Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 I may be jumping in the middle of the discussion here- Shree Sadaananda Siddhendra Yogi has discussed the aspect of Adhyaasa in elaborate detail in his famous work: 'Vedanta Saara' - for those who are interested. About the blue sky and the yellow tiger: Blue and yellow are adjectives (visheshhaNa-s) qualifying objects(Visheshya-s) sky and tiger. Now something about visheshhaNaas - there are three types that distinguish them as: incidental, necessary, and necessary-sufficient. Blue in the blue sky and yellow in the yellow tiger are incidentals in the sense they are not necessary visheshhaNa-s to identify the sky or the tiger, since sky and tiger can exist by not being blue or yellow. On the other hand, the visheshhaNaas need nouns to support them. Blue and yellow cannot exist independently without associating with some noun. Now there are necessary visheshhaNaas - such as sugar being sweet - Sweet is a necessary visheshhaNa of the sugar, since non- sweet sugar has not been discovered yet (as for as I know). Hence sugar cannot be separated from its sweetness. If it is sugar it has to be sweet -( contrast with the blue sky and yellow tigers which are incidental qualifications). But yet sweetness is not sufficient qualification for the sugar - Sufficiecy is more rigorous requirement - When we are discussing about the sufficient qualifications we are now coming into the realm of LakshaNa or definition or in mathematical terms - converse requirement. Sufficiency requirement as applied to sugar states that if it is sweet it has to be sugar - that is the converse theorem. People who take Equal know very well that Equal is sweet but is not sugar. Hence sweetness is not a sufficient qualification for Sugar. VisheshhaNa-s that are sufficient to define the visheshhya are termed in Vedantic discussions as LakshaNa - For every object there at least one (can be more than one) LakshaNa - for sugar for example I can come up with its LakshaNa (which is sufficient qualification) is C6H12O6 (As I remember the formula - I could not get subscripts here). It is necessary and sufficient qualification to define sugar - that is if it is C6H12O6 it has to be sugar. I am giving in such detail because there is lot of confusion - particularly Bhagavaan Ramanuja when he discusses about the PramaaNa-s. He proves that Sat , Chit and Ananda are attributes or VisheshhaNa for Brahman whereas Advaita Vedanta insists that they are LakshaNa-s - From Ramanuja's point Jeeva which is different from Brahman is also sat chit and ananda but they are tiny and are different from SAT CHIT ANANDA of Brahman - From the above discussion one can see that he makes these as necessary but not sufficient qualifications. In scientific discussions, the more we precisely provide the LakshaNaas the more precisely we identify the objects. Now what are LakshaNaas - they not only define the objects as they are, also in the very process they make one object to be distinguished from the other. Thus C6H12O6 for example (one should actually provide the stereographic structure since in organic chemistry there are similar formulas but different structures and each one of them could be different) distinguishes sugar from all others objects in the universe. -Thus the LakshaNaas are needed for distinctions and discriminations. Now what is the LakshaNa for sky - Obviously it is not the blue-ness - sky in English does not tell you much - But here you can see the beauty of sanskrit - many a time name for noun is derived from its LakshaNa itself - This is what constitute the Dhatuus - sky in Sanskrit is Akaashha - that which provides avakaashha is Akaashha - That which specially accommodates an object is Akaashha. Recall that it is LakshaNaas that makes one object to distinguish from the other. Akaashha being the subtlest of the pancha bhuutaas has no form, sound, taste, touch or smell - the normal sense visheshhaNa-s to infer as an object - it is has to be inferred by its LakshaNa only to distinguish it from the other. Those who are desperately looking parking spaces know very well the value of the space - particularly when the left over space is not sufficient to provide the avakaashha for ones car! Now LakshaNaas are perceived or inferred by the mind or intellect - Obviously belong to that of a living being - LakshaNa is an inferential thought that is ultimately perceived by the illumination by the conscious entity. Here is the distinction of the subject and the object - the perceiver and the perceived thought. But thought if one analyzes deeply is the perturbation in the consciousness itself - like a wave in the ocean- the perturbation arises due to brain functioning and distinguishing different LakshaNaas that are being fed. But wave and ocean, although appears to be different, yet not different. Except for the external form every wave is nothing but its very contents - the water which is the same as the contents of the ocean. Wave cannot be separated from the Ocean and Ocean supports the wave. They appear to be distinct for vyavahaara (transactional purposes) but in reality are not different. The difference is apparent for those who see the difference. Likewise the thought wave is nothing but the consciousness from which it arises. Hence the subject-object distinction is only superficial or adhyaasa. The reason it is called adhyaasa is that the transformation of consciousness is also apparent but not real in the sense if I see a table I have a table thought and when I turned around and see a chair, the table thought is replaced by a chair thought. Hence thought wave is not a permanent transformation - pariNaama but only an apparent superimposition on the very consciousness which is its base. Thought plus consciousness is not two but one that appears to be two - hence duality is adhyaasa not due to pariNaama _ just as Gold appearing as many ornaments - Ornaments are gold but yet bangle is different from ring etc. Hence Jagat as it keep changing is just a superimposition on that which does not undergo any change - the SAT CHIT AND ANANDA - These are again the LakshaNaas for Brahman since He/it exists (since we cannot talk about non-existent Brahman), He has to be Consciousness ( we cannot talk about unconsciouness Brahman - since if such unconsciousness Brahman exists he can only be known by another consciousness entity which the real Brahman that we are referring to) and that Chit has to be Sat too - since we cannot talk about non-existent consciousness) and from the discussion above there cannot be other than Brahman since all things arise from Brahman exist in Brahman and go back in to Brahman - Hence taittiriiyopanishad statement:- etova imaani bhuutaani jaayante yena jaataani jeevanti yat pryam tyabhisham vishanti - e iti Brahma - That from which the whole universe arises, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back -is Brahman >From which all waves arise, by which they are sustained and into which they go back is the Ocean. >From which all thought waves arise, by which they are sustained and into which they go back is the very substratum - the material cause of the Universe. Hence jagat is adhyaasa on the Brahman - that is an explanation for those who see the Jagat separate from Brahman - Otherwise there is nothing to discuss! Are the waves different from the Ocean? - they are and they are not - depends on ones perspective! Waves undergo change - Ocean remain the same - Hence Ocean is real and wave is a superimposition, adhyaasa on that which remains unchanging substratum. Evey adhyaasa needs a support and only the ultimate support is the SAT CHIT ANANDA -Brahman since there is nothing other than Brahman. Hari Om! Sadananda >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy writes: > >Namaste. > >.............My question is: is it ? Is the sky a subject in this >example? As per my understanding, sky is also an object; it may be >beyond the sense perceptions but we can infer it from other evidences. >The only difference, as per my understanding, between blue sky and >yellow tiger is: both blue >and yellow are superimposed on the two objects, the sky and the tiger. >The only difference between the two objects is: tiger is perceivable by >the senses, sky is not, but both are objects. Then, why does Shri >Shankara call the superimposition of the blue on the sky as similar to >the >superimposition of an object on the subject? Am I missing some point in >the logic here?......... > > >------ >To from this mailing list, or to change your subscription >to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at and >select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left. >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 1999 Report Share Posted January 15, 1999 poojya sadanandagi, Hari Om! That is an impressive explanation. Thank you. I am curious to read Sri Ramanuja's commentary on the TaittiriyOpanishad statement that you have quoted. Could you please provide Sri Ramanuja's commentary on this particular statement if possible? Pranams! -Madhava > > sadananda [sMTP:sada] > Thursday, January 14, 1999 6:27 PM > advaitin > On adhyAsa > > sadananda <sada > > - From Ramanuja's point > Jeeva which is different from Brahman is also sat chit and ananda but > they > are tiny and are different from SAT CHIT ANANDA of Brahman - From the > above > discussion one can see that he makes these as necessary but not > sufficient > qualifications. -Thus the LakshaNaas are > needed for distinctions and discriminations. > > [Madhav] > and from the discussion above there cannot be other than > Brahman since all things arise from Brahman exist in Brahman and go > back in > to Brahman - Hence taittiriiyopanishad statement:- > etova imaani bhuutaani jaayante > yena jaataani jeevanti > yat pryam tyabhisham vishanti - e iti Brahma - > That from which the whole universe arises, by which it is sustained > and > into which it goes back -is Brahman > From which all waves arise, by which they are sustained and into which > they > go back is the Ocean. > From which all thought waves arise, by which they are sustained and > into > which they go back is the very substratum - the material cause of the > Universe. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.