[Advaita-l] Causal Body

[Nomadeva Sharma]

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Jay - there are several fundamental problems in the
> model.
> 
> Question 1. First senses can only grasp the
> qualities of the object and not the object 
> (substantive)per sec. Qualities are
> different from the object, right. 

Your question presumes that (i) there exists something
called object and that (ii) object is different from
qualities. How did you percieve all this, while
maintaining that senses cannot grasp the substantive?

> If five senses are not operating there is no way one
> can have any perception of the object, right? The 
> jarness is percived through what sense and how?  

Through the same sense that you perceive this mail,
without doubting if it is actually a mail or a rope or
a snake.

> Now you tell me how you can gain the perception of 
> an object and its qualities to establish that there 
> is object really out there. This my friend is the 
> fundamental epistemological issue.

How is this 'fundamental epistemological issue'
perceived? 

> reality and unreality of the object. If I cannot
> perceive the object how can I establish the  
> validity of the knowledge of the object?  You can
> have any model you want but the model has to 
> explain the observations, is it not? 

Certainly, but if model cannot explain, that does not
mean observation is not real. 

> Question 2. you have not answered how saakshee
> perceives the time and space either other than 
> making an axiomatic statement that it is
> perceived by saakshee since they cannot be
> perceived.  Remember experience is not a pramaaNa 
> even according to you - pratyaksha, anumaana and 
> shabda are only three pramaaNa-s for you. Now on 

I am not sure what all has been told, but this is just
not sakshee-D (and AFAIK, not even sakshee-A). How can
anybody say that experience is not a pramANa for a
school that holds 'na cha anubhava virodhe Agamasya
prAmANyaM'?

> what basis or pramaaNa or means of knowledge 
> saakshee perceives time and space independent 
> of senses, that needs to be established.

> Question 3. Is existence of the object established
> because I perceive it?  If I do not perceive it – 
> is the object there or not and how is that 
> established?   I see a snake out there and 
> saakshee recorded the time and space when ‘I’ 
> perceived the snake – now according to your model 
> that snake is sat or real , Right?  

Wrong. With that idea (if it has been conveyed thus so
far), there wouldn't be any difference between sAkshI
and manas. 

Pls note that my intention is not to uphold the dvaita
position or anything of that sort. However a brief
glance at this exchange makes it obvious the dvaita
position is either mis-conveyed or mis-understood
(similar to what Madhusudana Saraswati felt of Sri
Vyasatirtha's criticisms).

Regards,
Krishna


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com