Fwd: [MYP] Sri Vyasaraja Theerthara Compositions - Volume 3.0 / by Sri NAPS Rao

[Guest guest]

---------- Forwarded message ----------Harish Rao <harishdraoWed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:37 PM

[MYP] Sri Vyasaraja Theerthara Compositions - Volume 3.0 / by Sri NAPS Rao* Madhwa Yuva Parishat <MadhwaYuvaParishat >, * Sri Vyasaraja Mutt <SriVyasarajaMutt >

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

|| Sri Krishnaya Namaha ||

 

Dear Madhwa Bandhus,

 

This is the third instalment which I have tried to simplify as far as possible without losing clarity and precision in thought.

Many happy events for the year following the auspicious and unique Vijayadashami day.

 

Just for a revision, the links for the previous two postings are given below:

 

Posting #1:

MYP - MadhwaYuvaParishat/message/4427

 

SVM - SriVyasarajaMutt/message/490

 

Posting #2 -

MYP - MadhwaYuvaParishat/message/4495

 

SVM - SriVyasarajaMutt/message/505

 

With best regards

NAPSRao

 

Third instalment

 

So far, we have reviewed the concepts of acquistion of knowledge by the senses/mind as well as conviction being obtained about its validity. Science does not recognise some methods such as Swaroopa Jnana, Sookshma Indriyas or senses including the mind which are non-different from the soul itself for the simple reason that soul itself is not accepted as an entity demonstrable by scientific methods. A scientist may however believe such concepts in his own mind compartmentalised into a non-scientific area. But, even those unfamiliar with our systems of philosophy have felt that there are other means of acquiring knowledge exemplified by words like Intuition, sub-conscious flashes of Insight, suggestions in dreams about solutions to problems etc. There are some curious similarities between such modern thinking and Tatvavada as would be evident form the following passage from " The Integral Theory of Truth and Reality " by one Mr. Pitirim A. Sorokin, The Crisis of Our Age.). ((I suggest a read of the quoted material a second time, substituting the word Sakshi where applicable in place of the word Intuition (translates as Instinct, perception, Insight, Sixth sense - in the dictionary))

 

In regard to scientific and philosophical systems of truth -- the truth of the senses and of reason -- this is hardly questioned nowadays. The systems are admitted with their sources of truth: the dialectic of human reason and the testimony of the organs of the senses. Mathematics and logic are mainly the system of truth of human reason; and the natural sciences are mainly the depository of the truth of senses.

 

[1] More questionable nowadays is the truth of faith derived from such a source, which is called by diverse names as: " intuition, " " inspiration, " " revelation, " " extra-sensory perception, " " mystic experience, " and so on. Does such a source, as distinct from discursive dialectics, or testimony of the organs of senses, exist?

The answer has to be positive. We may not know exactly the nature of this source of truth. We must also admit that, like observation in all its forms (experimental, statistical, clinical) and reasoning, it does not always guarantee the truth.

 

But any careful investigator of the history of human experience, science, philosophy, religion and truly creative cultural value, can hardly deny the existence of such a source of truth and its great and positive contributions to the history of human thought, science, art, philosophy, religion, ethics, technology, and even to economic and practical creative values.

First of all, for the reason that some kind of intuition is at the very basis of the validity of the systems of truth of reason and of the senses. Second, because intuition, as distinct from discursive dialectic and sensory experience, has been one of the most important and fruitful " starters " of an enormous number of the most important scientific, mathematical and philosophical discoveries and technological inventions. Third, because a variety of the religious and mystic intuition has been the main source and the main force for the creation of the greatest artistic, religious and ethical systems of culture. Fourth, because there is a sufficiently large body of the testimonies of the great thinkers, creators of religion, of art values, of science, demonstrating the reality, the functioning and the power of this source of truth. Let us elucidate these points briefly.

 

A. That an intuition, a direct, self-evident, axiomatic, and often momentary experience different from either perception or sensation, or still more from imagination, memory, discursive thought and ordinary observation in all its forms, lies at the foundation of the validity of the basic propositions not only of religious and philosophical, but also of mathematico-logical and empirical sciences and their truths, is nowadays well recognized by many a philosopher, scientist, thinker and generally, investigator of this problem. Why do the basic postulates of any science, from mathematics to physics, appear to be unquestionably valid and their axioms axiomatic? Since, by definition they are ultimate postulates and axioms, they cannot be based upon either logic or empirical experience; on the contrary all the subsequent logical propositions and empirical theories are based upon the postulates and axioms. The only source of the self-evident character of such postulates and axioms is intuition.

 

In this sense, it is not a derivative of, but the condition and basis of the truth of reason and of sensory experience. The same conclusion is reached through consideration of the fact that language, as the indispensable condition of any thought, is not created through dialectic of human reason, but represents a product of intuition. Some thinkers even go so far as to put intuition at the basis of our perception as a judge who decides whether the perception is real or illusory. The intuition seems to be also the ultimate foundation of the beautiful, and of the ethical or moral,not to mention the religious -- the sphere particularly dominated by the intuition and especially by the mystic intuition.

 

 

Does it not sound remarkably similar to the Sakshi which is nothing but the Cognitive part of the Soul? Please note that all other elements of gathering, analysing and making conclusions about knowledge as also its validity have been listed and excluded in the above quote. In our Tatvavada system we postulate a difference between the Knower, knowledge and the known object, though the Knower is himself described as Jnana swaroopa - a non-physical entity whose essence is of the nature of knowledge itself (It is not a materialistic entity, but is composed of auspicious qualities like Bliss). A purely materialistic approach would have to assume that the living brain circuits organise themselves into different sub-systems of handling information flowing from the senses, one of which is the " knower " along with memory and analytical abilities, which are finally integrated into the conscious I-ness. It is accepted that the I-ness in knowing (I know) arises simultaneously with the act of knowing. This " I " is extremely durable, giving us a continuity of observation, ownership of thought and action, emotional feelings and reactions such as pleasure and pain, happiness and sorrow, pride and humility, love and hatred etc all through one's life. It does not entirely become powerless even in dreams and the deepest sleep, as we are conscious of complete withdrawal from the senses and the mind even in these stages. Why should therefore, one accept a materialistic postulate that it is nothing but a part of the physical equipment of the person in preference to a more convincing belief in all of us that " I " exist, know, am happy, am sorry, am proud etc. All religions accept I-ness as a valid and true experience and all of us all through our lives act on the basis of its true existence. This I-ness endures various serious disruptions of the physical Brain in accidents and mental calamities such as severe onslaughts on the personality in brain-washing, torture, bereavements etc. When it is destroyed, the Brain no longer functions as a unit of cognition. We talk about great human beings - the Statesman, Philosopher, Jurist, Musician, Scientist, Humanist, Artist etc. and human values like Kindness, patriotism, self-sacrifice etc. Would we think of all time greats like Leonardo, Shakespeare, Mahatma Gandhi only as some chance manifestations of neuron arrangements of a few physical brains being assessed as " great " by numerous other such brains? The concept of non-material entities which form a major portion of human values must have an existence independent of chemical and electrical phenomena of the perishable and limited bodies. Just as we cognise that there is an external world independent of us, which existed before we were born and will continue to exist after we do not exist as at present, Knowledge and extrasensory entities which we perceive dimly as valid, must also exist independent of the knower as it is nothing but a statement of relationships of various entities in the world in a language understandable to us. Without accepting the existence of a Knower and sakshi, all the rest of knowledge acquisition, inferences and achievements would be worthless, as it could all be considered as products of a chance combination of chemicals and energies which has " evolved' in a second rate star in an obscure corner of the Universe, which has a transient existence without any deeper meaning and value.

Let me conclude the Pramana Svathasthva position in Tatvavada. Shri Madhva continues (in Vishnutatavavinirnaya) by saying that it is not the pramana which is Parathasthva (to be proved by additional external means) as it is Svathasthva (validity self evident), but Apramana or invalidity which is Parathasthva. The normal characteristic of a text or experience is to give valid knowledge. Only if there are inhibiting factors, this ability is obscured and invalidity results. If we do not consider that invalidity is caused in this manner, we come to the absurd conclusion that even defective sense organs etc can not invariably cause incorrect knowledge which is contrary to experience. Thus Shri Madhva concludes that Validity is self proven while it is the invalidity which has to be proved by external means.

There are several theories for the proof of validity of knowledge. These can be summed up as: 1. Validity is self proven (grasped by Sakshi) and invalidity proved by external means. 2. Validity can only be proved by external means and invalidity is proven internally.

3. Both can be proven only by internal means. 4. Both can be proven by external means only.

While Shri Madhva supports 1. the Buddhists support the exact opposite (2) above.

 

The senses ( 5 Indriyas, the mind and Sakshi) are broadly of two kinds; One is intrinsic to the knower himself (Pramathru swaroopa) and the others which are external to himself. The Swaroopa Indriya is called Sakshi and is of the nature of knowledge itself. It is able to cognise the Athma swaroopa and its characteristics, happiness, sorrow etc, all of which are internal and items like time, space (Akasha, Kala) etc directly from the external world. The distinguishing characteristic of Sakshi not present in any other means of cognition is that it is invariably correct and never wrong. For instance, there is never a sublation of an actual experience " I am happy " (at specified time and place). Even later when he is no longer happy, he will never get a contradictory knowledge that I was NOT happy at that time and place.

With regard to Kala (time), it is pointed out that it is not a subject matter for any other means of cognition other than that of Sakshi. In the absence of Rupa (Colour) etc, which are the objects of the sense organs (Indriyas), it can not be grasped by them. The Mind is not able to grasp objects external to itself. If it is argued that the cognition of time is due to Anumana (Inference), it is pointed out that such cognition requires essentially the previous cognition of Vyapthi relationship, between the example and the observed Hethu. For instance before it is concluded that there is fire in the mountain due to the observed fact of smoke, the Vyapthi relationship between the smoke and fire has to be known clearly earlier. In the case of recognition of time, there is no such Vyapthi recognised however. Cognition of time (as now) is immediate and not the result of any mental activity involved in logical analysis. Time can not also be considered as derived from Agama Pramana as even a congenitally deaf person, recognises it though he may not be able to hear any pronouncements regarding it. Similarly the cognition of space, direction (Dik) etc is also attributable to Sakshi and not to the mind or other senses.

 

I have dwelt at some length on the concept of Sakshi in Tatvavada, as it forms the bedrock of arguments regarding the superior and irrefutable validity of Prathyaksha even over Agama in such circimstances where sakshi is the arbiter.

 

........To be contd.

-- *shriishaH sharaNam.h*mama svAmI harirnityaMsarvasya patireva cha

*xemaM vidhAsyati sa no bhagavAn.h tryadhIshaH | trAtAsmadIyavimR^ishenakiyAnihArthaH*sarvAdhAraH, sarvakAraH, sarvaprerakaH, sarvasattApradaH,sarvashabdavAchyaH, sarvAchintyaH, sarvakarmakartA, sarvakarmapUjyaH, sarvakarmasAxI,

sarvadevAdivandyaHviShNuH sarvottamaH, anantaguNapUrNaH, doShadUraH, svatantraH, sarvasvAmI,sarvasR^iShTyAdikartA, sarvAntaryamI, sarvavyAptaH, mama anantopakArakaH,sa eva gurudevatAntargataH san.h pApAdi nAshayati, bhaktiGYAnAdi anugR^iNAti

taddAsohaM, nAhaM svatantraH na mama kArakANi, sarvANi taddattAnyeva, sarvaMtasmin.h samarpyatepUrNaH preShThaH paraH svAmI vyAptaH kartA upakArakaH | raxatyeva tadIyaMmAM karmArchyo gurudevagaHsarvarige preraka sarvakartabhokta

sarvatradali vyApta sarvashabda vAchasarvaguNa paripUrNa sarvadoShadUrasarvaGYAnagamya sarvashakta mUrtisarvesha cheluva gopAlaviThalareyasarvAntariyAmi sarvabauma namo