Let Saraswati flow on...

[Guest guest]

Ref. Message: 9

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:17:47 -0000

"Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik

Re: Anirvacaniya and the Bridge to Brahman called

Adhyaropapavada

 

Namaste Sri Felipe and Namaste Saraswati-ji,

 

advaitin, "Felipe" <fcrema> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjan-ji!

>

> Now it's up to us to cross the bridge and burn it

> for its non-existence...

 

Let Goddess Saraswati flow on....

 

Dear Chittaranjan ji:

Namaste. This is a lovely expression from you. Very enchanting indeed. It

really brings joy - (ranjayati )- to our (chittam) - minds.

 

Pranams

subbu

 

To continue:

Regarding a question of yours: What is the necessary condition for an analogy

to become operative...., shall i attempt an answer:

There should be some significant, not trivial, similarity between the analogy

and that which it seeks to teach about. The more the similarity the better. I

do not know if i have understood your question, but this is what came to my

mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Autos

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ref. posts 30071

 

Namaste Chittaranjan-ji;

 

I take great pleasure in reading your posts, and now i resort to a metaphor

(or destruction of) in a short reply. I grew up hearing people say "hell is

full of good intentions", and i must add that that is the worst load of

doodies people ever took the liberty of saying. It's all in the intention.

The pleasure you take in writing such beautiful words is equal to that of

the reader with good intentions. I thank you for a post that is sure going

to give me a lot to think/research/meditate on. I hope it all adds up to no

thing.

 

Namaste and my warmest regards to All...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

doce lar. Faça do sua homepage.

http://br./homepageset.html

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subrahmanian-ji,

 

advaitin, V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v>

wrote:

> Let Goddess Saraswati flow on....

>

> Dear Chittaranjan ji:

> Namaste. This is a lovely expression from you.

> Very enchanting indeed. It really brings joy -

> (ranjayati )- to our (chittam) - minds.

 

Thank you for your kind words Subrahmanianji. It was only two months

ago that i discovered the relation between Saraswati and Kundalini

Yoga. The Yoga-Kundali Upanishad says that Kundalini is awakened by

two means: by Saraswaticala and the restraint of prana. It says

moreover that it is only by rousing Saraswati that Kundalini is

awakened. The coiled Kundalini is essentially sleeping Knowledge.

 

> To continue:

> Regarding a question of yours: What is the necessary

> condition for an analogy to become operative...., shall

> i attempt an answer: There should be some significant,

> not trivial, similarity between the analogy and that

> which it seeks to teach about. The more the similarity

> the better. I do not know if i have understood your

> question, but this is what came to my mind.

 

My understanding is like this…..

 

I would say that your answer provides the necessary condition, but

that this condition is not sufficient for an analogy to be operative

as a means of knowledge. The additional condition required is that

the sameness must be seen distinctly apart from the differences. The

words 'be seen' and 'distinctly apart from the differences' are

important. Comparison (upamana), as a pramana, requires both the

sameness and the difference to be seen between the things compared so

that the sameness of the specific feature that is seen, in contrast

to the differences that are also seen, produces the knowledge that is

sought to be imparted. For example, when it said that Devadatta is

like a lion, both the differences in the features between Devadatta

and a lion as well as the sameness of the braveness in them are to be

seen for the comparison to lead to the specific knowledge that

Devadatta is brave. If someone were to say that Devadatta is like a

cat, it would result in mere speculation unless the feature that is

same as well as the features that are different (in Devadatta and the

cat) are also seen. Only when it is seen that Devadatta's eyes and

the cat's eyes are (for example) of the same colour does the analogy

act as a means to produce the knowledge that Devadatta eyes are green

like those of a cat. (Shankara explains this in the Gita bhashya

while demonstrating that the self is never acting, and that works

cannot lead to knowledge.) An analogy can be misleading when both the

sameness and the difference are not seen. What it means in the

context of the snake-rope analogy is that the 'relation' between

Brahman and the world must already be seen so that the exact feature

that is same in Brahman-world and snake-rope is discerned for it to

be operative as a means of knowledge. In order to see this sameness,

the exact nature of avidya in the snake-rope has to be known – not

merely that the snake is unreal, but also the knowledge about how

exactly the snake comes to be unreal (this forms the topic of the

preamble). Secondly, the world as standing in such a relation to

Brahman (as being unreal) has to be seen. The snake-rope analogy

operates as a means of knowledge at the experiential cusp when avidya

is dissolving and the nature of Brahman (and the world) is seen.

Without this vision, the analogy is inoperative because it cannot

relate to the super-sensuous matter that Sruti is speaking about (and

which is not given by the other pramanas). Applying the knowledge

derived from pratyaksha and anumana to the super-sensuous realm of

Brahman is liable to be speculative and misleading. Knowledge of

Brahman should already have dawned for the analogy to be useful. I

think this is the base on which Sri Gaudapadacharya uses the dream

analogy in the Karika.

 

In the Vaithathya Prakarana, Sri Gaudapadacharya first says that the

things seen in a dream (such as rivers and castles) are unreal. He

points out specifically that this unreality is based on the vyapti

that comes from the perception of invariable concomitance between

objects (like rivers and castles) and their exteriority to the body.

Based on this vyapti, the things seen in a dream are said to be

false. It is this vyapti that operates at a subliminal level in the

mind when we say that dream objects are false because they cannot

possibly exist inside the body. Next, Sri Gaudapadacharya uses the

argument that the world is unreal on account of it 'being perceived'.

The vypati here is the invariable concomitance given in the vision

that whatever is seen through perception is false. Now this cannot be

a vyapti under normal circumstances because it is not a familiar

instance (a vyapti has to be a familiar instance according to the

rules of anumana). For a vyapti, such as the one used in the Karika,

to be applicable, it has to be a familiar instance. The only people

to whom it can be a familiar instance are the jnanis who already see

it that way. Thus the dream analogy is based on the invariable

concomitance that comes from the vision of the jnani. It is in order

to prevent an illegitimate use of vyapti that Sri Gaudapadacharya

first speaks about dream-objects in relation to the body before

actually proceeding with the proof of the unreality of the world.

 

A prasthana-traya bhashyakara has to address the ajnani, one who is

still an aspirant for knowledge. The bhashyakara cannot use the

vyapti that whatever is perceived is unreal because such a use would

suffer from the fault of assuming that which is to be proved. I think

this is the reason why Shankara never uses the syllogism in the

prasthana-traya bhashyas. But Sri Gaudapadacharya is not a

bhashyakara of the prasthana-traya, and though it is the same Advaita

that he establishes, his standpoint is slightly different because his

primary aim is to refute the void of the Buddhists and establish that

the support of the world is the Self. This is evident from the fact

that immediately after establishing the unreality of the world in

verses 1 to 10, he refutes the Buddhists in verses 11 and 12 to

establish that the support of the world is the Self.

 

Again, the question may arise: How does all this matter to us as long

as the world is said to be unreal? I would say that it matters

because the very meaning of the word 'unreal' can be confusing until

jnana arises, and that applying the word 'unreal' when one is in

samsara can be misleading.

 

Overall, i feel that an analogy has not much use a means for

obtaining knowledge about the super-sensuous things revealed by the

Sruti. But i believe that the snake-rope analogy has one specific use

in Advaita. At the point when the sadhaka attains the vision of

Brahman, it serves as the apta's words confirming the 'experience'.

The use of the snake-rope analogy would, i think, be applicable

during the awakening of the sadhaka as described in Adi Shankara's

Vivekachudamani:

 

480: "Concentrating the mind for some time on the Supreme Brahman, he

rose, and out of supreme bliss spoke as follows:"

 

481: "My mind has vanished, and all its activities have melted, by

realizing the identity of Self and Brahman; I do not know either this

or not-this; nor what or how much the boundless Bliss is!"

 

482: "The majesty of the Ocean of Supreme Brahman, replete with the

swell of the nectar-like Bliss of Self, is verily impossible to

express in speech, nor can it be conceived by the mind - in an

infinitesimal fraction of which my mind melted like a hailstone

getting merged in the ocean, and is now satisfied with that Essence

of Bliss."

 

483: "Where is the universe gone, by whom is it removed, and where is

it merged? It was just now seen by me, and it has ceased to exist? It

is passing strange!"

 

 

Of course there is a lot that can be argued on both sides regarding

analogies, and i would not like to say that i have got it all

correctly. And Subrahmanianji, i do not hold your interpretation of

Advaita to be incorrect, it is just that i feel the purnatva of

Consciousness has to come in somewhere into the interpretation. I may

disagree with a few things that you say, but at the same time i am

captivated by the bhakti-rasa in your words. Bhakti is the dissolving

of ego in the fullness of Heart. Your heart is certainly Large .

 

But God has now brought a crisis into my life and i will have to take

leave of these discussions for some time. But my discussion with you

(and other members) has been stimulating, and i have certainly learnt

a little more from it than i knew before. Thank you.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan