[Advaita-l] Causal Body

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 5 17:07:25 CDT 2003

-- Nomadeva Sharma <nomadeva at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- 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?

Krishna that exactly is my question when one says I perceived an object?
How does one perceive the substantive? 

Object has the qualities that do not mean object is the same as
qualities? One is an attribute and the other is substantive. The
relation between the two as Jay has recognized is assumed. There is a
fundamental problem involved in perception of the substantive? That is
the reason why epistemology is intimately connected to ontology in our

> > 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.

- Krishna, you are not answering the question - there is a jump in the
process - First one needs to recognize the fundamental problem involved
-By skipping it one cannot arrive at solution to the problem.  We need
to look carefully what exactly the process involved when we say there is
an ring or jar out there.  

> > 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? 

I will definitely address the problem once we identify the problem in
the perception. 

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

Right. Observation is an experience involving experienced, experiencing
and experiencer. We are trying to understand the whole process is it

> > 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'?

No Krishna - experience is not listed of the six or one of the three 
pramaaNas. And rightly so.  Proper analysis of the experience can lead
to prama and that analysis is pramaaNa. PramaaNa is that gives you
knowledge. Experience can lead to knowledge if it is supported by valid

> > 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. 

That is exactly my original question - where and when does that senses
input, manas and saakshee enter into the equation according to
Knowledge-D and Saakshee-D? 

> 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).

Krishna - My request to you is to keep following the discussion between
Jay and myself and enter when you find there is misrepresentation of
dwaita position.  Jay wants to get to the bottom of this by his series
of adhyaasa theories finding fault with the advaitic concept. I have no
problem if something is wrong in Advaita, but before one ventures into
the criticism of a well established theory, one should understand it
correctly too. 

Keep watching.

Hari OM!


> Regards,
> Krishna

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list