Katha Upanishad help. A concept I dont undderstand.

[Guest guest]

Hi Ron,

Namaste. Welcome to the group. Read the reply between the delimiting lines.

 

------------------------- Sri Ron----------

> " The senses derive from objects of sense-perception,

> Sense objects from mind, mind from intellect,

> And intellect from ego; ego from undifferentiated

> Consciousness, and consciousness from Brahman.

> Brahman is the is the First Cause and last refuge. "

 

> ...This is all well and good. But Im having trouble understanding the sequence

of how the different aspects derive from eachother in some instances. How do the

senses derive from objects of sense perception? Dont we have to prepossess the

senses in order to percieve that the sense objects are even there in the first

place?

-------------------------Answer-------------

I guess the above is the explaination of the verses from (1.3.10-11)

of the Kathopanishad. (indriyebhyaH paraa etc)

 

indriyas are translated as senses.

indriyebhyaH paraa hi arthaa - In this verse, arthaa means NOT the

sense objects or the gross elements, but the primordial elements

before the panchikaraNam (quintupling) such as aakaasha (ether),

vaayu(air) etc. From the primordial elements only the senses are

born. Therefore, the senses are preceeded by the primordial elements.

This is the interpretation of Acharya Sri Shankara. Therefore, I donot

agree with the translation " The senses derive from objects of

sense-perception " . Senses cannot be derived from the Objects of

sense-perception. Therefore, your trouble in understading is natural.

Sri Ron --------------

> Also, in this verse, what differentiates mind from intellect? How is

consciousness coming from Brahman when Brahman IS consciousness?

-------------------------Answer-------------

Mind technically has got four functions to perform. Based on the

function of the mind, mind is differently named. When a person drives

a car, he is called driver and when he operates a machine, he is

called an operator. Even so, the mind also variously known based on

the functions.

 

The four functions of the mind are: Thinking and Doubting and

Delibrating faculty, Determinative faculty, Storage of past

impressions, and finally the faculty of ego

Correspondindingly, it is called, Manas(generally translated as mind),

buddhi (generally translated as intellect), chittam (generally

translated as chittam), and ahankaaraH (generally translated as ego)

 

Depending upon the functions, mind is known variously.

 

But, in the translation which you provided the following line occurs:

" And intellect from ego; ego from undifferentiated Consciousness, "

ego is not at all mentioned in the Katha Upanishad. It says, buddheH

aatma mahaan parah: It means, mahaan aatmaa (great aatmaa) is greater

than buddhi (intellect). Here, mahaan aatmaa is translated as

collective intellect (HiraNyagarbha). Collective is always greater

than the individual. So, I dont feel that the translation is right.

 

The Undifferentiated (avayakta) is greater than HiraNyagarbha. It is

simply, Undifferentiated. Not, Undifferentiated Consciousness as the

translation suggests.

The word paraa in the Upanishad means " greater " and it should be

interpretted as such and not as " derive from "

Sri Ron -------

And finally, how does ego arise out of non-differential consciousness?

How is it possible to go from all knowing oneness in the beginning to

somehow the feeling of seperation? shouldnt our ultimate perfection

have not ever fallen in the first place?

----------------------Answer-----------

Between Undifferentiated and the brith of ego, there are many steps,

which are explained in basic Vedantic texts like Vedanta Saara etc.

Also this has been dealt extensively with in other threads of this

forum.

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

[Guest guest]

Ron - PraNams

 

Welcome to the list.

 

You have asked very deep and pertinent questions. The answers will have to be

exhaustive. I suggest Shankara's explanations on these slokas.

 

Since it is involved subject, I do not want to venture to answer all your

questions. But here are some thoughts to ponder about - provided at the end.

 

--- On Sat, 12/26/09, mrfluffypuff <mrfluffypuff wrote:

Hello friends. My name is Ron. I just joined. Recently I have been reading " The

Upanishads " as translated be Eknath Easwaran. In the Katha Upanishad there is a

verse that states...

 

" The senses derive from objects of sense-perception,

Sense objects from mind, mind from intellect,

And intellect from ego; ego from undifferentiated

Consciousness, and consciousness from Brahman.

Brahman is the is the First Cause and last refuge. "

 

.....This is all well and good. But Im having trouble understanding the sequence

of how the different aspects derive from eachother in some instances. How do the

senses derive from objects of sense perception? Dont we have to prepossess the

senses in order to percieve that the sense objects are even there in the first

place? Also, in this verse, what differentiates mind from intellect? How is

consciousness coming from Brahman when Brahman IS consciousness? And finally,

how does ego arise out of non-differential consciousness? How is it possible to

go from all knowing oneness in the beginning to somehow the feeling of

seperation? shouldnt our ultimate perfection have not ever fallen in the first

place?

 

------

 

KS:

Taking the translation of the sloka as granted, here are some thoughts.

 

Normally we say I can see the object and the object is or exists.

 

Now I ask - is your eyesight OK? - How do you prove? You will say they are

functioning since you can see the objects. The eye doctor puts in front of me

letters of various sizes to check how much my sense of sight is capable of

seeing before he prescribes glasses. Hence:

 

1. To prove the existence of objects we need eyes and the sense of sight.

 

2. But to prove the sense of sight I need objects too to see. Without different

size letters in his office, the eye-doctor will be out of job.

 

Normally we have in the dRik dRisya analysis - seer-seen analysis, we say the

object are seen via the eyes -we say eyes are seers and the object is seen. That

is the first step.

 

But we need the mind to see the functioning of the eyes. mind is the seer and

the eyes are seen. Next step.

 

We need consciousness to see the mind - the mind is seen and I am the seer.

Third step.

 

Now the backward also works - without the objects the functioning of the senses

cannot be provide. without the senses functioning the working of the mind cannot

be proved and without mind illumining the consciousness as ego, as in deep sleep

state, the aatmaa cannot be established.

 

I would understand the sloka in that way. Some of these aspects I have discussed

in general sense in the post A perspective - 14 in tat tvam analysis.

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

--- On Sun, 12/27/09, mrfluffypuff <mrfluffypuff wrote:

 

 

Ah! Thanks very much! I get it now! When It says the senses derive from the

sense objects it is saying that to know the senses are there one has to be able

to see the object. And if the object were not there, there would be no sensing

of it! It can also work in the reverse way, which is how I was thinking, which

caused me the confusion. Its amazing how dharma philosophy can encompass

seemingly contradictory views...but I guess they arent truly contradictory then

are they? They are just different colors of the same spectrum like red is at the

bottom and violet at the top but put it and all the other colors together and it

is still the white light that has been split into the spectrum. Now it makes

sense how they all derive from eachother and ultimately, from and with brahman.

~Ron

 

-------

Ron - PraNAms

 

Yes you got it.

 

In the same way, without the mind one cannot realize.

 

Even though the light is all pervading in space, I cannot see the light unless

there is object that can reflect the light. With the object present I can

recognize the object because of the light. That we know. Also we can now

recognize the presence of the light because of the object. We say first the

presence of object is recognized only when there is a light. Now we can go step

further that presence of light is recognized only where there is an object

reflecting the light.

 

The same way the all pervading consciousness cannot be recognized unless it gets

reflected in the mind. With the reflected light of consciousness, I have tune my

mind to recognize not just the reflected light but the presence of the original

light. That is in fact the essence of meditation too. When I say I am not this

-it is like saying the light is not the object that I am seeing, but that

because of which I am seeing the object. Thus, not this is, it is not the

object, but that because of which the object is seen - that light I am.

 

In fact, if you think deeply what you see is not the object but only the

reflected light from the object which forms the image in the mind - Then you say

there is object out there - but what you are seeing is not the object but only

the reflected light. From the reflected light you have to SEE the presence of

the light. What you see is not sunlight directly but only reflected light that

is falling on the earth. The same principle applies.

 

Meditation is tuning the mind to see the reflection of the all pervading light

of consciousness by the mind itself. That reflected light of consciousness in

the mind is called chidaabhaasa. All obhects hence the whole world, is seen

becuase of the reflected light of consciousness from the sequence of thoughts of

the objects that form in the mind. What you see therefore is only pure light of

consciousness that is getting reflected all over the world. That light of

consciousness, you are- tat tvam asi.

 

In stead of identifying with the light of consciousness that I am, identifying

the object that is reflecting as I am - as I am the mind - is the ego.

 

This is the same principle.

 

Yes you got it right. Now you can be in the meditation all the time.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda