Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge - 34

[Guest guest]

Upamaana PramANa – Its Application to Spirituality

 

We have discussed that there are two aspects involved in Upamaana pramANa. One

is use of upamaana based on similarities and the other based on dissimilarities.

It involves the comparison of two entities one that is known or whose attributes

are familiar and the other is unknown which I am directly perceiving now or

being informed about it through other pramANas. By comparing the unknown with

the known based on similarities in attributes one can gain the knowledge of the

unknown. At times, it is also possible to know the unknown by comparing the

dissimilarities to the known object. The statements will be this new unknown

object is dissimilar or opposite to the object that we know.

 

All the examples we use to illustrate the unknown fall under upamaana only. The

two objects that we are comparing are not identical but they are certain

similarities which help to understand the unknown object. Vedanta is full of

these examples. Atma bodha text of Adi Shankara contains in every sloka an

illustrative example or upamaana that exemplifies one or more aspects of

Brahman. All analogies or examples involve some kind of comparison involving

saadRisyam or similarities to establish a fact. Since analogies are not

identities, every upamaana will have limited application in understanding the

unknown. Extending the example beyond the limited application will lead only to

confusion. Hence one has to be very clear of the limitations of these examples

in trying to know the unknown.

 

Advaita involves transcending the dvaita concepts. All the examples given being

in the realm of dvaita, they have to be understood within their limited range of

applications. Some of the critics of advaita (puurvapakshiies) apply the

examples beyond the intended application and extract the unintended meanings to

dismiss the philosophy. At most care, therefore, is required to understand the

examples and their limitations in trying to realize what is to be known.

 

We mentioned that advaita does not dissent with the Nayyayika’s view that

upamaana can also be used in comparing the dissimilar features between unknown

and the known. In both cases, as we emphasized, the attributes of the new

object that is being investigated are neither hundred percent similar or hundred

percent dissimilar to other example provided. If all the attributes are hundred

percent similar then it will reduce to pure cognition and recognition as

pratyaksha pramaaNa only. In our classical exmaple, if I am perceiving cow only

in the forest in stead of a wild animal, then to say that this cow is similar

to the cow I have in town, although valid is not necessary. I will just say

this is a cow. On the other hand, if the attributes are hundred percent

dissimilar, the mind has no inclination to compare the known and the unknown. We

do not have to compare the wild animal that I am seeing with river that I

crossed saying that it is not like the

river. Hence the unknown object that I am trying to know the known object that

I am comparing should have partially similar attributes and partially dissimilar

attributes. Depending on the relative importance, the knowledge of the unknown

is gained from the knowledge of the known by compare and contrast. In the

traditional examinations knowledge of students were tested by asking them to

compare and contrast two objects that they have learned, implication that such a

comparative analysis provides a clear way of knowing the facts.

 

We now examine the role of upamaana as very important tool in gaining the

spiritual knowledge. It is recognized at the outset that Brahman being one

without a second, there cannot be any compare and/or contrast with any other,

since there is no other, by definition. However we apply many analogies in

Vedanta to make us understand Brahman which cannot be known as an object. All

analogies are upamaana only with some similarities and dissimilarities where

emphasis is placed on one or the other to make us understand Brahman. Unless one

is clear what aspect of the analogy (similarities or dissimilarities) is being

emphasized in relation to Brahman, the teaching can become a source of confusion

rather than clarification. This shows the importance of a proper teacher in

whose hands the analogies become greatest vehicles to know Brahman. We take few

examples here to illustrate the power of upamaana in gaining the knowledge of

Brahman.

 

Akaasha or Space is Brahman: In Tai. Up. a meditation or upaasana wherein Space

is taken as upaasana for Brahman. {Just as a side note, upaasana is different

from knowledge. Upaasana involves invoking something higher on to the lower

which is called aalambanam or idol. Jnaanam on the other hand involves knowing

what it is. Thus seeing the Lord Vishnu in a stone or Ganesha in the turmeric

piece is upaasana while seeing the stone as stone, turmeric as turmeric or

Brahman as Brahman is knowledge.} Coming back in taking Akaasha as Brahman is

upaasana. Akaasha, in many respects, is very close to Brahman. In the sequence

of creation, space is the first subtle element that is born says the Upanishad.

tasmaat va etasmaat atmanaH aakaaShaH sambhuutaH … and from space grosser

elements are born. During the pralayam or final dissolution, the process

reverses itself with all the elements merging back into space and space

ultimately into Brahman. Krishna himself

uses the space upamaana to explain how all pervading Brahman, similar to the

infinite space, is unaffected by the activities within the creation – yathaa

sarvagatam soukshmyaat aakaasham nopalipyate .. B.G. 13:32. The similarities

between space and Brahman are used to indicate the nature of Brahman. Space by

itself cannot be conceived as it is infinite and so is Brahman. Conditioned

space – pot space, room space, etc., where conditioning is done by the

upaadhis (walls in the case of space) can be conceived and similarly Brahman as

conditioned consciousness within the upaadhis of the mind and intellect.

Pot-space can realize I am total space while still remaining as pot-space by

knowing that space is indivisible. Space is very subtle and all pervading and so

is Brahman. Space accommodates everything in it without getting affected. All

the things mentioned about aatma or Brahman such as .. nainam chindanti

shastraaNi nainam dahati paavakaH.. etc.,

that is, it cannot be cut, it cannot be burned, it cannot be wet or dried etc

– all apply to space too. For the purpose of meditation, Tai Up says - yo veda

nihitam guhaaayaam parame vyoman – Brahmna is in the very core of the inner

SPACE of one’s own heart - says the Upanishad – Brahman being subtle like

space is in the very core of one’s own personality (heart of ones

individuality), which cannot be objectified like space. Hence the analogy of

space is very much used extensively to take the mind beyond all tangible or

material entities that one is familiar. In Chidambaram Temple, the Lord is

symbolized as space, where a chit itself forms an ambaram or clothing for the

Lord – where space itself is idolized as God by garlanding the space

(chidambara rahasyam). Hence for purpose of upaasana or worship, space analogy

or upamaana is extensively used in Vedanta. That does not mean space is Brahman.

Space is Brahman, since it is a product of

Brahman; at the same time Brahman is beyond space too. The dissimilarity that

makes Brahman beyond space is Brahmna is a conscious entity while space is not.

Space is inert or jadam. As mentioned that in upamaana pramaaNa, there has to be

dissimilarities to differentiate one from the other. Chaitanyatvam or being a

conscious entity, Brahman differs from space, in spite of several similarities.

In addition, Brahman is never a product but cause-less cause, unlike space.

 

To indicate that the Brahman is both material cause and the intelligent cause,

Upanishads give several examples, and each example has limited application.

Mundaka Up. says creation is like spider putting forth its net, indicating the

spider is both the intelligent cause as well as material cause for the net. The

example is limited since the spider is a conscious entity, the net is not, and

it becomes separate from the spider. Hence the example cannot be extended

beyond. In the next example the scripture says just as the earth putting forth

the vegetable life – here the product is living entity while the cause, earth

is inert. Thus every example that is pointed out has limitations due to

similarities and dissimilarities since Brahman is one without a second. No other

example will be completely fulfilling. Hence in the aatma vichaara, these

examples have to be correctly applied to gain the underlying knowledge of

Brahman.

 

Most quoted example of error or adhyaasa illustrated by advaita is the

rope-snake example, where rope which is real is taken as snake due to ignorance

of the rope or incomplete vision of the object, rope. But once light is shed on

the rope, the knowledge of the rope is gained with complete dismissal of snake

from the mind of the perceiver. The analogy is because of the ignorance of the

truth, a false is projected and the projected false is taken as real. As a

consequence of this error or adhyaasa, suffering follows, just as perceived

snake due to the ignorance of the real (rope) causes the fear, rise in blood

pressure, etc. However, once the truth is known there is no more false to cause

fear. End of the analogy. Critics extend this analogy further to say that once

one knows Brahman (brahma jnaana) there is no more world for him even to

interact just as once one see the rope, there is no more snake to deal with. The

argument implies that there is no more

teacher to teach ajnaanis. Hence no body else can know Brahman since no teacher

is available. Hence all the teaching is false since there is no teacher to

validate the truth. This is an clear illustration, where the application of the

upamaana is done beyond its intended applicability. Perception of snake, where

the rope is, is a subjective error and not an objective error. Hence realization

of the truth removes all subject misconceptions only. Similarly knowing

everything is Brahman removes the subjective misconceptions which is samasaara

arising from one’s attachments and identifications.

 

Vedanta also provides another error adhyaasa which is an objective error –

like mirage waters or shell-silver. Here unlike the snake case, everybody

perceives the mirage waters or shell-silver. Understanding the truth that there

is no water there or there is no silver there does not eliminate the perception

of apparent water in the mirage-water or apparent silver in the shell-silver.

After knowing the truth, the jnaani still sees the world of plurality but takes

the world of plurality not as absolutely real but apparently real or as mithyaa.

The snake-rope upamaana is given to remove the subjective misconceptions and

mirage water or shell-silver upamaana is given to remove objective errors to

recognize the Vyaavahaarika satyam as just Vyaavahaarika only- just as knowing

everything is gold and giving importance to names and forms, rings and bangles,

not more than what they deserve. The point here with reference to upamaana is

comparison is valid only up

to some point and taking beyond the limited application can result in incorrect

understanding of the unknown. During the discussion of anumaana pramANa we have

presented the errors in perception and inference. Here we are only highlighting

the limitations of each analogy or upamaana in terms of understanding the

unknown.

 

There are also many upamaanas or analogies provided to emphasize the

dissimilarities as means of knowledge. Negation of I am not this involves

rejecting any ‘this’ is not Brahman based on dissimilarities. This is an

object, Brahman is not. This is limited, Brahman is not. This has qualities

that distinguish this from that. Brahman being infinite has no qualities. Hence

in the analysis of each of the koshaas as not aatma the dissimilarities are

emphasized to show that anaatma is not aatma because each kosha is a product

(kaaryam), and therefore only a name and a form with no substantive of its own,

hence depends on something other than itself for existence, and thus they are

all mithyaa unlike Brahma which is not a kaaryam, being infinite has no form, it

is substantive of the jiiva, jagat and Iswara, and hence exists by itself and

supports everything else in the universe including the universe. Hence

vilakshaNa or dissimilarities are emphasized to

reject anything that is objectified or can be called as this, is not Brahman.

Hence upamaana in terms of both similarities and dissimilarities are utilized in

knowing what is unknown (Brahman) from what is known (jagat).

 

Thus comparison, upamaana is considered as distinct means of knowledge different

from pratyaksha, perception and anumaana, logical inference.

 

With this we complete the analysis of upamaana and take up next the verbal

testimony or shabda pramANa.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadacharya,

 

**********************************

Upaasana involves invoking something higher on to the lower

which is called aalambanam or idol. Jnaanam on the other hand involves knowing

what it is. Thus seeing the Lord Vishnu in a stone or Ganesha in the turmeric

piece is upaasana while seeing the stone as stone, turmeric as turmeric or

Brahman as Brahman is knowledge.}

 

**************

 

ON A SIDE NOTE:

 

Definition of Upasana by Acharya Sankara Bhagavatpada in Siksha Valli of

Tai.Upan.:

 

// upAsanam cha yathA shastram tulyapratyayasantati rasaMkIrNA chA(a)

tatpratyayaih shastrOktAlaMbanaviShayA cha //

 

 

Upasana is an act of constant uninterrupted flow of similar ideas which involves

contemplation and meditation on the *sublime objectives of sastra* (udAtta

sastra viShaya) after deep study of the sastra.

 

Acharya also gives another reference in Brah.Sutr.Bhash as

 

// upaasanaM naama samaanapratyayapravaahakaraNam //

 

ie., making similar ideas flow uninterruptedly like flow of oil (taila dhAravat)

is called upaasana

 

 

regs,

sriram

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

> Upamaana PramANa †" Its Application to Spirituality

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " babi " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> Namaste Sadacharya,

>

> **********************************

> Upaasana involves invoking something higher on to the lower

> which is called aalambanam or idol. Jnaanam on the other hand involves knowing

what it is. Thus seeing the Lord Vishnu in a stone or Ganesha in the turmeric

piece is upaasana while seeing the stone as stone, turmeric as turmeric or

Brahman as Brahman is knowledge.}

>

> **************

>

> ON A SIDE NOTE:

>

> Definition of Upasana by Acharya Sankara Bhagavatpada in Siksha Valli of

Tai.Upan.:

>

> // upAsanam cha yathA shastram tulyapratyayasantati rasaMkIrNA chA(a)

> tatpratyayaih shastrOktAlaMbanaviShayA cha //

>

>

> Upasana is an act of constant uninterrupted flow of similar ideas which

involves contemplation and meditation on the *sublime objectives of sastra*

(udAtta sastra viShaya) after deep study of the sastra.

>

> Acharya also gives another reference in Brah.Sutr.Bhash as

>

> // upaasanaM naama samaanapratyayapravaahakaraNam //

>

> ie., making similar ideas flow uninterruptedly like flow of oil (taila

dhAravat) is called upaasana

>

>

> regs,

> sriram

>

> advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Upamaana PramANa †" Its Application to Spirituality

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

 

>UPASANA literally means to stay nearby

As it is word is not the thing so it requires a support.We label a thing either

a physical entity or a psychological entity like mind,consciousness,feeling etc.

To identify a thing we require a name or symbol or sign.It looks as simple as

that initially but later it becomes complex and becomes a crisis which we call

identity crisis.To understand this crisis we require philosophical approach.

Being attentive to the super imposed that is word possibly clear the mess thus

created by knowledge which originated from language.

When the super imposed is removed real stays as is which is real intelligence.

One word may be interpreted,explained,commented any way of ones own fancy but

word can never be that which is explained.

In philosophy, identity (also called sameness) is whatever makes an entity

definable and recognizable, in terms of possessing a set of qualities or

characteristics that distinguish it from entities of a different type.[1][2] Or,

in layman's terms, identity is whatever makes something the same or

different.[3]

 

thank you sir

sekhar