Guest guest Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 Ramasubramanian 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 Namaste Sri Ramasubramanian, A familiar ground of inference would be what is called 'the analogy of proportionality' viz a:b = b:c. In this case dream is to waking what waking is to vidya. In the waking state the dream state is sublated and for the jnani the waking state is similarly sublated. Thus viewed under the aspect of analogy the waking state is the same as the dream state. The identity is not a strict identity. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 > >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 > >Dear Sri Sadanandaji / Sri Ram Chandranji Namaste Many thanks for the lucid elucidation of the Anvaya-vyatireka. I do agree with you that such an analysis proves, beyond doubt, that the Witness-Self is distinct from the ego, intellect, senses, body etc. The Self exists irrespective of the three avasthaas and, hence, is permanent. It 's existence and vision are independent of the objects that It witnesses... It is Changeless and so on. But how do we logically take this argument forward to prove that the anatma(universe) is illusory like the dream state ? (Atma is - gross/subtle Body is not (during sushupti) implies that Atma is inedpendent of the body/bodies. Fine. How does it prove that the body is Mithya ? (Of course, axiomatically, we can make sruti-based statements of the type, ", “There is not an iota of diversity here (in Brahman). Whoever perceives anything like variety here goes from death to death” “I am Brahman, the only Reality and anything else is only superimposed on me and, hence, is all Mithya” and so on.) If we read the commentary of Sri Sankaracharya for the verse concerned we get the hetu – (reason) - Drushyatvaat (being perceived). As you are aware, the explanation of this is that the dream and the waking experiences are characterized by the same condition. viz., the characteristic of being perceived. Therefore, they both are unreal. The Bhashyam takes "Drushyatvaat" as the familiar ground of inference. Dream objects are seen; they are illusory. This is the drushtanta, example. Waking state objects are seen , AND SO , THE WAKING STATE OBJECTS ARE FALSE. The common ground of inference, as per Sri Sankaracharya, here, is “Drushyatvaat”. My question pertains to this inference. How is “Drushyatvaat Mithya” LOGICALLY proved ?. (A friend of mine, humorously comments that because an object is seen, does it exist! Drushyatvaat mithya indicates the opposite.) Thanks Namaste RAMASUBRAMANIAN > > >===== >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. > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > > >===== >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. > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to > > _____________________ 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 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 advaitin, "ramasubramanian" <ramasubramanian_g@r...> wrote: > > My question pertains to this inference. How is "Drushyatvaat Mithya" LOGICALLY proved ?. (A friend of mine, humorously comments that because an object is seen, does it exist! Drushyatvaat mithya indicates the opposite.) > > Thanks > > Namaste > > RAMASUBRAMANIAN Dear Ramasubramanian, Excuse me for butting into this discussion. You have raised a very interesting question. The existence of a physical world is so evident through our senses that very few people dare to question it. Sri Benjaminji has written extensively about the perception and its falsity in his web-site in this article : http://www.benjaminroot.com/Philosophy/mindall.html I think that might give you some answers. I would suggest one question for you to ponder: Does the perception of an object happen inside your mind or outside of it? Regards, Raj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2003 Report Share Posted March 30, 2003 --- ramasubramanian <ramasubramanian_g wrote: ....... > My question pertains to this inference. How is “Drushyatvaat Mithya” > LOGICALLY proved ?. (A friend of mine, humorously comments that > because an object is seen, does it exist! Drushyatvaat mithya > indicates the opposite.) Shree Ramasubramanian – According to Advaita - Whatever is seen is mithya – This is the topic discussed in the dRik-dRisya Viveka – attributed to Bhagavaan Shankara. The epistemological aspect of this as I had pointed in one of my posts is discussed extensively by Dharmaraja Advariindra in his classic work ‘Vedanta Paribhaasha’. In summary, the logic goes like this –In one sense the substantive is real and attributes of the object are mithya in the sense that is not trikaala abhaatiam. It is like now it is ring next time the same gold becomes a bangle etc, each with its attributes that differ from the other. The differences between the ring and bangle are not real - that is from the gold, or the substantive part. (Real being trikaala abhaaditam – unchanging in three periods of time). The substantive is nothing but Brahman since there is nothing other than Brahman. Objects appear to be different for me as my attention is on the attributes and not on substantive. Shree Advariindra states that the perception is immediate only because the substantive in both the dRik and dRishya – is nothing but consciousness only, which is aparoksham or immmediate rather than mediate. All the differences among the objects, and between an object and the subject are only superimpositions - hence mithya . Now look at this more carefully – what we can perceive through senses are only attributes or qualities and not substantive. The mind integrates the input from all senses and in the image in the mind - it imposes all other attributes and say the object is out there with these attributes. But senses cannot perceive the substantive, and only qualities – and qualities are not the object – although object has qualities. But sans the mind – I cannot independently establish the existence of the object out there – hence notion that object out three that is dRisyam – is only notion in the mind. Seer and seen both are nothing but consciousness that I am – and there is no real object out there. Second if there is real object out there then we have two realities – one Brahman and the second the object – that is against the Upanishadic statement ‘sat chit ananda alone is real. Hence what ever is seen – is mithya. – Illusion is not the right word for mithya. Ps. In responding please remove most of the mail that you are responding to except that portion relavent for the discussion. In this way we can minimize the storage space in the list serve. 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.