[Advaita-l] vishEsha

[Nomadeva Sharma]

> --- Nomadeva Sharma <nomadeva at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > sAkshi is svarUpa-indriya. It is its own 
> > instrument to perceive; space and time.
> 
> Here is clearly an assumption is it not? what are 
> those swaruupa indriyaa-s that saakshsee has that 
> are different from the five sense organs and five 
> organs of action.

There is no assumption AFAI see it. You had agreed
that 

> C. As soon as the person gets up, he exclaims 'hey,
I
> thought I slept for such a long time, but it is not
> even ...'.

is an observation. So, the fact is that whatever that
'I' is, if it is able to grasp time without the aid of
any _external_ instrument. That is why, it is called
'svarUpa-indriya'.

> Indriyas implies upaadhi-s - is it not - which is 
> essentially shariiram.

Now, that is an assumption. Indriya is an instrument.

> Is this different from sthuula, suukshma and kaarana

> shariira-s that are provided.

I understand sthUla sharIra. Rest are assumptions (as
long as we don't touch shruti). What is kAraNa-sharIra
(i.e., the original subject of this thread)? Is it
same as liN^ga-sharIra?

> Now on what basis or pamaaNa this statement is made
-
> that saakshee has swaruupa indriyas?

Note that I said, 'sAkshi _is_ svarUpa-indriya'. It
perceives itself without the need for any external
sense.

> A man in suShupti also has notions of time
> > (though it might not match the jAgrat-avasthA
time;
> > OK, we know that you disagree here): 
> 
> In dream state yes but not in deep sleep state - 
> there are no notions of time and space either in 
> deep sleep state - at least those are observations -

> is it not? 

Well, the example I gave in other mail, points out
that atleast time is comprehended in deep-sleep. The
problem is that we cannot poll the guy, to a direct
check, in deep-sleep without bringing him out of
suShupti.

> > thereby pointing out that sAkshi perceives these 
> > by itself. 
 
> > Any doctrine alleging loyalty to 'svataH prAmANya'

> > and 'sva-prakAsha' must accept that the essential
> > consciousness is itself an instrument of knowledge
> > (hence sAkshi-pratyaksha is also accepted)
 
> Krishna - sva prakaasha implies that it does not 
> need another prakaasha to illumine itself.  light 
> does not need another light to light up! If you say 
> time and space are swaprakaasha then I will agree 
> with your statement. 

A school asserting that 'svataH prAmANya' must have
atleast one entity that grasps knowledge in the first
place. Since, it is _svataH_ prAmANya, the same entity
must be capable of grasping prAmANya also. 

The question is 'who provides this knowledge and its
prAmANya'? It can very well be an external instrument.


But if a school asserts 'sva-prakAshatva' ALSO, it
must, somewhere in its analysis, accept that the
cognizing agent does not need external
'prakAsha'/means, atleast to know about itself. 

So, if a school believes in both, its cognizing agent
must be an instrument by itself and the validator
also. 

> The beginning of your statement "Any 
> doctrine ....must accept..." is, I think, clearly 
> overboard. Just because you have accepted the 
> explanation does not mean everybody must - even if 
> there can be better explanations than that? 

The above analysis is purely mine, not that of dvaita
school. I think it is a logical compulsion and not any
personal compulsion. I also think that there cannot be
better explanations of 'svataH prAmANya' and
'svaprakAsha'. If there are any mistakes or better
explanations, let me know. But instead of pointing out
problems, you and Vidyasankar have clearly gone
overboard that I am generalizing. 

This will be the last post from my side on this
thread. 

Regards,
Krishna

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