Dialectics and pure concepts

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Felipe,

 

Ref your posts 29612 and 29703.

 

I am delighted to read your two messages, the first one regarding

dialectics, and the second one regarding pure concepts. You may be

speaking in a different language than that of the tradition but your

words find the mark very accurately.

 

I see in your second message the glow of the prescient light from

which the matrix of the world unfolds and necessitates the knife of

dialectics for returning back to the purity of that very light. As

you rightly say, the 'pure concept' is that which first shines in the

visceral light of consciousness before it enters the matrix of the

mind.

 

Felipe-ji, you identify the two aspects in a very perspicuous manner -

the 'pure concept' the truth of which you rightly eqaute with

dharma, and the 'pure concept' conceptualised, if I may so speak,

within a system of interlaced interactions. The one is the Muse, the

pure 'musical' world that is intuited, and the other is the

laboratory of the mind in which the music is mentated upon and fitted

into the system that we ourselves are dressed up in.

 

There is something very important in what you are saying, in fact so

very important that I would like to suggest that you write a thesis

on it. It is a revelatory thing that you are saying and it is a bit

unfortunate that it has so far not drawn the attention it deserves

(but I suspect that the enigmatic Purushartha-ji has seen its worth).

If I am right in understanding what you are saying, then this world

is true (the truth being equated to its dharma) and that this world

is also not true as it appears within the matrix because it is draped

with conceptualisations. Thus we have the concept, pure and

unadulterated, and the concept, adulterated with concepts. You have

arrived at the doors of anirvacaniya. How can this thing that we see,

exactly as we it here, be said to be either true or false? It is

certainly not an untrue thing that we see because what lies before us

is the the pure concept even though it may be dressed up, and yet it

is not true because it is dressed up in concepts over and above the

pure concept that it is.

 

How does one get to the true object that one is looking at when it is

dressed up? One has to affirm that which is seen because it is the

thing itself, only dessed up by our minds. Yet one has to negate it

because it is not the dressed up one truly, it is the naked thing

below the dress. Thus we arrive at a dialectic of both affirming and

denying what is seen. What is denied is not the object that is true

(its dharma), but the adharma that has been clinging to it from our

mentations. The following words of yours are most illuminating:

 

"That speck can be brought to systemic light as intuition, above

likes and dislikes (even though the strongest generator of both), and

which represents rightfull decision to the individual. From then on,

series of chained thoughts take place, eventually leading mind away

from the original (pure) concept, and through the grace of jnana or

(dis)grace of ajnana then, concepts can be grasped correctly or

otherwise, leading to adharmic apprehension of truth (in this system

untruth) etc. When correctly apprehended, even though stirring havoc

in buddhi, such concepts are back-traceable to their source, thus

eventually leading to a progessively quieter mind. When grasped

incorrectly, such mis-apprehended concepts take root in buddhi,

becoming intellectual knots that block the path to the origin of

thoughts (and birth-giver of the intellect), thus locking with

forever stronger grip perception of atman (as true-self) behind the

steel door of the corrupted intellect (as in a maze-system)."

 

Beautiful. I have one suggestion though with regard to the use of the

word 'buddhi'. The mind has two names depending on the two functions

that it plays. The first (manas) is the tendency to be unsteady, and

the second (buddhi) is the capacity to determine the truth. Buddhi is

the mind curving back to the self to pull out from it the meaning of

the dharma of things. That is why the process (logical determination

of truth) is called nyaya.

 

Congratulations for the two great articles!

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-ji!

 

I am happy you liked the articles, and i would gladly write a thesis on the

subject, provided you have both time and will to aid me a bit on the issue.

As you say, i speak in a language other than the tradition, but i find

confirmation to inumerable insights and intuited thoughts in and around the

traditional concepts you refer. Thus i sincerely need help in not getting

lost around my interpretation of things.

 

In my last article, i regarded buddhi as the faculty associated with the

perceived individual, that possessing discriminatory intellect is capable of

reaching back to the self, even though not doing so exclusively. Should

buddhi be regarded as an outward "sense" of mind, that receives no

particular inputs and only resonates with "truth", leaving confusion in

absorption to manas, or should mind inputs be chained in the order manas -

buddhi, whereas manas receives inputs and buddhi discriminates beteween

them, taming manas in the process? Where can i find more sources of such

particular aspects of knowledge, and also as regards nyaya?

 

My warmest regards

 

PS: I invite any other knowledgeable members to join in...

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

doce lar. Faça do sua homepage.

http://br./homepageset.html