[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

For those who are interested, here is an excerpt from the article ** THE
PLACE OF REASON IN ADVAITA  ** by Prof Hiriyanna which is relevant to the
topic under discussion.

// There are two types of reasoning generally recognized in Indian
philosophy. The first of them is what is familiarly known as syllogistic
inference, and is illustrated by the example of inferring the presence of
fire from observing smoke. We shall have an instance of the second type of
reasoning if, fromthe observed fact that an effect like a jar requires for
its production a competent agent like the potter, it is concluded that the
world, as an effect, should also have been brought into existence by a
competent Being, God. It is called sAmAnyato-drstAnumAna and corresponds to
what in modem logic is known as analogicalreasoning. There are important
differences between the twotypes of inference in their logical character;
but it will suffice, for the present, to state that while the first is
applicable only to cases falling within the sphere of common experience,
the second applies to those that lie beyond it.

Since Brahman, the chief theme of the Vedanta, as so oftenstated by Samkara
,  transcends the sensuous, it is only the second type of reasoning that
can have a bearing upon it. But the view that it is a pramANa for
establishing extra-empirical truths is only of some Indian thinkers; and
the advaitin, like the other Vedantins, does not share it. The reason why
he excludes it from the category of pramANa will be seen by examining one
of the stock examples by which it is illustrated : Qualities like odour and
colour are found to inhere in substances like earth and fire; and it is
said that we may deduce from it that the quality of touch or temperature
(sparsha) also implies as its ground a substance, viz., air (vAyu) . Here
the qualities of odour, colour, etc., and the substances which they
respectively characterize, viz., earth, fire, etc., are all perceivable;
but air is not so, although the qualityof touch may be. That is, we are
extending here a principle verified in experience to something beyond it;
and such an extension according to Advaita, is not legitimate for in it we
virtual jump from one particular to another, without passing through
general truth based upon actual observation, as we do in ordinary
inference. It is, as the name given to it indicates, an inference which is
based not on perception but on what is ‘seen from likeness’
(sAmAnyato-drashsta). Adapting the words which Samkara uses in a similar
context, we may say: If air also were perceivable like earth or fire, we
might discover that touch was a quality of it. But, as a matter of fact, it
is only touch that is perceived; and we cannot therefore decide whether it
is. connected with air as its quality, or with something else. Hence this
variety of reasoning, the advaitin says, cannot be a pramANa in the strict
sense of the term.

The outcome of such a view, it may appear, is to exclude reasoning
altogether so far as the truth of Advaita is concerned But it would be
wrong to think so, for the advaitin does assign a definite place to the
second variety of inference, if not to the first For, although he denies to
it the rank of pramANa or means to valid knowledge, he admits that it may
indicate the probability of a conclusion which has been otherwise reached;
and where sufficient care has been exercised, the degree of probability
indicated by it may, indeed, be quite high. That is, it may support the
truth, though it may not establish it. For this reason, he designates it as
yukti or tarka which has no independent logical value, but is only a help
to a pramANa. It is in this form, i.e., as ancillary to scriptural
testimony that the advaitin utilises reason. Thus as regards the question,
already mentioned, of the existence of God as the author of the universe,
this kind of reasoning may be used, provided it is not forgotten that the
belief in it is primarily based upon Shruti or revelation //.

The full article is available in the following link

//  https://archive.org/details/IndianPhilosophicalStudies/page/n5/mode/2up
//
<https://archive.org/details/IndianPhilosophicalStudies/page/n5/mode/2up%20/>

Regards

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 2:25 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Acharya Sada ji.
>
> //Dream is not a dream for a dreamer who is in the dream. That dream world
> is real for him.
>
> He realizes that it is not real only when he wakes up.
>
> The dream example is used to show that waking world is not absolutely real.
> Goudapaada negation of the waking world is only from the point of absolute
> truth - with the statement - adou antecha yat naasti, vartamaanepi
> tatttadaa. //
>
> From the point of view of absolute truth, there is no world, there is no
> dream, there is no waking, there is no deep sleep. Absolute truth negates
> everything which is seen.
>
> The identity of dream and waking is derived from logic which is pretty much
> within the domain of dream/waking.
>
> What exactly is this "waking up"? A pramAtA can get anumiti pramA that
> waking world is dream. He is not bound to bear the burden of truth-ness of
> waking world despite having the anumiti pramA from the faultless anumAna of
> bhAshyakAra - जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यमिति प्रतिज्ञा । दृश्यत्वादिति
> हेतुः । स्वप्नदृश्यभाववदिति दृष्टान्तः । यथा तत्र स्वप्ने दृश्यानां भावानां
> वैतथ्यम् , तथा जागरितेऽपि दृश्यत्वमविशिष्टमिति हेतूपनयः । तस्माज्जागरितेऽपि
> वैतथ्यं स्मृतमिति निगमनम् ।
>
> Where is the need to hold the requirement of "waking up". anumiti pramA
> happens to pramAtA and not to shuddha Brahman. The anumAna of bhAshyakAra
> is capable of giving pramA to pramAtA, which is very much within waking,
> that waking is identical to dream. Where is the need to "wake up".
>
> //But there is difference between the two states. In the dream world, a
> dreamer cannot realize it as a dream while he is in the dream - for
> realization viveka or discriminative intellect is needed which he does not
> have. If has, he will not able to dream.//
>
> Waker alleges this to the dreamer disregarding the fact that dreamer had
> done so to the dreamer within his dream. When identity of waking and logic
> is established by anumAna, giving rise to pramA to pramAtA, how can such a
> statement be made.
>
> //In contrast, in the waking state, the seeker can develop the required
> Viveka to recognize the unreality of the waking world while still
> remaining in the waking world. Hence all the nine yards that you mentioned
> are important to develop the needed qualifications to discriminate what is
> real and what is apparently real. Study of Vedanta under a competent
> teacher, sampradaayic teaching, and required sadhana for the mind to
> develop the necessary qualifications - all are important. //
>
> Untenable in view of the anumAna presented. The waking-guru,
> waking-samrpadAya are identical to dream-guru and dream-sampradAya. Any
> preference given to either is violative of anumAna.
>
> //DSV vs SDV all intended to help in the sadhana only.//
>
> Sequentially to the same sAdhaka. One graduates from SDV to DSV.
>
> //In the final analysis there is shrushti and no vadas too when one
> realizes aham brahmaasmi.//
>
> I think, in the final analysis, there is no srishTi and no vAda. DSV and
> SDV are both before that.
>
> Regards.
> Sudhanshu Shekhar.
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:50 AM Kuntimaddi Sadananda <
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > Bhaskarji - PraNAms
> >
> > I agree with you. The analogy with dream world is provided to show that
> > the waking world is also not real.
> >
> > Dream is not a dream for a dreamer who is in the dream. That dream world
> > is real for him.
> >
> > He realizes that it is not real only when he wakes up.
> >
> > The dream example is used to show that waking world is not absolutely
> > real. Goudapaada negation of the waking world is only from the point of
> > absolute truth - with the statement - adou antecha yat naasti,
> vartamaanepi
> > tatttadaa.
> > But there is difference between the two states. In the dream world, a
> > dreamer cannot realize it as a dream while he is in the dream - for
> > realization viveka or discriminative intellect is needed which he does
> not
> > have. If has, he will not able to dream.
> >
> > In contrast, in the waking state, the seeker can develop the required
> > Viveka to recognize the unreality of the waking world while still
> > remaining in the waking world. Hence all the nine yards that you
> mentioned
> > are important to develop the needed qualifications to discriminate what
> is
> > real and what is apparently real. Study of Vedanta under a competent
> > teacher, sampradaayic teaching, and required sadhana for the mind to
> > develop the necessary qualifications - all are important.
> >
> > DSV vs SDV all intended to help in the sadhana only.
> >
> > In the final analysis there is shrushti and no vadas too when one
> realizes
> > aham brahmaasmi.
> >
> > Seeker should follow what is best approach for his realization under the
> > advise of his guru.
> >
> > Hari Om!
> > Sadananda
> >
>
>
> --
> Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
> Pune
>
> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>