[Advaita-l] Causal Body
nomadeva at yahoo.com
Fri Jun 6 07:09:55 CDT 2003
--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
> -- Nomadeva Sharma <nomadeva at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 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
Your question ("How does one perceive the
substantive?") is different from mine. You made 2
statements (i) that senses grasp qualities only and
(ii) qualities are different from substantive. My
question is regarding these 2 statements. If (i) were
to be true, the term 'substantive' in (ii) does not
arise at all. So, either (ii) is false or (i) is
Before we go further, pls delineate what you mean by
substantive. That will help me answer your other
questions below. (while at the same time, I wonder how
you will describe the same, that is not available to
your senses.) Or will you say that there is nothing
like substantive at all?
Also, you should define what you mean by 'quality'
without using the idea of 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
That depends on how you define 'substantive'.
> > > If five senses are not operating there is no way
> > > one can have any perception of the object,
> > > The jarness is percived through what sense and
> > Through the same sense that you perceive this
> > mail, without doubting if it is actually a mail or
> > rope or a snake.
> - Krishna, you are not answering the question -
I did; You 'saw' this mail (or heard using a
text-speech converter). So, that answers your question
(half of it, actually). Regarding 'how' of it, we will
see that later.
> > 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 not?
Hope so. But tell me this: Have you never known an
'object'? Are "I", manas, chakShu and other senses
themselves -- are they qualities or are they entities?
> > > 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
> > How can anybody say that experience is not a
> > 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.
You are saying that the proper analysis of experience
is pramANa? And experience by itself is not a pramANa?
Now, what is the basis of your theory? Experiences by
themselves or your analysis of them? Not first, for,
that leads to apasiddhAnta, for, here's a case where
experience by itself is giving knowledge. If latter,
are you saying that 'your proper analysis of
expereinces' is not an experience by itself? Think of
it, it can lead to anAvasthA.
> PramaaNa is that gives you knowledge. Experience
> can lead to knowledge if it is supported by valid
Note that dvaita defines pramANa differently:
yathArthaM pramANaM. Nothing like 'yena pramA labhyate
tatpramANam.h'. And it rightly says that there are two
types of pramANa: knowledge itself and means of
> > > what basis or pramaaNa or means of knowledge
> > > saakshee perceives time and space independent
> > > of senses, that needs to be established.
Dvaita accepts sAkshi-pratyaksha. The experience of
'I', 'I am happy' -- gives us knowledge, no analysis
is needed to 'extract' the knowledge the experience
itself conveys; therefore, it is a pramANa. 'sAkshi'
is also referred as 'sAkshi-indriya'; i.e., it is its
own instrument, nothing extra needed.
I don't know if you are saying that dvaita does not
hold sAxi-pratyaxa or that dvaita position is wrong.
> > 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?
I am afraid this is not a matter of this list (given
the size of the explanation). Actually, it will be of
great help if you tell me how and why Advaita builds
the concept of sAkshi. Given my time-constraints, I'll
be happy to just provide differences in
conceptualization and justification.
Btw, you wrote elsewhere:
> how do you establish the reality of the universe
> to start with- since fundamental tenants of dwaita
> is jagat satyam, jiiva satyam and parmaartha satyam
Sadananda ji, using whatever pramANas _you_ accept,
one notes that jagat-satyatva is neither contradicted
by any pramANa nor is its contrary supported by any
pramANa. The burden of proof is on you for postulating
jaganmithyatva, a concept which, you must accept, is
contrary to common experience, atleast on the face of
it. When a physics student is asked to prove E=mc2, he
wrote, 'Disprove it to me first'. Your requesting for
proof of reality of world is akin to that.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list