[Advaita-l] Why Yoga is not a Pramana ??
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 1 07:08:07 CDT 2003
--- "Sundaram, Vaidya (MED)" <Vaidya.Sundaram at med.ge.com> wrote:
> > Aproskhaanubhuuti implies direct and immediate.
> Take the statement "this is that Devadatta" - As you mentioned, the
> person must already know of (or qualities of) Devadatta. The statement
> "this is that Devadatta" results in the extra correlation made that
> one who was previously qualified as such and such, for example, 6 ft
> tall, loud voice, well built etc etc., is this person he now beholds
> (with his eye or senses?) - this requires that the person already
> (atleast some) attributes of Devadatta to now make the correlation
> between the already known and now revealed Devadatta. And in this
> statement, the thing pointed to, namely Devadatta, is rather clear. Am
> right up to here?
Yes - but with not the qualities.
When teacher says he is that Devadaata, that Devadaata is the one with
completely different attributes - that quite little boy whom everybody
carried as very handsome boy - the body is different, his mind was
different and his intellect was different - but this ugly looking bald,
fat Devadaata that I am perceiving right now has completely different
body, mind and intellect - So all the upaadhies that differentiates
differ between this Devadaata and that Devadatta - and when the teacher
says he is that Devadatta - obviously the knowledge is instantaneous
and direct since in the equation I drop the qualities that are
contradictory and take only the essence (the individual - that which
cannot be divided) of that Devadatta and this Devadaata and equate the
two as one entity called Devadatta - what I have dropped are vidrodha
guNa-s of the two Devadattas and I should have complete faith in the
teacher who is giving me that knowledge. The recognition is immediate
and that is aparoksha j~naana. I dont have to do any karma or japa or
upaasana to recognize this Devadatta is the same as that Devadatta. What
was discarded in the equating the two are non-essential qualities of the
two. The same thing when one says - this ring is the same as the other
bangle, that is from the vision of goldsmith, who values only Gold and
not the name and form.
> Now, proceeding on, in the case of "tat tvam asi" pointing to the
> already known Brahman, the analogy is that it will immediately bring
> correlations into place. However, and here is my confusion/ignorance -
> the thing pointed to is nothing but one's own Self. Being self
> it should not have needed pointing to in the first place. The fact
> it needs pointing to means that the perception or vision or what ever
> wish to call it is turned or directed elsewhere, in an outward
> if you will, for want of a better description. So, the Vedas can keep
> saying "tat tvam asi, tat tvam asi" any number of times. As long as
> "perception" is not ready to see it, it does not matter. The
> is direct and immediate only **after** realization - until that, it is
> impossible to either confirm or deny.
Vaida, you are right to some extent, except the last sentence is
self-contradictory. The self-evident fact is not so self-evident as long
as one takes oneself to be other than oneself. But when teacher is
points out 'tat tvam asi' - it is to the student - who as scripture
points out - parriksha lokaana karma chitaan brahmano' - he has that
those four fold qualifications. Otherwise the 'twam' is not so
self-evident as he is takes the upaadhiis as twam. For that only yoga
is required. Everybody has some concept of 'tat' - all powerful and
almighty Lord as the creator etc.
So it is direct and immediate not after but as one sees just as one sees
fruit in ones hand - 'karatalaamalakam'. As soon as one opens the eye,
as long as mind behind the eye, one cannot but see immediately the
> It is somewhat like the 3D Stereograms. It's just a mass of gibberish
> on the screen until the brain figures out the hidden image. (for
> example, visit the following site for a good set of examples -
> http://www.softsource.com/softsource/stereo.html) - the description
> say, the gibberish is really a helicopter, has so many rotors, tilted
> such an angle etc. But, as long as the image is not seen, it is never
> understood. So, saying this is that helicopter after one sees it is
> meaningless because all descriptions become self evident. Just
> presenting the "gibberish" image and saying just look will suffice.
> seen, no pointing to is needed. After the hidden image is seem, there
> no mistaking it. It was always there. The instruction book which said
> hold your eyes 5 to 6 inches away, and unfocus your eyes etc etc. are
> just aids. Not the means.
Vaidya - here it is not the image problem - the self-evident, eternal
ever existent entity is there without any problems. The only problem is
the vision of the seer where adjustments - which is essentially
preparation of the mind - chittasuddhi - are required. Seeing and
recognition is immediate 'aparoksha' as soon as the instruments of
seeing is cleaned.
> So also (as I understand) with realization of the self. The
> is not ready to understand and see beyond the gibberish of samsaara.
> role of the Vedas (in my understanding, and I am NOT trivializing it),
> is to tell us, look beyond the gibberish. And if one does not still
> then we have to read the instructions of the Vedas, in the form of
> to be performed, and then perception becomes automatic. Such a
> perception is automatic once the pre-requisites are met. It is
> and direct only after the individual is ready. Not prior.
Vaidya - there is no gibberish out there- Brahman cannot have any
gibberish. Where there is gibberish is only in the lens or budhhi that
is seeing- if that lens is cleaned the vision is immediate. Hence what
Veda-s pointing out in terms of mananam, nidhidhyaasanam is only
purification process - mananam or refection makes the mind doubt free.
and nidhidhyaasanam makes the mind purified. That what was heard
'shravaNam' operates directly.
I gave an example in my B.S. notes - shravanam is like putting the new
bulb when the old bulb burned out. We may see the dazzling light if the
current is already on. But if the swtich is of, the shravanam becomes
effective when as soon as you turned the switch on - if it is dimmer
switch you have to slowly rotate the knob until you see the light. But
light came on only because the old bulb is replaced by new one. Shankara
clarifies in this in his 'aparokshaaNubuuti' text.
> Am I right here?
> > What you implied is if the student does not have the prerequisite
> > qualifications - then he needs to purify the mind
> Sada-ji. I think all our discussions are necessarily in the realm of
> the individual who does NOT have the pre-requisite qualifications. If
> the qualifications are there, the knowledge of the Self, being evident
> on its own, is full and complete. One need not even discuss this as a
> separate case in my opinion.
> Kindly correct any mistakes.
You are right but self-evident is not so self-evident since teaching is
required and pramaNa has to operate. The point is it is not that one has
to do karma and dhyaana for the operation of the teaching- that is
required before the teaching as the first suutra emphasizes as four-fold
qualification - after that only brahma gij~naasa. But if the student is
not prepared, the teaching will operate immediately when the mind is
ready, just the replaced bulb operates as soon as switch is turned on.
So it is not that one has to some karma or upaasana after the teaching.
What one has to do to purify the mind for the teaching to work.
If this is understood, then 'aparoksha j~naana' becomes clear.
> bhava shankara desikame sharaNam
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
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!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list