accentuate the counterpositive

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji.

 

Well, the substratum is, the coupling is. The same applies to the

uncoupling. Uncoupling is possible only in reference to relative

reality (silver here). With the Absolute, everything - nacre as well

as silver - is absolutely coupled.

 

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

>

> The alternative to this is the acceptance of

> appearance as ontological (ontos/being Gk.) and thus

> we would get what for Advaita was a bad result viz.

> that for the duration of the appearance this is

> 'silver' or what you see is what it is and then after

> our bemusement is lifted it *is* nacre. Reality is

> referenced to a substratum but sometimes that

> connection can be uncoupled.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji and Madathilji,

The doubt concerns the

ontological status of what exists during the time

that the confusion holds sway i.e. silver for nacre.

I use ontological in the very general sense of a

theory of what exists. A discussion about such

status can only take place after the confusion has

been cleared. The 'counterpositive' is an

interesting and unusual concept and given that the

V.P. is a very succint and pared down account of the

means of knowledge we must ask why it is being

introduced at this point as a nod to that frugal

Franciscan Ockham.

 

In the consideration of erroneous perception I think

that people focus overmuch on the illusion/appearance

side rather than on the structure which this common

occurance displays. The theory of superimposition on

a substratum ought to be central. It is the

misdirection of attention that causes the objector in

V.P. pg.61 to say:

 

"If we admit an illusory existence for the silver

during the time that a nacre appears as that, there

would be no (subsequent) knowledge of its negation

for all time - past present and future - in the form,

"It is not silver" but it should be of the form "Now

it is not silver," like, "Now the jar is not black".

 

My interpretation of this is that if you focus on

appearance as the ontological source of reality then

you can only claim that it is not silver while it is

not appearing as silver.

 

The advaitic reply to this switches the focus to the

substratum. The substratum of the appearance is not

silver but nacre and the force of the illusion comes

from the existence of conventionally existing silver

in other words the counterpositive of the illusion.

Thus the ontological consideration of what is real

and what is illusory is referred to the substratum.

This might perhaps be seen as the link between the

vyavaharika and the paramarthika. As the individual

elements within the relative are coupled to a

substratum so the relative as a whole has the absolute

as substratum. Broad brush!

 

In his note (3)on page 62 Swami Madhvananda

paraphrasing the tangled text of Adhvarindra - "It is

not illusory silver that has conventional

reality".... for illusory silver never posseses

conventional reality like a jar or cloth, being

ascertained to be false even during the relative

state of existence. A jar or cloth lacks the

absolute reality of Brahman, but it posseses reality

in the popular acceptance of the term, inasmuch as it

persists till realisation. Dreams, illusions etc.,

are of a much flimsier character, for they are

dispelled as soon as a person gets out of those

states."

 

I don't think that we are in strict disagreement on

this issue, my original note glided over the varying

intensities of the real so to speak. What you write

about Plato and the Pre-Socratics is interesting and

they would have perhaps agreed with Advaita in

regarding the changeful as deficent in reality

because it both is and it isn't.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

namaskaar michael ji,

you said--

Reality is referenced to a substratum but sometimes that

connection can be uncoupled.

 

every thing has a substratum, soil being the subsratum of pot, iron

being the substratum of a vessel. if one uncouples the connection

between soil and a pot even the pot would not exist. pot is also the

soil but due to a definite shape it is called pot & not soil. the

same soil is given a new shape say, a toy & now the same soil is

called a toy but, it's still the same soil. the substratum(soil) is

the pot, soil is the toy. in the same way, whatever shape brahman

(substratum) takes, it is brahman & the moment one uncouples the

reaction between the world and reality, then there would be no world

which one takes to be the truth.

 

with respect,

gautam.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji,

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

> I don't think that we are in strict disagreement on

> this issue, my original note glided over the varying

> intensities of the real so to speak. What you write

> about Plato and the Pre-Socratics is interesting and

> they would have perhaps agreed with Advaita in

> regarding the changeful as deficent in reality

> because it both is and it isn't.

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

Parmanedis, the Eleatic, was an Advaitin, and his "Way of Truth"

and "The Way of Seeming" are the parallels of Sri Shankaracharya's

paramarthika sathya and vyavaharika sathya. The same theme occurs in

Plato's analogy of Shadows in the Cave (Republic). It is astonishing

how much is the same in the Socratic dialogues of Plato and in

Advaita.

 

It was soon after I read the Upanishads, the Geeta, and Sri

Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya, that Plato came my way. Therefore, I

can say that I began my philosophical journey by reading the Prastana

Traya with Plato as the fourth. I wonder if it was just a coincidence.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan