Matter

[Guest guest]

Chaitanya-ji wrote:

 

Verses VI & VII

 

AbhArUpasya vishvasya bhAnaM bhAsaMnidhervinA.

kadAcinnAvakalpeta bhA cAhaM tena sarvagaH..

na hi bhAnAdrte sattvaM narte bhAnaM cito.acitaH.

citsambhedo.api nAdhyAsAdrte tenAhamadvayaH..

 

Cognition of the universe which is a reflection would never be competent,

but

for the proximity of a light; and I am that light, and consequently

omnipresent.

For not without illumination is there existence, nor without consciousness

is

there any illumination of the unconscious; nor without illusory

superposition is

there any connection with consciousness; therefore I am exempt from

duality.

(Translated by Shri. A.E. Gough)

 

In Shri Guru Smriti

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Chaitanya-ji:

That’s an interesting quote but on its own without any elucidation cannot

be an indication of any position. It seems on the face of it a summary of

a position without any attempt to argue for it or show the structure of an

ontology that would support it. The first sentence is a tautology i.e.

cognition of the universe would not be possible without cognition. How

does that show I am omnipresent? The rest of the verse does not stray

beyond the bounds of that initial piece of non-information but also brings

in the concept of superposition/adhyasa without any real justification.

 

I contrast this to the preamble of the B.S.B. in which Shankara takes as a

given the cognition of objects but then goes on from there to elucidate

the paradox that this fact presents. How can it be possible that this is

so given that subject and object differ as night from day? The

development of his insights form the basis of the adhyasa analogy.

Nowhere in this is there offered a tautology which by its nature cannot

move out of its own charmed circle.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael,

 

Gaudapada effectively addresses this in his kArikA-s to the MU.

II.4: Objects seen in the waking state are mithyA, just like objects seen in

dreams. Of course, we only know the dream to be unreal after we have woken up;

at the time it seems very real. Similarly, in order to appreciate the mithyAtva

of waking objects, we have to shift our standpoint to that of turIya. Shankara,

in his commentary on the next verse, clarifies this by saying that the world is

mithyA *because* we experience it (just like the dream). If everything

that we experience is mithyA, this then means that the only thing that is

satyam is that which exists but is not experienced. The only ‘thing’ that falls

into this category is the experiencer, the consciousness principle.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of ombhurbhuva

Monday, March 23, 2009 2:32 PM

advaitin

Matter

 

 

 

 

 

The first sentence is a tautology i.e.

cognition of the universe would not be possible without cognition. How

does that show I am omnipresent? The rest of the verse does not stray

beyond the bounds of that initial piece of non-information but also brings

in the concept of superposition/adhyasa without any real justification.