Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 At 04:51 AM 7/6/2004 -0700, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote: >--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: > >> >> To Shri Michaelji, >> The word 'sublate' >> > is drawn from Hegel's Logic and having been first introduced >> > by Radhakrishnan is now customary. "To sublate" is an English equivalent of the German "aufheben." If something is sublated, then in German it is "aufgehoben." Other meanings of "aufheben" include "to raise something to a higher level," or simply, "to lift." Both Hegel and Marx use it to help illustrate what happens in their versions of dialecticalism. A particular movement or stage in the dialectic is accounted for by a new stage that supercedes the old stage. In my opinion about sublation in advaita vedanta, sublation is not a dialectical world-historical event as it is in Hegel and Marx. And it is not exactly the same as negation either. Instead, it's more a biographical thing. I take sublation to refer to the stages in the understanding of a particular aspirant. One stage of his understanding gets unseated or sublated by a more sophisticated stage. This happens in learning generally, as people grow and mature. This can be seen in terms of teaching models. A given model is unseated by another, which answers all the student's questions that the first model did, while avoiding some elements that have started to seem like difficulties to the student. Here would be an example: 1. At first the aspirant sees the world in terms of, say, a model in which God is the author and creator of everything. This is how the world seems to him. It answers his questions about where things come from and how the world was originated. He feels peaceful about that. And this model is also reinforced by certain teachings he receives. 2. But after a while, he starts questioning the model itself. "But where did *God* come from? Didn't God have a creator? Exactly how does God do the creating? Where do things go which seem to disappear?" The model itself starts to make less sense to him. 3. Then he might encounter a teaching that explains the same set of observable phenomena in terms of *emanation*, not *creation*. This model is more subtle. It accounts for the same range of phenomena, PLUS avoids the problems in the first model. So it has sublated the first model, as far as the student goes. For example: In this new model for example, God is not an author or an agent, he is more the sum and substance of things. Various features of his constitution combine in different ways by a spontaneous process going from the subtle to the gross, and the world appears. It is more like a process of the thin becoming thick than creation out of nothing. Think of the Panchikarana or quintuplication model here. And for a while, this new view has sublated the old, and becomes the way the student experiences the world. He can see many examples of emanation in science and art, and these serve as reinforcing metaphors for the overall teaching itself. 4. But then the student's questioning impulses might begin to go places that the Panchikarana model is not designed to explain. He might begin to wonder how perception relates to the things perceived. The Panchikarana model doesn't really say too much about this. So then with more study and a skillful teacher, the student might encounter the model in which creation and perception occur simultaneously, as in the dRshTi-sRshTi vAda. This focuses on the relation between perception and things, and does not contain an element of a creative emanation or agent. By this time, the student does not require those elements for his equilibrium - indeed, his questions are now pointing elsewhere. Etc. Each model, or theory, or way of experiencing the world accounts for the things that the student expects an explanation for. When *new* questions arise that the model is not so well suited for, advaita vedanta has another, more sophisticated model. When the student encounters this new model in a thoughtful way, he'll say *YES*, THAT'S IT! Therein lies the sublation! --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Ad hoc words like 'sublate' give philosophy a bad repuation. On the other hand, all language is illusory and arbitrary to some extent. Eliot Deutsch, in his famous book on Advaita, uses 'subrate'. That's right! 'SubRate' Talk about splitting hairs! 'Substance' is another bad word. Benjamin advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > At 04:51 AM 7/6/2004 -0700, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote: > >--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > > >> > >> To Shri Michaelji, > >> The word 'sublate' > >> > is drawn from Hegel's Logic and having been first introduced > >> > by Radhakrishnan is now customary. > > "To sublate" is an English equivalent of the German "aufheben." If something is sublated, then in German it is "aufgehoben." Other meanings of "aufheben" include "to raise something to a higher level," or simply, "to lift." Both Hegel and Marx use it to help illustrate what happens in their versions of dialecticalism. A particular movement or stage in the dialectic is accounted for by a new stage that supercedes the old stage. > > In my opinion about sublation in advaita vedanta, sublation is not a dialectical world- historical event as it is in Hegel and Marx. And it is not exactly the same as negation either. Instead, it's more a biographical thing. I take sublation to refer to the stages in the understanding of a particular aspirant. One stage of his understanding gets unseated or sublated by a more sophisticated stage. This happens in learning generally, as people grow and mature. > > This can be seen in terms of teaching models. A given model is unseated by another, which answers all the student's questions that the first model did, while avoiding some elements that have started to seem like difficulties to the student. Here would be an example: > > 1. At first the aspirant sees the world in terms of, say, a model in which God is the author and creator of everything. This is how the world seems to him. It answers his questions about where things come from and how the world was originated. He feels peaceful about that. And this model is also reinforced by certain teachings he receives. > > 2. But after a while, he starts questioning the model itself. "But where did *God* come from? Didn't God have a creator? Exactly how does God do the creating? Where do things go which seem to disappear?" The model itself starts to make less sense to him. > > 3. Then he might encounter a teaching that explains the same set of observable phenomena in terms of *emanation*, not *creation*. This model is more subtle. It accounts for the same range of phenomena, PLUS avoids the problems in the first model. So it has sublated the first model, as far as the student goes. For example: In this new model for example, God is not an author or an agent, he is more the sum and substance of things. Various features of his constitution combine in different ways by a spontaneous process going from the subtle to the gross, and the world appears. It is more like a process of the thin becoming thick than creation out of nothing. Think of the Panchikarana or quintuplication model here. And for a while, this new view has sublated the old, and becomes the way the student experiences the world. He can see many examples of emanation in science and art, and these serve as reinforcing metaphors for the overall teaching itself. > > 4. But then the student's questioning impulses might begin to go places that the Panchikarana model is not designed to explain. He might begin to wonder how perception relates to the things perceived. The Panchikarana model doesn't really say too much about this. So then with more study and a skillful teacher, the student might encounter the model in which creation and perception occur simultaneously, as in the dRshTi-sRshTi vAda. This focuses on the relation between perception and things, and does not contain an element of a creative emanation or agent. By this time, the student does not require those elements for his equilibrium - indeed, his questions are now pointing elsewhere. > > Etc. > > Each model, or theory, or way of experiencing the world accounts for the things that the student expects an explanation for. When *new* questions arise that the model is not so well suited for, advaita vedanta has another, more sophisticated model. When the student encounters this new model in a thoughtful way, he'll say *YES*, THAT'S IT! Therein lies the sublation! > > --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 At 01:51 PM 7/6/2004 +0000, Benjamin wrote: >Ad hoc words like 'sublate' give philosophy a bad repuation. >On the other hand, all language is illusory and arbitrary >to some extent. ===And which words are not ad hoc? Unless you to the theory that the actual words of the vedas are what created the universe?? --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 --- Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > > Each model, or theory, or way of experiencing the world accounts for > the things that the student expects an explanation for. When *new* > questions arise that the model is not so well suited for, advaita > vedanta has another, more sophisticated model. When the student > encounters this new model in a thoughtful way, he'll say *YES*, THAT'S > IT! Therein lies the sublation! > > --Greg Yes Greg the process you have described in way is what is described in a way as adhyaaropa-apavaada, in trying to account bheda and abheda statements of the scriptures. May be we have to use the words sublation-assertion process - in the evolution of the knowledge of the truth. PS. I have already exceeded my quota of mails for today but aditiji thinks I am exempt from the quota requirement - May be this another kind of sublation! Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort. Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Namaste Shri Greg-ji and Shri Sadanandaji, Your explanations have brought out the meanings of 'sublation' and 'adhyaropa apavada' in a way that appeal to my heart as well as intellect. Thank you. Warm regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > --- Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > > > > > Each model, or theory, or way of experiencing the world accounts for > > the things that the student expects an explanation for. When *new* > > questions arise that the model is not so well suited for, advaita > > vedanta has another, more sophisticated model. When the student > > encounters this new model in a thoughtful way, he'll say *YES*, THAT'S > > IT! Therein lies the sublation! > > > > --Greg > > Yes Greg the process you have described in way is what is described in a > way as adhyaaropa-apavaada, in trying to account bheda and abheda > statements of the scriptures. May be we have to use the words > sublation-assertion process - in the evolution of the knowledge of the > truth. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Thank you! --Greg At 06:32 PM 7/6/2004 +0000, Chittaranjan Naik wrote: >Namaste Shri Greg-ji and Shri Sadanandaji, > >Your explanations have brought out the meanings of 'sublation' >and 'adhyaropa apavada' in a way that appeal to my heart as well as >intellect. Thank you. > >Warm regards, >Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Namaste, This is the 'dictionary' view! Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary One entry found for sublate. Main Entry: sub·late Pronunciation: "s&-'blAt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): sub·lat·ed; sub·lat·ing Etymology: Latin sublatus (pp. of tollere to take away, lift up), from sub- up + latus, past participle of ferre to carry -- more at SUB-, TOLERATE, BEAR 1 : NEGATE, DENY 2 : to negate or eliminate (as an element in a dialectic process) but preserve as a partial element in a synthesis - sub·la·tion /-'blA-sh&n/ noun Regards, Sunder advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > --- Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > > > > > Each model, or theory, or way of experiencing the world accounts for > > the things that the student expects an explanation for. When *new* > > questions arise that the model is not so well suited for, advaita > > vedanta has another, more sophisticated model. When the student > > encounters this new model in a thoughtful way, he'll say *YES*, THAT'S > > IT! Therein lies the sublation! > > > > --Greg > > Yes Greg the process you have described in way is what is described in a > way as adhyaaropa-apavaada, in trying to account bheda and abheda > statements of the scriptures. May be we have to use the words > sublation-assertion process - in the evolution of the knowledge of the > truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 At 06:46 PM 7/6/2004 +0000, Sunder Hattangadi wrote: >Namaste, > > This is the 'dictionary' view! ===It would be interesting to see the history of this word in English. The OED gives this where they can... --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Namaste Sadanandaji, sublation as the process of drawing under a higher and more comprehensive view brings in I think a slight distortion to what actually happens. Consider this (from memory) Is this a dagger which I see before me Its handle towards my hand I have thee not and yet I see thee still Art thou but a dagger of the mind Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain? Macbeth's visual sense tells him that there is a dagger but when he tries to grasp it he clutches thin air. One sense cancels out the other. Evidence at the same level is brought into play, there is no move to a higher comprehension. The judgment that is made is only a form of words that underlines what is a direct intuition by the senses plus a background realisation of one's impaired judgment. The Zen story has it: The head monk selecting a successor puts a pitcher of water on the ground and asks the assembled monks to tell what that is without naming it. A clever monk says - Well it isn't a wooden shoe anyway (negative definition) The cook stretches out his foot and knocks it over. He gets the job. My understanding of this is that the cook has 'told' us that it is a container without having to express a judgment. Similarily with the process of sublation in many perceptual cases. Taken under advisement 'sublation' is useful. Bernard Lonergan the Canadian Theologian/Philosopher (Insight) uses it in connection with the phenomenon of insight. As long as we are not led by the nose. The technical word 'veridical' is used for not illusory or sense-perception of things as they are. I suppose that all words used in a philosophical system become a jargon and have reference within that system which is fine as long as we understand what they are getting at. I'm fine with 'sublation'. It's certainly more elegant than 'subration' Best Wishes, Michael. 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.