[Advaita-l] Causal Body

Jay Nelamangala jay at r-c-i.com
Fri Jun 6 22:30:40 CDT 2003

namaste Sri Sankaran,

You have asked two good questions.

> But if a rope is seen as a snake in darkness, there is internal
> in this. So sAkshee-D assumes the knowledge is valid, but its really not
> valid and sAkshee-D is gettin misled?

What are asking about is acutally known as the "theory of error or
bhrAnti" in shAstra.

Let us not forget the relation between an sense organ, and its object when
the sense organ is in relation to manas there is produced the knowledge of
the object in manas.  This knowledge reveals the object,  and  the knowledge
itself is illumined by sAkshI.   sAkshI's apprehension of untruth is
by the absence of coherence.

Manas is jada,  inert.  The knowledge it produces
(  vritti-jnAna) is also jada.
Neither is self-evident.  Both are illumined by sAkshI-D.
Manas is also the abode of the various other things such as
pleasure derived from worldly
things, pain, fear,  courage, desire, and so on.
All these things are perceived by sAkshI.

If we see a rope in broad day light,  we would not confuse it for a snake,
or vice versa.   But when the conditions are not right, such as darkness,
glitter etc,  under such peculiar circumstances the knowledge in question
may indecisively be determined as true.   But this determination is not the
work of sAkshii-D.  To hold that it is the work of sAkshee-D is not
consistent with the nature of sAkshee whose work is always correct.
So the indecisive determination is the work of manas.  In this case of
knowledge, sAkshee-D comprehends only the knowledge,  and owing to
the circumstances it is indifferent towards its truth.  For the same reason,
there is the indecisive determination of truth by manas.  That the
determination is indecisive is brought to light when the truth of knowledge
is doubted on the basis of other considerations,  such as why is this snake
(rope) not moving?.   So, you kick the rope and confirm it is rope only.
Then the knowledge becomes "internally consistent"  and sAkshI grasps
that knowledge along with its truth.   Afterwards,  there is no doubt about
that rope being a snake.

Thus,  from beginningless time,   sAkshii has apprehended the unreliable
determinations of the manas.  Therefore under particular circumstances
sAkshii does not suddenly apprehend the truth of the knowledge produced
by manas,  unless it is helped by  external means such as consistency.
Consistency and successfulness (saphala-pravrtti) remove the obstructions
that stand in the way of sAkshii's apprehending the truth.   So, in all
the truth is apprehended by sAkshii.

This is how it works.

Sorry for the long email,  as you can see, these are intricate matters of
the mind and conscience which need to be properly understood (even
if it means lengthy emails).

On the other question on "yatO vAchO ...." you need to study the sootra
"Om IkshtErna ashabdam Om" .   I think it was discussed with VidyAshankar
a few days back.

Harihi Om Tatsat,
Jay Nelamangala

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sankaran Aniruddhan" <ani at ee.washington.edu>
To: <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] Causal Body

> namaste Sri Jay,
> I had a couple of questions on parts of multiple posts and I have attached
> them here. I do not intend to pursue these questions further though. This
> just to clarify my understanding.
> > Therefore, sAkshee-D rejects what is given in this picture as a 5-legged
> > elephant, irrespective of how much we respect the artist who drew that
> > picture because, the "internal consistentcy" is lost in that knowledge.
> > This is how sAkshee-D establishes validity of knowledge.  What is
> > by sAkshee-D is always correct, because of this "internal consistency".
> But if a rope is seen as a snake in darkness, there is internal
> in this. So sAkshee-D assumes the knowledge is valid, but its really not
> valid and sAkshee-D is gettin misled?
> > "yatO vAchO nivartantE aprApya manasA saha"
> > That is why this shruti is interpreted by us as "Brahman can not be
> > known completely" through words,  nor can  He be comprehended fully by
> > mind.
> "yatO vAchO nivartantE" literally means "that from which speech recoils".
> Shruti seems to be telling us literally that brahman cannot be expressed
> words and cannot be grasped through the mind. I don't see how this is
> stretched to mean "Brahman cannot be known completely".
> Aniruddhan
> Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
> namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam lokaSam.karam
> _______________________________________________
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list