[Advaita-l] Causal Body
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 11 09:14:12 CDT 2003
I am trying to understand the operation of Saakshee-D, I find several
problems in this saakshee-D as explained by Jay.
--- Jay Nelamangala <jay at r-c-i.com> wrote:
> 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
> > valid and sAkshee-D is gettin misled?
Yes the question is good but the answer is unclear.
> 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
> 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
> itself is illumined by sAkshI. sAkshI's apprehension of untruth is
> by the absence of coherence.
When saakshee illumines the knowledge - is it saakshee's knowledge or
the knowledge of the mind. When does the saakshee knowledge comes into
picture when the knowledge through the senses and mind occurs. Who is
the owner of this knowledge at this stage?
> Manas is jada, inert. The knowledge it produces
> ( vritti-jnAna) is also jada.
> Neither is self-evident. Both are illumined by sAkshI-D.
Good - Without saakshee - no knowledge is illumined - prama or bhrama,
> 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.
Jay - what do you mean perception by Saaskhee. Just illumination or
saakshee perceies the knowledge, separate from the defective mind and
intellect - How does it perceive? Why did it not perceive correct
knowledge to begine with, independent of the defective mind and
indriya-s? Do you have two knowledge(s) one by indriya-s and mind and
one by saakshee-D? Where and how does the second knowledge takes place?.
Why unnecessorily I have to get into trouble and why not saakshee take
over all my affairs and make me gain true knowledge all the time?
> If we see a rope in broad day light, we would not confuse it for a
> or vice versa. But when the conditions are not right, such as
> glitter etc, under such peculiar circumstances the knowledge in
> may indecisively be determined as true.
Jay - pl. hold it right there. Who determines the indecisivity here. I
am perfectly clear that I see snake there. I have no indecision here.
Now if I have no furher questions about the snake - how does saakshee
has any doubt that what I am perceiving is not a snake but a rope? Does
saakshee take the info gained from my senses and mind is prama and not
bhrama, When I know that it is a snake and I am sweatting out of fear
of that snake and I won't sweat otherwise if it is not a snake.
If I have no further info on that object how is saakshee determines it
is prama or bhrama and on what basis? Does it have to realy on the same
defetive instuments of the mind and intellect? Or does it use its own
'swaindirya-s' as Krishna stated. If so, why it did not use them before
I got into this high blood pressure problems?
>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.
Jay When does saakshee starts working to determine the knowledge that
senses gained is right or wrong? How does it doubt that it is not right
knowledge and on what basis if there is no further information
Since indiriya-s and mind are limited, and absolutely not perfect. In
that case any knowledge that is gained through sense have some elements
of bhrama in them, is it not? To declare that it is not so, is also a
bhrama, as equipments are inherently limited.
> 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.
Wait jay, where is the indecisive determination here in this answer. I
am sure it is a indeed a snake since I have no doubt about it. When
there is no indecision, does saakshee-D take it as prama and not bhrama,
even though it may not be a snake? Who doubts here? On what basis it is
different or 'indifferent to its truth'?
>For the same
> there is the indecisive determination of truth by manas. That the
> determination is indecisive is brought to light when the truth of
> is doubted on the basis of other considerations, such as why is this
> (rope) not moving?.
Suppose I have no further observations to make and I ran away from that
snake due to fear, because I know it is a sanke based on my info from
indriya-s and mind, and I want spare my life. Then does saakshee-D take
the knowlege as prama since my actions are consistent with my knowledge?
When I have no doubts in mind even though in reality it is rope and not
a snake why and when does saakshee take over the affairs?
> So, you kick the rope and confirm it is rope
Be carefully Jay - it may be really a snake - I would not advise you to
do that even though your adhyaasa articles are based on incorrect
understanding of advaita concepts. My suggestion to you to run away as
fast as you can since I know it is a dangerous snake!
> Then the knowledge becomes "internally consistent" and sAkshI grasps
> that knowledge along with its truth. Afterwards, there is no doubt
> that rope being a snake.
Jay - here is the essential problem - Question of internal consistency
comes only when there is a doubt about the consistency. We have lot of
people here who do not know and do not know that they do not know - But
Saakshees-D in them know all that they know as true knowledge - is it
not? Then where is the question of inconsistency. Now who says their
knowlege is prama or bhrama?
> Thus, from beginningless time, sAkshii has apprehended the
> determinations of the manas. Therefore under particular circumstances
> sAkshii does not suddenly apprehend the truth of the knowledge
> by manas, unless it is helped by external means such as consistency.
Good - that implies one needs another criteria to know that there is
some inconsistency in the previous knowlege. Now let me ask you a simple
question - When mind is exposed to new knowledge that is inconsistent
with my mind's previous knowledge, any intelligent mind itself will try
to inquire what is the right knowledge - current or previous one and
upon further investigation establishes the new knowledge is right and
previous one is wrong- Saakshee-D may be illiniming both my previous and
new and also current quesioning mind as well as further resolutions of
the mind that the new one is right and old one is wrong- Saakshee can
remain indifferent but just illumining present and past process. Why
does he need to (poke its nose!) when the mind can eventually establish
the validity of the new knowledge? Why do I need saakshee-D for that?
> Consistency and successfulness (saphala-pravrtti) remove the
> that stand in the way of sAkshii's apprehending the truth. So, in
> the truth is apprehended by sAkshii.
No Jay, There is inconsistency in the logic as noted above. Mind can do
all that and saakshee can remain in the backgound unconcerned but
illuming the activities of the mind's operations. Jay, you have not
justified the need of saakshee-D to establishe the validity of
> This is how it works.
Soory Jay, my saakshee-D is seeing lot inconsistencies in its works.
> Sorry for the long email, as you can see, these are intricate matters
> the mind and conscience which need to be properly understood (even
> if it means lengthy emails).
True and hence even this longer mail, Jay.
> Harihi Om Tatsat,
> Jay Nelamangala
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