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

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Chandramouliji - PraNams
Thanks for your post. 
The cause of creation is defined in the Upanishads - yatova imaani bhuutani jaayante .... and Brahmasutra uses to articulate Sutra 2 - Janmaadyasya yataH.
Brahman being infinite cannot be established by any pramaana. 
Hence the Upanishad declares - naishaa tarkena matiraapaneya.. It is beyond any logic. More importantly as per logic as to be supported by a pratyaksha pramaana -  using drushtanta, as in the smoke and the fire. 
How logic can be used for the mind to contemplate in the direction (lakshyaartha) provided by the scriptures. 
The Self that 'I am' also cannot be (or should I say need not be) established by logic as it is Self-evident!
Upanishad makes a daring declaration by equating the Self and the Braham with the statement 'tat tvam asi'. 
Hence mantra 7 of Mandukya Up. provides the needed definition as .. prapachopashamam, shantam, shivam, advaitam, chatrutam manyanet - sa aatma - sa vjneyaH -That which is .... auspicious, non-dual, conveniently called the fourth, the Self that you are - need to be realized or using your mind. 
My 2c
Hari Om!
Sadanada


 

    On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 04:08:42 PM GMT+5:30, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 
Namaste. 

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

// There are two types of reasoning generallyrecognized in Indian philosophy. The first of them is what is familiarly known assyllogistic inference, and is illustrated by the example of inferring the presenceof fire from observing smoke. We shall have an instance of the second type of reasoningif, fromthe observed fact that an effect like a jar requires for its productiona 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 calledsAmAnyato-drstAnumAna and corresponds to what in modem logic is known as analogicalreasoning.There are important differences between the twotypes of inference in their logicalcharacter; but it will suffice, for the present, to state that while the first isapplicable only to cases falling within the sphere of common experience, the secondapplies to those that lie beyond it. 

Since Brahman, the chief theme of the Vedanta, asso oftenstated by Samkara ,  transcends thesensuous, 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 onlyof some Indian thinkers; and the advaitin, like the other Vedantins, does not shareit. The reason why he excludes it from the category of pramANa will be seen by examiningone of the stock examples by which it is illustrated : Qualities like odour andcolour are found to inhere in substances like earth and fire; and it is saidthat 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 ofodour, colour, etc., and the substances which they respectively characterize, viz.,earth, fire, etc., are all perceivable; but air is not so, although the qualityoftouch may be. That is, we are extending here a principle verified in experienceto something beyond it; and such an extension according to Advaita, is not legitimatefor in it we virtual jump from one particular to another, without passing throughgeneral truth based upon actual observation, as we do in ordinary inference. Itis, as the name given to it indicates, an inference which is based not on perceptionbut on what is ‘seen from likeness’ (sAmAnyato-drashsta). Adapting the words whichSamkara uses in a similar context, we may say: If air also were perceivable likeearth or fire, we might discover that touch was a quality of it. But, as a matterof fact, it is only touch that is perceived; and we cannot therefore decide whetherit is. connected with air as its quality, or with something else. Hence this varietyof reasoning, the advaitin says, cannot be a pramANa in the strict sense of theterm.

The outcome of such a view, it may appear, is to excludereasoning altogether so far as the truth of Advaita is concerned But it would bewrong to think so, for the advaitin does assign a definite place to the second varietyof inference, if not to the first For, although he denies to it the rank of pramANaor means to valid knowledge, he admits that it may indicate the probability ofa conclusion which has been otherwise reached; and where sufficient care has beenexercised, 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 thisreason, 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 toscriptural 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 kindof reasoning may be used, provided it is not forgotten that the belief in it isprimarily based upon Shruti or revelation //.

The full article is available in the following link

//  https://archive.org/details/IndianPhilosophicalStudies/page/n5/mode/2up//

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



|  | Virus-free.www.avast.com |



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdN-fk4J%3DvntTs9dnLL6vJHfusBu_tAwUyiC%2BBmrF909GQ%40mail.gmail.com.