Object and Consciousness of the Object

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve and Dennis,

If you look at the Pancikaranam as a

treatise of symbolic physics then it is clear from it that the shape of

things as we know them i.e. as objects, is not given to them by this act

of knowing. In Sureshvacarya's vartika sutra 7 -11 this is made clear:

 

7: " Like the origin of the subtle bodies from the subtle elementary

constituents, the creation of the gross elements and bodies through their

quintuplication is now being described: "

 

What I take from this is that the various combinations of elements each of

which is related to one of the senses ends up in its final form with a

universal structure i.e. one which is not dependent on the vagaries of the

subject. Unknown by any subject it is still objective i.e. has a certain

character which is constant.

 

11: " The gross elements are all compounded. These produce the Virat, i.e.

the sum total of all the gross bodies. This is the gross body of the

disembodied Atman.

 

Knowledge then, to put it metaphorically, is a form of resonance.

 

The section of the B.S.B. I.iii.28 dealing with the eternality of vedic

words is relevant also.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Michael, you said:

 

>It is a scientific fact that there

> are things that we don't

> know that we don't know. These are the

> objects-in-waiting. Call them

> occult entities if you wish and do not adjust your

> set.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

 

 

That is a very 'scientific outlook', to propose and

find new elements, new particles which constitute what

are now known as 'elementary' particles. Some 100

years back, everyone believed an atom is indivisible,

until people found electrons, protons and neutrons.

They were considered indivisible and hence elementary,

until their division was done to find yet another set

of elementary particles.

 

It is no surprise, that there is no smallest fraction

of matter possible, much less depictable. Hence any

'new' object you claim to form is going to be a

permutation and combination of the same particles

which constitute something we already know. Which is

why the quest for a Svetaketu is to find " that knowing

which nothing remains unknown " . Beyond all this

infinite maze of particles and objects, there CAN be

only 1 base (not two, not zero), which is the Brahman,

which is to be known.

 

It is like saying by knowing properties of hydrogen

and oxygen, all properties of water are known. Except

here the cause, Brahman is one, and the result, all

objects are infinite. It is with this background that

" nothing more is to be known " usually said.

 

Hope that helps,

~Vaibhav.

 

 

Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. To know how, go to

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html

[Guest guest]

hare krishna namaskarams

 

in this world what we know is very little and what we do not know is an ocean

 

baskaran

vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

Michael, you said:

 

>It is a scientific fact that there

> are things that we don't

> know that we don't know. These are the

> objects-in-waiting. Call them

> occult entities if you wish and do not adjust your

> set.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

 

That is a very 'scientific outlook', to propose and

find new elements, new particles which constitute what

are now known as 'elementary' particles. Some 100

years back, everyone believed an atom is indivisible,

until people found electrons, protons and neutrons.

They were considered indivisible and hence elementary,

until their division was done to find yet another set

of elementary particles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASKARAN.C.S

 

 

 

Save all your chat conversations. Find them online.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

>

> Hi Steve and Dennis,

> If you look at the Pancikaranam as a

> treatise of symbolic physics then it is clear from it that the shape of

> things as we know them i.e. as objects, is not given to them by this act

> of knowing. In Sureshvacarya's vartika sutra 7 -11 this is made clear:

>

> 7: " Like the origin of the subtle bodies from the subtle elementary

> constituents, the creation of the gross elements and bodies through their

> quintuplication is now being described: "

>

> What I take from this is that the various combinations of elements each of

> which is related to one of the senses ends up in its final form with a

> universal structure i.e. one which is not dependent on the vagaries of the

> subject. Unknown by any subject it is still objective i.e. has a certain

> character which is constant.

 

Michael - PraNAms - Just some clarification.

 

Before panciikaraNa - tanmaatras are formed and even before that when Brahman

alone was

there - creation starts with - He visualized the creation - tad aikshata or

desire to

create came to Him - sa kaamayata - Or He contemplated on the creation - etc.

The

motivation for creation comes from karma - which manifests as desire. B.G. 8th

also says

karma is responsible for the creation. Whose Karma it is - that is the stored

subtle

kaaraNa shariira of jiivas from the precious cycle of births - that is during

the time of

pralaya all the jiivas absorbed into subtle form - There is samaShTi vaasanaas

that forms

the cause for the creation - Visualization of the creation is by Iswara even

before He

decided to become many - bahu syaam - prajaayeyeti. Let me become many and he

became

many. Hence we say the knowledge of creation - what to create and how to create

etc

already - the blue prints are there with him. Nothing is really newly created

since karma

dectates the whole processes needed - for the evolution of jiivas.

 

Hence the knowledge of creation even before tan maatraas and panciikaraNa

started is

already with the creator.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

If you are taking everything like this to the very fundamental, then

please tell me where do you get this ignorant person from who spots

the clay and names it?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_____________________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Michael,

>

> Isn't this precisely what is happening, though? The 'piece of

pottery' is

> not that at all until someone 'discovers' it; it is only clay. It

is the

> person who 'names' it as something discrete and meaningful. It

seems you are

> using this example exactly in the metaphorical way it is used in the

> teaching of advaita. Effectively every 'thing' *does* sit there as

nothing

> but brahman until some ignorant person comes along and decides to

separate

> it from the rest of the apparent creation and give it a name and

form of its

> own.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Nair-ji,

 

 

 

(Clever clogs! As my grandmother would have said.)

 

 

 

The piece of clay, subsequently named as a 'shard of pottery' and the man

(ignorant or otherwise) are both name and form in vyavahAra. In reality,

there is always only brahman. (As you well know!)

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

19 February 2008 04:14

advaitin

Re: Object and Consciousness of the Object

 

 

 

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

If you are taking everything like this to the very fundamental, then

please tell me where do you get this ignorant person from who spots

the clay and names it?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams Michael-ji

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In Sureshvacarya's vartika sutra 7 -11 this is made clear:

7: " Like the origin of the subtle bodies from the subtle elementary

constituents, the creation of the gross elements and bodies through their

quintuplication is now being described: "

What I take from this is that the various combinations of elements each of

which is related to one of the senses ends up in its final form with a

universal structure i.e. one which is not dependent on the vagaries of the

subject. Best Wishes,

Michael.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, the model of panchikaranam is used to explain the process of establishment

of different categories of objects - both gross and subtle - with their

individual constitutions based on the combination of gunas. Note also the first

part of this sutra which talks about the origin of the subtle bodies i.e. pancha

jnaana indriyas (5 sense organs) in the verysame breath as the creation of the

gross elements. The point being that manifest " creation " which in turn is based

on the accumulated vasanas/karmas/namaroopas of the prior creation cycle entails

the entire setup to be in place - a transactional matrix of gross and subtle

bodies and objects - so as to enable a field for the exhaustion of the

accumulated karmas, in this eternal dance of samsara.

This model helps explain as an example how the lotus flower is endowed with a

peculiar and particular group of properties. Like anyother flower, it is " put

together " in a particular way with a stamen, a pistil, a corolla, sepals, etc.

Each of this is again " names " and " forms " . What exactly is a sepal? And so on

and on and on until you get to particles and sub-particles and so on. Certainly

a conscious subject cognizing this flower does not lend either form, colour, or

structure either to the flower or to its consitituent parts . But what exactly

is the " f-l-o-w-e-r " ? This cannot be defined or determined except by the

conscious observer. Just a week prior this very same " flower " was a " bud " . (Even

in the realm of quantum theory, physicists have difficulty defining an object

because nosooner does one define a object n that it is no longer n but has

become n1.) Only when a conscious entity perceives this particular arrangement

of a stamen, pistil, etc does

the word " flower " assume a " attributive reality " - it is a mithya reality no

doubt - the satyam aspect of the " flower " is nothing but awareness alone. But an

avidya-steeped " as though " entity, the subject, " as though " distinct from this

object, now " as though " projects the word " flower " onto it, and takes the

nama-roopa flower as the sole reality of that object.

Now Nair-ji asks

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you are taking everything like this to the very fundamental, then

please tell me where do you get this ignorant person from who spots

the clay and names it?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

The answer of course is that this ignorant person is as beginingless as

ignorance itself.

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am posting below some questions I asked Sadaji in private and to

which he replied as below.

 

Sadaji: a couple of questions on your explanation,

 

Regarding this shifting from local (vyavahaarika) to global

(paramaarthika) by the jiva: this is a subjective change for the jiva

as it ceases to associate the " I " with the limiting adjuncts that seem

to proclaim It.

 

By objective vyavahaarika stance, I presumed that Vedanta or the Vedas

give that position: that pramaana becomes the common reference-point.

You have also pointed that unlike the idealists, that is how we think

of Vyavahaarika. The association of individuality to limitations is

due to ignorance,

 

but does not the Vedas objectively-affirm a certain pattern/Order to

the way Maya functions, so far as the jiva caught in ignorance is

concerned?

 

(The reason for this confusion is that you began with a MAYBE ( " Let us

look... " , went to YES ( " But there is a difference... " ), then seemed to

return to MAYBE ( " Putranmji, I explained this... " ). Can you ensure

there is nothing suspicious in this, can the YES part stand by itself;

if not how to distinguish from the idealists?

 

Thank you.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

> Sri Sadaji,

 

.... you could put that which is relevant on the list serve since

others can benefit too.

 

 

> I looked into a lecture in

>

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/sadananda/witnessing_sadananda.ht

> m

>

> I just want to clarify since I was basing my final resolution on the

> scripture, which the part quoted below seems to dismiss.

>

> In my understanding, the Vyavahaarika position affirms jiva, jagat

> and Ishvara; so if this mind operates as of jiva, then the Vedas

> affirm that there is a jagat and Ishvara in parallel. So if the jiva

> considers the question of existence of world, it must say " YES,

> independent of my knowledge, jagat exists. The proof is the Veda (or

> inference, etc).

>

> True, I must be there as jiva to ask the question, but the question

> is relevant only when I am there. So also the answer is given only to

> the jiva. The above " proof " will be wrong if I also say " independent

> of my existence, jagat exists " , since the Veda does not affirm one

> without the other: either accept both and say that to the eternal

> jiva, jagat exists eternally and independent of jiva's awareness. But

> don't pose the question of " jagat " without simultaneously

> positing " jiva " : for it becomes an anirvachaniya problem, whose

> resolution is advaita/Brahman and not dvaita.

>

> 1. Is this what Advaita says?

 

Yes and no - depending on the correct perspective if one takes.

 

Once I identify that I am a jiiva - that is I am a localized guy, and

then automatically the jagat exists - that is what it means by

localization. I do not need Vedas to tell me that jagat exists.

Because I can see - but when I see, I see myself as local guy and not

a global guy. Then globe exists independent of me. Since I feel I

have a body-mind-intellect -with a date of birth and death, and

consider the world different from me, I have to bring in Iswara too,

who is the creator of the world that I see. Since

I cannot learn about Iswara in sceince text books, I have to turn to

Vedas for the knowledge - who is god? Why did he create? Why did he

create me? What is my relation to

Him? And what is the very purpose of this creation? etc.

 

Means of knowledge, pramaaNa, becomes important to answer these

questions. Since an intellect is asking the questions, any

intellectual answer will be limited by some other intellect - Hence

Veda also declare that these questions cannot be answered by logic -

which is in the realm of intellect. Hence that which is beyond the

human intellectual limitations, has to be given by that which is

beyond that. For that shraddhaa or faith in the scriptures is

fundamental requirement - since it is not based on perceptual or other

means of knowledge. Shastra alone is the means of knowledge. There are

many religions that do not believe Vedas as pramANa - they are

considered as naastikas. Hence faith is fundamental requirement to

gain knowledge from Vedas.

 

What the scripture says is the jagat has no independent existence

apart from you - the whole mandukya goes into exhaustive details of

the turiiyam which forms the basis for the

jaagrat, swapna and suShupti - waking, dream and deep sleep world -

the substantive of

all is, I am - Jiiva is a notion in my mind - the truth is I am sat

chit ananda swaruupa. That is what Vedas teach. In addition it also

teaches that jagat, Iswara and jiiva all merge into one - sat chit

ananda swaruupa eva. Hence I started with duality when I started

inquiry and Vedas teach that duality is only apparent and

reality is advaita. That is what advaita teaches.

 

 

>

> 2. Is there a fixed vyaavahaarika objective standpoint, as I state

> above? Or does it vary from individual to individual, based on how

> this " i " arises in the mind? It seems the Vedas affirm the former

> whereas the idealists, Berkeley, etc may affirm the latter. Otherwise

> why would Shankara assert the existence of a definite external object

> given its existence is established through perception? I felt you

> affirmed this in your later explanations.

 

Let us look at vyaavahaarika objectiveness - what does that mean? If I

agree, you agree and if everybody agrees - does that make it

objective and not subjective?

 

I see a rope there - Is rope objective reality? How to determine?

Hence we use pramaaNa as the means of knowledge for vyaavahaarika

satyam. Validation using pratyaksha, anumaana etc.

 

There is difference - a) It is, therefore I see it - and b) I see it,

therefore it is. - The idealistic theories give emphasis to the

second one even for vyaavahaarika. Where as Vedanta uses - the first

one as vyaavahaarika and the next one as praatibhaasika - since

proof of the existence of the later is I see it and therefore it

exists. In the analysis of waking world, dream world and deep sleep -

in Mandukya - this is quite vividly

explained.

 

Putranmji - I explained it as the questions rose. There was an article

on the 'Logic of Spirituality' - available in archives - that

clarifies all this to some extent.

 

But as jiiva evolves - he is slowly shifting from vyaavahaarika to

paaramaarthika where all are in him and he is in every one - then the

vision also changes, right? One is shifting from the local to global -

with the knowledge. Hence depending on what reference the topic is

being discussed one has to be careful. I try to stress all the time -

to be clear about the reference from which these statements are made.

 

 

.....

 

As Shankara says we do not accept Vedas if it says fire is cold. Hence

there is realm of logic in vyaavahaariki, Vedas do not step in. Time

is one concept that - one is careful

at what reference the discussion is. PramANa at vyavahaarika level -

otherwise everything is negated at paaramaarthika level. Also is it

from jiiva's reference or from global reference, from the mind of

Iswara.

 

Advaita uses several examples from vyaavahaarika to make a point; but

as science grows we need to also change the application examples -

but not to compromise the fundamental

doctrine of Vedanta - brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa, jivo brahaiva

naaparaH. Vedanta uses adhyaaropa apavaada - hence it takes one, in

steps - one should not sit at a lower step saying that is the truth -

that is only a stepping stone to go to the next where the previous one

is negated - apavaada. That is how Vedanta teaches. That is the reason

why we need a sampradaaya teacher - otherwise one can be fanatical at

each step - without realizing that it is only a temporary step to go

further.

 

 

> Thank you for any clarifications. (See your quote below)

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

>

> From the lecture in uk site:

>

>

>

> You can postulate that the world is real and is always present, as

> some philosophers propose. But even to postulate that, I have to be

> there. No, No, Vedas say so! – Sir, that is your interpretation.

> Vedanta says in fact the opposite, in tune with the above analysis.

> But the fact of the matter is that, even to validate what Vedanta

> says, I have to be there. The Vedas are also part of this world, not

> out of this world. No – they are apauruSheya, not written by a

human

> being and they eternally exist. Yes, even to believe that I have to

> be there first. This is blasphemy. No. Vedas are scientific truths

> and they themselves declare that they come under apara vidyA

> [superior knowledge], like any other scientific truths, which are

> eternal. However, I have to be there even to validate the existence

> of the Vedas too. In short, `I am' comes before the world comes into

> existence.

> This is really weird. You have mentioned before that the Vedas are

> only pramaaNa or a means of knowledge to know the absolute. And now,

> you are dismissing the Vedas too, along with the world. You are

> contradicting yourself. How can the Vedas which are part of the world

> be a means of knowledge for that which is beyond the world of

> plurality? This is not Vedanta.

> Sir, contradictions are only at the level of the mind. Vedas are

> pramaaNa for POINTING in the direction of the truth that is beyond

any

> means of knowledge. The truth as we said before is `aprameyam',

> beyond any means of knowledge. What we said is that Vedanta, in the

> hands of a teacher, becomes the means for a well-prepared mind to

> take off to a `state' beyond any description and beyond that even

> Vedas describe as indescribable – `adRRiShTam, avyapadeshyam,

> agrAhyam, achintyam, - imperceptible, indescribable, unattainable,

> unthinkable etc.

 

A word of caution here - Veda actually means knowledge. All knowledge

is apourusheyam. Hence it is called vastu tantra not purusha tantra.

Gravitational laws exists even before Newton and hence even Vedas,

the RiShiis are considered as draShTas or seers of

the truth -or truth is revealed to them - just as Newton's laws are

revealed to Newton.

 

Second, Vedas themselves declare that Vedas are also apara vidyaa -

like any other sciences - hence they are also within vyaavahaarika

level. One has to go beyond Vedas to see the truth.

 

Hence the absolute truth is called aprameyam - not an object of

knowledge by any means. Then how Vedanta is pramaaNa? - as I

discussed before it is a pramaaNa to indicate(note

the word indicate) the identity of Brahman with aatma - Logically I

can deduce I am a conscious-existent entity and also happiness comes

from me only. That is where logic stops - I have to use Vedanta

pramaaNa to know aham brahmaasmi through the Vedic statement - tat

tvam asi.

 

This truth is not understood even when Vedanta screams repeatedly at

us - the problem is we have already concluded that we are not that -

to uncondition these mental misunderstandings we need chitta suddhi -

and yoga shaastra, Bhagavat Gita helps us to realize the truth

expounded in Upanishads.

 

You can post relavent parts to the list serve.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Baskaran <baskaran42 wrote:

>

> hare krishna namaskarams

>

> in this world what we know is very little and what we do not know

is an ocean

>

> baskaran

 

hariH OM! baskaran-ji,

hare krishna! hari bol!

 

yes! beautifully stated. an aphorism to be sure.

 

the more one discovers in the relative world, the more doors of

further possibilities avail themselves. we'll open, then, just one

of those, assess the matter it presents (not infrequently being a

philosophical riddle), apply pertinent logic to seek out its

solution, resolve it to our mind's [at best!] *tentative*

satisfaction, and lo and behold, *another few dozen* doors open--

spawned by the *possibly correct* solution to the last door

( " possibly " because it may or may not be a relatively correct

solution (dependant as each solution is to its progenitor's door

itself having been a relatively correct solution). whereupon we then

open, once again, one of those new dozen doors, and the process

repeats, *exponentially*...(eventually with myriads of doors!)

 

and here we have the true nature of the Mind in action.......forever

weaving unknowns as well as unknowables (the latter being found as

such after protracted time and energy put into the exploration of

applied logical mainstream flows and tributaries, before they're

finally, and with no meager measure of luck, recognized as being in

fact unknowable!).....all the while time is marching....while exactly

what is it that we're actually achieving that winds up getting

pragmatically applied to our quest for moksha?

 

so, unless we realize that our preoccupation with solving

philosophical riddles is an activity which, in effect, stalls [or

even reverses!] our progress on the path to Self-realization, we're--

at best!--wasting precious time. at worst, we've come to believe

such involvement is important and integral to the mokshamarga,

thereby further reinforcing our faith in its efficacy.

 

we all know what's really required is nididhyasana, and not [what

i'll call] misguided manana, e.g. dwelling on debatably solvable

problems like free will vs determinism, for example. simply because

the latter contributes really nothing for the quest for atmasakshat.

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> Regarding this shifting from local (vyavahaarika) to global

> (paramaarthika) by the jiva: this is a subjective change for the jiva

> as it ceases to associate the " I " with the limiting adjuncts that seem

> to proclaim It.

>

> By objective vyavahaarika stance, I presumed that Vedanta or the Vedas

> give that position: that pramaana becomes the common reference-point.

> You have also pointed that unlike the idealists, that is how we think

> of Vyavahaarika. The association of individuality to limitations is

> due to ignorance,

>

> but does not the Vedas objectively-affirm a certain pattern/Order to

> the way Maya functions, so far as the jiva caught in ignorance is

> concerned?

>

 

> What the scripture says is the jagat has no independent existence

> apart from you - the whole mandukya goes into exhaustive details of

> the turiiyam which forms the basis for the

> jaagrat, swapna and suShupti - waking, dream and deep sleep world -

> the substantive of

> all is, I am - Jiiva is a notion in my mind - the truth is I am sat

> chit ananda swaruupa. That is what Vedas teach. In addition it also

> teaches that jagat, Iswara and jiiva all merge into one - sat chit

> ananda swaruupa eva. Hence I started with duality when I started

> inquiry and Vedas teach that duality is only apparent and

> reality is advaita. That is what advaita teaches.

>

 

 

Let me also add regarding the above comment. Most of my questions are

with regard to " independent existence apart from you " .

 

We can take it as " jagat and jiva come together (in ignorance) and go

together " , or we can say " as this notion of jiva, so is the jagat that

corresponds " .

 

As per the former, the two have a definite reality in their own realm.

The jiva strives to get away from wrong identifications and realize

that the true Self is not this,not this. As it does this, it

subjectively " expands " (:-)) from local to global, *though* the

objective triple Ishvara-jiva-jagat remains the same. When the " jiva "

is lost in the Whole, the question of " world " is simultaneously lost,

and *therefore* advaita/Brahman/Consciousness remains as the constant

reality.

 

As per the latter, the jagat cannot be affirmed independently of jiva,

not only in the aspect of existence, but even in the aspect of " what

exists? " The world cannot be given a separate vyavahaarika existence

apart from the subjective experience of the jiva who questions it. As

the " jiva-notion " shifts, so does the " jagat-notion " ; and that is all

we affirm of either.

 

Please note how the notion of " independent existence apart from you "

differs in the two situations. The you itself is a construct due to

maya; but within maya's realm, does it or not have its " eternal " place?

 

The latter position is each mind's fact of experience; we cannot

dismiss it on the basis of just pratyaksha, though we want to. However

that is why we bring in the Vedas and inference, which seems to

provide common vyavahaarika reference point. Will and does it affirm

the former position? (I understand dvaita-schools definitely opt

closer to the former; and the idealists definitely opt closer to the

latter. Where do we stand?)

 

Thank you.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

> Please note how the notion of " independent existence apart from you "

> differs in the two situations. The you itself is a construct due to

> maya; but within maya's realm, does it or not have its " eternal " place?

 

Putranmji - PraNAms

 

If you consider you as jiiva then world is independent of you and Isware is up

there in

the sky!

 

Once you turn to Vedanta, Vedanta is darpaNam - a mirror that shows what you

really are

in comparison that you think you are.

 

The world depends on you - the you corresponds not to jiiva but to the

substantive

consciousness that you are. That is the turiiyam.

 

Hence one is jiiva's vision and the other is Vedantic vision of you.

 

Reference of YOU has to be clear - the same in the statemetn tat tvam asi - you

are that.

 

 

vyavahaara deals with duality - but duality taken as reality is delution.

Duality taken

as apparent is jnaanam. Duality remains as long as upaadhiis are there. But

reality

associated to duality changes once knowledge that I am in everything and

everything is in

me - that knowledge sinks in.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

> The latter position is each mind's fact of experience; we cannot

> dismiss it on the basis of just pratyaksha, though we want to. However

> that is why we bring in the Vedas and inference, which seems to

> provide common vyavahaarika reference point. Will and does it affirm

> the former position? (I understand dvaita-schools definitely opt

> closer to the former; and the idealists definitely opt closer to the

> latter. Where do we stand?)

>

> Thank you.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

>

>