the unknown object

[Guest guest]

Dennis-ji wrote:

If no one, anywhere, is aware of the existence of X, nor has ever been

aware of it, in what sense is it meaningful to talk about the existence of

X? Don’t we infer the existence of black holes, for example, from the

observation of bending of light around an area of space?

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

Namaste Dennis-ji:

There are two ways that the unknown object idea might work.

(a) When we first come to know something that very knowledge carries with

it the implication that it was previously unknown. A chair stored in the

attic that I come across for instance.

(b) Before that chair came to be known it was a member of that class of

things called 'unknown unknowns'. This I would suggest is the background

of our empirical assumption that we don't know everything.

 

Is the difficulty with the idea of the unknown object due to a narrow view

of the concept of object. An object is an object for someone and it is a

contradiction in terms to suppose that there is such a thing as an object

that is an object for no one. In this schema of object ontology this

sense of 'object' is primary and all other uses of the term 'object' stem

from this one. It is an 'atomic' view of the development of a conceptual

schema and it can have a persuasive aspect to it. You learn 'mother'

then you realize that 'barren' then 'son' don't go with it. They cannot

make a molecule so to speak.

 

However there is at least one other way of looking at the acquisition of

concepts. In this view you go from general background concepts to

particular ones. But that is a big topic.

 

Amazon Question: Would the people that have a difficulty with 'unknown

objects' also have a difficulty with 'non-apprehension of existence'?

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.151/2633 - Release 01/19/10

17:49:00

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Dear Participants in the subject under discussion,

The discussions are intellectually stimulating. I would like to know in what

way this is connected with Shankara Vedanta.If it is not connected at all, what

fruitful benefits can a sincere student of Advaita obtain and why discuss in

this forum meant for persons to learn Advaita Vedanta?

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

Dear Murthy-ji,

 

I entered the discussion when the point was noted that Shankara

in the BSB makes a statement that appears to contradict his commentary in the

GK. Since Shankara’s views are directly involved in both places and this

group’s aims are to discuss Advaita according to Shankara, the posts are

clearly on-topic (or at least started out that way!). However, I agree that we

may be drifting a little and ought perhaps to bring it to a close.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

<<Dear

Participants in the subject under discussion,

The discussions are intellectually stimulating. I would like to know in what

way this is connected with Shankara Vedanta.If it is not connected at all, what

fruitful benefits can a sincere student of Advaita obtain and why discuss in

this forum meant for persons to learn Advaita Vedanta?

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.>>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote:

> The discussions are intellectually stimulating. I would like to know in

what way this is connected with Shankara Vedanta.If it is not connected at all,

what fruitful benefits can a sincere student of Advaita obtain and why discuss

in this forum meant for persons to learn Advaita Vedanta?

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy.

>

 

Shree Sreenivasa Murthy - PraNAms

 

Here is one reason why it is important from the advaita point of view from my

perspective.

 

If there an object independent of I am - then we run into dvaita not advaita - I

am and the object this.

Question is can there be an unknown object independent of I am.

If I say I am Brahman - then Brahman being the substantive of everything in the

universe known or unknown, then It cannot be separate from I am.

The question boils down to where you place this I am.

If I think I am is local entity, then we have in fact three not two - one is the

whole objective world which includes the movable inert (I am deliberately using

this since I can only know the gross bodies of the others and not consciousness

of the others) and immovable inert entities all put together as the world of

plurality and the third factor is the Iswara, the creator of the world, since

nothing inside the world can create the world.

The world being infinite (puurnam idam) and as a local I am - what I know is

very limited space and time, there are infinite unknown things in the world.

Now we ask the question that is being asked is how do you prove that there are

unknown things in the world?

It is simple - as local I am, I am finite and world is infinite since more I

come to know more unknown seems to exist. Therefore I can definitely say there

must be infinite unknown things.

 

Here is where problems in the discussion that some people seem to miss:

 

I can definitely say that there are infinite unknowns things in the world.

 

Since what I know very little and whatever I know definitely exists, hence

existence of the unknown becomes known only by the knowledge of its existence.

There is beautiful sloka Advaita Makaranda on it, which I had discussed before.

 

Now if there are things that exists and which I do not know, I cannot not

definitely say that those particular things exists or not. Let us take two

examples:

1. akaaSha-pushpam - or horns of a rabbit - an example is used to say such a

thing does not exit - why because no one has seen it. Now this explanation

implies that unless someone has seen it, one cannot establish the definitive

existence of an object like aakaasha pushpam or rabbit horns.

2. Son of barren women - this actually comes under different category since

there is an internal contradiction in the statement. Since contradiction

excludes existence of such a thing - it cannot exist.

 

Suppose take an example - gaagaabuubu - does it exists or not. Since the

universe which is the creation of Iswara is infinite, there is no reason why

gaagaabuubu does not exist. Suppose it exists - then how would anyone know? For

knowledge to take place it should have some properties that can be used to

distinguish gaagaabuubu from baabaabiibi, right? If I know the attributes then I

have the knowledge of the object. Hence the fundamental statement of advaita is:

EXISTENCE OF AN OBJECT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS EXISTENCE - there

is no exception to this.

Otherwise the existence (unless it is self-contradictory as in vandhyaaputraH)

is indeterminate since determination requires attributive knowledge.

 

Corollary of this is:

 

If suppose some xyz in some planet knows that gaagaabuubu exists. It would not

help me - since I do not know that he knows and even if he tells me that he as

seen gaagaabuubu, my means of knowledge is now not pratyaksha but shabda or

aapta vaakyam.

 

From this we follow that things like heaven or hell - exists not because it is

anybody's knowledge but because apourusheya shaastra says they exist. Hence

faith in the scriptures becomes a means of the knowledge of the existence of the

unknown objects.

 

As Subbuji pointed out that for sadhaka - the epistemological analysis is

important to recognize that No OBJECT CAN EXIST INDEPENDENT OF I AM -the

all-pervading eternal existence-consciousness that I am.

 

I hope you can now appreciate why this discussion is relevant for those how are

interested in advaita.

 

At least I do.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

 

advaitin , " kuntimaddisada " <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

Dear Sri Sadananda,

 

A study in depth of Sri Shankara,s commentary to the mantra 1-4

of Kena Upanishad which reads as

" anyadEva tadvidAt

aviditAdadhi |

iti SuSruma pUrvEShAM

yE nastadvyAcacakShirE || " ,

will help one to see that such discussions are not required for one to

unerstand/cognize Atmatattva.

 

In one sentence Sri Shankara has clearly shown that all such discussions on

'unknown objects' that are taking place are fruitless, because because he says :

" yadviditaM tadalpaM martyaM duHKAtmakaM ca iti hEyam tasmAt viditAdanyat brahma

iti ||'.

 

Whether such discussions are required or not depends upon the purpose for

which one undertakes the study of Vedanta.If one undertakes the study for the

sole purpose of realizing one's true nature [ I belong to this category] the

discussions that are presently held are not at all required. TO KNOW ONESELF ONE

HAS TO CONFINE HIMSELF TO ONESELF ONLY AND NOT TO THINGS WHICH ARE SEPARATE FROM

HIM Viz. objects whether known orunknown .

Kindly correct me if I have erred in my understanding. I may please be

pardoned by the scholars of this group for revealing my thoughts on this subject

under discussion.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

>

> At least I do.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna, Namaskarams--- On Sun, 24/1/10, narayana145 <narayana145 wrote:"If one undertakes the study for the sole purpose of realizing one's true nature [ I belong to this category] the discussions that are presently held are not at all required. TO KNOW ONESELF ONE HAS TO CONFINE HIMSELF TO ONESELF ONLY AND NOT TO THINGS WHICH ARE SEPARATE FROM HIM Viz. objects whether known orunknown ".

This is very true and probably that is why there is not much

of participation from many members of the forum. It is more like a research

institution and may be of great help to persons aspiring for doctorates on the

subjects. As Advaitins we don’t have to dissect each word to understand Advaitam

since it is beyond words. Study is required only to that extent necessary for

being an Advatin.

 

After the study of Gita and Upanishads one comes to know

basically one thing, that Brahman is incomprehensible and that the self in you

is the same as Brahman. The subtle truth is that Brahman only lends the light

to shine on the self and remains only as a witness while it is the reflected

self that deals with the world. As Swami Dayanada Saraswati says in one of his

lectures that advaitam is the vision in

the presence of dwaithic world since the world cannot be dismissed from

experiencing. It is the attitude with which one looks at the worldly life and

his seeking of freedom from samsara/cycle of birth and death that matters, that

is the knowledge gained from the study of scriptures.

 

After having attended Swami Paramarthananda’s classes on Gita

and major Upanishads and now having the opportunity to listen to all of them

again by Swami Dayananda, Swamy Omkarananda and others as Nidityasanam, I have

realized the purpose for which these are done and there is a profound change in

my outlook at the world. All my reactions which used to burst out earlier are

under check and control. I am able to smile at the meaningless way one lives

with the full knowledge of the mithyatvam involved in life’s transactions.

Probably this is a blessing from Swamiji whom I met last year in Saylorsburg

and just asked him for his blessings. I don’t want to use the words like I am a

realized soul or enlightened etc, even I don’t know it. but I am different for

the good. There is a certain sereneness, calmness, and peace in me which is unexplainable.

I am not even worried about whether I am liberated or not. It is a different

world I am living and I am happy with that.

 

I am only expressing my view of things and not complaining

or saying anything against what is going on is necessary or not. It is for the

person to choose what he wants. It would throw some good light if we could

share our lives as Advaitins as result of what we have learnt. Honestly I don’t

thing we could to better than the many Acharyas have already done and for which

only another Sankaracharya has to be born.

 

With Lord Krishna’s Blessings

 

Baskaran.

 

 

Your Mail works best with the New Optimized IE8. Get it NOW!.