Knowledge and the Means of Knowlede - 32

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

What I have to write concerns the post of Sadananda-ji but of course

anyone other than himself, if he chooses to do so, is free to comment on

the ideas herein. I am not overcertain that anyone is interested in these

observations however I offer them as clarifications and an interpretation

of the basic material. However I welcome the clarity of his exposition as

it makes it easier to see where he has gone wrong.

 

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

Sada-ji writes:

It was stated also in Vedanta ParibhaaSha, following the

Meemamsakaa position, that mind goes out and engulfs the object and

perceives the object through the senses, along with the perception of

space and

time, without questioning its validity. We have raised this issue in the

beginning of our analysis itself, and made a comment that those particular

assumptions are not necessary, in order to understand the perceptual

process. It

is not metaphysics here, as some argue. These are based on some basic

physics

that we understand as of today dealing with the mechanics of physiological

functions. The analysis of the pramaaNas from advaita perspective remains

the

same, as shown elaborately in the previous discussions, without imposing

the above unnecessary assumptions.

 

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

Comment:

 

 

Here there is a fundamental misapprehension of the nature of metaphysics

and how it differs from scientific description, theory and the like. It

is the science of first principles i.e. scientia (knowledge) of first

principles, and it can remain the same even though the empirical knowledge

changes over time. In connection with perception it is not about reaction

time, saccading and the rest of it but a statement of how neuronal

activity is consciousness. The statement of D.A. in V.P. about the mind

going out to take the form of the object is not a psychological theory but

a metaphysical one. What in essence he is saying is that the mental

modification (vritti) can be congruent with the object because they are

_essentially_ made of the same stuff viz. Consciousness. What Sada-ji is

saying is that the mental activity mediates knowledge, that there are

brain events which are interpreted by something else and that what we are

directly aware of is a state within the subject. From that state we may

infer the existence of an object which causes it.

 

This is the theory which is called Representative Realism or Indirect

Realism or Scientific Realism and it has been chiefly associated with the

thinking of the British Empiricist school of Locke, Berkeley and Hume.

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/tok/perception5.htm

 

There is not the slightest indication that D.A. holds anything like this

which of course Sada-ji recognises in that he offers an updated, as he

sees it, scientific account which ignores the metaphysics. Likewise when

Shankara offers a critique of the Buddhist version of the inference theory

in B.S.B. II.ii.28 he dismissed that. To complete the picture he might

offer his interpretation of Brh.III.iv.11 in which Shankara says that the

organs are of the same category as the objects, not of a different

category. For Sada-ji the organs are only in contact with the attributes

and not the substantive so they cannot be of the same category as the

objects.

 

Some people will consider these points abstruse and not significant for

the individuals sadhana. I don’t think so and I am reassured by the fact

that Shankara considered it important to clarify the metaphysical

fundamentals.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

P.S. Per Se means as such/in itself. (not per sec which is a measure of

velocity)

----------

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.29/2455 - Release 10/24/09

06:43:00

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji.

 

I am intrested in what you say, although often your words go above my head due

to your sublime style of weaving them.

 

These are the basic fundamentals of advaita which can never be compromised upon:

 

1. Everything that we know of is made of the " stuff of Consciousness " , which is

Me.

 

2. Everything that we know of is in the category of 'objects' - i.e. the " other

than me " category, which includes the brain, neuronal activity, sense organs and

even our thoughts and ideas.

 

Vedanta is the reconciliation of the apparent contradiction between the above

two statements, i.e. the effective dissolution of (2) in (1).

 

I don't know if Acharya Sadaji meant anything different. I have missed a lot of

his series.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________

 

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> The statement of D.A. in V.P. about the mind

> going out to take the form of the object is not a psychological theory but

> a metaphysical one. What in essence he is saying is that the mental

> modification (vritti) can be congruent with the object because they are

> _essentially_ made of the same stuff viz. Consciousness.

.............

 

> To complete the picture he might

> offer his interpretation of Brh.III.iv.11 in which Shankara says that the

> organs are of the same category as the objects, not of a different

> category. For Sada-ji the organs are only in contact with the attributes

> and not the substantive so they cannot be of the same category as the

> objects.

.................

>

> Some people will consider these points abstruse and not significant for

> the individuals sadhana. I don’t think so and I am reassured by the fact

> that Shankara considered it important to clarify the metaphysical

> fundamentals.