re: Upadhi

[Guest guest]

Hello Advaitins all,

Professor Krishnamurthy wrote:

"As Science advances in its probing of the

universe it may come up with some material more fundamental than

a gene and explain that it is because of such and such a

property of this ?fundamental? property of matter, this gene has

this quality. Well, again we may ask the question: Who gave that

unique property to that ?fundamental? piece of matter? Thus this

ends up in an infinite regression. A finite mind has to

somewhere end up with an answer like ?tvad-dattayA? at some

stage and end the regression."

 

What Prof.Krishnamurthy is saying is sort of true but there is a feeling of

discomfort about it in that it hops from one plane of being to another and

is in a sense begging the question. What requires to be proven is that

this uncreated plane exists in the first place. To offer it as a way out

of an very extended series of explanations is surely not licit. There

might surely come a point at which we say that is a perfectly good

explanation and we don't need to keep on asking for a better. I haven't

used that slippery term 'infinite' as I think it is more appropriate as an

expression of the nature of mathematical series. It is a concept rather

than an expression of the physical nature of reality. A kalpa is not an

infinity.

 

A similar discomfort attends the term 'upadhi' variously translated as

'limiting adjunct', 'form of limitation', 'limiting condition'.

 

from post 15130 of Swaminarayan T. quoting Shri Venkatram:

<<Pure Conciousness or Ultimate Truth itself is the witness in you as the

cogniser in a twofold manner.1.the witness in the individual self(Jiva

Sakshin)2.the witness in God(Ishwara Sakshin).

 

As the witness in the individual self you are limited by the mind whereas as

the witness in God you are limited by Cosmic Illusion (Maya). You should

remember that Pure Conciousness alone appears in you as the individual

Conciousness and as the Iswara Conciousness. The individual Conciousness

goes

on cutting all that mentally appears to it in some form or other,and when

everything is cut out,it itself automatically becomes its Ishwara Sakshin

when >>

 

The mind is the limiting adjunct of Pure Consciousness i.e. Isvara Saksin

and the mind is also the qualifying attribute of the individual (jiva

saksin). Our minds are our individualising factors which distinguish us

from others.((Qualifications to this position would take this post too far

astray)) The Self has consciousness but no action - due to its changeless

nature. This comes from the fact that the Self is not in contact with

anything. If it were then we would be brought into the situation whereby

the Self would take up instruments (of knowledge) and this would lead to

infinite regress.

 

This is a very abstract chain of reasoning but the ultimate question is 'how

does the mind become the limiting adjunct of Pure Consciousness? An answer

might be - 'this is the only way that the mind which is material can seem

to be conscious'.

 

What is an upadhi? Is the way it is used 'cosmically' an analogical

extension of the normal use of the term i.e. like an upadhi? How is it

normally used? Can examples other than the stock ones be given and without

resorting to sanskrit synonyms. An upadhi is an example of a 'fuganci' is

just mystification. In the literature the same examples make me suspect

good students who are afraid to offer their own in case they leave

something out because they really don't understand what they are on about.

Prove me wrong.

 

Ciao and Blessings, Michael.

 

 

 

 

_______________

Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.  Try MSN!

http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Hello Michael.

 

These are some personal thoughts which your post 15132 generated just

in case they help to answer the many questions you have asked.

Perhaps, you have already thought on these lines. But, write I must

to keep the discussion kicking.

 

We have no choice but to live with the "discomfort" as long as there

is a need to explain, to use language and make the other fellow

understand. Then we are at a ceaselessly failing job. We will then

have more Heisenbrgs and more Uncertainty Principles as we tirelessly

dig on!

 

Our quest is a matter of point of view without a view. When you are

one and all, where is there something for you to view and sing

about. Dhruva knew that there was nothing other than himself when

he had the Lord's darshan. But, he sang because he took recourse to

words. He could as well have kept quiet.

 

In fact, the truth is that he kept quiet. It was you who sang

through Dhruva and that Dhruva and his song are not apart from you,

as you are not apart from me. The "discomfort" arises only when we

view the whole thing as Prof. Krishnamurthy-Ji's quoting the wisdom

of a five year old prince of a remote past.

 

The only Truth without any uncertainty, therefore, is "I AM" and

when I "beg the question" there is an inevitable split into Michael

in "discomfort", Prof. VK quoting and Dhruva singing praise.

UpAdhis are whatever make that split operable for our apparent

viewing.

 

Look back along your memory-lane upto where you can see. You cannot

go beyond a certain point. The last you can "see" is perhaps

something that happened when you were just three years old. That

does not prove that you didn't exist beyond that point.

 

It is just like looking up into the sky. Use a radio-telescope or

the most modern observation tools. There is always a beyond to what

we can see. What sustains that sense of a beyond?

 

The sense of a beyond before your first memory itself is proof that

there was something there apart from "reported" events of a birth or

a painful vaccination when you were only a few months old. The sense

of a life of variegated events that sprouts out from that particular

point of break off including the imagined, portentous end somewhere

in the future that can never be your experienced event in any way is

jut an outcrop (shining - bhAti) on the Beyond, of the Beyond, by the

Beyond, that is ever-existent (asti) like the shining stars, speeding

galaxies and greedy singularities are on the Beyond, of the Beyond,

by the Beyond up in the skies.

 

If and when one's identity with that Beyond is appreciated, then

there is no more any worries about uncertainties and Heisenbergs. We

then live with them "comfortably" and smile at ourselves because

there is nobody outside us to smile at. In the course, if we happen

to sing a song like our boy Dhruva did, then that is just

understandable because in happiness we can't help singing. That

is "priyam" (happiness when I know that I am full and without wants).

 

That, therefore, is the Truth of Advaita (asti, bhAti, priyam

synonymous with sat-chit-

Ananda).

 

Lastly, I didn't get the meaning of the word "fugance". However, I

believe I have explained "upadhi" the way I understand it without

recourse to Sanskrit synonyms.

 

Pranams to all.

 

Madathil Nair