[Advaita-l] Causal Body

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- Nomadeva Sharma <nomadeva at yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is a key place where we differ. We say the
> visheShaNa and visheShya are not [absolutely]
> identical, they are [visheShataH] identical. 

Krishana 

I know you differ. 

My point is that one has to be careful where the observations end and
explanations start.  One can have explanations and assumptions for their
explanations. There is no problem.  But also one should be aware that
final conclusions that one arrives depend on the assumptions in their
model.  If that is understood -absolutely there is no problem.  

The problem arises if one starts saying my explanation is better than
yours.  (That is how series of articels of Jay started in the name of
learning 'Advaita".)  Then we are now examining validity of the
different assumptions that one makes in doing the subsequent analysis. 

Take for example when one assumes that saakshee grasps the time and
space - then - is this a statement of fact or statement of explanation. 
Please think it over and tell me. 

Some times we do make assumptions about the system that we investigate
if do not have all the facts.  There is no problem is that either.  But
as our scientific instrumentation becomes more and more sophisticated we
are getting more information about the nature of the system - then we
need to reexamine whether the assumptions we have made before are in
tune with the new observations.  That is how any science progresses. 
After examining new results if we still conclude that the original
assumptions are still valid, then there is no problem. When we are
examining objective world, we are in the realm of scientific
observations too and we cannot ignore the progress of the scientific
observations and theories based on those as irrelevant. 
 

Our intellect should be keen enough to separate the facts from
explanations/conclusions.

This is what I have been asking when you say saakshee sees time and
space - since senses cannot measure those as per Jay statement - then
how does it sees - what instruments it uses for it to know space and
time.

What constitutes a saakshee here? 

Is it a presumption or a fact - is the question . Or to put it
differently, is one aware of the demarcation line where facts end and
assumption starts?



Your
> objection that the idea of an object is an assumed or
> inferred one does not apply to us, as we hold that
> object and its properties (again, not all) are
> [visheShataH] identical. Any well-meaning school would
> do that, for, in the end, 'dravyatva' is also an
> attribute.

Not so – that, my friend is a assumption/conclusion and not necessarily
a fact. We need to draw a demarcation line where observations thorough
senses end an conclusion that one draws and assumptions one makes.
'dravyatva' - potness or cowness - comes from the taarkika-s.  I
question validity of the statement  as a fact. What is a cow? cow is
that which has cowness. what is cowness? that which cow has - This is
what is anyonya aashrya dosha.  No sense in particular  measures  the 
‘cowness’  of a cow or the potness of the pot,  or devyatva of dravya. 

Krishna your statement "Any well-meaning .." is a poor justification for
the conclusion with the implication that, if not, it is not a well
meaning school - with all due respects don't you think it borders  close
to fanaticism rather than facts - I have no problem If you say we
believe so.   
Anyway I have made my point. No further discussion is needed to resolve
this. 


> 
> > Substance is what is referred to as dravya. Hence
> > that they  are identical is only a postulation and
> not 
> > factual. 
> 
> That they are factual is also known by perception
> (with a bit of anumAna-toppings), as you have yourself
> said below: 
> 
> > It is true that VisheshaNa or attribute
> > should have a locus or ashraya. The 
> 
> Is this need for Ashraya perceived or inferred? If
> perceived, 
>

...
> 
> Actually I have lost the relevance of this thread. Can
> you pls enlighten?

Krishna, I just started writing the article on this issue and hopefully
I will put my understanding in perspective. It may take some time to
finish it. 

Hari OM!
Sadananda


> 
> Regards,
> Krishna

> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com


=====
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).
http://calendar.yahoo.com