[Advaita-l] Acceptance of the validity of shruti is only *faith*
savithri_devaraj at yahoo.com
Fri May 25 22:00:27 CDT 2007
--- Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
> I submit that nothing of the nature of pure
> consciousness can be purely
> deduced or inferred. Most human beings will argue
> that consciousness is
> always a consciousness of something (some object)
> and that the
> subject-object duality is eternal. As such, without
> Sruti statements about
> pure consciousness (sad eva, neha nAnAsti kiMcana,
> etc), pure consciousness
> is only a hypothesis. That is why Sruti takes such
> an important role as
> pramANa in advaita vedAnta.
No argument that Sruti plays the most important role
in advaita vedanta.
The reason Sruti is important is because it removes
the adhyAsa/avidya to reveal the ever known brahman,
not because it presents a previously-unknown brahman.
I don't understand why Pure Consciousness can't be
deduced or inferred from the deep-sleep experience. I
agree its a hypothesis, until it is understood
intellectually and becomes paroksha jnAna.
> >taijasa,..). The avastha-traya prakriye demands
> >the space-time-witness be taken in total as a
> >state. By this, there is no relationship between
> >states, and they are not juxtaposed in any sequence
> >(there is no time "common" to the 3 states). Pure
> >Consciousness of sleep state diversifies itself as
> >subject-object of the dream and waking states. The
> That pure consciousness diversifies itself into
> subject and object (yushmad
> and asmad in the adhyAsa bhAshya) is also not a
> matter of common logical
> >didn't observe anything" experience of deep sleep
> >sArvatrika anubhava, remembered after the fact from
> In establishing advaita on a logical foundation, the
> statement, "in deep
> sleep, I did not observe anything" is used to prove
> a key point. And this is
> that consciousness persists in the deep sleep state.
> It thus proves that
> consciousness is not a result of interaction between
> subject and object.
> However, the same statement also shows the
> following. After entering the
> waking state, how is it possible for one to say "I
> didn't see anything in
> the deep sleep state"? The statement made in the
> waking state relies upon a
> memory of the deep sleep state. The jIva, in the
> deep sleep state, is not
> aware of itself nor objects (nidrA tattvam ajAnataH
> - G Karika). The pure
> consciousness that is svataH-siddha does not shine
> in the deep sleep state.
> This is a crucial reason why it is said that ajnAna
> persists in a seed form
> in deep sleep. This elaboration in post-Sankaran
> advaita comes directly from
> the verses bIjanidrAyutaH prAjnas sA ca turye na
> vidyate and prAjnaH
> kAraNabaddhas tu dvau tau turye na sidhyataH .
> gauDapAdAcArya cautions us
> not to confuse between the two, although the quality
> of not perceiving
> duality is common to deep sleep and the turya state
> (dvaitasya agrahaNaM
> tulyam ubhayoH).
Yes, sleep from the jIva perspective is
tAmasic/negative, meaning that its mano-laya not
mano-nAsha, but that's no reason to deny the blissful
experience of sushupti, which is none other than our
own swaroopa. TurIya is not a fourth state but the
substratum of the three - which would be available to
a man of knowledge at all times.
What about - "api ca na kadAcit jIvasya brahmaNA
svapnajAgaritayostUpAdhi saMparkavashAt pararUpApatti
mivApekshya tadupashamAtsushupte svarUpA
pattirvakshyate." Su Bh (3-2-7). This roughly states -
There is no time when the jIva is removed from
brahman, because his true nature can never really
desert him ever. But, giving concession to the fact
that due to his upAdhis in waking and dream states, he
has as though taken a different svarUpa there, we say
that he attains his true svarUpa in sushupti. That's
all. This is a good way to understand and reconcile
sruti vAkya "aham brahmAsmi". There is no point
arguing beyond this. I could go on quoting from
Satchidanandendra Saraswati Swamiji's Shankara
SiddhAnta pages 55 - 80, where he is specifically
talking this same issue.
In whose experience is the seed form of ignorance?
What is there to be ignorant of? I submit that this
seed ignorance can neither be deduced nor inferred.
How do you reconcile the above statement? You know
AdhyAsa bhAshya was specifically written by Sankara to
talk about avidya/adhyAsa, why there no mention of
this seed avidya there?
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list