[Advaita-l] Much More on sAkshI-D
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 12 07:46:16 CDT 2003
The truth of knowledge does not originate from anything other
than the entities that are responsible for the rise of knowledge.
Under normal circumstances, the truth of knowledge does not
require to be determined. We do not doubt the truth of
knowledge when the knowledge happens to us.
Jay does it follow then if I do not have any doubt of the knowledge ,
what I received then it is true. Just take for example I have no doubt
about the Advaita knowledge then by your definition it is true ,
The first statement is not clear. Jay if I see a snake where there is a
rope, and I have no doubt about it then snake is Parma and not
Bhrama as per the above statement. The knowledge of the snake arose
from my sense/mind complex and therefore truth can only be established
by the entities (sense and mind complex) that are responsible for my
snake knowledge . They already did their job . By the first statement
the snake is true.
after the appearance of knowledge we have the activities that
naturally follow the fact of knowledge.
The activities 'without-doubt'
that follow the occurence of knowledge clearly indicate the
svatah-prAmANya or self-evident character of knowledge with
KS: Yes after seeing the snake I was afraid and ran away from the
seen. So it is an activity without-doubt that followed the occurrence
of the knowledge of the snake should therefore clearly indicate the
swataH-PraamaaNya or self-evident character of the snake knowledge
(even though it is not really a snake).
There is something snakey here!
But when the conditions are not normal, we get all this rope-snake
silver-shell confusions. So, 'sAkshI-D apprehends knowledge
with its truth' is only a general rule. Under particular circumstances
when the truth of knowledge is doubted, in those cases sAkshI-D
apprehends only the knowledge but not its truth. That is when
the conscious presence of consistency and successfulness are needed
for sAkshi-D to apprehend the truth of knowledge.
KS As I mentioned when I have no doubt that it is a snake, does
Saakshee appends snake knowledge or not and certifies it is true? -
If I have no inconsistency in my mind, then by your explanation
Saakshee is apprehending false knowledge as true is it not?
In my example I only considered the case when the rope (snake)
did not move after kicking. ( Some crawlies become
stiff on attack, that is their defence mechanism ). But when you
touch it, it does not feel like a rope at all. Now sAkshI-D is
provided with inconsistent knowledge generated by the manas,
so it only illumines that knowledge and does not grasp the truth
of that knowledge.
Even though the object ( rope or snake) did not move after
being kicked, if there is still an iota of doubt in the mind owing to
darkness etc, then sAkshI-D will not grasp the truth, it only
the unreliable determination of the manas.
KS: Jay why should I do all that when I have no doubt that it is a
snake , out of fear I am running as fast I can from the scene to save
my life. I have no iota doubt about the snake being there. Hence
Saakshee has to declare it is true knowledge even though it is not
>If you are scared of
of course, you run out of there which is the "saphala-pravrtti", on
other hand if you are a snake-charmer, then you look for tools and a
to catch that snake which is the "saphala-pravrtti" which results.
KS: Jay you skipped the juicy part I am scared of snakes and I am
not a snake charmer and I am not a rope-hunter. I just happen to pass
by and saw a snake where there is rope and ran. I have no doubt that it
is snake since all my instruments of knowledge that caused raise of
knowledge say it is a snake. Therefore since I am alive, my Saakshee
should validate my snake knowledge as Parma and not Bhrama.
It is this consistency and successfulness or activities 'without-doubt'
follow the occurance of knowledge, clearly indicate that knowledge is
KS: I am sorry Jay- I see logical fault. Since I have no doubt about
the logical faultiness of the arguments, should I say my Saakshee says
that it is indeed true!
There is another important fact, which has not been touched upon so far.
It is the following:
The knowledge of a particular thing is the same as the knowledge of
its difference from other things. So it must involve the knowledge of
How is this possible? The knowledge of a particular
thing is generated by a particular sense organ or some other pramaaNa.
The sense organ or a pramaaNa is in contact with a particular entity.
It is not in contact with other things. WIthout this knowledge the
knowledge of the particular is impossible. How do we have the general
idea of 'all' ?. An external sense organ does not cause this idea,
manas cannot give rise to this idea. But the idea is a fact. This
implies that it is the function of the remaining organ, sAkshii-D.
sAkshii-D knows in a very general manner all, and helps the
knowledge of a particular as particular. Ex : This is a jar.
The eye is in contact with the jar. At the sametime sAkshii-D grasps
all in a general manner and helps the eye in grasping the jar as a
particular. Then there is the knowledge of the jar as a particular as
"This is a jar".
So, all our knowledge is the result of the combined activity of
sAkshii-D and a particular pramaaNa in question. The pramaaNa gives
rise to the knowledge of the things to which it is related. The idea
of those things to which the pramaaNa is not related are caused by
sAkshI. So, the objects of experience are particulars, each of which
has its own unique feature. Experience as pramA is yathArtha.
KS: I am sorry my friend the whole analysis is riddled with incorrect
statements. If Saakshee D is going to tell us from particular to
general the whole concept is fundamentally flowed. I hope you are
presenting true dwaitic concept, because I have great regard for
Shreeman Madhvaachaarya, even if I do not agree with his
interpretations of abheda shruti-s.
JN: I will try to clarify.
> When Saakshee illumines the knowledge - is it Saakshee's knowledge or
> the knowledge of the mind. When does the Saakshee knowledge comes
> picture when the knowledge through the senses and mind occurs. Who is
> the owner of this knowledge at this stage?
Knowledge of what? if it is knowledge of external objects then it is
knowledge of mind only that sAkshii illumines.
KS How does Saakshee illumine the mind , which is different from
Saakshee . swaprakaasha means it is self-illumination that is it knows
itself- self-conscious entity - it does not mean that it illumines
others. How does it illumine jada vastu? Are you not making another
> 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
Two kinds of knowledge - vritti and svaroopa.
vritti - produced by manas and sense organs
svaroopa - produced by sAkshi.
vritti type of knowledge is apprehended by sAkshI and sAkshI is
KS swaruupa knowledge and self-conscious or self-luminous are all
self-consistent. I agree Saakshee does not need any instruments to
know itself. It is aprameyam.
But the problem is not there when you bring Saakshee apprehending
VRitti j~naanam you are bringing additional action for saakshee
besides the knowledge of itself. If there is some thing other than
itself , illumination requires more than swaruupa j~naanam . I can
know my self without knowing other things.
I gather form all the discussions there is not much you can tell me .
I take it granted that it is an assumption than a fact.
If the conditions are defective, mind produces doubtful knowledge of
external objects. sAkshI-D perceives that knowledge only but not its
truth. When the mind has no doubts, sAkshI-D perceives knowledge
along with its truth. Thus, sAkshI-D always perceives true knowledge.
KS Jay I have already questioned these conclusions above.
No. There is only one knowledge. Second question does not arise at
Feed it only with knowledge that is consistent with other pramANaas.
Don't feed it with knowledge that is inconsistent with experience and
that is internally inconsistent.
Then, why not?.
KS: I have given details for why not, taking example of my doubtless
perception of snake where is really a rope?
JN: Your sAkshI-D is not going to make you pick up the rope
KS: Jay my Saakshee forced me to run as fast as I can seeing the snake.
Since I am not dead and running , Saakshee is running with me asking me
to go faster.
But, if you
bothered to go with pramANas and not with abhimAna that "rope is
then you would have rejected that idea soon after it was taught to you.
Jay when I am running for life, you think I am bothered about
pramaaNa or abhimaaNa?
Jay thanks for all the info. I know you tried to communicate to me
as best as you can. I see fundamental flaws in the logic presented.
Now I will concentrate fully on the article I am writing to explain my
understanding of the perception in Advaita.
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