Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 Namaste all, <<<what you thought was the world of objects is actually the Self.>>> With due respect to the learned group members, I would like to state the following: The world is definitely Self. However, Self is not the world. It is like waves, pools, ocean, rivers. etc. etc. are all water but water is not them. The equation is World is = the Self is, World is not = Self is, because Self is much more than World, i.e. “Athya thistha dashamgulam” “Anoraneeyn Mahato maheeyan” “antha: bahischa tatsarvam vyapya Narayana sada”, "sarvam khalu idam brahma","purusha evEdam sarvam”. etc. There is only Self i.e. Asti Bhati Priyam, though Nama and Roopa are there with various manifestations of that Self. The World is Asti, Bhati, Priyam, plus Nama & Roopa. My understanding is “there is only God, i.e. the Ultimate Reality or Brahman or Self” and not “there is only one God”. There are also many verses in Bhagavad Gita “yo maam pashyati sarvatra, sarvam cha mayi pashyati”, “maya tatamidam sarvam jagatavyaktamoortina, “matsthani sarvabhootani” "sarvam samApnOshi tatO asi sarvaha" " at the same time He also says “, na cha aham theshu avasthitha”. That is everything known and unknown are in Me, i.e Self or Consciousness, at the same time I “Self” is not in all of them. There is an apparent contradiction, but the meaning is that the relationship of Self with all these (for only understanding purpose called Anatma or Non-self) is only apparent and not absolutely real, whereas the relationship between Non-self and Self is real, as without Self, non-self cannot exist. So, Anatma is brought up only to understand Self and not to reject Anatma, because who will reject, it is only Anatma, i.e. Jeeva that rejects or accept. Or only from Anatma standpoint rejections/ acceptance etc possible. And from the standpoint of Self, there is nothing to reject or accept. In this connection, I would request the members to give their views (?) with regard to the following: What is knowledge? What is experience? What is the difference between knowledge and experience? These issues must have already been discussed in the forum. Since I am quite new, I would request the members to throw some "light". What is the exact meaning of “prathyabhigna” appearing in the verse quoted by Sri Nairji from Dakhsinamoorti Strhotram? In my understaning it is “recognitioin” and neither knowledge nor experience. With Hair Om Mani Gregory Goode <goode wrote: Sponsor 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 The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > > > > >> What is the exact meaning of "prathyabhigna" appearing in the verse quoted by Sri Nairji from Dakhsinamoorti Strhotram? > > In my understaning it is "recognitioin" and neither knowledge nor experience. > NAMASTE The question of 'The World being the Self or Non-Self' is a leading question. The Self appears as the world. So the World is only an appearance. We have to use it as we do with a reflection in a mirror. Regarding 'pratyabijnA' let me venture to say that this is one of those sanskrit words which is untranslatable into a single word. It is neither 'knowledge' nor 'experience' nor 'recognition' (whatever you mean by recognition). What happens is I go to sleep. When I sleep I don't know anything. No joy , no bliss. But the jIva has rested in the Cidananda which is inside. When I wake up, my mind, which does not remember anything, since it had been sleeping, now says: 'What an enjoyment!'. This declaration about the 'experience of enjoyment' is not its own experience, because the mind had no experience when I was sleeping. The jIva had the contact with the Infinite Ananda present inside. Once I wake up the jIva comes back to its usual mistaken identification with the mind and body. And this identification of the jIva and the mind makes the mind 'recall' an 'experience' AS IF IT WAS ITS OWN EXPERIENCE!. This mistaken recalling and appropriation of agency is 'pratyabijnA'. PraNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 Namaste Maniji. You are quite right about that equation. However, I would like to put it this way: I am, the world is. The world is not, I am. There is never an I am not. Back to pUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNamevAvshiSyatE! About pratyabhignA, yes, we had discussed this. The following posts and related threads from the archives may interest you: # 10528 by Prof. Krishnamurthyji # 13639 by Sadaji (Sub: Deep Sleep) # 14120 by Shri Harshanandji (Sub: MAnasOllAsa) Pratyabhigna does not appear in the DakshinAmUrthy verse I quoted. However, it appears in another verse in the same stOtrA :..... prAgaswApswamiti ya pratyabhignAyatE...... PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: The equation is World is = the Self is, World is not = Self is, because Self is much more than World, > ..... > What is the exact meaning of "prathyabhigna" appearing in the verse quoted by Sri Nairji from Dakhsinamoorti Strhotram? > > In my understaning it is "recognitioin" and neither knowledge nor experience. ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 In as much as its essence is concerned, the world is the Self. In as much as its appearance is concerned, the world is the non-Self. The essence is essential while the appearance is accidental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 --- "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote: > > > > > > Namaste all, > > <<<what you thought was the world of objects is actually the Self.>>> > > With due respect to the learned group members, I would like to state > the following: > > The world is definitely Self. However, Self is not the world. Since the question itself arises when one recognizes the existence of the world away from the self - the scriptures comes to our rescue to ascertain that it is indeed from oneself - tasmaat aatmaana akkaashhaH sambuutaH, akaashaat vaayuH .... etc. or yatova imaani bhuutani jaayante ..... - Self is not the world only in the sense the modifications and attributes of the world only apparent and not real and hence do not belong to the self - it is relationless-relationship since is not separate from it to be related to yet the modifications of it does not belong to the self. Hence with reference to B.Suutra that Benjamin discussed few weeks back - (I donot remember the suutra no. now ) it says the world is not non-real. It used a double negative to say it does not come under the category of real or unreal - sat asat vilakshaNam. > > In this connection, I would request the members to give their views > (?) with regard to the following: > > What is knowledge? This is a fundamental epistemological issue - knowledge is indefinable at least according to adviatic stand point. Knowledge of '....' is normally taken as knowledge itself since it cannot be independently defined without an object associated with it. According to Advaitic position, knowledge of .. is related to the knowledge of an object .. ,and thus knowledge of ' the world', since world is nothing but objects. Pure knowledge is nothing but consciousness which is nothing but the self and hence indefinable. Relative knowledge can be relatively defined and that is the knowledge of the relative world of objects, In addition, existence of objects cannot be analyzed independent of the knowledge of the objects since the existence of objects can only be ascertained by knowledge of its existence by a conscious entity. > What is experience? Experience is the knowledge of the object - manifested through the senses and the mind - assemblage. Hence there is an experiencer and experienced and experiencing - tripura. The knowledge of ones own self is used in the same contextual of self-knowledge but that is not of the type we know of as knowledge of .. since the knower and known and knowing process merge into one as subject of the knowledge and the object of knowledge are one and the same - It is realization or rejection of misunderstanding of oneself. > What is the difference between knowledge and experience? Experience is not knowledge but experience can lead to knowledge if one analyzes the experience. Experience is time-bound but knowledge is eternal. Experience can be contradictory but knowledge cannot. Knowledge can resolves the contradictory experiences. Experience can be contradicted but knowledge cannot be. Relative knowledge is valid in its frame of reference and it can be superseded (not contradicted) by higher knowledge. Knowledge of oneself therefore includes the knowledge of the world too. Sarvabhuutastham aatmaanam sarva bhuutaanicha aatmani - oneself in all and all in one self. Hari OM! Sadananda > > These issues must have already been discussed in the forum. Since I am > quite new, I would request the members to throw some "light". > > What is the exact meaning of “prathyabhigna” appearing in the verse > quoted by Sri Nairji from Dakhsinamoorti Strhotram? > > In my understaning it is “recognitioin” and neither knowledge nor > experience. > > With Hair Om > > Mani > > > Gregory Goode <goode wrote: Sponsor > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > The New with improved product search > > > > > > ------------------------ Sponsor > > 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. The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 Namaste Shri Narayana. Any objection if I replace the last word of your post with 'error'? Recall Sankara's rope-snake simile. PraNAms. Madathil Nair __________________ advaitin, "narayana_kl_71" <narayana_kl_71> wrote: > In as much as its essence is concerned, the world is the Self. > > In as much as its appearance is concerned, the world is the non- Self. > > The essence is essential while the appearance is accidental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2003 Report Share Posted October 12, 2003 Namaste, Sri Sadanandji, and all others, <<<<<<Pure knowledge is nothing but consciousness which is nothing but the self and hence indefinable.>>> etc. etc.>> In “Vedanta Paribhasha” (Dharmaraja Adhavareendra), knowledge is defined as follows: Valid knowledge, if recollection is excluded from it, would mean that knowledge, which has for its object something that is not already known and is uncontradicted (by an experience of a totally opposite nature), And, if recollection is included in it, it means that knowledge which has for its object something that is uncontradicted. The same book further says with reference to means of instruments of knowledge, viz: prathyaksha, anumana, upamana, aagama, arthaapathi and anupalabhdi, “Prathyakhsa” i.e. direct or immediate, refers to the instrument or means of perceptual knowledge, which knowledge according to Vedanta is nothing but Pure Consciousness (Sruti says “yad saakshat aparokshad Brahmaa” i.e. “Brahman, that is immediate and intuitive (aparokhsam).”(Br.III.iv.1) Here it should be rather “Self” that is known through direct/immediate knowledge, because if it is Brahman, for knowing Brahman the means of knowledge is Sastra i.e. Agama (verbal testimony). Does it mean direct knowledge does not involve Tripudi, i.e. knower, object, knowing? Is it because “there is no particular mental vritti, when I know that “I exist”? As per the above definition, experiential knowledge is not necessarily valid knowledge. With this background I request the learned members to kindly clarify the following: Some Teachers say there is no particular experience involved in Self-knowledge, whereas some others say that there is some positive experience i.e. “Self-knowledge involves experience of Bliss of Self”. Experience can result in or lead to valid or not valid knowledge, but can knowledge result in experience? It is also said by many Teachers “Until and unless you experience Atma (i.e. “Atma anubhavam”) you have not realized Atma or Self.” These questions, I think need to be addressed, because many expect something to happen or some special experience etc. on rising of Self-knowledge. Since I am confused on this, I look forward to hearing from the members of the group. Hair Om R.S.Mani kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2003 Report Share Posted October 12, 2003 > Any objection if I replace the last word of your post with 'error'? No objection. However, the process of committing the error has to be accidental or else there is no liberation. Sankara himself says so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2003 Report Share Posted October 12, 2003 --- "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote: > > Namaste, Sri Sadanandji, and all others, > > > > <<<<<<Pure knowledge is nothing but consciousness which is nothing but > the > > self and hence indefinable.>>> etc. etc.>> > > > > In “Vedanta Paribhasha” (Dharmaraja Adhavareendra), knowledge is > defined as follows: > > Valid knowledge, if recollection is excluded from it, would mean that > knowledge, which has for its object something that is not already > known and is uncontradicted (by an experience of a totally opposite > nature), > > And, if recollection is included in it, it means that knowledge which > has for its object something that is uncontradicted. Shree Mani, The definition provided in Vedanta paribhaasha is for pramaaNa - as pramaakaraNam - Prama itself is valid knowledge and valid knowledge is that which cannot be negated. In that very definition we are faced with the problem if the knowledge of the world comes under pramaa or bhramaa - if it is negated then it cannot be pramaa and if it is not negated it can become real and hence contradictory to advaita. Hence the definition can only be taken for the relative knowledge - valid within its realm of operation. If you are interested there is book by "Perceiving in advaita Vedanta" by Professor Bina Gupta - which is actually a commentary on Vedanta Paribhaasha and Paribhaasha Prakaashika of Anantakrishna Sastri. If one looks carefully one has to ultimately come to pure knowledge of which, the sages describe in Upanishads - in response to the question - "kasminno bhagavo vij~naate sarvam idam vij~naatam bhavati' - Hay Bhagavan - please teach me that knowing which all 'this' is known - Hence that knowledge has to be the bottom line of all 'this' knowledge - this standing for all objects and thus the world. Then that knowledge is the only one that is truly non-negatable knowledge in comparison to all 'this' knowledge. Now you can see the definition of V.P can only be for the relative knowledge in terms of pratyaksha, anumaana etc. as pramaaNas since the absolute knowledge which is undefinable is 'aprameyam' no means of knowledge or pramaaNa is required to know oneself - since pramaa, pramaata and prameya all merge into one. 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. The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2003 Report Share Posted October 12, 2003 --- narayana_kl_71 <narayana_kl_71 wrote: > > Any objection if I replace the last word of your post > with 'error'? > > No objection. However, the process of committing the error has to be > accidental or else there is no liberation. Sankara himself says so. Sorry to step in - there is no accidentals in advaita - only incidentals! The error is not accident as per Shankara - it is anirvachaniiyam - in explicable since explanation of the source of error itself is within the realm of the error. All one can say is it is beginningless ignorance is the cause of the error - and leave it with that. The liberation is not accidental either. Someone has to throw a light on the 'snake-rope' object to see the rope and dismiss the snake notion. Similarly inquiry is required for those who are seeing the world as different from oneself along the lines of the scriptures as the pramaaNa - which throws the light to show that the self alone is real and is the substantive even for the projected world. 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. The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2003 Report Share Posted October 12, 2003 Namaste Shri Maniji, You said: " In “Vedanta Paribhasha” (Dharmaraja Adhavareendra), knowledge is defined as follows: Valid knowledge, if recollection is excluded from it, would mean that knowledge, which has for its object something that is not already known and is uncontradicted (by an experience of a totally opposite nature), [.....] “Prathyakhsa” i.e. direct or immediate, refers to the instrument or means of perceptual knowledge, which knowledge according to Vedanta is nothing but Pure Consciousness (Sruti says “yad saakshat aparokshad Brahmaa” i.e. “Brahman, that is immediate and intuitive (aparokhsam).”(Br.III.iv.1) Here it should be rather “Self” that is known through direct/immediate knowledge, because if it is Brahman, for knowing Brahman the means of knowledge is Sastra i.e. Agama (verbal testimony). " I didn't really understand your above statement. Any difference of opinion in the basic equation of advaita (Atman=Brahman)? You said: " Does it mean direct knowledge does not involve Tripudi, i.e. knower, object, knowing? Is it because “there is no particular mental vritti, when I know that “I exist”? As per the above definition, experiential knowledge is not necessarily valid knowledge. " No pramANa is required to know that "I exist". The problem is in the identification of the "I" in "I exist". For that, Agama becomes a pramANa. The "I exist" experience when analyzed using Agama as pramANa results in valid Knowledge. Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Namaste Maniji. My two cents worth of common-sense if it is of any help. How do we know external objects? External objects here imply all phenomena outside the mind and body. We know them through the sense organs and mind. This is called the pramANa of pratyaksha jnAana (perception), which includes the physical and mental effects such knowing produces. Then, there are anumAna (inference), upamAna (comparison), artapatti (postulation), anupalabdhi (non-apprehension) and sabda (verbal testimony). In all these pramANAs, the mind (with all its various faculties included) and the sense organs (where they apply) are the agencies. In all these six pramANAs, a knower, knowing and known are involved. All knowing that takes place thus can be titled under "experiences". For greater details, please refer to Ramji's post 10395 where he has quoted Pujya Sw. Atmanandaji on the six pramANAs. But we know the five senses and the mind, which are the agencies in the taking place of all this knowing. How do we know them? There is something in us that knows them without the aid or agency of anything other than it. Then, why are the mind and sense organs required? Can't that something directly know the phenomenal world known through the pramANAs? In fact, it does know. (The right statement would that it is all this known.). The thought that it doesn't know is ignorance and the cause for our bondage to the tyrannical body and mind. This ignorance will last until the agency of the mind (with all its faculties and ego) and sense organs (body) is done away with. Then, there remains only Self-Knowledge (Self-Evidence) without apparent divisions, which encompasses all the phenomena hithertofore acknowledged as perception, inference, upamAna, artapatti, anupalabdi and shabda. This is the last and absolute pramANa upheld by the scriptures. We bring in agencies like mind and sense organs and separate all perceptions into knower, knowing and known creating the error. That error is the only thing to be removed for us to see the oneness of everything. We are that Oneness. And that is Knowledge. I am here reminded of the story of an avadhUta who inadvertently loitered into the royal garden of a king. The enraged king chopped one of the avadhUtA's hands off. Unaware of the loss of the hand, the avadhUta moved on. The king realized the greatness of the wanderer and ran after him carrying the severed hand and pleading forgiveness. The smiling avadhUta took the hand from the king, fixed it back on his bleeding shoulder and walked away. In the Oneness that he was, the avadhUta of the story himself was the severed hand, the bleeding shoulder, the pain the sword caused, the king, the garden and everything. The pain couldn't naturally hurt the pain. He smiled, therefore. This is what Bh. Ramana once demonstrated by undergoing surgery without anaesthesia. There is only Knowledge. That is my Self-Evidence in which everything apparently seen as separate and distinct exist in complete oneness. The purpose of all talk about different pramANAs in vEdAnta is to drive this point home effectively. One who has REALIZED this, doesn't need eyes, ears, tongue, nose, tactility or the mind because he has freed himself into the freedom that he verily is. Experiences have become Knowledge here. In fact, if our situation is logically analyzed, when experiences are experienced, we are one with them without separation. When the thought of separation (of knower, knowing and known) arises we are one with that thought too. Then, when are we separate? Never! Then, what is all this angst about? The error is non-existent (snake) and the non-existent bothers us all the time! What a pity! When will we see the rope? That is all I have to say about experiences and Knowledge. PraNAms Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > In this connection, I would request the members to give their views (?) with regard to the following: > > What is knowledge? > > What is experience? > > What is the difference between knowledge and experience? > > These issues must have already been discussed in the forum. Since I am quite new, I would request the members to throw some "light". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Namaste, Sri Sadanandji, Sri Nairji, and others To continue the thread on “knowledge” etc., kindly permit me to mention the following: When an Object is in my front what immediate knowledge takes place?: 1) It exists 2) It is capable of being known i.e. knowledge. Other instruments of knowledge, such as anumAna (inference), upamAna (comparison), artapatti (postulation), anupalabdhi (non-apprehension) and sabda (verbal testimony), start operating then and there, and then a vishesha knowledge of the object takes place, i.e. the object is an orange, or a pot, etc. If the object in my front is totally unknown to me or I am totally ignorant about it, then what happens: Then also the immediate knowledge takes place of the same two aspects of the object: 1) It exists, and 2) It is capable of being known i.e. knowledge 3) Plus I am ignorant about other aspects (i.e. other than “it exists” and “it is knowledge”) of the object. Irrespective of the objects, knowledge of these two aspects, i.e. It Exists and It is capable of being known (Asti & Bhati (whether Bhati or Anubhati) takes place immediately the moment an object is in contact with an organ of perception or vice versa, i.e. Swaroopa of all Objects are one and the same and this Swaroopa pervades everything including my own self, because about “i” also the immediate knowledge is “i exist” “i am capable of being known.” When the other instruments of knowledge operate on the Swaropa of an Object, the knowledge of the Tatasta Lakshanas (empirical characteristics) of the objects also takes place, over and above the Swaroopa Lakshnanas. As we see in our day today life Tatasta Lakshanas are subject to change but the Swaroopa never changes. Even when the pot is broken, the existence aspect and knowledge aspect, never changes, although the Tatastha lakshanaas change to broken pieces of pot etc. In the case of “i” though the Swaroopa is always known to me, I am ignorant about its Tatasta Lakshanas and, I make my own conclusions, i.e. I am blind, I am stout, etc. although the blindness and stoutness etc. are just Tatasta Lakshnanas of my body, which again is tatastha lakshanas i.e. which are not permanent and subject to change. Further, being ignorant of the exact nature of the Swaroopa, i.e. “I exist” and the other aspect i.e. “knowledge” I erroneously make conclusions i.e. “i” superimpose the Tatasths lakshana of body etc on “i”, and vice versa, because I have no means of knowing the nature of my swaroopa. It is the Upanishads, i.e. Shabda that tells me “that the existence aspect and knowledge aspect” of all including “i”, is known as “Brahman” and the nature of these aspects is “Infinite” i.e. Anantham, to be more precise Anantham Satyam and Anantham Gnanam, because these two aspects pervade all known and unknown whether present, past an even future, because what is present now was future for the past. So looking at that “i” and all the objects, (aham, idam and eswara), from the standpoint of their Swaroopa, they are all Anantham Satyam and Anantham Gnanam (Infinite Existence and Infinite Knowledge) i.e. being Poornam lack nothing. Since there cannot me many Infinites, they are one and the same. Prakthyaksha means before the Eye, (eye represents all organs of knowledge) and since the organs of knowledge only carry the information about the object, it is mind that gets immediately the knowledge of “existence” and “knowledge” aspects of everything. Since “i” itself is mind, or mind itself is “i” (Ahamkara) the knowledge of “I exist” “I am capable of being known” is “aparoksham” or intuitive, not depending on any organ of knowledge. Therefore, even if there is any special experience on rising of self-knowledge, it is experience of “visesha gnanm” or “tatastha lakshanas” and the expereiencer is also experiencing the same through his/its/her “tatastha lakshanas”. Because Brahman is one without a second. So, for the existence per se and knowledge per se which pervades everything, there is no particular experience necessary, it is just a piece of knowledge but it reveals the Swaroopa of everything known and unknown including the subject. Revealing to who, to the one who does not know about it and who, in the absence of this knowledge, or rather ignorant about it, has erroneously made conclusions about him, others and Eswara, and in spite of the tatastha lakshnanas though there, but being of the nature of changing, he does not worry/suffer/enjoy too much about them, as he knows they will all change. Rather he rests in peace. There is no special experience of Atma as It is “pratibodha viditam matam” It is shining as “Existence and “Knowledge” all the time, when objects are there, in their knowledge as “it exists” “it is knowledge” and in the absence of objects also, in “i” also as “i exists” and “i is knowledge.” I know my lack of communication skill has caused a lot of confusion, but I hope to some extent I have managed to communicate what I wanted to. With Hari Om R.S.Mani Sponsor 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 The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 --- "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote: > To continue the thread on “knowledge” etc., kindly permit me to > mention the following: > > When an Object is in my front what immediate knowledge takes place?: > > 1) It exists > > 2) It is capable of being known i.e. knowledge. > > Other instruments of knowledge, such as anumAna (inference), upamAna > (comparison), artapatti > > (postulation), anupalabdhi (non-apprehension) and sabda (verbal > testimony), start operating then and there, and then a vishesha > knowledge of the object takes place, i.e. the object is an orange, or > a pot, etc. Shree MANI As you wish to continue the thread - let us analyze the process of so called perception of the object. How does the knowledge of the existence of the object really take place? Object by itself has no capacity of being known that it exists? The mechanics of the perception as we understand now is the senses perceive the qualities of the objects - the eyes sees the form and color, ears the sound, tongue the taste etc. All are attributes and not the object per sec. They are qualities of the object, some are inseparable from the object and some are, as you mentioned, incidental qualifications - tatasta lakshaNa-s. Other than the qualities, can the sense the object per sec, that is, the substantive of the object? Senses as maatra-s can only measure and what they measure are only degrees of qualities. Now if we examine further, senses themselves being inert there has to be mind behind the senses and intellect behind the mind and consciousness behind the intellect - for all this perception of qualities of the object to takes place. The mind integrates input from the senses and projects an image of the object in the mental screen and provides the locus of the attributes that were gathered by the senses. Up to now are perception volition and cognition. The image is now compared with images in the memory to see if the qualities - form, color etc. match with stored images. If it does, then we have re-cognition of the object as this is a cow or horse etc. Otherwise, I would say - I see an object out there with these qualities and I do no know what it is - it looks like ... etc. depending upon how closely the attributes match with images stored. If somebody tells that this object that I am seeing but do not know what it is - as some gaagaabuubu, then I now have definite knowledge of the object gaagaabuubu and I store that info. in the memory. If I encounter another object with the similar qualities - I would now re-cognize the object. In repeated perception of similar objects I gather the attributes of all say cows and now I have knowledge of jaati of cows which differs from that of horse etc. Now examine carefully the process, when I say there is cow out there - it is actually there is cow image in my mind with the attributes gathered by my senses to the degree they are accurate. The cow out there is actually cow in my mind. With out these mental process I cannot say there is a cow out there and the mind being supported by consciousness that I am. I see the cow - in the statement both I am seer and the cow seen are both mental images (what advaita calls as vRitti) and I am conscious of both the seer vRitti and seen vRitti since both are in my consciousness. The perception is direct and immediate (aparoksha) only because both are in the consciousness. It is as though the consciousness splits into two seer I and seen object but both are nothing but consciousness itself - hence we have 'antar dRik dRisyayorbhedam bahischa brahma sargayoH|' - the seer-seen distinction in the mind is just the apparent splitting of the consciousness only. Is there an object out there - how do we now - we never really see the object out there really - what we see is only image - in the mind which is in the consciousness - the rest is assumptions which can not be independently verified without consciousness again backing it up. Hence whether the object really there or not is indeterminate problem - or anirvachaniiyam. Actually out the is also a notion, since out there is not perceived and what is there is only 'in there'. Hence concept of time and space are mental projections only. That is the reason why we can fold the whole world when we do deep sleep state. Does the world really exists out there - we can never prove or disprove without consciousness lending its support. That object exists can be only a notion in the mind too. Pratyaksha differs from anumaana in that sense it is immediate and direct. For anumaana and others there is thinking process involved and hence need not be immediate. Shabda pramaaNa operates slightly differently - for those objects other than the self - like there is heaven or hell etc. are just knowledge of their existence with belief that go with them - since shaastras says so and therefore it is so. But when it comes to self-knowledge it is more close to pratyaksha in the sense that is aparoksha anubhuuti - direct and immediate since self is ever existent and immediate. In fact, shaatra uses the words to uplift the mind to see that which is self-evident, but not so for extrovert. Mind needs preparation to recognize the obvious. 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. The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch wrote: Dear Sri Ranjeetji, <<<I didn't really understand your above statement. Any difference of opinion in the basic equation of advaita (Atman=Brahman)?>>> What I wanted to communicate was before exposure to the Upanishads, i.e. before the basic equation is known to one, his knowledge about him was only “I exist” and “I am a conscious being.” with an intellect, mind and body. This is self evident to everyone, even a mad person. However, the Upanishads come and say that this “I” is “Brahman” i.e. Jeeva-brahma aikyam”. This knowledge is not available through “Prathyaksha” and the Pramana for this knowledge is Agaama or Shabda. The basic equation is after taking place of the knowledge of “Jeeva-brahma aikyam”, better still after removal of the conclusions (erroneously) made by the “I” earlier. That is two stages, one before knowledge taking place and the other after knowledge taking place. R.S.Mani The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Sri Sadanandaji, You have very kindly gone into great depth with regard to perception. However, what I wanted to communicate in my earlier mail, is, the following: The first knowledge that takes place in one when any of the organs of the knowledge is in contact with the object is “The object exists” and therefore “The object has the ability of being known to the knower, when the organ of knowledge is in touch with it” Existence or SAT, is Knowledge or CHIT, Both are one and the same and not like two sides of a coin. Once existence (Satta) of a vastu is known, it is also known that the vastu is knowledge i.e. (Chit. simply because it is being known to the knower). So, the immediate or direct knowledge that takes place of any vastu, is the knowledge of Brahman (i.e. Satyam & Gnanam, or Sat & Chit). Though one may not be aware of the word Brahman, and also what sort of Satyam and Gnanam it is,) still the immediate knowledge that takes place of any Vastu is i) It exists, ii) it is being known to the knower. So when something, which I had never seen or even heard of, like gagabuga, is placed before me, the basic knowledge does take place i.e. It Exists, and it is known to me just as a thing. Whether the knower is a child, learned, scholar, and even mad, this knowledge first takes place and on it further knowledge about the vastu’s attributes takes place by the mind’s (memory, etc) backing. It may be said, first, knowledge of Brahman takes place and then the object is “perceived” as such and such after identifying it with its Tattastha Lakshanas, attributes. That is why Brahman is Substratum for known and unknown, etc. I hope I have managed to communicate what I have in mind. Hari Om The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > Sorry to step in - there is no accidentals in advaita - only > incidentals! Creation in advaita is an accident. > The error is not accident as per Shankara - it is anirvachaniiyam - in Sorry to disagree. "anirvachaniyatva" and "being accidental" are not mutually exclusive. Since creation itself is an accident, there is nohthing wrong in saying that the error is accident. > explicable since explanation of the source of error itself is within the > realm of the error. All one can say is it is beginningless ignorance is > the cause of the error - and leave it with that. The liberation is not > accidental either. I did not say that liberation is accidental. In fact, it is inherent. Exactly the opposite of accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Namaste Maniji. As usual, my comments are in brackets. You wrote to Sadaji: > However, what I wanted to communicate in my earlier mail, is, the following: > > The first knowledge that takes place in one when any of the organs of the knowledge is in contact with the object is "The object exists" and therefore "The object has the ability of being known to the knower, when the organ of knowledge is in touch with it" ["I am. Therefore the object is" is safer. The object, as long as it is an object, has no ability of making itself known without the perceiving intelligence.] > Existence or SAT, is Knowledge or CHIT, Both are one and the same and not like two sides of a coin. Once existence (Satta) of a vastu is known, it is also known that the vastu is knowledge i.e. (Chit. simply because it is being known to the knower). [sat and chit are just synonyms. Vastu itself is not knowledge. Vastu with knower and knowing is knowledge. It is all together and cannot be separated. It is Sankara's jAnAmi which we discussed before. Vastu 'anubhati' (shines after) Chit and is made to 'vibhati' (appear) after the bhAti (self-shine) of Chit (Knowledge).] > So, the immediate or direct knowledge that takes place of any vastu, is the knowledge of Brahman (i.e. Satyam & Gnanam, or Sat & Chit). Though one may not be aware of the word Brahman, and also what sort of Satyam and Gnanam it is,) still the immediate knowledge that takes place of any Vastu is i) It exists, ii) it is being known to the knower. [it is being made known to the knower by what? That is Brahman or Consciousness or Chit, which being infinite cannot have an outside. So the vastu is in It *without division*, because the *only One* cannot logically have parts. It is only due to error that we perceive divisions.] > So when something, which I had never seen or even heard of, like gagabuga, is placed before me, the basic knowledge does take place i.e. It Exists, and it is known to me just as a thing. [Yes. The knowing takes place but not independent of the perceiving intelligence. I am. Therefore, Gagabuga is.] > > Whether the knower is a child, learned, scholar, and even mad, this knowledge first takes place and on it further knowledge about the vastu's attributes takes place by the mind's (memory, etc) backing. It may be said, first, knowledge of Brahman takes place and then the object is "perceived" as such and such after identifying it with its Tattastha Lakshanas, attributes. That is why Brahman is Substratum for known and unknown, etc. [Knowledge of Brahman cannot *take place* because It is Knowledge. How can knowledge take place to Knowledge, the one without a second? If knowledge of Brahman takes place, that knowledge again is an object, isn't it? An object is *perceived* by error. The error is also an object when its existence is appreciated. Object and error therefore resolves into Brahman. Both have no independent existence. So, Brahman is knower, knowing and known (like gold in gold ornaments) even during ordinary perceiving and after it ends (like in deep sleep or samAdhi). Please refer to "Vishwam darpanadrishyamAna nagarI tulyam nijAntargatam..." in Shri DakshinAmUrti StOtra. Even the self-evidence that we talk about is an appreciation and, therefore, an object as long as it is appreciated. The point to be remembered is that there is no denying that self-evidence. Neither can we go beyond it. IT IS. However, It cannot be known as It is ineffable and beyond the realm of experience. All the knowing and known (which includes the knower too because we know there is a knower) is because IT IS.] > I hope I have managed to communicate what I have in mind. [Yes. You have. The problem, I perceive, doesn't concern with communication. It is that you are flitting fast between ordinary knowing (with a division of knower, knowing and known) and Knowledge. The former is the latter when the divisions are seen through. I believe I had this mentioned in my post # 19291 of 13th October 2003 in the following statement: "Then, why are the mind and sense organs required? Can't that something directly know the phenomenal world known through the pramANAs? In fact, it does know. (The right statement would be that it is all this known.). The thought that it doesn't know is ignorance and the cause for our bondage to the tyrannical body and mind. This ignorance will last until the agency of the mind (with all its faculties and ego) and sense organs (body) is done away with. Then, there remains only Self-Knowledge (Self-Evidence) without apparent divisions, which encompasses all the phenomena hithertofore acknowledged as perception, inference, upamAna, artapatti, anupalabdi and shabda. This is the last and absolute pramANa upheld by the scriptures."] PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 --- narayana_kl_71 <narayana_kl_71 wrote: > advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda > <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > > > Sorry to step in - there is no accidentals in advaita - only > > incidentals! > > Creation in advaita is an accident. Very Good - we have incidentally agreed to disagree! 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. The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 --- "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote: > > > So when something, which I had never seen or even heard of, like > gagabuga, is placed before me, the basic knowledge does take place > i.e. It Exists, and it is known to me just as a thing. > > Whether the knower is a child, learned, scholar, and even mad, this > knowledge first takes place and on it further knowledge about the > vastu’s attributes takes place by the mind’s (memory, etc) backing. It > may be said, first, knowledge of Brahman takes place and then the > object is “perceived” as such and such after identifying it with its > Tattastha Lakshanas, attributes. That is why Brahman is Substratum for > known and unknown, etc. > > I hope I have managed to communicate what I have in mind. > > Hari Om Shree Mani - You have addressed some of the epistemological issues. What you have described at the two-stage process in the knowledge - what taarkika-s call it as nirvikalpa and vikalpa stages. Vedantins have defined these two stages differently. Advaita follows to some extent these operating definitions while recognizing correctly that qualities are not real and substantive cannot be perceived since it is not an object. Dvaitins provide a useless definition - yathaartham pramaaNam - which is absolutely right, but trivial, and therefore useless - since we need another validation means to validate the knowledge as valid or invalid and thus leading to infinite regress, or axiomatically declare that the validation is by a subjective saakshii - which is again useless for objective knowledge. The point is yes, various theories are there for these two apparent stages of knowing process and the best is anirvachaniiya khyaati, if one understands it correctly, in spite of our friend Jay N.'s criticism of it due to his refusal to understand it correclty but ready to misinterpret it as usual with his style of criticismm of advaita. Looks like he is back in the list to continue his misinterpretation of advaita! 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. The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 Dear Shri Mani, I was struck by your phrase "first knowledge". It has a double meaning, which has set me thinking ... R.S.Mani wrote on Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:05:02: >The first knowledge that takes place in one when any of the organs of >the knowledge is in contact with the object is >"The object exists" and therefore "The object has the ability of being >known to the knower, when the organ of knowledge is in touch with it" What's here called "first knowledge" is perception. This is an action carried out by a sense organ, so as to produce an appearance of some object in the mind. But, such a sensual action is not really knowledge. It is only the creation of a form, like the drawing of a picture on a piece of paper or on a video screen. Each perception merely draws a sensual and mental picture, which in itself does not amount to knowledge. In order to know what is perceived, the picture has to be interpreted and understood. By interpreting the picture's meaning, it is taken into an understanding that continues in the background, beneath the changing appearances that come and go at the surface of the mind. It is only thus, through interpretation and understanding, that a perceived appearance is taken into lasting knowledge. In order to know anything, its perception must be taken in to an underlying consciousness, which continues underneath the changing show of superficial mind. It's only there, beneath appearances, that anything is genuinely known. But there, no sense organs form perceived appearances, no mind conceives of thought or felt appearances. All knowing is there purely silent and completely undistracted by appearances that clamour for attention.. At the surface, whatever may appear has somehow shouted louder than its competitors. This is our perception of apparent objects. As you point out, we assume it to be a "first knowledge", which we initially receive for further consideration. But it turns out that this assumption is a mistake. The reception here is by our senses and our minds. What they initially receive is just a superficial show, of their own outward acts. All that seems knowledge in this show depends on make-believe, which needs examining more carefully. Further consideration leads elsewhere, beneath the show and all of its constructing acts. What then is found beneath the show? In order to find out, one has to go down oneself -- beneath all mind-conceived assumptions -- to what you describe as "immediate or direct knowledge". Seen in itself, it is that knowledge which in truth comes first, before the mind can start assuming or conceiving. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 Namaste, Sri Ananda said: "It is only thus, through interpretation and understanding, that a perceived appearance is taken into lasting knowledge. In order to know anything, its perception must be taken in to an underlying consciousness, which continues underneath the changing show of superficial mind. It's only there, beneath appearances, that anything is genuinely known. But there, no sense organs form perceived appearances, no mind conceives of thought or felt appearances. All knowing is there purely silent and completely undistracted by appearances that clamour for attention..." This is a bit off-topic, but I just want to comment that this sounds strikingly similar to the Greek philosopher Plato, insofar as I understand him. As you probably know, Plato had an immense influence on the West. And I am inclined to believe that he somehow got much of his inspiration from India. We don't need to discuss this here, but I just wanted to add this footnote to our discussion. The issue of knowledge above and beyond mere perception is quite interesting, and it is something that empiricists often fail to acknowledge. I broached the topic earlier, when I discussed the mysterious 'unity' to perception that goes beyond the mere 'pixels' of perception. And of course, the mere mention of the word 'unity' is highly suggestive as far as Advaita is concerned... Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2003 Report Share Posted October 15, 2003 --- Ananda Wood <awood wrote: > R.S.Mani wrote on Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:05:02: > > >The first knowledge that takes place in one when any of the organs of > >the knowledge is in contact with the object is > > >"The object exists" and therefore "The object has the ability of > being > >known to the knower, when the organ of knowledge is in touch with it" > > What's here called "first knowledge" is perception. This is an action > carried out by a > sense organ, so as to produce an appearance of some object in the > mind. But, such a > sensual action is not really knowledge. It is only the creation of a > form, like the > drawing of a picture on a piece of paper or on a video screen. > > Each perception merely draws a sensual and mental picture, which in > itself does not amount > to knowledge. In order to know what is perceived, the picture has to > be interpreted and > understood. By interpreting the picture's meaning, it is taken into an > understanding that > continues in the background, beneath the changing appearances that > come and go at the > surface of the mind. Shree Ananda You have raised some very important issues that are least understood. What you call the early perception of the image in the mind - also takes place in the presence of the consciousness illuminating or activating the mind and the senses - obviously senses and the mind -imaging cannot occur in deep sleep. Up to the process of the mental imaging of the so-called object 'out there', there is cognition of the image in the mind ,by the mind, that takes place with the imaging process itself - that image is not just the form and color but with superimposition of all other inputs from the other sense relating to the attributes of the object. The sense input obviously depends on their discriminative capacities that come with training and of course degrades due to age. Cognition of the image itself is what Shree Mani calls as first knowledge of the object -Nyaya Vaisheshika-s call this as nirvikalpa stage and involves knowledge that there is an object out there. This part is slightly different from the image projected from the memory without having an object out there. 'asti', bhaati - or it exists and it is illumined, occurs with the seeing of the image in the mind as part of perception - and that is direct and immediate (aparoksha). Cognition of the image itself is called vRitti – a mental process. Further thoughts about the image constitutes additional vritti- s . There is ‘idam’ vRitti and ‘ aham’ vRitti – that goes with the image and I am the seer of the image. ‘Seer thought’ and ‘seen thought’ both arises in the cognition process. – both constituting the mind and both are illumined by consciousness . Knowledge that you discuss is the interpretation of the mind using images stored previously and interpreting the current image in the background of previous images – and that is how the subsequent knowledge takes place. Those who have lost their memory due to accident, will have no recollection of the past- the secondary process have to takes place slowly. This is where vikalpa or thinking takes place along with perception. The fact is it is true that without the mind and the senses with the back of consciousness behind, the perception of the world does not occur and existence of the world cannot be established independent of the mind. Whether world or objects exists or not without the mind activating the sense input is an indeterminate problem and hence is anirvachaniiyam - not that Advaitin does not know how to explain it, as our dvaitin friend Jay N. resorted to, but it cannot be explained either without the mind present! It becomes mind explaining the mind. Problem is an invalid problem, and any notions about it, other than that it is indeterminate problem, are themselves invalid - including so called idealistic view! One can have operational definitions without worrying deeply at transactional level - and that constitutes vyavahaara level. Hari OM! Sadananda > > It is only thus, through interpretation and understanding, that a > perceived appearance is > taken into lasting knowledge. In principle there cannoot be lasting knowledge in the relative world - since the interpretation can keep changing as one acquires more knowlege about the world and there is no end for that continously evolving interpretaions - Hence we have super specializations in any field. Hari OM! Sadananda > Ananda > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. The New with improved product search 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.