Name and Form

[Guest guest]

Dear Group Members,

First I offer my salutations to all the group members. Just now I

joined your group, and I want to get some doubts clarified. It may be

that u must have had this question earlier in this group; If so, please

pardon me and redirect me to the link.

 

My doubt is this:

 

Generally, it is said, the Name and Form are one and the same. But,

How? The word "Table" is not at all equal to the Object "Table".

Suppose someone wants to buy some item in the shop. Will the buyer

accept if the shop-keeper just utters the word, instead of delivering

the product to him?

 

Please explain in detail.

Thanks and namaste,

Naren.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "viswa_nath_2005"

<viswa_nath_2005> wrote:

>

>>

> My doubt is this:

>

> Generally, it is said, the Name and Form are one and the same. But,

> How? The word "Table" is not at all equal to the Object "Table".

> Suppose someone wants to buy some item in the shop. Will the buyer

> accept if the shop-keeper just utters the word, instead of

delivering

> the product to him?

>

> Please explain in detail.

> Thanks and namaste,

> Naren.

>

 

Namaste, Naren-ji, Welcome to the Group

 

In Hindu Religious tradition, the name of God is so important that

the name has been identified with God. Your explanation of 'name'

and 'form' is only on the mundane plane. On the spiritual plane, the

name can do a lot of havoc as well as good. Try repeating nasty words

for 24 hours and see what effect it does to your mind. On the other

hand try 'doing' noble things for 24 hours and see what effect it has

on your mind. To get the same good effect by reciting just names of

God for 24 hours, a little maturity is necessary on the part of the

spiritual aspirant.

 

Well, instead of my writing a big essay on this topic, may I recommend

you to the following web-page:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/1206.html

entitled "How can mere repetition of words have so much spiritual

power?"

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

"Why there is nobody home"

 

-Illusion of the Individual

 

Consciousness is all there is. This means that there is really neither creation

nor dissolution. The individual as an independent autonomous entity being in

charge of his life is the primary illusion in the illusion that life and living

is. If you are prepared to accept this primary truth, there can be no more

questions left to answer. Whatever questions remain must necessarily remain in

the illusory dream world.

 

 

 

And it is in this context of the dream character in the dream world that the

illusory individual seeker, suffering illusory bondage, seeks illusory

individual realization. Telling him that he simply does not exist only adds

insult to the injury of his suffering. The illusory individual entity believes

that Self-realization means freedom from bondage.

 

 

 

A true jnani, out of compassion, finds it necessary to admit that in his case

total understanding has indeed happened, and that he would discuss the matter

with the illusory. All this, while the true jnani is fully aware that the very

essence of Self-realization is the realization that there is no one to awaken,

that there is in fact no separate individual. The final pronouncement "there is

nobody home" is suffused with meaning. The fact is not that there is no one to

awaken, but that there really is no separate individual. The state of

Self-realization begins perhaps with the state of the Stitha-pragnya in the

Bhagavad Gita, the state in which the true jnani lives the rest of his life in

the world.

 

 

>From the perspective of daily living the jnani tells the seeker that there is in

deed a concept which, if totally accepted, would relieve him of his suffering

based on his belief that everyone is the doer of his actions.

 

 

 

The Buddha said "Events happen, deeds are done, consequences happen but there is

no individual doer of any deed". Everything that happens in life is according to

God's will or according to a Cosmic Law, the basis of which, because of its

vastness and complexity; no human being could ever understand and not the deed

done by any individual doer. How each happening affects who, for better or

worse, would be according to the same Cosmic Law?

 

 

 

So if you are hurt, it is not because someone has hurt you, it is a happening

that has hurt you because it was supposed to hurt you according to Cosmic Law.

It is totally irrelevant through which person, through which body-mind organism

the happening happened.

 

 

 

The total acceptance of this concept and not merely an intellectual acceptance

relieve the seeker of the entire load of guilt and shame for his own actions

which might have hurt the other and the load of hatred for the other for what

the other has done to hurt him. The absence of this load of hatred for himself

and for the other means at once the presence of the peace and harmony which is

what the seeker has really been seeking, whether he was aware of it or not.

 

 

 

There is no question of any disciplinary effort to be made to achieve anything.

The final truth remains that there never was a creation or dissolution. And the

realized one is ever aware of this.

 

- Ramesh S. Baleskar

 

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins,

 

The best authority amongst us to answer this question of nAma-rUpA is

our indomitable Chiittaranjanji. He has touched on this topic in his

brilliant reply to Dr. Morales captioned "The Sword of Kali" at www.

boloji.com. Please peruse this link:

 

http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101c.htm

 

Please read the entire essay if possible.

 

I wanted to write to Chittaranjanji about how much I enjoyed the way

he demolished Dr. Morales. I couldn't do that in time due to several

pressing preoccupations. The best I can now do is to request all of

you to read the essay in full. That would be a fitting tribute to

our learned friend and also enlighten us on the subtle relationship

between or sameness of name and form.

 

PraNAms to all.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Nair-ji,

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> The best authority amongst us to answer this question of

> nAma-rUpA is our indomitable Chiittaranjanji. He has touched

> on this topic in his brilliant reply to Dr. Morales captioned

> "The Sword of Kali" at www. boloji.com. Please peruse this link:

>

> http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101c.htm

 

 

I am deeply indebted to you Nair-ji for drawing the attention of list-

members to the article 'The Sword of Kali', but I do not believe that

I am deserving of the words of praise you confer on me. The genesis

of the article is rather peculiar - it was not something I had

planned to write; it was something that suddenly burst in on me in

the month of June 2005 forcing me to lay aside all other plans and

undertake a rebuttal of Dr.Morales' article. 'The Sword of Kali' is

also available (in its original format) at the following site:

 

http://swamij.com/sword-kali.htm

 

Thank you.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Nair-ji,

>

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair> wrote:

>

> > The best authority amongst us to answer this question of

> > nAma-rUpA is our indomitable Chiittaranjanji. He has touched

> > on this topic in his brilliant reply to Dr. Morales captioned

> > "The Sword of Kali" at www. boloji.com. Please peruse this link:

> >

> > http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101c.htm

>

>

> I am deeply indebted to you Nair-ji for drawing the attention of

list-

> members to the article 'The Sword of Kali', but I do not believe

that

> I am deserving of the words of praise you confer on me.

 

Namaste, Chittaranjan-ji

 

Please don't be too modest about it. I just read the article on the

suggestion of Nair-ji. It is a wonderful symphony of Hindu Dharma,

Vedanta and principles of Nyaya -- all in the strict language of

Philosophy in inimitable English. I liked it very much, not only

because of the undercurrent of inspiration it obviously had, but

because it has given me some new insights into what I thought I knew

already. May God bless you and may you continue to serve the cause

of Hindu Thought for a long time to come!

 

And we, the members of this list should all thank Madathil Nair-ji

for bringing to light this delightful article.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Chittaranjan-Ji:

 

I really enjoyed reading the articles.

 

I think the operative key word is "svadhrma" to maintain the balance

in vyaarakia as well as paramaarthica and not being able to

integrate the two we have suffered and will continue to do so.

IMHO – the success is in the reorganization of this.

 

Thank you Madathil-Ji for discovering the Chittaranjan-Ji's article

for the list.

 

Hari OM

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Nair-ji,

>

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

> <madathilnair> wrote:

>

> > The best authority amongst us to answer this question of

> > nAma-rUpA is our indomitable Chiittaranjanji. He has touched

> > on this topic in his brilliant reply to Dr. Morales captioned

> > "The Sword of Kali" at www. boloji.com. Please peruse this link:

> >

> > http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/101c.htm

>

> >

> http://swamij.com/sword-kali.htm

>

> Thank you.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

[Guest guest]

Yes! CHITTA! You are too 'humble' - the hallmark of a great Sadhaka !

Professor-ji is 100% right - It is a Brilliant ESSAY and we are

thankful to Dr.Morales for bringing out the 'best' in you.

Sometimes , it appears like Devi Saraswati Herself is speaking

through you ! They say 'pen is mighter than the sword' but 'your pen

is as powerful as Kali's sword' - for slaying the 'ego' of

intellectuals like Dr. Frank Morales who dare to attack Great Saints

like Sri Ramakrishna without an in depth study ! Another person who

has joined this brigade of critics OF HINDU SAINTS is none other than

MS. Wendy Doniggar!

 

Chitta, as you know my Gurudeva is from the Sri Ramakrishna lineage -

He attained 'samadhi' on Kali puja during Deepavali a few years ago .

His 'tithi' Falls on Tuesday of next week ! I wish i could share this

wonderful passage from that article with My gurudeva - He would be so

happy to read these Nectarean words ... WOW!

 

Please Read on ...

 

Ramakrishna and the Irruption of Hindu Universalism

 

In his attempt to negate Radical Universalism, Dr. Morales also

degrades and belittles the Hindu saint, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa,

who was perhaps the greatest living proof of Hindu Universalism.

 

......

 

Throughout his remarkable life, Ramakrishna remained illiterate, and

wholly unfamiliar with both classical Hindu literature and

philosophy, and the authentic teachings of the great acharyas who

served as the guardians of those sacred teachings. Despite the

severely obvious challenges that he experienced in understanding

Hindu theology, playing upon the en vogue sentiment of religious

universalism of his day, Ramakrishna ended up being one of the most

widely popular of neo-Hindu Radical Universalists.

 

These are careless words. Do we recognize whom we are here sitting in

judgment over? Which pole of the paradox that was Sri Ramakrishna are

we speaking of? Is it of the Ramakrishna that was nothing but a flute

through which Reality poured forth its Divine Music? Or is it of the

Living Reality that filled the mortal frame through and through till

there was nothing here but the Life of the Universe pulsating in the

frame?

 

Do we recognise that there was no Ramakrishna, the man? That there

was only Sri Ramakrishna, the artless child, and Sri Ramakrishna, the

Unfathomable Reality?

 

This is Living Waters, not the arid desert of academy! The future of

Hinduism is not determined by academic papers, but by the living

founts of its living saints!

 

Religion is not archaeology; it is Life. The saint of Dakshineswar

was not just a man; he was an irruption of epiphany into the flowing

waters of Hinduism!

 

Did someone say that Sri Ramakrishna was not familiar with the

authentic teachings of the great Acharyas? The authentic Self needs

no teachings! It is the Reality that is spoken of in the Vedas! Have

we not heard of the doctrine of Pratyabhijna? Sri Ramakrishna

recognized within his Self what others strive to learn from without!

 

This world has come out of the Self; where shall ye find its truth if

not in the recognition of Self? The Self is all this. Saints like

Ramakrishna are not influenced from outside; they recognise each

thing outside as the play of Eternity inside!

 

The play of Eternity is Kaala, Time! She is Kali who moves it; She is

Eternity moving. She it was that filled Sri Ramakrishna!

 

Does anyone still say that Sri Ramakrishna was unfamiliar with the

authentic teachings of Hindu religion? With what authority do we

impugn the very life of Hindu religion? Are we blind to the fact that

this child of God, this illiterate rustic from an unknown Indian

village, was a blaze of jnyana-shakti that reduced great Hindu

scholars into the likes of kindergarten students? Have we not heard

of his meetings with Pundit Ishwara Chandra Vidyasagar and Pundit

Shashadhar? The child of Kali might have been a simple and artless

person, but the discriminative Sword of Kali never failed him. From

where indeed did words like these arise in Sri Ramakrishna:

 

"No one can say that God is only `this' and nothing else. He is

formless, and again He has forms. For the bhakta, He assumes forms.

But He is formless for the jnani, that is, for him who looks on the

world as a mere dream. The bhakta feels that he is one entity and the

world another. Therefore God reveals Himself to him as a Person. But

the jnani – the Vedantist, for instance – always reasons, applying

the process of `not this, not this'. Through his discrimination he

realizes, by his inner perception, that the ego and the universe are

both illusory, like a dream. Then the jnani realizes Brahman in his

own consciousness. He cannot describe what Brahman is.

 

"Do you know what I mean? Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss

Absolute, as a shoreless ocean. Through the cooling influence, as it

were, of the bhakta'a love, the water has frozen at places into

blocks of ice. In other words, God now and then assumes various forms

for His lovers and reveals Himself to them as a Person. But with the

rising of the sun of Knowledge, the blocks of ice melt. Then one

doesn't feel anymore that God is a Person, nor does one see God's

forms. What He is cannot be described. Who will describe Him? He who

would do so disappears. He cannot find his `I' any more.

 

"In that state a man no longer finds the existence of his ego. And

who is there left to seek it? Who can describe how he feels in that

state – in his own Pure Consciousness – about the real nature of

Brahman? Once a salt doll went to measure the depth of the ocean. No

sooner was it in the water than it melted. Now who was to tell its

depth?

 

"There is a sign of Perfect Knowledge. Man becomes silent when it is

attained. Then the `I' which may be likened to the salt doll, melts

in the ocean of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute and becomes one

with It. Not the slightest trace of distinction is left."

 

Tell me, Sir, you who say that Sri Ramakrishna wasn't familiar with

the authentic teachings of Hinduism, what these authentic teachings

are. Before you dare to measure the words of the saint, quote me

those words of Sri Ramakrishna (giving also the sources of your

information) that you find so discordant with the authentic teachings

of Hinduism. We shall then see who it is that is unfamiliar with the

authentic teachings of Hinduism!"

 

Thank You, Chitta !

 

i am reminded of an abhang by Saint Eknath ( maybe Yaduji can give

the vernacular version)

 

"Bhakti is the root, dispassion is the flower snd illumination is the

fruit"

 

YES, Thakore was a great bhakta of Goddess Kali and She is the One

who showed Thakore the 'Eternal' Light of Brahman!

 

Jai Gurudeva!

 

Jai Sri RAMAKRISHNADEVA!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Nair-ji,

>>

> I am deeply indebted to you Nair-ji for drawing the attention of

list-

> members to the article 'The Sword of Kali', but I do not believe

that

> I am deserving of the words of praise you confer on me.

[Guest guest]

WOW! Thanks to modern day English for this three-letter expletive.

How else can I express what I feel about your modesty and humitlity,

Chittranjanji, about which both Professorji and Adima are already in

awe?

 

Chittaranjanji, when I read your series of essays, I jottted down

several points on a shorthand notebook that could have formed a sort

of appreciative review of your thoughts. I don't know where the

book has gone thanks to my wife who thinks that all else other than

her in this universe are very untidy beings.

 

Yet, I remember one predominant feeling. Your essays, like the ones

on "The Real And Unreal" here before, are too lengthy. How about

trimming them to the size of a synopsis that all of us can peruse

with ease. If time permits, please consider this request. The

synopsis need not be a reply to Dr. Morales's article. We need not

give him undue coverage. It could be a general answer to all those

surface-thinkers who entertain notions like those expressed by Dr.

Morales. Then it is upto our Dennisji to upload it at his

vedanta.org. Are you reading this, Dennisji?

 

By the way, please answer our Naren in your inimitable style about

name and form. No doubt, you have done this in answer to

Dr.Morales. Yet, another focused incision here would not be

superfluous. We all would like to read it.

 

PraNAms and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> I am deeply indebted to you Nair-ji for drawing the attention of

list-

> members to the article 'The Sword of Kali', but I do not believe

that

> I am deserving of the words of praise you confer on me......

[Guest guest]

I agree with Nairji that the synopsis need not be a reply to Dr.

Moralesji. I think a shorter essay will be more accessible to a general

audience. We can put the summary of this brilliant essay on both Dennis

ji's site and also the HS website. The HS site out of respect for this

list and the list members has an alternate name.

 

http://www.nonduality-advaita.com/

 

It is also known as www.love-yoga.com.

 

A rose by any name.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> WOW! Thanks to modern day English for this three-letter expletive.

> How else can I express what I feel about your modesty and humitlity,

> Chittranjanji, about which both Professorji and Adima are already in

> awe?

>

> Chittaranjanji, when I read your series of essays, I jottted down

> several points on a shorthand notebook that could have formed a sort

> of appreciative review of your thoughts. I don't know where the

> book has gone thanks to my wife who thinks that all else other than

> her in this universe are very untidy beings.

>

> Yet, I remember one predominant feeling. Your essays, like the ones

> on "The Real And Unreal" here before, are too lengthy. How about

> trimming them to the size of a synopsis that all of us can peruse

> with ease. If time permits, please consider this request. The

> synopsis need not be a reply to Dr. Morales's article. We need not

> give him undue coverage. It could be a general answer to all those

> surface-thinkers who entertain notions like those expressed by Dr.

> Morales. Then it is upto our Dennisji to upload it at his

> vedanta.org. Are you reading this, Dennisji?

>

> By the way, please answer our Naren in your inimitable style about

> name and form. No doubt, you have done this in answer to

> Dr.Morales. Yet, another focused incision here would not be

> superfluous. We all would like to read it.

>

> PraNAms and best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof Sri VK-ji,

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> Namaste, Chittaranjan-ji

>

> Please don't be too modest about it. I just read the article on

> the suggestion of Nair-ji. It is a wonderful symphony of Hindu

> Dharma, Vedanta and principles of Nyaya -- all in the strict

> language of Philosophy in inimitable English. I liked it very

> much, not only because of the undercurrent of inspiration it

> obviously had, but because it has given me some new insights

> into what I thought I knew already. May God bless you and may

> you continue to serve the cause of Hindu Thought for a long

> time to come!

 

 

Sir, I am grateful to you for your words of love and support. If there

is any merit in the article, I lay it at the feet of the Paramacharya,

Pujyasri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swami, who it was that showed me

how the vast jungle of Hindu thought fell into place in the wonderful

tapestry of Sanatana Dharma. I did not have the good fortune to meet

him when he lived on this earth, but his talks (translated into

English) were like a beacon of light that dispelled the darkness

surrounding the meaning of our Dharma.

 

I take this opportunity to mention four books of the Paramacharya that

have been published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and which I believe

every Hindu should read. These books are:

 

1. THE GURU TRADITION - the book is the result of the vast research

undertaken by the Paramacharya during his many padayatras of the

country. They contain amazing accounts of Gatika-sthanas, the great

universities of India, some of which enrolled as many as 10,000 and

20,000 students. How the Paramacharya discovers these universities is a

saga of perseverence that would put our academicians to shame. What the

Paramacharya discovers is a completely forgotten chapter of Indian

history, one which I believe every Hindu should know.

 

2. THE VEDAS - these set of lectures puts the entire Vedic structure

into place, including the proper place of the Vedas, the Vedangas, the

Upangas, the prasthana traya, and all the other shastras in Sanatana

Dharma. I do not believe that there is any other modern work that

brings to us in such simple language the complex structure of Vedic

culture.

 

3. HINDU DHARMA - A compendium of Hinduism. There is here complete

transparency of what Hinduism is unlike in the apologetic writings of

most modern writers on the subject. It is pure distilled waters.

 

4. ADI SHANKARA AND HIS TIMES - Apart from the many interesting details

about Adi Shankaracharya that one finds here (which are not found in

the Dig-Vijayas) the book also throws light on the place of the Jagad-

Guru in the scheme of the revival of Vedic culture.

 

The Paramacharya was truly a Being of Light. I pray that the ancient

light brought into this world by the Paramacharya percolates into all

our hearts!

 

 

With love and respect,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr Yadu-ji,

 

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

>

> I really enjoyed reading the articles.

>

> I think the operative key word is "svadhrma" to maintain the

> balance in vyaarakia as well as paramaarthica and not being

> able to integrate the two we have suffered and will continue

> to do so. IMHO – the success is in the reorganization of this.

 

 

Thank you Dr.Yadu-ji.

 

There is an excellent article on the topic of dharma and svadharma by

Sri Ranjeet Shankar, and it is available on Dennis's site at:

 

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/dharma_ranjeet.htm

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear AdiMa,

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> Yes! CHITTA! You are too 'humble' - the hallmark of a great

> Sadhaka ! Professor-ji is 100% right - It is a Brilliant ESSAY

> and we are thankful to Dr.Morales for bringing out the 'best'

> in you. Sometimes , it appears like Devi Saraswati Herself is

> speaking through you ! They say 'pen is mighter than the sword'

> but 'your pen is as powerful as Kali's sword' - for slaying

> the 'ego' of intellectuals like Dr. Frank Morales who dare to

> attack Great Saints like Sri Ramakrishna without an in depth

> study ! Another person who has joined this brigade of critics

> OF HINDU SAINTS is none other than MS. Wendy Doniggar!

 

 

AdiMa, you are spoiling me with words that are delightful to the

ears! If you continue in this vein AdiMa, my ego is likely to go on

an ego-trip and then I will have no hope of moksha! :-)

 

You are right about Wendy Doninger. There was a time when she used to

write well about Hinduism. Many years ago, I had written a favourable

review of her book 'The Laws of Manu' on Aamazon.com (which is still

available on the site). But today Wendy seems to have changed,

especially after she attained the status of being an authority on

Hinduism! I believe it was Wendy Doninger that was the chief sponsor

of Jeffrey Kripal's 'Kali's Child', a notorious book that attempts

to portray Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa as a person with psychological

aberrations. These modern Western scholars do not approach Hinduism

with the empathy that is required for studying a subject and

understanding its deeper meanings; rather they seem to be fond of mis-

employing the shallow and questionable 'science' of psychoanalysis to

denigrate Hindu saints thereby creating the impression that their

ideas stem from deranged psyches. Ironically, the entire attempt by

these so-called scholars is nothing but a reflection of their own

warped psyches.

 

Sri Radha and Sri Chaitanya loved Lord Krishna with such intensity

that blood use to ooze out from the pores of their skin. If one were

to analyse them like these modern scholars do, then one would

conclude that they suffered from some disease!

 

Thankfully, the book 'Kali's Child' has been dismantled very

effectively by Swami Tyagananda.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

I wanted to know about the relationship between "Name and Form". But,

unfortunately, the discussion is moving in a different direction.

Anyway, I am fortunate that I was able to conceive a little bit of the

relationship between "Name and Form". I whole-heartedly thank one and all who

have helped me in this.

 

With love and namaskars,

Naren.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> How about trimming them to the size of a synopsis that all of us

> can peruse with ease. If time permits, please consider this

> request.

 

advaitin, Harsha wrote:

>

> I agree with Nairji that the synopsis need not be a reply to Dr.

> Moralesji. I think a shorter essay will be more accessible to a

> general audience.

 

 

Thank you Nairji and Harshji, I'll try to make a shorter essay which

can be titled 'Universalism in Hinduism'. But it may be some time

before I can undertake the task as I am a bit tied up at present -

maybe end of next month.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Naren-ji,

 

advaitin, "viswa_nath_2005"

<viswa_nath_2005> wrote:

> Dear all,

> I wanted to know about the relationship between "Name and Form".

> But, unfortunately, the discussion is moving in a different

> direction. Anyway, I am fortunate that I was able to conceive

> a little bit of the relationship between "Name and Form". I

> whole-heartedly thank one and all who have helped me in this.

 

 

Sri Nair-ji felt that I may be able to provide an answer your

question, but I am not sure that I have a grasp of this difficult

subject. I feel that only an initiate into the mysteries of Sri Vidya

can really answer this question. However, let me try from whatever

little I (think I) know. To go back to your original question:

> Generally, it is said, the Name and Form are one and the same.

> But, How? The word "Table" is not at all equal to the Object

> "Table". Suppose someone wants to buy some item in the shop.

> Will the buyer accept if the shop-keeper just utters the word,

> instead of delivering the product to him?

 

 

I feel that there are three implicit questions within the question

you ask. These may be enumerated as:

 

1. What is the relationship between Name and Form? How is it that

Advaita says Name and Form are the same?

 

2. Since the Name has a distinct form of its own given by the

phonemes and the Form has a distinct form of its own given by its

shape and other attributes, how can it be said that name and form are

the same?

 

2. If the Name is same as the Form, then why does the form not get

instantiated when the name is uttered?

 

 

 

1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NAME AND FORM

 

If there was really a relationship between name and form, then name

and form would not be the same. The premise that there is a

relationship between name and form is the deep-rooted notion that

springs from avidya. This notion is common to all beings in samsara

and is the basic cause of the duality of mind-matter. In the late

nineteenth-century this notion got formulated into a theory called

the Sense-Reference Theory. The theory has its origin in the works of

Gottleb Frege's and was later popularised by Bertrand Russell. But

from an Advaita perspective, we may say that Frege incorporated the

duality persisting in avidya into the formalism of a theory.

According to the Sense-Reference theory every word has a sense, and

it is this sense that in turn refers to the 'concrete' object in the

world. According to Advaita, this theory is wrong. There is no

mediate thing called a 'sense' between a word and its object. The

positing of any such intermediate 'sense' leads to an infinite

regress because this would need other relationships to bind the word

to the sense and the sense to the object, which in turn would need

more binding relationships to bind these new relationships to their

respective relata and so on ad infinitum. Moreover, if the sense is

said to convey what an object is, then the sense would need to have

within it the objectness itself. In other words, the sense of the

word 'rose' would have to have 'roseness' in it for it to convey the

meaning of 'rose'. But roseness is a samanya (or universal) and an

object can never be different than its universal, because if it were

different it would not be itself. That is, if the particular object

called 'rose' were to be different than 'roseness', then it would

cease to be a rose as it would be different from the essence that

makes it be what it is. Therefore, the sense in the sense-reference

theory would necessarily have to contain within it the object itself

and this would then make a separate reference superfluous. It is

because this separation of sense from reference creates all sorts of

logical conundrums that it is rejected by Advaita. That is why, in

Advaita, there is no mediate 'thing' between a name and the object

and they are considered to be a unity. Again, according to Advaita,

the name denotes the universal and not the particular. Sri

Shankaracharya says:

 

"And words are connected with the general characteristics (i.e.,

genus) and not with the individuals, for the individuals are

infinite, and it is impossible to comprehend the relation of a word

(with all of them). Thus, even though the individuals are born, the

distinctive general characteristics remain constant, so that this

creates no difficulty with the eternality of the words cow, etc."

(BSB, I,III,8.27).

 

According to Advaita, the sense and the object are the same, and the

object is united with the word. There is no thing or relationship

between Name and Form to make them into a duality. But the name is

distinct from its object even though there is no relationship that

can be posited between them. That is why it is a mystical non-

duality. Its secrets are revealed through Self-Realisation. Seeing

the sameness of Name and Form is nothing but the merging of Vishva in

Taijasa, and Taijasa in Prajna, and Prajna in Turiya. It is the

profound Oneness of AUM. That is why the sameness of Name and Form

appears in Sri Shankaracharya's bhashya in the context of AUM in the

Mandukya Upanishad (I,1) wherein the Acharya says:

 

"The very same thing that was presented through an emphasis on the

word is being indicated over again with a stress on the thing

signified, so that the unity of the name and the nameable may be

comprehended."

 

 

 

2. THE FORM OF THE NAME AND THE FORM OF THE FORM

 

Please forgive me for the clumsy title to this section, but I

couldn't think of a more appropriate one.

 

Name is sabda. Form is the object denoted by sabda. But the name

itself has a form – the form constituted by the phonemes in it. In

other words, sabda itself is an object. So, it all becomes a case of

an object referring to the object. Now where does the subject come in

here? In a previous post Adima had pointed out that the Name is the

differentiator and the Form is the differentiated. The differentiator

is in reality the Subject, and the name is the instrument through

which the Light of the Subject differentiates the Form. The name is

the sign by which the Subject knows the object signified.

 

The question we are faced with now is: Whereas the form of the object

denoted by the name is constituted by the shape and attributes of the

object, and the form of the name is constituted by the phonemes, and

given that the two are different, how can we say that they are the

same? As you so succinctly put it, the name 'table' is not the same

as the object named 'table'.

 

I think the answer to the question is that the English name 'table'

is a corrupt name of the object table. The true name of the object is

one only – that which is a reflection of the form of the object

itself. The pure sign is always a mirror of the signified, and a

reflection is always of the same form as the object reflected. The

true name – the virginal name as it exists in Reality – belongs to

the Language of Reality; it is the Divine Language. The original

language is one only. She is called Samskritam. She is the Natural

Language of the Universe because She is of the form of Nature. This

claim may sound absurd and fantastic to many of us here who have been

schooled in modern education, but that is because modern education

has stolen the virginity of our souls.

 

According to Advaita, this Universe has its birth in the Divine

Pulsation. It is called Spanda and it is mentioned by Sri

Gaudapadacharya in the Mandukya Upanishad Karika. The Universe is a

reflection in the pure crystal of Brahman. Spanda in truth is not a

movement, but for those that see creation, it is the Divine Pulsation

of the eternal sabda in Brahman. Sabda is an attribute of akasha and

akasha is the primal substance out of which all other substances

evolve. The akasha around us is a reflection of the akasha in the

Great Heart of Reality in which lie all forms waiting to evolve into

creation, and what invokes this evolution of forms is sabda, the

word. This word is essentially the first perturbation of form through

sound, and it has the same form as the object. Only the virgin soul

can see this sameness.

 

In the esoteric science of Lord Shiva known as matrikachakra, the 51

letters of the Sanskrit alphabet are the primal elemental signs and

each one of these signs is a reflection of a tattva in Reality. The

16 vowels reflect the intentionality, or attitude, of Consciousness

and are called the Shiva-tattvas, and the 35 consonants reflect the

tattvas of the created universe from ahamkara down to prithvi and are

called the Shakti-tattvas. The form of each letter is a reflection of

the form of the tattva. In etymology, this principle is

called 'onomatopoeia'. The grammar of Panini is a reflection of the

manners in which these tattvas combine naturally as given in the

Nature of Reality Itself, and that is why Samskritam is called the

refined language because its grammatical rules are the natural way of

Reality Itself.

 

The etymological principle of onomatopoeia says that the roots of

words have their sounds derived from the forms of the objects

themselves. In the Western world, there is only one short treatise

that touches upon this topic and that is the Cratylus of Plato. It is

interesting to note that Socrates, after examining the forms of words

in the Greek language and finding that many of them do not adhere to

this principle, concludes that the language of the Athenians has its

origin in a more ancient language. In India, etymology was a thriving

science and even now it is considered as a Vedanga (an arm of the

Vedas). It is called Nighantu and Nirukta, but most of the ancient

works on this topic have now been lost and of those that survive

(chiefly Yaska's works) the meanings have been tortured by modern

interpreters.

 

Naren-ji, I think it now time for me to stop. I do not think I am

capable of explaining this difficult topic (of the sameness of the

forms of names and objects) and if I were to claim otherwise it would

not be true. I only hope I have indicated a direction in which the

answer to your question may be found.

 

 

3. INSTANTIATION OF THE OBJECT FROM SPEECH

 

If the name and form are same, why is the form not instantiated when

the name is uttered?

 

The defect does not arise from any intrinsic separation of name and

form, but springs from the avidya that seemingly separates them. That

avidya alone is the loss of the soul's swatantriya; it is its

incapacity to instantiate the object through speech (the object gets

instantiated instead in the mind and is called a mental object). But

the Supreme Self, also called Ishwara, instantiates objects through

His mere speech, and it is said that a realised soul residing in

heaven also has the capacity to instantiate objects through mere

speech (will).

 

The individual soul's inability to see the sameness of name and form

and its inability to create objects through speech are one and the

same inability. It is the inability conferred on it by avidya.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Chitta writes :

 

"I feel that only an initiate into the mysteries of Sri Vidya

can really answer this question."

 

WELL, i am not initiated into Sri Vidya upasana as yet but i have

heard many stories from those initiated into Sri Vidya upasana

glorifying the Supremacy of Devi ( Sri Lalita Parameshweri ) over

other deities.

 

May i please share this story with you all ?

 

The story of Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma :

 

"Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma step onto the jeweled island and then they

are transformed into beautiful maidens, and only then do they perceive

Devi sitting on Her throne. In the male form, the island appears to

be empty -- they simply cannot see Her. As soon as they are

transformed into maidens, they see Her surrounded by female devotees.

When they bow at Devi's divine feet, and then they notice that the

entire Cosmos is reflected in her smallest toenail. . When Shiva,

Vishnu and Brahma leAVE the jeweled island, and when they look back,

they see their Female form still at the lotus feet of Shakti."

 

Yes! " Sure ! Sure ! Why NOT ? Devi is supreme! She is Atma-vidya ,

Sri VIDYA , Brahma vidya !

 

WHat about 'Lord Krishna ? But Did Not Mother Yashoda see the entire

cosmos in Baby Krishna's mouth when she accused Balamukunda of eating

mud and asked him to open his tiny mouth? " ...

 

True! True ! But how much bigger a mouth is compared to a 'toenail'

argues the Shakta devotee " if my Devi can be seen in an

insignificant small toe-nail, what is so great about Lord Krishna

holding the entire cosmos in his mouth.? "

 

Then the Krishna Devotee becomes defensive and argues " But Lord

Krishna's divine image can be seen in Smt. Radharani's HAIR

FOLLICLE , and Now tell me , Dear Shakta ! can anything be tinier (

more minute) than a hair follicle ? "

 

But a devotee of Lord Krishna can argue that Lord Krishna's

beautiful, divine image can be seen in srimati Radharani's hair

follicle ! -

 

THE POINT IS

 

One can go on argueing in this vein days on end without reaching any

conclusion !

 

The bottom line is

 

IN whatever form the devotee wishes to worship god/ess , the god/ess

appears in that form or image...

 

In fact, the tantras say that Lord KRISHNA having charmed the world

of gopis as a male God reappeared as srimati Lalita devi, the playful

goddess or the divine mother Tripura sundari!

 

Someone made a wisecrack " We cannot even see the Lotus feet of the

GOD/ESS , why worry about what his/her form or face looks like ? "

 

Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada taught us the truth that all the deities we

worship are but the manifestations of the One supreme

Paramaatma. He established the worship of the moorthies of Siva,

Vishnu, Ambika, Surya, Vinayaka and Subrahmanya all sanctified in the

Vedas, and each having a specific Gayatri Mantra. If worshipped with

devotion., all of them will enable us to attain the paramaatma,

proclaimed by the Vedas as Sat Purusha, or Brahman.

 

In that way he established the practical interpretation of the Gita

teaching by establishing the Shanmathas !

 

 

Yo yo yaam Yaam tanum bhaktah

sraddhaya architum icchati;

Tasya tasyaachalaam shraddhaam

Taam eva vidadhaamyaham

 

 

Yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhaktah

Shraddhayaarchitum

ichchati Tasya tasya achalam

shraddhaam Taameva vidadhaamyaham (VII-21)

 

Whatever form any devotee with faith wishes to worship, I make that

faith of him steady.

 

And the Vedas declare :

 

Aakaashaat patitam toyam yathaa gachchati saagaram

Sarva deva namaskaarah *keshavam* pratigachchati

 

Even as every drop of rain that falls from the sky goes to the sea,

worship of all gods goes to the 'Supreme Being.' ( Keshavam - you can

substitute any name or form , whatever is your ishta-nishta! smile!

 

Hari Aum !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

WOW again Chittaranjanji.

 

That is SrI Vidya Herself speaking.

 

While chanting the LalitA-sahasranAmAs, I always pause at the beauty

of the names beginning with parA and ending with bhakta-mAnasahaMsikA

(parA pratyak chitIrUpA pashyantI paradevata madhyama vaikharIrUpa

bhakta-mAnasahaMsikA) Having read your essay now, I would much love

to live with Ms. Avidya than look for Ms. Para, because she holds out

the promise of keeping me in the company of Ms. Bhakta-

mAnasahamsika. There is such a lot of beauty in the avidya of the

bhakta singing in joy his gaze fixed on the smiling face of the

hamsikA!

>From wherever one begins, an advaitin unfailiningly reaches only one

goal. In name and form, you have encapsulated the whole of vedAnta.

I knew you could do this. Dennisji, here is one more for your site.

 

Thanks and regards.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Sri Nair-ji felt that I may be able to provide an answer your

> question, but I am not sure that I have a grasp of this difficult

> subject. I feel that only an initiate into the mysteries of Sri

Vidya

> can really answer this question. However, let me try from whatever

> little I (think I) know. ....

>

> The individual soul's inability to see the sameness of name and

form

> and its inability to create objects through speech are one and the

> same inability. It is the inability conferred on it by avidya.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Nairji,

 

Ah Nairji, this Ms.Avidya that you speak of is most alluring and

beautiful! She is in truth a higher form of Vidya flowing freely from

the heart of a bhakta! She is the Leela of the Lover separated from

her Beloved. The Lover and Beloved are always united by the flame of

their love, and their separation is only a play enacted so that the

Light of their Love may dance like a Chandelier in all of its rainbow

richness!

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> While chanting the LalitA-sahasranAmAs, I always pause at the

> beauty of the names beginning with parA and ending with bhakta-

> mAnasahaMsikA (parA pratyak chitIrUpA pashyantI paradevata

> madhyama vaikharIrUpa bhakta-mAnasahaMsikA) Having read your

> essay now, I would much love to live with Ms. Avidya than look

> for Ms. Para, because she holds out the promise of keeping me

> in the company of Ms. Bhakta-mAnasahamsika. There is such a

> lot of beauty in the avidya of the bhakta singing in joy his

> gaze fixed on the smiling face of the hamsikA!

[Guest guest]

Wow! Chitta !

 

That is exactly how Bhaktas behave ! 'Madly in love' with their

chosen deity ! Such was the state of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa ! As

you know , although , he attained 'Samadhi' , he came down on the

material plane from Time to time many times just to enjoy the company

of Bhaktas for two good reasons - a) to share with the bhaktas his

teachings and b) to take part in 'sankirtana' of the Lord!

 

If one reads Thakore's biography , you will see a parama-jnani like

Sri Ramakrishna ecstatically singing and dancing to a verse from Sri

Chaitanya Carithramrita or bursting into a Ramprasad song on the

divine mother 'Kali'! He will be also seen worshipping

the 'jyothirlingas' at the temple ! !

 

Such are men of 'expanded consciousness' - tantriks at heart , body ,

mind and spirit!

 

Sri Ramakrishna also exhibited the traits of a classic Kaula.

 

A verse comes to mind

 

Antah-shaktah bahih-shaivah sabhayam vaishnava matah

 

Nana-rupadharah Kaulah vicaranti mahitale.

 

It is said "at heart a Shakta, outwardly a Shaiva, in gatherings a

Vaishnava (who are wont to gather together for worship in praise of

Hari) in thus many a guise the Kaulas wander on earth."

 

Thus for a Kaula ' The form is everything and the form is nothing'

 

So , there was Ramakrishna the parama 'BHAKTA' in satsangh

gatherings dancing ecstatically and there was Ramakrishna the

parama "JnaNIi' in Nirvikalpa Samadhi at other times days on end .

 

i leave you with this famous quote from one of the great saints of

modern times :

 

Sri Ramakrishna Said :

 

"A poor devotee points to the sky and says, "God is up there." An

average devotee says, "God dwells in the heart as the Inner Master."

The best devotee says, "God alone is and everything I perceive is a

form of God."

 

Such is a state of a bhakta-jnani!

 

Jai Gurudeva !

 

Jai SRI RAMAKRISHNA Paramahamsa deva!

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Nairji,

>

> Ah Nairji, this Ms.Avidya that you speak of is most alluring and

> beautiful! She is in truth a higher form of Vidya flowing freely

from

> the heart of a bhakta! >

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it is done in this message!)

 

 

Dear Sri Chittaranjan ji,

 

Thank you very much for your elevating article. It provided a lot of insight

into what I was trying to comprehend. In fact, My thanks are due to other

members too, who also thrown some light on this subject.

 

Thanks again,

Yours in God,

Naren.

 

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

Dear Sri Naren-ji,

[Guest guest]

Hi Nair-ji,

 

<<Yet, I remember one predominant feeling. Your essays, like the ones

on "The Real And Unreal" here before, are too lengthy. How about

trimming them to the size of a synopsis that all of us can peruse

with ease. If time permits, please consider this request. The

synopsis need not be a reply to Dr. Morales's article. We need not

give him undue coverage. It could be a general answer to all those

surface-thinkers who entertain notions like those expressed by Dr.

Morales. Then it is upto our Dennisji to upload it at his

vedanta.org. Are you reading this, Dennisji?>>

 

Yes - I am reading and I am bound to agree. Chittaranjan-ji's essays are

brilliant. Well thought out and authoritatively presented but usually a

bit on the long side! I would like to add my thanks to you for bringing

it to the group's attention and I have duly saved it to disc (both

versions!). Unfortunately, I am just too busy with my new book at

present to read such a lengthy piece and will have to postpone it for

much later - probably next year unfortunately. I would certainly be keen

to see the sort of synopsis that you suggest though and would definitely

upload it the website, along with a link to the fuller article.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Michaelji,

 

As I am about to go out for two days, I'll try to make a quick

response.

 

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

>

> Hello Chittaranjan,

>

> Your account of the Sense and Reference theory of Frege is

> in error and I also have difficulty with your account of word

> and object in Advaita which has been a theme of yours of late.

> First, Frege was treating of referring expressions such as

> 'the morning star' and 'the evening star', 'Walter Scott',

> 'the author of Rob Roy'. In the given cases the expressions

> refer to the same entity but have different senses.

 

I do not see where I am in error regarding Frege. Frege was trying to

account for the fact that even though it is the same entity, the

Morning Star and the Evening Star are taken to be different by a

person who doesn't know that it is the same entity. Frege was also

trying to account for the sense of discovery that the person feels

when he discovers that they are both the same entity. The entity, the

reference (the 'concrete' object in the world) has been the same, but

there were two senses in which it was known. Moreover these senses

would remain in the mind even if there were no 'concrete' object in

the world because the words 'Morning Star' and 'Evening Star' each

convey a sense. It is important in this context to see that Frege

differentiated thinking from the assertion of truth of what is

thought. The thinking is thus a proposition - a sense or meaning-

statement - and the assertion of its truth is the truth-judgment

wherein the sense of the statement is judged in accordance with its

correspondence to facts in the concrete world. The sense (meaning)

must in turn refer to the entities in the world for it to be true.

This I believe is the Sense-Reference theory.

 

In Vedanta, the two senses (morning star and evening star) are

nothing but two different attributions of the substance. Frege was

working in a world where the symbolism of substance (as a unity in

which multiple attribute inhere) was lost. Vedanta looks at these two

senses as simply multiple attributions of a single substance.

 

> This is why the composite expression 'Walter Scott is the author

> of Rob Roy' provides information.

 

Yes, Frege called it the proposition, a meaning-sentence merely.

According to Vedanta, the identity predicated by 'is' in the above

sentence is the identity of substance and attribute reflected in

language by the subject-predicate form of the sentence.

 

> There is nothing analytically true about the two expressions.

> This links to the well known distinction between connotation

> and denotation i.e. what may be said of a thing and the thing

> itself. There is nothing mysterious about this nor any

> implication of intermediate reality.

 

Yes, this is the way Analytical Philosophy sees it. The classical

example is Russell's 'The king of France is bald'. But Advaita looks

at it differently. In Advaita, the effect is pre-existent in the

cause and hence the object of every meaning-sentence exists. But in

the world of samsara, the predication of existence becomes modal in

accordance with the modes of actuality and potentiality. What is

actual (manifested in the world) becomes existent and what is not

manifested becomes a potential merely.

 

> About the word/object relationship you write: "According to

> Advaita, the sense and the object are the same, and the object

> is united with the word. There is no thing or relationship

> between Name and Form to make them into a duality. But the name

> is distinct from its object even though there is no relationship

> that can be posited between them. "

>

> To which I would reply that not all words are names of things

> and a word in a language is a symbol of something but not the

> thing itself. In a previous and lower state of evolution words

> may have mostly been signs of something, that pointed to that

> thing. They were uttered in the presence of the thing. Words

> like 'but', 'and', 'maybe' are not signs or symbols of anything.

 

They are symbols of something. By something, I mean some disnctive

aspect of Reality. In Vedanta, all word meanings are padarthas and

are objects.

 

> Combining the notions of referring expression, sense, symbol,

> sign and meaning into the one sentence Sankara wrote in B.S.B.

> II.ii.28 wrote: "Therefore an object and its knowledge differ".

> Note he is not saying that they are different, they differ - a

> vital distinction. The meaning that is extracted from the

> experience of an object is multivalent and depends on the

> interests of the perceiver. The single pot may be viewed in

> terms of its colour, capacity, suitability.

 

You are referring to Shankara's argument against the Buddhists who

efface the difference between knowledge and the distinctive features

that are known. What is seen due to the interest of the observer is

also a distinction in Reality.

 

> I believe that this level of meaning and intentionality is the

> important one; you can't write on 'paper' or drink 'water'.

> These vocables are just articulated air, the map is not the

> territory.

 

I think you meant to say 'write on water or drink paper'. Yes, these

vocables are 'articulated air'. That is because they violate the

natures of the things they profess to speak about. The intrinsic

attributes of paper and water do not permit such actions as drinking

paper or writing on water. In Vedanta, you need to see paper and

water as substantial things each with a set of intrinsic attributes

that are one with it. When the vocables violate thes intrinsic

attributes, they becomes 'articulated air' like the 'horns or a hare'

 

> You quote Sankara:

> "And words are connected with the general characteristics (i.e.,

> genus) and not with the individuals, for the individuals are

> infinite, and it is impossible to comprehend the relation of a word

> (with all of them). Thus, even though the individuals are born, the

> distinctive general characteristics remain constant, so that this

> creates no difficulty with the eternality of the words cow, etc."

> (BSB, I,III,8.27).

>

> By the way your mode of referring to the text is idiosyncratic.

> The standard manner is given in the centre top of the book. All

> the writers use it and it makes finding the place easy which I

> was unable to do in the case of the foregoing quote from you.

 

Thanks Michaelji, I'll keep that in mind. I was using the numbering

given in the contents section and I believe there are some mismatches

between the contents section and the actual sutra-numbers in the

print-edition of the BSB that I have.

 

 

> What Sankara could have in mind here is the idea of a universal

> e.g. cow that is neither this nor that cow and to whom expressions

> refer that establish its cowhood. The Eternality of 'cow' refers

> to the atemporality of the concept and not that it is a denizen

> of Platonia.

 

I do not believe that Plato referred to universals as things that

exist by themselves. In the Theaetetus, he calls them the stamps on

the wax of the soul. I believe that most modern interpreters have

missed this important element in Plato. In any case, Advaita does not

regard the universal as a concrete object. It is the para-vak. (In

Nyaya the universal is indeterminate). In holding that words point to

universals only, Advaita stands alone against all the other six

schools. It is the subject matter of the great debate between Advaita

and Nyaya (which holds that a word refer to universal, particular and

configuration - samanya, vishesha and akruti).

 

> The mystic sense of nonduality is I think due to connaturality.

> We know something because we are it in some sense but that is

> something that we can only realize and not know. A vast topic.

 

I agree.

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan