Knowledge and the Means of knowledge -32

[Guest guest]

Michael – PraNAms

Here are your comments

 

--- On Thu, 10/29/09, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

Michael:

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.

 

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

KS:

I was hoping others to make contribution since we both have been at it for some

time. Since no one is that much interested I thought I better I respond to the

statements since you seem to imply that I have gone wrong. You mean I have gone

wrong by following science than a speculation, since what I have stated is

science of perception as we understand today. You have not proved so called

statements, that you justify on the basis of metaphysics, are right? The ball

is in your court.

 

Metaphysics – frankly I do no know what that is. I cannot take a shelter in it

and assume some thing that is contrary to what we understand from Science. We

have a long discussion on Meta physics with Shree Ananda wood providing his own

version. I am reminded of Shree Dennis quote from Bowen of Colwood, who gives

the

definition of a metaphysician as: " A man who goes into a dark cellar at

midnight without a light looking for a black cat that is not there. " Although it

was intended for laugher, based on the discussion of Ananda wood, it raps up to

essentially the same. If I remember right, the discussion let with all agreeing

to disagree what Meta physics really mean.

 

Paramaartha has been defined at times as Meta physics some of the translators of

Gita commentary, not sure if that gives the meaning of it. Let us take that as

the meaning for our discussion. PramANas that we are discussing in knowledge

series refer to Vyaavahaarika not paaramaathika. Paaramaarthika is aprameyam.

If we use the word metaphysics mean aloukikam not worldly related, then only

pramaaNa for that are going to be are Vedas. Vedas become a pramANa for those

that cannot be known otherwise. What I have provided is the scientific basis of

how image forms from the light reflected by the object and captured by the eyes

forming an image in the retina and subsequently the transmitted to the brain.

Image formation is exactly like the image formed in the mirror. This much is

what was discussed.

 

The rest of it in terms of the formation of vRitti and the reflection of

consciousness by the vRitti for the knowledge takes place was discussed exactly

following Vedanta ParibhaaSha. I have not deviated from the text in that process

since that is aloukikam or at least science has not come to grips with it yet in

terms of how the mind works. In fact, the advaita doctrine gets firmly rooted in

the scientific explanation that was provided since three is no substantive

knowledge of the objects in the perceptual process. That the objects are real or

not cannot be established by perception. In fact Shankara says what ever is

perceived is mithyaa, in his commentary on kaarika – dRisyatvaat, mithyaa.

Shankara says in one of his bhaashyaas – we do not accept the shaastras if it

says Fire is cold since it is contrary to our perceptual knowledge – the image

formation is what science says and no need to contradict it unless it is needed

to understand

aloukikam.

 

All your quotations about adhyaasa and B.S do not say I am wrong or your

arguments are right. Adhyaasa involved satyaanRita mithuniikaranam – mixing of

real and unreal. That is exactly what was discussed – the existence in the

form of vRitti uniting with consciousness of the subject to have the knowledge

of the existence of the object mapped by vRitti. These has nothing to do mind

going out or the senses projecting the attributes. You prove that it is so by

explaining to us how the Meta physics that you are advocating works!

 

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

Micheal:

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.

 

KS – Michael – with all due respects, you are not saying anything. Meta

physics cannot violate physics – it should make sense only when physics cannot

explain as how exactly the thought is known. There I agree fully the reflection

of consciousness and chidaabhaasa aspect – that part Micheal is Meta physics

in my understanding – not how the eyes see the object – that part is

physics. You need Meta physics only when physics cannot explain.

By the by, mind going out and engulfing the object is not advaita’s original

– all philosophical positions that I know take that stand starting from

meemamsakaas. Dvaita and vishiSTaadvaia also follow the same, also nayyayikas

– only because they had no other knowledge available to know the process.

Metaphysics does come later once the vRitti is formed. Most dvaitins assume

that senses gather substantives too, to insure that what we perceive is real.

For error analysis they have to follow different khyaati vaadas. I had

discussions with our friend Shree Srinivas about these and clarified in one post

taking his arguments as puurvapaksha. Advaita relies on anirvacaniiya khyaati

– as it really points out that the reality of the object cannot be established

by perception.

 

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

Michael:

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.

 

KS: Micheal that is not correct. You have provided your interpretation of my

write-up in the above statement. Mind going out and engulfing vs. the way

science described how the information is fed into brain or the attributives are

mapped into image are not much different. Either way the end is the same the

vRitti formation – there is no difference in the formation of vRitti. The

vRitti is nothing but existence of the object – as though – mapped as

Existence (not consciousness as you indicated) of the vRitti with attributive

content that are mapped from the attributive content of the object out side. How

vRitti forms is the same. Consciousness part comes from the subject not from the

object or its vRitti.

 

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

Micheal:

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.

 

KS:

Micheal – the above is your interpretation of my statements. Can you quote me

exactly if said anywhere like that. What we know from both DA in terms of mind

going out or by scientific means mind getting the info from senses – is

mechanics of vRitti formation. We have no knowledge of how exactly the vRitti or

thought forms in the brain or how exactly the electrical signals information is

codified into software. I have mentioned in my series that brain is hardware

and mind is soft ware – the machine language has to be processed by some code

into thoughts that we know. That mechanism is known and not discussed either in

VP or in my notes. Brain processing input into thought or vRitti is not know –

nor the statement that mind engulfs the object and vRitti forms is as much of a

black box as the other one. Perhaps you can explain to me how vRitti forms –

other than the statement that mind goes out engulfs the object forming the

vRitti – To me that

is bigger black box but only with incorrect physics. Saying that it is

metaphysics is only using some fancy name for a black box operation. Sorry if I

am trying to be critical but I do not really understand the so-called

metaphysics – I am only reminded of our discussion with Shree Ananda Wood

which one can get from archives.

 

Micheal:

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.

 

KS – Michael – please note that if at all I understand clearly it is advaita

due to the grace of all my teachers; it is not an egotistical statement but

factual statement. That is what I have been teaching for the past 10-15years.

If I recall, I asked you once in the past if you can write clear exposition of

Vedanta ParibhaaSha, since the current books available are very terse and

difficult to understand. Due to lack of much enthusiasm from you, I ventured

into writing for my own understanding and I am glad I am doing since I am

learning a lot. Shree Sastriji’s comments have been helpful in correcting me

about Navya Nyaaya.

 

I know, we do not agree on lot of things – that is OK, since that helps

further clarification and also to make sure that what I present reflects what I

have thoroughly understood and am convinced.

 

Your comments on the upamaana – I am completely lost. Not sure where your

disagreements are on what I wrote. May be you can specifically high light where

I am wrong. I have followed closely VP with some explanations that make the text

clear. May be Dennis will look into it when he is free.

As usual, keep the criticisms coming; it will force me to clarify, not

necessarily change, unless I am convinced.

With regards

Hari Om!

Sadananda