Knowledge and the Means of knowledge -32

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji,

You write:

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 â?? 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.

 

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

Comment:

I'm not implying that you have gone wrong, I'm stating it. Part of the

problem is your admitted ignorance of what metaphysics is and how it

differs from an empirical science such as psychology. Thats an amusing

definition from Bowen of Colwood whoever he is but ultimately it is

silly. It is a modern superstition that Science is the ideal of truth.

 

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

K.S. wrote:

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.

 

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

 

Comment:

Paramaartha / the Absolute as distinct from the Relative. Metaphysics has

something to say about it but it is not synonymous with it.

 

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

K.S. wrote:

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.

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

Comment:

This is a topic for psychology. What VP deals with is the metaphysical

problem of how perception is possible in the same way as Shankara asks

about the possibility of perception in the preamble to B.S.B. If you

don't get this it is a serious problem for you.

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

 

K.S. wrote:

In fact, the advaita doctrine gets firmly rooted in

the scientific explanation that was provided since there is no substantive

knowledge of the objects in the perceptual process.

 

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

Comment:

This is your interpretation of psychological data and is similar to the

interpretation of Locke in the 18th. C. and therefore not a particularly

up to the minute psychological analysis. It is in essence metaphysics even

if faulty metaphysics. It is noteworthy that it is contrary to the common

sense view which with qualifications is held by Advaita namely that what

we are in contact with is the object and not merely the attributes of the

object.

 

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

 

K.S. wrote:

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.

 

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

 

Comment:

You have already admitted that you do not know what metaphysics is and

this confirms it. You think that meta physics as you write it has

something to do with physics or physical science. Well it has not. It

treats things at a more fundamental level than science. It asks such

questions as, what is the nature of change, what is a cause, how does a

cause differ from its effect, how can we justify induction. All these

things are taken for granted by physics.

 

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

K.S. wrote: (combining 3 passages to show contradiction)

(a)Consciousness part comes from the subject not from the

object or its vRitti.

 

K.S. took exception to my statement:

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.

 

K.S. asked:

KS:

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

exactly if said anywhere like that.

 

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

Comment:

I refer you to the paragraph marked (a) above. Your account leaves out

the upadhi theory, more metaphysics of course, which is central to the VP

account of the possibility of perception. Psychology could have nothing

to say about the upadhi or sakshin or the manas etc . These are purely

metaphysical and are elements of the structure of perception at the

fundamental level.

 

Your difficulty with upamana/comparison is significant. Likeness which is

at its core is not something which you could abstract from experience but

it yet makes experiencing possible. This is why it is called a means of

knowledge and distinguished from perception etc.

 

I am glad that you do not take my critique badly, they may well be points

there for you that you can incorporate into your instruction by way of

agreement or by clarification through contrast.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

I have been following the discussion on this topic and was trying to understand

both Sadanandaji's and Michaelji's position.

 

There apparently seems to be two positions.

 

1. One is that the light reflected on the object hits the eye and then a

physiological process takes place. At the end of this process, a vritti taking

the form of the obejct arrises.

 

2. The vritti goes out and takes the form of the object.

 

I think Sadanandaji is saying that there is no contradiction or fundamental

difference between 1 and 2, but that 1 only fills in some gaps that makes our

understanding of 2 more complete. The main point to take from 2 is that there is

a vritti which takes the form of the object - how this come to happen is not

crucial.

 

What Michaelji is saying is that these two explanations are from a different

perspective and 2 is not just an incomplete version of 1. Thus, one cannot use 1

as an explanation of 2. I do not understand Michaelji's explanation of 2 clearly

to be honest, perhaps he could elucidate from the beginning. I also do not know

what Michaelji's position towards 1 is - is just besides the point when trying

to understand 2 or is it also wrong?

 

I think looking at some the alternatives to the Advaita Vedanta/Samkhya position

in Indian literature gives us an idea of how 2 may be intended. I am going to

quote from the fourth volume of " A History of Indian Philosophy " by S. Dasgupta;

this section is dealing with the views of Purusottama, a proponent of the

Shuddha Advaita school. I am doing this to show what the debate seems to be

like, not to drag other schools of thought in this discussion.

 

" It is supposed by the Samkhya and Vedanta that this vritti goes to the external

objects near and fear and thereby produces a relation between the buddhi and the

object. It may naturally be objected that this vritti is not a substance and

therefore cannot travel far and wide. The Samkhya and the Vedanta reply again,

that since such travelling is proved by the facts of perception, we have to

admit it; there is no rule that only existing substances should be able to

travel and that in the absence of substance there should be no travelling. The

NaiyAyikas, however, think that certain rays emanate from the eye and go to the

object, sense-contact is thereby produced in association with the manas and

Atman and the result is a sense-cognition; they therefore do not admit the

existence of a separate vritti... [there is a discussion of the role of time,

and interestingly, Purusottama thinks time is in the buddhi and not in the

senses as VP]... [Purusottama] further says that rays from the object penetrate

the eye-ball and produce there certain impressions which remain even when the

rays are cut off by the shutting of the eye. [Purusottama does admit the

existence of a vritti, btw so that is not the issue] "

 

I do not know how representative the debate, as presented here, is (perhaps

someone who knows better could kindly mention this) but this seems to suggest

that when Advaita Vedantins say that the mind goes out and takes the form of the

object, this is meant literally, as an alternative to the view that light might

hit the eyes and produce the vritti (as Purusottama says) or that the ray from

the eye might hit the object (as the naiyAyikas say). I am not sure if this ends

up supporting Sadanandaji's view or Michaelji's.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

Thanks Rishi-ji for your input.

 

I think that Sada-ji is saying that the account of perception as given in

VP represents a pre-scientific state of knowledge. What he is offering is

an account that is brought up to date. Prescinding for now from the

actual content of his account I think that there is a fundamental error

in supposing that what Dharmaraja Adhvarindra is proposing is anything

remotely like the empirical subject of psychology. What sort of

experiment could be devised to demonstrate the existence of mental

modifications (vritti), limiting adjuncts (upadhis), the witness

(sakshin), the mind (manas) and all the other metaphysical elements of

standard advaitic philosophy. The purpose of this metaphysical system is

to say how things must fundamentally be for perception to be possible. It

thus attempts to answer that question. Psychology takes perception to be

a fact and psychological experimentation is not affected by whether one is

a Kantian, Advaitin, Lockean etc. We can gather information to our hearts

content about reaction times, rods and cones, anomalies produced by brain

lesions, hippocampus, idiot savants and the like without our positions on

Cartesian Dualism etc. having any input.

 

If you have a copy of VP then you will see that Dasguptas account of

vritti going out is not correct. Quote: " So also the luminous mind

issuing through the eyes etc, goes to the space occupied by objects such

as a jar, and is modified into the form of a jar or any other object.

That very modification is called a state (vritti). " (pg.15)

 

On pg. 188 it is explained why the mind has to go out to the object which

is inert:

Quote: " For instance, the luminous mind, being a transparent substance,

can by itself manifest the Consciousness that is the individual self, but

a jar etc. cannot do so, because they are opaque substances. When,

however, they are connected with a mental state of the same form as they,

their inertness is overcome by it; and being of a capacity to manifest

Consciousness, imparted by the mental state, they manifest that

Consciousness after the appearance of the mental state. So it has been

stated in the Vivarna, " For the mind imparts to a jar etc. connected with

it, as well as to itself, the capacity to manifest Consciousness. "

 

I think you will agree that this has nothing to do with light bouncing off

an object except in so far as that might be the subject of an analogy for

the function of the mind. What DA is talking about is not a physical

process rather that Consciousness is a fundamental constituent of the

universe. What is the mind and what is the relation between the mental

modification and the object? Is it one of identity. Is it an identity

based on the identity of the substratum? These are the questions that

Advaita proposes to answer.

 

V.P. is published by Advaita Ashrama and translated by Swami Madhavananda

with his notes.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Rishiji - PraNAms

 

First thanks for your interest in the subject.

 

The crux of the difference lies in two aspects.

 

1. One is the how mind perceives the object in the form of a vRitti.

 

2. Measurement of time.

 

In the first case - in stead of mind going out and engulfs the object and gather

info from the senses and forms a vRitti – which has been the traditional

explanation.

 

Science says the image is formed (we can easily account ruupa, a representative

of the five sense input) and image is formed depending on the vision of the seer

on the retina and is transmitted through optical nerve system to the brain.

 

The mechanism is exactly the way image is formed in a mirror. Substantive is not

transferred nor the attributes are transferred – the form is seen as

reflection of the original form depending on the other conditions such as light

etc. This is also the way perception too depends on the external condition of

light etc. What we see is the frontal project in the image – what I see is

only the frontal part of the object in front since the light from the back side

does not reach the retina. The process is exact. These are also the perceptual

facts what I see is what is exposed to the eyes. If the light is defective or

eyes are color blind – I just see what I get not what it is. This in fact is

errors in perception and also leads to presumed reality to the object and thus

to the world too. The process naturally leads to mityaatva aspect of the world,

for those who are keen to know the facts.

 

This much we know.

 

We also know that some senses have to physical contact with the vishayas or

objects to gather info- this is taste and touch. For ruupa, shabda and gandha -

the object that has the qualities need not by in physical contact.

In all these the operation is the info has to come via senses (depending on the

capacity) and transmit to the brain.

 

Now comes the black box - we do not know processing language of the brain that

processes the electrical input into vRitti.

This is true whether mind goes out the info come in - the language is the same -

ignorance is the same.

 

VRitti contains only the attributive content of the object as measured by senses

or as gathered by senses. The substantive object is still out there. By process

of perception we can NEVER know the substantive part. Upanishad provides also a

reason since substantive is Brahman only which cannot be perceptible.

 

The rest of the perceptual process is exactly the way that was accounted by VP

and discussed in the knowledge series - one can get the info from

www.adviata.org.uk from Dennis web site.

 

The concept of time involves not just now but now and then - the perception is

always now - then has to come from recollection - we need present and past to

define time - Hence subjective.

 

Even the biological clocks or chronological clocks can only know via the mind of

a conscious entity only. Hence Time and space are inference by the mind - either

distance between two points as space or distance between two experiences for

time. When the mind folds - no space or time as in deep sleep state.

 

The rest of the VP is discussed exactly including the perceptuality condition

where the existence of the object as perceived through vRitti and consciousness

of the subject unite to give rise to conscious of the existence of the object

with the perceived images.

 

Since no substantive can be perceived through senses, errors in perception

possible - whether it is rope or a snake - since substantive of rope is not

perceived.

 

 

Whatever is perceived is taken for real until doubt occurs. But reality is not

established by perception - it is established by non-negotiability of the

knowledge. anadigata abhaadita is involved in pramaaNa definition.

 

Even the whole world is taken as real until Vedanta pramaaNa shows that it is

not real but mithyaa only - there is no substantive of the world that one can

perceive.

 

All these aspects are discussed elaborately.

 

Michael has not provided any proof that the scientific description is wrong.

Perceptual knowledge is only vyaavahaarika knowledge and science also operates

in that region only and all pramaaNas except Vedanta operate in the real of

vyaavahaarika only.

 

As for as I am concerned there is no need to invoke some metaphyics that no body

knows what that means in order to explain the simple mechancis that we can

understand from the iamge formations. This is my understanding.

 

With this I will close my discussion of the topic and proceed with my analysis

to the way I understand.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Sat, 10/31/09, risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

 

 

risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane

Re: Knowledge and the Means of knowledge -32

advaitin

Saturday, October 31, 2009, 2:25 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been following the discussion on this topic and was trying to understand

both Sadanandaji' s and Michaelji's position.

 

There apparently seems to be two positions.

 

1. One is that the light reflected on the object hits the eye and then a

physiological process takes place. At the end of this process, a vritti taking

the form of the obejct arrises.

 

2. The vritti goes out and takes the form of the object.

 

I think Sadanandaji is saying that there is no contradiction or fundamental

difference between 1 and 2, but that 1 only fills in some gaps that makes our

understanding of 2 more complete. The main point to take from 2 is that there is

a vritti which takes the form of the object - how this come to happen is not

crucial.

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all.

As stated by Michaelji, what VP says is that the mind stretches out through the

eye and takes the form of the object. This may not be in accordance with the

scientific theory. But what we have to note is that the purpose of vedanta is

not to determine how visual perception takes place. Vedanta is not concerned

with such mundane matters. This theory is meant only to be a prelude to the

ultimate aim of Vedanta, namely, the means of attainment of akhaNDAkAravRitti.

This happens when the mind takes the form (or rather the nature) of brahman.

Vedanta says that the mind takes the form of brahman as a result of the hearing

of the mahAvAkya, just in the same manner as it takes the form of any object

when it stretches out through the eye. Thus, as far as Vedanta is concerned, we

have to go by the theory described in VP. The question whether it is in

accordance with modern science is not relevant. We cannot reject or modify this

theory to make it conform to the scientific view.

According to advaita vedanta the mind is a subtle substance (dravya). It is

neither atomic nor infinite in size, but it is said to be of madhyama pariNAma,

medium size, which may be taken to mean that it pervades the body of the

particular jIva to which it belongs. The mind of each jIva is different. It has

a beginning, as is proved by such shruti statements as, " It (Brahman) projected

the mind " (br. up. 1.2.1). All this may not be in accordance with modern

science, but that is not relevant when we are concerned with Vedanta. The views

of the other darshanas such as nyAya, etc., are different from that of advaita.

The nyAya-vaisheShika system considers the mind to be an eternal substance,

atomic in size. The prAbhAkara school of pUrva mImAmsA holds the same view. The

bhATTa school of pUrva mImAmsA maintains that the mind is all-pervasive and is

in eternal contact with the all-pervasive Atman; that Atman and mind, in contact

with each other, function only within the sphere of the body with which they

happen to be associated; and the possibility of several cognitions arising at

the same time cannot be ruled out. The sAnkhyA and yoga systems consider the

mind to be of the size of the body. The view of each darshana is such as to suit

its own ultimate conclusions. The question whether it is in accordance with

modern science is not relevant.

 

The question may be raised, how can the mind take the form of brahman when

brahman has no form at all. This has been answered, but as this is not relevant

for the present discussion, I am not going into it now.

Pranams,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> If you have a copy of VP then you will see that Dasguptas account of

> vritti going out is not correct. Quote: " So also the luminous mind

> issuing through the eyes etc, goes to the space occupied by objects such

> as a jar, and is modified into the form of a jar or any other object.

> That very modification is called a state (vritti). " (pg.15)

>

> On pg. 188 it is explained why the mind has to go out to the object which

> is inert:

> Quote: " For instance, the luminous mind, being a transparent substance,

> can by itself manifest the Consciousness that is the individual self, but

> a jar etc. cannot do so, because they are opaque substances. When,

> however, they are connected with a mental state of the same form as they,

> their inertness is overcome by it; and being of a capacity to manifest

> Consciousness, imparted by the mental state, they manifest that

> Consciousness after the appearance of the mental state. So it has been

> stated in the Vivarna, " For the mind imparts to a jar etc. connected with

> it, as well as to itself, the capacity to manifest Consciousness. "

>

> I think you will agree that this has nothing to do with light bouncing off

> an object except in so far as that might be the subject of an analogy for

> the function of the mind. What DA is talking about is not a physical

> process rather that Consciousness is a fundamental constituent of the

> universe. What is the mind and what is the relation between the mental

> modification and the object? Is it one of identity. Is it an identity

> based on the identity of the substratum? These are the questions that

> Advaita proposes to answer.

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

[Guest guest]

Many thanks to both Sadanandaji and Michaelji for their thoughtful replies.

 

I am not particularly familiar with the VP except from what I read from

secondary sources (including some of Sadanandaji's past posts). However, I am

trying to understand what the substantial (no pun intended) issue is here.

 

I think I understand Sadanandaji's position. The physical aspect of perception

is something we are all familiar with. In addition the aspect about

substance/attributes makes sense. The sense of sight allows for the perception

of the form and colour of an object, the sense of hearing allow us to percieve

the sound made by objects, the sense of taste allows us to percieve the taste of

an object, the sense of touch allows us to percieve the texture, etc. of an

object and the sense of smell allows us to percieve the smell of an object. In

each case, what is percieved through the senses are attributes and not

substances.

 

Based on Sadanandaji's position, the main fact that we should take from the VP's

account of the the mind going out and taking the form of the object is that at

the end of the perceptual process, there arrises a vritti which takes the form

of the object.

 

I think understand Michaelji's point to a certain extent. He is saying that this

is a metaphysical account and not a physical one, so our knowledge of the

physical process relating to say, visual perception, is not relevant to the VP's

account of perception here. This much I follow. However, I don't understand what

the metaphysical meaning of this statement in fact is. The quote about the

transparent nature of the mind versus the opaque nature of other objects in

prakriti is something that is compatible with what Sadanandaji is saying too. It

simply seems to be saying that the vritti reflects consciousness but other

objects don't, except through the mediation of a vritti. I am not sure how the

fact that everything is consciousness is involved at this point. Even the

Samkhya holds this view, in fact.

 

[i think it may not have been clear why I quoted that portion from Dasgupta but

better to let it pass since it is not so important.]

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

--- On Sun, 11/1/09, risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

 

The quote about the transparent nature of the mind versus the opaque nature of

other objects in prakriti is something that is compatible with what Sadanandaji

is saying too. It simply seems to be saying that the vritti reflects

consciousness but other objects don't, except through the mediation of a vritti.

I am not sure how the fact that everything is consciousness is involved at this

point. Even the Samkhya holds this view, in fact.

---------

 

Rishiji - PraNams

 

You got everything correct. -

What science also does not know is how the neural information is transformed

into information code - just as in computer how the + and - signs are processed

into information. that processing language of the Lord is not decoded so far.

 

Hence the fact remains the projected image in the mind is VRitti of the object

with contents the attributes of the objects as detected by senses.

 

VP comes in explaining how the knowledge of the vRitti takes place - There is

all pervading consciousness (saakshii). When vRitti (thought) raises in the mind

the light of consciousness falls on it and it gets reflected - that is what is

termed as perceptuality condition. The consciousness of the subject and the

existence in the form of the vRitti uniting to give the knowledge of the vRitti.

Just as light when reflected by the object is what we see, the same way the

light of consciousness reflected by the vRitti is knowledge of the vRitti.

Meditation is shifting our attention from the thought but to that light of

consciousness because of which the thought is known. Unless there is an object

to reflect we will never know there is light there. Same way, without the mind

present reflecting the light of consciousness, we can not recognize or realize

that I am that light of consciousness. You can see now the beauty of the

perceptual process.

 

More important is we can never perceive the substance and scripture says the

substantive of the object is Brahman only - sat eve idam agra asiit. etc. You

can also appreciate how errors in perception occur since we do not have

substantial knowledge of any object that we perceive by just perceptual process.

 

Hope this helps in clarification of the VP

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Shree Sastiji - My SashTanga praNAms.

 

I agree with the essence of your post. I did mentioned how VP analyzes before I

made my comments in the series. I did not include VP in my the tittle only for

the reason that it is not just a comentary on VP. Dennis has used as critical

analysis of VP in his website for the series. This is just clarification from my

side.

 

With due respects, I want to state the following - These are not arguments but

would like to clarify my understanding and show that it is infact intune with

the Vedanta - brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa and jiivo brahma eva naaparaH. It is

the second aspect that is being addressed while recognising the substantive

Brahman even for the world of objects.

 

The whole pramaaNa analysis, other than aagama pramAna is to establish the

relative nature of the world. Science operates in that regime only -

vyaavahaarika satyam.

 

We take the world as real becuase we see. Shankara says because we see, it is

mithyaa. In the recognition of the truth the recognition of the mithyaa aspect

of the world should follow.

 

By following the basic scientific principle which are valid in vyavahaara, I am

presenting that what we see only the image of the world via senses and not

substantive. Hence reality of the world can never be established by science

since perception form the basis of anumaana too where scientific deductive and

inductive reasonings rest.

 

Hence I do not think the issue is mundane. However the rest of arugments you

have presented, I have no problem. I have not deviated from VP in terms of the

rest of the analysis.

 

Thanks for taking time to write on the issue.

 

Hari Om!

sadananda

 

 

--- On Sun, 11/1/09, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

As stated by Michaelji, what VP says is that the mind stretches out through the

eye and takes the form of the object. This may not be in accordance with the

scientific theory. But what we have to note is that the purpose of vedanta is

not to determine how visual perception takes place. Vedanta is not concerned

with such mundane matters.

[Guest guest]

Michael - PraNAms.

 

I agree that how input from the sense transform into vRitti - is not known but

saying that is metaphysics by mind engulfing the object and forms vRitti - does

not answer either - since no one knows what is metaphysics.

 

One black box is better than the other! If you are happy - so be it.

 

My emphasis is in the formation of the very image we are missing the substantive

of the object - therefore the truth of the perception it is only image of the

object hence one can never establish the reality of the world on the basis of

perception. Hence agama pramANa becomes a valuable tool for knowing the nature

of the world too.

 

I rest my case.

 

Thanks Michael - keep pressing.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Fri, 10/30/09, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

 

Comment:

I'm not implying that you have gone wrong, I'm stating it. Part of the

problem is your admitted ignorance of what metaphysics is and how it

differs from an empirical science such as psychology. Thats an amusing

definition from Bowen of Colwood whoever he is but ultimately it is

silly. It is a modern superstition that Science is the ideal of truth.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadaji,

Thanks for your reply.

Your use of the term substantive is not quite clear. Do you mean

'substratum'when you say that Brahman is the substantive?

Substantive means 'noun' as far as I know. Attribute means quality, or an

adjective.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> Shree Sastiji - My SashTanga praNAms.

>

> I agree with the essence of your post. I did mentioned how VP analyzes before

I made my comments in the series. I did not include VP in my the tittle only for

the reason that it is not just a comentary on VP. Dennis has used as critical

analysis of VP in his website for the series. This is just clarification from my

side.

>

> With due respects, I want to state the following - These are not arguments but

would like to clarify my understanding and show that it is infact intune with

the Vedanta - brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa and jiivo brahma eva naaparaH. It is

the second aspect that is being addressed while recognising the substantive

Brahman even for the world of objects.

> Thanks for taking time to write on the issue.

>

> Hari Om!

> sadananda

[Guest guest]

Sastriji - My praNAms

 

Yes substantive I mean the ultimate substance the material is made up.

Substantive is noun - that is only noun- everything is adjectives. Ring is

although we use as noun there is no ringly substance - the substantive of ring

is gold only - it should be actually ringly gold than golden ring.

 

Anyway I mean in that way only. When I say perception does not bring in the

material part only the attributive part. And we are defining from the

attributive part a noun since we need a locus - hence ring is different from

bangle etc - truly from their substantive part they are all the same. When I say

by perception we cannot know the substantive, I mean the material it is made up

of - All we have is attributive knowledge and for vyaavahaarika we give a name

for the locus as ring to contrast a different attributive locus, bangle.

 

Scientifically also one cannot perceive the truth underlying the attributive

content other than for some transactional purpose. Scientist take what they

perceive is the truth and emphasis on observations as facts for making theory.

There is no problem at transactional level but when we are looking for ultimate

truth, we shold know the limitation of perceptual data based on which all

pramANas rest- other than aagama pramANa.

 

I am reminded of Shree Vidyaaranya's sloka in dRikdRisya viveka - it goes

something like this

asti bhaati priyam ruupam naamam caityanca pancakam

adhyatrayam brahma ruupam jagat ruupam tathaa dvayam|

Not sure exactly sure - the jagat part is only naama and ruupa - the name and

attributive content of the five aspect involved in any object. The first three

parts - asti-bhaati and priyam come from Brahman where asti part is the

existence and bhaati comes in with the knowledge of its existence and priya and

apriya comes from the moda aspect as reflected happiness etc.

 

I am fully aware that you are familiar - only explaining for the benefit of

other readers.

 

 

With regards

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Sun, 11/1/09, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

 

Your use of the term substantive is not quite clear. Do you mean 'substratum'

when you say that Brahman is the substantive?

Substantive means 'noun' as far as I know. Attribute means quality, or an

adjective.