Taittiriya Aranyaka III.iii.7, Purusha Suktam & Upanishad

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vinayaka-ji,

 

advaitin, br_vinayaka <vinayaka_ns> wrote:

> To reiterate Chittaranjanji's afore said point.

 

A small clarification -- the said point was made by Srivastavji, not

by me. :-)

 

> Swami Paramarthananda Saraswathy has told in one of his

> lectures that Sri Shankaracharya himself has very

> clearly told that for physical sciences the Shrutis

> are not the pramanas.

 

I do not believe that Sri Shankaracharya has said what the Swamiji

attributes to him. I believe there is a misreading of the texts

somewhere. Has the Swamiji provided any quote from Sri Shankaracharya?

 

Sri Shankaracharya says that a prameya is known by the pramana that

is appropriate to the object. In vyavaharika sathya, pratyaksha and

anumana provide knowledge of objects as commensurate with the nature

of the world as seen in vyavaharika. But this knowledge is defective

because of the avidya that underlies it and makes the object appear

divorced from its material cause. The nature of the object known is

therefore hidden even though it is known, just as the nature of a

gold ornament is hidden when the ornament is known without gold being

known. The fullness of knowledge of what is known through pratyaksha

and anumana is found in the Knowledge obtained from Sruti.

 

In Advaita, the material cause of the world is Brahman. To know a

thing without knowing its material cause, and its essence, and its

efficient cause is not knowing the thing. It is knowing the mere

shadow of the thing.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> It is to be noted that the difference between two types of

> jignAsa-s one is dharma jignAsa another one is brahma jignAsa

> ...for dharma jignAsa/AcharaNa & resultant lOkAntara/janmAntara

> jnAna/phala shruti is the ONLY pramANa whereas in brahma

> jignAsa, not only shruti but alongwith that *anubhava* &

> shrutyanugrahIta tarka are also equally important ...since

> brahma jnAna is NOT a lOkAntara or janmAntara jnAna....shankara

> explicitly mentions this in sUtra bhAshya. brahma jignAsa is

> not dharma jignAsa...that is the reason why bAdarAyaNa starts

> his sUtra by saying *athAto brahma jignAsa* as against jaimini's

> *athAto dharma jignAsa*.

 

 

In further support to your words I offer this extract from Shankara's

introduction to Gita bhashya:

 

"The Lord created the universe, and wishing to secure order therein

He first created the Prajapatis (Lords of the creatures) such as

Marichi and caused them to adopt the Pravritti-Dharma, the Religion

of Works. He then created others such as Sanaka and Sanandana and

caused them to adopt the Nivritti-Dharma, the Religion of

Renunciation, characterised by knowledge and indifference to works.

It is the two-fold Vedic Dharma of Works and Renunciation that

maintains order in the universe."

 

Dharma-jignasa is for pravritti-marga and brahma-jignasa is for

nivritti-marga.

 

Sometimes we even agree with each other. :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

On the whole you seem to be partial to a literalist view

of scripture like the good Dr.Gosse who was a eminent paleontologist

and a member of the Plymouth Brethern who hold by the

computations of Bishop Ussher as to the exact age of the earth.

Going by a geneology in the bible that leads back to Adam and Eve

he held that the earth was 4004 years old more or less. In his work

Gosse was confronted with the evidence of fossils, rates of

sedimentation, depth of layers and so forth which seemed to indicate

a much greater age. His solution: God layed it all down to create that

impression. Why? -ours not to reason why.

 

Newton is another case in point. He spent more time investigating

alchemy than he did on his cosmology. He was quite convinced there

was something to it, base metals might be transmuted into gold.

Google on 'The Philosopher's stone' and you will see that there is a

family resemblance between their theories and the quintuplication

idea. Jung studied their work seriously and took it all to be symbolic

of spiritual transmutation. Historians of science take it to be the pre-

scientific establishment of scientific method.

 

A little question: Who said "The crane conceives by hearing the roar

of the clouds?".

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michaelji,

 

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

> On the whole you seem to be partial to a literalist view

> of scripture

 

Of the Vedas, yes.

> A little question: Who said "The crane conceives by hearing

> the roar of the clouds?".

 

Not the Vedas. :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-ji.

 

Sri Michael wrote:

> > On the whole you seem to be partial to a literalist view

> > of scripture

 

Sri Chittaranjan replied:

> Of the Vedas, yes.

 

However, Jaimini does seem to accept the need for special

interpretation of veda where literal interpretation would lead to

"contradictions" and thus erode Veda's authority. pUrva-mimAmsA sutras

lay out rules for special interpretation of vedic passages where a

literal meaning will not suffice. For example:

 

"pUrva-paksha

 

JPMS 1.2.2

shAstra dR^ishhTa virodhAt.h cha .

"Also because of the contradiction of the scriptures and directly

perceived facts."

 

Commentary:

pUrvapaksha: There are passages in the Vedas that contradict

directly perceived facts. A few examples are:

 

"The mind is a thief" is a Vedic statement. We can hereby infer that

since an important sense-organ is a thief, one should commit theft by

other sense-organs also. But this passage contradicts those passages

that prohibit stealing.

 

SiddhAnta:

 

Continuing from the previous sUtra, the sentence "the mind is a thief"

is taken in the sense "The mind is hidden within the body". This

signification being based on the fact that the mind is similar to the

thief, in that both are hidden. The mind hides itself, just as the

thief does. As a matter of fact, the words of these passages are not

taken in the literal sense, they are taken only as signifying praise."

 

Moreover, concept of "jurisdiction of pramANa" is not entirely a

dvaitic one. Sureshwaracharya also seems to accept this view.

 

If there seems to be

a contradiction between two different pramANa-s, it

has to be resolved noticing the sphere of influence of

the pramANa. For example scripture might say "Fire

speaks". It is absurd to interpret it as fire

speaking, since perception reveals that fire is inert.

The context may show that it is someone with "fire

like" qualities who is speaking.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

>

> The isolation of the domains of different pramanas is not consistent

> with the darshana of Advaita in which Brahman is considered to be the

> material cause of the entire universe.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

Namaste Chitta ji,

 

Our Advaitin Luminaries seem quite unambiguous on this matter:

 

"Sruti is an authority only in matters not perceived by means of

ordinary instruments of knowledge such as pratyaksha or immediate

perception; - i.e, it is an authority as to the mutual relation of

things as means to ends; but not in matters lying within the range of

pratyaksha; indeed, sruti is intended as an authority only for knowing

what lies beyond the range of human knowledge....A hundred srutis may

declare that fire is cold or that it is dark; still they possess no

authority in the matter" Sri Adi Sankaracharya, Bhagavad GitA Bhashya

(18:66)

 

 

"If a thing is perceieved by the senses, it cannot be revealed by the

Veda; if a thing is genuinely revealed by the Veda, it cannot be an

object of sense perception. A perception (purporting to bear on a

revealed subject) is a semblance of a perception; and a revealed text

(bearing on what is subject to perception is only) a mere semblance of

a revelation" Sri Sureshwaracharya, Naiskarmyasiddhi (3:84-86)

 

Since the main purport of the Sruti is to communicate Bramha Jnanam,

any passages related to creation are subservient to the main purport.

The passages related to creation dealing with the 5 elemental model,

demonstrate a simple model of the Jagat that is necessary for seeing

the unity in creation and conducive for the rise of Bramha Jnanam, as

opposed to the 108 elemental periodic table that is conducive for an

increment in knowledge of the empirical world (and is still never

quite done with that!).

 

If the mind indulges too heavily in researching the 108 elemental

empirical model, does the mind have room to ponder on the Self? Hence,

the mind is drawn away from such indulgences by the Sruti which

reduces the Jagat to just five elements.

 

One model doesn't contradict/invalidate the other. The five elemental

model doesn't help to fly airplanes in the empirical world. The 108

(and still counting) elemental model doesn't help in gaining Self

Knowledge.

 

 

warm regards,

--Satyan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastav-ji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

 

> Sri Michael wrote:

>

> On the whole you seem to be partial to a literalist view

> of scripture

>

> Sri Chittaranjan replied:

>

> Of the Vedas, yes.

 

Sri Srivastavji replies:

> However, Jaimini does seem to accept the need for special

> interpretation of veda where literal interpretation would

> lead to "contradictions" and thus erode Veda's authority.

> pUrva-mimAmsA sutras lay out rules for special interpretation

> of vedic passages where a literal meaning will not suffice.

 

Srivastavji, I need to remove the confusion caused by the

term 'literalist'. What you say is true. I did not mean 'literalist'

in the sense of taking the direct word-meanings of the Vedas even

when a contradiction is evident, but in the sense of taking the

meanings of the Vedic words in favour of any contrary explanations

from other sources. It was a response made to Michaelji in the

context of there being a conflict between Vedic and scientific

explanations and the proposition that Vedic explanations are pre-

scientific. You are right, interpretation of the Vedas are to be done

in accordance with the rules of scriptural hermeneutics (vakhyartha)

and Nyaya. So, let the matter rest here. All I can say in this

particular case is: 'don't take my words literally.' :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Satyanji.

 

You are right - the five element model is very basic and

comprehensive if we really pause to observe the inherent pattern:

 

Thus, space represents all the space there is including the mental

where objects (objectifications) exist.

 

Air stands for all gaseous matter including our much treasured oxygen

and the most toxic fumes.

 

Fire has all that burns including our gastric juice and any type of

other acids one can visualize. Light and heat not excluded.

 

Earth has all that Mendeleev classifed and those we are adding to his

basic classification.

 

Water covers all material in liquid form.

 

There isn't anything that we know of which fall outside this

classification.

 

This is something akin to the ashtamUrti classification. To quote

Sankara from DakshinAmUrtyashtaka - Stanza 9 - as translated by Pujya

Chinmayanandaji:

 

"He, whose 8-fold forms are the "Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether, Sun,

Moon and Jeeva", and who manifests Himelf as this universe of the

movable and immovable objects - and besides which, the Supreme All-

Pervading Lord, there exists nothing to those who reflect well

upon ..... to Him, the Divine Teacher, Sri Dakshinamoorthy, is this

Prostration."

 

Here, the Sun, Moon and Jeeva have been added to the five elements of

the former classification to include all stellar matter including

perhaps the grand interstellar clouds and the singularities we know

of today (Sun), planetary or satellite systems - those that go around

(Moon), and at the end me - the jeeva who feels isolated and wants

to put an end to that isolation.

 

I am therefore compelled to go the Chittaranjan way. The 108-element

classification might not grant me Self-knowledge. For that matter,

neither might the 5 element or 8 mUrthy classification. However,

Self-Realization is not denied to either the five-element ardent or

the one who develops an airplane if he "reflects well upon". To

both, it is the Lord who pervades the five or one hundred and

eight. That is the relevance of sruti in the pratyaksha. Pratyaksha

cries out to shruti for help. Shruti is called for because there is

the bewildering pratyaksha. He who, therefore, sees the different

domains as an unisolated Whole ultimately gains. This doesn't

necessarily mean that pratyaksha jnAna leads to Self-Realization. It

is this point of view that ultimately vindicates what Sankara and

Sureshwara have said as quoted by you.

 

We who have devised thousands of names to drive home the same Truth

over and over again need not worry about the still-expanding

elemental model if the Infinity inherent in it is rightly perceived.

Because each element that we know of or that we may add to the table

in future is the Lord Himself ultimately. This leaves our researches

in the pratyaksha happily wedded to Truth. Such quest can never be

an indulgence away from what the shruti declares in most unambiguous

terms. All perceiving scientists have heeded to this inner call.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________

 

 

 

advaitin, "Satyan Chidambaran" <satyan_c>

quoted Chittaranjanji:>

> >

> > The isolation of the domains of different pramanas is not

consistent

> > with the darshana of Advaita in which Brahman is considered to be

the

> > material cause of the entire universe.

> >

> > Chittaranjan

____________________

 

AND SAID:

>

> Since the main purport of the Sruti is to communicate Bramha Jnanam,

> any passages related to creation are subservient to the main

purport.

> The passages related to creation dealing with the 5 elemental model,

> demonstrate a simple model of the Jagat that is necessary for seeing

> the unity in creation and conducive for the rise of Bramha Jnanam,

as

> opposed to the 108 elemental periodic table that is conducive for an

> increment in knowledge of the empirical world (and is still never

> quite done with that!).

>

> If the mind indulges too heavily in researching the 108 elemental

> empirical model, does the mind have room to ponder on the Self?

Hence,

> the mind is drawn away from such indulgences by the Sruti which

> reduces the Jagat to just five elements.

>

> One model doesn't contradict/invalidate the other. The five

elemental

> model doesn't help to fly airplanes in the empirical world. The 108

> (and still counting) elemental model doesn't help in gaining Self

> Knowledge.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Satyanji.

>

> You are right - the five element model is very basic and

> comprehensive if we really pause to observe the inherent pattern:

>

> Thus, space represents all the space there is including the mental

> where objects (objectifications) exist.

>

> Air stands for all gaseous matter including our much treasured

oxygen

> and the most toxic fumes.

>

> Fire has all that burns including our gastric juice and any type

of

> other acids one can visualize. Light and heat not excluded.

>

> Earth has all that Mendeleev classifed and those we are adding to

his

> basic classification.

>

> Water covers all material in liquid form.

>

> There isn't anything that we know of which fall outside this

> classification.

 

Namaste Nairji!

 

For me the 5-element model comes alive everyday, e.g. space, air,

water, earth and fire (of the sun) come together to form the

vegetables and fruits through the fundamental process of

photosynthesis. I know that biology has a detailed version of this,

and the details may explain how a tomato is different from a

cucumber, but, in essence, they are both the same - a combination of

the five basic elements. And so is everything else. Our quest as

advaitins, takes us to the source of even these five elements.

Science deals with the variations, while sruti tells us that the

underlying principle is one only, without a second.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan