Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Dear All,Namaste.As per Vedanta Paribhasha of Dharmaraaja Adhvarindra:Chaitanya limited by an object is Prameya Chaitanya. Chaitanya limited by mind is Pramaatru Chaitanya. Chaitanya limited by vritti of the object is Pramaana Chaitanya. When Pramaana Chaitanya and Prameya Chaitanya coincide, then knowledge of the object takes place. This is the First Proposition(FP) in the pratyaksha pramaana.Later he says that, Pramaatru Chaitanya and Prameya Chaitanya also must coincide for the knowledge to take place. (Second Proposition-SP) FP seems to be logical. But, how the SP? How can the pramaata coincide with prameya. These two are extremely opposite two things, just like yushmat-asmat pratyaya (that is anaatman and Atman)Can anyone please clarify this point where I miss? With regards,Anupam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Anupamji PraNAms A very detailed discussion of VP - pratyaksha and anumaana are discussed in the knowlede series and stored in the Dennis Waite website www.advaita.org.uk under the title of Critical Analysis of VP. Shree Sastriji also has presened a brief synopsis of VP imn his website. Hope these help. Hari Om! Sadananda--- On Fri, 2/26/10, anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote: anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav Pramaana, Prameya & Pramaatru Chaitanyas"advaitin" <advaitin >Friday, February 26, 2010, 2:07 AM Dear All,Namaste.As per Vedanta Paribhasha of Dharmaraaja Adhvarindra:Chaitanya limited by an object is Prameya Chaitanya. Chaitanya limited by mind is Pramaatru Chaitanya. Chaitanya limited by vritti of the object is Pramaana Chaitanya.When Pramaana Chaitanya and Prameya Chaitanya coincide, then knowledge of the object takes place. This is the First Proposition( FP) in the pratyaksha pramaana.Later he says that, Pramaatru Chaitanya and Prameya Chaitanya also must coincide for the knowledge to take place. (Second Proposition- SP)FP seems to be logical. But, how the SP? How can the pramaata coincide with prameya. These two are extremely opposite two things, just like yushmat-asmat pratyaya (that is anaatman and Atman)Can anyone please clarify this point where I miss?With regards,Anupam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Dear Anupam-ji, The whole process of visual perception consists of the following steps:-- (1) The mind stretches out through the eye, reaches the object and takes the form of the object. This is called a vrtti or mode of the mind. (2) The mental mode removes the veil of ignorance that hides the object. (3) Consciousness underlying the object, being manifest through the mental mode, illumines the object. (4) The mental mode associates the object-consciousness with the subject-consciousness. (5) The subject perceives the object. The mind has three main divisions in this process, namely, (1) the part within the body, (2) the part that extends from the body to the object perceived, (3) the part that coincides with the object. The first part above is known as pramaataa and the consciousness manifest in it is called pramaata-chaitanya. This is the perceiver. The consciousness manifest in the second part is called pramaana-chaitanya, or the means of knowledge. The consciousness manifest in the third part is pramiti-chaitanya or percept. The object perceived is called prameya. Since the third part of the mind mentioned above coincides with the object, prameya-chaitanya, the consciousness underlying the object and pramiti-chaitanya become identical. You are probably confusing pramaataa and paramiti in your statement of SP. Please read the passage again and see. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri advaitin , anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote: > > Dear All, > > Namaste. > > As per Vedanta Paribhasha of Dharmaraaja Adhvarindra: > > Chaitanya limited by an object is Prameya Chaitanya. Chaitanya limited by > mind is Pramaatru Chaitanya. Chaitanya limited by vritti of the object is > Pramaana Chaitanya. > > When Pramaana Chaitanya and Prameya Chaitanya coincide, then knowledge of > the object takes place. This is the First Proposition(FP) in the pratyaksha > pramaana. > > Later he says that, Pramaatru Chaitanya and Prameya Chaitanya also must > coincide for the knowledge to take place. (Second Proposition-SP) > > FP seems to be logical. But, how the SP? How can the pramaata coincide > with prameya. These two are extremely opposite two things, just like > yushmat-asmat pratyaya (that is anaatman and Atman) > > Can anyone please clarify this point where I miss? > > With regards, > Anupam. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Namaste and happy holi to all. Thank you very much Sri Sada ji and Sastri Ji. Dear Sri Sadaji, I have already downloaded all your Knowledge Series. Recently started reading them. Dear Sri Sastriji, > The mind has three main divisions in this process, namely, > (1) the part within the body, > (2) the part that extends from the body to the object perceived, > (3) the part that coincides with the object. > The first part above is known as pramaataa and the consciousness manifest in it is called pramaata-chaitanya. This is the perceiver. The consciousness manifest in the second part is called pramaana-chaitanya, or the means of knowledge. The consciousness manifest in the third part is pramiti-chaitanya or percept. > The object perceived is called prameya. Since the third part of the mind mentioned above coincides with the object, prameya-chaitanya, the consciousness underlying the object and pramiti-chaitanya become identical. > > You are probably confusing pramaataa and paramiti in your statement of SP. Please read the passage again and see. I am unable to understand the (3). As you said rightly, I am confusing between pramaata and pramiti. But, in the VP, there is nothing about pramiti. My question here is : Are not (2) and (3) are identical? That is, 'Part of the mind that extends from the body' alone 'coincides with the object'? Please clarify. With regards, Anupam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Dear Anupamam-ji, It is true that the term pramiti chaitanyam is not used in VP. He has taken pramANa as including the portion of the mind that has taken the form of the object at the place where the object is located. This portion is called pramiti in another book. On p.13 of the Advaita Ashrama Edition of VP it is said that the pramANa chaitanya and viShaya chaitanya become one . Where is it said that the pramatRi chaitanya and viShaya chaitanya become one? Best wishes, S.N.Sastri advaitin , anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote: > Dear Sri Sastriji, > I am unable to understand the (3). As you said rightly, I am > confusing between pramaata and pramiti. But, in the VP, there is > nothing about pramiti. My question here is : > > Are not (2) and (3) are identical? That is, 'Part of the mind that > extends from the body' alone 'coincides with the object'? Please > clarify. > > With regards, > Anupam. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Dear Sri Sastri Ji,Namaste.Thank you for your ever-readiness to lend a helping hand.  > On p.13 of the Advaita Ashrama Edition of VP it is said that the pramANa chaitanya and viShaya chaitanya become one . Where is it said that the pramatRi chaitanya and viShaya chaitanya become one? I am using Advaita Ashrama Book only. As you said p.13 says that Pramana chaitanya and vishaya chaitanya becomes one.But, also there is (in p 25) another sloka.  It goes like this.घटादे: विषयसà¥à¤¯ पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¥à¤¯à¤•à¥à¤·à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ तॠपà¥à¤°à¤®à¤¾à¤¤à¥ƒ-अà¤à¤¿à¤¨à¥à¤¨à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤®à¥ । etc etc... पà¥à¤°à¤®à¤¾à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤à¥‡à¤¦à¥‹ नाम न तावदॠà¤à¤•à¥à¤¯à¤®à¥, किनà¥à¤¤à¥ पà¥à¤°à¤®à¤¾à¤¤à¥ƒà¤¸à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤¾-अतिरिकà¥à¤¤-सतà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤•à¤¤à¥à¤µ-अà¤à¤¾à¤µ: । etc etc... विषयचैतनà¥à¤¯à¤‚ च पूरà¥à¤µà¥‹à¤•à¥à¤¤à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤•à¤¾à¤°à¥‡à¤£ पà¥à¤°à¤®à¤¾à¤¤à¥ƒà¤šà¥ˆà¤¤à¤¨à¥à¤¯à¤®à¥ à¤à¤µ इति, पà¥à¤°à¤®à¤¾à¤¤à¥ƒà¤šà¥ˆà¤¤à¤¨à¥à¤¯à¤¸à¥à¤¯ à¤à¤µ घटादि अधिषà¥à¤ ानतया पà¥à¤°à¤®à¤¾à¤¤à¥ƒà¤¸à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤¾ à¤à¤µ घाटादिसतà¥à¤¤à¤¾, न अनà¥à¤¯à¤¤à¤¾ सिदà¥à¤§à¤‚ घटादे: अपरोकà¥à¤·à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤®à¥ । Translation: The perceptuality of objects such as jar, however, consists in their not being different from the (consciousness associated with the) subject. etc etc...The absence of difference from the subject does not indeed mean identity; it means having no existence apart from that of the subject. To be explicit, since a jar etc. are superimposed on the consciousness limited by them, their existence is but the existence of the Consciousness associated with the object, for the existence of what is superimposed is not admitted to be something over and above that of its substratum. And since the consciousness associated with the object is in the manner described above (in earlier sloka where illustration of water tank is given), but the consciousness associated with the subject, the latter consciousness alone is the substratum of a jar etc. and hence their existence is but that of the subject, and not something else. Now I request you to help me more to understand this.With regards,Anupam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Dear Anupam-ji, Further on, on p.25 it has been said, " The absence of difference from the subject does not indeed mean identity; it means having no existence apart from that of the subject (pramAtRisattA) " . According to advaita, objects have no reality of their own; they appear to exist only because of their substratum, pure consciousness, which is Existence itself. Thus the existence of a pot is nothing but the existence of the consciousness on which it is superimposed. In the case of direct perception (pratyakSha), the mind of the pramAtA stretches out to the place where the object is located and takes the form of the object. Thus the consciousness underlying the object and the consciousness underlying the vRitti of the mind become one. The same mind is both within the body and at the place where the object is and so the consciousness underlying it is one because it is the same limiting adjunct. Consciousness is the same everywhere, but we are here considering consciousness as limited by different objects. In perception the consciousness limited by the object and the consciousness limited by the vRitti coincide. The consciousness limited by the vRitti is the same as the consciousness limited by the portion of the mind within the body, because the mind is one and the same. So it can be said that the object is superimposed on the consciousness of the pramAtA. This is what has been stated and not identity between the pramAtA and the object. In the case of inference, when fire is inferred from smoke, the mind of the person inferring does not reach the fire itself, and so we cannot say that the consciousness on which the fire is superimposed is the same as the consciousness underlying the mind of the person inferring. This has also been brought out in this para. Hope this clarifies the matter. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri advaitin , anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote: > > Dear Sri Sastri Ji, > Namaste. > > Thank you for your ever-readiness to lend a helping hand. > > > On p.13 of the Advaita Ashrama Edition of VP it is said that the pramANa > chaitanya and viShaya chaitanya become one . Where is it said that the > pramatRi chaitanya and viShaya chaitanya become one? > > > I am using Advaita Ashrama Book only. > As you said p.13 says that Pramana chaitanya and vishaya chaitanya becomes > one. > > But, also there is (in p 25) another sloka. It goes like this. > > Translation: The perceptuality of objects such as jar, however, consists in > their not being different from the (consciousness associated with the) > subject. etc etc...> Now I request you to help me more to understand this. > With regards, > Anupam. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Dear Sri Sastriji, Namaste. > Further on, on p.25 it has been said, " The absence of difference from the subject does not indeed mean identity; it means having no existence apart from that of the subject (pramAtRisattA) " . Thanks a lot for your clarification. I am trying to get this. I shall come back if I have any further doubt. Once again, Thanks a lot. With regards, Anupam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.