Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Namaste In Mandukya karika - Vaithathya Prakarana (verse 5), Sri Gaudapadacharya establishes the sameness of waking and dream states. He reasons :"Prasiddhenaiva hetuna", meaning "on familiar grounds of inference". May I request the learned members for some guidance? What are those familiar grounds of inference ? If perception is one such familiar ground, how is perception the reason for the falsity of the waking state? One perceives a snake on a rope. It is an example of illusion. If one percieves a real snake, how can that also be categorised as illusion, just because perception is common in both? Thanks RAm _____________________ Odomos - the only mosquito protection outside 4 walls - Click here to know more! http://r.rediff.com/r?http://clients.rediff.com/odomos/Odomos.htm&&odomos&&wn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Namaste: The 'real snake!' that we see during our dream becomes an illusion when we wake up from our dream. Similarly, the 'real snake' for a 'real person' in the 'real life' becomes an 'illusion' when the 'real person' gets fully awakened! Just like all that glitters is not gold, all that 'looks real' is not 'real real!' We need to distinguish between the 'conditional perception' that changes when the condition changes and the 'unconditional perception' which is 'changeless.' A careful contemplation will reveal that only the 'Atman' is changeless and everthing that we perceives through the sense organs is transitory and is subject to change. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "ramasubramanian" <ramasubramanian_g@r...> wrote: > Namaste > >.............. If one percieves a real > snake, how can that also be categorised as illusion, just because > perception is common in both? > > Thanks > > RAm > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 --- ramasubramanian <ramasubramanian_g wrote: > Namaste > > In Mandukya karika - Vaithathya Prakarana (verse 5), Sri > Gaudapadacharya establishes the sameness of waking and dream > states. He reasons :"Prasiddhenaiva hetuna", meaning "on familiar > grounds of inference". May I request the learned members for some > guidance? What are those familiar grounds of inference ? If > perception is one such familiar ground, how is perception the > reason for the falsity of the waking state? One perceives a snake > on a rope. It is an example of illusion. If one percieves a real > snake, how can that also be categorised as illusion, just because > perception is common in both? > > Thanks > > RAm Shree Ramasubramanian Greetings. Here is my understanding on the question you have raised. Familiar grounds of inference involve - anvaya-vyatireka and jahat-ajahat lakshNa. Few months back Ken has provided an exhaustive analysis of these lakshaNa-s and you may find it stored in advaitin's files Anvaya - one is, the other is - and vyatireka is: one is not, the other is not. Take for example gold ring . There are two entities - ring and gold. Looking from gold point - gold is and ring is - that is anvaya. Vyatireka - gold is not the ring is not - that is ring's existence is not independent and it depends on the existence of gold. Now look at this from the point of ring. Ring is gold is - that is anvaya Ring is not - gold still is - that is the gold can exit independent of being a ring. This happens if you just melt that golden ring and ring is no more but gold still is. This establishes one is independent and the other is dependent. Now apply this to aatma and anaatma like body, mind etc. In the waking state - body is there and I am there - that is anvaya when we go to dream state - body is not there (I am not conscious of the body) but I am still there - that is one is not the other is. This shows by the logic of anvaya and vyatireka - one is independent and the other is dependent. This is what I thinks is being referred by Goudapaada as familiar grounds of inference - According to Indian tarka shaastra - inference involves - anumaana vaakya or logical statement - The distant hill is on fire since I see smoke there - this inferential statement has to be substantiated by concomitant relation between smoke and fire - and example to substantiate that relation. Ex. wherever there is smoke there has to be fire - just like in kitchen - The first part is called vyaapti j~naanam and the example part is called dRishhTanta. Pratyaksha cannot establish the fire on the distant hill since I see the hill but not fire. I see only smoke. so I have to use anumaana or inference to infer that there is fire on the hill since I see the smoke. Goudapaada is not referring to pratyaksha pramaaNa here - only anumaana pramaaNa. I have discussed some of these aspect in my Ch.II of my notes on Brahmasuutra. Hari OM! sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.