vRitti-vyApya and phala-vyApya

[Guest guest]

vRitti-vyApya and phala-vyApya—

There is a distinction between the manner of cognition of an external object such as a pot, which is of the form 'this is a pot' and the direct knowledge of Brahman, which is of the form 'I am Brahman'. In the former case, the mind stretches out through the eyes and becomes modified in the form of the pot at the place where the pot is located. This modification is known as vRitti. This vRitti removes the ignorance covering the pot. Actually, according to advaita vedAnta, the ignorance covers the consciousness on which the pot is superimposed. All things other than brahman are inert and they are all superimposed on brahman or pure consciousness. They do not have any existence except as superimposed appearances on pure consciousness. So a pot is actually pure consciousness limited by the pot, or, pure consciousness appearing in the form of a pot. Before seeing the pot a person says, "I do not see the pot". The reason for his not seeing the pot is that it, along with the pure consciousness underlying it, is covered by ignorance. When the mind stretches out to the pot and takes the form of the pot, the vRitti or modification of the mind in the form of the pot removes the ignorance covering the consciousness underlying the pot. But the vRitti is also inert, being only a modification of the mind which is itself inert and so it is not luminous. It cannot by itself reveal or illumine the pot. Then pure consciousness is reflected in the vRitti and it is this reflection that produces the knowledge "This is a pot". This reflection is known as 'phala' or fruit. Thus the knowledge of all external objects is produced by an appropriate phala. All external objects are therefore described as 'phala-vyApya' which means 'revealed by phala or fruit'.

In the case of the knowledge of Brahman also, there is a vRitti in the form of Brahman, known as akhaNDa-AkAra-vRitti. This vRitti removes the ignorance covering brahman. After this, the second step of the reflection of Brahman falling on the vRitti is not necessary here, because Brahman is self-luminous, unlike inert objects. This is similar to the difference between perceiving a pot and perceiving a lighted lamp. In the former case both the eye and a light are necessary, but in the latter case another light is not necessary. Therefore, while in the case of external objects the reflection of Brahman in the vRitti is necessary, in the case of realization of Brahman it is not necessary. Thus the cognition of an external object is brought about by 'phala', as described in the preceding paragraph, but the direct knowledge (which is called realization) of Brahman is brought about by the akhaNDa-AkAra-vRitti itself, without the aid of any phala. It is therefore said in vedAnta that all external objects are 'phala vyApya', while Brahman is 'vRitti vyApya'.

(Based on Panchadashi-ch.7)

Regards,

-- Hara Hara Sankara Jaya Jaya SankaraS.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 8/7/08, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

In the former case, the mind stretches out through the eyes and becomes

modified in the form of the pot at the place where the pot is located. This

modification is known as vRitti. This vRitti removes the ignorance covering the

pot. Actually, according to advaita vedAnta, the ignorance covers the

consciousness on which the pot is superimposed. 

 

 

------------

Pujya Shastriji - My SashTanga PraNAms

 

The description is beautiful - Thanks for the post. If I can highlight again

your statements- the mind stretches out THROUGH THE EYES and becomes modified in

the FORM of the pot at the place where the pot is located.

 

The only objection that was raised is - does one consider FORM of the pot - as

the substantive i.e. substance the pot is made up of or the form an attribute of

the pot?- one consideration is the form is also an attribute of the pot object

for the inherent substantive clay (dravya) that the pot is made up of. Then I

would say the mind riding on the eyes grasps the object pot using the form and

perhaps color as well as its attributive content. If one considers form is also

dravya or the name pot is dravya or substantive - then I would say it is just

samantics. Is the pot separate from the substantive, clay or same as clay, but

only a form?

 

Yes ignorance covers the consciousness on which the pot is superimposed - Thus

Fundamental substantive is covered. The fundamental substantive, Brahman being

all pervading, is not locussed separately in the pot for the mind to grasp,

anyway.

 

Similarly at the vyaavahaarika substantive clay is also covered as the mind

takes the form of pot or a jug object - is it not? In the pot and jug examples

the forms are different, and objects are different but the substantive is the

same but in one case in the form of a pot and in the other in the form of a jug.

When I am grasping pot vs jug, as two different objects but with the same

substantives, clay, what exactly the content of the vRitties formed in the mind?

Is attributive knowledge or substantive knowledge - that was the question

raised. I can distinguish a clay pot from iron pot - again based on the

attributes of the clay vs iron. Does the pancadasi sloka differntiates the

attributive knowledge from substantive knowledge? - This was the question raised

- is it not?

 

---------------

 

Sastriji:

 

All things other than brahman are inert and they are all superimposed on

brahman or pure consciousness. They do not have any existence except as

superimposed appearances on pure consciousness. So a pot is actually pure

consciousness limited by the pot, or, pure consciousness appearing in the form

of a pot. Before seeing the pot a person says, " I do not see the pot " . The

reason for his not seeing the pot is that it, along with the pure consciousness

underlying it, is covered by ignorance. When the mind stretches out to the pot

and takes the form of the pot, the vRitti or modification of the mind in the

form of the pot removes the ignorance covering the consciousness underlying the

pot. But the vRitti is also inert, being only a modification of the mind which

is itself inert and so it is not luminous. It cannot by itself reveal or

illumine the pot. Then pure consciousness is reflected in the vRitti and it is

this reflection that produces the knowledge 

" This is a pot " . This reflection is known as 'phala' or fruit. Thus the

knowledge of all external objects is produced by an appropriate phala. All

external objects are therefore described as 'phala-vyApya' which means 'revealed

by phala or fruit'.

 

---------------

Beautiful - Agree fully.

------------

 

    In the case of the knowledge of Brahman also, there is a vRitti in the form

of Brahman, known as akhaNDa-AkAra- vRitti. This vRitti removes the ignorance

covering brahman. After this, the second step of the reflection of Brahman 

falling on the vRitti is not necessary here, because Brahman is self-luminous,

unlike inert objects. This is similar to the difference between perceiving a pot

and perceiving a lighted lamp. In the former case both the eye and a light are

necessary, but in the latter case another light is not necessary. Therefore,

while in the case of external objects the reflection of Brahman in the vRitti is

necessary, in the case of realization of Brahman it is not necessary. Thus the

cognition of an external object is brought about by 'phala', as described in the

preceding paragraph, but the direct knowledge (which is called realization) of

Brahman is brought about by the akhaNDa-AkAra- vRitti itself, without the aid of

any phala. It

is therefore said in vedAnta that all external objects are 'phala vyApya',

while Brahman is 'vRitti vyApya'.

-------------

Fantastic - Beautiful demarcation. Thanks

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Based on Panchadashi- ch.7)

Regards,

-- Hara Hara Sankara Jaya Jaya Sankara

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:> > The only objection that was raised is - does one consider FORM of the pot - as the substantive i.e. substance the pot is made up of or the form an attribute of the pot?- one consideration is the form is also an attribute of the pot object for the inherent substantive clay (dravya) that the pot is made up of. Then I would say the mind riding on the eyes grasps the object pot using the form and perhaps color as well as its attributive content. If one considers form is also dravya or the name pot is dravya or substantive - then I would say it is just samantics. Is the pot separate from the substantive, clay or same as clay, but only a form? > > Yes ignorance covers the consciousness on which the pot is superimposed - Thus Fundamental substantive is covered. The fundamental substantive, Brahman being all pervading, is not locussed separately in the pot for the mind to grasp, anyway. > > Similarly at the vyaavahaarika substantive clay is also covered as the mind takes the form of pot or a jug object - is it not? In the pot and jug examples the forms are different, and objects are different but the substantive is the same but in one case in the form of a pot and in the other in the form of a jug. When I am grasping pot vs jug, as two different objects but with the same substantives, clay, what exactly the content of the vRitties formed in the mind? Is attributive knowledge or substantive knowledge - that was the question raised. I can distinguish a clay pot from iron pot - again based on the attributes of the clay vs iron. Does the pancadasi sloka differntiates the attributive knowledge from substantive knowledge? - This was the question raised - is it not? >

Namaste,

The following discussion between a couple of friends, I hope, may complement this:

"A vichara on 'Attributes and substantive'

 

Attributes = qualities of an 'object' like the red colour of a rose, soft petals, thorny stalk, pleasant smell, , even the weight of 2 grams, the size of ....cms, dimensions, the date on which it blossomed, the garden where it flowered etc.

 

Substantive = the 'object' rose that has the above attributes.

 

Supposing i have listed 'everything' that i can say/talk/think about a rose flower and have nothing more to say. All that i have 'said' and perhaps not said owing to the inadequacy of the instruments/pramanas at my disposal, comes under 'attributes' only and what is the 'rose' apart from these attributes?

 

Ah! there is one thing that i did not include in the list of 'attributes', and that is '(the rose) Is, It Exists'. Is this 'existence' an object of perception? If it is, what is/are its attribute/s? Is it possible to perceive with senses something that has no attributes at all whatsoever and yet report to another person that 'I saw/felt/tasted/smelt/heard xxxxx'?

 

Is it possible to talk about any 'object' without referring to its attributes?

 

 

Include: Gitabhashya II.16 (na asato..) bhashya last portion on sad vichara. A fine input for this discussion.

 

Candle, bicycle example. Avayava vishlesha….no avayavi remains.

 

I have a candle with me. The candle has these attributes: 1. Wax moulded in a cylindrical shape. 2. It is 6 inches long and 2 Cms. Round. 3. There is a white wick running thru the length of the candle. 4. The candle is red coloured.

 

Apart from this there are no physical properties I can enumerate with my layman's knowledge. Now, among the four attributes named above, what and where is the `candle'? Certainly, the wax is not the candle, nor the wick by itself. So with the other attributes too. Yet, we use the word `candle'. Supposing I separate the above parts and keep them apart. Where is the candle there? Is it not that apart from using the word candle we are not able to show a candle. What we are showing, even when the above four items are put together in a particular fashion, are only the four items and not a candle. Where did the `candle' come from. Is there a `candle' in concrete terms available for us to examine and show to others apart from the above four items? There is a stubborn fellow with me who refuses to agree with me that it is a candle. He argues vehemently that I am only holding the above four and insisting it is a candle. He spells out the four above items and asks me to show the `candle'. He says despite my saying `look, here is a candle', what the eyes perceive is only the group of the above four things and not a `candle'.

 

If we examine the above four items individually, again we are going to end up with the same situation alone. Apart from the word `candle' where is the `thing' candle? Surely a case of `vAchArambhaNam vikAro nAmadheyam…..'. This Shruti says, with regard to every `object' we are using just a name but are not able to substantiate it with a real object. When the material/parts with which an `object' (just a name) is made, assembled, disintegrate, there is no object to call by that name. A bicycle can be an example. In a pot, when we are touching it, weighing it, buying/selling it, using it, etc. all along we are only doing all these to the clay only and not to the pot. Pot is just a name for clay in a particular shape. The fate of clay too is the same when examined further. Ultimately we will have to end up with Sat, Existence, Brahman. Everything in the world is just a name for the real content that is Brahman. Apart from the name there is nothing other than Brahman in the object/World.

 

The names are different for different `objects'. But without this `arrangement' that has come into being, naisargiko ayam loka vyavahAraH, as per the Preamble to the B.S.B. of Sri Shankaracharya, no vyavahara can take place. But the Shruti/Gita will not leave us to continue like this. It shows us, thru vichara, that this is not the Paramartha. Thus we have the VAchAramBhana shruti of the Chandogya, the Gita verse IV,24 `BrahmArpaNam Brahma haviH'…. Etc. In this shloka, the arpaNam, havis, agni, the oblation-giver, the goal intended thru the oblation are the `different' names for different `objects'. But the one common appendage, `attribute' that is added to all these names is `Brahman'. That is how the Gita negates the vyavahAric, unenquired-into usage of mere names and shows that the One Real Object that is intended to be denoted by all, the ignorant and the wise, is Brahman. Fortunately, this Brahman is not an `object' but the very subject who can never be denied. The Panchakoshaviveka of the Taittiriya makes this realization possible that the subject in truth is the attributeless, name-free, unnamable Sat Chit Ananda. In this viveka, the Upanishad takes up one after the other, all the five sheaths, that are the attributes of a `person'. After exhausting all the attributes we are left with nothing to `talk' about that person. Only silence remains. This is the experience of the aspirant Bhrigu in that Upanishad. This shows that apart from the attributes there is no `object'. Is it then a void, shoonyataa? No, there is the undeniable Existence Sat, the Chit. Since this is beyond words, as this Upanishad itself teaches, no talking is possible. No attributes are there for It.

 

Interestingly, the examination of every `object' in creation as well as the examiner, the subject, leads to the same result: The One Ultimate Truth is Sat. Thus the subject is Sat and the object is Sat. The two names subject and object die out being redundant and only Sat alone remains. This is the Adviteeya Brahman.

 

Let us consider another example, a spoon. What is a spoon other than a metallic contrivance with a handle and a scoop? Can we `see' a spoon apart from the said attribute? No one, not even the Supreme Lord, the Sarvajna, Sarvashakta, Bhagavan Sri Hari can show us a spoon; He can at best show us what is `called a spoon' but not a spoon. This statement might sound blasphemous and a Bhagavad Bhakta is bound to get furious upon hearing such an affirmation. But there is no reason for worry.

 

When it is impossible for even Bhagavan to show us even a `spoon', how is it that we successfully `conceive', `perceive' and transact all things, atomic and astronomic? [`aNorNeeyAn mahato maheeyAn' conveys that the substratum of the superimposed world of varied sizes is Brahman.] There is a power, the Shakti called MaayA that makes this impossible possible!! That is why Sri Shankaracharya called it `aghaTita ghaTanaa paTeeyasee MaayA' in His `MaayA-panchakam', a pentad on the `glory' of MaayA.

 

The Enquiry into the truth of objects is not complete without the enquiry of the truth behind the instruments, the very sense organs, that `show' us the objects. These sense organs are themselves objects and their truth is also the same as that of the objects that they perceive. Such is the complex, treacherous, matrix woven by MaayA that not only there is delusion pertaining to the perceived objects but we are deluded into thinking that the organs that perceive them too are real, valid, dependable. The preamble to the Brahmasutra Bhashya touches upon this aspect too.

 

Despite this total invasion by mAyA, we have no reason to worry about the Lord's Supremacy. For, is it not His icchA, His sportful desire, that the world of objects appear to us to be real? By His own icchA He can bring about its eradication too. BhagavAn's mAya is otherwise termed as icchA. The aspirant who is more bhakti oriented wishes to see it as His icchA. The one given to enquiry predominantly sees it as His mAyA. That is all the difference. Bhagavadicchaa and BhagavanmAyA are synonyms for the same concept.

 

The Lord has the weapon to eradicate this affliction of mAyA. That weapon is His infinite compassion that has given expression to in the form of the Shruti, the ShAstra. The shAstra is the shastra, weapon. This weapon, the Sword of Discriminative Knowledge, as for example, taught in the Chandogya Upanishad VI Chapter, `vAchArambhanam….' with three illustrations, teaches that the effect, that is visible to us as object, is insubstantial and the substance is only the cause. The Cause of the World is Brahman and That Alone is Real, `mRttiketyeva satyam'. The effect, the world (of objects, more precisely, the subject-object duality), is unreal, being nothing other than the names that denote it. The `hollowness', the emptiness, of the world once determined through the viveka taught by the Shruti, one becomes freed from the clutches of mAyA. That is why the Lord said in the Gita: daivee hyeShA guNamayee mama mAyA duratyayA. mAmeva ye prapadyante mAyAmeShAm taranti te. [This divine mAyaa of Mine, consisting of guNas, is extremely difficult to overcome. Whoever surrenders to Me, the Lord of mAyaa, turning away from the world, succeeds in fording the terrible mAyA."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 8/7/08, Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

 

               The following discussion between a couple of friends, I hope,

 may complement this:  

" A vichara on 'Attributes and substantive'

------------------

Sunder - PraNAms

 

Excellent post. This was essentially the discussion in the post - Knowledge and

the means of knowledge-14 parts I and II.

 

In relation to your post - only thing I would add is - which is also in response

to the comments of Shree Srinivas - is that at vyavahaara level - there is

distinction if the candle is made of wax vs. the candle is made with say plastic

- a look alike - like the artificial fruits in the basket on the dining table.

Real fruits and the artificial fruits - in both case the mind riding on the eyes

grasps the objects are VRittis formed recognizing that they are fruits different

from the basket and the table that the mind is also grasping. Only when I try to

pick or touch the fruit, I get additional knowledge that one is real fruit and

the other is made up of plastic- based again on the differences in the

attributes - in both cases SAT is the adhaara. When I tried to transact - the

plastic fruit is different from the real fruit. Hence transactional differences

are noted at transactional level but not when one just perceives the two fruits.

Same is iron pot

vs. clay pot. In both cases we have first Sat as the basis + iron or clay as

the secondary materials (bhoutika formed from subtle elements through

panciikaraNam). Hence at transactional level there is difference established

through karma or utilities. At paaramaarthika level - all are nothing but

Brahman only - the essence of Ch. Up - sad vidya. Percetual knowledge is

supported by transactions to establish the validity of objective realilty at the

vyavahaara level. Otherwise there is no objective reality as you have rightly

pointed out - Hence vaachaarambhanam follows to arrive at adhyaatimika reality

that everything is nothing but SAT only.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji, Sadananda-ji and Sunder-ji,

 

Excellent description from Sastri-ji again and a fascinating dialog

from Sunder-ji (is there a more explicit source for this material?)!

 

Regarding Sada-ji’s query and Sunder-ji’s reply, I

offer the following observation:

 

It seems to me that our discussions can have three purposes.

a) vyAvahArika – i.e. practical, transactional – e.g.

sit down and let me bring you a cup of tea.

b) pAramArthika – everything is brahman; end of story.

c) teaching – to take one’s understanding from the

former level to the latter.

 

In discussions such as the ones we have on the list and read in

the scriptures, I suggest that we are mostly concerned with c) so that we are

inevitably going to hit paradoxes and maybe confusion because the non-dual can

never be spoken of directly yet we must constantly refer to it in order to clarify

and ultimately eliminate the ignorance.

 

Having said that, it seems that descriptions of how perception

functions must be at the first level, since it is only there that we can

meaningfully talk about subjects and objects. So here, the usual rules of

practicality must surely apply and I think we must assume that objects are separate

and real. Thus, a painted pot for example must be regarded as an object in

itself and not an attribute of clay. This must be so because, since it is

painted, and assuming that we only have sight available, we do not know that it

is made of clay – it might be metal or plastic underneath the paint.

 

Of course, one could say that pot is still the attribute, with

the substantive being clay, metal or plastic. But, as pointed out before, we

can then take the clay, metal or plastic and state that this, too, is a form of

something more basic. And so on… until we reach brahman. But now we have

again strayed into category c).

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi

sadananda

Thursday, August 07, 2008 2:23 PM

advaitin

Re: vRitti-vyApya and phala-vyApya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Thu, 8/7/08, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri

wrote:

 

In the former case, the mind stretches out through the eyes and becomes

modified in the form of the pot at the place where the pot is located. This

modification is known as vRitti. This vRitti removes the ignorance covering the

pot. Actually, according to advaita vedAnta, the ignorance covers the

consciousness on which the pot is superimposed.

 

------------

Pujya Shastriji - My SashTanga PraNAms

 

The description is beautiful - Thanks for the post. If I can highlight again

your statements- the mind stretches out THROUGH THE EYES and becomes modified

in the FORM of the pot at the place where the pot is located.

[Guest guest]

Dennis - PraNAms.

 

What you say is correct - that is how the mother starts communicating to the child that this is pot that is apple etc and establish transaction and the associated knowledge of the world. The life can go on at this stage and it goes on for majority of the people.

 

In a way it is similar to whether the sun rises or not. For vyavahaara mechanics at that level is sufficient.

 

When it comes to inquiring about the nature of the reality of the plurality - we are not slowly moving towards mahatma Vida. The teaching of aadhyaatma vidya is still vyavahaara but that vyavahaara has to take us to point out the Paaramaarthika - This is what adhyaaropa apavaada comes into picture - negating what we have accepted as the truth to go next level - At paaramaarthika level we just keep quiet.

 

Hence the topic is being addresses from simple transactional level to adhyaatma level all the way to paaramaarthika level.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Thu, 8/7/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

Dennis Waite <dwaiteRE: Re: vRitti-vyApya and phala-vyApyaadvaitin Date: Thursday, August 7, 2008, 3:59 PM

 

 

 

 

Dear Sastri-ji, Sadananda-ji and Sunder-ji,

 

Excellent description from Sastri-ji again and a fascinating dialog from Sunder-ji (is there a more explicit source for this material?)!

 

Regarding Sada-ji’s query and Sunder-ji’s reply, I offer the following observation:

 

It seems to me that our discussions can have three purposes.

a) vyAvahArika – i.e. practical, transactional – e.g. sit down and let me bring you a cup of tea.

b) pAramArthika – everything is brahman; end of story.

c) teaching – to take one’s understanding from the former level to the latter.

 

In discussions such as the ones we have on the list and read in the scriptures, I suggest that we are mostly concerned with c) so that we are inevitably going to hit paradoxes and maybe confusion because the non-dual can never be spoken of directly yet we must constantly refer to it in order to clarify and ultimately eliminate the ignorance.

 

Having said that, it seems that descriptions of how perception functions must be at the first level, since it is only there that we can meaningfully talk about subjects and objects. So here, the usual rules of practicality must surely apply and I think we must assume that objects are separate and real. Thus, a painted pot for example must be regarded as an object in itself and not an attribute of clay. This must be so because, since it is painted, and assuming that we only have sight available, we do not know that it is made of clay – it might be metal or plastic underneath the paint.

 

Of course, one could say that pot is still the attribute, with the substantive being clay, metal or plastic. But, as pointed out before, we can then take the clay, metal or plastic and state that this, too, is a form of something more basic. And so on… until we reach brahman. But now we have again strayed into category c).

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin@ s.com [advaitin] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadanandaThursday, August 07, 2008 2:23 PMadvaitin@ s.com Re: vRitti-vyApya and phala-vyApya

 

 

 

 

--- On Thu, 8/7/08, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:In the former case, the mind stretches out through the eyes and becomes modified in the form of the pot at the place where the pot is located. This modification is known as vRitti. This vRitti removes the ignorance covering the pot. Actually, according to advaita vedAnta, the ignorance covers the consciousness on which the pot is superimposed. ------------Pujya Shastriji - My SashTanga PraNAmsThe description is beautiful - Thanks for the post. If I can highlight again your statements- the mind stretches out THROUGH THE EYES and becomes modified in the FORM of the pot at the place where the pot is located.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>  

> Hence the topic is being addresses from simple transactional level

to adhyaatma level all the way to paaramaarthika level.

>

>

> --- On Thu, 8/7/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>  

> Excellent description from Sastri-ji again and a fascinating

dialog (is there a more explicit source for this material?)!

>  

> Regarding Sada-ji's query and Sunder-ji's reply, I offer the

following observation:

>

 

Namaste,

 

Unfortunately, the friends insist on remaining anonymous,

and I am duty-bound to keep their confidence!

 

One point I would like to make is that the emphasis on the

vyavahaara-(transactional/empirical)- level should be shifted to

its 'praatibhaasa' nature at every step; this is the nitya-anitya-

vastu-viveka (discrimintion between the eternal and ephemeral) of

spiritual practice (saadhanaa).

 

As the Kanchi Mahaswamigal emphasized in 'Advaita Sadhana',

dvaitam is duHkham and ONLY advitiiyam is sukham. Every object is a

cause of misery, either by not having it, or by losing it after

having it. (also Gita 9:33 - anityam asukham lokam....; and 14:27 -

brahmaNo hi pratiShThaahM ....sukhasya aikaantikasya cha .)

 

Else, the 'pratyakShaavagama' (Gita 9) [ " immediate

perception like the feeling of pleasure... " ] nature will always

elude us.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

>It seems to me that our discussions can have three purposes.

 

>a) vyAvahArika - i.e. practical, transactional - e.g. sit down and let

>me bring you a cup of tea.

 

>b) pAramArthika - everything is brahman; end of story.

 

>c) teaching - to take one's understanding from the former level to the

latter.

 

If b) is true then both a) and c) equal b). Brahman drinks the tea. It

is also Brahman trying to take understanding to another level. And

Brahman is the understanding itself.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh wrote:

> " A vichara on 'Attributes and substantive'

 

praNAms Shri Sunder-ji,

 

Thanks a lot for posting this excellent example filled dialogue.

 

I request all the members to re-read this message multiple times

to get an essence of what what is happening in the " Knowledge " series.

 

Also thanks to all the people who responded to my question on Gita.

 

praNAms to everyone in this group.

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri.Sadananda,

 

Namaste.

 

I thought of writing a detailed reply to your two part

postings " Knowledge and the means of knowledge-14 parts I and II " ,

but time did not permit me. Anyway, here is the quick note to your

position ;

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> The following discussion between a couple of friends,

I hope, may complement this:

> " A vichara on 'Attributes and substantive'

> ------------------

> Sunder - PraNAms

>

> Excellent post. This was essentially the discussion in the post -

Knowledge and the means of knowledge-14 parts I and II.

>

> In relation to your post - only thing I would add is - which is

>also in response to the comments of Shree Srinivas - is that at

>vyavahaara level - there is distinction if the candle is made of

>wax vs. the candle is made with say plastic - a look alike - like

>the artificial fruits in the basket on the dining table. Real

>fruits and the artificial fruits - in both case the mind riding on

>the eyes grasps the objects are VRittis formed recognizing that

>they are fruits different from the basket and the table that the

>mind is also grasping. Only when I try to pick or touch the fruit,

>I get additional knowledge that one is real fruit and the other is

>made up of plastic- based again on the differences in the

>attributes - in both cases SAT is the adhaara. When I tried to

>transact - the plastic fruit is different from the real fruit.

>Hence transactional differences are noted at transactional level

>but not when one just perceives the two fruits.

 

Is it not transaction a perception ?

 

You seems to say that you will get knowledge of substance of object

(real fruit vs. plastic fruit) only when you pickup the fruit. From

this you seems to say that only by transaction the substance of the

object is being known and not by mere perception.

 

My argument is that, your `picking up' (of the fruits)

involve 'touch' and hence it *is* a perception only. Touch or

sparSha is also one among jnAnEndria. Please note that you seems to

think only `seeing' is perception. This point I have been raising in

several of my replies to you. From your explanation of plastic

fruits, it is clear that you are holding a position that by

mere `seeing' one can't know the material of the fruits and only

when one picks up the fruit (by virtue of touch) one will realize

the material make of the object. This is not how vEdAnta defines the

substance of the object. `Substance' of an object is **not** its

material makeup, but the complete object in itself.

 

Let's do some analysis of jnAnEndriya-s and karmEndriya-s ;

 

By definition, karmEnriya is for doing karma only and not

participating in generating any 'jnAna' whatsoever. If you think

karmEndriya will generate any knowledge, they will loose their role

be termed as 'jnAnEndriya' only. We need to make clear distinction

between jnAnEndriya and karmEnriya. While jnAnEndriya-s are `input

device' (so to speak), karmEnriya-s are `output device'.

 

In your Part I posting, you have mentioned after one picks up the

ring and wears it, one will know the substansive knowledge of the

ring, which is gold. I argue other way. When one mere `transact'

with ring and wears it, he will get the knowledge that it is in

fact `ring'. He will not get the knowledge that gold is the material

of ring. If at all any knowledge of gold, it has to be by `seeing'

the color of the ring (or testing in the lab) only. So, as per your

own argument, the transactional knowledge `this is ring' should be

the `substantive knowledge'. This is correct if one were

to `transact' either with gold ring or copper ring or iron ring or

whatever ring. Also, this is true if a blind person wears a ring of

any make.

 

Therefore, my contention is that transaction is nothing but

perception only and such perceptions reveal the objects in both its

attribute and substance aspects in a unitary fashion. As such, there

is no difference between attributes and substance of object in

reality, but it is only in the usage of our language.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Srinivas - PraNAms

 

- when I press reply button for some reason it give me Rich format rather than

plane text format - and when I change to plane text the parts that is being

referenced are not separately demarked. I have to make it separate for reader to

know which is original and which is the response. This is not the same for

advaitaL list - where reply button automatically takes me to plane text rather

than Rich text - Not sure where the problem is.

 

Anyway here is my response for whatever it is worth.

 

--- On Mon, 8/11/08, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

the plastic fruit is different from the real fruit.

>Hence transactional differences are noted at transactional level

>but not when one just perceives the two fruits.

 

Is it not transaction a perception ?

 

---------

Sadananda: No. I am distinguishing Transaction is different from perception,

although perception is validated by transaction. This is the difference between

experience vs knowledge. Through senses you do not perceive the substantive

matter, I transact with the matter.

-----------------------

 

Srinivas:

You seems to say that you will get knowledge of substance of object

(real fruit vs. plastic fruit) only when you pickup the fruit. From

this you seems to say that only by transaction the substance of the

object is being known and not by mere perception.

 

My argument is that, your `picking up' (of the fruits)

involve 'touch' and hence it *is* a perception only. Touch or

sparSha is also one among jnAnEndria. Please note that you seems to

think only `seeing' is perception.

--------------

Sadananda:

Srinivas - please read my notes again - I never said seeing is only perception.

All five indriyaas input is perception. ruupa is used as generic for ruupa,

shabda, sparsha, rasa and gandha - some of the senses do not go out even per

conventional explanation. Please read the 14-part I and part II again.

 

Yes touch is perception only - by touching I am gathering distinguishing

attributes of a real fruit vs plastic fruit. If one can make the plastic fruit

so real that even touch cannot distinguish, they I may have to bite it or try to

cut it - to check whether it is plastic or real. Hopefully the taste will make

the difference. – If my taste buds are ruined by fever then both may even

taste the same! I made the point clear too saying that if they are too

indistinguishable then I have to resort to more sophisticated tests to

distinguish the two. Remember, the Archimedes Eureka story - to distinguish from

real gold vs perhaps psuedo gold. He has to resort to density method to

distinguish the real from the false - the bottom line is perceptually one cannot

get substantive. This is the experiential and scientific truth.

 

------------

Srinivas:

 

This point I have been raising in

several of my replies to you. From your explanation of plastic

fruits, it is clear that you are holding a position that by

mere `seeing' one can't know the material of the fruits and only

when one picks up the fruit (by virtue of touch) one will realize

the material make of the object. This is not how vEdAnta defines the

substance of the object. `Substance' of an object is **not** its

material makeup, but the complete object in itself.

----------------

Sadananda:

 

Srinivas - please study my response again. I have included all perceptions from

all the five senses as input - as for I am concerned all sense input goes

through the signal processing as they arrive. We see the lightning and hear it

later since the sense of sight is faster than sense of hearing. These are facts

of our day to day experiences. Here signals are fed in sequentially – that

they belong to the same locus is understood through experience only and by aapta

vaakyam as mother teaches the child that sound is from the same lightening that

we saw before. This is how the knowledge grows.

 

When you make a statement – this is not how vEdAnta defines the substance of

the object – I am not sure what VedAnta you are referring to! Please educate

me. – I just took up Ch. Up text Sad vidya at the Memorial day camp. The

objects are defined precisely the way I have defined – vaachaarambhanam

vikaaro naamadheyam – name for a form – lohamityeva satyam – gold alone is

real – the rest is name for a form – ring, bangle, necklace – which are

loha mayam – pervaded by gold alone. Hence loha jnaanena sarva loha kaarya

jnaanam bhavati. – by knowing gold all gold ornaments are ‘as well’ known

since ornaments are nothing but gold alone with name and form – vaak aarmbhana

kaaryatvaat.

 

I fail to understand your star star high light in your post above. What do you

mean by ‘the complete object in itself’ - to me it is extremely vague

statement which I do not think has any more meaning - than vaachaarambhanam.

If I am wrong, my apologies. The complete Object has only two things to complete

- one is the substance that it is made up of, including how it is assembled with

materials parts (like a chair) - and the other is the attributive content. Ring

is nothing but gold substance and the form with any other attributes. Now please

educate me what else defines the complete object, besides the substance and the

name and form. As I said repeatedly the form, ruupa include the five set - the

five sense input. By touching, attributes such as hardness, roughness, texture,

etc are provided about the object – no substance is transmitted by touch

either. Now tell me besides the substantive and naama and ruupa what else is

there to define

‘the complete object’ and what else vedAnta that you are referring to says

there is. The darshanikas may have defined their way - but that is not vedanta

that is darshaNa.

-----------------------------

Srinivas:

 

Let's do some analysis of jnAnEndriya- s and karmEndriya- s ;

 

By definition, karmEnriya is for doing karma only and not

participating in generating any 'jnAna' whatsoever. If you think

karmEndriya will generate any knowledge, they will loose their role

be termed as 'jnAnEndriya' only.

-----------------

Sadananda:

Sir – I never said karmendriayas generate knowledge. They are not pramaaNa –

Senses are pramaaNa – Please read my text again, before conclusions are drawn.

You wanted a vyaapti to associate vRitti with attributive content of the object

perceived through the substantive object out there – as a relation between

what I see and what I transact with – That Sambhadha knowledge comes from

transactions involving further perception. Look at my examples again – when I

ware a ring I know the ring I see is real – When I get spectro-chemical

analysis of the ring – I know that the ring that I am wearing not only looks

as golden ring but is really golden ring. Some times we need very trained

experts to distinguish real vs fake diamonds. Transaction and utility based

knowledge validates the perceptual knowledge. The perceptual knowledge is taken

as valid until or unless the subsequent experience negates its validity - like

rope as a snake based on

limited attributive perceptual content. That is why I said, bhrama is defined

is that which is invalidated by subsequent experience generated knowledge –

such as when I pick up the shell thinking that it is silver, based on simple

perception – along with karmendriyas – when I pick up the shell, the

jnaanedriays involved in now noting the attributes of the shelly substance –

which they did not before. That is why I said errors arise due to incomplete

sense input since there is no particular attribute that can uniquely define an

object since objects do not have swaruupa laxanas. I have been consistent in my

analysis. When I pick up the ring and ware it - attributive vRitti knowledge

that I had gathered is validated by the transactional reality associated by

wearing. The spatial coordinates are not only perceived but transacted with my

bending and picking it up from the floor and decorating myself with the ring

that I perceived. One to one

correspondence is established between perceptual knowledge of an object and

arthavishakatvam of the object - that is there is some meaning in the object

ring since I am able to transact with it. Ring is not a hallucination.

 

No I have never thought that karmendriyas are pramaaNa indriyas.

-------------------

Srinivas:

We need to make clear distinction

between jnAnEndriya and karmEnriya. While jnAnEndriya- s are `input

device' (so to speak), karmEnriya-s are `output device'.

 

Sadananda:

Yes – that is how I learned and that is how I teach too.

---------------

Srinivas:

In your Part I posting, you have mentioned after one picks up the

ring and wears it, one will know the substantive knowledge of the

ring, which is gold. I argue other way. When one mere `transact'

with ring and wears it, he will get the knowledge that it is in

fact `ring'. He will not get the knowledge that gold is the material

of ring.

--------------

Srinivas – I request you to read my statements again without bias.

 

When you pick up a ring and ware it you know it is substantive ring not just

name and a form. It may be gold or look alike a gold or even iron or plastic –

one gains that it is substantive – not a ghost that I am seeing! When I beet

the rope which I though is a snake I have the substantive knowledge that it is

not a snake. I may not know if it is a plastic or cotton or jute rope – but I

know it is not a snake. Non-negatability condition for pramaa as VP is

specified, which I discussed briefly in the beginning itself. This is not

withstanding the absolute non-negatability for Brahman only as VP clearly states

that also when he defined pramaaNa.

 

--

 

Srinivas:

 

Therefore, my contention is that transaction is nothing but

perception only and such perceptions reveal the objects in both its

attribute and substance aspects in a unitary fashion. As such, there

is no difference between attributes and substance of object in

reality, but it is only in the usage of our language.

 

------------

Sadananda:

 

With all due respects Srinivas – I totally disagree with your understanding.

your understanding, as I see, is not only illogical but unscientific too and it

is also un-Vedantic as I have explained using sat vidya.

 

Unless you have any specific counter arguments –- let us agree to disagree at

this stage. I have provided the scientific as well as Vedantic basis for my

statements.

 

From advaita Vedanta perspective – all objects are mithyaa only and follow Ch.

Up statement – vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam. Loham iti eva satyam –

gold alone is real – the alone part negates the reality to the names and forms

of all kaaryas or products. They are real only at transactional level and

substantive level they are all gold. Thus ring is real different from bangle

and bracelet and their utilities are different, even though substantively they

are gold. No substance can be transmitted by the senses – the attributes of

the substantive like luster, color, etc of the gold, yes. That again is the

attributive knowledge of the gold object. Final ultimate substantive is

Brahman, by definition- since it is one without a second.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda