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

Dear John ,

     When Two people see a Tree  or any object - then you have to understand - all things involved are EFEECTS (as per the law of causation ) - since an object is an effect and its cause has to be more subtle than the effect but pervading it completely and imparting a high degree of its materiality in the cause which must be immediately observable or inferable . 

Now when two people view the same thing - they assimilate the object through a conscious relationship with the object - the senses bring in data - form by eyes, colour by feeling or touch , and so the generality of the tree is known - now the particular knowledge WILL be different as 

a.If defect in the sense organs are there or are not exactly equal in each there will be difference in sense perception or data to the mind.

b. If the understanding of the Feeling of the object is not equal - difference in knowledge will ensue

c.The ability to abstract or "'Reason properly'' will affect the the outcome ie. intellectual properties.

d. The nature of the person viewing the Tree (Nature = Mulaprakriti) whether in that KRAMA he was in Sattwa , Rajas or Tamas - this will colour his understanding.

 So faulty will be 4 ways in any combination - Bodily appendages effectiveness, Mental Ability , Intellectueal understanding , and the feeling based on the Nature operating at that time . 

It is a mess John . We are in a mad house one can never be sure of our world it is only a probability !!.

Will I will discuss later it is a very subtle science and I do not want to mix the idea of will with law of causation and perception and reason and objects .  It will spoil the whole flow of this piece . Will is where we reason of the Self etc . Now we are in a body centric approach with SOME subtlety involved only but I have kept it to a minimum -Will is fully subtle and is an inner principle . I am not saying that you do not know will - but the idea is to correctly present the Vedic reasoning since right reason only will help you in seeing this particular type of view . I will not hesitate to add that many views exist but there is unified view in the vedas .We have to verify to our understanding and satisfaction - if knowledge is not working , then yoga can , or mantra, or laya , or tantra or bhakthi or Karma or Hata , or Hamsa etc options are there for a person to choose or also Puranas are there , books like Yoga vasista are there for those who enjoy light reading and thinking later . So no harm - But what I am prohibited is - is the twisting of knowledge in any way to suit my purposes or aggrandizment to the detriment of another .In the west it is all Ideas one man brings out something and another man renames it and yet another ideanates so there is a profusion of theories on one thing itself . The views I am eriting are the ones which in the vedas have stood the test of time and have been evolved by careful consideration of EVERY OTHER ALTERNATE VIEW . What you would get apart from what I have written would only be some older theory which is not tenable and would require the synthesis of later thoughts to bring it up to quality .    

I will write on the temporal - but you may have got the drift by now, 

Dear John,

     The key for Cause and Effect in Theosophy is actually what I am saying - and it raises goosbumps just to read it - is it not a tremendous miracle ? the miracle of relationships not only within the object itself but also amongst all objects and man included - there is such a fantastic and beautiful harmony and it all points indelibly and unmistakebly to being pure and proper as the very stay and sustenance of everything . As also the wonderful relationship of being pure and simple -it is a miracle of the self and the self alone .

 John in my earlier post I did mention the fascinating beauty of the general which will at every stage of thought be still general and axiomatic - As it proceeds to the more particular at each particular it becomes axiomatic as we are abstracting knowledge till it touches the end of thought and Ideanation if we proceed to the smaller and smaller ideas and on the other hand it ends with the transcending of Time , space and causation in the outer world - it is a perfect harmony of both the inner and outer is achieved as no more cosms are there - even the saying that the micro cosm and macrocosm is same is only an idea - once the idea is ended (ie ideanation or erraneous knowledge - which is perceptional knowledge masquerading as new "findings'' through their transformation into an individuals ideas ). To be without ideas and thought is to see correctly and it is benediction it is intutive living

Dear John,

            I will make some observations about sciences , you have seen that whatever the science it still is an object in that - within us it appears as an idea or a topic , or a subject or as a matter for consideration - it requires a conscious principle to "handle'' it as if it were an object in the outer world . So it is again dependant on the subjects whims and open to mismanagement and interpretation - but in varying degrees each science has a part that is always "open'' to the abstraction that will lead to a person stumbling upon its very Raisonne d'etre and he finds himself in the position of having to make a metaphysical or Theosophical assumption (of course for his knowledge only and progress) . In Vedic Reasoning this point occurs in every structured science ie. on trying to transcend it BY AND THROUGH ITSELF (again David might be interested) to the very source of its existence (and ones) this point of metaphysical transcension will be reached and one is called to make his stand clear and then proceed . This is the point of end of perceptive or "learnt'' knowledge and of known abstractions which have come into the science proper - here is the point where the person cogitating has reached to the point of Agency and being . In vedic reasoning it means that the cogitator has so been immersed in the object that he actually ''Believes'' it exists as he thinks it does and so what happens is Maya takes over - Maya is that consciousness attained to wherein any two things taken at random can be connected by the thinker and honestly believe it to be true ie. he abstracts a lie which includes himself (the empirical self) and the subject and object identification takes place - but it is false as the science (as he knew it in the beginning) as an object cannot merge in the subject . This is also called the "occult point'' or point of the occult" by some western philosophers. Now what is the significance of this point of Maya or honest deception by oneself is that he believes that he has "expanded or stumbled upon'' a New truth and proclaims it to the world - it makes a fool of oneself . The most of this is seen in the people who want to Wed Science with Metaphysics or bring out spin off and variations in science itself . It also affects people who are prone to the view that in Metaphysics everything in science has to be questioned and also to scientists who feel everything in metaphysics has to be questioned - Nature exacts a very cruel revenge by blinding the person and he lives by never knowing the truth  but believing his truth is the truth and pulls a lot of people after him . It is saf but true . This occult point of maya  can be easily ascertained and one "should pull away'' the same way as one would pull away from the contemplation of a painting and is called to his own senses and he realizes he has "fallen'' into the picture . 

Another thing you can easily ascertain about a science is - the number of instruments required to be interpolated to prove a thing - the more instruments are used the more removed it becomes from the original idea and becomes a spin off - for in addition to all the mechanical instruments required for observing phenomena - you still ahve to contend with our own instruments of perception which are so unreliable !!!!. It is here that among sciences Mathematics holds the highest position as it does not require any instrument other than oneself . It is an entierly cogiatative process and highly intutive . The only fault is that it requires the apriori axioms other wise it would fail and would fall on the "thinkers whim" ie the point of Maya is immediately attained !!!. 

It goes like this - 1 +1 = 2 , but if metaphysics is the object a problem happens is not 1 an introduction of a limitation to space ? and if so Is not one an object ? and so time has been created in space . moreover if 1 is a line as it is written then it IS an object conjured up by the thinker and will vanish as he moves into higher cogitations - so it is also subject to time , space and causation in mind and knowledge but the truth is beyond these things . So point of ignorance is immediate . Now if alternate representations of the number as a point etc is assumed the same defects follow . 

The use of Matrixes and subsets to abstract data interferes with the idea as it places apriori principles and immediately reduces the metaphysical into an equation which is dangerous .

Use of Calculus both differential and integral relate to infinitly small spaces or points and the representation will hamper further transcending .

Trigonometry and angles and geometry and lines are all intimately connected in knowledge in the intellect and so on.

If one contends that 1 need not be represented - then there is no mathematics involved it is pure metaphysics apriori .

If zero is used still it would not help .

As art and aesthetics yes the science is useful to make existence look beautiful as an artist would by curves and asymptotes and what not - it would be the same as looking and appreciating a painting or sculpture - but it would not be True - just a happy escape from the dreary world .

Again where absurdities define the same end it is also a point of maya or of lying to oneself without knowing it .

Take the large Halderon collider and the out put or its thing of observation . The smaller the object of observation (if one is stupid enough) the more grosser and number of instruments will appear between the observer and the observed !! It only takes one away from the truth and into such stupidity as is inconcievable . It is strange when one has to work so hard to make a living - whole continents are getting together and engaging in something which at the most will only give SPECULATIVE KNOWLEDGE at the most . Because the point of Mystic assumption is not taken care of - so we have god particle - it is the height of absurdity and the very end of the intellect as it should be where even god cannot be understood by a few fools as pervading everything and so not a particle is left over - every particle has being for its existence otherwise how would it become observable ? . 

What are the practical use of observing a phenomenon that requires evidence for its existence and that evidence is so transitory that it is not useful in any manner for enhancement of life ?. 

Sorry I have digressed . Anyway stopping for now.

Really not the time or place to digress on your digression... won't stop me though <g>

You are right that when they claim to have seen the Higgs Boson at LHC, it is somewhat of a lie. The same goes for quarks etc.

The concept, let alone the actually attempt, of trying to have the mathematical equations represent, i.e. help interpret the "what," of the physical nature of anything is mostly a giant mistake in Science.

It is only about correlations, information, effects ...

Yes absolutly right John when you so so succintly put it yes Mathematics is so important among sciences for this very reason and occupies pole position as it is highly meta physical in its nature and finds applicability in other sciences - within mathematics itself - it is purely an intellectual exercise.

Dear John ,

         I am attempting (it is an attempt only ) on the Hermetical point you have written -

The object is perceivable uniting time and space within itself and it is located away or "there'' in time and space and so also the object c** conscious perceiver in a "here'' . Now what happens in perception is that it is always in the now for a conscious observer . The past and Future are mere mental imagery . Because when perception takes place there is a uniting of ''here'' and ''there'' simultaneously by the very relationship of observing and it is in the now . This "now'' always thus is a very dynamic point of ingress of knowledge that is away from us through the senses . There is a very significant concept of limits in all the major philosophies (Mainly in Greek and Indian where it is known as Platos limit (sometimes jocularly also ) and as bindu in perception in the Indian one , Bindu = point  or KRAMA = succession of knowledge in time ) 

Taking the example of a Clay pot or Earthen pot . The upper limit of the pot is the vanishing point where Time and Space end and so causation . The lower limit is the "Break'' that occurs when involuting it in a Downwards manner ie Deconstructing it in consciousness and knowledge as opposed to Transcending it by knowledge upwards .The lower limit or "Cause '' (but which cause in itself is an effect) is the appearance of an agent and instruments .

For a pot to be made it requires action by an agent (ie natural ) so that clay is transformed into a pot and agency requires that an instrument has to be there . So when we apply the metaphysical cause and effect rule strictly we encounter a lower "point of maya '' or occult point .This is the ambit of the word or idea ''Clay pot '' - or it is known as Shakthi Vritti = or modification indicating the power of the word idea on our knowledge and consciousness and so ability to lend itself to abstraction  and also has another aspect called ''Artha Vyapthi '' meaning Artha = meaning . and Vyapthi = Ambit - it is the ''Area of the word that the word takes up in our consciousness , or apace taken in knowledge ."

So The first thing is shakthi Vriti or the power of the Idea inherent in the word and Atha vyapthi is the area it takes up in consciousness and knowledge or the space it aggrandizes within our inner world of knowledge that corresponds to the "Size'' of the object in the outer world (this two sizes are not the same as form - form is in the outside world but the other is the corresponding size or space the same object as a word idea by virtue of its material nature or strength of impenetrability as is signified in the impinging of the sound on consciousness and feeling would occupy )..

This upper limit of the pot in consciousness and the lower limit in consciousness denotes the same value or texture as it is in knowledge (which can be infinitly accomodated ). So it is same as above as below . and it is so for all objects . the consciousness of a dog cannot overlap into a consciousness of  a tree or pot boundaries are there - but the underlying ''Breaks'' in knowledge are filled by (the observer) - by a Metaphysical fact if he is transcending upwards and by the Insertion of or deconstruction of the object into an action which is further deconstructed into an agent and instrument (ie going down is physically ) and going up is Metaphysically . But it is all in the intellect and so the substratum is either space , time or manifest knowledge which are same both at the upper Mayaic limit and the lower Mayaic limit . By inference it means that Pure being has no direction !! . (this is higher metaphysics and another area ). 

Of the limits we can safely say that all objects manifested outside in the world co exist without over lapping into each others territory - each have their given place and ambit - which is cosmic this is the Idea behind ''Rta''.   there is a very subtle generalization - Rta is the reason fire stays as fire and not water and why water does not on its own become anything else without the intervention of agency .

The delineation is :

Sathyam , Rtam , Dharmam, Artham ,Karmam . meaning 

Truth, Limits, Properties, Right Means , Right Actions.  

  I hope I have made sense and not confused you - but basically I am harping on the same thing repeatedly , it is universally applicable - provided the theory or hypothesis is sound .

So it is easy for you to intuit that there is cause above and below an Object . Upper cause is metaphysical and lower cause is  material (in a way metaphysical) the arrival of the agent .

So it is forgone when an agent will be needed in relation to a particular object !!!. These are the points of necessity so an agent appears to make utility - so necessity and utility are wedded in action !!.So upper point of agency is necessity and utility as signified by the agency and the lower point is limited by the instrument being used .It limits the action (like in splitting wood whether axe is used or chain saw is used ).

So as with pot - so with action both necessity and utility can be inferred on one side and agency and instruments can be observed on the other . One metaphysical (though the level of idealism comes down and realism takes over ) and the lower limit as appearance of a necessary agent and instrument. 

So agency  uniting necessity and utility ( or intent ) is the upper limit - and lower limit is the efficiency or reach of the instrument .which will limit the action . At these levels of knowledge one has to have highly ethical character and conduct - preferably intutive and not abstraction .

The more particular one becomes the more it becomes ethical as more and more agents and instruments are interlinked - and here comes the analysis of the individual and the collective and  the concomittant conduct of day to day life .Here enters social conduct and polictics which is lower than ethics .

So now what would you say about shootings in schools and malls ? 

The action , The instrument and the Agent is known - this is not a metaphysical problem of the self - it is one of social conduct , by an individual and it is ethical in nature and the instrument is very efficient , and it involves polictics and society as the inter action of a single person was involved vis a vis the collective (ie society) . Jurispridence is of no use as death was the result of both the victims and of the perpetrator . 

So we have an analysis (which is posterior analysis ) - as Too much particular thinking leading to a breakdown of ethics and interaction of the individual and society leading to a breakdown in polictics.  It is not an intellectual act it is a mental one , unthinking and unethical - but the blame rests clearly on Polictics as a whole and on lack of ethics in the Individual and society and their relationship . Too much thinking in an individual is the result of mismanagement of perceptions by mixing the subtle with the gross and then having delusions leading to inability to think and relate correctly the particular to the general or the general to the particular or the general in the general or particular in the particular as a general etc. It is Inexcusable in Theosophically and philosophically in a human being . And an indictment on the society and its intellect which will be a blown up version of the individual - as ultimately the micro and macro (within the manifest) encroaches on their mutual boundaries making co existence impossible .

How will this deed be judjed by the infinite ? Rta is the point of judgement and standard set by the universal consciousness on ITSELF - it divides the result among the collective intellect of the people IMMEDIATELY as sorrow and pain and suffering which is exacerbated depending upon whether they have the strength to withstand it as a material society or a spiritual society . 

No variations from Rta are brooked - the variations are known in the general by the cosmic intellect by its degree of divergence from rta and a determination which is automatic exists based on whether it was done by a reasoned society (by man ) or an inanimate (like a tree falling and killing a man ) which is the allowed distribution to nature who is otherwise so bountiful that she takes away - So it knows if a man dies by another man since Rta is narrower . as man can go all around the world - everyone suffers these days . If a stone is used to build a house - its divergence through transformation is known from its original shape to another and again the bounds of Rta operate - like the displacement of stone by reason through the use of a catapult to kill or its displacement to build a house . The great question is was reason involved - these are the genesis of jurisprudence and natural law and justice . Imagine how far we have come from being pure bliss to absolute sorrow and pain and suffering and privation - periods of happiness in life are less and becoming lesser .!!!



I really appreciate the posts here. I will have to think these over to give them their proper due. (I am humbly asking for some time to think these over <G>). I don't think we are that far apart...  (truly).

(note: The 3rd Hermetic Axiom I wrote yesterday was really a result of this thread, Richard Ihle's General Theosophy post (#95), and some results of recent Physics experiments)

"Imagine how far we have come from being pure bliss to absolute sorrow and pain and suffering and privation - periods of happiness in life are less and becoming lesser .!!!"



p.s. love this discussion!!

Dear John,

        Now that I am free and have finished the post on Quantum Knowledge , I will try to answer your question on free will , For this is a very subtle thing and I would have been jumping the gun if I were to answer this aspect , hence the delay it was intentional on my part , However we gan get into this matter as the ancients saw - it is a quite interesting thing because will is the ulterior most thing .To quote from the Vedas they define Brahman as :

Icchha  Shakthi - Gnana Shakthi- Kriya shakthi (meaning The subtlest is Will next is Knowledge and lastly Action ).

They are not three different things but actually inherent in the Self and obviously Will without knowledge is worthless, Kriya shakthi means the Ability to do actions or Agency - this is a property of the Intellect which as a reflection of the Empirical self in the Intellect endows or makes the ego think that it has action within it . To elucidate this point :

The Intellect is an object to the Ego , So the intellect is non conscious but the Intellect has action whilst the Ego or that which is the reflection of the Self in the intellect has consciousness but no action . The ego appears conscious because of its proximity to the self and by virtue of its being reflected in the intellect it(the ego) appears to have action whilst the intellect appears to be conscious . There is  amutual superimposition of the action of the intellect on the ego and the egos apparent consciousness on the intellect - due to their proximity and intermingling .

If a person stands in fron t of a mirror then himself , the mirror and the reflection in the mirror stand in relation just as the Self , The Intellect and the Empirical Ego (which is the reflection of the self in the intellect , ie. ignorance or Maya ).

This point is a bit too subtle and diffcult to understand - so I will use a slightly direct interpretation of the same thing from Schopenhaeurs fourth book comprising of his "World as Will and Idea".

The Universal Self is Will alone and the world and us included are a reflection of that will , as if  reflected in a mirror . Now this universal will is totally free  as it is unbound and not limited by anything in it . So the will is Free and it is so , this is the exact view the Vedas also have . Now within the the embodied there is always a craving for action , and action requires will - so all embodies things which are endowed with action (ie,Intellect - since action takes place in the intellect and the Ego acquires the sense of agency or doership due to its mistakenly identifying with the intellect just as it identifies with the body and the mind ). Now this action is only apparent and not a reality - 

Going back to the mirror analogy - The reflection of the person in the mirror though identified with the person has only an apparent existence and not one of reality - it is contingent on the placing of a human being in front of the mirror . This is likened to the Self , which is reflected in the intellect - now the reflection in a mirror everyone will agree has no independant existence apart from the object being reflected (ie the Self) and so all actions of the Ego are controlled by the self ie. Willing is ment here .

The Human being is a representation of that will solidified , but is not free as it is bound by superimpositions - what we call willing is actually a disengagement from the universal will . The Universal Self relates to itself in the matter of will in a peculiar manner - though its will is totally free - the will that we have is subject to distortions due to the Ego (which is the mixed or undifferentiated consciousness of 'I" within us - by consciousness I mean Knowledge ) .. Unlike other aspects the will is not to be seen as an example ....but it is to be seen as in an Identity , ie the individual will is totally free just as the Universal will since there cannot be distinctions inside will itself  But due to a wrong identification within the reflection of the self in the intellect first to the body , then to the mind and lastly to the intellect itself - we do not have any will individually - it is only a "feeling'' of willing due to body centric consciousness , just as in actions proper - body is only an instrument - the Intellect has action and nowhere else is action to be seen - even the Ego does not have action it only has agency due to wrong identification with the intellect . Agency is the feeling of doership and not the actual doing , the doing is by an instrument but guided by knowledge  and intent . So will is non existent if a person identifies with either the body , mind or intellect .

He has to attain to such a point of pure knowledge whereby he overcomes this handicap and is nomore reliant on any of these three principles so that he is a real reflection of will as meant as an idea of a conscious object

The Vedas Treat this in the following manner -the superimposition in the Ego is consisting of Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas this is known as moolaprakrity or seed nature .this is the general nature of the embodied ego which in itself is a reflection - now by the knowledge gained Taman and Rajas can be removed as they are not inherent to the ego .Sattwa is the true nature of the reflected ego and Sattwic Ego is a perfect reflection of the Self  and is universal , Now a strange thing happens - action is taken away completely in a man of knowledge and he becomes universal , but as long he has his body he continues to ''Appear to do actions'' to others but he does not do it . What actually is taking place is those karmas which were the cause for his present body and whose impressions are there since birth work their way out and he leaves the body at the cessation of the last karma . This is the fact , there is no individual willing the individual willing is a separation of power from the powerful just as an object separates time from space . It is a myth and ends with the death of the individual no will exists , it will be the impressions accumulated in his subtle body that will impel him to action again and again . It is as Western commentators say a Will to life , it is inherent in Nature , Nature strives to action , this is the separation of will from the supreme by embodiment . This striving if made for action the man "Swims against nature" ie he denies the will to life which is a negation of the bound existence and he asserts his universality . He attains by pure knowledge a point beyond time space and causation which is pure will and knowledge itself . Sice the thing to understand is Knowledge of the self which is experienced is beyond coausation and time and space and so is will . I mean pure knowledge and not secondary knowledge - it is the one which is saturated with will both are same not different.

It may seem difficult to even imagine such things as no action or pure knowledge and will and in the purely human terms it manifests as fears of death and , cessation of action and willing and striving - here the thing to be understood is that the Self holds everything as an Idea only nothing is real other than itself , there is no other . But it works through nature , nature is the one which strives and replaces and exercises will in the disengaged manner , though it is only an idea within the cosmic we suffer due to wrong identification - that is all .

It is useless to debate the freedom of will in a human being , it is the movements of a shadow only having no substance . Fleeting powerless and impotent as in a drama or movie a sham . Even if you carefully think about actions as popularly understood - it is a very strange thing - we term the movements of the body as actions , it is only the movements of an instrument of action like a hammer or axe or saw . So what happens if an object represents the extraction of time from space then actions further split the time into intervals of rest and movement which is only a further extraction or truncation of time itself !!.. So all actions rise in knowledge stay in knowledge and disappear into knowledge and nowhere else . Since in the inner world it is not a permanent transformation - the nature of the mind and knowledge is such that they do not become anything separate even when they are an object within itself it is the same thing only and with the passage of time it reverts to its source the mind or knowledge . Nobody can live in the future or past , everyone experiences in the present , it is the movement and planning by fear and reason and superimposition that we think of the past and future so what happens is that a major part of our life is lived in this fairy past and future thus not paying attention to our present and experiences - it is this one point known as the here and now which coincides with the infinite Self and can perceieved only when the same thing is a modification of itself (ie embodied) without a manifestation the Self is unknowable . There would not be any knower per se since the self alone exists and just as we are aware of ourself as a whole and not in parts - the self also need not think about itself that it is the self .

I hope I have put in some understandable views  making sense to you .

Since it would be very very vey difficult for me to have explained this from my understanding and language skills - I have mixed in a lot of the vedic reasoning with the writings of schopenhaeur (4th Book of World As Will And Idea ) - because in the Vedas we consider only Knowledge and through that will - there are no dissertations on Will as it is considered unnecessary . By the tiem the Self is known (in its knowable aspects - everything about will is also known ). But it has been my experience it is mainly a Western preoccupation with the problems of will , which are not there in the Vedanta. It is due to the inability to understand the nature of the Self properly . Which is why we have a very strange example - one country with a dissertation on the war field exhorting to fight without any reservations turns out to be a very gentle and docile culture , and many others  which exhort peace turns out to breed aggression . There could not be anything more strange to an onlooker .

Which is probably why Nietzcshe remarked quite perspicaciously as was his wont (I quote ):

Brahminism and Christianity : There are recipies for the feeling of power, firstly for those who can control themselves and who are thereby accustomed to a feeling of power : Then for those in whom precisely this is lacking, Brahminism has catered for men of the former sort , Christianity for men of the latter ".

            Of course I do not wholeheartedly agree with Nietzcshe , but it is a fact to a large extent . We are demonstrated and taught that there is no power in Brahman . Perceptions of power and will are not for an ordinary person , it is a very rare view given , glimpses by the manifest to people of self control of its inexhaustible power , which is why it is not talked about normally .  It an aspect of the universal in its moving nature and displays of power are quite terrifying , even if seen inside - and one prefers not to have anything to do with it . It is silent and expressive without sound . It is not fear but it evokes something more than that beyond words . It is only a display for the edification of the aspirant .  


Dear John ,

      Let me try and put the Vedic Reasoning in a manner that maybe helpful to you - 

I hope that you do agree that everything ie. every object stands in time and space ie. prior to an object appearing anywhere whether it is in the outside world , or the mental world or in the intellectual world of knowledge - first time and space have to be there . Now There is a difference in the intellectual world of knowledge - you have to understand that what we call the intellect or intellectual knowledge is nothing but knowledge gained from the sense perceptions . In a manner of saying we instinctively or intutively grasp the things relating to the object (other than the fact that it is an object ).There is an unsaid understanding within us that there IS an object . Nobody need say it to us or in other words we BECOME AWARE/CONSCIOUS of the object first and then its particulars like shape , colour , size ,location etc in space and WITH REFERENCE to us only . In other words we are conscious observers of the phenomena of objects which in turn by us calling them an object they stand in time and space . Now we forget another thing about us which is ourselves - one thing is that we are conscious observer unlike other objects , so we are both also an object AND an observer . Unlike two stones or trees juxtaposed and cannot intuit each other . They are bereft of our type of consciousness . Now man is the only animal that can reason amongst all the animals in the world . What it essentially implies is that we are capable of abstracting or "Extracting" (though I do not prefer using this word) Ideas and concepts from the "data'' received from the (our) consciousness of the object which is first general (as we become aware generally of an object first) and then our particular sense organs "direct'' our attention (or we become aware from the general - the objectification of a particular item ). Now how on earth would any person who has experienced in such a manner (or perceived an object ) EXPRESS it to another person after the incident ? - It can only be by words and the conveying the IDEA (which he has brought about by abstracting his perceived knowledge ) only and never passing on to him the feeling and understanding that he got from the observance of the phenomena . This abstracting of perceived knowledge and iits inccidence on our intellect and understanding and making it into an Idea or Concept (which is Idea of an Idea and hence general ) for transmission of knowledge is what sets apart a human being from all of other  phenomena (you have to understand that we are also phenomena or OBJECTS of perception to another  perceiver ). This is the ability to INFER and REASON  So technically whether anyone knows or not every conscious observer reduces all experiences of objects to an Idea - Even for his understanding of the phenomena . 

Now coming back to your questions - we now have the following obtained REALITIES 

1. The so called conscious observer is also an object himself 

2.So the observer though conscious is a phenomena himself 

3.As all things observed are effects - he himself is an effect .

4. Both the Seer and the seen stand in time and space .

        Now as we ABSTRACT or take the essence of perceptional knowledge (which is actually raw and contain only the generics of an object) and understand it and reduce it to an idea within us of the object (in knowing and memory) , The object per se does not exist (say as a tree ) in knowledge - but rather as an idea . Just as a small child in school will be asked by his teacher to "write something'' on a tree or wht he did in his holiday or his family or siblings . The child will "objectify'' this idea within him (I do not know if it is a strange quirk of fate that calls this object within his knowledge as a ''subject'' - ie. like Mechanics as a subject, astronomy as a subject etc ) and then convert it by analysis and understanding into language or his essay or treatise.  Now what the ancients perceived is that when one knowledge appears it "displaces'' another knowledge and also it followed our method of perception which was infallible - from the general consciousness of many objects around us we "become' aware of a particular object and it is experienced as a feeling from the data of our sense organs and the feeling  (which actually is an idea at this level itself - if you observe carefully) of the object is understood and transmitted as an idea to another or retained for our use . The incessant flow of various such feelings understood and stored in knowledge as Ideas are thoughts which we relate to the object outside of us and remember of having perceived by the EYE. 

So this coming and going of knowledge gave a great insight to the ancients - knowledge of objects though so subtle was liable to change . It arose one moment and stayed for abstraction and passed away and in some cases were totally forgotten unless recalled . Again the knowledge though appearing to be a single body and very subtle - Its subtlety cannot be imagined - since Suppose I have perfect knowledge of an Apple and I call ten people around and pass them apples and they eat and examine it and gain to a knowledge equal to mine - then I have managed to multiply the same knowledge 10 times without occupying any extra space  !!. So what they understood was that ''Knowledge'' could be abstracted from experience that was perceptional - and the knowledge was infinitely multipliable but without needing space - in other words 

knowledge was not subject to the constraints of space ie it was beyond space , but knowledge could be replaced in a sequence as if an object so they understood that it was a type of "erroneous knowledge''. 

Why it was erroneous was that - Abstraction or Idea or knowledge also stood in time and space and strangely it was devoid of space - or rather outside the constraints of space (unlike a solid object existing outside to the seer ) . but TIME was percieved -  and not just perceived it could also  be ABSTRACTED from Knowledge (or its essence extracted ) . So there was now a position of the possibility of TWO kinds of knowledge (whereas Knowledge can only be one thing ).

Temporal Knowledge beyond space but subject to time and hence temporal

Which indicated the existence of Eternal knowledge that was beyond both Space and Time !!. 

So what they checked for integrity was its application to the external world and found that - In the external world the same thing was possible - ie . prior to objects - space and time have to exist - in the least space has to be there for an object and the appearance of an object meant temporality or the ability to ABSTRACT time from space . Since the form of an object (David Melik may interested in this ) appearing as lines only (for we first draw an object and then fill in colours) was the happy union of Space and Time in itself and the fading of the form by the eye was its dissolution or resolving to its original state of time and space  - ie. Space bereft of objects and hence timeless. 

Now the last part or the law of Causation - Each object which appears in Space and Time and were Effects were capable of pointing towards their Cause . Or the cause could be inferred .

The Cause in general was Space and Time as all objects (as we mentioned before) were geometrical forms only which were impressed on the mind as line drawings which is why visions are mostly in lines and neon light types.

So you see why I mentioned in the original post that Causation was immediate - it is not the knind od causative concatenation that we make in our every day life , If an object which was an effect was available for perception to an intelligent observer then it would BY ITSELF point to its origins - not point to some other vague ABSTRACTION in our minds which may or may not be there . We are here talking of the highest metaphysical TRUTH which can be experienced and not the type of causation where a machiney in a factory breaks down and it is traced to the non replacement of a very cheap but crucial nut or bolt and the operator is caught and then the sipervisor and then the manger who was at home drinking at that time etc etc . Not the type of "For want of a nail the kingdom was lost '' type of vulgar reasoning . This vulgar reasoning just points to a lot of other objects indiscriminately - not looking whether the connection is between an object in the real world and a mental image in the mind and an abstraction of an idea as an object in knowledge - we will never reach a solution if there is cross consciousness involved as the rules of the mind and intellect are different than the phenomenal and objectified world.

Materriality and its immediacy therefore was a very serious matter to our ancients in determining cause and effect . Every object was impenetrable so it was of a PRIOR material which was immediate in the world . A clay pot was from Clay and Clay being a particular type or variation of Earth was from earth .So the Clay pot could trace its antecedants DOWNWARDS to the earth - (this was the dissolution by proper cause and effect from immediacy ie.the effect would reveal through its immediacy to the property its antecedant ). 

So the material of the clay pot was dissolced into the Earth .

Again the pot was non illuminating and needed an agent (this is a very different area altogether -so please excuse my ising this word of convinience to get across my point)  ie. light to illuminate it  and was in form observed by the eye .-this was fire or form (seeing)

And colours came from feeling of the pot - this was touch or air (ie skin is the organ) - it is well known that feelings and thoughts and ideas are coloured . 

Clay was earth with higher water content - (dissolution by water or pliability in materiality ).

Took up space and "gave it up'' on dissolution .

So we have the pot as Earth,Water,Fier,Air,Space and Time . 

(of course immediacy has been strictly taken here - agency has been avoided as it can only come from two sources natural phenomena which can act as agents and conscious EFFECTS/OBJECTS ( as agen who in turn is also a natural agent !!!! . Being an object .

QED - I hope I have been helpful in some way or the other . There is some more but it is not within the scope of this post .


Dear John,

      Yes John - Two Effects Can interact only when one is conscious - in which case (if you take away the instrument of seeing) then another effect is produced . The two effects that interact are One the object that is seen (consider it as an Inanimate object in the first instance for the purposes of clarity) And obviously the conscious observer who is an object and effect by itself . And the Eye CANNOT be considered as an "agent of seeing'' since it is an instrument of seeing and an instrument requires an agent which in this case is the observer by the very fact of it being conscious. So we come across a very different type of Effect amongst other effects as a human being is involved. 

Initially as laid out in various posts - The conscious observer (or so called subject) is an object itself .

Secondariliy - This observer on a SUBTLER level is an AGENT and OBSERVER . Whilst the other object remains its same position as object without transformation . 

This is due to consciousness being the difference , 

Now Taking the "BODY'' per se of the conscious observer it is an object to another observer (just as stone would be to a man ).

On interaction taking place the body (ie EYE which is non conscious and forms part of the body) the body "Becomes'' an instrument (ie it takes on the appearance of non consciousness) and the Observer becomes a subtler principle (either mind or Intellect or anything else for the sake of simplicity ). So the observing subject is a conscious principle - which CAN withdraw its consciousness from the body  and USES the body as its instrument . Which is why we say that we are not the body .

Taking the analogy of the Pot again - we did mention that a pot being revealed is not due to light (in the first instance) but rather due to the property of the pot being "non conscious" or not capable of revealing itself by itself unlike the sun which does not require any other light to reveal it . Similarly a man thinks of himself as the body just because he is endowed with consciousness and the body is an object to his consciousness - . This is the great problem - for it would be idiotic to even contemplate that  a stone is conscious and feels it is a stone rather than itself .Similarly we are in the same position but we believe ourselves to be the body - though we are a "Conscious principle'' that "knows'' the  body .

Again imagine a person standing in sunlight and priding that he is ''Full of light '' !!! it is the same with consciousness and our body . The problem is one of proximity only - since we are so close to the body the body appears conscious that is all .So who am I ? .

So from an object a man is transcended to the position of an AGENT and INSTRUMENT - a very desirable thing if you ask me in the first step itself .  Knowing this itself makes a man a better person . Would any agent use the instrument so wrongly ? A carpenter uses his adze with proper knowledge , a Lumber Jack uses the chainsaw for what it it is meant etc etc.

This Agency of conscious principle and the Instrumentality of the body is not a myth any reasonable man or woman can see that it is ALREADY AN OBTAINED REALITY .

Now more reasons can be adduced - take the case of a house where it is a conjunction of wood and stones - now can it really be said that the relationship of a person who is conscious can stand in such a relationship with his body ? ie . one of conjunction ie. as two separate things joining to make a third different thing ? Never is the answer .

A rule of conjunction is actively prohibited in the Vedas in the matter of a conscious observer - it is applicable only to non conscious objects WHICH CANNOT BE MOVED ON OWN but requires Natural agency .

Now we come to another fact - Man is a natural agent - like sunshine , and rain and , evapouration and volacano etc . So agency can only be from Nature and by natural causes NEVER MANMADE !!!.

Use od reagents in chemistry and catalysts etc are not man made agencies . It can easily be thought out since what we should avoid in our consciousness is the deification of objects that are non conscious by creating an idea of what they represent as knowledge . ie. we should not talk of the attributes or properties of objects as if they were the very definition of the object itself .

Hydrochloric acid is an acid - but it should not assume "life'' in our understanding so that we are afraid of it !!! . It is mental imagery the assumed fear of a loved child who goes to chemistry lab may get 'HURT by hyrochloric acid !! After all is not the child conscious and as Socrates enquired so beautifully "whether an intelligent person would so do anything that would hurt him ''.!!

So we all deify things in our consciousness - if we do not do it then consciousness will do it - it is maya and it is nature !!!

The Hindus are not the only ones with deification - everyone is culpable of it - even a scientist is culpable of it whether he knows it or not - it can be traced only by his Idea (knowledge) that he has of a thing as shown to himself by himself . If he is not honest then nobody can help him in higher things.

Dear John ,

       I would not be doing justice to your post if I cannot with all honesty answer your #2  - let me try to put across with a little more clarity I hope in the following manner :

In the outer world (again to the point of being boring !) - Let us examine the analogy of the pot of clay and then you can check whether it can be extended across the board for all objects and their interactions .

Let us take it as we know in the outer world : Clay is from Earth - in fact it is a special type of earth and needs to be identified (so knowledge is involved and so an agent is required ) - ie. Isolating clay from earth or identifying the particular type of clay for what he proposes to make - This is the first "break'' where a new parameter enters the equation .

Next the clay has to be worked upon to get the final product (so the potters wheel and sticj is required as instruments ) or if you take it that it is not required - the potter (or agent) has to use his hands - which in this case will be the instrument - so this is another "break'' as we introduce another element into the equation .

Finally the pot emerges - now this thing called a pot is a new name and form that has arisen due to an action by an agent with an instrument on the material .

So in the real world of names and forms there is ostensibly a concantenation of events which may appear as causes and effects at a glance - but this is not true entirely - for if it were to be so considered then everything should have been related as matters or physical objects.

At each break there is "Knowledge'' coming into play - action presupposes knowledge and conversly knowledge is required for action .

Now gain only 4 types of actions are possible by a human being and they are :

Acquisition , Production, Transformation and Purification - no other action exists at ant level physical ,Mental. or Intellectual .

Again in the real world we have the finished product existing as : Matter (which is Clay) - and its attributes such as the round shape and the constriction of the neck and the lips of the pouring area and it is a geometrical form encapsulating space and so lines are its basic representation on perception of its form . Again the texture or "feel'' of the pot as having rough or smooth or matt surfaces etc are from touch and is a property of skin and feeling . In short there is an aesthetic appreciation of the object (or Pot) as also a geometrical or spacial appreciation and also an appreciation of the utility of the object in question - which are nothing but sensate data which come into as a feeling - This is the idea contained in the word CLAY POT or POT as the case may be . It is purely as a feeling that we know this sense perception and entierly general in the first instance of "SEEING'' with the eye . The attributes are understood or examined from a feeling gained by an examination of the object . So even when we observe a pot in the real world - what we are actually coming to know or getting to know are only its name and form as a bunch of feelings comprising of (Smell, Taste, Form. Touch and Sound).

There is no other way of knowing any object in the world . So the word Idea is a feeling of the five senses(or any combination of it ).  This feeling is an ''object '' in consciousness within us and we understand the idea by abstraction . Which obviously is the knowledge in the intellect .

Now if a person thinks and lives as if he is the body and nothing else - the object seen in the real world WILL BE the true representation of the word denoting it .In other words his perception is based on the EYE only .

Now if he thinks and lives as if he is the mind - which is a definitly superior assumption - then he will understand that though the pot in the world is there - what he percieves in mind are only its ATTRIBUTES - and so the pot in the outer world does not covey the same solidity as the eye would convey . So he will deal with FEELING only in interactions with the object .

Now if he lives from the intellect - he will understand that the perception is just an Idea of the word abstracted as knowledge . And so for him the object in the real world would exist but he would deal with it in terms of KNOWLEDGE only.

So when a man lives from the body - he will (say) for instance if he trips over the pot , or misplaces it , or somebody else uses it etc will behave with violence either to himself or the pot or to the other person as he can only think in terms of physical terms and possessions . He may throw the pot on getting angry at tripping on it , or kill a person for having used it without asking him permission .In other words this is because he Deifies the knowledge or idea of pot within himself .

The man from the mind will display more understanding but still would behave with reference to emotions .For him though aware of the temporal nature of the pot existing outside would still be guided by emotions - but differently than the body centric person as the mental person will have "fits'' of knowledge which will make him contrite .

The man from the intellect goes by only knowledge and unlike what most people say about a man of intellect not having a heart - it is rubbish - they equate the physical head with the location of the physical heart and then talk as if both will have to be merged - it is utter rubbish . Knowledge is an abstraction of the feelings and so it is the esssence of the heart - and with understanding one has love and with love comes bliss . - now the man of knowledge will go by UTILITY only as represented by the WORD IDEA . So he will use a pot as a container for liquids -not use it to kill people and will not fault a person who uses it temporarily for the same utility as he has understanding that the object per se is not important what is important is the ETHICS of the utility and how far it is good for his progress in life - since the intellect always moves towards the truth . 

In all three cases the pot will be there in the so called world - but it will not exist in the same degree to anyone . 

We should not assume anything in any matter as all persons assume that everyone thinks as he thinks and sees as he sees - no it is folly to do so . Assumptions a priori will kill a person and make him slack in knowledge .

So the world does it really exist the way we think ? How is it meant to be seen ? This is the real objective - to see things as they ARE and not as they should be . As with a personal God , everyone has Personal world so actually nobody exists in the world . The world is empty and everyone goes only by the word Idea of WORLD within them . The wise man is alone in the real world . By knowledge and experiencing one has to correctly integrate oneself into the world idea . not see it as an object !!!. 

I cannot say if the world is physical or mental or intellectual in all honesty. Because it is very rarely that a person is always brutish or emotional or knowledgeable - these keep changing from time to time - sometimes brutish , sometimes emotional and sometimes knowledgeable - so we cannot say at this stage of our posts what exactly the world is !!!. Later maybe we can see reason .

Vedanta is not concerned with Realism , or Nihilism or Idealism or Voids or Pessimism or Creationism or Non Creationism or Existence or Nonexistence or divisions or parts it is only the TRUTH that it concerns itself with and not partial truths but whole Truths. So we have to take it gradually otherwise the Vedantic view will be lost in a maze of other sub systems of thoughts. I agree it is a proud boast the word Vedanta itself which means ''End of Knowledge'' . It is upto it to live to that boast . So at this stage the reasoning is not fully clear. WE are tackiling it solely on the basis of objects of perception . The scope has not yet been extended to ourselves as objects . These are the preliminaries required to be known before we  jump into it . These are the ABC's of Vedanta and already we have covered broadly some things into perception which has already lead us into how to reach and act and where exactly Aesthetics begin , and polictics and Ethics and Science etc - rather the mechanisms where by we can discriminate the beginning of these sciences etc . and how to think and relate things seen and observed and heard in the world . In fact it is not anything 100% new , most things are there in the various philosophies of the world and known to most people . What I am trying is that to make Vedic reasoning understandable without having to have recourse to Sanskrit , so that if a person knows or comes across a word in sanskrit they will be able to grasp the thing of it - not just the literal translation of the word in english and a literal understanding of the same translation - it will throw into jeopardy a persons progress . People are important not language . I do hope I have been helpful in some way to someone , how ever small it may have been .

I am just summarizing for the benefit of readers , since there will be an upping of the ante as things become more subtle and the basics have to be well known (in the sense as far as it is related to Vedic reasoning - the facts do not purport to be anything forcibly to be adhered to or anything if ones belief is otherwise ).


On the physical plane 

1. All objects are effects and stand in time and space 

2. Are phenomena ie, they come into being and fade away from being .

3. Encapsulate Space and time 

4. Space cannot be extracted from an object but time can be extracted, (Space pervades an object through and through - and that an object occupies space is no hinderance to space occupying the same place ). Time on the other hand relates to the life cycle of the object .

5. All objects being effects are thus "caused'' ie. their immediate cause can be supplied from the object itself .

6. Human beings are also objects with the exception that they are conscious and can reason .

7. Objects are represnted by Name and Form .

8. All objects stand in Time, space and are subject to Causation - this is the upper point of its existence .

9.Objects are twofold - Natural and Man made .

10 . All man made objects involve Agency , Action , Instruments and Knowledge , and so man made objects are a union of these three factors IN ADDITION to the other Two viz. space and time since causation when drilled down results in Agency , Action, Instruments  and Knowledge . .

11. An action requires and Instrument which in turn requires an agent.

12. All conscious observers are also natural phenomena and they are also objects of perception .

13. Raw primordial nature (likeSun, hurricanes, fire, volcanoes, rain , shifting of tectonic plates, reversal of poles etc ) are of the nature of agents .

14. Actions comprise of only 4 types - acquisition, production , transformation and purification .

15. Action cannot be divorced from agency . Unlike time and space .

16. To carry out actions Instruments are required always. ie.Instruments are a sine qua non for actions 

17.. Actions by nature ie. those without human intervention have a following relation ship on the object "acted upon'' -  Agency, Instrument  are The same . (eg a Volcano ) . Itself the agent and Instrument  - Instruments are fire and earth and air and space .-

18. Human agency requires an instrument also always - and the agent can be divorced from the action .

Pot is the object acted upon , potter is the agent , hands or potters wheel or stick is the instrument , and transformation of clay is the action .

19. Knowledge is a Sine qua non for all actions carried out by a human being - in other words - actions include knowledge (the quality may differ - but knowledge however erroneous is required ). 

20. Objects representing names and forms - exist in impressions in a conscious observer as an idea or a word idea in the intellect (which is knowledge) and the word Idea as a feeling of the original perception as contained in the persons memory .

21. Intellectual knowledge is acquired from the perception of objects as a "feeling '' and extracted as word idea by reason ..

22. All objects of perception exist in the mind as images and in the intellect and memory as an Idea which in turn is a feeling - both generic and particular according to the reason bought to bear on the perception .

23. The upper metaphysical limit of an object is the place at which it becomes an Idea or feeling and the lower one is where agency may be inferred .

24.Object- Perception-Feeling- Idea (reason) - Word .- Recollection is the natural sequence .

25. Actions require knowledge and action is also dependent on necessity and necessity is dependent on utility .

25. Agency - Utility - Necessity - Action 

26. Agency - Action - Instruments. 

27. Agency - Knowledge - Action 

28 . Instruments limit actions - ie . the object limits the action 

29. Actions limits knowledge  -(of the knowledge of action available a person uses a specific action ).

30. Necessity limits utility - (many objects representing diverse utilities are kept in check by necessity ) 

31.Objects limit all of the above .

32.Agency limits the self . (the self is naturally independent , assumption of agency limits that state ).

       I hope the above will suffice for the time being so that I can change gear on the discussion of Vedic Reasoning in the posts to follow.


Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

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

A New View of Theosophy


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