If avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha then what is antaHkaraNa ??

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

avidyA is nonperception, misconception and doubting and it is said by bhAshyakAra that it is antaHkaraNa dOsha (vide taittereeya bh. And adhyAsa bhAshya) and it is not concerned to the self / kshetrajna / jeeva / brahman.  So, if this is neither jeeva nor brahman mere adjuct / upAdhi dOsha then what is this upAdhi??  Is this upAdhi (antaHkaraNa) nAma rUpa (deha buddhi ahamkara) are not the product of brahmAshrita avidyA ??  So the antaHkaraNa in which avidyA is there should be the very product of prakruti according to shAstra.  The prakruti that is avyakta is modified as mahat, ahamkara, paNchatanmAtra and then through pancheekaraNa this antaHkaraNa or mind is created (vide katha bhAshya).  For the mUlAvidyAvAdins mAyA/prakruti = mulAvidya so they simply put the prakruti in avidyA basket and close this issue by saying antaHkaraNa too avidyA 😊 And they will comfortably say the material cause of the antaHkaraNa or the mind which is called as prakruti and which is the shakti of the Ishwara is the causal ignorance or mUlAvidyA and subsequent mUlAvidyA Ashrita three aspects of avidyA i.e. jnAnAbhAva, mithyAgrahaNa and saMshaya are the products or effective ignorance.  This theory is OK for them and for them it is a settled issue and whenever questions arise like this they put everything in the compartment of mUlAvidyA and in the light of mUlAvidyA these issues will be addressed. 

 

But it may be noted for some, the avidyA and mAya are not synonyms both are entiresly different and one cannot be another.  As per this antaHkaraNa is upAdhi and this upAdhi is given by Ishwara as per the karma of that jeeva.  And for this upAdhi / jagat / prakruti Ishwara is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa.  And this antaHkaraNa is the karaNa ( a tool / instrument) that will be used to realize our svarUpa.  If this karaNa itself is avidyA then we are trying to get rid of avidyA through avidyA what an anishta prasaNga here!!  See what shAstra and bhAshyakAra say on this :  masaivedamAptavyaM neha nAnAsti kiMchana (katha shruti), prAgekatva vijnAnAt AchAryaagama saMskrutena manasaiva clarifies bhAshyakAra.  shAstrAchAryOpadesha shama damAdi saMskrutaM manaH Atmadarshane karaNaM ( geeta bhAshya).  If this karaNa (instrument) itself is labelled as mUlAvidyA then there is no way we can say this karaNa is to be purified and it should get the eligibility to do brahma jignAsa etc.  We have no other instrument of knowledge to say antaHkaraNa is avidyA and I know this avidyA through this instrument which is other than mind / antaHkaraNa. 

 

So now the question is what exactly is this antaHkaraNa is it brahman or is it product of avidyA??  As said above antaHkaraNa is the product of prakruti (paNchabhUtAtmaka stUlAdi shareera) for which substratum is brahman itself hence it is said sarvataH pAnipAdaM etc. the antaHkaraNa what we are are having as individual set is part and parcel of that samashti it is the same gold that is bangle, ring, necklace etc.  Therefore nAma rUpa is the indicator of that adhishtAna.  Had the Brahman not created the world at all had the brahman not given us the antaHkaraNa at all, we would never have known its inherent svarUpa as prajnAnaghana clarified bhAshyakAra in br.up. bhAshya.  Yadi hi nAma rUpa na vyAkreeyate tadA asyAtmanO nirupAdhikaM rUpaM prajnAnaghanAkyaM  na pratikhyAyet.  To drive home this point only shruti gives the example of gold-ornaments, clay-pot etc.  The one and only one stuff appears as many through many different upAdhi-s / adjuncts.  It is only through the nAma rUpa of necklace, bangle, ring etc. that the one and only one gold

appears as many ornaments. Similarly the one and only one Brahman  (ekam eva adviteeyaM) without a second appears as countless number of objects through the countless adjuncts of special forms. This is because, as we have already seen, the nAma rUpa (ornaments) are only zero in relation to the one Brahman (gold).

 

So be cautious before jumping to the conclusion that avidyA is the cause of Ishwara srushti.  The srushti to be addressed always in terms of Ishwara only (ishwara hetuka srushti) and that is ‘vedanta maryAda’.  Sri SSS somewhere explains this from the absolute point of view which is devoid of any vishesha, we pass through avasthAtraya in that we appear to age, die and are re-born and that there is srushti-sthiti and laya of the world is just an inborn delusion of human mind, which can be overcome by the dawn of vedAnta jnAna.  From the standpoint of intellect it is very difficult to solve the problem due to our identification with dehAtma buddhi but from the pAramArthika drushti there is nothing that is happening and shruti adopts the method of adhyArOpa apavAda to teach the Atmaikatva jnAna. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Just to elaborate this gold example in the light of brahman as jagat.  Here gold is always gold only though we are having gold bangle, ring, bracelet etc. This becomes further clear with one of the above examples.  Let us take the gold ring: The shape of the ring has appeared in the gold or IOW gold is identified in ring shape. In this socalled transformation of gold, the gold continues to be gold whether this shape of ring exists or does not exist. This means that the shape (nAma rUpa) of the ring does not affect the gold in any way.  Since the gold remains unchanged whether the shape of the ring is given to it or removed, if the ever existing gold is one, the appearing and disappearing shape of the ring is indeed having the substratum of gold only and nothing but gold. This means that the gold has become the ring but also more than it (see purusha sUkta sahasraaksha sahasrapaat sabhUmim vishwatOvrutva atyatishTa dashaangulaM).  Here the name and form of ring in itself is only a word, a shape and just a name. (vAchAraMbhaNam) That is, the gold is present in the ring and is also different from it ( I am in all but all is not in me says Lord in geeta matsthAni sarbhUtAni …na cha matsthAni bhUtAni pashyame yOgamaishwaryaM) IOW the gold has become the ring and also transcends the ring!!. It would not be correct however to argue in the manner that : A part of gold has become the ring ( say 1/10gram of gold become ring) and the remaining part is as it is. If the ring were really a part of the gold, it should increase the gold by having the shape or decrease after this shape is gone!! We know that such a thing does not happen. On the basis of this example it can be said that vAchAraMbhaNam which is vyAkruta (manifested jagat / prakruti / paNchabhUtAtmaka antaHkaraNa) is: brahman has become the Jagat (in the srushti scenario) but at the same time he also transcends it. So even though in the srushti prakriya brahman said to be the sole cause and effect of jagat in his svarUpa he is always nirvishesha / nirvikAra.  If the srushti / antaHkaraNa tagged with avidyA then we have to say brahman has transformed into avidyA and appearing as avidyA which is absolutely illogical in the light of shruti, yukti and anubhava.  In kArika somewhere it has been said that after the dawn of jnAna antaHkaraNa too become Atman like iron ball looks like fire ball in fire…If the avidyA is too like an objective thing like iron ball then it would still exists and this avidyA ball still exists in its either vyAkruta or avyAkruta rUpa.  Jagat/mAya/ prakruti is pariNAmi nitya for which Ishwara is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa, it comes out, goes back and sustains in brahman and hence eternal but avidyA is tuccha, nikrushta which is to be effaced completely to know the true svarUpa of jagat / prakruti.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 5:21 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

 Ishwara is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa, it comes out, goes back and sustains in brahman and hence eternal but avidyA is tuccha, nikrushta which is to be effaced completely to know the true svarUpa of jagat / prakruti.

If something has to be effaced, completely, it has to be 'something'.  One cannot efface 'nothing'.  That is why Shankara said in the Gita Bhashya that Avidya is a 'knowable', viShaya, for the ViShayi, the Atman.   And the Shruti: tamasaH draShTA/SAkShi. 

regards

subbu

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625724693E350E35398BD9F84AC2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

Do you have the actual Sanskrit and a literal translation of the words for the sentence where “Shankara said in the Gita Bhashya that Avidya is a 'knowable'”?

 

Also, do we not know a ring, and differentiate it from a bangle?

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3ZT4kQB2eE3ujNUPeH%3D6oHzvB%3D5heC5e_wbp0vKgR4pQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

As per mUlAvidyAvAdins ‘avidyA’ is sAkshi vedya, the reason for this conclusion is somewhere bhAshyakAra lined up avidyA with perceivable nAma and rUpa 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 1:01 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [advaitin] RE: If avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha then what is antaHkaraNa ?? some addition

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000601dad9ad%249e783aa0%24db68afe0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Further, we know that we have avidyA and so we are knowing it as Vishaya.  If avidyA is not accepted as existing, there is waste of shAstra, its upadesha the resultant jnAna and there is no meaning in the statement like : there is annihilation of complete ajnAna through jnAna if ajnAna / avidyA itself is not there.  So to get rid of these problems we have to accept the existence of avidyA and that avidyA has to be belonging to brahman only as there is no second Chaitanya apart from brahman….so goes the argument of some.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66252C4153B18084EB89980184AD2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Dennis ji,

In the Bhagavadgita 13.2 Bhashya, Shankara, in a dialogue, establishes that the ignorance, avidya, is something witnessed by the Atman:

यस्य अविद्या, सः तां परिहरिष्यति । ननु ममैव अविद्या । जानासि तर्हि अविद्यां तद्वन्तं च आत्मानम् । 

Opponent: Indeed, ignorance belongs to myself. Reply: In that case, you know ignorance as also yourself who possesses it?

यदि पुनः अविद्या ज्ञेया, अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव । तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव, न ज्ञेयं भवति । यदा च एवम् , अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति ॥

In this dialogue Shankara establishes that the Avidya/Tamas/ignorance is a Bhaavarupa entity.  The inviolable rule is: That which is an object is an existent entity.  A non-existent entity cannot be perceived/objectified.  

Translation of the above words of Shankaracharya by Swami Gambhirananda:

//Again, whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is verily a knowable; similarly, even a knower is surely a knower; he does not become a knowable. And when this is so, [Since the knower cannot be known, therefore his relation with ignorance also cannot be known by himself or by anybody else] nothing of the cognizer-the knower of the field-is tainted by such defects as ignorance, sorrowfulness, etc. //

Thus, on the basis of the Upanishad, the Gita Bhashya and logic, avidya is a bhaava rupa entity.

Those who object to this have mistaken the meaning of 'Bhaava rupa' in the Shaastra.  They think Bhaava rupa means Brahman-Existence.  That such is not the sense in which Shankara uses the term 'vishaya/object' is well known for those who have studied the shaastra.  The superimposed snake is bhaava rupa, being experienced.  Nevertheless it is not absolutely real like the rope.  

Regards 

subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000601dad9ad%249e783aa0%24db68afe0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

Thank you! My apologies but, when it comes to finer points of understanding such as this, I cannot trust even Swami Gambhirananda. The problem is that, with ‘difficult’ sentences, there is a tendency to ‘translate’ in such a way that it tallies with the translator’s prior (mis) understanding.  And I have caught Swami G out in this before. In the absence of a scholar’s literal translation, here is how Google translates that:

 

yadi punaḥ avidyā jñeyā, anyadvā jñeyaṃ jñeyameva | tathā jñātāpi jñātaiva, na jñeyaṃ bhavati | yadā ca evam , avidyāduḥkhitvādyaiḥ na jñātuḥ kṣetrajñasya kiñcit duṣyati ||

 

If, again, ignorance is to be known, or else what is to be known is to be known. Similarly, even what is known is known, and it is not knowable. And when this is so, the knower of the field is not harmed by ignorance, suffering and so on.

 

Pretty meaningless. Although I wouldn’t have expected Google to give a ‘good’ translation, clearly it requires some ‘interpretation’! As it stands, I am not convinced that Ṥaṅkara believed that ignorance is an existent entity.

 

It struck me that ‘hunger’ is a similar situation. I say that ‘I am hungry’ and can certainly claim colloquially that I ‘have hunger’, But a pathologist conducting an autopsy would certainly not locate an organ for which he could say ‘here is the hunger’. But he might note that there was not much in the stomach. Similar to ‘lack of knowledge’?

 

We don’t even know where the mind is ‘located’, let alone an ‘ignorance’ residing in it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te26SLeJHrvCfPYvsPPYUd%3DxYF-2tuBA0ABBjoiD9%3DrS-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Dennis ji,

I agree with you that the Google translation is awful.  However, this is how Claude, another AI facility did the translation:(I am copying the entire reply it gave me: 

Here's the English translation of the Sanskrit text you provided:

"If ignorance (avidya) is to be known again, or if anything else is to be known, it remains an object of knowledge. Similarly, the knower also remains the knower, and does not become the object of knowledge. When this is so, nothing of the knower, the field-knower (kshetrajna), is tainted by ignorance, suffering, or other such qualities."

This passage appears to be discussing the nature of knowledge, ignorance, and the relationship between the knower and the known in philosophical or spiritual context. It emphasizes the distinction between the subject (knower) and object (known) of knowledge, and suggests that the true self or consciousness (kshetrajna) remains untainted by ignorance or suffering.

Would you like me to explain any part of this translation or provide more context about the concepts mentioned?

Now, coming back to your observation about hunger, we have the Bh.Gita itself, in the 13th chapter, very clearly telling us that all the following belong to the 'observed':

महाभूतान्यहङ्कारो बुद्धिरव्यक्तमेव च ।इन्द्रियाणि दशैकं च पञ्च चेन्द्रियगोचराः ॥ ५ ॥

इच्छा द्वेषः सुखं दुःखं सङ्घातश्चेतना धृतिः ।एतत्क्षेत्रं समासेन सविकारमुदाहृतम् ॥ ६ ॥

Edit

Claude translated thus:

  Certainly. Here's the English translation of these two verses:

Verse 5:
"The great elements, ego, intellect, and the unmanifest;
The ten senses and the one (mind), and the five objects of the senses;"

Verse 6:
"Desire, aversion, pleasure, pain, the aggregate (body), consciousness, fortitude;
This, in brief, has been described as the field (kshetra) with its modifications."

These verses appear to be from the Bhagavad Gita, specifically from Chapter 13, verses 5 and 6. They are listing the components of what is called the "field" (kshetra) in Vedantic philosophy, which generally refers to the body-mind complex and all that is perceived or experienced.

Would you like me to elaborate on any of the concepts mentioned in these verses?

Continuing, it can be quickly seen that most of the things listed as 'perceived' like desire, aversion, pain, etc.  cannot be found by the pathologist.  Avidya is one such.  In fact the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad gives a list of those constituting the mind:

कामः सङ्कल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धाश्रद्धा धृतिरधृतिर्ह्रीर्धीर्भीरित्येतत्सर्वं मन एव  

Claude gives:

Here's the English translation of the Sanskrit passage you provided:

"Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, lack of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intellect, fear - all this is indeed mind."

This passage appears to be listing various mental states and qualities, asserting that they are all manifestations or aspects of the mind. It's a concise yet comprehensive description of different mental phenomena, emphasizing the versatility and complexity of the mind.

This verse is from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.5.3), one of the principal Upanishads of Hinduism. It's part of a larger discussion on the nature of the self and consciousness.

Would you like me to elaborate on any of the concepts mentioned or provide more context about this passage?

Thus, the 'perceived/object' need not always be physically perceptible to the senses.  Vedanta holds the mind also to be physical nevertheless, being a product of the subtle five elements. 

warm regards

subbu 

  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001e01dada98%24d09cebc0%2471d6c340%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

These AI-bots are certainly getting frighteningly good! Although it is still only gathering together all of the translations that are available on the Internet and summarizing / précising them, isn’t it? I assume that it hasn’t actually learned the Sanskrit language and usage and provided an original translation.

 

However, part of it is translated as “Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, lack of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intellect, fear - all this is indeed mind." And do these not then have the same ‘status’ as ignorance? Yet we do not come across Ṥaṅkara (or even any of the post-Ṥaṅkara teachers with nothing better to do than try to ‘improve’ upon Ṥaṅkara) trying to make out that any of these ‘things’ are positively existing.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2JmgMK3MDyss7EMypjCxnOKnMiQ%3DnfAOf%2B_ckJQGz%3DkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 7:47 PM <dwa...@advaita.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

These AI-bots are certainly getting frighteningly good! Although it is still only gathering together all of the translations that are available on the Internet and summarizing / précising them, isn’t it? I assume that it hasn’t actually learned the Sanskrit language and usage and provided an original translation.

 

However, part of it is translated as “Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, lack of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intellect, fear - all this is indeed mind." And do these not then have the same ‘status’ as ignorance?

 

Yet we do not come across Ṥaṅkara (or even any of the post-Ṥaṅkara teachers with nothing better to do than try to ‘improve’ upon Ṥaṅkara) trying to make out that any of these ‘things’ are positively existing.

Dear Dennis ji,

One need not say explicitly that desire, etc. are existing/positive entities; it goes without saying that anything that is an object (of perception/illumination/knowable by the Witness Consciousness) is a positive/existent entity.   

regards

subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/003601dadaaf%248a190b40%249e4b21c0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

It certainly does not go without saying from my point of view. I might be afraid of snakes but I would never say that there is a positively existent thing called ‘fear’ that is the cause of this. And I am not aware of anywhere that Ṥaṅkara says that this is the case. Fear is simply the name I give to the state of mind that exists in the situation of being confronted by a snake in an unprotected environment. It is not ‘an object of perception’.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te01Y47%2Btso9xfVeyLFka8kcZNVJYmMXYKT-Y50Rd%3Dwoig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

The entire Vedanta is conceptualized using notions, assumptions using logical reasoning! Avidhya, antahkaraNa, mAyA,  etc., are just notions  to help us to understand Sankara Vedanta with logical reasoning. Realization of Self can occur if an only if all these notions get dissolved! All discussions comparing their roles and their validity, etc., fall into Vyavaharika state. Questions such as whether Brahman possesses Avidhya only remain at the Vyavaharika level discussions! All our story creations and even if those stories become acceptable do not imply that our story is the Truth. When we know the Truth, there will be no more stories to tell and that is Self-realization!!  

Ram Chandran

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

Antahkarana contains multiple meanings and in Vedanta it represents the totality of mind that includes four functions:
Manas: The mind (a generic notion)
Buddhi: The discriminating intellect
Chitta: Accumulated memory or subconscious mind
Ahamkara: Ego or I attitude

According to Alice Bailey's esoteric philosophy, Antahkarana is a bridge that connects the individual personality to the Atman(soul). Only highly evolved spiritual persons will have this bridge connected to get the divine spark within!  Antahkarana is used as a Tibetan meditation symbol that establish the connection between Jiva and Atman!

Swami Dhayananda Swamiji used to explain Vedanta through antahkarana. He uses the conceptual framework of Self Reflective Consciousness which is the distinctive type of awareness. According to this framework, the antahkarana serves as the mind's inner mirror that reflects to us what we do or think or act. These are reflections coming from the Brahman or Atman and if the mirror is pure, then we get True reflections. Unfortunately the inner mirror is polluted and needs purification if we want to get True reflections for directions. Swami dhyanandaji suggests that we should engage in the mind purification process as suggested in the scriptures! Implicitly Bhagagavad Gita also provides the mind purification process or Yoga Sadhana (Karma, Bhakti and Jnana Yoga). Avidhya, mAyA, Ahamkara came because of the impurities present in the inner mirror or what we call as antahkarana!!

Ram Chandran 

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Dennis ji,

<<

I might be afraid of snakes but I would never say that there is a positively existent thing called ‘fear’ that is the cause of this. And I am not aware of anywhere that Ṥaṅkara says that this is the case. Fear is simply the name I give to the state of mind that exists in the situation of being confronted by a snake in an unprotected environment. It is not ‘an object of perception’.

>>

The below opinion excludes the discussion regarding 'fear' as a cause.

Indeed, fear is only a name given to a particular state of mind. However, the mind is accepted to be a positive existent entity; consequently the various states of the mind, with various names, are also positive existent states and are all objects of my awareness. I am aware of my fear. It is definitely not a gross physical entity, but can its existence as a subtle positive existent entity with a particular name, form and function be denied? 

This is just as - what is called a pot is only a name given to a particular state / form / function of clay. The positive existence of clay imparts the positive existence to the pot as well which is non-different from clay. The pot is thus said to be an object of perception / cognition / awareness.

Bhagavan Sankaracharya has categorically denied the non-existence of objects of perception in the Sutra-Bhashya-2.2.28.

Sharing my current understanding.

prostrations,

Vikram

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/004101dadabc%24a2963230%24e7c29690%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

You stated that "I might be afraid of snakes but I would never say that there is a positively existent thing called ‘fear’ that is the cause of this. And I am not aware of anywhere that Ṥaṅkara says that this is the case. Fear is simply the name I give to the state of mind that exists in the situation of being confronted by a snake in an unprotected environment. It is not ‘an object of perception’."

Fear may not necessarily an object of perception but the object, Snake is necessarily the cause for the fear perceived in our mind. We do perceive fear while seeing any object that we know has potential to do harm. Yes, all fears are not equal, some objects have higher potentials such as seeing a Cobra instead of a water snake!

In Sankara Bhashya on Bhagavad Gita, for verse 16.1 discusses divine characteristics (virtues) and one of them is Abhayam (fearlessness). The implicit message of Sankara is to point out that for God realization, fearlessness is essential. Is not the same as saying that seeker needs to get rid of 'fear.'

Verse 31, Vairagya Shatak by Sage Bhartrihari states:
In enjoyment, there is the fear of disease;
In social position, the fear of fall;
In wealth, the fear of hostile kings;
In honour, the fear of humiliation;
In strength, the fear of enemies;
In beauty, the fear of old age;
In scriptural erudition, the fear of opponents;
In virtue, the fear of seducers;
In the body, the fear of death.
All the things of the world pertaining to men are attended with fear.
Renunciation alone is fearless.
Source: https://pkrishnan.net/in-enjoyment-is-the-fear-of-disease-in/

This often quoted verse from Bible may be of interest to you. (Isaiah 41;10) It states "So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."  Fear in the Bible is not about being scared but showing proper respect and reverence.

Ram Chandran

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Ram-ji,

 

I think we all acknowledge this. As SSS emphasized, the entire teaching of Advaita is an adhyAropa-apavAda process. The point is that some of the adhyAropa teachings are not necessarily helpful (usually because they contradict reason) and questions have to be asked as to whether Ṥaṅkara really intended the interpretations that are made by others. Ultimately, they have to be judged by their usefulness. As you say, they are all dropped in the end.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/691d91c2-0b81-4aac-a8a2-c36b044cda9an%40googlegroups.com.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Vikram-ji,

 

I have no problem with BSB 2.2.28 explaining about ‘objects of perception’ but fear is not an ‘object of perception’. Neither, I would say, is a ‘state of mind’ an object. If you argue thus, you would have to say that ‘up’ and ‘down’, in reference to the state of a lift or a light switch are also ‘objects of perception’.

 

You cannot compare this to clay-pot. Pot is a visible, tangible ‘form’ of the clay. ‘State’ is not a synonym for ‘form’. It is a temporal condition, rather than a spatial one. In the case of the light-switch, the form of the object-switch is in an up-state at one time and a ‘down-state’ at another time. It is the form-switch that is the object, not the up-down state.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAM7AOLdMfnNRFeHXcLHbJ1%3DLNZ5V9EOT3BB684Hxr%2BhHN6GZBA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Dennis ji,

That way the three states of waking etc and all they contain are admitted in Vedanta as 'object' and hence alone not the Atman, and unreal. So too with the sis states of transformations the body undergoes. Hence fear, ignorance, knowledge, etc too are various states of the mind and are 'ponderables.' Shankara's central teaching is that all that is thus a ponderable is not the Atman and hence mithya. This is the message of the very opening sentence of the BSB.

Regards
subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000401dadae2%249e8b6310%24dba22930%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Dennis ji,

Re:

Fear is simply the name I give to the state of mind that exists in the situation of being confronted by a snake in an unprotected environment. It is not ‘an object of perception’.

I am not sure in what sense you meant the above - I am only responding to the literal meaning of your words.

As you know, in Advaita, perception is not merely sensory perception. There is a category of perception by the sAkshi, called sAkshi pratyaksha, too.

Everything which is presented to the sAkshi directly is perceived by it. Even sensory perception of an object becomes perception, when through the medium of sensory thought, the consciousness delimited by the object becomes one with the sAkshi. Thus the object too comes into "direct" contact with the sAkshi, making it an object of perception.

This is not the case with the inference, like in the case of the fire in the mountain - the sAkshi makes contact with the smoke, but not the fire - thus while one perceives the smoke, one only infers the fire

Fear is a thought present in the mind - as evidenced in the brihadaranyaka shruti in question - कामः सङ्कल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धाश्रद्धा धृतिरधृतिर्ह्रीर्धीर्भीरित्येतत्सर्वं मन एव - the bhIh in this Shruti refers to fear and is said to be part of the mind.

That fear thought is indeed perceived by the sAkshi because being part of the mind, it is presented directly to the sAkshi.

A thought is a thing. It may not be external, but is certainly a thing. The gItA includes all thoughts within the realm of the kshetra, the field, precisely because it is an object of the kshetrajna, the knower of the field, the sAkshi. 

That knowledge can be paroksha, indirect, or pratyaksha, perception / direct - in either case, it becomes a viShaya, an object, to the viShayi, subject.

In the case of fear, it is an object perceived by the sAkshi because it is directly presented to it.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[V Subrahmanian]

This has been very explicitly stated by Shankaracharya while commenting on the BG 13.6:

Here is just the verse-translation and the details that Claude provided:

"Desire, aversion, pleasure, pain, the aggregate (body), consciousness, fortitude;
This, in brief, has been described as the field (kshetra) with its modifications."

This verse is from the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 13, Verse 6. It's describing the components of what is called the "field" (kshetra) in Vedantic philosophy. The "field" generally refers to the body-mind complex and all that is perceived or experienced.

Here's a brief explanation of the terms:

1. Iccha (इच्छा) - Desire
2. Dvesha (द्वेषः) - Aversion or hatred
3. Sukham (सुखं) - Pleasure or happiness
4. Duhkham (दुःखं) - Pain or sorrow
5. Sanghata (सङ्घातः) - The aggregate or combination, referring to the physical body
6. Chetana (चेतना) - Consciousness
7. Dhritih (धृतिः) - Fortitude or firmness

The verse states that these elements, along with their modifications or changes, constitute what is known as the "field" in this philosophy.

Now, Shankara's commentary is translated by Claude:  What is to be especially noted is that Shankara says, to each of these, that they are called the 'kshetram/field' because they are objects of knowledge.  Shankara repeats it several times in this very commentary: 

Here's the English translation of the commentary you provided:

"Desire (iccha) is when one, having previously experienced an object as a source of pleasure, upon encountering a similar object again, wishes to obtain it as a source of happiness. This desire, being a property of the inner organ (antahkarana) and an object of knowledge, is considered as the field (kshetra).

Similarly, aversion (dvesha) is when one, having experienced an object as a source of pain, upon encountering a similar object again, dislikes it. This aversion, being an object of knowledge, is also the field.

Likewise, pleasure (sukha) is that which is favorable, characterized by a clear, calm state of being (sattva). Being an object of knowledge, it too is the field.

Pain (duhkha) is that which is unfavorable. Being an object of knowledge, it is also the field.

The aggregate (sanghata) is the combination of the body and senses. Consciousness (chetana) is the manifestation of the inner organ's function within this aggregate, like fire in a heated iron ball, imbued with the essence of the reflection of the self's consciousness. This too, being an object of knowledge, is the field.

Fortitude (dhriti) is that by which the body and senses are sustained when they are about to collapse. This too, being an object of knowledge, is the field.

The mention of desire and the other qualities is intended to indicate all the properties of the inner organ."

This commentary provides a detailed explanation of each term mentioned in the original verse, emphasizing how each of these elements, being objects of knowledge and properties of the inner organ or mind, constitute the "field" (kshetra) in Vedantic philosophy.

Thereby Shankara emphasizes that all that is not-Self is known/knowable, object of knowledge, illumined by the Self.  

regards

subbu

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnCXatMycCyvt0%3D4QS3VYjh5XcGm0nobxhCMYTO5qHC%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Subbu-ji and Venkatraghavan-ji,

 

I am afraid I am not convinced. The opening sentence of BSB does not, as far as I can see, say anything about emotional STATES of mind, and particularly about these being ‘objects’ in the sense that reason dictates that should be understood.

 

Bṛhadāraṇyaka 1.5.3 translates as: “Desire, intention, doubt, faith, lack of faith, determination, lack of determination, modesty, understanding, and fear—all these are aspects of the mind.” (Copilot) I.e. ‘aspect’ equates to ‘state’ and is not an object in itself, in the generally accepted sense of the word.

 

In the past 25 years of studying and writing about Advaita full time, I have never encountered the term ‘sākṣi pratyakṣa’. I suspect it is an invention of Madhusūdana and I’m afraid I know little about the writings of the post-Ṥaṅkara academics who thought they knew better than Ṥaṅkara or could explain what he ‘really’ meant. To say that there is a sub-category of pratyakṣa implies that there are other categories of pratyakṣa that take place in the absence of Consciousness! What are they?

 

I agree that a thought is a ‘subtle object’. What I am contesting is that fear is a ‘thought’ in its own right. As with many of the more esoteric ‘arguments’ in Advaita, I think the problem is one of language. ‘Fear’ is the word we use to refer to subtle changes in the body’s response to external or internal triggers. E.g. in the case of the snake, there might be physical shivering or lots of other subtle mental responses such as a thought ‘I should run away’. It is these that we ‘perceive’, not a single object (subtle or gross) called ‘fear’.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Venkatraghavan S
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2024 3:25 AM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] RE: If avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha then what is antaHkaraNa ?? some addition

 

Namaste Dennis ji,

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnCXatMycCyvt0%3D4QS3VYjh5XcGm0nobxhCMYTO5qHC%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Dennis ji,

1) Nature of fear

In the adhyAsa bhAShya, Shankaracharya refers to the attributes of the body, the sense organs and the mind, being superimposed onto the self.

 तद्यथा — पुत्रभार्यादिषु विकलेषु सकलेषु वा अहमेव विकलः सकलो वेति बाह्यधर्मानात्मन्यध्यस्यति । तथा देहधर्मान् ‘स्थूलोऽहं कृशोऽहं गौरोऽहं तिष्ठामि गच्छामि लङ्घयामि च’ इति । तथेन्द्रियधर्मान् ‘मूकः काणः क्लीबो बधिरोऽन्धोऽहम्’ इति; तथान्तःकरणधर्मान् कामसङ्कल्पविचिकित्साध्यवसायादीन् ।

When referring to the attributes of the mind (antah-karaNa-dharmAh) in the adhyAsa bhAShya, he uses the phrase antah-karaNa-dharmAn kAma-sankalpa-vicikitsA-adhyavasAyAdin, which mirrors the wording of the brihadaranyaka upaniShad mantra in question, 1.5.3, which lists fear etc as one of the modifications of the mind.

In the bhAShya of this brihadaranyaka  mantra, he says ...भीः भयम् इत्येतदेवमादिकं सर्वं मन एव ; मनसोऽन्तःकरणस्य रूपाण्येतानि - ... All these, such as bhIh, fear, etc are the mind indeed, that is they are the mind's - the inner organ's - forms. 

Thus in the adhyAsa bhAShya, he describes these 'aspects' of the mind as attributes, and in the upaniShad he uses the words rUpANi, meaning forms. In essence, fear is a property or form of the mind, in Shankara's words.

2) Perception of the mind 

Elsewhere, in the BSB 1.3.2, there are the following lines देहादिष्वनात्मसु अहमस्मीत्यात्मबुद्धिरविद्या, ततस्तत्पूजनादौ रागः, तत्परिभवादौ द्वेषः, तदुच्छेददर्शनाद्भयं मोहश्च — इत्येवमयमनन्तभेदोऽनर्थव्रातः सन्ततः सर्वेषां नः प्रत्यक्षः ।

Here, Shankaracharya describes how fear arises from observing the death of the body, that one has taken to be oneself, and at the end he concludes by saying "this multitude of evils, with infinite differences, that flows on forever, is directly perceived by all of us". 

He uses the term "pratyakshah" - are directly perceived - with respect to fear, hatred, delusion, desire, hatred - all the aforesaid attributes / forms of the mind.

3) The concept of sAkshi pratyaksha in the bhAShya

Shankaracharya in the bhAShya to the kena upaniShad mantra 1.6 says 

अन्तःस्थेन हि चैतन्यज्योतिषावभासितस्य मनसो मननसामर्थ्यम् ; तेन सवृत्तिकं मनः येन ब्रह्मणा मतं विषयीकृतं व्याप्तम् आहुः कथयन्ति ब्रह्मविदः । तस्मात् तदेव मनस आत्मानं प्रत्यक्चेतयितारं ब्रह्म विद्धि । 

The capacity of the mind to think exists, because it is enlightened by the intelligence shining within, and it is by that, that the mind is capable of activity. 

Those who know the Brahman say that the mind is pervaded by the Brahman. Therefore know that to be the Brahman which is the Atman, the interior intelligence of the mind.

And elsewhere in the same upaniShad 2.4, in commenting on the Upanishad phrase, pratibodha viditam matam, Shankara says 

सर्वे प्रत्यया विषयीभवन्ति यस्य, स आत्मा सर्वबोधान्प्रतिबुध्यते सर्वप्रत्ययदर्शी चिच्छक्तिस्वरूपमात्रः प्रत्ययैरेव प्रत्ययेष्वविशिष्टतया लक्ष्यते ; - That by which all the thoughts of the mind are objectified is the Atman. He knows and sees all the thoughts of the mind, being by nature nothing but intelligence and is known by these thoughts, as blended with every one of them.

4) sAkshi pratyaksha does not mean there is a pratyaksha without consciousness 

The term sAkshi pratyaksha means the illumination of the mind and its modifications, by the sAkshi. It is meant to distinguish it from indriyaja pratyaksha, sensory perception, where even though it is the sAkshi still doing the perceiving, there is an additional step involved, wherein the thought associated with sensory organs is required to connect the external objects with the sAkshi. 

Where there is no requirement of a thought to connect the sAkshi with the object, ie where the thought itself is the object of the sAkshi, is called sAkshi pratyaksha. This idea exists in multiple places in the bhAShya, a couple are shown in 3 above.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001601dadb49%24fe585bb0%24fb091310%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar Dennisji:

Your warning about AI generated translations of Gita Verses is real! The Vedic system of understanding the true interpretation of scriptures need to be from learned Gurus to their disciples. This may be one other valid reason for why we need to be careful in the application of AI for general use. Also when I first wanted to purchase a good Gita book, one of my good friend who is a learned scholar suggested me to buy Dr. Radhakrishnan's book. He told me most book authors do not translate but wrote the book with their biased understanding! Most authors wrote the book focusing one of advaita, dwaita or Visistadvaita or their choice of philosophical ideas. Dr. Radhakrishnan just provided a simple translation without enforcing his beliefs in his book.  This explains how our understanding of the scripture got corrupted by the style of presentations adopted. The AI generated translation will unlikely allow us to pursue the efforts to find the true meaning of what was originally said!

We are at the vyavaharika level and our understanding expands and here is an example. Your statement, whether 'fear' is an object of perception needs further investigation before we make our own conclusion. I am a retired professional statistician conducted many analysis using measurable and non measurable variables. In statistics, a non measurable variable such as fear is also known as a latent variable. A latent variable is a hypothetical construt that cannot be directly observed (perceived) or measured but it is estimated based on other variables. Latent variables are used in almost all disciplines that include psychology, economics, medicine, physics, etc. (Detailed explanation of latent variable can be explored at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/latent-variable). In summary, modern statistics or data methods provide us methods to convert non-measurable (non perceivable) variable as measurable! In summary, we need to keep an open mind to accept and convince ourselves while living at the ever expanding vyavaharika period of our life to prepare to get out to reach the Paramarthika destination!!

Ram Chandran 

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

This kind of "be open" should then first off bypass that middleman Adi Shankara. We don't need him shoving us with his bias.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/495570f8-e160-4354-af5b-e1295aa749ban%40googlegroups.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaskaram.

Indeed the List is celebrating Guru Poornima in  21st Century style.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pQw958OobFFn%2BmzJ7S2QLmA2Atct8rKih6A69kJFJrvQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

As per Vedanta Paribhasha, happiness, fear, jealousy, anger, etc., are considered as moods of the mind that arise depending on the situation. As they arise in the mind, they are illumined by the light of consciousness and are immediately known. It is not that 'I think I am happy' or 'I think I am angry' etc. 

Following from the pages of my book- How Do I know' which is based on the Vedanta Paribhasha. 

------------

'I am happy', 'I am unhappy', 'I feel bad', 'I am afraid' etc. – these emotions are all mental moods immediately illuminated by the witnessing consciousness. Hence the mental mood (happy mood of the mind) is illumined, and the reflected limiting consciousness is cognized as 'I am conscious of the happy mood of the mind.' 'I am happy' is not a recollection from memory, although I can be happy by recollecting some pleasurable experience that happened in the past. In that case, however, the recollection of an experience affects me in the present. (Many people say that they 'live in the past' by continuously recollecting those experiences again and again like continuous re-runs on the TV – we call these 'attachments'). The negative mental moods, such as anger, jealousy, and sorrow, cause a significant drain of mental energies resulting in mental depression and other neurotic problems. Sometimes, the root cause for these may be a desire or an extreme dependency on some particular outcome. If these desires are unsatisfied, it can result in frustration and anger. Mental depression can occur when there is no control of the mind or control of the external situation. Krishna points out how a mind can spiral down from intense desire, through anger, to delusion causing loss of discriminative power, etc.

----------------------

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3Dg1dzLtGya2tAjScY7yNYtFOF5%2BEAPt6-WYy1W4Xy44Q%40mail.gmail.com

.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Venkatraghavan-ji,

 

I am impressed by your erudition and freely confess that your scriptural and Sanskrit knowledge far exceed my own. But I am still not convinced.

 

In the adhyāsa bhāṣya, Ṥaṅkara is explaining how we superimpose the attributes of the body and mind onto the Self. Thus, in the passage you cite, he is saying, for example that we say ‘I am thin’, ‘I am fat’, when we mean that the body is thin or fat. But he is not saying that ‘fat’ or ‘thin’ are objects of perception. The mind perceives the actual dimensions of the body and some subjective bias or inculcated idea in the mind assigns the idea of ‘thin’ or ‘fat’. You might argue that this is an objective perception but I understand that an anorexic would still think that she was fat, even whilst wasting away!

 

When it comes to the mind, such ‘attributes’ as “desire, resolve, doubt etc.” are not ‘objects’ either. Call them ‘inclinations’ or ‘tendencies’ etc. We interpret how we ‘feel’ in ways such as these but there is nothing that we can ‘point to’ and say ‘this object here is a desire’ or whatever.

 

Of course, everyone accepts that ‘fear’ (and all the rest) are feelings that take place in the mind. (Where else could they take place?) But saying that ‘fear is the mind’ is just a poetic way of putting this in order to emphasize the fact. If literally true, we would also have to say that ‘thinness is the body’.

 

I’m afraid I don’t have a literal translation of BSB 1.3.2. The pathetic Google Translate states that it is “this infinite difference is constantly evident to all of us.” But it doesn’t seem to say anything about fear being an object. I have no problem with Consciousness being that by which we are able to perceive anything. (I go along with Vivaraṇa’s cidābhāsa metaphor.) Also, I am happy with the Chāndogya’s vācārambhaṇa explanation.

 

I understand your differentiation of ‘sākṣi pratyakṣa’ and it sounds reasonable. But, as I said, I have never encountered this before and, despite the reasonableness, your Kena bhāṣya quotations do not appear literally to state this.

 

I should know better, from past experience, to throw a short query into an ongoing discussion. There is always someone who opens the question out into more wide-reaching issues and I get drawn into very time-consuming research and responses. I was intending to complete the editing and indexing of the copy-edited version of my latest book and return it to the publisher. Instead, I have spent most of the weekend following up on my assumed-simple observation. Thank you for an interesting discussion but I am going to end my participation here.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3Dg1dzLtGya2tAjScY7yNYtFOF5%2BEAPt6-WYy1W4Xy44Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

I am attaching a file containing some conversations with Chitta-ji (his responses to my queries which are in blue italics) that were on the topic of words. It is related to the present discussion; unfortunately it did not occur to me to ask on things like fear - but it is possible he had alluded somewhere to this debate over ~ the "objectivity" of those word-meanings.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3Dg1dzLtGya2tAjScY7yNYtFOF5%2BEAPt6-WYy1W4Xy44Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Dennis ji,

Thank you and I understand your concern getting sidetracked from the task at hand. I wish you the best in your endeavours.

However, as you have raised some points below, I will address them. There is no obligation on your part to respond if you do not feel the need to.

When I come in proximal contact with a rose, I not only perceive the rose substance, but I also perceive its attributes. Therefore, the redness of the rose, or its perfume, are as much an object of my visual and olfactory perception, as the rose itself. Similarly, if we are willing to concede that (i) fear exists in the mind and (ii) that the mind is perceived, it stands to reason that fear too is perceived.

That there exists an emotion called fear that is independent of the mind is also clear - because at the very moment, we experience fear of the snake, there is also a part of our mind mesmerised with its beauty. Therefore there must exist a common locus for both fear and admiration, which is different to them. 

That we directly perceive our own emotions is a matter of universal common experience - we have no doubt in our mind when we experience happiness or struck with sorrow. We do not infer the presence of our own happiness or sorrow from the observation of the body's physical responses such as trembling / tears. Rather, trembling and tears are physical manifestations of our happiness and sorrow that are directly perceived.  We use physical cues to infer the presence of someone else's fear or happiness or sorrow, because another's happiness or sorrow is not perceived by us. However, our cognizance of our own fear is very different - it is immediate, direct and intense. It is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of direct experience.

You will notice the reference to "our own" fear versus "someone else's" fear in the paragraph above. The adhyAsa bhAShya postulates that this identification of fear as belonging to us is because of the identification of the mind with the self. That is, I incorrectly assume that this mind is mine, because I perceive it directly. I do not assume that my friend's mind is mine, because I do not perceive his mind directly. Therefore, the reason I am spending the time to enter into this somewhat technical discussion in this thread, is because it is something fundamental to the siddhAnta - we intensely perceive our emotions, and therefore we mistake them to be our own, i.e. we superimpose the self on to the mind and its emotions. The reverse is true also. We perceive the mind only because it is superimposed on the self (for without an erroneous connection between the seen (dRshya) and the seer (dRk), no perception would be possible between the absolutely relationless self and the mind). This mutually reinforcing superimposition is the basis of samsAra.

It is for this reason that in the adhyAsa bhAShya that Shankaracharya enters into a discussion on the superimposition of the attributes of the mind upon the self. Therefore, the experience is "I am happy", "I am sad", "I am afraid", when in reality the "mind is happy", "the mind is sad", "the mind is fearful". When Shankara in his BUB says that fear is a rUpa (form) of the mind, he is referring to the technical definition of a vRtti, which is as a modification of the mind - not that fear is the mind itself. Hence, what is meant is that the mind has undergone a subtle modification that is termed fear, or happiness or sorrow. That "form" of the mind is directly perceived.

You may not be convinced still, and that is totally fine, but hopefully it is clear in what sense Vedanta refers to the perception of emotion. Please don't feel the need to respond.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/003c01dadb8f%24c0c89cb0%244259d610%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Venkatraghavan-ji,

 

I hadn’t intended to continue my participation, as I noted before – but it is an interesting discussion and your contribution so knowledgeable and well presented (and persuasive!), that I feel bound to acknowledge that.

 

I now largely agree with what you say. The point about modified vṛtti was the key point for me. I was already happy with the adhyāsa bhāṣya content.

 

I do still think that there is a danger when we talk about these things that we are insufficiently pedantic when it comes to the language that we use. For example, you say that “redness of the rose, or its perfume, are as much an object of my visual and olfactory perception, as the rose itself”. I have to disagree with this. The redness does not belong to the rose, which is simply reflecting and absorbing different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum for its own benefit (photosynthesis etc.). It is our brain that interprets the wavelength of light received into something we call ‘red’ So the ‘object’ here is some process between our eyes and brain. Similarly with the ‘perfume’, which is a process between the molecular receptors in the nose and our brain. Again, not really anything to do with the rose.

 

So, in such cases, we are not perceiving attributes of the rose but subtle processes involving our own sense organs and brain. And I suggest that something like ‘fear’ is even more difficult to pin down.

 

The idea that we are aware of fear and beauty at the same time is conceivable, perhaps if we immediately realize that the snake is not a dangerous one. But, if it is seen to be a deadly poisonous one, I cannot imagine the idea of beauty occurring until much later!

 

I don’t think we do ‘perceive’ happiness. I think that the word is one that we learn to apply to certain states – elation, satisfaction, anticipation etc. Any of these might give rise to a state that we choose to call ‘happy’. Some people might never use the term, even though their feelings are ‘better’ than those of someone who would use the term for themselves. The point it that words such as these are a part of the learned use of language, dependent upon upbringing and environment. Quite different from something like ‘pain’, which is directly perceived.

 

Anyway, I have moved way off the topic of Advaita here. I fear (!) that I do tend to try to apply reason to all of the arguments I read and use!

 

Thank you again for the stimulating discussion.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnFPS4--5_Y-mtWVB-s0PkCzF_njm-8jYZOo_20NrzjVA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Again, not really anything to do with the rose.

 

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I don’t know whether my doubt is relevant to on-going discussion.  But I should ask this : if taste, smell, colour etc. not the rose, what exactly the rose that is perceivable?? If you have free time please address it.  Anyway, mUlAvidyAvAdins are of the opinion that wrong perception is not only in our mind (jnAnAdhyAsa) but there exists a wrong object outside (arthAdhyAsa) as well which is anirvachaneeya but anyway/somehow perceived. 

 

Hari  Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:33 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [advaitin] RE: If avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha then what is antaHkaraNa ?? some addition

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/000a01dadc0d%249be3e3e0%24d3ababa0%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Hi Bhaskar-ji,

 

Quick response without thinking about it – the rose is the name and form ‘object’ that gives rise to these ‘sensations’ when perceived via the sensory organs of a jIva.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66256A79B612F1DE18CA647B84A82%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

In short you are saying there is some object that can be called rose by its name (pada) and object (artha) WITHOUT any these sensations but jeeva’s mind ‘by seeing’ this padArtha succumbing to various types of sensations.  IOW, for the adhyAsa (misconception / sensations ) there must be something should exist outside as an ‘object’.  Am I reading it right??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

BHASKAR YR

 

 

Quick response without thinking about it – the rose is the name and form ‘object’ that gives rise to these ‘sensations’ when perceived via the sensory organs of a jIva.

 

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Subbu ji

It's a common misconception that states of mind like fearing, desiring etc are not objects of pratyaxa (perception). In fact they too are a type of pratyaxa (perception) called sAxI pratyaxa.

People tend to assume that an object of perception is only visual or auditory etc.

As you elaborately clarified, even hunger, thirst, fear etc are pretty much "objects of perception".

Om

Raghav

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0wqycwRTc047yo5gnEFqKjSHNDV6p%3DSx9Ox%2B7Xv65NQg%40mail.gmail.com

.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

I think you will find that a color-blind person with a cold will still recognize a rose when he or she sees one. But I take your point that ‘attributes’ are slippery things! And certainly someone with all sense organs in a failed state is unlikely to recognize anything!

 

From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 11:30 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [advaitin] RE: If avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha then what is antaHkaraNa ?? some addition

 

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB66251B5E6F3770EE94DE9E7D84A82%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

In my understanding, fear is a namarupa - a name which has an objective meaning in the realm of cognition by the Self. Language maps Ishvara's manifest and hence every word in language through which we grasp the world, including "a" and "the" that pertain to language itself, denote objects having manifest meaning within Creation.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

which we grasp the world, including "a" and "the" that pertain to language itself, denote objects having manifest meaning within Creation.

manifest existence

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

I am attaching a file containing some conversations with Chitta-ji (his responses to my queries which are in blue italics) that were on the topic of words.

See also: https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/prelude_chittaranjan.htm

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Dennis ji,

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:33 PM <dwa...@advaita.org.uk> wrote:

The redness does not belong to the rose, which is simply reflecting and absorbing different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum for its own benefit (photosynthesis etc.). It is our brain that interprets the wavelength of light received into something we call ‘red’ So the ‘object’ here is some process between our eyes and brain. Similarly with the ‘perfume’, which is a process between the molecular receptors in the nose and our brain. Again, not really anything to do with the rose.

I understand where you are coming from, but please consider the following. There is a specific property of the red rose that makes it absorb all the wavelengths of light, and reflect light in the red spectrum. That is why a red rose appears red and a yellow rose appears yellow, and not vice versa.  When the reflected light is analysed in a spectrometer, its wavelength will belong to the red end of the spectrum. The wavelength of the light reflected by the flower is an objective reality, not something subjective that my mind assigns. Now I may call that colour "red" in English, but we are not debating whether the name is property of the substance. 

We are debating whether the colour, i.e. reflected light, is an objective property of the substance or a subjective property assigned by the mind. 

In a separate email, you had referred to a colour blind person being incapable of perceiving the red colour, but that is because in addition to the objective property, for perception to occur, there is also the requirement of the subjective instruments of sight to function properly. If either of these two conditions is not met, the perception of redness does not occur. The failure of the instrument of sight in a particular instance does not refute the possibility of the existence of an objective property.

The same rationale is applicable for the perfume. The perfume is perceived because of the presence of specific molecules in the rose that are capable of being sensed by my olfactory nerves in a particular way. That is termed as the smell of the substance.

If this is not accepted, then it is tantamount to a refutation of the perception of any objective reality - because the perception of anything can be argued as a subjective interpretation of the brain. 

There is also a separate argument to be made that what is perceived is only light and not the substance's colour, but that is equally true to the sight of the form of the substance. What is termed "form" is also the perception of reflected light only. In fact the image formed on the retina is reversed and inverted, and it is the brain which reverses and makes it upright for appropriate perception. 

Thus, an argument can be made that everything that what is seen is light alone, and not the things-as-they-are. 

The answer to this argument is that while that may be true, there is something intrinsic to the substance that makes it reflect light in the way and in the wavelength that it does. That objective reality cannot be denied.

But is that intrinsic property being perceived? What is being perceived is the light that is being reflected from that substance. Because of the invariable concomitance between that intrinsic property of the substance and the reflected light, we hold that the reflected light is the substance's property itself. 

When a concomitance between two elements is universal, and one element is never perceived while the other connected element is universally perceived, it is quite appropriate to hold that one is, in fact, the other - that what is being  perceived is the colour *of* the substance. One may call it convention, but a convention that is universal is a rule.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Venkatraghavan-ji,

 

I, too, understand where you are coming from – and some aspects of what you say had occurred to me while I was writing.

 

I certainly feel on less certain ground now and may well give way (in the interest of getting back to what I was supposed to be doing!) But consider the following:

 

When you see a rose, you perceive what you call ‘red’ and a heady perfume. When I see the same rose, it appears a dark shade of grey. (I have been told I am color blind but, since I have always seen what I see, all that I really know is that most people claim to see something more). Also, I smell nothing and, instead, it causes me to sneeze.

 

Surely, if you can claim that the rose has an intrinsic smell, I can equally claim that it has an intrinsic sneeze. My point is that the way that it affects us is not a property of the rose but a property of ourselves. You are presented with a nice smell, whereas I am presented with hay fever.

 

To a degree, I am being deliberately provocative here, because it is such an interesting subject. But there is certainly more to this than we have so far discussed. For example, in relation to the vācārambhaṇa sutra that was already mentioned, there is an anthropological study showing that the language that we learn influences which colors that we see. Have a read of my post on this topic: - https://www.advaita-vision.org/language-and-color/.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Venkatraghavan S
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 1:40 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] RE: If avidyA is antaHkaraNa dOsha then what is antaHkaraNa ?? some addition

 

Dear Dennis ji,

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aE%3Demw3hAToEb4tc-PrmmajRN7-B6sjL1qzGP%3D7R-MRDwA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Dear Dennis ji

Surely, if you can claim that the rose has an intrinsic smell, I can equally claim that it has an intrinsic sneeze.

Yes, both can be true though - the molecules responsible for fragrance can cause hay fever in some. That is why when medicines are prescribed for a particular ailment, it also comes with a list of side effects that can affect some people. 

My point is that the way that it affects us is not a property of the rose but a property of ourselves.

This does not mean that a property does not exist in the substance also. If that was not the case, and properties were resident in the subject only, we would not be able to prescribe a particular medicine for a particular ailment - for, if everything was subject specific, there would be no basis to know how a particular medicine would work for the population in general.

There is another case where the property only exists in the object, and a problem in the subject causes them to perceive it differently  - without that difference being attributable to the object in any way. Shankara gives the example of double vision - the moon appears as two - because of some eye problem. That does not mean there is something about the moon that makes it appear as two - double vision is all down to the defective eye, and nothing to do with the moon. 

The rose appearing red to everyone and dark grey (?) to those with colour blindness, probably falls within the category of the issue being with the subject's instruments of perception. I don't know if this problem is particular to the colour red, or whether it is universal, i.e. every colour appears dark grey. If it is specific to red, then the situation is primarily due to an ailment of the eyes with a secondary cause being the colour tone. If it is true for all colours, it is safe to say that it is due to the eyes alone.

 To a degree, I am being deliberately provocative here, because it is such an interesting subject. But there is certainly more to this than we have so far discussed. For example, in relation to the vācārambhaṇa sutra that was already mentioned, there is an anthropological study showing that the language that we learn influences which colors that we see. Have a read of my post on this topic: - https://www.advaita-vision.org/language-and-color/.

This is extremely interesting. Thank you for sharing. The role of language in categorisation and training the mind is quite powerful indeed.

I have encountered something similar - my children often refer to certain colours as cyan or turquoise and are able to differentiate between the two with great conviction. I look at the same and declare it to be "light blue", leading to several eye rolls!

Similarly as a child, my parents would show us different vessels kept at our ancestral home and rattle off their names. Each vessel had a unique name and function. However, when I looked at the same, all I saw was a big pot, small pot, round pot etc.- I couldn't associate a name with a particular vessel type, nor understand what it was used for. If they said, "fetch me the bosi" or "kindi", I would not know what they wanted me to bring.

I suspect once a category is invented in speech, it becomes a hook for the mind to latch on to - and train itself to distinctly perceive individuals belonging to that category and distinguish it from things belonging to other categories. The more sophisticated the categorisation, the more sophisticated the mind in being able to discern a particular and distinguish it from the rest. 

It is vAchArambhaNa - vAk Alambana - indeed.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/003101dadc46%24e893c230%24b9bb4690%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

The failure of the instrument of sight in a particular instance does not refute the possibility of the existence of an objective property.

And If this is not accepted, then it is tantamount to a refutation of the perception of any objective reality - because the perception of anything can be argued as a subjective interpretation of the brain. 

 

• Yes, this and related arguments about ‘objective property of external things’ forces me to think that you are a SDV and NOT DSV 😊

 

That is why a red rose appears red and a yellow rose appears yellow, and not vice versa. 

 

• Yes, red rose and yellow rose are Ishwara srushti and we the jeeva-s have to see ‘as it is’ without attaching our subjective perception to  it i.e. I only like red rose and yellow is not so good looking etc. 😊  These likes and dislikes (rAga-dvesha) are the result of adhyAsa which is jeeva srushti.  And for jeeva’s adhyAsa drushti Ishwara’s mAyA srushti is the ‘Asare’ 😊

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

Whether the created is seen, or seeing is creation, or seeing and creation are simultaneous, that creation is mithyA is true for all. That being the case, I don't  have too much attachment towards any particular vAda. I'm more interested in the tattva.

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625CF9B45880D44FA36B05B84AA2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

that creation is mithyA is true for all.

 

Ø    To get more clarity on this ‘mithyA creation’ in the light of your observation that the Red is an intrinsic property of ‘something’ existing outside!!  What exactly is ‘mithyA creation’ here in your observation??  I definitely hope it is not the ‘colored Rose’ itself which you have already clarified that it is not mere subjective perception.  //quote// And If this is not accepted, then it is tantamount to a refutation of the perception of any objective reality - because the perception of anything can be argued as a subjective interpretation of the brain//unquote//.  Here definitely I think you are endorsing the original Chandra that is existing and clarifying that ONLY ‘dviteeya chandra’ is the subjective perception.  If that is not you are intending to say and wants to put everything as just mithyA and mere subjective perception of some individual then I don’t think you are debating on Sri Dennis Waite Prabhuji’s view points on this.  Or am I missing something!!??

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

My point is that the way that it affects us is not a property of the rose but a property of ourselves.

 

• I hope this observation of yours will put a rest to this discussion.  Since you are not denying existence of an external object but debating only on its effect on us which is subjective Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji would agree with this.  As both of you agreeing to ‘some common property’ of external object which is perceivable / knowable to each and every ‘sane’ person and subsequently getting affected by it depending upon his or her individual taste and tendency.  The existing ‘rose’ may give the soothing sight and fragrance to Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji but the ‘same rose’ may cause the ‘sneeze’ to Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji…but in either case an existing outside object (or objective reality) cannot be denied.  One can see snake in place of rope other person may see a garland as per his ‘samskAra bala’ in place of ‘same rope’ and these subjective perceptions would not have to do anything with existing ‘rope’. 

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Hi Bhaskar-ji,

 

Yes – I think we can all agree on that. I seem to remember, though, that (a long time ago!) the discussion began with the suggestion that ‘ignorance’ is not an external thing but simply a word to describe the state of mind of the jIva who has ‘lack of knowledge’. I would still maintain that this is the case.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 8:19 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625983CAF0065ACF82D03E184AA2%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

 

Yes – I think we can all agree on that. I seem to remember, though, that (a long time ago!) the discussion began with the suggestion that ‘ignorance’ is not an external thing but simply a word to describe the state of mind of the jIva who has ‘lack of knowledge’. I would still maintain that this is the case.

 

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I would like to bring to your notice that bhAshyakAra repeatedly insisted this that there is ONLY jnAnAdhyAsa and no arthAdhyAsa.  Even when we are seeing the silver in nacre the silver is only a word (without denoting any external object) in the mind and there was / is / never will be the silver in the nacre. 

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:
Ignorance literally means lack of knowledge - either not knowing or it could also means that does not want to know! The saying that "Ignorance is Bliss" implies when someone is not at all worried for not knowing!! Truth seekers do not know the Truth but they are all worried for not knowing the Truth! It may be safer to say that ignorance does not mean complete blank but possession of partial knowledge. To some extent, we can interpret and say that ignorance is a description of the state of mind and a measure of the level of knowledge stored in the mind. Full freedom rests with the Jiva whether to seek any knowledge or fully content and not to seek knowledge. Is it not true that a Jiva who doesn't seek the truth and fully content with his possessions could called as a jnani!!

For example, "Frog in the well" could enjoy bliss if the Frog fully content living at the bottom of the well. The frog may only see the sky from the well only the partial sky bounded by the top opening of the well!

In the philosophy postulated by Socrates, intellectual humility is central to the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. Socrates believed that true wisdom comes from recognizing one's own ignorance and striving to learn more, rather than assuming that one already knows everything.  Socrates (similar to what J Krishnamoorthy believed) questioned the importance of assumptions and beliefs for arriving at a deeper understanding of a concept or idea. Interestingly Vedanta also proposed why notions and beliefs need to be thrown out to get to the Truth!!

In conclusion the role of ignorance is quite important in the pursuit of knowledge, and how our willingness to admit what we don't know has high potential for greater learning and personal growth.

Ram Chandran