some time abjured by most scholars of non-Western philosophies,

the religion-philosophy dichotomy has continued to have an insidious

influence in a polarization between

religious-historicist and philosophical

research

methodologies.[2] The historicist approach ostensibly

overcomes the dichotomy by interpreting

in terms of holistic cultural contexts, usually reducing philosophy to the

broadly

religious categories of world view and ritual-ethical practice.

 

This unification is achieved,

however, at the expense of the

rationalist project of philosophy--philosophy reduced to

religion as myth or ritual is no

longer seen as "philosophy."[3] On the other hand, a lot of the best

philosophical work on non-Western philosophies has tended to abstract

discussions of problems of language, epistemology, and ontology from their

functions within religious systems in comparing them to analogous discussions

in the West.[4]

 

I believe that the modern philosophy-religion dichotomy may be

better overcome by a historically

sensitive revision of the project of philosophical rationalism than by a

relativist or postmodern destruction of

philosophy. Looking back, before the prejudices of the Enlightenment, a

more synergistic conception of the relation of philosophical rationality

to religion is found in our own paradigmatic Greek philosophies.

 

As Pierre Hadot has shown, most of

these were conceived as systems

of "spiritual exercises," in that they

aimed at the conversion

(epistropheand metanoia) of the student

to a redemptive understanding of

self and universe.[5] Throughout

the long history of Christian philosophy

and natural

theology, there have been attempts to use reason to determine religious truths

independently of the assumptions of the

Christian revelation, as an instrument

of religious conversion, or under

rubrics such as "faith seeking

understanding."[6]

 

In the still-developing pluralism

of the contemporary academy, there

has been a steady increase of efforts to create dialogue between Western and

non-Western,

between religious and nonreligious philosophies--frankly

attempting the mediation of religious claims.[7]

 

This essay will examine the strong

synergism between a "hard-headed"

concern with philosophical

justification and intelligibility on

the one hand and soteriology on the

other, in the Pratyabhijna works of the

tenth- and eleventh-century Kashmiri thinkers Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta.

 

[8] Building on the initiative of

Utpala's teacher Somananda, these two

thinkers created a new, philosophical instrument of

conversion for the Trika tradition of monistic Saivism, to which I have given

the name "tantric argument."

 

Though the method of this essay is exegetical, I hope it can contribute

to constructive philosophical as well

as historical

understandings of the relation of

philosophy and religion.[9]

-----------

The Saivas develop the Advaita Vedantin concept of self-luminosity

(svaprakasatva) to explain how Siva

always already has a nondual realization

of Himself.[26]

 

Putting their convoluted discussions of

this concept in a more

linear fashion, the thinkers deny that

 

(1) any cognizer (pramatr)

(2) by any means (pramana) could have

(3) any cognition (prama, pramiti) or

proof (siddhi)--ofwhich the object (prameya)is the Supreme Lord.

 

Like Advaita, they explain the operation

of the sastra negatively as only

removing

the ignorance of this self-luminosity.

[27]

 

The following explanation by

Abhinavagupta brings together this point with the other negation of methodology

in terms of divine omnipotence; it is the

Lord who both creates and removes His self-concealment:

 

Nothing new is accomplished. Nor is what

is really not shining [aprakasamana] illuminated [prakasyate]. [Rather] the

supposition [abhimanana] that what is shining is not

shining is removed. For liberation, which

is the attainment of the state of the Supreme Lord, is nothing but the removal

of that [false supposition].

 

*****The cycle of suffering in rebirth

[samsara] is nothing but the nonremoval

of that.

 

Both of these [conditions of liberation

and rebirth]

are in essence only supposition. And

both are manifested by the Blessed One.

[28]

 

whole article at http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/lawrence.htm

 

karta:

rebirth is within a life span: the

birth of the myriads of *selves*..