namaste

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Virajji:

 

Welcome to the list and your credentials look impressive and we are looking

forward to listen to your vedantic knowledge. This list though maintains

Shankara Bhasya, we encourage and invite scholarly view points on advaita

philosophy. As you rightly pointed out, we can't choose but learn to accept

things that we didn't choose!

 

The membership in this list include learned teachers from Arsha Vidya

Gurukulam, Chinmaya Mission and other reputed vedantic organizations. They

are silent observers and we hope that they respond when someone makes

inappropriate remarks during discussions. I believe that it is the duty of

every learned scholar to fulfil this obligatory dharma without hesitation!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:05:03 -0500 (GMT)

Viraj <viraj

advaitin

CC: chandran

 

namaste,

first let me intraduce myself,

my name is viraj staying in bangalore,india

from the last 2 yrs(first 1 yr i was in VK YOGAS,Bangalore) i am

with(choicelessly) vedanta mainly influened by Swami Dayananda and his

sisyas, regarding this egroup, i just wanted to conform whether this

 

Note: This posting of Viraj somehow didn't appear in the list.

group follows shankara bhasya or guidence from some teachers

[Guest guest]

Shree Viraj - thanks for your kind mail. I have tried to answer to the

questions as best as I can.

 

 

--- Viraj N R <viraj wrote:

> Namaste Sadaji,

> i follow u r mail regularly in advaitin egroup and they always prove

> to

> be very helpful in understanding the teachings.

>

> this mail is regarding the discussion u had with Maniji on subject

> "Is

> the World Self or Non-self" u wrote,

>

> >> What is the difference between knowledge and experience?

>

> Here i want to clarify the meaning u intended when u said experience

> is

> not knowledge because as any experience involves the triputi,

> object,knowledge of object and subject(+? the adhistana chaitanya) so

> each experience will involve a knowledge of the object but can lead to

> more detailed knowledge on analysis. It is the means of

> knowledge(pramana) which generates the respective object of knowledge,

> and

> any knowledge is as valid as its means of knowledge right so my

> undestanding is to differentiate the words knowledge and experience

> genereally it is said in the manner u presented. And to excel the

> knowledge in solving the problem of cognition, the difference is made

> i

> suppose.

 

You have asked some deep questions that requires closure analysis.

 

Let us take an example - sun raise and sun set.

 

That is the daily experience. - The knowledge of that experience

involes various levels.

 

Immediate knowledge what you call an object-knowledge - is to recognize

that there is a sun raise and sun set. - Today - the sun raise was

beautiful. Yesterday it was covered by clouds etc. These are relative

knowledge enough to transact on the day to day level.

 

The next level of knowledge using shaastra or science as pramana is to

know that sun never raises or sets. -This knolwedge does not dismiss

the sun raise and sun set but negates my previous understanding of it as

only relative and not absolute knowledge. That new knowledge has to

account not only when the sun neigher raises nor sets, but also whey I

see the sun raise and sun set when there is none.

 

If I go ever further, even this knowldge has to be transended by the

knoweldge that both the knower and the known or seer and the seen are

only my mental projection since without the mind even the scientific

knoweldge has not basis. What is there is only myself - the conscious

entity.

 

We can try to dismiss this also as another relative knowledge, if we.

But we find that we cannot since we have to be there even to dismiss

this. Therefore this becomes an absolute knowledge.

 

Here we are not dismissing at each level the experience but analysizing

in steps the gain the correct knowlege of that experience.

>

> The second doubt is regarding the superseding of the relative

> knowledge,

> yes in vyavahara there is superseding of knowledge in each area of

> interest but lets take the standard example of rope & snake, here the

> earlier brama of snake is the knowledge till it is replaced by rope

> knowledge right, so in the examples of brama it is replacing or right

> understanding results not superseding.

 

I have explained how there is a gradation in the relative knowledge -

one superseeds the other until we reach absolute knowldge.

 

rope-snake example brings in subjective reality vs objective reality. -

All it meas it brings in one more step in the analysis and nothing more.

 

It is like - I see it, therefore it is - versus - it is, therfore I see

it.

First can be snake and the second can be rope. But in both cases, 'I

see' is there - without my seeing there is neither rope or snake.

Please think it over. sanke is a subjective projection - while the

sun-raise and sun-set I gave is objective projection, since everybody

sees the sun-raise and sun-set. Since object cannot be established

without a subject, in both knowledge I remain- and analysis of that I

becomes the fundamental knowledge.

 

I am taking the liberty to post to the list since others may also be

interested.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

> Hope i expressed my doubts

>

> With lots of reverence

> --

> Viraj N R

> C-DAC, Bangalore

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New with improved product search