Guest guest Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Putranji, Madathilji, You are very correct to question the notion of 'transformationless transformation' of gold into rings, bangles etc. This is the case of an analogy that has broken free from its source and has ceased to make sense. The relation that is being explained is that between Absolute Being and Relative Being. The analogy that is used to give a sense of that relationship is that of material identity. Technically speaking it is called the Analogy of Proportionality. It works thus: Absolute Being : Relative Being :: Gold : Rings, Bangles etc. In the case of Being. Being is always being. From the standpoint of being there has been no change. If reality is that which is not sublated/contradicted then being has not changed and change in being is apparent. The unchanged material identity of gold is supposed to give a sense of this unchanged reality of being in a homely way that we can understand. The analogy is unidirectional and focused. Gold is like being in that it is unchanged as gold. It is not a legitimate use of the Analogy of Proportionality to say that gold is like being in all respects namely that the change from a nugget of gold into ornaments is apparent only. Best Regards, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2007 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: ________________________ > > > " Shankara says in the brihadAraNyaka bhAshya that: > > When anubhava contradicts anumAna the latter must be rejected > > and anubhava must be accepted as pramANa. (na cha anumAnam > > pratyakshavirodhe prAmANyam labhate-Br. Up. BhAshya, II.i.20). > > [i can't understand the relevance of this quote to your statement > above. What is anubhava here? Have you actually *seen* a liberated > one to have an " anubhava of liberation " ? Even if you think you have, > how do you know his liberation for sure? Do we have the capacity to > appreciate his liberation in its true sense? I am asking this > question for the logic of it and not to cast aspersions on our long > lineage of sages all of whom I rever.] Dear Nair-ji, In my humble opinion, we have to ultimately transcend the intellectual understanding of I am brahman, all that is out there is brahman etc., and it should culminate in 'anubhava' in which the concepts like knower, known and knowledge gets 'completely dissolved' in our real nature which is called as Brahman/Consciousness/Real Self etc. Same should be the fate of all the models presented by the shruti and the utterances of the sages from different perspectives to drive home this simple fact, including our own understanding/inference about the world, creation etc. In fact, there will not be second thing to perceive and reiterate that, that is Brahman etc. Here is one passage culled from Swami Vivekanadna's poem which puts it in a beautiful way: There is but One — The Free — The Knower — Self! Without a name, without a form or stain. In Him is Maya dreaming all this dream. The witness, He appears as nature, soul. Know thou art That, Sannyâsin bold! Say — " Om Tat Sat, Om! " Hope I have answered you question to some extent. If not, please excuse me; I don't want to speak more on this topic. Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 Namaste: When an analogy is used to illustrate an abstract fact, we do need to make sure to understand the context and the specific purpose of that illustration. In the excellent example and explanation by Sadaji, one should look at how the Goldsmith view the ring or value the ring. For the goldsmith, the only consideration is the 'gold.' If an ounce of gold is made into a ring or necklace, still its value for the goldsmith is the same. But others will likely perceive a golden ring different from a golden necklace. Most of the problems in understanding Vedantic concepts arises because we want to comprehend those concepts using words and language alone (even though we know they are barriers. Perceptions can vary (as evidenced from various comments that we witnessed now) between the discussants even though the Truth remains the same! with my warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , putranm <putranm > wrote: > > > > > How does the sage view the ring? Is the sage aware > > of the gold or only > > aware of the unreality of the ring? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 Sri Nairji, Michaelji, Sadaji, Ram Chandranji: thanks for all your inputs. Don't mind barging in; I want to get some settlement in understanding. I will present the two viewpoints that I am wrestling with. Please give a vote to which is closer to the truth and any comments at clarifying. Sadaji, the first is what I gather from your post; the second is what I was holding as the " ideal " picture. Please also give some opinion as to the status-of-vyavahaarika comments in each Position. Position I. Basis: Sadaji's statement: " Knowledge can never eliminate the object; it makes us to understand the truth of the object. " My conclusion: There is objective fixed vyavahaarika reality. There are " objects out there " even if I don't know of them. Its assessment will depend on the subject/mind. But its essential objective existence is there independent of mind. The Gold/Being/Isness is the constant factor. This is the paramaarthika satya; whereas the vyavahaarika objective reality is continually changing and therefore unreal. [Note this is not same as the apparent change of Brahman; it is real time-based change within vyavahaarika] So a sage sees the same objects at the vyavahaarika level as anyone else except is simultaneously aware of the nondual Being aspect as only Reality. Position II. Basis: Michaelji's quote of Shankara's commentary in post 38379: " The absence of difference from the subject does not indeed mean identity; it means having no existence apart from that of the subject. " My Conclusion: There is NO objective fixed vyavahaarika reality that is independent of subject. Rather it is a subject-object reality. We avoid saying further but simply that the basic truth of vyavahaarika is relativity. Change is not of the object; rather it is a shift in (subject's?) consciousness of the subject-object duality (that to the subject appears as if change belongs to object). Thus vyavahaarika is non- absolute/unreal due to being different in different referential contexts. The objects cease to be for the enlightened sage; the sage is only aware of the Being aspect. Where then is the question of objects? The ignorant person thinks the sage sees objects, but for the sage the reality is only Brahman and not that the reality behind the object is Brahman. The sage's vyavahaarika is entirely different from the ignorant person's: world is eliminated in some higher sense. See also my Ishvara-Bhaktha paragraph in post 38541 to get one possible conceptualization of this. [This is hard to understand and is a bit of mind-stretch, perhaps mystery-mongering. But one can quote Big people like Sri Ramana saying such things. Not clear.] thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Hence I am this, I am this etc is our current > understanding and I am, not this, not this etc would > bring back to that because of which the very existence > that 'I am' is supporting even this and that. I lend > my existence to this and that too. Understanding this > is the true knowledge. Knowledge can never eliminate > the object; it makes us to understand the truth of the > object. This desk is nothing but wood, if I say, that > knowledge does not eliminate the desk, but make us > understand that it is only wood in the form of the > desk. The existence of the desk is due to the > existence of the wood. > > Sarvam khalu idam brahma - all this is nothing but > Brahman says scripture- it is to be understood without > of course eliminating the world. > Hari Om! > Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 --- putranm <putranm wrote: > Position I. > > Basis: Sadaji's statement: " Knowledge can never > eliminate the object; > it makes us to understand the truth of the object. " > > My conclusion: > > There is objective fixed vyavahaarika reality. There > are " objects out > there " even if I don't know of them. Putranmji - praNAms First question to ask putranmji is - If you do not know, how do you establish the existence of an object. That is what I called it as indeterminate problem. In a way this is fundamental to advaita Vedanta. Hence the statement has been made - existence of an object is established by the knowledge of its existence - satta ya hi chit. Is gaagaabuubu there in the universe? Could we say there are objects like gaagaabuubu out there even if I do know them? Hence Vidyaranaya says - asti, bhaati, priyam, ruupam naama catyanca pancakam, adhyatrayam brahma ruupam jagat ruupam tathodvayam| - it is, and it is illumined or known and it is experience able, with name and form are five aspects of an object- of which the first three come from Brahman and the last two from the world. Naming an object involves knowing an object. Knowledge and its existence go together. If I do not know, then the existence of an object cannot be established. Hence mind is required to know the existence of the object. Otherwise it is an inderminate problem. I do not say that mind creates the object (that becomes vijnaanavaada). Please think about it let me know if you can prove any object without a mind supported by consciousness establishing it. It may be there or may not be there like my gaagaabuubus. But who is going to prove one way or the other? > > Its assessment will depend on the subject/mind. But > its essential > objective existence is there independent of mind. The second statement does not follow from the previous one. The assessment is different from the proof of its existence. Hopefully I will be addressing these in my series on mind. Yes objects (vyaavahaarika and not praatibhaasika) exist independent of the mind since it is not the local mind but global mind that has created. Hence without the global mind there cannot be objects but without the local mind vyaavahaarika objects exists - as I said the mind and the objects are ontological in par. When the mind is folded, there is no perception of the objects and mind as well as the objects (including all the objective knowledge) gets folded) - Hence in the sushhupti one 'appears' to merge into ones own true nature of advaita - it is called 'swapiti' sva svaruupa apiiti - merging into ones own true nature which is nothing but sat swaruupam. > > The Gold/Being/Isness is the constant factor. This > is the > paramaarthika satya; whereas the vyavahaarika > objective reality is > continually changing and therefore unreal. [Note > this is not same as > the apparent change of Brahman; it is real > time-based change within > vyavahaarika] The statement before the parenthesis is right and the statement within the parenthesis - there is confusion. The fact is time and space both are within vyavahaara - there is no time and space in deep sleep state. Change itself defines a time and time involves change. Sequence defines time and simultaneous defines space - but that is true provided a reference is there which is independent of space and time - otherwise like Einstein definition, time and space become relative to the observer. Hence the correct statement vyavahaara (meaning transactional involves both time and space inherent in the transactions - there is no other real time and space. In praatibhaasika there is different time/space relevant to praatibhaasika. In the absolute there is no time and space. > > So a sage sees the same objects at the vyavahaarika > level as anyone > else except is simultaneously aware of the nondual > Being aspect as > only Reality. > To put it correctly - the eyes see and the mind registers and body transacts - the sage remains as witnessing agent for all the transactions through jnaana and karma indriyas. He is akartaa and abhoktaa - neither doer nor enjoyer. What you mean is he sees the objects of the creation as they are without any emotional value attached to it. Remember Gita sloka - vidya vineyard sampaane braahmaNe gavi hastini| Shunicaiva Svapaake ca panditaaH samadarShinaH|| Hence vision and understanding is different although eyes and mind do see and differentiate shuni (dog) and shvapaakaH (dog eater). There is a story of Kanaka daasa who was running after a dog that snatched his bred saying, " Lord, please wait, let me apply some butter to the bred, otherwise it is difficult to eat " - that is the vision of the sage who can see the dog and the bread too. > Position II. > > Basis: Michaelji's quote of Shankara's commentary in > post 38379: " The > absence of difference from the subject does not > indeed mean identity; > it means having no existence apart from that of the > subject. " Michel is incomplete in his statement. Absence of difference could be and could not be identity. Is ring same as gold - yes or no and depends on the vision. Hence maaya is defined in VivekachuuDamani Sannapyasanna ubhaatmikaano bhinaapyabhinaa ubhayaatmikaano saangaapanangaa ubhayaatmikaano mahadbhuuta anirvacaniiya ruppa| There goes your anirvacaniiya definition. it is not there or is it there or it is both exists and not exists; It is not different from brahman nor it is the same as brahman or nor it is both It has no parts or it has parts, nor both, It is wonderment and of the nature of inexplicable - and that my friend is all the creation. Hence Michel is only partly correct. > My Conclusion: > > There is NO objective fixed vyavahaarika reality > that is independent > of subject. Not true - if you define the subject as chidaabhaasa or local mind illumined by consciousness. It is true only if you define the 'I am " as the absolute consciousness (or witnessing consciousness) which is same as Iswara and ultimately Brahman where all these statements have no validity. Rather it is a subject-object reality. > We avoid saying > further but simply that the basic truth of > vyavahaarika is relativity. That is true - by this statement your above statement refers to the local subject and not global subject. > > Change is not of the object; rather it is a shift in > (subject's?) > consciousness of the subject-object duality (that to > the subject > appears as if change belongs to object). I am not sure I understand the statement. There is no shift in the consciousness - but shift in understanding the relative vs the absolute by the mind. Thus > vyavahaarika is non- > absolute/unreal due to being different in different > referential > contexts. Again non-absolute or unreal only from the point of vyaavahaarika - The other reference is only paaramaarthika - where all differences resolve into one. > > The objects cease to be for the enlightened sage; > the sage is only > aware of the Being aspect. Not correct - as long as upaadhiis exist - mind, eyes etc, objects are perceived and exist. But understanding that they are absolutely different from him is dropped in the understanding of the reality of the absolute. Where then is the > question of objects? Objects remain as part of vibhuuti of the Lord. The > ignorant person thinks the sage sees objects, but > for the sage the > reality is only Brahman and not that the reality > behind the object is > Brahman. No even the sage upaadhiis see the object and transact and he remains as witnessing agent for the upaadhiis. Hence sage sees but he does not see since he has no kartRitva bhaava. Look at the life of Krishna - that is the example of jiiva mukta. The sage's vyavahaarika is entirely > different from the > ignorant person's: world is eliminated in some > higher sense. See also > my Ishvara-Bhaktha paragraph in post 38541 to get > one possible > conceptualization of this. I would put is differently - world is understood as not different from him - not that it is eliminated. what is eliminated are wrong values associated with the world of objects - read the B.G sloka again quoted above. Hope I am clear. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 2007 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote: > In fact, there will not be second thing to perceive and reiterate > that, that is Brahman etc. Dear Nair-ji, I think above statement requires some explanation. What I meant was when a sage is in Samadhi or on the fall of the body, there is absolutely no duality. There is neither jiva, ishwara or jagat. But when he descends from the Samadhi, then, he sees the world. I am quoting the words of Swami Vivekananda on the issue on hand. As far as perspective of a jnAni is concerned, since I don't consider myself as jnAni, I am bound to quote someone, whom I feel is an accomplished sage. Why duality continues even after non-dual experience is a question for which there is no answer. Varieties of reasons are given by the advaita AchAryAs on which elaborate discussions have taken place. Personally, I don't want to dwell too much on post realization state of jnAni;I feel it is wiser to gain the advaita anubhava first. Here is the relevant passage from the complete works of Swamiji: " Once in Western India I was travelling in the desert country on the coast of the Indian Ocean. For days and days I used to travel on foot through the desert, but it was to my surprise that I saw every day beautiful lakes, with trees all around them, and the shadows of the trees upside down and vibrating there. " How wonderful it looks and they call this a desert country! " I said to myself. Nearly a month I travelled, seeing these wonderful lakes and trees and plants. One day I was very thirsty and wanted to have a drink of water, so I started to go to one of these clear, beautiful lakes, and as I approached, it vanished. And with a flash it came to my brain, " This is the mirage about which I have read all my life, " and with that came also the idea that throughout the whole of this month, every day, I had been seeing the mirage and did not know it. The next morning I began my march. There was again the lake, but with it came also the idea that it was the mirage and not a true lake. So is it with this universe. We are all traveling in this mirage of the world day after day, month after month, year after year, not knowing that it is a mirage. One day it will break up, but it will come back again; the body has to remain under the power of past Karma, and so the mirage will come back. This world will come back upon us so long as we are bound by Karma: men, women, animals, plants, our attachments and duties, all will come back to us, but not with the same power. Under the influence of the new knowledge the strength of Karma will be broken; its poison will be lost. It becomes transformed, for along with it there comes the idea that we know it now, that the sharp distinction between the reality and the mirage has been known. " Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.