Thank you for your encouragement and extending assent to continue in this thread . I wish to just acquaint you with some things prior to writing about Vedic Logic since the ideas are quite necessary as a preliminary .

In Vedic logic an inverted perspective is employed since our ancients percieved that our natural way of looking at things was /or had an error - in that it did not allow a person to "see the background (or substratum) of anything but only the foreground objects". Moreover according to them what was responsible for this partial knowledge ie. knowledge of things seen but not not of those unseen - was due to the impinging of the day to day objects on the background of our knowledge - much as like loud noises and colours and other big objects would have the effect of distracting us , sometimes even to the extent of so disconcerting to us that we would have to search hard for what exactly we were thinking or doing before the distraction occured.

Now according to them this was not an "inverted perspective'' but rather a correction in the flawed way we were looking at things , what they percieved was that on seeing an object or (in coming to know of the object) there was an inherent inversion the knowledge garnered created in our otherwise pristine knowledge (much as a lense in a camera would invert the image ) only here the inversion was not in the image but in our knowledge !. So Vedic Logic attempts to correct this perspective as partial knowledge was always considered as wrong knowledge . A keen and understanding mind is required to grasp this and the logic . moreover it only required understanding as knowledge would work on knowledge once it was  understood correctly - It was also helpful in that this is the logic employed in all karikas and texts wherever things were propounded as well as in the epics and Yoga sutras etc.

I am following a classical approach but removing all the sanskrit terms and rigidity and some illustrations are only used to get the point home - moreover it is to be understood in the aspect of Total knowledge and a gradual rise to it .

Again the examples have over the years been enlivened as they are used throughout the vedas and , the vedas do not use multifarous examples , so wherever a person learns them it is in the same form that it was expounded thousands of years earlier and have acquired a potency to demonstrate knowledge once the import is accurately grasped. 

One need not worry about delineations that one comes across in books like Hetu,Sambandham etc ( Major premise , minor or conclusion) I will append the reasoning only so that the correctness is grasped and can be contrasted by the reader with how he was seeing the same thing previously .The conclusions naturally will follow from understanding .

Some examples:

An object is revealed not by sunlight but because  it is non luminous (or not capable of self illumination) . Sunlight is not the cause of its being revealed but the cause of it being brought to our cognizance is due to the fact that it cannot illuminate itself .

Here it may seem strange but as a fact , the ancients used to insist that the cause and effect have to be INTIMATELY connected and as far as possible it has to be immediate and no new parameters should be introduced into the equation since it would vitiate knowledge . For them one of the tests of right cause being attributed to right effect is one of the indications of right reasoning .This reasoning may be applied to various cases and validated .

Another example is : A man in a shadow (or shade) does not feel the heat( not because of the shadow) , but due to his refraining to interact with things having heat in them ..... for coolness is not a property of a shadow (or shade). 

             A thing to be noted is Universality of the applicability of the statement to ones own conviction ..

Here also the effect is allied as close as possible to the cause - one cannot just loosely say that the suns action is not there on the man - in which case one has to "Assume" (mentally and intellectually by images and a priori knowledge) many objects and instruments and other causes and effects thus making it interminable , giving rise to a fantastic mind (a mind riddled with fantasy) with  roots in memory.

This much being said , a question will naturally rise as to what is wrong in saying that it is the sun or the sunrays which reveal an object . Such a pedestrian reasoning has its pitfalls in that , the sun (would in our consciousness and knowledge consequently ) acquire a conditioning "by the sun" meaning - To do - as in a person and would lead to a conferring of "life" on the sun as if it were a ''human being"" or "being" whereas in terms of scale (or size ) it is a relationship between the Earth and its non consciousness . 

We are similarly culpable of painting nature as a woman, beautiful , etc etc . Nature is implacable and impersonal and treats everyone the same . It is calm , active and violent - just as human natures are - here the connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm is attained through understanding and knowledge alone . 

Otherwise we struggle to "imagine'' and merge the microcosm in the macrocosm or see it as an unbroken part of the unified whole . 

Another example is : which came first the seed or the Tree ? - It is the Tree that came first . ---- strange as it may seem why is it so ? .. According to them everything in the world consists of Names and Forms , and names and forms are what are grasped by the mind - what does not have name or form cannot be grasped by the mind (we leave it at that ) .

Now according to them a person is acquainted with "knowledge'' of objects of perception in  the following  ways  The Form or object is percieved by a person and he is "told'' that it is a Tree or House or Car or Dog etc by someone else IN THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE IN HIS LIFE or he reads or hears about it - but anyway a pictorial representation is a must .  So on an other wise plain tabula rasa of a memory or mind or knowledge a person aggregates what is known as perceptional knowledge and their impressions.  ie. in short a thing is pointed out or indicated and its representation connected to the knowledge of the word. or sound . internally .

Here the logic is that - All things percieved are EFFECTS . - In the outer world it is understood that the Tree is an effect (If the person was FIRST acquainted in consciousness and knowledge with a Tree in the inner world it is Cause) .  Now a person may ask why it cannot be a seed as it is well known trees come from  seeds .. The logic was - it may be so - but then a problem of non immediacy arises in the relationship - for if a tree (HIS TREE the reasoners) were to come from a seed , then that seed would have to come from another Tree , and so on into an infinite regression . And again there would be a violation of the "All things perceived are Effects"  - for the seed would be an effect and an effect cannot come from an effect .A seed has to give forth a seed - not a tree . From a tree similarly a tree would be the cause . So we have now two things which are both effects depending on how the knowledge came to him in the FIRST INSTANCE . This law requiring that all things connected by cause and effect have to be RELATED SUBSTANTIALLY to the thing under consideration (like the sun illuminating a house ). is to be strictly adhered to if we have to know the truth of things . This law of Effect on FIRST knowledge of an object was brought in to preempt the wrong thought process in knowledge whereby ultimately a man goes on thinking infinitly as to whether a tree came from a seed the that seed would have to come from a tree etc etc in infinity . And thus lead to a state of indeterminacy - indeterminacy would create doubt and doubt was the nature of the mind , whilst determinacy was the nature of the intellect . And since doubt is a creation of the person himself involved in reasoning and shows flawed understanding and consciousness - the point of infinite regression in any person was the point of pure ignorance due to a forgetting of the FIRST memory as to whether he was acquainted with a seed and then a Tree or a Tree and then the relationship of the Tree to it . So man if he does not remember his first experience has to make a principled stand and decide HIMSELF (thus eliminating doubt) whether in his opinion it was a Tree which came first or seed .- The thing to be understood in the above dissertation is that primacy was given to the operations of the mind and how it worked - since everything was conjured up instantaneously when a sound was heard - Thinking is an act that takes place in the dream consciousness even if we are awake , this is the thing to be noted.

Now the majority will be acquainted with Tree rather than seed , and as Trees are everywhere it is ingrained in our consciousness and knowledge that Trees are taken for granted , and moreover when the word Tree is mentioned a mental image is formed in our mind (of a Tree in general) - so the Cause is a Tree in which case there is a harmony between the Gross perception of the eye in the outer physical world , and In the mental world of thought and in the intellect which has the knowledge and in memory .Here emphasis is on seen and heard knowledge relating to physical objects . 

Similarly a person is precluded by this into tracing his cause of birth to the sun , or god, or even his grand parents etc. 

And an argumentative disputant is immediately located and thrown out of the debate . For if a person says the cause of his birth is the womb of his mother - no - Scale requires scale and consistency in both the Cause and effect .

So the correspondance of knowledge in consciousness has to be both of scale and equality of item . (naturally this is to get the right image - from which Species will follow which is a matter of intellect ) . Womb is a matter of discussion if only the subject is of conception and fertilization . One cannot talk to a fully grown man that his mothers womb is responsible for his birth as an illustration of cause and effect - the vulgarity and grossness in thinking is brought out by the statement of such a person who reasons so. HIs mind is fully known and also his knowledge and character .  

. In all thinking , everything has to be short and direct but universal at that level .

So what we mean here is that (in western terminology) "Material Cause" (or Substantial Cause ) is required . Clay pot comes from Clay. not from potter . Moreover it is validated by our conscious knowledge for when somebody says "Clay pot" he remembers the image of the pot not the potter or the idea that a potter and earth have to be added !!!. 

Similarly  gold ornaments are nothing but Gold . 

Clay pot is nothing but Earth . 

                           Here what is to be noted is that the accent was on the ACTUAL obtaining situation in knowledge and consciousness by our ancients . For one associates (internally) on seeing or hearing  the words clay pot or gold ornaments - first the Object per se "is seen internally and externally" next it is associated with the FEELING and KNOWLEDGE "Earthen or Gold" as the case may be . 

By this we can locate erroneous  thinking within ourselves and by becoming aware it is corrected automatically .

So a question as to if a glass is half full or half empty  can be immediately shut out - for the questioner has to frame it first and the question gives the answer itself . 

How is this done ? Assuming that it is a well known conundrum the most taut question can be if a person asks such an unfair question by the words : Would you say that a glass is half empty or half full - this is trolling and inadmissible since there is a preconcieved notion by the questioner that it is well known so answer is due to him - One can just let it pass or ask him to elucidate it so as to "see" his mind - he will have to ''Assume " a glass , a liquid . a pouring of the liquid by a someone to a desired level etc !!!! All which leaves a million loopholes to shoot it to bits . Or one can resort and give a considered reply that it is Full of space .

One should not introduce actions, instruments and agents without notifying the other party into any argument or debate .

One should not get into any debate or discussion where the ground rules are not known , ie. if a discussion on the existence of God is elicited by an awowed athiest - he has to first agree to the word God and what it means in the word concept - rather than use the word God and say that God does not exist , it is a Tamasic and most ignorant thing to say since he needs the word God to define the non existence . Of course the word Atheist if being discussed has to be agreed upon as ITSELF and not as some vague "meaning god does not exist'' - since it is another language and word meaning and idea would be different - which ultimately would lead to a conclusion of it being a state of mind or knowledge of a person !!.

So if a man complains he has been called a dog by another and frets he is being stupid - the other person cannot distinguish between a dog and man , and the hearer does not become a dog either !! if he feels aggrieved it means he has lost the humour of the situation altogether - he cannot become aggrieved because of anothers faulty logic and knowledge and consciousness (however temporary the lapse may be ). Krama becomes Karma gradually . 

There is no day or night 

There is no silver in mother of pearl

When we say "like'' (ie as ) and say an example people understand as "is'' in the absence of proper thinking - they approximate the like to is in consciousness and it becomes a habit .

Too much doubts indicate inability to think in the general and infer correctly to the particular - (conversly) treating the particular as the general .

   People might wonder what QM has to do with all this - QM is dealing with infinitesmally small measurements , maybe knowledge can be included as a QM variable ?  

Note : I do not physically mean a disputant or a debate with another person - It is all in our own ways of thinking and is an internal dialogue or process in thinking within us - of course it is applicable in the outer world also but knowing and silence is better in the outside world - one allows everything to be said and goes along so to say !!

//

There is a thing to be said about knowledge , which we assimilate (It is something to be taken into account when you read the far fetched post below ) Unlike physical objects , perceptional knowledge or results of proofs and evidences were considered thus (if it is of help in understanding the previous post ) 

There was a so called knowledge based on physical evidences arising in the consciousness of the observer , and this knowledge would stay for a period as long as it was pondered upon and then vanish when the thinking process was left off . And since knowledge however defective has to arise (as in dream - ie. in the subtle world of mind and matter) since it was based on evidences , it was considered to have arisen from a like "Cause'' ie knowledge which was pure and complete . It had a  vanishing point when the thought was left off and unlike in ordinary physical matters it was found to revert back to pure knowledge. And the same was recalled from knowledge at an instant when the recall function was applied. It appears as if from nowhere like magic only to stay for a while and then vanish - and these time frames of genesis  of secondary knowledge could only be from a like thing and not from something substantially different ., and it was sustained in knowledge and could revert back to knowledge . Of physical things it was found that we percieve only the effects and never the cause - the cause in popular parlance was a deconstruction of the effect - which was considered impossible , whereas in the internal world it was possible . So in essence what it means is that in the physical world there is actually no cause and effect but rather discrete events - this was so because it was not just an intellectual exercise , the reality was also considered - for instance in the case of Milk becoming curd , in the physical world the right reasoning is that Milk though the ostensible cause and curd the effect - considering the way the perception of objects took place by a conscious individual and how it affects his knowledge - milk is an effect in the physical world as well as Curd since milk required the addition of Agents and Instruments - and agents and instruments were a matter of the intellect and its knowledge . In the inner world both arise in the mind without knowledge as if in dream and cognition is by the intellect wherein it determines the object percieved with relation to previous knowledge of the Agent and Instruments and of connecting cause and effect in one quick instant . So mind has a random character and it cannot distinguish the particular image - it just displays all images as if in dream and so is chaotic whilst the intellect determines the object by prior knowledge . It is particular as related to the generality of the mind but in turn though particular at that level it in effect is general in relation to the Ego or empirical self . So basically the 5 senses are general (ie they are just conduits and cannot distinguish the object to which they relate their attribute) but become particular in the mind ( as an aggregation of senses and thus image of the object is produced) and the particularity of the mind is general compared to the(knowledge of the ) intellect and the particularity in the intellect becomes general in comparison to the knowledge in the Ego (empirical) . to clarify matters - the Ego contains the background data also as well as the foreground data of an object of knowledge thus making it complete in almost every respect . IT becomes perfect knowledge when the person has knowledge of the real self . I hope I have not been too obtuse  and confusing

 

Views: 1616

Replies to This Discussion

I would like to also introduce certain examples on what superimposition is meant by the ancients - It was called ADHYASA by them and constituted a major part of Ignorance or Maya , Maya was a delusionary principle which arose from ignorance and was endemic to all conscious beings (birds, Animals, Aquatics, and Insects are included in this). Maya actually means "that which has no real existence '' or which is non existent . So really speaking an assault on whether Maya exists or not is a worthless exercise - since by definition itself it is something non existent , like a Chimera or a Unicorn . Knowledge would dissipate Maya .Getting to the point .The previous rough summary on OBJECTS may be kept in mind in the background whilst trying to understand this post on super imposition . I propose to use a single and constant example (like the pot on objects ) which is a very classical one and as old as the vedas. 

SUPERIMPOSITION OR ADHYASA 

Some example s are given below - some are reiterations from previous posts .

1. A person may wrongly apprehend in a moment a rope lying on the ground for a snake .

2. Miirage in a Desert ie, appearances of water being there or an oasis 

3. The blue colour in the sky . (the sky is colourless).

4. The awareness of walking on flat ground - despite having the consciousness that the world is round

5. Sunrise and Sunset and movements of the sun - Despite knowing that the sun does not move .

6.The momentary knowledge of the moon - till one is told that its rotation is unlike the rotatiion of the earth around the sun - we only see one side of the moon .

7. The feeling that waves or ripples across a sheet of water are different from it .

8. The feeling of Growth and reduction in size as one approaches a mountain from afar - there is an inverse proportion related as between objects inanimate and conscious and which vary greatly in scale as between them . (this was also used in ancient geometry in India )

9. The illusion of distances between two objects that could be converted into time in space - and therefore the illusion of time in space .or in other words the illusion of distances and time .in space for time and distance are not qualities or attributes of space per se.

10. The illusion of power being divorced from the powerful and so its deification by language , concepts and ideas and its ultimate divorce through reason and ideas and feeling.

11. ''........Silver in a mother of pearl "

12. Imaginary and fantastical shapes attributed to the flames in a fire , the shadows it throws upon objects and the same done to clouds in the sky ....and the feelings they evoke and ideas concommitant to that in a conscious observer .

13. The forgetting of the instruments of action contained in cosmic nature - Earth, Water,Fire,Wind and Sound .- and that nature is an agent and not the cause . For every action accompanied by agency requires a principle .

14. Mistaking an example for a reality - for in no case can an example be the same as the thing under consideration .ie - Identity of the action in the mind and intellect of an observer  between that in the example and that in the discussion leading to error .

15. Mistaking "As'' ....... implied in an example or illustration as........"is'' .

16. Inability to rightly infer from the general to the particular and vice versa ,

17. Non understanding that the General of General can exist at various levels as a Particulat which is general and also that a general may exist as a Particular of a Particular .

18. Understanding that Generals and particulars are via medias for thought and understanding and not a reality .

19.  From pt 18. above it follows that no two objects are similar . They are similar in generics only .(ie general attributes - like roundness in a pot , its texture , colour etc) . Perception brings out the particulars in the general - this is true of all Ideas and feelings and knowledge also and not just of objects existing "outside of us".

20. The knowledge that any new knowledge that may be contained in the above discussion - will have to be discarded as being knowledge of an object, Idea or Concept even though a reality (ie.Maya) at a later stage . As it has been generated knowledge (though true ) and right knowledge will erase it automatically and so it should not be "grasped '' at in a later stage (ie.by grasping what is meant is that - it should not be clutched back or wished back once erased . The higher knowledge (spark within on reading) that erased it is to be valued and not grasped at - one should trust that itself .

So basically what I mean is that any knowledge which arises and removes Maya within a person is to be trusted to do its job by itself and not to be generated by repeated thinking - that would be Maya !!!.

So this will be the foreground ideas when this post continues to the Analysis of the CONSCIOUS OBJECT or Beings other than stones and trees and plants .

Understanding the import of the above is the main thing and each person should arrive at a reasoned and informed conclusion by himself . The above are only examples to jog a person to utilize the intellect for higher education profitably !!!. Independence in arriving at a conclusion that is satisfactory to each thinker is emphasized - conditioning of the out look is not envisaged , ...The examples are that much only they are examples . I would be unable to scientifically prove anyone of the above statements . !!!!

AN UNDERSTANDING OF SUPERIMPOSITIONS 

          Here I will be mainly using one example of superimposition and if need be extend to others , but I am relying on the reader to make the association . The main example is as follows :

 A rope that is lying on the ground may appear from a distance or in twilight as a snake . This is called the RAJJU SARPA (Rajju = Rope, Sarpa= Snake) . So the Analogy of a snake in the rope is an ancient one and seen repeatedly in most places in the Vedas- Just as we used the Pot analogy .

The main thing that anyone on a bit of reflection will understand that - these things relate to a conscious observer since error in perception can only occur to a conscious observer and not a non conscious one . The Idea is to understand the nature of a conscious object , since a fairly good grasp will be there in everyone  of non conscious objects . We only tried to Structure that knowledge which everyone has of objects into a manner where the objects are not important - But what is more important is the "having '' of a body of knowledge RELATED to objects , that help in exploding our understanding of how we understand objects . This knowledge OF objects is to be understood as different from the knowledge of objects in general... Why this is insisted upon is to underline the fact that per se ....this body of knowledge that is created is NOT an object ----It is closer to knowledge in the sense that it is an UNDERSTANDING of UNDERSTANDING . The understanding of which would require that there be sparks of knowledge within a conscious reader - in case it is being known for the first time from these posts , then it may be attributed to these posts and if it has been known before it may be attributed to those sources - why this is important is that we should not in any way Consider Understanding which has arisen within us as like an object - in the sense where we go to school and study various subjects like history , geography , mathematics etc and sort of ADD it to our personality ie. We aggrandize the knowledge and Consider it as part of ourselves just as a man with a house or a car would attach it and add it by mental concoctions in his definition of who he is . IT is not the mans fault - relations arising from the mind and consciousness in the intellect is to be blamed . 

Again I hope I do not sound condescending or presumptuous in writing so for though we have not met directly - a measure of participation is required from the reader . For if there is understanding then the knowledge or body of knowledge that these posts purport to be would not be remaining as a concept or an idea within a person who will understand - this body of knowledge that has been "created'' will be subsumed by the sparks of understanding and will rise in knowledge and stay in knowledge and return to knowledge . There will be no impressions in memory unlike the impressions of objects perceived .

Another thing to be taken into account is that this is Higher Metaphysics , and so may not have scientific evidences or proofs to support it - since Science is based on evidences and results of proofs it always has the need for "a something'' to prove "something'' . True science is what I have mentioned in the previous para . In this case (our body of knowledge) the proof of the action of the knowledge rests with the conscious observer and he becomes the authority for its validation - no other authority is required . In this matter I would also like to make a very pertinent observation , nobody is to use this logic (of oneself being the authority and hence the person being not subject to any authority in the matter of metaphysics) - as a justification for "mouthing'' ones need to communicate on discerning a change in oneself . It is to be kept to oneself as his experience only makes himself the bench mark for himself and not another . He need not accept any view or reject any view . This is an angle of vision that is handed down and good commonsense is to be exercised in exchange of ideas and forums.

Why this small request of self restraint is sought for is that the aim is the Truth and the Truth alone , no element of lying or pretensions can creep in , it will vitiate our own progress for there is not an iota of ignorance or lie in the Truth and consequently in the Self . The self requires that the practitioner or aspirant or adept be truthful - or else what happens is over time the man earns calumny which is more painful than dying . Independence and strength of character are the main requisites for higher metaphysics - for the experiment is always on oneself and never on another - It has to be understood also that as a person progresses in purity in thought , he gains a keen intellect and understanding becomes easy and with felicity , so an ethical frame of mind will help, otherwise there will be difficulty in accepting the nature of reasoning that are to follow . The "blocks'' that a person will encounter in understanding MUST be understood in this light and NEVER traced to another person since the truth is what the self is all about and to doubt another, rather than look at oneself will only make Truth turn on oneself and all the more difficult to ascertain . It is our very being and Self and existence , it is what we are and to disregard it is to block our own life and progress . For a time being at least one has to keep aside all ideas of pity for another or even compassion , and have to be stern to oneself - not physically , but till a reasonable quota of knowledge is gained . One should not fall prey to violent emotions and MUST be able to see things in the light of what one is doing (ie Pursuit of the Self). There is no other objective here - no reality shows or institutions or writing of books or lectures on the circuit . It is ones realtionship to oneself having known our relationship with objects (it will be expanded upon in this section on superimposition ). In closing this is why this request for cleanliness in approach to the posts already made and to follow ..... unless one is convinced that knowing objects "outside of us'' is not enough ... us also being objects have to be known in order that we may comprehend the world and everything in it as it is and not as it should be , for we owe a duty to every being to do so -being thinking animals and peace rests upon our individual sanity and knowledge .

This request is unavoidable since utmost cleanliness of purpose is a requirement on part of each person , I have a duty to make this clear  , it would trouble me lest I be taken otherwise . The knowledge requires it and it is not my personal requirement . For I do not wish anyone to be aggrieved

due to the lack of not being aware of these preconditions to knowledge . These are not my requirements it is the ethics of assimilating knowledge and understanding nothing more . I will emphasize once again on the independence of the individual to take what is good for him or her and disregard the rest .There are no shibboleths in any of the posts - nothing is a dogma  - it must be understood as Reason as the ancients saw , it requires an ability to suspend ''EVERYTHING'' that has been considered true for at least some time .  So that things can be seen with a fresh mind , and not a cluttered one which will draw parallels with modern inventions - it HAS to be understood in all simplicity and straightforwardness, it has to be understood that these things emanated from the minds and intellects of people who never had recourse to books , printing or modern instruments , it has to be understood as a legacy left for the future , it has to be understood as been given without reservations and as not belonging for a particular country or class of people , it has to be understood as knowledge in all its purity and to be given selflessly for no gain personal or collective. It is this spirit that has kept the knowledge intact and it is this same selfless giving by the ancients that in the long run proves detrimental to any aggrandization by any class of people or nations - for there is a sure and inimicable result which follows bad intents and more so where it represents Truth and Self or being for it is the Self of each and every one . The same in all and all equal in it . 

There is a remarkable quote in one of the Upanishads by which I will close this strange post and request :

"O Bhagavan, Hiranyanabha, a prince of Kosha , came once to me and asked this question 'O Bharadwaja , knowest thou the Purusha of sixteen Kalas (parts) ?' I said to the youth : 'I do not know him. If I knew why should I not tell thee .He who tells that is not true is dried up, verily, root and all. Therefore I dare not utter untruth .' Having ascended his chariot , he went away in silence. That I ask you what is that Purusha ?.

                  

HIGHER VEDIC REASONING :

  I would request everyone who reads this to keep in mind their experiences and Ideas of Dream and Memory also in addition to the Waking state or ''the physical world''. As also the State of deep sleep , all these should been seen in conjunction and reasoned out in tandem. Either outside in or inside out. Maybe parallels can be drawn from ones own ideas of these states etc .Another request is that one may try to understand this post from the viewpoint of the "smallest time interval that a person can think of '' when such a superimposition takes place . It is called KRAMA in yoga . 

Snake in the rope analogy :

  A person who percieves a snake instead of a rope is under a delusion , his delusion is removed by the knowledge that what he percieved was in fact a harmless rope lying about and not a snake . This correctional knowledge may come from himself or from another who may point it out to him .

     Now what happens here is that when knowledge arises in the person , the snake is found to be non existent in the rope and the rope alone remains. So we have here a case where we come to the understanding that when "something'' is superimposed on ''another thing'' the thing or object superimposed is found to be actually non existent . IT only had an apparent existence for the time that he or she was under a mistaken impression , and what actually remains is the rope and it is the thing which is actually true and existing . The negation of the idea of a snake in this particular example leads to the exposing of the substratum which is the thing existing .

So the existence of the imaginary snake depends upon the rope , for if the rope had not been there the mistake in identity would not have occured. 

One of the main things in explaining this phenomenon is that : That which depends upon on another for its existence is itself non existent . 

Everything seen in dream state owes its existence due to the mind since the objects seen in dream are from the mind itself , so basically it returns to the mind when when wakes up - these objects in dream are so in a way the mind itself in essence . But during the time the dream happens we experience them as real objects . This is the power of veiling the truth by consciousness .

Now How is this power of veiling in consciousness applicable to the so called outer world ?

Here some previous knowledge is necessary :We will resort to the Pot analogy

The pot as an object exists as we all agree .

The pot is a manifestation standing in Time and Space (as are all objects).

The manifestation cannot be Extracted from space (though the manifestation is a representation of time ) Since whether the pot is there or not (or any other object) space PERVADES it equally . That the pot is there does not segment or cut space . Though we say there is space in a warehouse , or pot or any such thing the object does not or cannot aggrandize that space for itself .   If the object is destroyed or moved the space is unaffected , but we cannot even imagine an object standing where there is no space , in fact the very assumption of there not being space sounds so illogical and one definitly has to have his head examined . So the pot even if there is water in the pot the space remains the same . 

So we see that all objects are "superimposed'' on space including human beings (being objects themselves but conscious objects) .

So all phenomena are superimposed on space and as such are temporary and are dependent on space for their existence - so they are non existent , what remains is the substratum which is true . Like the snake in the rope . Even the sun and earth are superimpositions in space . 

So this knowledge of the outside world does not clash with the workings of the mind - as this fact is more easily perceived in the mind - appearances and disappearances are in a flash and within the life time of a person whereas in the real world we are prone to "assume'' that just because it was there before we were born that the phenomenon will endure . This kind of automatic assumption in consciousness is a priori and embedded . It is common to all people and animals in fact . The world is such an object.  

This problem of apriori consciousness also works at the level of the intellect or acquired knowledge -

We accept the morality handed down , we accept the truth in Sciences , we accept the truth of the world , (ie. we instinctively accept the knowledge as true in our intellect ). Whereas they are all arising from an unsaid and unthought apriori embedded within us . 

It is a consciousness only this apriori  which engenders within a human being the receptivity to the ''Truth of Objectified Knowledge'' , Truth of mental images , and the truth of The knowledge accompanying consequent to the feeling of the Object as Idea .

This ia a kind of wrong inner awareness , that truncates both our consciousness and knowledge . 

We are talking of  pure knowledge - it is more enduring and eternal.  

Now the question is whether superimposition can take place between 

a) Two well known objects only      (snake and rope )

               or 

One well known and the other not so well known 

                or

Two unknown objects .

  and what are its validity in spoiling our knowledge and to what extent they are instrumental in creating delusion or an appearance of ''Life and living'' in a conscious observer.

For this we have to take the case of a father who beats or scold his child and then suffers the agony of the child which is actually imagined in him . 

This agony is like a drama , the father has no cause to suffer due to the pain of the son - he "imagines'' what it would be for his son and then suffers himself . This is a ridiculous and common example of superimposition due to ignorance . The pain felt by the son is the sons alone , if the father does not want to suffer he should not have agonized his son . Gor what happens is that the mental image , as an idea and feeling becomes enlivened by virtue of the father being a conscious agent . Consciousness in the father makes him to imagine and suffer .

So here the mental imagery is superimposed on the intellect and the father ''feels'' or suffers with the sun .

Why has this happened ? because the father relied on his senses rather than good sense !!!. He perceived by his organs of perception the contortions of his son consequent to his actions .

NOw what is the or was the right thing to be done and perceived ? a glimpse into vedic reasoning is given here and the culture .

 The father and son are but superimpositions and hence do not exist or are non existent , after all a person perceives what is material (ie.Physical) with his eyes etc. So if the bodies which (are conscious) are objects and coming under phenomena , it is obvious that the body is not the son or father - it will in time dissolve like a pot and "give up the pot space'' !!!. So if the son and father are not the body - whom to beat and by whom ? .

So the body is out of the question , no human being is the body - then what is the point of being violent ? - A man has to be totally delusional to be violent and think he is inflicting harm by beating up his son .

I AM SPEAKING FROM A 100% INDIVIDUAL VIEW (AS IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD FOR INDIVIDUAL  KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING) In short I am writing for myself alone . or on a one on one way and never to a group of people . Discretion will help a person to avoid his family members and community from consigning him to a lunatic asylum .Ethical perfection and understanding is required . Since the subject is Truth /Self of oneself and not the self of many . Other wise we miss the point by a mile.

So then who am I was the question naturally .

I am not the body ....then what ? THis is the stage of the conscious observer (purportedly) who was an object himself turning the gaze inwards in self enquiry .

Stopping for now.

             

There is a thing called SUBTLETY AND PERVASIVENESS - this principle dictates that what is subtler than another is more pervasive and INCLUDES the lesser principle or principles 

ie. Space is the subtlest of all the 5 great elements or otherwise known as Ether by some and Akasha by the Vedas. It contains and permeates and "holds'' all other preceding inferior principles within it . So the WORD space is to be UNDERSTOOD as an idea within us as such other wise our Word Idea as it was meant will not be complete. 

Now as a way of digression :

Earth the grossest of all elements can be touched, and seen and felt etc ie it can be physically perceived by the gross senses (Skin,Nose,Tongue,Ear,and Eyes).

Water can also be perceived in a physical way. Water and Earth are the two lower elements when we come to Fire - it can be touched , and it can be perceived and smelt heard etc but more than that what we rely on is that it has heat and light and we mainly in many cases infer fire from that ie. we are not so dependant on all the senses- tha eyes and inference is enough - so it is partly a gross element and partly a "Knowledge Element" .

Air is only known by "feeling'' or touch on the skin- but whether there is movement in air or not - we infer 100% that air is latent in space and even if air does not exist in a particular space by agitation of the atmosphere air can be produced - here a very large amount of inferential knowledge is required to intuit the presence of air .

So in a way Fire is the place or limit of all names and forms . Beyond fire there are no names and forms  . Fire is where all things start to acquire shape - the flames are indistinct yet have shapes . but water takes a shape and is not very unchanging in the smallest period or Krama . 

So between Earth and water the method of perception or its understanding is very rudimentary.

For Fire it requires both Inference (which is knowledge based ) and observation ,

For Air it cannot be percieved in any way unless movement is there - it can only be inferred of its latency as permeating through and through - It is totally Inferential in general and partly felt by the skin and "wooshing'' sounds in the ear . So it depends on knowledge for perception or understanding of the word Idea in AIR (.*wind , breeze, gale, typhoon etc are not Air ). Air is the element and it is quite strong in that when held by a container it can counteract all other elements inferior to it (eg. Balloon, Submarine , Bubbles ).So there is a quantum jump from the perception and understanding of earth , Water and Fire , THis is knowledge based completely.

Space is not even inferential knowledge - It is a consciousness , we are aware of apace , it stands to reason because if a man has to infer space he is probably so dense - space is obvious and it is a consciousness or a knowingness or a pure type of knowing within us . A man moves to where there is space , it is intrinsic to our relative existence a pre condition of movement and life and objectification .It is all pervading, it does not touch any object but it holds every object within it , it cannot be thought of as a segmented or truncated unless an object is there to mislead us as to its nature , It is by definition infinite , in most cases no approximations are required for the WORD space and its word Idea the feeling is caught and understood by everyone in its true sense - it is a knowing through consciousness , and accurate not requiring a ''learning'' of any existence of errors between the feeling, knowing and intuting . Unfortunately the existence of objects in space in the physical world give a wrong impression of space . Our Inner worlds are cleaner and clearer than the outer world to the extent that objects are kept to a minimum. Some commentators have described space in the following manner - Objectless space , or space is the non appearance of objects etc - this is total rubbish - one need not define space it is always KNOWN . It need not be thought of , it is knowingness of space and so here there is a quantum leap from AIR which is inferential and so knowledge based , but space is totally a ''knowingness;; and hence an immediate Idea and feeling and reality which is experienced . A man underwater may not become aware of the earth but space is still there . Air becomes manifested as pressure in water due to movements . but air is also pervading water . 

From space our ancients understood what knowingness was. Anyway if a man meditates on Space and its qualities itself he is half way to godhood as he at least has understood a little of the word Idea God which in itself will clear up his ideas of a personal god and consign it to the trash bin.

There is another thing - in each higher principle all the other lesser principles are existing but unmanifested .

But in Earth principle it also contains all the other 4 elements including itself in a manifest manner so that they can be known . 

Bottoms up is latency and up down is manifestation of properties . Bottoms up is a movement from the Manifest to the un manifest and Top Down is movement of thought from the Unmanifest (meaning not immediately touched or smelt etc) to the manifest . Both ways of thinking have to be there in our consciousness. This type of two way transcendency can easily be gained with a little understanding of what I have written in this post .

So we have now three things Objects , Super impositions and the principles of Subtlety and Pervasiveness . An astute person who is interested in knowledge would be able to relate these thoughts to the stirrings of the finite to the infinite and as a concommitant of these ideas a clearer picture of the Word Idea God,Infinite, Consciousness,Knowledge etc (ie pure principles which cannot be thought of as having divisions within them ).

Now the inquiry turns inwards to the object that Man (we are ).

We are both an observer and the observed - now it is a fact of evidence that one cannot be so - there must be some error in perception - for the observer cannot become the observed .The observer is different from the observed.

So turning to ourselves we find that like objects we are Name and Form and stand in time and space . and consequently ARE objects as we are perceived by another , and the law of causation (which includes space and time ) are applicable to us , and also that we are physical and so having 'materiality'. WE satisfy all conditions of a non conscious object primarily . Now the problem of being an effect occurs - what is the basis for the body , who is the agent and what is the material involved .

The reasoning was as follows : our parents are not the immediate cause for the body since it would be a very strange generalization leading up to Manu or other people and again an interminable regressus ad infinitum was apparent whereby - by the third or fourth iteration everything would go awry and a ridiculous assumption has to be made without any grounds what so ever to stop thinking in a particular direction just as socrates had to pull away his gaze from the picture , in other words the cause (which was an effect at present ) not being apparent would in thought (if indulged by the thinker) would swallow the effect !! and he would in all honesty and consciousness would be running around in a figment of an imagined infinite psychosis looking (ie thinking or trying or meditating to get a cause in the physical world by playing around with ideas in the thought world ). 

It was found by the application of the principle of Transcendency or ''point of occultism'' as others call that an agent was involved - the agent were ones parents . Now what were the instruments of the agent were the question since every agent has an instrument and it has to be an instrument . THe instruments were the body (obviously) of the parents and again the material were ascertained to be the food eaten by the parents and churned by lust , which after a period of time started to form into a body . So food or its essence was the material for a body , and the agency was from the parents (Agents have to be conscious in order to be an agent otherwise instruments were not applicable ). Agency is a quality of a conscious person and should not be mixed with the normal commercial relationship of Agency and Principal which is a Physical and judicial thing . Judicial is below Ethics and Natural laws of Justice and Theosophical musings but above Politics.

Now it was ascertained that if we carefully analyse 

the relationship with a Agent, Instrument and Object (or its effect or product) each one has an agent , Instrument and Object by itself which led to a million multiplicities .

To explain this statement more clearly :

The Potter was the agent , and the Potters wheel was the instrument or hand , and the pot was the object .

Now taking the potter who in this SPECIFIC INSTANCE WAS AGENT - himself was an effect requiring an agent (his parents) who required instruments by themselves or the potter would not be there .

The potters wheel required ingenuity and so an agent was required to make it and that agent required parents etc etc.

The pot it goes without saying required agent and instrument .

Now each of the agents required another agent and instrument and etc etc as also the instruments of those agents and etc etc - it was within two or three thought cycles like a large Money Chain Fraud and its ambit . What they found was that the vitiating factor was the assumption of a conscious entity AND and object at the same time . Inevitably it led to a multiplication where a human being reached the equation as an agent . So the regressus ad infinitum was pin pointed to the attributing of human agency . Then what was the way out ?.

They (our ancients) understood that in the matter of Instruments used by an agent - it required the action of not just the agent - it required the action of knowledge to come up with an instrument .Call it invention or improvisation or any other but it required observation  and transformation of an already existing thing , in consequence of a need . The need was also traced to human beings . The rest was easy - since only one person could act on one instrument at a time - multiple agents and instruments were inadmissible in thought also . As with cause and effect where immediate cause was from the effect and remote causes required the interpolation of agency to "bridge'' it . Agency reqiured - a desire and and need , and action required knowledge , in which case the body (which was previously considered as a composite as agent) became the instrument of action . 

So they concluded that the body had now met the wonderful synthesis in every way of being an object only despite its being conscious . It met 100% all the requirements of an object which was non conscious ie,like stone . 

So Who am I ?

If I am not the body even by proper reasoning , to whom did the desire belong , or the necessity , to whom did the knowledge occur ? , to whom did the agency occur if my body was an instrument of action ? (ie ofr the purposes of carrying out actions ) .

Now this type of reasoning ''raised their'' consciousness and they went inside - like socrates they pulled themselves out from thinking and looked into the world - and they found that all objects are superimposed in space , so too was the human body - but they had now isolated a principle that was subtler than space but could think and was conscious - they went in again pulling their attention from the outside world - and came across dreams and mind - so mind was found to be subtler than space but having the same quality of space , there was a "space '' and 'sky'' and objects in the mind as images - but they found that knowledge was required for action , just seeing something outside and then seeing the same mental image inside was of no help , just like a hungry man trying to catch a rabbit by sight , The image vanished and became space or sky inside , but the knowledge of the image, of the need still lingered as well as the need or desire to manipulate an object . To whom did this knowledge occur ,etc etc

Who am I ?

They looked outside again and found that the images outside were the same as the ones in dream . the seed of the world in dream were the same impressions as that of the waking state .So the dream state was subtler than the waking state , and had a tinge of apparent intelligence corresponding to the human being in the outer world . In all respects the waking state had solidity and the dream state did not have it , but being subtler its elements could be traced directly in the waking state - this was understanding - not of objects but of subtle principles . If the body was not available for consciousness and the mind which was subtle but ephemeral in details also was of no use then ....

The who am I enquiry was continued as Feelings and Desires were detected - the enquiry was was man a bundle of emotions ? without the body ? but only through perception of the senses ? - ie. Not the physical eyes , nose , ears etc (which were subsumed by the result that man was not a body ) but by the constituents of knowledge (smell, taste, sound, sight touch .form ).  would it be reasonable to see all objects in the world as combinations of these ? - It was a NECESSARY thought since they had stumbled upon something more subtle than space and yet perceivable and could be known . 

Desire for an object seen outside was thus linked to aesthetics and necessity or any other vicarious need and so - knowledge of objects was translated to feelings which was an OBTAINED REALITY and being experienced .

So who am I ?

Since feelings could be known and remembered - obviously feelings were different from the observer (they inferred that the person desiring experienced desire ) so it was two different things , since the desire was consumnated when the object was possesed. For a hungry man cannot dream of food and remove his hunger in waking state ,(for our ancients Food was the bench mark for necessity - all the rest came later  ) - It is explicitly mentioned in the Upanishads . And a man in dream who eats a lot or does not eat still does nothing neither does he sate his hunger nor does he die .

So Who am I ? 

The dream state was false , but the desires were not !!! so subtler to the mind feelings were percieved and inferred to pervade the universe through knowledge - NOT AS FEELING THE WAY WE EXPERIENCE .

So who am I ensued 

They perceived man as not a bundle of emotions but as consisting of knowledge , and it corresponded with the outer world where everything was an object of perception and subtly INDICATIVE of knowledge . (IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT OBJECTS APPEARING IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD ARE KNOWLEDGE PER SE -Never , it is the foolish thoughts of idealists and the contrary views are of the realists both are stupid and ignorant , the others are the Nihilists and the Materialists and the votaries of consciousness , will and morphology etc ).

So who am I  ?

We stand at the threshold of knowledge , both outside and inside , now another corroboration was sought by the rishis - sound was found to be a way of transmitting both emotions and knowledge , and every object had a Name and Form , so too human beings - they were not the body but agency (and as a consequence action ) could be induced by addressing them by name and calling attention to them selves and directing their faculties to an object (or transmuted objects as objects of knowledge ). So just as a pot was called a pot a person was also like a pot in the sense he had a name !!!.and as pots go he had form also , So the negation was completed - man was only name and not form for name was only sound . The forms were negated .

So who am I ?

Name was cognized by feeling and knowledge just as a pot was cognized by feeling and knowledge .

So who am I ? Name or feeling or knowledge ?

Knowledge was found to be multiple

Remembered, Accreted (like that of objects ) and the knower was gain found to be different !!! since in Knowledge "to know'' means to be separate from the knowledge known !!!.

To SEE to FEEL and then to KNOW so who am I ?

The existence of memory made it very clear that the outer world and its experiencer was different from the inner world and its experiencer - But man lives by action so what was action ? If the body was the instrument where did the action lie ? was it not with the person ? If the person was not the body then could it be said that the person was knowledge as known ? The intellect was thus discovered and defined . 

If so then would an intelligent person do something to harm himself ? (Socrates).

Then who am I ?

 

Obviously anyone may be perplexed as to where all these Rhetorical Who Am I questions are leading to .!!

It is here that we see the action of superimposition in a very vivid manner .

The senses are greater than the body and the mind is greater than the senses , the intellect is greater than the mind and the Self (or ego or empirical ) is subtler than all of this and everything else stands in this . It is actually the consciousness of ''I'' as represented and used by us in conversation and feeling and knowing.

How does the superimposition work ? it is as follows initially there is the feeling "I AM THE BODY '' within us , it is actually a feeling and not a reality , like a mistaken notion . 

The qualities of darkness, or fairness or short or tall or beautiful or ugly etc which we observe a attributes of the body are superimposed on the Self . really speking the self has no qualities like these . If a person takes the time off to think carefully he will find it painfully obvious that he has by usage superimposed these qualities on the "I'' sense that he has as an Idea within his consciousness of himself.

And in return , we have a feeling of continuity as if we will live forever and will not die , this is a quality of the self and not the body but this is in turn superimposed on the consciousness that we have within the ''I'' Sense.

Obviously when we speak of the body it includes the statements "I am smelling""I smelt,I saw etc which create the identification of the functions of the Eye nose etc on the ''I'' or ego or empirical existence or knowledge we have . This is the object part in the ego and has to be cut off  by proper rationalization and experienced through understanding .

Now at the mental level it works in a different manner : The mind is all attributes , since forms are projected on it due to perception or from memory - so take the following example and I hope it will serve as an indicator of the contents of the mind in the ego and which are also an object matter superimposed on the self -

A man is father to his child and husband to his wife a son to his parents a grandson to his grand parents a student to his teacher a nephew to his uncles an employee to his employer a colleague to his co workers a friend to his peers . 

Now all these "relationships'' are a figment of the imagination - at each particular situation he superimposes the Idea within him on how he thinks the others will perceive him and then acts accordingly - none of which are a reality . All these relationships get solidified within his consciousness of who he is ie.the "I" sense within him .

A car thus becomes him , his house in consciousness becomes him, his pet becomes him, a plot of land becomes him - so in a way the "body of the person includes all this rubbish'' none of which we have earlier seen can be truely said to belong to the Self , They are non existent in the self , and are held so tenuously by a figment of his mind . 

The third level is the Intellect - here his ego  becomes identified with the knowledge and Feelings of pain and pleasure that he has experienced (for are they also not what we call life and experience and so an ''acquired'' knowledge like the same imbibed within us by the perception of an object transformed as an idea of the object within us. 

Understanding and knowing that the above three types of consciousness comprised in the sense of ''I AM '' are actually false and have to be removed by understanding , by the methods of similarity and contradictions . 

Meaning between words and their meanings and between meanings themselves have to be correctly applied to "Prise'' away the false consciousness from the "I AM '' consciousness at present . as they are all mixed up like salt in water and are indistinguishable . Knowledge is the only way and a close monitoring and ethical living will slowly shift the Consciousness away from the body and mind and intellect to the self proper (ie. Empirical Ego ). It is here that the person realizes ''AHAM ASMI '' or ''I EXIST'' not "I AM" . From the state of  "I EXIST" it is a state where no other evidence is required to be had of any concepts etc since it is the most a priori and directly experienced consciousness , And the only true axiom from which all other thoughts follow . Being self evident and a priori no assumptions metaphysically or physically need be made either for observing an object or for any hypothesis and so no regressus ad infinitum or esoteric point is exists or in other words there is no Maya or Ignorance . 

It is here that a person can actually be said to have become a person (Human Being) without becoming anything(other than what he actually is ) . Though embodied or empirical in Ego . 

Meditation actually begins from the above deep understanding of the "I AM"ness in our consciousness . And the Vedanta further says that "The Upanishads have to be carefully studied in great detail wherever the oneness of the individual self and the Self are  mentioned -in order that the said oneness may be correctly ascertained ".

This is the meditation and this is the life and this is the Truth that is abiding within everyone and everyone in it . There is no higher knower than that and there is no lower knower since it si the only conscious and knowing factor predating every other principle and so the "Eye'' that sees everything else the only conscious element , everything else is an object to it and so non conscious .

There area few things which everyone who is really interested in Metaphysics to grasp - the word Ideas we have to be understood properly and then that understanding can be used IN ADDITION to what we use as normal usage in communication between people .

Inthe portion on subtlety and pervasiveness space was mentioned as the most immediate thing that was in our consciousness whereby we "understood'' the word space intutively ie, without going into details on hearing the sound of the word space we accept it as True and a fact - though it was not an object per se as far as objects go by .

Now the Self has been described as "having no exterior or interior and all pervading ''like space'' - it does not come into contact with any object but all objects stand superimposed in it ''.

Now looking at the words "Inside '' and "outside'' - we are so careless or loose in language - we restrict ourselves ONLY to the phenomenality of the senses or immediate perception - just think a person opens a door one way and then says he is inside his house and another opens his door and says he is outside !!. Really speking these are just words to locate an object in space , actually just because ahouse is located in a place does not mean there is a divison in space - the division is apparent only and not one of Truth. Just as if say a small pin hole exists in a piece of blank paper , would it mean that the paper is non existent ? no it is an illusion the paper is a spatial object and the hole an aberration , it is only an apparent thing like a snake in the rope . 

Now the words inside and outside used in conjunction with a feeling of space - though we may say specifically "I am inside the house '' or I am outside the house - what happens is that these ideas within us actually truncate the true idea of space . It is easily ascertained if one is careful enough to analyse this phenomena. So Inside and out side are words inapplicable to as a reference of space , as the ideas if inside and outside CANNOT be transcended in consciousness by any way whatsoever and falls off on its own . Only a fool will try to prove that inside and outside exist in space - never they exist only in time , and is temporal . Never spatial .

so if one employs precision in thinking then slowly the consciousness will change . If a man understands that even when he is in his house he is not bereft of "outer space '' and the inner space is the same , he will be more strict to himself,. And mean what he says and says what he means in Idea and feeling - this will clear the ground for him to progress whereby action will be accompanied by right intent and knowledge and feeling .

The actual Self is a witness , and the agent is the empirical self . Movement or its consequences belong to the ego and not to the real self . And when we say witness it means there is only one witnessing consciousness unlike many people witnessing an incident . The witness is the ultimate limit and is the direct self which can be inferred and inhered in by meditation and thought and understanding and experiencing .

I am just appending some things about the self that are mentioned in various places - just in case anyone is interested and wishes to proceed deeper

1. My child , in the beginning it (the universal) was Existence only,one alone without a second.  - Chanddyoga Upanishad - 6.2.1

2. Where one sees nothing else - Ch.Up - 7.24.1

3.All this (whatever we indicate by the word this ) is but the self - Ch U - 7.25.2

4.In the beginning All this was only the self  - Aitareya Upanishad -1.1.1

5. All this is verily Brahman (That ) - Ch.U 1.14.1

6. The self devoid of sins - Ch U - 8.7.1

7. The Brahman (That) that is direct and immediate - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - 3.4.1

8. That which is beyond hunger and thirst - Br .U - 3.5.1

9.Neither gross nor subtle - Br.U - 3.8.8

10.It is the seer itself unseen - Br.U - 3.8.11

11. Knowledge - Bliss -  Br.U - Shloka 7 under 3.9.27

12, Existence - Knowledge- Infinite - Taitereya Upanishad - 2.1

13. Imperceptible - Bodiless - Tai.U - 2..7

14. That great unborn Self - Br. U - 4.4.22

15. Without the vital force and Mind - Mundaka Upanishad - 2.1.2

17. Unborn . comprising the interior and exterior - Mu U - 2.1.2

18. Consisting of Knowledge only - Br.U - 2.4.12

19. Without interior or exterior - Br. U - 2.5.19

20. It is verily beyond what is known , as also what is unknown - Kena Upanishad - 1.3

21. Called "Akasha'' the self effulgent one - Chanddogya Upanishad - 8.14.1

22. It is neither born  nor dies - Bagavad Gita - 2.20

23. It is not affected by anyones sins - B.G - 5.15

24. Just as air is always in ether - B.G.- 9.6

25. The individual self should be regarded as the Universal one - B.G.- 13.2

26. It is called neither existent nor non existent (ie not a concept) BG.- 13.12

27.As the sekf is beginingless and devoid of qualities - BG- 13.31

28.The same in all beings - BG - 13.27

29.The supreme Being is different - BG - 15.17

             There are a whole lot more - the method of meditation and teachings are slightly different in the East than from the West , since first an aspirant is "Taught'' the nature of the Self first , so that he can, once experiences start to come be alert to the right knowledge that is shown . He is also explained what consciousness is and what knowledge is  - before he starts on meditation  proper . ie. The true nature of the SUBJECT is taught and then the objects and Name and form and World , Nature and God are to be inferred from them and how it relates through will , intelligence , and Maya , or God etc is to be arrived . But in the West the approach is the other way around , necessitating a relearning and a struggling to understand what constitutes knowledge, consciousness, mind and  what exactly the intellect is and the Ego as distinguished from these .So there is a more of art and aesthetics involved in cogitations in the west or flights of fancy which are quite detrimental to the core of the issue .So there is a type of learning process which embraces - Object and Man and World bottoms up so that it moves through Polictics, Poetics,Rhetoric and Aesthetics and Oratory and Jurisprudence and Ethics and then actions knowledge and intent .

In the Vedic style actually Names , Forms and Actions only are analyzed in the context of Empirical self, Intellect, and Mind - never the body and the waking state is just sounds or language reduced to sounds which is the only support for the wking state - ie. Words are the only support according to the Vedas for the waking state and nothing else .Its incidence on the Consciousness is studied and the feeling and Ideas and knowledge is discussed with relation to the empirical ego only - action and agency are fro the intellect and the mind is an instrument just as the intellect is of the ego , and the ego is the object of the Self .It is a purely top down approach.

So Karma lies in the intellect in the vedas and the body is just a robotic instrument albeit flexible - even thinking is not attributed or even consciousness . It is Jada or non illuminating and does not partake in either the good or bad of man - just a vehicle for action . And nothing need be thought about it - as intention and ethics are a matter of knowledge and intelligence and will . The body and world is known and so nothing need be inquired into of it that is the final opinion of the Vedas . This is the basic difference . The Greeks adopted a somewhat similar approach by calling it the divine but never really emphatically proceeded from such a realization . They were somewhat circumspect unlike the emphatic nature of the realizations in the Upanishads. Shankaracharya the great teacher is even more emphatic he starts with knowledge through the intellect only and nothing less. So it is particularly difficult to understand him unless one has a very good grasp of the Empirical Ego .

This is the basic truth of the thing , Some of the greatest Philosphers from the west are those who have approached the question from a Top to down method and their philosophies are the most enduring  and incisive.

,It helps to understand better if a person from the west begins with an understanding of Greek Philosophy - since in world philosophy the age before Greek thought in the western Intellect is known as the "Dark Ages'' and the with the arrival of Socrates , Plato and Aristotle - it is called the ''Age of Reason'' . One has to have an idea how thought evolved to reach the present state . Greek philosophy is quite at concordance with the Vedas but lack the emphatic nature of the realized mantras of the seers of the Upanishads . Compared to the Vedas the volume of writings in Greek is very miniscule , but then Greece was a country which had a reputation far beyond its size !!, And again the language of the Vedas are still the same as it was when originally passed down through memory from Teacher to student in formal study . Sanskrit is the only living classical language in the world, spoken and understood as it was during its earliest times. There are hardly any worldly literature or writings in Sanskrit . The language is the closest to an ideographic language (like chinese where they have no alphabets per se but ideas represented) . with sound and imagery everything was  a mantra and so a feeling with a picture was transmitted by sound - it was known as Deva Basha or language of the Gods.  To people who understand Sanskrit its ability to transmit knowledge is a source of perpetual amazement .Everything is an experience within . It is possible even today to get the exact realizations mentioned in the Upanishads in the same way the original person got it , the conclusion is owerwhelming if experienced and leaves one with awe as to who was it that originally realized it . It is futile to search for the Vedic sages did not leave their names - they attributed it to nome de plumes originating from nature like "Mountain", "Friend of the Universe" names mening just "River" or "Forest'' or lover of sacrifices or "the oldest ''. etc.   

I place these thoughts at the doorstep of your aspirations in the humble prayer that if they are helpful in any manner , that the gratitude of the self is reason enough for my happiness.. 

In closing this most incomplete writings .

I hope that may all of us be of one mind 

"aa no bhadraah kratava yantu vishvatah "  meaning 

Let Noble thoughts come to us from every side - Rig Veda 1-89-1

I have just re-read the posts until 9th Feb. If I understand correctly, application of Intellect and Memory is required to discern proper knowledge, or to draw correct interpretations/conclusions of observations/experiences.

In a modern context, a database table consists of thousands, even millions of data items. These are like memories. Like the analogy of the tree in your post. A query is required to extract results from this table. The query then resembles Intellect, or the application of it. The results obtained through a proper query should then become knowledge. Such system is based on what is called Boolean Logic.

How is Vedic Logic different from it?

In another context, Shankara's commentary on Chhandogya Upanishad, places memory (Smara) as far superior to Intellect (Chitta). How does it reconcile with Vedic Logic, where both are on par.?

Dear Captain,

           There is a problem in comparing within a modern context of Computers ,Databases and raw data eSqltc- because you have to understand that nothing in the outside world can actually provide any indication of an intelligent and conscious and all pervading entity , this knowledge is gained from the conscious principle in nature which is man accompanied with the ability to abstract etc . It is inward looking one has to look inwards at one self , all the talk of objects and causation etc is for the understanding of the individual who is conscious so that he may know what exactly it is to be an object that is also observed. Boolean logic and SQL's are only very very remote and very inadequate parallels and would be misleading and erroneous - The Key is Consciousness (Knowledge and Will ) . Not just Vedic Logic even Western Logic will not admit to non conscious elements to be introduced in consciousness . 

 Shankaras Commentary on the Chhandyoga Upanishad is Upanishad specific  , There is a word called Chitta which is the undifferentiated consciousness consisting of - Mind, Intellect,Memory and Ego . It is a four fold divison .  Memory is the intellect and world in the subtle or dreaming state , it is THE WORLD ITSELF that is seen in waking. THere is no other ground for the Intellect . The Intellect is the totality of the world with all its objects which include all things seen and known ie.Experienced and Also not experienced .Memory provides the backdrop for the world in dream , there is no waking state world in dream . The channdogya upanishad is a part of the Sama Veda which is dealing with (Sthuthi) or in other words its knowledge is highly Metaphysical and the knowledge makes it entry at that level only - it is concerned with the Idea (to use the western parallel as per Plato or Schopenaeur) of the world as a universal feeling or it is if we are to take the aspect of Upasana on Om it corresponds to M as the higher principle and U as the lower principle . ie. Aesthetics and Knowledge of the action of will are the main things . Channdogya Upanishad has a lot of Vidyas in it. Tat Tvam Asi occurs there . It is the final knowledge and relates to the reflective character of the intellect . Moreover universal memory yields the secrets of the vidyas in this upanishad . Here Knowledge generated from the universal memory which is the knowledge of a NON OBJECT  and not of something ''apart'' as we would think of in human terms . It is pure and first hand knowledge that can be experienced - it comes from cosmic memory and leaves no impression after experiencing unlike day to day objects as it is knowledge pure and simple which negates the wrong knowledge within us and so is our real self. 

Vedic logic starts at the level of knowledge only - though we explained using worldly examples - ITS INCCIDENCE on knowledge is to be solely considered , because there is no other way of knowing the world with some reasonable correctness. To go by appearances is to live by error . Whatever I wrote was from the view point of Knowledge only and I have used the word Intellect to mean (Including memory) because we cannot differentiate knowledge from memory and perceptional knowledge when discussin in a non conventional way using material examples - because memory is nothing but acquired knowledge or rather experienced , but that which is heard and seen but not experienced lie in Knowledge in the intellect as generic ideas or concepts and not in memory . It is temporal - Shankarcharya always uses memory in the sense of universal memory and the examples he gives are to be understood as - Displayed by the mind as Image and Detrmined by the intellect so obviously the object is from Recall or Intellect proper . Since the reflective nature of man is the crucial thing and not the sense perception - It is totally internal , and you can in no way consider that just because you are awake and then thinking that it is the waking state , the internal process is of Dream - thinking is dream state Captain and all the things have to be seen from the angle of thought and its working consciousness- even when you read

a book the effect is the same as thinking , and the consciousness at which it works is the Dream consciousness- it is a very subtle science , nothing is written from the view point of the body and world . since both are objects - the world is an idea held by the idea of identity with body at its base .

Thanks Hari for this amazing post. Packing so much within one comment!!!

However some doubts arise due to the conditioning of our Chitta (inrtellect):

nothing in the outside world can actually provide any indication of an intelligent and conscious and all pervading entity

Should one then believe that the axiom, "that which is outside is also inside" is invalid? If true knowledge can only be discerned from inside then what is the use of all this exercise of learning? Or is there a relationship, Boolean or otherwise?

My reference was to the Chapter 7 of the Chhandogya Upanishad where the dialogue between Sanat Kumara and Narad takes place. Sanat Kumara takes Narad progressively through all tools of knowledge i.e. Name, Speech, Mind, Will, Intellect, Contemplation, Understanding, Strength, Food, Water, Heat, Ether, Memory, Spirit, Bliss, Infinite and finally Self. Each item is described as superior to the preceding one. As one can see Memory is placed far ahead of Mind, Will and Intellect and only behind subtler concepts of Spirit, Bliss, Infinite and Self. Is this outward teaching or is there Inward explanation? Or experience alone can resolve it?

Dear Captain,

  What you have quoted me on is still true , you have to understand that demonstration of truths in the area of Metaphysics  is only required for the sceptic or the man of doubt or the debater . It is not required for a person who believes . You cannot use the axiom "that which is outside is also Inside'' unless it has become an Axiom to you , this is the curious problem involved in Self Realization AND Theosophy or Philosophy or Metaphysics as people wish to call it. Why any statement relating to the SELF or its descriptions CANNOT be taken as axiomatic is because - a) If you take it as axiomatic then FAITH alone is necessary and no doubts will accrue

b) If you require Knowledge of the same - are you not reducing the so called axiom to an idea within you and then proceeding to understand it as if an object ? It is not possible to verify this statement by such abstraction or reason or judgement - for again it is knowledge NOT of an object but of a NON OBJECT (ie nothing can be an object of its own search ) ie. the person wanting to know this fact is in essence saying that he is different from himself , it cannot be so , you would not want to know yourself again in which case it will be a superimposition done by yourself .

Hence the flights of fancy , If you wish to know yourself as an object obviously you have to look into a mirror , but to even contemplate such a thing is foolish , everyone is conscious of himself - why look in a mirror for that ?. If such a vulgar and materialistic reasoning is taken it would be impossible to realize the self - for it means

You cannot know the self without being without inside or outside and you must know the self to know that you are in effect without inside or outside - it leads to a tremendous fallacy of reasoning of mutual dependency which cannot be got out - the intellect will not yield the right process by any way .

This is how it is to be understood : "You are not requiring evidence of yourself as consciousness since you are a being possessed of consciousness , and consciousness cannot contain non consciousness within it , it being subtler than the temporal things (as if like space ) it is beyond time space and causation  , unlike the body which is subject to causation and time and space , therefore THOUGH YOU THINK YOU ARE THE BODY BY FORCE OF HABIT , YOUR TRUE NATURE IS ONE CONSISTING OF CONSCIOUSNESS (ie.Knowledge) and there fore absolutly beyond any objectification (like akasha or space or ether ) This is the meditation and this is the realization . Proper understanding will lead to an absolute shift of your ego sense into the right locus from the body centric view. ". 

If you take statements which are emphatic on the  Self as normal statements the you are just reducing them to another  a  priori starting point for an "investigation'' - investigation of the self is impossible , correspondence is what is sought . 

How can you mix up in your knowledge a science like boolean algebra which is subject to an a priori that requires an observer and a statement on the right nature of the observer (who is the thinker himself) as another object in both these cases you are denying that in your knowledge that you are non existent and depend on the body for an evidence and not knowledge , and so you will die naturally and as you think or concieve so you become - it is a very dangerous tack , you are reducing yourself to a mental concept . It is pertinent to quote Kirkegaard here - he has very aphoristically said Being before God . You are placing yourself (body consciousness included as an idea ) before God !!!.

He further has again in a fantastic piece of writing on Religion written - "Sin is before God''.

Once again I will emphasize another aspect - after having a good idea of how to "understand'' the self and statements relating to it - it has to be brought into experience , merely knowing the meaning of the words will not help - The idea contained in the above has to be firmly grasped .

So we must have faith in accepting descriptions relating to our true nature , and then work from the bottom up . as WHO AM I in the manner of negating the attributes one by one and experiencing the knowledge .

So you see there is no conditioning , the Chitta is the instrument , the conscious entity which has empirical intuition and perception and knowledge and empirical existence is the one being conditioned , obviously being conscious entities it depends we choose by what we wish to be conditioned and by what we do not wish to be conditioned , it is a matter of choice - if you are of the opinion that anything will result in a conditioning then you are no better than a beast of a man and with no particular opinion or individuality or volition . Actually there is conditioning when you accept certain things as a priori (ie as given ) and proceed to build the world from that . it does not make sense , for then why are we conscious and having intelligence .

True philosophy is the ascertaining of these a  priori ingrained in us and these are to be unconditioned , it is a view and an angle of vision which is uncluttered and will open up the intellect . There is a Knowledge angle to things and also a practical angle , you accept only those a prioris which point upwards and is knowledge based and it settles into your psyche as your essential nature is knowledge .  

Finally as a post script - I wish to clarify the statement made , I hope it was not ahead of its time , the thing of it is , endowed with faith you can see everything as divine , but there is a problem here , there is you and there is something that is adored in Faith , just as in meditation there is the meditator and the meditated - there is duality as if it were , knowledge alone will bring it to the non dual seat . In cases where we see people who have (as popularly perceived) as having practised faith and realized God or the Self , it is just that it is the path they are most comfortable with that they are enunciating , but they too have full knowledge of the infinite - only they adore it so much that they prefer to keep a distance and adore that which is inestimable and adorable in their opinion . They dislike merging in it completely , they dwell on the aesthetics , just as a poet or painter would do - if looked from this angle there is nothing wrong in such an attitude . Some people believe in the "Immaculate Conception" and they go in for knowledge and others prefer "The Adoration" . But in due course they too merge fully before dying . It is the tendency on part of people to qualify a thing in empirical terms - we cannot help it . The truth is the same whoever comes across it without any blemishes . Some people have the necessary tools by virtue of their life before realization so that they can expound it in a particular manner . If you look carefully in India and study how various god realized people , or even in the western world have lived - it can be seen that there is a growth in knowledge towards the end in the case of people who have come up on faith alone , and in the others they have that knowledge already . It is the same , some prefer to tell stories and parables , others prefer to educate via Yoga or Advaita or Tao Chi or any other method - the results are the same . 

Thank You Hari, for this beautiful answer.

A student can progress only by expressing doubts.

A. If one has to go by beliefs/faith then what is the purpose of logic?

B. The question about Boolean Logic has its roots in the Anekantvada (Theory of Non-Absolutism or Doctrine of Many Ends as literally translated) of Jain Philosophy of India which proposed that an end result may prove:

  1. syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
  2. syād-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
  3. syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
  4. syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
  5. syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
  6. syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
  7. syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable

To me this appears to be Fuzzy Logic which is a development on Boolean Logic, Though I am told that Shankara refuted Anekantvada, using logic.

What path a student should choose, one of pure logic or the one that offers a mix of faith/logic?

Or, is there an end of logic?

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2022   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service