Brahmasuutra-3a

[Guest guest]

Here are some comments, questions and possible corrections on the second set

of notes.

 

Firstly, I am writing before having seen any of the other comments so

apologies if there is any duplication and please do not reply to any of

these.

 

Beautifully clear exposition of the rope-snake metaphor and the adhyaasa

shankhaa is facinating – how will Shankara get out of that one? I can hardly

wait – it is compulsive reading!

 

I would ask if it is possible to reduce the output a little, though. I feel

there is a danger of not being able to keep up and I would greatly regret it

if that happened.

 

Adhyaasa – Am I looking in the right place in the dictionary; all I can find

is the word meaning ‘an appendage’, no mention of error or mistake. What is

the dhatu? And how does this differ from bhramaa, which you had previously

said was error or mistake?

 

You say that there is always a price (suffering) that I have to pay for

committing an error but is this strictly true? Is it not the case that

sometimes no one suffers or only others (or even sometimes oneself or others

benefit)? You mention your grammatical or typographical errors, for

example – surely others suffer here, not yourself? :-) (Actually I don’t

really think this is true – they very rarely detract from the wisdom of what

is being stated!)

 

Are you going to be teaching us the curvilinear path next? (I had to laugh

at that one!)

 

Is ‘ou’ an accepted equivalent to ‘au’ in ITRANS? I note that you refer to

GouDapaada instead of GauDapaada. Shouldn’t it be ‘aMsha’ not ‘amsha’?

 

When you start talking about saamaanya aMsha and visheshha aMsha, you use

the example of ‘there is a rope’ and say that ‘there is’ is the real part. I

find this a bit difficult. Surely ‘there is’, in this example, is only a

verbal artifice? If we were actually both present and you were speaking

instead of writing, you could equally well point to the rope and just say

‘rope’. In fact we don’t usually point in this situation (perhaps because

our parents told us that pointing was bad manners!) but are we not using

‘there is’ just to replace it? Similarly, if I say ‘I am stupid’, I could

equally well just point to myself and say ‘stupid’. When I say ‘I am stupid’

there is certainly no intention to state that ‘I am conscious’. (But

perhaps I am just being stupid!)

 

Also, in your example of ‘it is a long snake’, I understand that ‘long’

refers to the rope and not the snake but can we therefore say that ‘long’ is

satya aMsha? Isn’t the ‘long’ purely relative? After all, I might be looking

through a telescope or, round the next corner, I might come upon an

enormously long rope and I would then have to call the first one ‘short’.

 

Namaste,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Thanks Dennis for your comments and input. I will try to cut down the

length. Shree Ravi also suggested that. I am trying to post at least

upto something that makes somewhat of a logical break than an artificial

break. In Notes IIIA, either I had to stop before I discuss shankhaa or

complete and then stop. I will try to cut down the leghth without

arresting the sequence of thoughts. I would appreciate input from other

readers as well from their perspective. After completing the adhyaasa

bhaashhyam I am thinking of providing a questioner to get some feed back -

particularly from the silent readers - since we donot know whether they are

reading or sleeping! Hence I am posting this response to all lists.

>

>Here are some comments, questions and possible corrections on the second set

>of notes.

>

>Firstly, I am writing before having seen any of the other comments so

>apologies if there is any duplication and please do not reply to any of

>these.

>

>Beautifully clear exposition of the rope-snake metaphor and the adhyaasa

>shankhaa is facinating – how will Shankara get out of that one? I can hardly

>wait – it is compulsive reading!

>

>I would ask if it is possible to reduce the output a little, though. I feel

>there is a danger of not being able to keep up and I would greatly regret it

>if that happened.

>

>Adhyaasa – Am I looking in the right place in the dictionary; all I can find

>is the word meaning ‘an appendage’, no mention of error or mistake. What is

>the dhatu? And how does this differ from bhramaa, which you had previously

>said was error or mistake?

 

I am not sure about the dhatu for adhyaasa - I have to ask my Sanksrit

teacher. But just a guess work - it may be a compound word made of adhi

and aas - adhi means above - like in adhikaari - aas or its derivative

implies to sit - like in asiit - It is a word coined by two words meaning

superimpostion - and that is the error we are taking about here.

superimposing something on some other locus. brama, if one analyzes, it

involves a next step in the mind. Taking a superimposition as real

knowledge. It is like illusion. Here brama is error not from the snake

point or from the rope point but from the point of the fellow who is having

the knowlege of that snake. Hence reference is from the point of knowledge

- whether it is prama or bhrama. Any negatable knowledge is called brama.

In this case the fellow who sees the snake adhyaasa as real he has now

brama or false knowledge. That knowledge is negated when he gets rope

knowledge.

 

This is a subjective brama. There are objective brama - like sun raise and

sun set. Here so called adhyaasa is not at individual mind level but at

the collective mind level. Hence even when one learns that there is no sun

raise and sun set, the apprent sun raise and sun set continues but fellow

who sees can enjoy the sun raise and sun set, knowing fully well that there

is no sun raise and sun set. This is how a Jiivanmukta operates. Here the

illusion is there but delusion is not there. Anyway, these are subtler

points, but from your question adhyaasa can result in brama in the mind of

the perceiver and hence he is affected by it in terms of fears and

tribulations. Both words mean the same in this context only the name

differs depending on what reference it is identified.

>You say that there is always a price (suffering) that I have to pay for

>committing an error but is this strictly true? Is it not the case that

>sometimes no one suffers or only others (or even sometimes oneself or others

>benefit)? You mention your grammatical or typographical errors, for

>example – surely others suffer here, not yourself? :-) (Actually I don’t

>really think this is true – they very rarely detract from the wisdom of what

>is being stated!)

 

Why do you think I do not feel bad when I see my own gramatical and

typographical mistakes on print?! Others suffer and because of which, or

inadditon to that, I suffer for not being carefull or being ignorent.

 

This problem I discussed to some extent in response to Shree Ravi's

comments. When I commit error and I do not know about - I may not suffer

immediately. Like in a pitch dark if I assume there are no snakes there -

There is no fear and immediate suffering until one bites me.

 

But once I come to know that it is my error, whether others suffer or not,

I suffer with a sense of limitation. In the case of the fundamental error

which is the source of human problem, even if I do not know I am sat chit

and ananda and take myself as a limited entity and even if have not been

exposed to Vedanta or similar concepts, there is a natural sense of

incompleteness as a result of that error since inherently or instinctively

one does not accepts ones conclusion about oneself and try to strive for

one's completeness - hence the hunt for pleasures and sense wanting mind or

desiring mind which never gets fulfilled.

 

As along as we have a rational intellect that is operating, we cannot avoid

these sense of incompleteness or other limitations, whether we know we are

committing error or not.

 

I donot know if there are any errors that do not really bother us in one

form or other.

>Are you going to be teaching us the curvilinear path next? (I had to laugh

>at that one!)

>

>Is ‘ou’ an accepted equivalent to ‘au’ in ITRANS? I note that you refer to

>GouDapaada instead of GauDapaada. Shouldn’t it be ‘aMsha’ not ‘amsha’?

 

You are right - in RIT scheme the au and ou are, I think accepted - it must

have got used to some habits in typing telugu in that scheme. Will try to

be more and more careful -Shree Nandu Abhiyankar of Sanskrit Digest used to

teach me ITRANS scheme and gave up on me!

 

Please bear with me. I will slowly learn.

>When you start talking about saamaanya aMsha and visheshha aMsha, you use

>the example of ‘there is a rope’ and say that ‘there is’ is the real part. I

>find this a bit difficult. Surely ‘there is’, in this example, is only a

>verbal artifice? If we were actually both present and you were speaking

>instead of writing, you could equally well point to the rope and just say

>‘rope’. In fact we don’t usually point in this situation (perhaps because

>our parents told us that pointing was bad manners!) but are we not using

>‘there is’ just to replace it? Similarly, if I say ‘I am stupid’, I could

>equally well just point to myself and say ‘stupid’. When I say ‘I am stupid’

>there is certainly no intention to state that ‘I am conscious’. (But

>perhaps I am just being stupid!)

 

When you say there is a snake - it is not the pointing that I am refereing,

but to the 'is-ness'. First thing you recognize in that knowlege that

there is a vastu or vishaya or an object present. That much is real and

not only now when you say there is a snake and when you learned 'there is a

rope' - the knowlege of the presence of the vastu or object is not gone -

That there is an object is a fact whether you point it out with a finger or

not. That much everybody agrees it will not disapper and hence it is satya

aMsha. Only we do not know is the particual feature of that existing

object because of the dim light.

 

Actually there has been lot of analsyis by our taarkika-s or logicians on

this perception and the knowledge associated with it. Opening that subject

will be like 'can of worms'. To give you some taste, our philosopheres and

tarkika-s differ interms of how knowledge takes place and what is prama and

what is bhrama. Now just for you to think - if you promise not to apply

this to the notes on Brahmasuutra since I donot want to confuse everyone

by bringing unwanted stuff here- Can one see an object really? Suppose

there are pair of spects on the table - what do you really see? how do you

know that there is an object there? You say I see it therefore there is an

object there. But what do you actually see? Through the eyes I can only

see a form and a color. Form includes all the different countours and

shapes associated with that object and colors of these different parts of

the objects. - If you analyze deeply what you see or know are only the

attributes of an object - since form and color are only attibutes and not

the object per se. Now where is the object knowledge then - how do you get

the object knowledge independent of its attributes! But are the attributes

the same as an object - They are not - since I can keep the same object and

modify its form and color. Therefore what is the realtion between object

and its attributes. Does the existence of an object depend on the

attributes or the attributes depend on the object. - look like a simple

question but think about it. There have been different theories put forth

in explaining the relation between the attributes and the object. If my

senses can only know the attributes and I have no other means to know any

object other than through my senses, then, when and how do I get the

knowledge of the object - that there is a set of spects on my table? - Is

it an inference or a fact? Think about it.

 

Hence Shree Ramanuja, for example, claims that there cannot be an object

without attributes since without attributes one cannot know the existence

of an object. He next extends his statement to converse theorm and

concludes that no object can exist without attributes. Extending further

this concept to Brahman, to know Brahman, He should have attibutes, our

experience is nothing can be known without its attributes - Hence He

becomes ananta kalyaaNa guNa ashraya - locus of infinite auspecisous

qualities - through which one can know Him.

 

Coming back to our snake-rope case - if it is pitch dark even the existence

of an object - that knowledge is also not there - hence no adhyaasa.

Because I see something long or curved etc I have some knowledge and the

knowledge indicates there is a vastu or an object there. Upto that is true

and hence is called satya aMsha. The rest of the conclusion is from my

puurva samksaara or impression since I know snake looks similar to that

object that I see in front. Remember it is an adhyaasa and bhrama only if

it is not really a snake but a rope. That it is adhyaasa will be known

only when the truth comes out that it is a rope insted of a snake.

 

Since I cannot know that it is adhyaasa till I gain true knowledge, I have

the scriptures to point out that what I see or conclude is adhyaasa. Hence

shabda pramaaNa important to gain this knowledge. It is only a

hypothetical knowledge at this stage subject to verification by oneself in

oneself. At least now I have some idea where the problem and how to solve

the problem. That itself is not a solution to the problem but problem

atleast is identified for me to experiment.

>Also, in your example of ‘it is a long snake’, I understand that ‘long’

>refers to the rope and not the snake but can we therefore say that ‘long’ is

>satya aMsha? Isn’t the ‘long’ purely relative? After all, I might be looking

>through a telescope or, round the next corner, I might come upon an

>enormously long rope and I would then have to call the first one ‘short’.

 

 

It is a long snake - Obviously the snake will not be any shorter or longer

than the length of the object that I see there. Hence a 5ft object will

give only a 5ft snake vision since that particular length is the feature of

the intinsic object (here it is a rope) or quality of the rope and will not

disappear when we shed light on it. It will remain as 5ft object, now as a

rope instead of a snake.

Point is whatever the intrisic attributes that belong to the object remain

since they are stya aMsha but only the attributes that belong to asatya

aMsha will disapper since they belong to the asyatya vishhaya.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>

>Namaste,

>

>Dennis

>

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623