[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
Shrisha.Rao@launchpad.unc.edu (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
>In article <4dnr3k$rqd@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>No, I have to disagree here. The "knowledge is self valid" just means that
>>>THE "knowledge" is apparent always, WITHOUT any other support. Thus, since the
>>>only self-valid knowledge in all 3 states, viz, waking, dreaming and deep
>>>sleep, is the feeling of "I", the un-differentiated, unbroken absorption in the
>>>"I" alone is true knowledge.
>>
>>This is so, but there is more to the theory of "svata: pramANa, parata:
>>apramANa". This view of knowledge applies to all kinds of knowledge, be it
>>brahmajnAna or mithyAjnAna. This theory of knowledge is also used by pUrva
>>mImAmsakas, who do not teach a non-dual doctrine. Note that "valid" does not
>>mean "right" - at least in the original sense of the Sanskrit words. All kinds
>>of jNana is svata: pramANa, but there can be mithyAjnAna (false knowledge) and
>>samyag-jnAna (right knowledge).
>
>I think it is the case that no scholar has spoken of Brahma-gnyaana or
>gnyaana in the Paaramaarthika sense of Advaita, as being svataH pramaaNa.
Well, I don't know about scholars. Certainly people like Ribhu and Ramana
Maharishi have spoken of the Self as Svata pramana. Scholars are just that,
scholars. Personally, I'd rather listen to Shankara, Ribhu or Dattatreya
anyday. Of course Shankara was also a scholar, but he was more of an exception.
>The distinction of svataH and parataH is _only_ at the vyaavahaarika
>level. Also, while knowledge of the universe, etc., is considered
>mithya-gnyaana, it is not the case that all knowledge in the universe is
>of like status within it --the statement "2+2=4" is a vyaavahaarika-satya,
>and "2+2=3" is also a vyaavahaarika-satya, but the two are not of like
>status. It is important to note this fact; many spurious criticisms of
>Advaita stem from a failure to appreciate that Advaita does not hold that
>vyaavaharika-satya=(atyanta)-asat.
Accepting "2+2 =4" rather than "2+2=3" leads to a logical system of
mathematics. It is obvious that time, causality and logic are constructs of the
mind. When it is known that the mind itself is unreal (on atma-vichara), what
is the point in debating about "vyavaharika level"? I realize that some
(so called) advaitins have talked about these things. My point was that the
real Advaitins like Dattatreya, Ribhu etc firmly denounce the futility of all
these things. IMHO, people who haven't "realized" yet, are obsessed with the
"vyavaharika level" and refuse to give it up. These people are mere scholars
and are, in all probability, still in the same position as most of us.
I am sorry if I gave the impression that all advaitins accept the Ajata
doctrine. My point was that all other schools, IMHO waste time on arguing about
trivial issues.
>>For example, in the case of the rajju-sarpa, the knowledge "this is a snake" is
>>valid in itself, giving rise to the fear of the imagined snake. That the snake
>>is entirely imaginary does not take away from the fact that for the imaginer,
>>it is real enough, at least for the time being. When the correct knowledge
>>"this is rope, not a snake" arises, this knowledge is also svata: pramANa, and
>>>it acts as the sublating knowledge that tells you that the previous cognition
>of snake was mithyA. However, so long as the snake is seen, it is self-valid
>>(svata: pramANa), and the snake is invalidated only by the other knowledge that
>>it is rope (parata: apramANa).
>>
>>This is quite standard, classical advaita explanation of truth and error. The
>>error is not known to be error till the right knowledge is known. Once the
>>right kowledge is known, the error is understood to have always been error,
>>even when the error was imagined to be the truth.
>
>Quite correct. However, the previous claim that the knowledge of the snake
>imagined in the rope is also svataH pramaaNa, needs to be clarified.
>
>The perception of the illusory snake is itself real -- even after the rope
>is seen for what it really is, the fact that one really was subject to
>such an illusion previously, is not altered. In this sense, _all_
>experience, be it of real or illusory entities, is svataH pramaaNa, since
>no experience is itself falsified by later experience. 'PramaaNa' is
>defined by 'yathaartham pramaaNam' -- that which describes as-is, is a
>pramaaNa; thus, a pramaaNa can be either exact knowledge, or the source of
>such. Knowledge that is exact does not ever become otherwise at any later
>time.
Well, the snake-example is not the exact description of what is. It is merely
to give a "vyavharika" analogy. The reality is that there is neither the rope
nor the snake, the SELF alone IS.
People ask why the world springs into existence and there is a delusion. The
masters say a reason cannot be given :
That is the very nature of the Lord - Gaudapada
There is no delusion, only the SELF - Ribhu, Dattatreya
Realize and see if the question "Why does delusion arise?" comes up - Ramana
Maharishi.
>The answer is that all branches of Vedanta (I don't know about the
>bhedabheda schools, etc., but at least according to Ananda Tiirtha,
>Raamaanuja and Shankara), there is no such thing as pariikshaa-anavasthaa
>-- the infinite regress of questioning. If today's snake is tomorrow's
>rope, then tomorrow's rope may well be something altogether different the
>day after, and so on. Some Buddhist schools use this argument to say that
The simple answer is to enquire "what is it that always exists and forms the
substratum for all experiences and knowledge?" as you yourself mention!
It is obvious that, THAT alone can be real.
>2> It ignores the fact that there is a substratum of one's self-experience
>that underlies all other experience; this substratum is itself never
>contradicted, and cannot be called illusory.
>
>Shrisha Rao
>
>>S. Vidyasankar
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
