misunderstanding/peter

[Guest guest]

Namaste Peterji,

No you didn't misunderstand. I had identified

 

Subbuji's position as akin to that of Descartes in

 

which any state of waking or dreaming is all just

 

consciousness and therefore not to be distinguished

 

with certainty one from the other. This

 

indeterminable consciousness is the basic given for

 

those of that philosophic orientation.

 

This is in contrast with the Advaitic as I limned. As

 

for the authorities who take a different view as to

 

what is a pramana/valid means of knowledge, would

 

you accept Shankara and Dharmaraja Adhvarindra?

 

The former position cannot know whether what we

 

are undergoing is a perception or a dream and thus

 

perception cannot be a pramana for them.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste Peterji,

> No you didn't misunderstand. I had identified

>

> Subbuji's position as akin to that of Descartes in

>

> which

[Namaste Michael ji,

 

This post of yours is quite interesting. While i have not read

Descartes or any Western philosopher, i have nothing to say about

this. As for your remark :

 

any state of waking or dreaming is all just

>

> consciousness and therefore not to be distinguished

>

> with certainty one from the other. This

>

> indeterminable consciousness is the basic given for

>

> those of that philosophic orientation.

 

[let me say this: It is the Absolute position of Vedanta that

all 'states' are only a superimposition, an appearance, on/of that

Ultimate Consciousness, Turiya. All the distincitions come in only

to enable our handling of the parlance (vyavahara). And this

distinction is not of 'certainty' in the absolute sense. For,

nothing is certain excepting that Turiya. So, any distinction

between two states is only relative. We see Shankara doing this.

Any non-distinction taught is only to take us to the Truth. For,

there is the Aitareya Upanishad saying: There are three dreams

namely the waking, the dream and the sleep. In that sense all

states are one only and that is 'unreal'. That way they are all non-

distinguishable.

 

Consciousness is not indeterminable either. It has been eminently

determined in the Seventh mantra of the Mandukya Upanishad after/by

negating all that is not consciousness. ]

 

You say:

 

> This is in contrast with the Advaitic as I limned. As

>

> for the authorities who take a different view as to

>

> what is a pramana/valid means of knowledge, would

>

> you accept Shankara and Dharmaraja Adhvarindra?

>

> The former position cannot know whether what we

>

> are undergoing is a perception or a dream and thus

>

> perception cannot be a pramana for them.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

 

[You would have noticed that BSB preamble makes it quite clear: All

pramana-prameya business is in the realm of ignorance only. They

take for granted a pramatru, the jiva, who (imagines) considers

himself a knower who knows something knowable with the

instrumentation of a pramana. This is the adhyasa that he is

subject to and this is the starting point for his endeavours - both

secular and religious/spiritual. Shankara makes it clear that even

the 'business' associated with liberation is also in that realm

only. So, naturally, the pramana, be it perception or even the

Veda, is in the realm of ignorance only. The Veda/Shankara go(es)

on to build a path for the seeker keeping this as the starting

point. This is essential for it is impossible for the seeker to

give this up instantly. And it will be counterproductive too. If

he is asked to consider perception as invalid, how will he approach

the teacher, hear, reflect, interact with others, carry on his own

mundane life? If, again, he is asked to drop Veda as invalid, that

also will be disastrous. With what as the basis will he conduct his

enquiry? So, all these are admitted in the provisional level as

valid. But the teaching is simultaneously given that these are not

valid in the Absolute realm. That is what Shankara does at the very

beginning, in the preamble itself.

 

It is not that this position puts one in a situation where he does

not know whether he is dreaming or perceiving. Shankara makes all

efforts only to clarify this point in the BSB II.ii.29 which happens

to be enigmatic to many people when contrasted with the Shankaran

position in the Karika. Shankara teaches that the waking which is

where conscious endeavour in sadhana is taking place has to be

distinguished from the dream state. (He goes on to show the

distinguishing features of the two states). If a sadhaka makes an

error of judgement in this, he is doomed. His sadhana will go

helter skelter. But, when it comes to practicing the vision of the

Absolute, it is incumbent upon the teacher to point out the

similarity of the two states and enable appreciation of their non-

distinguishable unreal nature. This balance, holding the

distinction between dream and waking at one level and recognizing

their sameness at another level, has to be an integral part of one's

sadhana. One level takes care of the sadhana and the other

strengthens the visioning of the absolute. When the sadhana attains

due maturity, the former fades into or gets submerged into the

latter.

 

Incidentally, on another note, this fruition state is the one that

validates the Advaitic truth of nonduality. And it (the validation)

is empirical in the sense that even while living, the Jnani directly

experiences the unreality of duality, the Unity of all

multiplicity. Shankara gives specific expression to this

possibility.

 

Thus, in the light of the foregoing no confusion is present in the

system of Shankara's Advaita. All the seeming contradictions have

to be settled with due understanding of the various positions.]

 

With warm regards and best wishes,

subbu

Om Tat Sat