pratyaksha

[Guest guest]

Nanda Chandran worte:

 

>

>The following is only my opinion and I don't hold it as absolute. It is only

>a relative view. If anybody can express something more relevant, you can

>discard this view.

>

>See we can divide the mental apparatus as the mind, ego and intellect - but

>this is only theory strictly for the purpose of intellectual understanding.

>Modern science shows us that it is the brain which performs all these

>functions. So I would simplfy the whole issue down to two categories : 1.

>knowledge which involves thought construction and 2. knowledge which doesn't

>involve thought construction.

 

Nanda - as I understand.

 

Knowledge of - that is an objective knowledge involves thought

construction. That is the mediate knowledge involving pramaaNa or

means of knowledge and mind is involved since it is thought process.

This is the knowledge of what is known - that includes what is seen -

all cognitions and what is recognized or recognitions from memory.

All involves thought process. Since locus of the object out there is

a thought in the mind. Without that cognition of the thought in the

mind the cognition of the object outside cannot takes place - It is

not purusha tantra in the sense hearing, seeing smelling tasting etc

takes place immediately when the sense and the mind behind the senses

are in operating condition. Since are operated by the prakR^iti

itself or as natural process one can say as long as the life force is

enlivening all these as in the waking state of living being.

 

Can the knowledge takes place without the mind - I do not think so

for objective knowledge.

 

If subject itself is the object of knowledge then the instruments of

knowledge or knowledge itself looses its meaning - since it swataH

siddham or exiting entity and there is really no new knowledge - it

is only self-knowledge as one can say. Self-realization is slightly

different where in there is current understanding that one is not one

self and realization is that one is oneself by discarding that what

one is not. This has to happen through the mind only the notions

that one is not oneself is in the mind - Hence the need that buddhi

has to be free or pure - free from all the wrong notions for this

realization of what one truly is. One cannot say mind is not

required for this - hence emphasis on the inquiry of the nature of

oneself that involves vichaara or mental pursuits yet the truth is

not objective knowledge but realization of oneself by oneself through

inquiry of oneself.

 

Pleasure and pain are states of mind. A mind free from longing even

momentary is the mind which is free from agitations and is pleased

mind - that pleased state of mind could have been arrived by

fulfilling the desires or by self-contentment. In contrast the

paining mind is an agitated mind, mind that is disturbed from its

equilibrium, a mind which is wanting or demanding etc. udaramantaram

kurute athatasya bhayam bhavati says shruti - any duality causes the

fear since one is always afraid of the second - Like even Arjuna

afraid of seeing Vishvaruupa which is different from him.

Thus pain and pleasures are mental states.

 

Bliss or happiness is slightly different from pleasure - in the sense

that there is absence of complete duality as reality. 'I am the

totality and all are in me and I am in all of them' eliminates the

apparent duality as reality and that is realization of one own self

according to advaita vedanta. This is immediate knowledge since it

is swataH siddham or already accomplished fact and does not involve

knowledge that is really unknown.

 

Intuition is a natural process by which all new knowledge takes

place- that includes even scientific knowledge. This is again not

purusha tantram - or by will of an individual. When the mind devoid

of any disturbing agitations is meditating on the object of knowledge

- be it a chemistry or self - then the knowledge dawns on him. A

scientist may say that he discovered the truth or made a break

through - but a sage will say that truth is revealed to him and it is

a revelation. For that one has to contemplate or inquire with

proper instruments - a mind in meditation is the mind that develops

intuition or in Sanskrit j~naana kshakshu or wisdom eye or third eye

of dakshaNamuurthy opening of which all ignorance gets burned to

ashes.

 

As Vidya has pointed out some aachaarya-s classify mind as one of the

instruments of knowledge like the fine senses. Bhagavaan

Madhvaachaarya talks about saakshii j~naanam in the sense all

knowledge gets validity of truth - prama - when saaskha knows it.

and It is sakshi that knows the space and time too not the senses and

mind accrorind to him. He may be off base in that but that is what

he defines.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

>

>In the first the brain is involved. In the latter it isn't. The knowledge

>of the second category is purely intuitional. But I'm not saying that it

>is the knowledge of the Self etc Just that such knowledge - like knowledge

>of one's own existence, love, happiness, instinctive dislike or fear -

>doesn't involve thought construction. It is immediate and intuitive.

>

>Ofcourse there're other kinds of happiness/fear which involve thought

>construction. Like if we imagine something pleasant happening to us, we

>feel happy. After watching a horror movie, your mind works overtime and

>you're scared of dark corners - there's fear. Fear can also arise due to us

>imagining ourselves in some unfortunate situation.

>

>Again repeated experiences of something can also can give rise to immediate

>knowledge. Like if we know something for sure, then due to practice the mind

>works like lightning and knowledge arises. Like the happiness we feel on

>coming home after a long time or seeing a friend after a long time.

>

>But how do we account for happiness which arises, say, when you listen to

>some good music that you've not heard before. Or if you go to some place

>or get into a situation where you instinctively feel uncomfortable. Or the

>love/affection between people - between mother and children, lovers etc. The

>mother doesn't evaluate/validate the reasons for which she should love her

>offspring. The rush of love and affection for her children is natural and

>spontaneous.

>

>Ofcourse you can distinguish between them as feeling and thought. But again

>both involve knowledge, don't they? For all acts of consciousness are

>ultimately knowledge. To be conscious of something is to know it. If you ask

>a mother whether she loves her children, she doesn't think about it, does

>she? She instinctively knows so. Maybe the affection between lovers -

>especially in Hollywood movies where the question, "do you really love

>him/her?" :-) - is even more relevant.

>

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623