Request for peer review.

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

I am running a weekly class on the Gita to some neighbours here. I am

right now in the second chapter. At the appropriate time I want to

introduce them to the chart that I have prepared below on the different

orders of reality. Will you please criticise it and suggest corrections

or better presentations if needed? Thank you.

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/Orders_of_Reality_chart.html

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste prof VK:

 

This chart should contain the concept of R^ita, which is a conditional

satya in this chart.

 

R^itam svaadhyaaya pravacane ca is an important concept from the

advativic perspective for all aspirants. Because advaita does not

ignore the importance of vyavahaarika level.

 

I always likre to give an example " Mass & Weight " .

 

Here mass is absolute satya and weight is R^ita.

 

An object that weighs 100 lbs on the Earth will weigh only 20 lbs on

the Moon.

 

That why observed satya is always presented first in svaadhyaaya as a

covenant " R^itaM vacmiand then satyaM vacmi " (I think this order is

alco critical because one can only confirm (arrive at a conclusion only

after observing))

 

Ultimate aim is to determine the truth by asking the the question is

this the truth? Often, the answer is always " neti-neti " . I think

advaita comes closest to what we call science ( a scientific query).

 

Kind regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin , " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk wrote:

>

> Namaste all.

>

> I am running a weekly class on the Gita to some neighbours here. I am

> right now in the second chapter. At the appropriate time I want to

> introduce them to the chart that I have prepared below on the

different

> orders of reality. Will you please criticise it and suggest

corrections

> or better presentations if needed? Thank you.

>

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/Orders_of_Reality_chart.html

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

[Guest guest]

Dear profVK-ji,

 

 

 

Very clear and succinct. If you are intending correct ITRANS representation,

however, you should change the initial capitals to lower case -

prAtibhAsika, vyAvahArika and pAramArthika (and note: mahAprANa -thika, not

-tika).

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of V. Krishnamurthy

Monday, June 02, 2008 12:01 PM

advaitin

Request for peer review.

 

 

 

Will you please criticise it and suggest corrections

or better presentations if needed? Thank you.

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/Orders_of_Reality_chart.html

 

 

 

 

..

 

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4

0743/stime=1212404466/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848581/nc3=5202323>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professor VK,

 

Your chart brings to mind the simile of the 'divided line', which

Socrates describes in Plato's dialogue, the 'Republic'.

 

Here, Socrates starts with a basic distinction between 'doxa'

or 'belief' and 'episteme' or 'understanding'. The ancient

Greek 'doxa' refers to our belief in superficial images whose

appearance is misleading. This kind of belief produces false

appearances that need to be corrected, by understanding them more

deeply. That deeper understanding is called 'episteme' (which implies

a 'standing under').

 

Thus, 'doxa' refers to a confused belief in unreal appearance. And

the confused belief of 'doxa' is distinguished from the corrective

understanding of 'episteme', which leads to a true knowing of

reality. This corresponds to the Indian distinction between 'asat'

or 'unreality' and 'sat' or 'reality'.

 

In the simile of the divided line, Socrates considers a line of

progressive learning, leading from 'asat' to 'sat'. In this

consideration, he first divides the line into two parts. The lesser

part he says is 'doxa' or 'belief'. This is learning that is based on

unexamined assumptions that are just taken for granted, though blind

force of unquestioned habit.

 

But, if we reflect from our blindly driven habits, we can sometimes

examine our beliefs, by which we find ourselves thus driven. And that

examination leads us to a greater part of learning, which is better

understood. This greater part of learning is called 'episteme'

or 'understanding'.

 

The lesser part of learning is thus unexamined dogma or doctrine:

which drives us habitually, as we take it blindly for granted. But

from here, we need to proceed to a greater part of learning, which

may be described by the English word 'epistemology'. This word

implies a careful examination of how it is that we may know things

correctly. Indeed, the English words 'dogma' and 'doctrine' come from

the ancient Greek 'doxa'. And the English word 'epistemology' comes

from the ancient Greek 'episteme'.

 

Having divided the progress of learning into two parts, Socrates

applies the same division again, to each of the two parts. Thus, he

comes up with a fourfold division, as follows:

 

1. The lowest kind of learning is 'eikasia' or 'illusion'. This is a

deceptive appearance, which seems different from what is truly shown.

The deception is created by imagination, through our personal

faculties of sense and mind. To correct the deception, Plato uses two

methods. One is the somewhat paradoxical use of poetic metaphor,

which is explicitly admitted to inspire the suggestion of a different

reality from what is outwardly described. The other method is through

the sober enquiry of analytic reason, which thus proceeds to higher

kinds of learning.

 

2. The second kind of learning is called 'pistis' or 'customary

faith'. This is the habitual faith of long-accepted common sense.

It's to this settled faith that people return, when they sober down

from their inspiring but fanciful flights of imagination. This is a

higher kind of learning, in the sense that it corrects some obvious

errors of imagined fancy. But it depends on customary habits of

belief that are not properly examined, and so it still remains in the

realm of 'doxa' or 'believed appearance'.

 

3. The third kind of learning is called 'dianoia' or 'formal

science'. Here, learning is formalized by making its assumptions

explicit. And reasoned argument is used to deduce conclusions. For

Plato, the prime example of such science is geometry and mathematics.

By making its assumptions explicit, as formal axioms or postulates,

such scientific argument throws open its beliefs to actual enquiry,

against the test of experience. The test is to deduce results and to

investigate if they correctly show what's actually experienced. Thus

mere beliefs are left behind, and we enter the realm of 'episteme'

or 'investigated understanding'.

 

4. The fourth kind of learning is called 'noesis' or 'clarifying

reason'. Here, the direction of reasoned argument is no longer to

deduce results that describe observed phenomena. Instead, it is just

the opposite, to turn attention back towards underlying assumptions

from which the results have been deduced. Investigation is thus

turned reflectively, to ask how far the assumptions are correct and

to show up whatever falsity remains in them. There is thus a repeated

reflection back and forth, between observed results and accepted

assumptions. As the reflection is repeated, it is meant to keep

showing up remaining falsity, which gets accordingly removed, in a

progression towards clarity of truth. For Socrates, this is the

highest kind of reason on the way to truth.

 

This fourfold division corresponds to the four columns in your chart:

 

'Eikasia' or 'illusion' is obviously 'asat' or 'unreal', like the

imagined horn of an imaginary hare.

 

'Pistis' or 'customary faith' is a confused mixture of fanciful

appearance and customary common sense, like a rope appearing as a

snake. This corresponds to prAtibhAsika satyam or apparent reality.

 

'Dianoia' or 'formal science' is again a confused mixture. But the

mixture now is one of an explicitly constructed show and commonly

understood principles, like an innocuous rope that is understood to

be shown by the fearful appearance of an imaginary snake. This

corresponds to vyAvahArika satyam or transactional reality.

 

'Noesis' or 'clarifying reason' is aimed reflectively beneath all

differentiated appearances towards a clear truth that is shown in

common by them all. That alone is 'sat' or 'reality itself', where

knowing subject and known object are non-dually at one.

 

As Socrates presents this four-fold distinction, he makes it very

clear that it is just a conceptual pointer. He tells his listener's

that he is not here describing truth directly to them. He does not

rule out a direct teaching, but says that it is not his purpose here.

He is only suggesting an indirect pointer, on the way to an

eventually clear truth that must be directly realized.

 

Ananda