FW: An Effort to Understand the Difference between the Cognition of the Real and the Unreal

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Hari Om!

 

It is time that I thank one of our wonderful Gita satsang contributors. It

is Shankar from Botswana. He has been continuously typing the Shankara

Bhashya and sending them to me. He is typing 30 minutes per day as per the

request. Now I have got 2 chapters from him.

 

Given below his notes/thoughts on Real and Unreal. I put this on hold all

these days only because I am waiting for the right time to pass this on to

you. I hope Sri Shankar forgives me for this silence. I would request our

learned members comments on the following notes. Thank you all.

 

I remain yours,

Madhava

 

 

Shankar [shankar]

Sunday, January 09, 2000 10:49 AM

Madhava

An Effort to Understand the Difference between the Cognition of the

Real and the Unreal

 

 

Dear Madhavaji,

 

As I have been 'typing' the commentary of Aadhi Shankaraachaaryaa, I was

also simultaneously checking whether I was understanding the same fully, at

least theoritically, for now. I found the commentary on the 'definition and

illustration of the difference between the cognition of the real and the

unreal' very complex.

 

I wanted to understand it well, applying my understanding of the 'Nyaayaa

Aphorisms of Sage Gautama',-the reading of which along with 'Vaiseshikham'

is prescribed as a prerequisite for the reading of any vedantic text by the

Mahaaswaami, Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam

in His 'Deivaththin Kural',-and of the text 'Panchadhasi' of Vidhyaaranya

Swaami.

 

It also struck me that if I start typing out my understanding of the same,-

(i) as it flows spontaneouly from inside, 'when I intently reflect on it'

in my earnest effort to at least mentally understand the same very clearly

here and now, and

(ii) in the event of my understanding turning out to be meaningful,

wholesome and clarificatory,

it could well be utilised by you,-after duly exercising your discretion and

discrimination as to the appropriateness of the same,-for the benefit of

others as well, without the necessity of there being any further 'special'

effort on my part or on the part of anyone else in this regard.

 

This could particularly be so, if any other member of the 'advaitin' e-mail

list, experiences the same 'complexity' or 'difficulty', after your

releasing the 'relevant portion of the commentary' in respect of the

cognition of the real and the unreal, as part of the

'Cyber-Gita-Satsang-Release-Notes'.

 

In case you find the same 'relevant', 'meaningful' and/or 'useful', kindly

accept the same as part of the material offered by me for the

'Cyber-Gita-Jnana-Yagna'. I dedicate this effort of mine, to the Lotus Feet

of my Beloved Guru, Sri Aadhi Shankaraachaaryaa.

 

An Effort to understand the difference between the cognition of the real and

the unreal

In each of the statements like 'the pot is' and 'the cloth is', there are

two kinds of cognitions. One is the cognition of the 'potness' or the

'clothness', and the other is the cognition of the 'isness'.

 

Upon say, for example, the perishing of a 'particular' pot,

(i) the 'potness' ceases to be cognised, in relation to the particular

'pot' that perished, and

(ii) the 'potness' of the pot that perished, also ceases to be cognised in

relation to 'cloth' or any other thing, although

(iii) the quality of the 'potness' in general, continues to be cognised 'in

and through' the pots, not being and other than, the pot that perished.

 

Thus, one can readily see that upon the perishing of a particular pot, there

is 'mutation' in the cognition of the 'potness'. The same will apply to

'clothness' etc., And hence, according to the definition given by the Aadhi

Shankaraachaaryaa, the cognition of the 'potness' in the statement 'the pot

is', is unreal.

 

However, upon the perishing of a 'particular' pot, the cognition of the

'isness', only ceases to be experienced and/or manifested in relation to the

substantive, the 'pot', on account of the destruction of the 'form' of the

pot.

 

But, since 'isness' is not an attribute or quality, but a fact of existence,

that is unassociated with the 'presence or absence' of objects, no

'mutation' can reasonably be said to have occurred in relation to its

cognition. And hence, according to the definition given by the Aadhi

Shankaraachaaryaa, the cognition of the 'isness' in the statement 'the pot

is', is real.

 

Thanks and kind regards

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

The following site has a collection, in PDF format in devanaagarii, of

sutras : nyaya, vaisheshika, saa~Nkhya, yoga, karma, vedanta; and shiva; in

addition to a host of other documents, and audios.

 

http://sanskrit.bhaarat.com/Dale/Sanskrit.html

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

>"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava

>advaitin

>advaitin

> FW: An Effort to Understand the Difference between the

>Cognition of the Real and the Unreal

>Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:45:09 +0300

>

>Dear All,

>

>Hari Om!

>

>

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Many thanks to Shankara from Botswana for directing our attention to

this important foundation for our studies.

 

It would be very helpful to know which sutra he is referring to in the

posted discusion.

 

I am relying on 3 sources to bolster my understanding:

 

1. Brahmasutrabhashya-Shankara - Advaita Ashram , 1977-tr.

Sw.Gambhirananda [iI:ii:37 brings out Nyaya's drawback]

 

2. Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy - S. Radhakrishnan [1973, Princeton

Univ. Press]

 

3. Vedanta - Culmination of Indian Thought - R.D.Ranade [1970; Bharatiya

Vidya Bhavan]

 

The last one is a comparative study of the shhaDdarshanas, in addition to

Jain and Buddhistic schools.

 

 

Regards,

 

sunder

 

 

 

>"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava

>advaitin

>advaitin

> FW: An Effort to Understand the Difference between the

>Cognition of the Real and the Unreal

>Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:45:09 +0300

>

>

>

>An Effort to understand the difference between the cognition of the real

>and

>the unreal

>In each of the statements like 'the pot is' and 'the cloth is', there are

>two kinds of cognitions. One is the cognition of the 'potness' or the

>'clothness', and the other is the cognition of the 'isness'.

>

>Upon say, for example, the perishing of a 'particular' pot,

>(i) the 'potness' ceases to be cognised, in relation to the particular

>'pot' that perished, and

>(ii) the 'potness' of the pot that perished, also ceases to be cognised

>in

>relation to 'cloth' or any other thing, although

>(iii) the quality of the 'potness' in general, continues to be cognised

>'in

>and through' the pots, not being and other than, the pot that perished.

>

>Thus, one can readily see that upon the perishing of a particular pot,

>there

>is 'mutation' in the cognition of the 'potness'. The same will apply to

>'clothness' etc., And hence, according to the definition given by the

>Aadhi

>Shankaraachaaryaa, the cognition of the 'potness' in the statement 'the pot

>is', is unreal.

>

>However, upon the perishing of a 'particular' pot, the cognition of the

>'isness', only ceases to be experienced and/or manifested in relation to

>the

>substantive, the 'pot', on account of the destruction of the 'form' of the

>pot.

>

>But, since 'isness' is not an attribute or quality, but a fact of

>existence,

>that is unassociated with the 'presence or absence' of objects, no

>'mutation' can reasonably be said to have occurred in relation to its

>cognition. And hence, according to the definition given by the Aadhi

>Shankaraachaaryaa, the cognition of the 'isness' in the statement 'the pot

>is', is real.

>

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com