You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Jul 2006

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00002 Jul 2006

 
Jul 2006 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


When there is a contradiction,virodha,  between perception and sruthi 
the latter is claimed to be stronger. But here there is no virodha 
and hence there is no need to prove that one is stronger than the 
other, says the advaitin. Even through in perception only 
attributeless Brahman is perceived, according to Advaita it is only 
the unity through the existence,satthA, that is perceived and not 
difference. 

But how can  the perception that 'this is a pot, this is a cloth 
etc.,' be shown as sanmAthragrAhi, that of the existence alone? Only 
when the knowledge is continously of one object , like that of a pot 
alone, this can be true. Advaitn says, 'Yes it is true and we wish to 
prove only that here ,namely the perception of all objects  is that 
of one only.

 If the difference is perceived it cannot be simultaneous with the 
object at hand. That is, when we see a pot its difference from a 
cloth is not seen because the knowledge of the cloth is in the 
memory. Probably what is meant here is that even if we see the pot 
and the cloth at the same place when we look at the pot we do not see 
the cloth. In the perception that the pot exists the 'isness' of the 
pot does not give the knowledge of its difference from the cloth 
because the knowledge of difference belongs to a different time other 
than that of perception, which belongs to that moment only.

So as in the case of seeing nacre as silver, sukthirajatham, what is 
perceived is only the attributeless Brahman which appears as a 
different object because of bhrAnthi, illusion due to anAdhi avidhya.

Moreover the difference,bhedhah, cannot be defined, says the 
Advaitin. The difference is not of the nature of the object in which 
case only the difference will be perceived.That when we see the pot 
we would also see its difference from the cloth which is not the 
case.This sounds a bit confusing but it is not so. If ghata, pot and 
its bhedha, difference from other objects, say, pata,cloth, is its 
svsrupa then the two tems ghata and bhedha will be synonymous like 
hastha and kara, both of which mean hand. So the object and its 
difference are not the same.

 On the other hand if it is said that the difference is the attribute 
of the object, it must be assumed to be different from the object. 
That is, the difference will be different from the essential nature 
of the thing. Then the difference of the difference will be its 
attribute and the same argument follows leading to anavasThA. Also 
this difference of the object from others will be observed only when 
the object belonging to the particular class as distinct from others 
is observed. But the distinctness to be perceived requires the 
knowledge of its difference from the others. So there is the defect 
of anyonya AsrayaNam., mutual dependence and hence becomes 
untenable.Therefore advaitn concludes that since the difference 
cannot be proved the perception is of sanmmAthra, existence only.

Even in the perception of 'the pot exists, the cloth exists' etc  
what persists is the existence alone and not the forms which are 
perceived to disaappear after a while. In the perception this is pot 
etc. the 'this' element persists  in all and the forms change.So the 
exitence signified by 'this' alone is paramArTHa, real, and the 
others are unreal like rajjusarpa, snake in the rope. In the illusion 
of the rope as snake, crack in the ground, stream of water etc., the 
rope is the substratum of the illusion and hence is real whereas the 
other illusory objects are unreal being separate, vyAvrtthi, from the 
rope. So too the existence, 'sat,' alone is the substratum and is 
therefore real.

But the reality of the rope is not due to persistence but due to the 
fact that it is not sublated by any other knowledge as in the case of 
snake etc. which again not unreal due to their being separate from 
the rope but because they are sublated by the subsequent knowledge. 
To this advaitin answers that in the perception that this is a pot 
there is sublation of the perception of other objects like cloth and 
vice versa. So there is sublation  as a result of 
distinctness ,vyAvrtthi. Thus everything else than satthA, existence 
is apparmArTha , unreal. Advaitin clinches the argument by a 
syllogism- sath paramArThah, anuvarthmAnatyhvAth,rajjusarpAdhou 
rajjvAdhivath; ghatAdhayah aparamArThAh, vyAvarthamANathvAth, 
rajjvAdgyaDHishthAna sarpAdhivath. The existence is real because it 
persists (in all perceptions) like the rope in the illusion of snake 
in a rope and the objects like pot etc. are unreal because they are 
separate, vyAvartha, like the snake in the substratum of the rope. 








------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list