advaitin Existence of Objects

[Guest guest]

Hello Michael and Ananda,

 

Ananda's talk of objects, knowledge of objects and knowledge seems to be coming

from the viewpoint of Krishna Menon (succinctly laid out in ATMA DARSHAN). I

really don't think that Ananda is saying what the vijnanavadins say -- which not

only leads to an infinite regress, but also leads to the unintended conclusion

that there really are external, independent objects like trees in the quad.

Krishna Menon's approach does involve a regress, but not an infinite regress.

 

It seems to me (correct me Ananda, if I'm off here), that Ananda is saying

something like this. That a tree never appears apart from a tree-sensation,

e.g., a tree-sight, a tree-sound or a tree-tactile experience. In this way, it

could be said that what is known is not the tree itself, but the tree sensation.

Whenever the tree seems to be present, a sensation is present. There is no tree

that can be established apart from a sensation. So far, this is parallel to,

but not exactly the same as, Berkeley's approach.

 

But the tree sensation never appears apart from knowledge of the sensation.

That is, there is no possible access to a sensation outside of knowledge. No

sensation or thought or feeling or perception can be established to exist on its

own, apart from knowledge, because there is no evidence of these things without

the presence of knowledge. Knowledge is the common denominator in every

appearance.

 

It is Knowledge, or the witnessing consciousness, to which these appearances

seem to appear. But since they cannot be established to exist on their own, it

makes no sense to say that knowledge "knows them." It makes no sense to say

that they are there for knowledge to know. It makes no sense to say that they

appear to knowledge, for there is no evidence that they are ever separate. It

therefore makes no sense to say that there is anything witnessed or that there

is a witness at all. It is only "Knowledge shining in its full glory." (ATMA

DARSHAN)

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hello Greg,

The infinite regress that I mentioned is what the vijnavadin held

would arise from the Vedantin's position about a subject of awareness. Shankara

rejects this suggestion.

"Buddhist: If a cognitition has to be known by some entity other than itself,

that second one will have to be known by another, and that one again by another.

This will lead to an infinite regress. .......

Vedantin: Both these arguments are wrong, for once an awareness of the

cognition occurs, no further desire to apprehend the witness of the cognition

can arise; and so there is no possibility of infinite regress. And since the

witness and the cognition are**different**by**nature** there can be a

relationship of the perceiver and the perceived among them.(B.S.B.II.ii.29)

 

A story: I get up at night to go to the bathroom. Dark. On the way out -

Bang**^^%%. Are you telling me that I've walked into a sensation? And not the

wardrobe door?

 

I find the detatching of the tree sensation from the tree as object to be

practically equivalent to the vijanavadin's

"Well, I do not say that I do not perceive any object, but all that I hold is

that I do not perceive anything apart from the perception."

 

The existence of the object is essential to the statement of the central problem

of Advaita as laid out in the preamble of B.S.B. That we are aware of the

object is not at issue. How we aware is, given that subject and object are 'by

nature as contradictory as light and darkness (and) cannot logically have any

identity'. How does the object come to be inside us ,so to speak, as

consciousness if it is, as it seems to be, inert? This problem refers to the

object as the primitive given reality and the focus of the mystery. If you

focus on the inner side of the equation i.e. knowledge of my perceptions or

feelings, this will be missed.

 

The last paragraph is an illustration of how a shift of focus leads to a

progressive derealisation. Appearances are a 'dependent arising' and therefore

have no reality of their own. Witnessing them is an unreal and baseless

activity. As the witness is for nothing, doing nothing then it too disappears.

Whatever this is, Madhyamika perhaps, it is not Advaita however energetically

you whip it up and fold in rhetoric:-)

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> Hello Michael and Ananda,

>

> Ananda's talk of objects, knowledge of objects and knowledge seems to be

coming from the viewpoint of Krishna Menon (succinctly laid out in ATMA

DARSHAN). I really don't think that Ananda is saying what the vijnanavadins say

-- which not only leads to an infinite regress, but also leads to the unintended

conclusion that there really are external, independent objects like trees in the

quad. Krishna Menon's approach does involve a regress, but not an infinite

regress.

>

> It seems to me (correct me Ananda, if I'm off here), that Ananda is saying

something like this. That a tree never appears apart from a tree-sensation,

e.g., a tree-sight, a tree-sound or a tree-tactile experience. In this way, it

could be said that what is known is not the tree itself, but the tree sensation.

Whenever the tree seems to be present, a sensation is present. There is no tree

that can be established apart from a sensation. So far, this is parallel to,

but not exactly the same as, Berkeley's approach.

>

> But the tree sensation never appears apart from knowledge of the sensation.

That is, there is no possible access to a sensation outside of knowledge. No

sensation or thought or feeling or perception can be established to exist on its

own, apart from knowledge, because there is no evidence of these things without

the presence of knowledge. Knowledge is the common denominator in every

appearance.

>

> It is Knowledge, or the witnessing consciousness, to which these appearances

seem to appear. But since they cannot be established to exist on their own, it

makes no sense to say that knowledge "knows them." It makes no sense to say

that they are there for knowledge to know. It makes no sense to say that they

appear to knowledge, for there is no evidence that they are ever separate. It

therefore makes no sense to say that there is anything witnessed or that there

is a witness at all. It is only "Knowledge shining in its full glory." (ATMA

DARSHAN)

>

> Om!

>

> --Greg

[Guest guest]

Hello Michael,

 

Since I don't have the B.S.B. at hand at work here, I'll comment on other

things.

 

You write,

>A story: I get up at night to go to the bathroom. Dark. On the way out -

Bang**^^%%. Are you telling me that I've walked into a sensation? And not the

wardrobe door?

>

>

>I find the detatching of the tree sensation from the tree as object to be

practically equivalent to the vijanavadin's

>"Well, I do not say that I do not perceive any object, but all that I hold is

that I do not perceive anything apart from the perception."

 

Well, the Krishna Menon approach doesn't detach the tree from the sensations.

If anything, it's deconstructing the tree into sensations. The vijanavadin's

approach doesn't account for the relation between the perception and the tree.

It leaves the tree "out there" unperceived. Hence your question!

 

But in the Krishna Menon approach, the tree cannot be claimed to be anything

more than sensations. It will turn out that Maybe it's not sensations either,

but there's certainly nothing left unaccounted for by seeing the tree as

sensations. Later, the sensations themselves are deconstructed into knowledge.

 

This is a different route than the B.S.B., but it's not the same as Madhyamika

or Vijnanvada. It accords with the ajati-vada.

 

>The existence of the object is essential to the statement of the central

problem of Advaita as laid out in the preamble of B.S.B. That we are aware of

the object is not at issue. How we aware is, given that subject and object are

'by nature as contradictory as light and darkness (and) cannot logically have

any identity'. How does the object come to be inside us ,so to speak, as

consciousness if it is, as it seems to be, inert?

 

Inside us? If this discussion is not focussing closely enough on the B.S.B. for

you, then maybe you could be so kind as to quote the relevant paragraphs!

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael and Greg,

> Michael wrote: "I am confused about objects being known along with

consciousness. Does

that mean there are two knowings or consciousnesses, one that knows the object

and the

other that knows the knowing of the object?"

 

Yes, in the sense that we use the word 'knowing' in two different ways. On the

one hand,

by this word 'knowing' we refer to the changing and limited activity of

perceiving,

thinking and feeling, which creates appearances of objects in experience. On the

other

hand, we use this same word describe a 'knowledge' which continues in the

background, so

as to co-ordinate the perceptions, thoughts, feelings and appearances that come

and go at

the apparent surface of experience.

 

When we speak of 'knowing an object', what's implied is perceiving the object,

thinking

about it and feeling or intuiting it -- in various different ways. But we

perceive and

think and feel differently, from different points of view. As an object is

known,

different appearances must be contrasted and compared -- so as to identify the

object and

to relate it with other objects, from different and changing points of view.

 

Without such contrasting and comparing, perceptions, thoughts and feelings

cannot rightly

know an object in the world. So a further 'knowing' is essentially implied to

continue in

the background of experience, while perceived, thought and felt appearances keep

changing

at the limited surface of mental and physical attention. But we are now using

this word

'knowing' in quite a different sense. It is an uncreated 'knowing' that stays

present

always, while changing appearances of objects are created by physical and mental

acts of

perceiving, thinking and feeling in our bodies and our minds.

 

For knowing to be genuine, it must be impartial and dispassionate. That is

inherently

impossible for what we call our 'knowing of an object', for this objective

knowing always

works from partial and conditioned appearances, created by our bodly and mental

faculties.

So this cannot be genuine knowing. It's only a constructing act, which keeps on

forming

new appearances from previous ones that went before. But as they form, and as

they are

interpreted to take in what they mean, this formation and interpretation can be

seen to

express a deeper knowing that stays present in the background.

 

It is from there that seeming objects rise, as they come into appearance,

through outward

feelings, thoughts and perceptions. And it is there that the appearances are

taken back,

as their perception is interpreted by inward thoughts and feelings going down

into

background of experience. It's only there, beneath the changing surface, that we

experience knowledge which is genuinely impartial. It is that background knowing

which

enables us to take account of what does not appear in mind, while limited

attention shows

some partial and thus biasing appearance.

 

That background knowledge is what knows all seeming 'knowing' of an object. But,

as

Michael says, a further question may be raised. What in turn knows the

background

knowledge, and how can such questioning come to a final end? The answer lies in

the

question itself. It assumes that knowledge is of one thing by another. This

assumption

does not apply to the background knowledge. It only knows itself, and nothing

else. It

can't be known by looking down at it, from the changing surface of physical or

mental

appearances. It can only be known by going down oneself, to a depth of knowing

where no

change or difference remains. There, all appearances are taken into a

consciousness that

knows them as itself. Whatever it knows, it instantly reduces to itself. Its

knowing and

its being are identical; so that no question can arise of going back to any

further thing

that may be said to know it.

 

However, at this point I must apologize for building up too much of an argument,

which

should instead be asking more directly down.

> Greg wrote: " ... a tree never appears apart from a tree-sensation, e.g., a

tree-sight,

a tree-sound or a tree-tactile experience. In this way, it could be said that

what is

known is not the tree itself, but the tree sensation.... There is no tree that

can be

established apart from a sensation.... But the tree sensation never appears

apart from

knowledge of the sensation. That is, there is no possible access to a sensation

outside

of knowledge. No sensation or thought or feeling or perception can be

established to

exist on its own, apart from knowledge, because there is no evidence of these

things

without the presence of knowledge. Knowledge is the common denominator in every

appearance."

 

Yes, that says nicely what I was trying to get at. Objects are always

experienced in the

presence of knowledge, which is the common denominator of all appearances. As we

think of

objects, we ignore that presence and thus wrongly assume that objects are

independent of

knowledge. At the end of "Atma-nirvriti", Shri Atmananda describes an

investigation of

what experience truly proves, about objects and the world:

 

"23. Experience and the objective world

 

"It is experience that must prove the existence of anything. An object as such

is never

experienced. It is the knowledge of it that may be said to have been

experienced. Even

this is not strictly correct. If an object is not experienced, it must be held

to be

non-existent. How can there be knowledge of a non-existent thing? Therefore it

is not even

the knowledge of an object that is experienced but knowledge itself. Thus

experience

proves that the entire objective world is knowledge and knowledge alone. That is

consciousness and that is ATMA."

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

How can there be knowledge of a non-existent thing? Therefore it is

not even

> the knowledge of an object that is experienced but knowledge

itself. Thus experience

> proves that the entire objective world is knowledge and knowledge

alone. That is

> consciousness and that is ATMA."

>

> Ananda

 

Namaste

 

Wonderful. My PraNAms to Ananda Wood.

Adi Shankara in his dakshiNAmurti stotra says:

 

"jAnAmi-iti tam-eva-bhAntam-anubhAty-etat-samastam jagat"

 

When we say we 'know' a thing, we are only cruising behind

the 'knowledge' that is always there and everywhere. This

is 'KNOWLEDGE' WHICH IS CIT, which is 'Atman'.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ananda Woodji, Gregji and all.

 

This is submitted with great respect for Shri Atmananda Krishna

Menon. His statement quoted below is a very tricky one which

possibly can mislead. I can understand what Shri Atmanda meant but

anotehr person without an advaitic vision may not.

 

He would conclude that knowldge, which is 'the entire objective world

and whinch alone exists' is 'experienced'. That word 'experienced'

is the 'misleader' and there is no way we can do away with it if we

choose to get down from the objects to the Truth.

 

The question then will be naturally asked: Who experiences that

knowledge? Again, dichotomy with the possible danger of infinite

regression.

 

The best solution is to fall back on the jAnAmi of Sankara and

conclude that all this (idam) as anubhati (shining after). JAnAmi is

the bedrock without which idam has no independent existence. THIS

because I AM or I KNOW is very strightforward. Hence, the

pUrNamadah.... verse.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

> "23. Experience and the objective world

>

> "It is experience that must prove the existence of anything. An

object as such is never

> experienced. It is the knowledge of it that may be said to have

been experienced. Even

> this is not strictly correct. If an object is not experienced, it

must be held to be

> non-existent. How can there be knowledge of a non-existent thing?

Therefore it is not even

> the knowledge of an object that is experienced but knowledge

itself. Thus experience

> proves that the entire objective world is knowledge and knowledge

alone. That is

> consciousness and that is ATMA."

>

> Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

I am from the same State of India (Kerala) where Shri Atmananda

Krishna Menon was born and lived. Yet, shamefully, I knew nothing

about this great sage of ours until recently, i.e. after I joined

this Group a little more than a year ago. The same applies to Shri

Nisargatta Maharaj.

 

It is a pity that Shri Atmananda is much less known in India than in

the West. His popularity in the West is mainly due to his earnest

Western disciples who tirelessly propagated his teachings in English.

Indians, particularly Keralaties, know more about another Krishna

Menon, Nehru's Defence Minister till the Indian debacle in her 1962

war with China, a firebrand socialist of the Fabian variety and

extempore orator in English English, who did a talkathon at the UN on

the Kashmir issue - a feat perhaps yet to be excelled by any other

mortal talker. In the process, it is reported that he fainted

several times only to be brought back to continue the talkathon!

 

This raises a question: Are Shri Atmananda's quotes that we find on

this forum and elsewhere on the web English translations or reports

of what he taught or wrote in his native tongue Malayalam or are they

from books which he originally penned in English? Going by his

sketchy biography, he had occupied high professional ranks in the

Police Department till he plunged into spirituality. As such, I can

assume he had the required command over English language to write on

his own if he chose to do so.

 

Will someone enlighten?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

____________________

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> This raises a question: Are Shri Atmananda's quotes that we find

on

> this forum and elsewhere on the web English translations or reports

> of what he taught or wrote in his native tongue Malayalam or are

they

> from books which he originally penned in English? Going by his

> sketchy biography, he had occupied high professional ranks in the

> Police Department till he plunged into spirituality. As such, I

can

> assume he had the required command over English language to write

on

> his own if he chose to do so.

>

> Will someone enlighten?

 

Madathilji,

Shri Atmananda authored four books in Malayalam -

RadhaMadhavam, Atmaaraamam, AtmaDarshanam and AtmaNirvriti.

Later he himself translated AtmaDarshanam and AtmaNirvriti to

English.

Some of his disciples used to take notes during his

discourses. One of them, Balakrishna Pillai had published a

compilation of his talks from 1950 to 58. That is a treasure,

but very limited copies ( around 1500 or so) are available.

After Atmananda's death his son took over the copyrights of

his teachings and did not allow other disciples to

publish them. That could be the reason why not many people

in India could know about him. Majority of the present

generation in Trivandrum doesn't even know that such a

Great Sage lived there fifty years ago.

 

During my recent trip to Trivandrum I met one Shri.Karunakaran,

who is the oldest living disciple of Shri. Atmananda.

He has got a big collection of Atmananda's talks. He never

published it, but he gives copies to any earnest seeker.

Atmananda's teachings are still alive in Trivandrum through

him.

Finally, Atmananda's teachings are getting its rightful place

among Advaita classics thanks to people like him and Ananda Woodji.

Pranaams,

Raj

[Guest guest]

Dear Professor Krishnamurthy and Shri Madathil Nair,

 

Thanks for the quote and reference to dakshiNAmUrti stotram 3 (Prof

Krishnamurthy 7th Oct,

Shri Nair 8th Oct):

 

"jAnAmi-iti tam-eva bhAntam-anubhAty-etat-samastam jagat"

 

I must confess that I am totally unfluent in Sanskrit, so that even this simple

line of

verse took some time to decode. But eventually I came up with a sort of

translation, as

follows:

 

Whenever it is said 'I know',

what's truly meant is just that shining

after which the whole world shines:

 

with all its changing things revealed

as nothing but reflected light.

 

For those, like yours truly, who are unfluent in Sanskrit, here is an

explanation of how

the original is decoded in the above translation. The first line translates

"jAnAmi-iti"

(literal meaning -- " 'I know'-saying"). The second line translates "tam-eva

bhAntam"

("that-truly shining"). The third line translates "anubhAty-etat-samastam jagat"

("aftershining-this-entire-world"). The last two lines are not strictly a

translation, but

rather an interpretation taken from the the etymological sense of "jagat", as

"moving" or

"changing".

 

This is only meant to show how Sankskrit texts can be analysed, by or for those

who are

not trained in the language. With apologies of course to those who are so

trained. And a

request to be corrected if I've got it wrong.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ananda Woodji.

 

You are quite right about the difficulty a Westerner experiences in

attempting to understand Sanskrit text. For that matter, there are

many Indians like me who are also not well-versed in Sanskrit. Yet,

we seem to be able to vibe well with the subtle meaning inherent in

Sanskrit verses. This may be a matter of predestiny that has

something to do with previous births or, if that is going too far or

claiming too much, it may be due to the fact that the Indian

atmosphere where we grew up with the elders of the family around

talking about mAyA and lIlA instills an awareness of the

relatively 'unreal' nature of the objective world early in childhood.

 

This may be the reason why Shri Atmananda Krishna Menon's approach

resonates well with Western minds as they prefer an effective

analysis of the objective world in order to get down to the Truth.

(All the more reason that we had a thorough discussion on Shri

AtmAnandaji's works led either by you, Sir, or Gregji, particularly

because our Members Rajkumar Nair and Ranjit Sankar have said that

Indians at home are unfamiliar with his writings which are are hard

to get in the bookshops. This can be done in monthly instalments and

I hope we will have the permission of the copyright holders to do

so.). The Indian subconscious has it taken for granted that the world

is mityA whether or not it understands that term in the true advaitic

sense. The Westerner is compelled to prod at it with the Berkely or

Hume fingers.

 

The DakshinAmurti verse:

 

nanAccidraghatOdarastita mahAdIpaprabhAbhaswaram

jnAnam yasya tu cakshurAdikarana dwArA bahispandatE

jAnAmIti tamEva bhAntam anubhAtyEdad samastam jagat

tasmai SrI gurumUrtayE namah idam SrI dakshinAmUrtaye

 

Like a many-holed pot with a brilliant light inside it, Knowledge

issues forth through the sense organs and organs of action as "I

Know", Which only shines and all this world shines after It.

Prostration here to (that Knowledge) Shri DakshinAmUrthy, the

manifest Guru.

 

The whole world, which includes the mind, sense organs and organs of

action, is an "I know" (jAnAmi). With the `Ami' suffix, both the

English words "I" and "know" have been combined inseparably into a

Oneness implying that the "idam sarvam" (all this) or "Edad samastam

jagat" (all this world) has no independent existence without "I" –

the Ultimate Knower. The world can only `shine after' It

(anubhAti). That is the advantage of Sanskrit. (I see that Arabic

also does that. That is perhaps why they insist that the Holy Quran

must be chanted in that language.)

 

This is exactly what is said when the lamp is raised in front of the

deity which the unknowing term as 'idol worship'!

 

Na tatra sUryO bhAti, na chandratArakam, nEma vidyutO bhAnti,

kutOyamagnihi, tamEvabhAntam, anubhAti sarvam, tasyabhAsAt sarvamidam

vibhAti

 

Simply tranlated, it means : The Sun doesn't shine. Neither do the

Moon and stars and the luminaries. How can this agni (the lamp I

show) shine? Only That shines and everything else shines after It in

Whose splendour all these appear!

 

Perhaps, an advaitin well-versed in Sanskrit should take up this

prayer and reveal its depths to us as it, like DakshinAmUrti StOtram,

encompasses the entire gamut of advaita. It should be a discussion on

bhAti to anubhAti to vibhAti. A look at the MW dictionary for the

depth of these words leaves one dumfounded! I request our Sunderji's

help.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________________

 

 

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

>

> "jAnAmi-iti tam-eva bhAntam-anubhAty-etat-samastam jagat"

>

> I must confess that I am totally unfluent in Sanskrit, so that even

this simple line of

> verse took some time to decode. But eventually I came up with a

sort of translation, as

> follows:

>

> Whenever it is said 'I know',

> what's truly meant is just that shining

> after which the whole world shines:

>

> with all its changing things revealed

> as nothing but reflected light.

>

> For those, like yours truly, who are unfluent in Sanskrit, here is

an explanation of how

> the original is decoded in the above translation. The first line

translates "jAnAmi-iti"

> (literal meaning -- " 'I know'-saying"). The second line

translates "tam-eva bhAntam"

> ("that-truly shining"). The third line translates "anubhAty-etat-

samastam jagat"

> ("aftershining-this-entire-world"). The last two lines are not

strictly a translation, but

> rather an interpretation taken from the the etymological sense

of "jagat", as "moving" or

> "changing".

>

> This is only meant to show how Sankskrit texts can be analysed, by

or for those who are

> not trained in the language. With apologies of course to those who

are so trained. And a

> request to be corrected if I've got it wrong.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Ananda Woodji.

>

> You are quite right about the difficulty a Westerner experiences

in

> attempting to understand Sanskrit text. > Perhaps, an advaitin

well-versed in Sanskrit should take up this

> prayer and reveal its depths to us as it, like DakshinAmUrti

StOtram,

> encompasses the entire gamut of advaita. It should be a discussion

on

> bhAti to anubhAti to vibhAti. A look at the MW dictionary for the

> depth of these words leaves one dumfounded! >

>

Namaste Shri Ananda Wood and Shri Madathil Nair,

 

Shri Ananda Wood's post #19258, explaining very clearly advaita's

basic use of mind, is very valuable. I have downloaded it separately

and kept it in my file of source literature. Wonderful. Thanks for

the illumination; because I am usually confused when presented with

a dialogue involving western philosophy. I seem to get the point

about the difference in understanding about 'Mind' in Western

philosophy and in advaita. Thanks.

 

Madathil Nairji, you rightly brought in the quote 'tameva bhAntam

anubhAti sarvam ...'. Regarding Dakshinamurti stotra, I have earlier

attempted to present the shlokas with a little interpretation of my

own. They can be seen in

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/63.html

 

and in the succeeding pages.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Na tatra sUryO bhAti, na chandratArakam, nEma vidyutO bhAnti,

> kutOyamagnihi, tamEvabhAntam, anubhAti sarvam, tasyabhAsAt

> sarvamidam vibhAti

>

> Simply tranlated, it means : The Sun doesn't shine. Neither do

the

> Moon and stars and the luminaries. How can this agni (the lamp I

> show) shine? Only That shines and everything else shines after It

in

> Whose splendour all these appear!

>

> Perhaps, an advaitin well-versed in Sanskrit should take up this

> prayer and reveal its depths to us as it, like DakshinAmUrti

StOtram,

> encompasses the entire gamut of advaita. It should be a discussion

on

> bhAti to anubhAti to vibhAti. A look at the MW dictionary for the

> depth of these words leaves one dumfounded! I request our

Sunderji's

> help.

>

 

Namaste,

 

The best way would be to study the Shankara-bhashyas on this

mantra, which occurs in:

 

Katha upanishad 2:2:15

Mundaka u. 2:2:11

Shvetashvatara u. 6:14

 

Also in various forms in the Gita:

 

........................... prabhaasmi shashisuuryayoH .

...................................................... .. 7\-8..

 

........................... tejashchaasmi vibhaavasau .

...................................................... .. 7\-9..

 

divi suuryasahasrasya bhavedyugapadutthitaa .

yadi bhaaH sadR^ishii saa syaadbhaasastasya mahaatmanaH .. 11\-12..

 

lelihyase grasamaanaH samantaal.h\-

lokaansamagraanvadanairjvaladbhiH .

tejobhiraapuurya jagatsamagra.n

bhaasastavograaH pratapanti vishhNo .. 11\-30..

 

na tadbhaasayate suuryo na shashaaN^ko na paavakaH .

yadgatvaa na nivartante taddhaama paramaM mama .. 15\-6..

 

yadaadityagataM tejo jagadbhaasayate.akhilam.h .

yachchandramasi yachchaagnau tattejo viddhi maamakam.h .. 15\-12..

 

 

Goudapada Mandukya-karika

4:81

 

4:47, 49, 50 aabhaasa - Here AbhAsa = appearance!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder