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

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Neelakantanji & Madathilji,

>

> I can go one better than this. I have read the alphabet so I

have

> essentially covered all the literature that uses the roman

alphabet. I

> have sounded all the notes on the piano, including the black ones

so I

> have essentially heard all that music can offer.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

Namaste Michaelji.

 

Sarcasm apart, I think you have missed the point. It is the

principle of the thing. Yes, the entire spectrum of music is

contained in the notes of the piano and all literature is contained

in the alphabet in the same manner as all jewellery is contained in

gold and all pots are pre-existent in clay. To give another example,

to understand that the three primary colours can be combined to

create an infinite number of shades, I need not actually create/look

at every possible shade. If my goal is to understand the one reality

behind the variegated universe, IMHO it is necessary to go into the

essence and not study every manifestation and variation.

 

Hope this helps.

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Sarcasm apart, I think you have missed the point. It is the

principle of the thing. Yes, the entire spectrum of music is

contained in the notes of the piano and all literature is contained

in the alphabet in the same manner as all jewellery is contained in

gold and all pots are pre-existent in clay. To give another example,

to understand that the three primary colours can be combined to

create an infinite number of shades, I need not actually create/look

at every possible shade. If my goal is to understand the one reality

behind the variegated universe, IMHO it is necessary to go into the

essence and not study every manifestation and variation.

 

Hope this helps.

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

 

||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Neelakantanji,

We were discussing I think the relative usefullness scientifically of the

5 element system as against the Periodic Table. I merely applied the

reductio ad absurdum principle to the idea that if being general is a good

thing then being even more general is better. However if you now propose

that the 5 elements are symbolic of the multitudinous progressing towards

unity as the Omkar chanted 27 times ends in silence then I would concur.

 

 

(from Adonis by Shelley)

The One remains, the many change and pass;

Heaven's light forever shines, Earth's shadows fly;

Life, like a dome of many-colour'd glass,

Stains the white radiance of Eternity,

Until Death tramples it to fragments. -- Die,

If thou wouldst be with that which thou dost seek!

Follow where all is fled! -- Rome's azure sky,

Flowers, ruins, statues, music, words, are weak

The glory they transfuse with fitting truth to speak.

 

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Satyan-ji,

 

They say magic is an ancient and fine art, and right now I could do

with some of this art. After your last post, wherein you had quoted

no less an authority than Adi Shankara Himself, I would have

considered closing the matter immediately, but there is a small thing

that stands in the way of my doing so – it is what I see to be an

optical illusion. Only today, Srivastavji admonished me for saying,

rather inadvertently, that I was taking the Vedas 'literally' and he

pointed out to me the need to apply proper scriptural hermeneutics.

Having taken his advice to heart, I think it would be fitting on my

part to apply it to the best of my ability and hope that the maya of

this optical illusion goes away.

 

 

advaitin, "Satyan Chidambaran" <satyan_c>

wrote:

> > 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.

> 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.... Sri Adi Sankaracharya,

> Bhagavad GitA Bhashya (18:66)

 

 

I would like to proceed with this topic by breaking it up into four

separate parts as follows:

 

1. The question of coherency

2. Interpretation of the bhashya

3. The nature of prameya and pramana

4. Coherency of the interpretation

 

 

1. THE QUESTION OF COHERENCY

 

I had begun this discussion by stating that "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." If we should understand the Acharya to be

saying what you imply that he is saying (by quoting him) then we need

to consider the inconsistency that arises.

 

If pratyaksha is isolated from sruti, it would provides no scope for

the sruti to override it. Then this world would be real. Pratyaksha

reveals it to be real. Period. There would be no basis whatsoever to

say that the world is unreal. Neither would anumana be able to infer

that the world is unreal because the domain of anumana cannot

infringe on the domain of pratyakhsa i.e., it can neither affirm it

nor contradict it. If you should say that sruti provides the

knowledge to show that the world is unreal, then sruti would be

infringing on the domain of pratyaksha and contradicting it. All that

one can say about the world, in accordance with the pratyaksha that

reveals it, is that it is real. If you should say that pratyaksha

itself is absent in the revelations of sruti, then I would reply that

the world should then not be spoken about as unreal; it should be

left as pratyaksha has revealed it to be while one quietly drifts

into the realm where there is no pratyaksha. And even when one drifts

into this realm, one should desist from saying that there is no

world. We should instead be saying that the world is left behind

because that is the only valid knowledge provided about the world at

any time. The locution of the world being unreal should never arise

in Advaita.

 

I had said earlier that the isolation between pratyaksha and sruti is

a position held by Dvaita. Dvaita never says that the world is

unreal. The ontological status they assign to the world is in perfect

consonance with their epistemology. Do you know what the Dvaitins say

about moksha? They say that the soul's connection with prakriti is

gone.

 

There has to be a consistency between the prameya and the pramana.

 

What kind of Advaita is it where we adopt the epistemology of Dvaita

and the conclusion of Advaita?

 

There is something seriously wrong somewhere, and I believe that it

would be foolish to live with this kind of inconsistency if we are to

be serious adherents of Advaitins.

 

Let us now look at the bhashya to see what it really means.

 

 

2. INTERPRETATION OF THE BHASHYA

> "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.... Sri Adi Sankaracharya,

> Bhagavad GitA Bhashya (18:66)

 

The entire context of this bhashya is the unrelatedness of works for

moksha. The bhashya for this specific Gita verse begins with the

question: "What has been determined in the Gita-sastra as the means

of attaining the Highest bliss (nis-sreyasa)? Is it Knowledge or

Works or both together?"

 

What Sri Shankaracharya is doing in the particular section of the

bhashya (that is cited) is showing the way to Self-Knowledge through

tattva-jnana. What you are trying to do, on the contrary, is to use

it for isolating the pramanas. This is not the intended meaning of

the Acharya. Let us try to understand the bhashya in its proper light.

 

In order bring the context of this part of the bhashya to the fore,

it is necessary to start with the text just preceding the one you

have quoted above. It is then seen that the context is gauna-

pratyaya – speaking figuratively of the Self as the body, senses,

etc. The question that the opponent asks at this point is: "Since the

scriptural ordinances are of undisputed authority in transcendental

matters, the purposes of the Self can certainly be achieved by what

are figuratively spoken of as the Self - viz., the body, the senses,

and so on." Sri Shankaracharya explains that such is not the case

because the notion of identity is an illusion. He says: "This notion

of identity is therefore - because it does not exist in the absence

of illusion - caused by illusion; and it is not gaunya-pratyaya."

What the Acharya says next is the key to interpreting the meaning of

the text:

 

"It is only when similarity and difference are distinctly seen

between two things - as between a lion and Devadatta, or between a

student and fire - that these two things may be figuratively spoken

of in word as identical or so regarded in thought, but not when

similarity and difference are not perceived."

 

In order to interpret the sentence 'Devadatta is a lion' correctly,

one has to distinguish between Devadatta, who is not a lion, and a

lion, which is not Devadatta, so that the intended meaning

that 'Devadatta is brave like a lion' may strike us by perceiving the

two objects that are different as 'Devadatta' and 'lion' and seeing

the sameness of the quality 'braveness' that abides in both of them.

This distinction of the sameness and difference is what is to be

perceived. Now, when it is said that sruti is an authority only in

matters not perceived, what is meant is that it is an authority in

matters relating to the sameness and difference between the Self and

non-Self which is not perceived through other pramanas. Pratyaksha

operates only when this distinction between the Self and the non-Self

is concealed i.e., pratyaksha is outwardly directed towards the

object without the apperception of the Self. Such knowledge, which

has within it a defect or concealment, is not imparted by the sruti.

The sruti only imparts knowledge of that which is revealed (not

hidden) and is not the object of normal perception. Therefore it is

only pratyaksha that is an authority "in matters lying within the

range of pratyaksha" because what lies within the range of pratyaksha

is knowledge made defective through hiddenness. Therefore, Sri

Shankaracharya says: "indeed, sruti is intended as authority only for

knowing what lies beyond the range of human knowledge".

 

When the hiddenness that underlies pratyaksha is removed, the very

same object that was seen in pratyaksha is now seen without any

defect and hence its relation to Self is distinctly seen in terms of

the sameness and difference that abides between the Self and the

object. This seeing distinctly is the means to Self-Realisation.

Please read the next sentence of the Acharya's bhashya: "it (sruti)

is an authority as to the mutual relation of things as means to

ends." What is this mutual relation between things that is a means

for Self-Realisation? Before self-realisation one must see the

sameness and difference between things. It is also called tattva-

jnana – the seeing of sameness and difference between the tattvas

distinctly. This ability to see things distinctly enables one to see

that the Self is not acting – that action is a tattva that is beheld

by the Self and is not a thing that involves the Self. It is the

opening up of the fire of knowledge in which action is burnt up and

it is same as moksha.

 

"O Arjuna, as a blazing fire reduces pieces of wood to ashes,

similarly the fire of Knowledge reduces all actions to ashes."

(Bh.Gita.IV.37)

 

Please remember that the entire context of this part of the bhashya

is to show that moksha is unrelated to works and that it is nothing

but the eternal Knowledge that abides in the Self. That Knowledge is

the tattva-jnana that the Self eternally has. It is what is to be

spontaneously attained for Self-realisation. Tattva-jnana obtains

directly from sruti because tattva is the artha that is in the Self.

This is what is meant by: "it (sruti) is an authority as to the

mutual relation of things as means to ends."

 

 

ON PRAMEYA AND PRAMANA

 

Prameya means the object of pramana (a means of knowledge). In order

to know what the objects of knowledge are, we need to consider two

doctrines of Advaita.

 

The first is the doctrine regarding words. In Advaita, words and

their objects are eternal. The word and the object abide eternally in

the Self. These objects, as they are, and as they abide in the Self,

are the tattvas. What we see in pratyaksha is nothing but the tattvas

made visible to the senses. The tattva that abides in the Self is the

stamp of sakshi-pramana that operates even in pratyaksha. Without it

no perception or recognition of any object would take place.

 

The second is the doctrine of anirvacaniya. An object seen in

pratyaksha is anirvacaniya. It cannot be said to be either real or

unreal because it is seen through a defect. Sruti cannot show this

object – with this defect in it – because sruti is the revelation of

Truth; it cannot show a falsity. What is this defect primarily? The

defect is the outward directedness of the senses in which the Self

lies concealed and the distinction between Self and non-Self is not

discriminated. The outward directedness of the senses hide the nature

of the object because the object is truly the meaning in the Self.

This is what the Katha Upanishad says:

 

"Svayambhuh, the great Lord, injured the outgoing senses. Therefore,

one sees the outer things and not the inner Self. A rare

discriminating man, turns his eye away and sees the indwelling Self."

(Ka.Up. II,i,1)

 

 

To see an object without avidya is to see the sameness and the

difference between the Self and the object. Each of these – seeing

difference and seeing sameness – has a meaning in Advaita.

 

In seeing the difference, the object is seen in its true nature as an

eternal principle. The eternal principle is sabdartha. Knowing it is

tattva-jnana.

 

In seeing the sameness, it is seen that the subject and object are

the same, that the object is not other than the Self.

 

This is the embracing of the great paradox – of the Lower Nature of

Brahman in the Higher Nature so that the Higher Nature is the One

without a second.

 

It is only in the light of this Nature of Brahman that we may

consider the prameya and the pramana.

 

Pratyaksha is a pramana that reveals objects with the defect of the

outgoing senses. Sruti is the pramana that reveals objects without

this defect wherein the object is seen to be non-different from the

subject and also wherein the distinctions are known in Self-nature.

What stands between the two pramanas of sruti and pratyaksha is

avidya and not the object. The object is the same. When it is said

that the object of pratyaksha is different from the object of sruti,

the object meant is the defectively seen object which can never be

shown by sruti because it would be a contradiction for sruti to

reveal the true nature of something that has falsity in it.

 

 

4. COHERENCY OF THE INTERPRETATION

 

With the interpretation provided here, the Acharya's words maintain

an overall coherency. Moreover, the interpretation considers the

context of the two things that the Acharya mentions: (1) the

necessity of seeing the sameness and difference of things and (2) the

relation between things being a means to the end. Both these would be

made superfluous if we should interpret the Acharya's words to mean

that the pramanas are completely isolated from each other. The

statement that they have different domains has a context. In

accordance with this very context, the order of pramanas become

consistent with Brahman being the material cause. And lastly, all the

internal inconsistencies that would arise from the doctrine of the

world being unreal have been avoided.

_____________

 

 

OTHER POINTS

> 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)

 

I would first like to take the opinion that was voiced by someone

that sruti must be changed if it contradicts pratyaksha. This is not

what Sri Shankaracharya is saying here. I shall quote what Sri

Shankaracharya says in the next sentence (which follows after the one

you've quoted) so that the matter may be rested:

 

"If sruti should at all declare that fire is cold or that it is dark,

we would still suppose that it intends quite a different meaning from

the apparent one; for its authority cannot otherwise be maintained."

 

The sruti is apaurusheya and eternal. It shall not be changed.

 

Now regarding fire. Fire is a tattva. It is the artha that is in the

Self. What we see as fire in pratyaksha is that artha made visible to

the senses i.e., pratyaksha reveals it to the eyes in samsara, and

what it reveals is the same fire that is in the Self. How can the

nature of that fire that is in the Self ever be changed? Even the

sruti cannot change it, and the sruti, which is the revelation of

Truth, will never attribute a wrong nature to things. Therefore, if

it is found that sruti should be saying something contrary to the

natures of things – contrary to the swadharma of things – we must

understand sruti to be speaking with a secondary sense of meaning.

 

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

> Jnanam, any passages related to creation are subservient to

> the main purport.

 

Of course. There was no dispute on this point.

 

> 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 incremental knowledge means incremental removal of avidya, then it

would incrementally lead to the 5 basic elements that permeate the

108 elements. These 5 elements are among the 24 fundamental tattvas

of Advaita Vedanta, and anyone who doesn't abide by them is not

strictly abiding by Advaita Vedanta.

 

> 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.

 

The five elements are seen. They are seen as pervading all the other

elements. When what is seen is in accordance with sruti, no further

reasoning is needed with regard to its truth. The five elements

exist.

 

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

 

Again, your statement that the 5 elements and 108 elements don't

contradict each other another is false. The air of science is a

compound composed of nitrogen, oxygen and such other things. The air

of the Vedas is not thus composed. It permeates the air of science.

These two airs are contradictory.

 

> The five elemental model doesn't help to fly airplanes in the

> empirical world.

 

The five elements is not a model. It is a revelation. Flying

airplanes is irrelevant to the context.

 

> The 108 (and still counting) elemental model doesn't help in

> gaining Self Knowledge.

 

Moving from the effect to the material cause does help in the

progressive movement of the intellect towards chitta-shuddi which is

required for becoming fit for Self-Knowledge. Refusing to resolve the

effect into the material cause may be somewhat of a hindrance I

think.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji. A small disagreement:

 

Sri Michael wrote:

> The literalists hold by the exact meanings of the words of scripture,

> heaven for example is a real place and not a state of mind.

 

The need to go beyond the literal meaning arises only if there is an

"apparent" contradiction in different pramANas. It is in these cases

that the domain of the pramANa comes into question. In case of "heaven

as a real place" there is no "apparent" contradiction from pratyaksha

etc. Moreover, this is a subject that would very legitimately fall in

the domain of shruti. Therefore, all a vedic logician has to see

whether "heaven as a real place" is consistent with the rest of the

veda. The order of such reality may be a moot point, but there does

not seem to be any inconsistency in the stand taken "heaven as a real

place".

 

On the other hand, "heaven as a state of mind" is not supported by any

pramANa --literal or otherwise. The statement would very likely fall

into the category of mental speculation.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Michael-ji !

 

wow ! what a lovely poem by Shelly !

 

Here is one From Tagore

 

GITANJALI

 

 

I know not how thou singest, my master! I ever listen in silent

amazement.

 

The light of thy music illumines the world. The life-breath of thy

music runs from sky to sky. The holy stream of thy music breaks

through all stony obstacles and rushes on.

 

My heart longs to join in thy song, but vainly struggles for a voice.

I would speak, but speech breaks not into song, and I cry out

baffled. Ah, thou hast made my heart captive in the endless mesh of

thy music, my master

 

 

 

on another note , you state :

 

( However if you now propose that the 5 elements are symbolic of the

multitudinous progressing towards unity as the Omkar chanted 27

times ends in silence then I would concur.)

 

Well, what is that mystic number 27 times ?

 

Purashcharana

 

In this form of Sadhana -

 

1) there is the preperation

 

2) certain conditions

 

3) REpEtition of a Mantra a large number of times

 

There is a time and a place involved too! then there are other rules

what types of food to eat - the sadhaka can only eat only

havishyanna, boiled vegetables, milk or food obtained by 'begging'

etc ..... in fact, it is elaborate !

 

and for chanting Omkara ? That is not that easy either ...

The sacred syllable Aum. Is it a mantra?I Have read that the 3 and ½

coils of kundalini are represented by the 3 and ½ letters in it viz.

a , u , m , and anusvara(nasalisation) at the end.

But Om also has a bindu(orthographic dot) over the

anusvara. This bindu is termed unpronounciable in Vaikhari

but pronounciable in Pashyanti and Para !Not that simple! Tp Poroceed

from speech to silence takes more than 27 times chanting of OMKARA! I

AM CERTAIN ! if that was the case, by now i would be in Sivaloka!

 

THEN ah! THE FIVE ELEMENTS ? chitta talked about chitta shuddhi ?

what about Bhuta shuddhi ?

 

The road to enlightenement is not as easy as 123!

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

>

> Namaste Neelakantanji,

> We were discussing I think the relative usefullness scientifically

of the

> 5 element system as against the Periodic Table. I merely applied

the

> reductio ad absurdum principle to the idea that if being general

is a good

> thing then being even more general is better. However if you now

propose

> that the 5 elements are symbolic of the multitudinous progressing

towards

> unity as the Omkar chanted 27 times ends in silence then I would

concur.

>

>

> (from Adonis by Shelley)

> The One remains, the many change and pass;

> Heaven's light forever shines, Earth's shadows fly;

> Life, like a dome of many-colour'd glass,

> Stains the white radiance of Eternity,

> Until Death tramples it to fragments. -- Die,

> If thou wouldst be with that which thou dost seek!

> Follow where all is fled! -- Rome's azure sky,

> Flowers, ruins, statues, music, words, are weak

> The glory they transfuse with fitting truth to speak.

>

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

Thank you Michaelji, for the beautiful quote.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Satyan Chidambaran" <satyan_c>

wrote:

> > 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.

> 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.... Sri Adi Sankaracharya,

> Bhagavad GitA Bhashya (18:66)

 

 

Dear Sir,

Stripped of all the abstract terminologies of the

Advaita epistemology , does what you try to convey conduce to the truth that

the phenomenal objects are only a manifestation of Brahman, and are not unreal?

You are saying that the sruti cannot enter into the domain of Prathyakasa.

Does this mean that there can be no unequivocal declaration that the world is

real or unreal, the transcendetal knowledge being relevant only as a liberating

insight, it being not concerned with the reality or unreality of the world. In

Pancadasi, I rememember having read that the absence of the world in deep

sleep, does not conduce to self-realization, Bhaghavan Ramana also having

endorsed this idea. Would you, sir, please, help me in understanding better

what you are trying to convey, in a more simple language like the one used by

Bhaghavan Ramana?

Yours Ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michaelji and Sri Srivastavji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

>

> Namaste Michael-ji. A small disagreement:

>

> Sri Michael wrote:

>

> > The literalists hold by the exact meanings of the words of

> > scripture, heaven for example is a real place and not a state

> > of mind.

>

> The need to go beyond the literal meaning arises only if there

> is an "apparent" contradiction in different pramANas. It is in

> these cases that the domain of the pramANa comes into question.

> In case of "heaven as a real place" there is no "apparent"

> contradiction from pratyaksha etc. Moreover, this is a subject

> that would very legitimately fall in the domain of shruti.

> Therefore, all a vedic logician has to see whether "heaven as

> a real place" is consistent with the rest of the veda. The

> order of such reality may be a moot point, but there does

> not seem to be any inconsistency in the stand taken "heaven

> as a real place".

>

> On the other hand, "heaven as a state of mind" is not supported

> by any pramANa --literal or otherwise. The statement would very

> likely fall into the category of mental speculation.

 

I am inclined to agree with Srivastaji. What kind of a place is

heaven? According to the scriptures, heaven (swargaloka) is a realm

that is different than this earth (bhuloka) and which at the same

time permeates this world and constitutes a 'layer of reality'

through which causality operates as it springs forth from the Ground

and breaks out into this world. Heaven is more imbued with Life than

this world and the flavour of causality as seen in this layer are

like the 'actions of life'. The entites that are the 'acting

principles' here are the denizens of heaven - the gods and goddesses,

the rakshasas and the asuras. Things happen in this world (earth)

because causality operates through the denizens of heaven and they

appear there as the desires and actions of the gods and goddesses,

rakshasas and asuras. The gods and goddesses have satvic desires

(mostly but not always because the gunas are always mixed) and the

rakshasas have rajasic desires and the asuras have tamasic desires.

These are the desires that appear in this world as the thoughts and

actions of beings of bhuloka.

 

The gods and goddesses, the rakshasa and asuras are souls like us.

They have come to occupy these exalted positions (yes, even the

asuras are exalted) due to their past karma. But just as souls that

have become humans have greater capacity than the brute animals, the

heavenly beings have more capacity than us. They have for example,

the capacity to manifest various bodies at the same time. But they

have default bodies as gods and goddesses, or rakshasas and asuras,

and these maybe some parts of natures such as the rivers, hills,

mountains, etc. They also have their specific domains of activity

which are our indriyas such as sense of sight, sense of hearing,

organ of actions such as hands, feet, etc. When we see an object for

example, it is a god that is driving the sense of sight (eye) to the

object. As I said, the god is a layer, and the driving of the senses

ultimately takes place from the Reality known as Ishvara.

 

When we look at the literature of the ancient world, there is one

thing that strikes us - they are stories of reality in which there is

active participation between the humans and the gods, between beings

of light and darkness that were interleaved with the texture of human

life. The Goddess Athene, daughter of Zeus, for example, was

constantly influencing the thoughts of Odysseus during his return to

his country Ithaca and to his beloved wife, Penelope. Simetimes,

Athene was seen by the eye of Odysseus, sometime she was a thought in

the mind of Odysseus. I think it was Vicco who once said that we

shall never know what the world of the ancients was like because it

is so strange to us today that unless we become like them it is

impossible for us to know it. In the Bhagavata Purana, it says that

Kali Yuga started after Lord Krishna left this earth, and that the

earth that was until then enshrined with life suddenly became dull

and inert. Is there a meaning to this? I mean, look that the

literature of the past which is alive with the dance of life and look

at the current literature in which we find mostly men and women as

beings walking about on a dead earth. Living Gaia has become the dead

earth.

 

Just a few thoughts.

 

Warm regards,

hittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastavji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

 

> Namaste Chittaranjan-ji. Congratulations on your masterpiece of

> pramANa analysis!! I have had a glance at the essay. And here I

> express my first comment by way of wonderment. Wonderment at the

> rigor and complexity of the analysis.

 

Thank you for your kind words. I need to say, however, that

complexity often breeds more confusion! I like simplicity though, but

this brahma-jnana, which ultimately is seen as being effortlessly

simple, often takes us through paths as complex as our minds make it

out to be.

 

I don't think we have had much opportunity in the past to discuss

with each other, but I would like to say that I have read some of

your (and Satyanji's) posts and though I have not always agreed with

them I have admired the clarity of thought and clarity of expression

contained in them.

 

> An opus of this nature deserves a full-bodied review. I have

> to take more bites and should stop to chew and relish them. I

> must confess, it will take me weeks to fully understand (if at

> all) the import of all that you have tried to convey.

 

Please take your time. I am presently not in a mood for discussion,

especially of the debating kind, and would rather be a spectator of

the delightful posts that keep turning up on this list. Also, it is

okay with me if you should disagree with my interpretation. I believe

that we must disagree when we are presented with a perspective that

is different than that of our own conviction. Both are wrong anyway.

It is simply a process of adhyaropa and apavada. During the process

of disagreement, we may find suddely that what we were holding on to

is wrong. It was an adhyaropa, an attribution that we had held on to.

It was the result of a deliberation of the mind, and hence it was a

deliberate attribution superimposed on to reality. It is then time to

rescind. But the mind needs a support, and it immediately clings on

to some other perspective which it sees as being a broader vision of

reality except that it thinks this vision is correct. It is not; it

is merely a new adhyaropa - a new deliberated attribution to reality

that must one day be rescinded. And so the process of adhyaropa and

apavada goes on until one day the mind is perplexed (and tired maybe)

and suddenly there is an epiphany, a bursting out of Truth that was

always there beneath all the adhyaropas that the mind gifted to

Reality.

 

> I would not forgive myself however if I did not yield to the

> temptation of a quick comment.

 

Temptation is certainly attractive and tempting.

 

> Pratyaksha just reveals what is perceived. It does not reveal

> anything about the reality of the perceived.

 

Pratyaksha reveals the reality of the perceived object. The sensible

attributes such as colour, sound, etc are given by the senses. The

quality that are not sensible such as largeness or smallness are

given by the mind. The substantiality is given by the witness that is

the self. Without the mind, there is no sense because the mind is the

internal organ (antahkarana). Without self there is no mind as well

as the senses. Why should you leave out only the substantiality given

by the self and not also the sensible and other qaulities which would

also not be there without the self? You must include all the

constituents of perception when you define perception.

 

What is the definition of perception that you adhere to? A definition

must be pervasive of all the things to which it is applicable and it

must be bounded so that it does not pervade the things that are

inapplicable to it. In your case, you are leaving out some element of

the constituent of perception and hence the definition fails to be

pervasive.

 

> A magician may create illusion of an object that is perceived

> by pratyaksha. The perception is real; the object is not.

 

Do you already know that it is magic when you are seeing the

magician's performance? If so, you already know that the object is

unreal. So the analogy is inappropriate. I mean, if the magician

produces an apple out of thin air, you wouldn't try to eat it even if

you should be hungry. So, the situation you present is not like this

vyvaharika world where we do eat apples that are presented to us with

the full conviction that we are eating apples.

 

Let us now consider a situation in which we don't know initially that

it is a magic show (i.e., we are taken in by the magic) and that we

discover only later on that it was all a magic show. Let us try to

depict this situation in the form of an analogy. The object (apple)

is seen to be real when you are perceiving it. That perception is

pratyaksha. You need another superceding perception (the discovery

that it is magic, like when you try to eat the apple) to negate it

and say that the object is unreal. That is sruti. The perception can

never present the unreality of the object unless another superseding

pramana tells us that it is unreal. The perception always reveals the

object as real because perception operates only when there is a

concealment of the fact that it is a magic show. From this example,

it is obvious that the pramanas have an order of supersedence.

 

> For advaita, the ultimate reality of the world is brahman. How can

> therefore this subject fall in any domain other than shruti? It is

> only the vyAvahArik satya that can be adjudicated by pratyaksha etc.

> In regard to the ultimate reality, there has never been any doubt.

 

Agreed. And on this happy note of agreement, we shall end this post.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

it is obvious that the pramanas have an order of supersedence.

 

praNAMs

Hare Krishna

 

yes, this *order of supersedence* applicable to shruti as well....shruti

does not objectify brahman as such & such thing & teach us...it only adopts

the path of *nEti nEti* & says this is the highest teaching for describing

brahman !!! atra vEda avEda says bruhadAraNyaka shruti.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

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

> > it is obvious that the pramanas have an order of

> > supersedence.

> yes, this *order of supersedence* applicable to shruti

> as well....shruti does not objectify brahman as such &

> such thing & teach us...it only adopts the path of *nEti

> nEti* & says this is the highest teaching for describing

> brahman !!! atra vEda avEda says bruhadAraNyaka shruti.

 

You may be thinking that I am thinking otherwise, but I am thinking

like you are thinking. I am agreeing with you. :-)

 

I am objectifying Brahman as 'all this' just as you are objectifying

Brahman as 'not any of this'. They are both objects because they are

respectively the objects of my thinking and your thinking. Both 'all'

and 'nothing' are the adhyaropas of the mind. The Real is all along 'no-

speak' that is 'enjoying' our 'speak'. That is another adhyaropa. :-)

 

So what to do now? When we do 'speak' we take the 'speak' of Upanishads

as tatastha lakshana. Then we try to do 'no speak' for getting to

swaroopa lakshana. That is adhyaropa and apavada which you are an

authority on. :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

A FLIGHT OUT OF THE TAITTIRIYA MESH

 

Oh Lord! How much I wish

I hadn't said anything

On this wordy Taittiriya mesh

That entraps our thoughts

And clip their wings!

 

 

It all began

With an innocent query

On the lofty Upanishad.

See, where it has taken

With heated debates

Well-armed players on stage,

The asker having gone

Leaving not a trace.

 

 

There was this man

Who asked `What is the Truth?'

Placed amidst pratyaksha,

Rootlessly perplexed.

The pramANAs he held

Could only tell

What is what

And how things apparently worked.

 

 

Working day and night,

Sparing not a minute,

Pouring over the microscope

Straining on the telescope

Reached he nowhere

And wondered aloud

What could possibly be

The end of this unending game.

 

 

His pramANAs held him good,

Many a law and rule he made,

Theories and theorems split his hair,

Made him gasp for breath.

Yet, every night he retired

The unanswered poser remained

Lord, what all this I see could be?

 

 

The wise told him:

"Eh ye, behold!

This is all One

And that is the Truth.

You are caught

In a whirlpool

Of the pratyaksha,

Your pitiful domain

Of toil and sweat

Labour, love and lust.!"

 

 

"What you need is a boat

That can cut across

The whirl's cruel centrifugal hold

And take you ashore

To yonder glittering Land

Where the Sun of Truth shines

In His timeless magnificence."

 

 

"Where is the boat, Oh, Sages?"

Asked the lost.

"I see only the diverse,

Split in so many ways,

Well numbered, tagged and named,

In an infinite endless surge,

Which I can't hope to bound."

 

 

"Read and listen" said the wise

"Search with your inner eyes."

Threw they tomes and works at him

A sea of words sublime.

"Hearken, ye! The blind!

Here is shruti for you,

PramANa for the End,

Domain eternal, the peaceful Land".

 

 

Days without number he poured

Over the million sacred words.

Into the quest he put

Soul and heart and endless thirst.

At last, when he raised his head

The smiling sages heard him ask:

 

"Oh, wise men, I haven't seen

Any glittering land or domain.

I had before a set of rules

Well defined for the world I work.

You have added more to it

And made my quest complex."

 

 

"If there is a domain other than mine,

Does it mean that we have twain?

Words and tomes and books you rained,

Aren't they very much in this mine,

This very pratyaksha you want me leave?"

 

 

"Tell me, masters, how they could be

PramANa for another domain.

Who in his sense would ask for one

When me and shruti are in this one

Sitting face to face, held in tight embrace?"

 

 

The sages left him overawed,

Scratching their beards guffawed:

"Who could imagine there could be

Impervious souls so much over-flawed!

Leave him in his hell and let us

Make for snow-clad peaks of peace!"

 

 

The Ganges swirls of pratyaksha

Roared around in frenetic dance.

Lost in a brood, the man now knew,

Inseparable in her caressing grip,

He and shruti were her own babes.

The dance went on unabated

Till at last the surging love

In her bosom slowly whispered:

In his pining ears: `Oh child, you are me!'

 

 

He was the dance, he was the swirl,

He was the torrential flow

That needed not know land or shore

Suns or domains afar any more.

He was the shruti free of worry

Light of pratyksha with pramAnAs buried!

 

OM SHANTIH SHANTIH SHANTIHI

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji!

 

Being a musician, i have come to learn that pure expression comes in the

form of delight, delight that comes from the words or notes that are sung

through your lips, but bypass your intellect. Your intellect only stands in

amazement, listening to the wonderfull sounds that pass through your

apparent self. Knowledge, as conveyed earlier, serves to untie knots, so

that when sounds, ideas or words become manifest, mind does not bother

question, disturbing the blissfull nature of the spectator.

 

Being a logician, hopefully an unpretentious intellectual (with an urge

to silence intellect), mind plays tricks over what intuition tries to

convey, robbing the meaning from the lips, digesting the truth and spewing

forth mind distorted half truths - or entire lies - but, even then, the

digested produce is traceable back to self, or the generating idea. It just

depends on how much digestion has taken place over the original truth. The

more, the farther you are from intuitiveness, truth generated.

 

Being born part of the information society, gives the apparent self the

ability to overview. Overviewing pure ideas, or sincere thoughts (no matter

how full of lies they may seem at first), truth becomes ever clearer as the

unity behind digested fragments of reality. That is why i seem to relate

very different paths to that of Advaita, in their underlying, fundamental

statements, such as Nietzsche's nihilism, and the Big Bang theory, for

instance. If anything, to worldly minded people, these two examples may

convey that nothing is real, or worth dwelling over, and that what is

perceived real is traceable back to one single event. In the end, even thru

differences and mind imposed digestion, they may bear the message of unity

and truth, thus ascending people from lower natured science to the science

of the Absolute Truth. From the manyfold to the One...

 

From my limited vedic knowledge, i have come to understand that deities

(metaphorically speaking or otherwise) govern the senses. The least our

apparent selves try to interfere with what the deities try to convey, the

purest the thoughts' expression. The purest the thoughts, the greater the

convergence of ideas. The more silent i am, the greater the attunement of

ideas is (even when "i" speak). And that is what seems to be happening

here. Like a heart, filling up before expelling everything, so we contradict

each other, in order to agree (even when we take our agreement contradiction

to be).

 

My warmest regards to all...

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis: Internet rápida e grátis.

Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Felipe-ji,

 

advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

> Being a musician, i have come to learn that pure expression

> comes in the form of delight, delight that comes from the

> words or notes that are sung through your lips, but bypass

> your intellect. Your intellect only stands in amazement,

> listening to the wonderfull sounds that pass through your

> apparent self. Knowledge, as conveyed earlier, serves to

> untie knots, so that when sounds, ideas or words become

> manifest, mind does not bother question, disturbing the

> blissfull nature of the spectator.

 

There is a dear friend of mine who believes that music is an

expression of the Divine, and I agree with him. I would like to

produce here an extract from a novel that this friend has written:

 

"But I ask you, is it possible that there are things in life that

spring from higher elevations, so to speak? I am going to make a

bold statement, and I want you to consider it with your full

attention....I propose that Beethoven's Opus 61 is one of the

profoundest adventures in which your mind and heart...your

imagination...could ever be engaged. Heartache? Could the heart

ache for something beyond the human beloved? For that source of

being behind the ancient tears of a gray rainfall? Within

that 'certain slant of light' that Emily Dickinson perceived?...With

what Wordsworth meant when he wrote about 'a sense sublime of

something far more deeply interfused, whose dwelling is the light of

setting suns?' These are... hyper emotions. Such, I propose, are

worthier feelings than...soaking up the dregs of an unrequited affair

with the heart's sponge?....Or you mentioned boredom--have you ever

challenged boredom?...gone deeply into it to see what strange things

might lie behind its curtain? Beethoven is the intrepid sea-farer

striking out into wild expanses of the spirit. What I am talking

about is not for the faint of heart--this is extremely intense

spiritual activity...to attempt a discovery about nature's

inscrutable persona through the questing constructs of a musical

inquiry....Is there a transcendent realm beyond the illusory veils of

physical reality?......Well...let's go back to the concerto. And

this time, let's add our own subtitle--Zen in the Art of Beethoven.

First movement, once again. This time, please ...listen more

deeply."

 

...... from 'A Seance in B Minor' by Timothy Buck

 

 

The novel is a mystery thriller merely, but below the stage on which

its story unfolds there lies a Numinous region that every now and

then irrupts suddenly on to the stage. Since you are a musician I

thought you might be interested in the book. It begins with the ghost

of Schubert visiting Robert Schumann when Schumann is spending his

last days in a lunatic asylum:

 

"I shall fire these sheets with the flames of such music! Do you

recall your last visit, Johannes? I spoke then of terrible music,

the music of fierce angels pouring into my brain. It was too

inhuman...impossible music... music turning into the shrieks of

devils. But you'll never believe who has been visiting me lately.

It is Schubert! He comes at night when I'm in bed. It's not a

dream. By some strange power he speaks the music to me, and I

understand...but I can't remember the notes to write them down. This

music is so wonderful, more wonderful than anything now sounded on

earth. The ideas are endless, the structural logic utterly leaping

to unheard of vistas."

 

"Who else could it have been, my friend, but Schubert ...the ghost of

Schubert?....As I once said, his name should only be whispered at

night to the trees and the stars. With these gifts...onto this

paper, I swear I shall capture those Schubertian miracles!"

 

> Being a logician, hopefully an unpretentious intellectual

> (with an urge to silence intellect), mind plays tricks over

> what intuition tries to convey, robbing the meaning from the

> lips, digesting the truth and spewing forth mind distorted

> half truths - or entire lies - but, even then, the digested

> produce is traceable back to self, or the generating idea.

> It just depends on how much digestion has taken place over

> the original truth.

>

> That is why i seem to relate very different paths to that of

> Advaita, in their underlying, fundamental statements, such as

> Nietzsche's nihilism, and the Big Bang theory, for instance.

> If anything, to worldly minded people, these two examples may

> convey that nothing is real, or worth dwelling over, and that

> what is perceived real is traceable back to one single event.

> In the end, even thru differences and mind imposed digestion,

> they may bear the message of unity and truth, thus ascending

> people from lower natured science to the science of the

> Absolute Truth. From the manyfold to the One...

 

I am in agreement with you. Yes, one could say that the intuition of

Reality takes the form of the Muse which the ratiocinating mind

differentiates and interprets through the geometrical constructs of

its own making. To regain the pristine union that once prevailed, the

soul would have to return ratio to its source by unravelling its

constructs till it unites with Love again.

 

> The purest the thoughts, the greater the convergence of ideas.

> The more silent i am, the greater the attunement of ideas is

> (even when "i" speak). And that is what seems to be happening

> here. Like a heart, filling up before expelling everything, so

> we contradict each other, in order to agree (even when we take

> our agreement contradiction to be).

 

That is well said.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan