[Advaita-l] Causal Body
nomadeva at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 9 08:22:16 CDT 2003
--- Nomadeva Sharma <nomadeva at yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear sir, my name does not have as many 'a'-s as in
your name :-)
> But also one should be aware that final conclusions
> that one arrives depend on the assumptions in their
> model. If that is understood -absolutely there is
> no problem.
> The problem arises if one starts saying my
> explanation is better than yours. (That is how
> series of articels of Jay started in the name of
> learning 'Advaita".) Then we
I honestly don't think that there is a problem in
saying one explanation is better than another
(ofcourse, the personal element of 'mine vs yours'
will spoil it). It is not the desire to put down
another school of thought, but I think analyses should
not shy away from such results.
Btw, I haven't read any article on adhyAsa at all.
> Take for example when one assumes that saakshee
> grasps the time and space - then - is this a
> statement of fact or statement of explanation.
> Please think it over and tell me.
Well, here's one's thought process:
A. One of the stages is A person get to deep-sleep.
B. Senses, brain are not working in deep sleep.
C. As soon as the person gets up, he exclaims 'hey, I
thought I slept for such a long time, but it is not
Derivations or inferences:
A. The person had some idea, correct or wrong, of time
in deep sleep.
Conclusion: Whatever goes to deep-sleep also has a
knowledge of time.
Now, I am not sure what you could call as explanation
here. AFAI see it, there is no explanation at all.
There is a naming ceremony, however. We refer to
'Whatever goes to deep-sleep' as sAkshi.
> Our intellect should be keen enough to separate
> the facts from explanations/conclusions.
> This is what I have been asking when you say
> saakshee sees time and space - since senses
> cannot measure those as per Jay statement -
> then how does it sees - what instruments it
> uses for it to know space and time.
> What constitutes a saakshee here?
I have answered this in another mail.
> Is it a presumption or a fact - is the question .
> Or to put it differently, is one aware of the
> demarcation line where facts end and
> assumption starts?
The analysis I could do is included above.
> > Your
> > objection that the idea of an object is an assumed
> > or inferred one does not apply to us, as we hold
> > that object and its properties (again, not all)
> > [visheShataH] identical. Any well-meaning school
> > would do that, for, in the end, 'dravyatva' is
> > also an attribute.
> Not so that, my friend is a assumption/conclusion
> and not necessarily a fact.
Which is an assumption here? That object and
attributes are V-identical?
> 'dravyatva' - potness or cowness - comes from the
> taarkika-s. I question validity of the statement
> as a fact. What is a cow? cow is that which has
> cowness. what is cowness? that which cow has - This
> is what is anyonya aashrya dosha.
I have heard that this is the argument that shrIharSha
uses against the general definitions using laxaNas.
His point is that using the idea of laxaNa, one cannot
obtain both sajAtIya-vijAtIya bheda. (I am quoting
from faint memory; need to check this up).
Btw, I don't think it should be difficult to find the
'primary keys' for any entity. In other words,
'asAdhAraNa laxaNa' can be found out, though it will
be difficult for a non-biologist to come with the
> No sense in particular measures the
> cowness of a cow or the potness
> of the pot, or devyatva of dravya.
Sadananda garu, what are you saying? You just said a
few mails back that the substantive is an assumption.
And that it is only qualities that are perceived?
Actually, why are you bothered about 'measuring'
potness? The question is whether you can grasp or
determine potness? The answer is yes. Just go by the
facts and do not go by assumptions.
> Krishna your statement "Any well-meaning .." is a
> poor justification for the conclusion with the
> implication that, if not, it is not a well meaning
> school - with all due respects don't you think it
> borders close to fanaticism rather than facts - I
> have no problem If you say we believe so.
> Anyway I have made my point. No further discussion
> is needed to resolve this.
The matter as it stands is that you have read much
more than intended. My point was that it is such a
logical concept that it behooves one to accept it. If
you don't think so, you should simply point it out.
Ofcourse, the very point in discussion is to why there
are other 'well-meaning' theories possible. Without
showing any such contrary theory and to assume that it
was my justification to include only well-meaning
theories, that it borders on fanaticism... That is
certainly not a well-meaning response.
> > > It is true that VisheshaNa or attribute
> > > should have a locus or ashraya. The
> > Is this need for Ashraya perceived or inferred? If
> > perceived,
I am hoping that you will cover this in your article.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list