Is there 'light' in Enlightenment? (Sept. 03 discussion topic)

[Guest guest]

If we impose a luminosity on the Atman, then we are in the danger of

running into objectification and thereby subjecting ourselves to the

question: luminosity wherefrom?

> praNAm prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

> prabhuji, one thing we have to be very careful here is that, we are not

*imposing* the luminosity as an external attribute on Atman, that is the

reason why the word nature (svabhAva) used here. We cannot say we are

*imposing* the attributes (guNa) whiteness on the milk, the whiteness is

the very nature of milk. Hence shruti says it is *self-effulgence/

self-evident (svayaM prakASa / svayaM sidda)etc. In the same way, if you

take the example of paNcha koSha-s (sheaths) they are proposed just as a

device for the purpose of determining the real inmost Atman in TaitirIya

Up. Here shruti just to negate the dependency on external sources of light

says Atman is vijnAna among the praNa-s (the senses) the Light within the

heart..

> hope this would help

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

Well, agreed. But whiteness is not limited to milk alone in the

vyAvahArikA as light do not relate to a single source on our mundane

plane. So, I should assume swayam-prakasha should mean swayam-siddha

in right advaitic sense.

 

You said:

 

____________________

 

"Here shruti just to negate the dependency on external sources of

light

says Atman is vijnAna among the praNa-s (the senses) the Light within

the heart."

______________________

 

That exactly am I endeavouring to conclude by dissociating the

waylaying association of an external stimulus from our understanding

of the Ultimate. If you understand the "Light Within The Heart" as

the Ultimate All-Revealing, All-Encompassing JnAna", which is Self-

Evident, then we are sailing in the same boat.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

With the spiritual vision, we are able to see the invisible

light

 

With the spiritual vision, we are able to see the invisible

light

> praNAm prabhuji, Hare Krishna,

> From the pAramArthika drushti / shAstra druShti there is no seer, no

doer, no experiencer etc. in the enlightened state ?? So, who will be there

to witness the invisible light is it not prabhuji?? If the spiritual

vision what you are referring is something different kindly clarify.

Ofcourse, we know that we are talking both absolute & empirical views from

the platform of vyAvahArika only. Hence shankara says, both vidya & avidyA

are in the realm of ignorance.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAm Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes prabhuji I agree with you, we are singing the same song in different

tunes!!! But one thing, if you carefully observe shankara bhAshya 3-2-4

shankara remotely implies there is a dynamo in atman to illumine the dream

world!! I request learned members to clarify what is the source of light

in our dream world..

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

Thanks for the one song. Let us enjoy the tunes.

 

There is only one dynamo for all the worlds, known or unknown. As I

said in my first post, that is Mother, the sarvaprapanchanirmAtr1,

whom I identify with the Consciousness of Advaita.

 

Regarding the reference to Sankara BhASya, I am kicking the ball to

Shri Michael Reidy's court. Where is he? He is profuse with the

BhaSya and can enlighten us in the matter.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

I agree with you, we are singing the same song in different

> tunes!!! But one thing, if you carefully observe shankara bhAshya

3-2-4

> shankara remotely implies there is a dynamo in atman to illumine

the dream

> world!! I request learned members to clarify what is the source of

light

> in our dream world..

[Guest guest]

sir,

Madathil Nair said in his introduction

In our vyAvahArikA, we can only write

material descriptions. The "real illumination" is beyond our

inadequate descriptions and, therefore, very very intuitive and

difficult to communicate about.

 

i agree on this because of the following description of the

illumination by saint Manikkavachagar in his Thiruvembavai.

 

in the begining of his poem, he said the "arut Perum Jyoti" does not

have begining or end. in the end he says this Perum Jyoti took this

form for doing the five tasks. after finishing the five tasks it

became end. the five tasks are creation of the universe and cause of

birth,protection of it, destruction. in addition the Jyoti remained

invisible to our eyes and it grants liberation to those who meditate

on it. so the five tasks. this jyoti is not visible for ordinary eyes

like any other light because it is in "Gyana Form". it does not have

any particular form. so Manikkavachakar says this Gyana is Ambalam

(temple) and Ananda(Bliss) is his eternal dance.

 

in another composition "Thirupalliezuchi" sung on shiva seated in

thiruperumthurai(the beauty of this temple is there is no idol in the

santrum sanctorium only a pedastal is there), he says even devas

cannot measure his form and praise him. he cannot be praised by

imagination of a particular form even though he resides in all

devotees, he asks does any one knows him, his place, his name, his

relatives.in what way we are to sing in praise of him?

 

cdr bvn

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

As it was rightly said, there are many ways to sing the song of

the 'light' in enlightenment. Here is one way.

 

When we walk into a room where there is physical light, we know

there is physical light, because we 'see' it. But when we walk into

a room which is completely dark (in the physical sense), now also we

know it is dark. What sees the darkness? A dead body in the room

with eyes opened does not see the darkness (or for that matter the

candle burning by the side). What sees darkness is the 'light'

within. The 'light' in Enlightenment is not different from

the 'light within' which sees darkness.

 

Now, my friends, tear this to pieces!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

My thoughts on whether there is 'light' in enlightenment.

I think that as in some examples from shri shankara's works

and from the vedA-s given already, I think the 'light' is used

in a metaphorical sense only. To take it literally is missing

the point altogether. We use the word 'light' when something

positive dawns on the person. When we say tamasomA jyotirgamaya

(lead us from darkness to brightness), it is said in a metaphorical

sense only with the meaning being lead us from blinding ignorance

to the light of Knowledge. There is no literal 'light of the

thousand Suns' in enlightenment.

 

The vedA-s are full of such metaphorical statements. Some

examples are "sahasrashIrShA puruShaH..." , "aum ityetad

aksharaM..", IshAvAsya mantra-3, bhagavadgItA 11.12 and

so on.

 

If we are looking for an experience of literal extreme

brightness on enlightenment, I think we are on the wrong

track.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prabhuji:

 

What you are saying is quite true and no one is denying it. But

everthing that you and I say or write are all at the vyavahika level!

At the vyavaharika level, when we say that "there is 'light' in

enlightenment," it is only for our own understanding at this level.

The question of understanding and seeing do not arise (as you rightly

pointed out) at the paramarthika level - even this statement is only

an inference we get from the Shastra and we have no way of verifying

this Truth!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> > From the pAramArthika drushti / shAstra druShti there is no

seer, no

> doer, no experiencer etc. in the enlightened state ?? So, who will

be there

> to witness the invisible light is it not prabhuji??

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Your references to Bhagwad GItA and Sankara's meditation prayer have

> been noted. Regarding the prayer, isn't it a material for meditation

> where the aid of something familiar like light is required for the

> aspirant to scale the heights of advaitic understanding whereby

> ultimately he dissolves himself in himself togetherwith the

> meditation tool. Hasn't Sankara sung "asangOham asangOham asangOham

> punah punah, satchitAnanda rUpOham ahamEkAhamavyam"? Isn't that

> satchitAnandarUpam still an objective visualization for the aspirant

> which ultimately merges in himself when the goal is reached? Can't

> we consider prakAsA or jyOti in the same sense? Isn't will there be

> any jyoti left in the mundane sense the question we are asking?

 

Namaste,

 

The way I understand Shankara's use of the word 'jyoti' is

that the 'jnana-drishti' terminates the divisions between antar-,

bahir-, pratyak-, svayam-, atma-, etc. As you say, the physical light

is symbolic/metaphoric, and yet is the closest to describing the

identity of jiva and shiva. The Gayatri prayer to the Sun and

Vamadeva's chant of 'I am the Sun too' I consider in similar light as

equivalent!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji.

 

Well, I believe we dealt with this question in my lead post. We see

darkness because we see the absence of something that we are familiar

with, i.e. light. For an organism familiar with only darkness, there

may not be any need for an organ called eye (I mean the eye of human

beings and other animals) because it doesn't have to deal with the

external stimulus called light. That organisim, if we locate it and

bring it into our world of light, will not see any light simply

because it does not have a suitable sense organ. If we accept the

theory of evolution, perhaps it may develop an eye in the long run to

deal with the new stimulus. But, that is another matter altogether.

 

Our seeming folly is that we associate our external stimulus of light

with Enlightenment. If that is done metaphorically, it is ok. That

serves to exlain. Otherwise, we may be giving wrong signals to the

aspirants who may literally look for light and other signs associated

with the sense organs.

 

Am I right, Sir?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> As it was rightly said, there are many ways to sing the song of

> the 'light' in enlightenment. Here is one way.

>

> When we walk into a room where there is physical light, we know

> there is physical light, because we 'see' it. But when we walk into

> a room which is completely dark (in the physical sense), now also

we

> know it is dark. What sees the darkness? A dead body in the room

> with eyes opened does not see the darkness (or for that matter the

> candle burning by the side). What sees darkness is the 'light'

> within. The 'light' in Enlightenment is not different from

> the 'light within' which sees darkness.

>

> Now, my friends, tear this to pieces!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

I couldn't have expected a more brilliant conclusion than yours.

Thanks and praNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____

 

Sunderji said:

>The way I understand Shankara's use of the word 'jyoti' is

> that the 'jnana-drishti' terminates the divisions between antar-,

> bahir-, pratyak-, svayam-, atma-, etc. As you say, the physical

light

> is symbolic/metaphoric, and yet is the closest to describing the

> identity of jiva and shiva. The Gayatri prayer to the Sun and

> Vamadeva's chant of 'I am the Sun too' I consider in similar light

as equivalent!

[Guest guest]

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

>To take it literally

> is missing

> the point altogether. We use the word 'light' when

> something

> positive dawns on the person. When we say tamasomA

> jyotirgamaya

> (lead us from darkness to brightness), it is said in

> a metaphorical

> sense only with the meaning being lead us from

> blinding ignorance

> to the light of Knowledge. There is no literal

> 'light of the

> thousand Suns' in enlightenment.

>

> The vedA-s are full of such metaphorical statements.

> Some

> examples are "sahasrashIrShA puruShaH..." , "aum

> ityetad

> aksharaM..", IshAvAsya mantra-3, bhagavadgItA 11.12

> and

> so on.

>

> If we are looking for an experience of literal

> extreme

> brightness on enlightenment, I think we are on the

> wrong

> track.

 

Namaste all,

With respect, can we get rid of the use of 'literal'

alongside metaphor in this instance.

Literally the answer to 'Is there LIGHT in

enLIGHTenment' is of course there is. Just as there is

'YOT in jYOTi'. QED; literally speaking.

 

Let us take another example: 'upasana'.

Literally we may take this as approaching some

physical form of a deity in our daily worship. But

this has a limited effect as it is enclosed in the

physical parameters of the worshipper's intention.

( I have in front of me a very scholarly study by

Griswold on the RgVeda which must have taken years of

research but he cannot progress beyond the physical

clouds and lightning etc.)

However we may take upasana as a mental approaching

through the use of a mantra or some other technique.

Again the parameters may entrap in the now

metaphorical use of the word 'drawing near' as we are

still ignorant of Self.

If done with sincerity these upasanas will lead to the

realisation that as Absolute is all pervading, the

word 'upasana' is now redundant yet it has served its

purpose for all levels of meaning were held in it in

the first instance but initiation was needed. We are

now in the region of ineffability which is both

transcendent while being immanent; That One becoming

'many' while remaining That One, without breath but

breathing by its own power.

That is why my original challenge to the use of

metaphor was posted and I included in that posting

Yaska's words and Durgacharya's commentary on those

words describing the use of adhibhautika and

adhidaivika and adhiatmika understanding of the Vedic

use of Sun in 'direct experience.'

Adhibhautic: regarding the external world

Adhidaivic: regarding divine beings

Adhiyatmic: regarding spiritual truths

(see Yaska’s nirukta; yajnadaivate pushpaphale

devatadhyAtme vA)

 

Professor Krishnamurthy's recent posting I believe to

reflect this succinctly. When he enjoins us to 'tear

apart' his meaning he is asking us to tear apart that

which is 'partless'............. unless we take him

literally.

 

I think that much or our present dialogue points to

why our wise teachers from the past sought out a

fourth (level) turiya when they started trying to work

back from the many to That One to aid in the teaching

of the uninitiated

Maybe I am still missing the point but as a point has

no dimension, ....................

 

 

There is something strange going on here as I do not

usually join in these discussions. You all move too

quickly for me as I am often struggling to look up

Sunder's quotes while you all gallop off over the

horizon. However I keep opening books for other

studies and unexpectedly finding relevant material for

this topic.

Therefore, please forgive the length of tbis post but

below is an extract from 'Consciousness in Advaita

Vedanta' by William Indich. It is directly on this

topic and is a good summary of our discussion for

those who would like a summary. I make no comment on

the content and also hope that I have picked up most

of the scanning errors:

 

Happy Study

 

 

ken knight

 

 

CONSCIOUSNESS IN ADVAITA VEDANTA by William Indic

36-40

Having discussed Shankara’s central objections to

attempts to define the ontological nature of

consciousness and the self and to explain the

relationship between them in terms of the traditional

categories of Indian philosophical thought, we

conclude once again that consciousness is essentially

one, homogeneous and unqualified for Advaita Vedãnta.

Given this ontology of consciousness, it now remains

to be seen how the Advaitic tradition deals with the

epistemology of eternally self-revealing reality,

i.e., with the question of how consciousness reveals

itself. Advaitic thinkers have sought to support the

ontological autonomy of self-revealing, absolute

consciousness by endowing it with a parallel and

unique epistemological nature, called self-luminosity

(svaprakAShatva, svataH prakAShatva). The doctrine of

the self-luminosity of consciousness, as interpreted

by Advaitins, guarantees the priority of absolute

consciousness, both as the ground (adhishThAna) and

the eternal witness (sAkshin) of all manifestation.’

 

According to this doctrine, the self-revelation of

consciousness consists in the fact that consciousness

illumines or lights everything, including itself. The

doctrine of self-luminosity thus provides the Advaitin

with the means of transcending the intentional

functioning of modified or empirical consciousness.

involving the distinction between the knowing subject

and the object known. For while empirical cognition

consists in the apprehension of an object by a

subject, self-luminous transcendental consciousness is

neither an object nor a subject and is known solely by

means of itself. In this sense, Brahman knowledge, or

the self-revelation of consciousness, is completely

self-caused or autonomous, and eternally known, or

indubitable. In order to emphasize the autonomous and

indubitable nature of absolute consciousness,

Citsukha, a thirteenth century Advaitin. has defined

self-luminosity as “the capacity of being called

immediately known in empirical usage while not being

an object of cognition.” (Citsukha, Tatt va-pradIpikA.

ed. by Pt. R. K. Sastri, p. 9.)

The first part of this definition indicates that the

self-luminosity of absolute consciousness does not

limit consciousness as a quality would. Rather,

consciousness is not the locus of the absolute absence

of immediacy, i.e., of an external source of

awareness, and is thercfore autonomous. The second

part of the definition distinguishes the immediacy

applicable to absolute consciousness from the

immediacy characteristic of empirical perception,

i.e., non-dualistic from dualistic immediacy, and

therefore asserts that consciousness is never remote

from, or in doubt about, its own self~awareness. (Cf.

V. A. Sharma, Citsukha’s Contribution to advaita pp.

41-55.)

 

The basic point behind the Advaitic doctrine of

self-luminosity is that consciousness is a light which

illuminates itself and everything else at once.

Strictly speaking, of course, this doctrine rests on

the metaphorical use of light to convey the unitary

and undifferentiated intelligence which characterizes

absolute consciousness or the Self. And there is a

considerable amount of Upanshadic precedent for the

Advaitic reliance upon this particular metaphorical

description of consciousness. To cite just a few

examples:

‘The Self (utmost). indeed, is his light ... for with

the Self, indeed, as his light one sits, moves, does

his work, and returns’ ( Brihadaranyaka Upanisad

4.3.6. a. 4.4.16., KaushitakI Upanisad 2.5.15)

‘Now, the light which shines higher than this heaven

.... verily. that is the same as this light which is

here within a person. (Chandogya Upanishad 3.13.7.

Cf. 3.14.2.)

‘The sun shines not there, nor the moon and stars.

These lightnings shine not., much less this (earthly)

fire ! After Him, as he shines, doth everything shine.

This whole world is illumined with His light.’ (Katha

Upanishad 5.15., repeated at Mundaka Upanishad

2.2.9-10., Svetasvitara Upanishad 6.14.)

 

 

 

 

Of the bright power that pervades the sky it is only a

portion which, rising in the midst of the sun, becomes

the two light-rays. That is the knower of unity, the

Eternal Real. ... That is the immortal. That is the

realm of Brahman. That is th’ ocean of light.’ (Maitri

Upanishad 6.35)

 

Shankara picks up this metaphor in the course of his

exposition and defense of Advaitic philosophy. His

most vocal opponents on this point were those

realists, including the Naiyayikas and the

Mimñttisist, Kumarila Bhatta, who wished to deny the

epistemologically privileged position which the

doctrine of self-luminosity bestows on consciousness.

However, even these thinkers were not opposed to

treating consciousness as a light as long as it was

made clear that consciousness as light only illumines

other objects and not itself (paraprakASha). Against

this position then, Sankara upholds the principle of

self-luminous consciousness on the analogy of the sun,

which illumines itself as well as everything else.

So Brahman being the only self-luminous entity beyond

the sun and moon etc., everything that exists and

shines does so on account of the light of Brahman. It

manifests everything but it is not manifested or

perceived by any other light. (BSSB 1.3.22)

 

And the conclusion derived from this doctrine, which

the realist finds so unacceptable, is that :

‘There being nothing else but the Atman, what should

he see or

know in particular, except being eternally aware of

himself?

The Atman therefore is eternally conscious of itself.’

(BSSB 2.3.18)

 

However, it is apparent that even the metaphor of

light for consciousness breaks down in the face of the

Advaitic claim that ultimately, there is nothing other

than transcendental and undifferentiated awareness of

Self. This point is brought home in the context of

Sankara’s criticisms of the vijnanavada theory of

self-luminous consciousness, which portrayed

consciousness as a lamp that lights its objects and

itself at the same time. Shankara objects that any

self-luminous physical object, such as a lamp, or the

sun, is objectified by its own light and thus becomes

an object of illumination, just like all the objects

illuminated by it.’ ( Brihad. S.B. 4.3.7., pp. 619-20.

It is interesting to note that Sankara clarifies his

objections to the light metaphor in the context of his

criticisms of the VijnanavAda school, although it is

clear that Shankara’s sun objectifies

itself just as much as the Vijnanavadin’s lamp.

Further. the Upanishads themselves use the lamp to

portray the tight metaphor, and the lamp was picked up

by later Advaitins as well, Cf. discussion of the

comparison of witness intelligence to the light on a

dramatic stage (Natakadipa) In Staal. ‘Advaita and

Neoplatonism pp. 1034, and Mahadevan The Panchadasi.

.. pp. 187-88.)

Absolute consciousness, on the other hand, is

immaterial and therefore is never perceived by the

sense organs, and in particular by the eye.’ (Brihad.

S.B. 4.3.6.. p. 602.)

In this sense, the ‘self-luminosity” of absolute

consciousness is unique because the consciousness

illuminated is identical with, and never an object of,

intelligence, while all other entities and

non-entities are objectifiable, and therefore distinct

from consciousness itself.

In addition to the particular objection to the light

metaphor offered by Sankara, it is clear that there

are other, and perhaps more serious, objections to it.

However, since many Western thinkers also found in

light an appropriate means to convey something

significant about the nature of consciousness, we will

review their treatment of this metaphor before

entertaining the additional criticisms against it.

The light metaphor has long had an important and even

predominant place in Western treatments of

consciousness. Beginning with Plato and Aristotle, and

continuing through the

Neoplatonists to Medieval Christian thinking and

seventeenth century Rationalism, this metaphor has

been used to focus attention on the intelligible

nature of the universe as well as on the capacity of

the rational mind to have knowledge of reality. Let us

look at three of the earliest examples of the use of

this metaphor.

Our first example is taken from Plato, who speaks in

the Republic about the Form of the Good, which is the

supreme Form of divine Reason and thus the highest

possible object of knowledge for the individual soul

(psyche) or consciousness. Plato proceeds to liken

this Form of ihe Good, as the cause of intelligence

and intelligible objects, to the sun whose light is

the cause of vision and of visible things. (Plato

Republic 502-509c) Note that the light of divine

Reason, in Plato’s analogy, not only accounts for the

power by which the soul knows but also is the source

of the existence and essence of the Forms themselves.

In our second example, Aristotle uses the light

metaphor to emphasize the causal, or active dimension

of mind (nous). He says that the active intellect

makes knowledge possible, just as light makes vision

possible when, for example, it changes potential

colors into actual colors. (Aristotle, de Anima 3.5)

Finally, Plotinus’ transcendental One, which is beyond

intellectual activity but neither unintelligent nor

unconscious, is likened to the sun in the sense that

both the One and the sun are said to illuminate the

universe while remaining entirely undiminished in the

process. Plotinus, Enneads VI.9(9), Ch.9.) This

particular use of the analogy between the sun and the

One, which represents Plotinus’ development of the

analogy in Plato’s Republic, is the closest to the

Advaitic use of the light metaphor that we find in

Western philosophy.

The following objections have been offered against the

use of light as a metaphor for consciousness. It has

been argued that a causal, productive or creative

relationship is suggested between consciousness and

the world by the notion that the illuminating activity

of consciousness populates the world with existents

just as the light and warmth of the sun nourish the

emergence of life on earth. Another objection has been

lodged against the fact that sunlight is indifferent

in lighting whatever is before it, while consciousness

is highly selective with regard to the content and

forms of which it is aware. Thirdly, while proponents

of the light metaphor have implied a universal

conscious substance which is peaceful, pure and

homogeneous, others have objected that consciousness

evolves and is adaptable to change. Following from the

theory of universal, creative consciousness arise two

further objections to whom does this universal

consciousness belong; and what role does individual

experience play in the formation and functioning of

consciousness

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shri Nair's fine presentation has provoked a lively discussion, with much

food for thought. In particular, I've been thinking about a question of

language. What does the word 'light' mean? Does the word refer primarily to

objective light; and only metaphorically to the subjective light of

consciousness, as a secondary meaning? There seems to be a bit of a

consensus that this is so, that the objective meaning is primary; though Ken

Knight has been raising doubts about this, through quotations from Vedic

texts (messages 18719,18729, 18737) and a question about the Tamil 'uLLam'

(message 18738). I'm inclined to share Ken's skepticism, through an

investigation into everyday experience.

 

Of course, there is a sense in which objective meanings are 'primary' -- in

that we 'start' with objective appearances, as we investigate what they more

truly show. This is how we start investigating light. So, at the start of

the investigation, it does indeed appear primarily objective. But the same

is true of consciousness and self.

 

At the start of investigation in the everyday world, one's self appears

primarily to be a physical body, and its consciousness appears primarily to

be a physical perception of outside objects. However, as the investigation

penetrates more deeply into our actual experience, it turns out that this

physical perception is not merely physical. It depends essentially upon a

changing succession of mental experiences, which in turn depend upon a

continuing consciousness that is pure self, unmixed with anything objective.

In the end, it thus turns out that 'self' and 'consciousness' are words

whose primary meaning is subjective -- not just through metaphorical

interpretation, but in their essential meaning.

 

Is the same true of the word 'light'? As we investigate its meaning, in our

everyday experience, does this word take us inherently in a subjective

direction -- not just through metaphor and convention, but through an

inherent meaning that turns out to be at once subjective and primary? There

is a way in which the answer is 'yes'. The word 'light' has an inherently

subjective meaning, which is not metaphorical but primary, even for a

physicist who considers the nature of objective light.

 

In everyday experience, whether objective or subjective, light is that which

makes things appear. This is its primary meaning. It is the principle of

shining, which illuminates appearances. Where this illumination is present,

things appear. Apart from it, they disappear. At this stage there is no

metaphor. We are talking in the abstract, about the general phenomenon of

appearance and disappearance, both physical and mental. Light is that

principle whose presence is associated with appearance. Conversely, its

absence is associated with disappearance.

 

Objectively, light shines through space and time, conveying information that

enables distant objects to appear. When the sun sets and darkness falls,

objects that appeared before now disappear. They shone with light that is

perceived no more. Similarly, when a fire is put out, surrounding objects

disappear. Or, when a beam of torchlight moves, previous objects disappear

and other objects shine -- shown by light that carries on through space and

time, conveying knowledge of the world.

 

It's here that metaphors arise, in various pictures of the world. For

example, physicists sometimes conceive of light as made of particles --

fired out from various energetic sources, and shooting forth like tiny

bullets that can get reflected or absorbed by other objects. But, at other

times, light is conceived as made of waves, emitted by vibrating sources and

travelling in vibrating patterns through reflection and deflection. In

modern physics, both these pictures are shown to be inadequate and partial

metaphors -- neither showing everything, but each showing things that the

other misses out.

 

Beneath these metaphors, Einstein conceived of light in a far more

fundamental way -- as the basic conveyance of information through space and

time, connecting the entire universe into a 'space-time continuum'. In

ancient physics, there is a somewhat similar conception, described by the

Sanskrit word 'akasha'. 'Akasha' is the background continuity of all space

and time, pervading the entire world. Literally, it means 'background

shining' -- from 'a-' implying background immanence, and 'kash' implying

shining.

 

There is of course a crucial difference between modern and ancient

physics -- in that ancient physics is centred upon the living energy of

'prana', whose living component is excluded from modern physics. But it is

interesting that both kinds of physics are based upon a similar conception,

that the basic interconnection of the universe is intimately represented by

the phenomena of light.

 

There is a good reason for this similar conception. As we observe the

physical phenomena of light, we understand them on the basis of a more

subjective experience. In particular, we understand them on the basis of

that inner light which makes things appear and disappear in our minds. That

inner light is consciousness. When things come into its presence, they

appear. When they leave its presence, they disappear.

 

That experience, of inner light, is far more direct than the conception of

objective light, as radiant energy emitted and reflected or absorbed by

various objects. It's the latter conception which is more secondary and

metaphorical, as it describes perceptions that come through our fleshy eyes

and through other outside instruments. The former experience is more primary

and immediate -- showing consciousness as an actionless illumination,

unmixed with any moving energy that goes out towards objects.

 

That actionless illumination is experienced directly in the sense of sight,

in all the other senses, and in the mind. Seen from the world outside, it is

called by the Sanskrit word 'prakasha', which means 'shining forth'. And

here the description is most definitely metaphorical. It is a shining out

into the world, conceived on the metaphor of a fire emitting radiant energy

into its surroundings. But I would ask just what it is that makes the

description metaphorical. Is it the really the inherent meaning of the words

'light' or 'shining'? Or is it more the qualification 'pra-' or 'forth',

which superimposes a sense of 'outwardness' upon a 'light' that is

essentially subjective and unqualified?

 

Ananda Wood

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>> Therefore, please forgive the length of tbis post but

> below is an extract from 'Consciousness in Advaita

> Vedanta' by William Indich.

 

Namaste, Kenji, The article by Indich is wonderful. Can you give me

the complete reference about the book, so that I can have a taste of

the full book.? Thanks.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

--- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

> The article by Indich is wonderful.

> Can you give me

> the complete reference about the book, so that I can

> have a taste of

> the full book.?

 

Namaste Professor,

'Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta' William M. Indich

Motilal Banarsidass Delhi 1980 Reprint 2000 ISBN

81-208-1251-4

 

Indich himself notes his indebtedness for the ideas in

the posting to a seminar conducted by Eliot Deutsch at

the University of Hawaii during the Fall semester in

1977.

 

I was unsure about including the refs. to Plato in the

extract but having done so I am sure that some of our

members will not be aware of the 'Allegory of the

Cave' which is related to our topic. I only include it

here for information and reference and do not want to

start a side-track comparing Western/Eastern

philosophies.

 

I hope the above is enough for you to find your way to

the book. It is quite short but very clear.

 

Best wishes

 

Ken Knight

 

295

BOOK VII The Republic

(please note that is a dialogue and it will need a

little common sense to establish which is pupil and

which the teacher.)

 

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our

nature is enlightened or unenlightened :—Behold! human

beings housed in an underground cave, which has along

entrance open towards the light and as wide as the

interior of the cave; here they have been from their

childhood, and have their legs and necks chained, so

that they cannot move and can only see before them,

being prevented by the chains from turning round their

heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a

distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there

is a raised way; and you Will see, if you look, a low

wail built along the way, like the screen which

marionette players have in front of them, over which

they show the puppets.

I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall

carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and

figures of animals made of

wood and stone and various materials, which appear

over the wall? While tarrying their burdens, some of

them, as you would expect, are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are

strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; for in the first place do

you think they have seen anything of themselves, and

of one another, except the shadows which the fire

throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

How could they do so, he asked, if throughout their

lives they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like

manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another,

would they not suppose that the things they saw were

the real things?’

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which

came from the other side, would they not be sure to

fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice

which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing

but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see in what manner they would

be released from their bonds, and cured of their

error, whether the process would naturally be as

follows. At first, when any of them is liberated and

compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round

and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer

sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will

be unable to see the realities of which in his former

state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive

someone saying to him that what he saw before was an

illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer

to being and his eye is turned towards wore real

existence, he has a clearer vision,— what will be his

reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor

is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring

him to name them,—will he not be perplexed? Will he

not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are

truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light,

will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make

him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision

which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in

reality clearer than the things which are now being

shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged

up that steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until

he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is

he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he

approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he

will not be able to see anything at all of what are

now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the

upper world. And first he will see the shadows best,

next the reflections of men and other objects in the

water, and then the objects themselves; and, when he

turned to the heavenly bodies and the heaven itself he

would find it easier to gaze upon the light I, of the

moon and the stars at night than to see the sun or the

light of the sun by day?

Certainly.

Last of all he will be able to see the sun, not

turning aside to the illusory reflections of him in

the water, but gazing directly at him in his own

proper place, and contemplating him as he is.

Certainly.

He will then proceed to argue that this is he who

gives the seasons and the years, and is the guardian

of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain

way the cause of all things which he and his fellows

have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would arrive at this conclusion

after what be had seen.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the

wisdom of the cave and his fellow-prisoners, do you

not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the

change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the habit of conferring honours

among themselves on those who were quickest to observe

the passing shadows and to remark which of them went

before and which followed after and which were

together, and who were best able from these

observations to divine the future, do you think that

he would be eager for such honours and glories, or

envy those who attained honour and sovereignty among

those men? Would he not say with Homer,

‘Better to be a serf; labouring for a

landless master’,

and to endure anything, rather than think as they do

and live after their manner?

Yes, he said, I think that he would consent to suffer

anything rather than live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming down

suddenly out of the sunlight, and being replaced in

his old seat; would he not be certain to have his eyes

full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and be bad to compete in

measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never

moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak,

and before his eyes had become steady (and the time

which would be needed to acquire this new habit of

sight might be very considerable), would he not make

himself ridiculous? Men would say of him that he had

returned from the place above with his eyes ruined;

and that it was better not even to think of ascending;

and if anyone tried to loose another and lead him up

to the light, let them only catch the offender, and

they would put him to death.

No question, he said.

This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear

Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is

the world of sight, the light of the fire is the

power of the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if

you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of

the soul into the intellectual world according to rny

surmise, which, at your desire, I have

expressed—whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But,

whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world

of knowledge the Idea of good appears last of all, and

is seen only with an effort; although, when seen, it

is inferred to be the universal author of all things c

beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord

of light in the visible world, and the immediate and

supreme source of reason and truth in the

intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he

who would act rationally either in public or private

life must have his eye fixed.

I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand

you.

Moreover, I said, you must agree once more, and not

wonder that those who attain to this vision are

unwilling to take any part in human affairs; for their

souls are ever hastening into the upper world where

they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very

natural, if our allegory may be trusted.

Yes, very natural.

And is there anything surprising in one who passes

from divine contemplations to the evil state of man,

appearing grotesque and ridiculous; if, while his eyes

are blinking and before he has become accustomed to

the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in

courts of law, or in other places, about the images or

the shadows of images of justice, and must strive

against some rival opinions of these things which are

entertained by men who have never yet seen the true

justice?

Anything but surprising, he replied.

Anyone who has common sense will remember that the

bewilderment of the eyes are of two kinds and arise

from two causes, either from coming out of the light

or from going into the light, and, judging that the

soul may be affected in the same way, will not give

way to foolish laughter when he sees anyone whose

vision is perplexed and weak; he will first ask

whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter

life and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the

dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is

dazzled by excess of light And he will count the one

happy in his condition and state of being, and he will

pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the

soul which comes from below into the light, this

laughter will not be quite so laughable as that which

greets the soul which returns from above out of the

light into the cave.

That, he said, is a very just distinction.

But then, if I am right, certain professors of

education must be wrong when they say that they can

put knowledge into the soul which was not there

before, like sight into blind eyes.

They undoubtedly say this, he replied.

Whereas our argument shows that the power and capacity

of learning exists in the soul already; and that just

as if it were not possible to turn the eye from

darkness to light without the whole body, so too the

instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of

the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming to

that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the

sight of being, and of the brightest and best of

being, or in other word; of the good.

Very true.

And must there not be some art which will show how the

conversion can be effected in the easiest and quickest

manner; an art which will not implant the faculty of

sight, for that exists already, but will set it

straight when it has been turned in the wrong

direction, and is looking away from the truth?

Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Reference the William Indic essay and the cave allegory (Courtesy:

Kenji) and the detailed post by Shri Ananda Wood (# 18776).

 

I am afraid our problem is not with prakAshA if that word is

understood well as explained by Shri Wood. Look at the Indic article

wherein a literal translation of self-luminosity for swaprakAshatwa

is discussed threadbare inadvertently conveying an altogether

different shade of meaning. Considering the very scholarly nature

of his work, I am sure Indic knows the subtlety of the Sanskrit

word. However, the English translation of self-luminosity can

literally waylay a lay reader.

 

When a book is published, its publication is called prakAsana. It is

so even in my native Malayalam and other Indian languages which are

considerably indebted to Sanskrit. PrakAsana here means making

something come out, appear and be accessible to understanding by a

readership. Of course, those who read the publication will have to

use their eyes and a source of physical light is another matter.

 

But then, let us consider the publication (prakAsana) of something in

Braille for the blind. The blind also reads and understands the

contents although he doesn't require the presence of any physical

light in that exercise. The topic of the book may be "The Properties

of Light". Yet, he understands it in his own way which the non-blind

cannot guess or appreciate. As he has not experienced physical light

(here he is congenitally blind), he will conjure up a vision of what

the non-blind call light and make a mental picture of how it works.

That understanding of the blind then is also prakAshA although the

luminosity of the physical has no place in it.

 

Let us take another example. There are two tables and the distance

between them is ten feet. Measure the distance with a tape for a non-

blind boy. Please note that this happens in daylight. The boy

absorbs the scene with his eyes and the next time you ask him the

distance between the tables, he will without hesitation say that it

is ten feet. The element of physical light is part and parcel of his

understanding. Now bring the congenitally blind in. He will feel

the tables. Tell him the separation between them is ten feet as he

measures it with his footsteps. He will conjure up his own vision

even without the aid of physical light and understand that the

separation between the two solidities is ten feet. That vision is

also prakAshA although there is not an iota of physical light in it.

 

Shri Wood has written a wonderful piece on the five elements of

creation, particularly on AkAshA (space-time continuum) and I suggest

that everyone reads his analysis available now at Dennisji's site

http://www.advaita.org.uk/

 

I may be digressing here into forbidden territory with my rudimentary

knowledge of Sanskrit. However, the urge is irresistible. If my

misadventure brings out a better understanding of the word prakAshA,

I will be more than happy.

 

I don't know for sure if there is AkAshA in prakAshA. If there is,

the word should have been prAkAshA and not prakAshA. However, I am

inclined to believe there is AkAshA in it. Why? (Shri Wood's

reading 'kash' into AkAshA appears to confirm my thoughts.)

 

Let me quote Shri Wood from his post under reference:

 

"Light is that principle whose presence is associated with

appearance. Conversely, its

absence is associated with disappearance."

 

PrakAshA, therefore, is the principle that brings forth appearance.

It is present in the spatial visions of both the non-blind boy and

the congenitally blind. In the latter case, it does not depend on

the luminosity of any known luminaries. In a totally dark world

devoid of any luminaries like our sun and moon, prakAsha should,

therefore, occur and that prakAshA, I am afraid, cannot go with the

limited sense conveyed by the English word `luminosity'.

 

That prakAshA is the principle behind the creation of akAshA (space-

time continuum) which is the stratum on which the worlds of both the

blind and non-blind are erected. It encompasses our mental as well

as external space. So, akAshA is very much there in prakAshA in seed

form before it sets forth. Thus, prakAshA becomes prajnAnam. It is

that which brings forth appearance as well as the disappearance of

the appearance, (if you permit me the liberty of extending your

statement, Shri Wood), because any disappearance is objectified

absence.

 

[sunderji, you may kindly intervene, if necessary, to pull me up in

this grammar misadventure. And, Savitri Devraji – you may be

laughing as you warned once before about the dangers of vagrant hair-

splitting in understanding the meaning of Sanskrit words.]

 

Thus, an extended understanding of prakAshA sheds light into the

mahAvakya "PrajnAnam Brahma". Consciousness, therefore, is prajnAnam

or swaprakAshatwa. Neither the congenitally blind nor the non-blind

me need any source of `luminosity' to understand this self-evidence

of ours whereby both of us know that all appearances (and

disappearances too!) are because: "I exist and I am One with them

all without divisions". Isn't that Enlightenment and where does

luminosity figure in this vision as it can occur in totally non-

luminous environs eye-less beings?

 

We, therefore, say I AM, therefore, the sun, moon, stars, all other

luminaries and non-luminaries are, including my non-luminous black

cat and the distant blackholes. They now say a blackhole exists in

each galaxy. However, its existence is only inferential as our so-

called light to which we attach so much importance cannot escape its

greed! That understanding is also prakAshA, isn't it? Write this

knowledge in Braille – the blind will definitely appreciate it.

 

Light in Englightenment, therefore, is not a worldplay. It is a very

serious matter for debate. That light is I or JnAna or Inner Light

or PrakAshA properly understood without association with mundane

luminosity, which can only be metaphorical limited to a species that

is accustomed to that particular external stimulus.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

 

intervene, if necessary, to pull me up in

> this grammar misadventure. you warned once before about the

dangers of vagrant hair-

> splitting in understanding the meaning of Sanskrit words.]

>

> Thus, an extended understanding of prakAshA sheds light into the

> mahAvakya "PrajnAnam Brahma". Consciousness, therefore, is prajnAnam

> or swaprakAshatwa.

 

Namaste Madathilji,

 

The linguistic analysis may not be helpful here. One can

look up words like: kAz prakAz prAkAz prAkAzya pra prA and so

on, in

 

Cologne Digital Dictionary at: (it does not use the Itrans notation) -

 

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/indologie/tamil/mwd_search.html

 

and come up with different interpretations.

 

Likewise, the letters en- and -en used as a prefix and a

suffix, singly or combined, give rise to different meanings with

different verbs!

 

I would like to understand the word 'light' in this context

as neither metaphorical nor literal, but as representing all organs of

perception (jnanendriya), eyes just happening to be the most dominant

of these. In other words, enlightenment is not limited to, or by,

visual phenomena.

 

It does not mean it cannot be used in both these senses also; eg Gita

10:11

 

teshhaamevaanukampaarthamahamaGYaanajaM tamaH .

naashayaamyaatmabhaavastho GYaanadiipena bhaasvataa ..

 

"Out of sheer compassion for them, residing within as their innermost

self, I destroy the darkness born of ignorance in them by the

brilliant lamp of wisdom". [tr. Sw. Tapasyananda].

 

The attempt to indicate the Reality results in paradoxes

even in Sanskrit: eg

 

sAkShAtkAra (Sakshatkara) has aksha (eye) in it and yet not in it;

 

but it results in

 

aparoksha jnana which transcends the eye-sight!

 

Mandukya [#7] is even more emphatic:

 

naantaHpraGYaM na bahishhpraGYaM nobhayataHpraGYaM na praGYAnaghanaM

na praGYaM naapraGYam.h | adR^ishhTamavyavahaaryamagraahyamalakshaNaM

achintyamavyapadeshyamekaatmapratyayasaaraM prapaJNchopashamaM

shaantaM shivamadvaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa viGYeyaH ..

 

"(Turiya is)not that which cognises the internal (objects), not that

which cognises the external (objects), not what cognises both of them,

not a mass of cognition, not cognitive, not non-cognitive. (It is)

unseen, incapable of being spoken of, ungraspable, without any

distinctive marks, unthinkable, unnameable, the essence of the

knowledge of the one self, that into which the world is resolved, the

peaceful, the benign, the non-dual, such, they think, is the fourth

quarter. He is the self; He is to be known." [tr. S. Radhakrishnan.]

 

By the way, your other reference to feeling 'light' after

being 'unburdened' (of immaterial but weighty thoughts!) has parallels

in Patanjali and Yogavasishtha, where a 'lightness' of body is

described with progressive contemplation.

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> [sunderji, you may kindly intervene, if necessary, to pull me up

in

> this grammar misadventure. And, Savitri Devraji – you may be

> laughing as you warned once before about the dangers of vagrant

hair-

> splitting in understanding the meaning of Sanskrit words.]

>

 

Namaste Madathiji,

 

You are probably giving me way too much credit than I deserve!

 

Anyway the title is an interesting one. It presupposes that

Enlightenment is an event. Is it really?

Enlightenment, as an event, strictly applies to saguNopAsana, in my

opinion. Enlightenment as jivan mukti cannot be an event. It is

pramANa (means), pramAtr (knower), and prameya (known) being one -

in which case there is no knower or grasper who can dispute the

presence or absense of light.

 

"yato vAcho nivartante ....." Where speech (period) recoils

dumbfound, what to talk of English language !

 

my 2cents,

Savithri

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

I am extremely grateful for your advice.

 

I hadn't the least idea when this discussion began that the seemingly

simple word prakAsha (in contrast to luminosity or mere light) could

have such great amplitude and unfathomable depth whereby it

encompasses all perception, internal or external. Only the

bhaasvataa gYaanadiipA can emit this prakAsha whereby light and

luminosity are experienced and understood. And, yet the dIpa cannot

be faulted with cognition (MAndUkyA)! Shri Wood's analysis rolled me

into some loud thinking and my post under reference with the grammar

misadventure therein was the result. I am indeed very happy that it

has generated such a wealth of references from you, which again call

for serius pondering.

 

The 'feeling light connotation' is not my discovery. The credit goes

to my elder brother Shri Narendran whom I will be quoting soon. I

haven't done it yet for the fear of overburdening this lively

discussion with too many thoughts. I will do that over the weekend

so that we can look at his opinions in a very relaxed manner.

 

PraNAms and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> I would like to understand the word 'light' in this

context

> as neither metaphorical nor literal, but as representing all organs

of

> perception (jnanendriya), eyes just happening to be the most

dominant

> of these. In other words, enlightenment is not limited to, or by,

> visual phenomena.

>

> It does not mean it cannot be used in both these senses also; eg

Gita

> 10:11

>

> teshhaamevaanukampaarthamahamaGYaanajaM tamaH .

> naashayaamyaatmabhaavastho GYaanadiipena bhaasvataa ..

>

> "Out of sheer compassion for them, residing within as their

innermost

> self, I destroy the darkness born of ignorance in them by the

> brilliant lamp of wisdom". [tr. Sw. Tapasyananda].

>

> The attempt to indicate the Reality results in paradoxes

> even in Sanskrit: eg

>

> sAkShAtkAra (Sakshatkara) has aksha (eye) in it and yet not in it;

>

> but it results in

>

> aparoksha jnana which transcends the eye-sight!

>

> Mandukya [#7] is even more emphatic:

>

> naantaHpraGYaM na bahishhpraGYaM nobhayataHpraGYaM na praGYAnaghanaM

> na praGYaM naapraGYam.h |

adR^ishhTamavyavahaaryamagraahyamalakshaNaM

> achintyamavyapadeshyamekaatmapratyayasaaraM prapaJNchopashamaM

> shaantaM shivamadvaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa

viGYeyaH ..

>

> "(Turiya is)not that which cognises the internal (objects), not that

> which cognises the external (objects), not what cognises both of

them,

> not a mass of cognition, not cognitive, not non-cognitive. (It is)

> unseen, incapable of being spoken of, ungraspable, without any

> distinctive marks, unthinkable, unnameable, the essence of the

> knowledge of the one self, that into which the world is resolved,

the

> peaceful, the benign, the non-dual, such, they think, is the fourth

> quarter. He is the self; He is to be known." [tr. S. Radhakrishnan.]

>

> By the way, your other reference to feeling 'light' after

> being 'unburdened' (of immaterial but weighty thoughts!) has

parallels

> in Patanjali and Yogavasishtha, where a 'lightness' of body is

> described with progressive contemplation.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Savitriji.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

I confess the pun in the title was intended to grab attention.

However, there is no supposition made. This would be evident from

the questions listed at the end of my lead post.

 

I am totally in agreement with your opinion. However, we are bound

to visualize and that brings in a melody of exalting ideas and

thoughts as it has now happened in this lively discussion. So, let

us continue to talk for the satsangh the exchange of thoughts

generates. Admittedly, I wouldn't have understood prakAshA so well

hadn't we talked.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________

 

advaitin, "savithri_devaraj"

<savithri_devaraj> wrote:

>

> Anyway the title is an interesting one. It presupposes that

> Enlightenment is an event. Is it really?

> Enlightenment, as an event, strictly applies to saguNopAsana, in my

> opinion. Enlightenment as jivan mukti cannot be an event. It is

> pramANa (means), pramAtr (knower), and prameya (known) being one -

> in which case there is no knower or grasper who can dispute the

> presence or absense of light.

>

> "yato vAcho nivartante ....." Where speech (period) recoils

> dumbfound, what to talk of English language !

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

"Our first example is taken from Plato, who speaks in

the Republic about the Form of the Good, which is the

supreme Form of divine Reason and thus the highest

possible object of knowledge for the individual soul

(psyche) or consciousness. Plato proceeds to liken

this Form of the Good, as the cause of intelligence

and intelligible objects, to the sun whose light is

the cause of vision and of visible things. (Plato

Republic 502-509c) Note that the light of divine

Reason, in Plato's analogy, not only accounts for the

power by which the soul knows but also is the source

of the existence and essence of the Forms themselves."

 

That is a quote from William Indic's treatise on Consciousness

(Courtesy: Kenji). Having accepted Consciousness as One without a

second, where is scope in advaita for "the highest possible object

of knowledge for the *individual soul (psyche) or consciousness*

(asterisks mine just to highlight how Plato has equated soul, psycle

and consciousness). There cannot be any highest or lowest in the

consideration of the Consciousness of Advaita. This objection would

run even upto Plotinus's most refined stand on the subject. Sure,

Indic has touched on these thoughts just to highlight and compare the

metaphorical use of `light' in the East and West in understanding

Consciousness.

 

Against this background, the cave allegory of Plato is efficient only

to derive and clarify the "Form of the Good or Supreme Form of Divine

Reason". It falls short of creating the desired impact when applied

to the Consciousness of Advaita.

 

Whether the men in the cave saw shadows or the real players is

immaterial in advaita. What matters is that they saw. There were

worlds erected in front of them for their experiencing. It is like

comparing me with Einstein. The world the latter saw with his

mathematical genius is entirely different from the world I see with

my lay eyes and intellect. The prakAshA that erected these different

worlds for our experience has the same source in Consciousness. And

yet, Consciousness cannot be faulted with erecting worlds. Please see

Sunderji's following quote of MandUkya (# 7) (Post # 18811) :

 

naantaHpraGYaM na bahishhpraGYaM nobhayataHpraGYaM na praGYAnaghanaM

na praGYaM naapraGYam.h | adR^ishhTamavyavahaaryamagraahyamalakshaNaM

achintyamavyapadeshyamekaatmapratyayasaaraM prapaJNchopashamaM

shaantaM shivamadvaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa viGYeyaH ..

 

"(Turiya is) not that which cognises the internal (objects), not that

which cognises the external (objects), not what cognises both of them,

not a mass of cognition, not cognitive, not non-cognitive. (It is)

unseen, incapable of being spoken of, ungraspable, without any

distinctive marks, unthinkable, unnameable, the essence of the

knowledge of the one self, that into which the world is resolved, the

peaceful, the benign, the non-dual, such, they think, is the fourth

quarter. He is the self; He is to be known." [tr. S. Radhakrishnan.]

 

Advaita calls out to both Einstein, me and Plato's men in the cave to

get back to It and we all are granted permission to do so. Whether

the call is heard in our worlds is another matter. We may have to

wait. All of us, including Einstein, are men in the cave till that

call is heeded and acted upon. Our differences and alleged

luminosities end on arrival there.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

>> That is a quote from William Indic's treatise on

> Consciousness

> (Courtesy: Kenji). Having accepted Consciousness

> as One without a

> second, where is scope in advaita for "the highest

> possible object

> of knowledge for the *individual soul (psyche) or

> consciousness*

> (asterisks mine just to highlight how Plato has

> equated soul, psycle

> and consciousness). There cannot be any highest or

> lowest in the

> consideration of the Consciousness of Advaita.

 

Namaste,

 

Firstly, thank you very much for all your work in

maintaining and directing this discussion. I

hesitated before posting all the Indich, and I am

sorry to have included that last part when it brought

in Plato etc. because I did not want to start a

comparative discussion; just as there is no lower and

higher in advaita nor is there an East and West

although we use these terms as we play the great game.

This discussion is indeed on a serious topic but as

always, study is light-hearted and then we can be

de-lighted in it so please forgive my errors.

 

'That One' appears as many while remaining Itself:

That is the paradox at the heart of our understanding

but beyond the ability or our speech and mind to

comprehend. We engage in such discussions as this

knowing our language can only fall short as it is born

of dualistic thought but sometimes by magic: 'That

which is not uttered by speech that by speech is

revealed, know that alone to be Brahman, and not what

people worship as an object.' Kena Up.

 

In the light of your postings, this morning's study

began with an etymological look at 'luminosity' and

'light'.

A little may be of interest to you:

Skeat allies light to the Indogermanic root LEUK or

REUK which comes from the Sanskrit ruc, to shine, be

resplendent, bright and radiant.

Panini's dhatu 'ruca' gives us the dhatvartha:

dIptav (u)-(a) bhipRItau ca

 

As we know from other postings:

dIp: MW. 481.1 to blaze, flare, shine, be luminous,

illustrious

Dipti. Brightness, light, splendour, beauty

 

Gita 11.17

tejorAShim (heap, mass of splendour) sarvato(in every

direction) diptimantam. (shining, full of brilliance)

 

17.’ I see you (adorned) with diadem, mace and discus;

a massed splendour, blazing in all

directions..dazzling all around with the light of

blazing fire and sun, immeasurable.’

 

Such words, giving form to the formless, direct us

away from the dark, tamasic creation of our own

delusions, to a magnificence that attracts Itself to

Itself. That is nonsense language, of course, but has

meaning to a non-dualist.

 

This blazing, immeasurable 'light', in truth, is that

which is beyond light and dark but with the Gita verse

so reminiscent of the Vedic hymns I carried out a

search in Mandala One on 'ruc'.

If later study of about 20 refernces appears as being

precisely relevant to this topic I will post them but

for now may I post the whole of RgVeda.I.110,

dedicated to the Rbhus. I found this to be quite

magnificent and every phrase deserving of careful

relfection:

( English first so as not to put off those who do not

like to see reams of Sanskrit.)

The English translation is by Griffith so it will have

many obvious limitations that do not accord with the

Sanskrit, so please do not try to take up issue with

its innacuracies. Having said that, I find in it a

glorious teaching for the topic of light in

enlightenment (eg.v.3)and may be able to post more

when I find or have offered (Sunder please maybe)a

better translation.

 

RgVeda I.110

1. THE holy work I wrought before is wrought again: my

sweetest hymn is sung to celebrate your praise.

Here, O ye Rbhus, is this sea for all the Gods: sate

you with Soma offered with the hallowing word.

2 When, seeking your enjoyment onward from afar, ye,

certain of my kinsmen, wandered on your way,

Sons of Sudhanvan, after your long journeying, ye came

unto the home of liberal Savitar.

3 Savitar therefore gave you immortality, because ye

came proclaiming him whom naught can hide;

And this the drinking-chalice of the Asura, which till

that time was one, ye made to be fourfold.

4 When they had served with zeal at sacrifice as

priests, they, mortal as they were, gained

immortality.

The Rbhus, children of Sudhanvan, bright as suns, were

in a year's course made associate with prayers.

5 The Rbhus, with a rod measured, as 'twere a field,

the single sacrificial chalice. wide of mouth,

Lauded of all who saw, praying for what is best,

desiring glorious fame among Immortal Gods.

6 As oil in ladles, we through knowledge will present

unto the Heroes of the firmament our hymn,-

The Rbhus who came near with this great Father's

speed, and rose to heaven's high sphere to eat the

strengthening food.

7 Rbhu to us is Indra freshest in his might, Rbhu with

powers and wealth is giver of rich gifts.

Gods, through your favour may we on the happy day

quell the attacks of those who pour no offerings

forth.

8 Out of a skin, O Rbhus, once ye formed a cow, and

brought the mother close unto her calf again.

Sons of Sudhanvan, Heroes, with surpassing skill ye

made your aged Parents youthful as before.

9 Help us with strength where spoil is won, O Indra:

joined with the Rbhus give us varied bounty.

This prayer of ours may Varuna grant, and Mitra, and

Aditi and Sindhu, Earth and Heaven.

 

 

1 tataM me apastadu tAyate punaH svAdiSThA

dhItirucathAya shasyate

ayaM samudra iha vishvadevyaH svAhAkRtasya samu

tRpNuta RbhavaH

2.AbhogayaM pra yadichanta aitanApAkAH prAñco mama ke

cidApayaH

saudhanvanAsashcaritasya bhUmanAgachata saviturdAshuSo

gRham

3.tat savitA vo.amRtatvAmAsuvadagohyaM yacchravayanta

aitana

tyaM ciccamasamasurasya bhakSaNamekaM santamakRNutA

caturvayam

4 viSTvI shamI taraNitvena vAghato martAsaH santo

amRtatvamAnashuH

saudhanvanA RbhavaH sUracakSasaH saMvatsare

samapRcyanta dhItibhiH

5.kSetramiva vi mamustejanenamekaM pAtraM Rbhavo

jehamAnam

upastutA upamaM nAdhamAnA amartyeSu shrava ichamAnAH

6A manISAmantarikSasya nRbhyaH sruceva ghRtaM juhavAma

vidmanA

taraNitvA ye piturasya sashcira Rbhavo vAjamaruhan

divo rajaH

7 Rbhurna indraH shavasA navIyAn

RbhurvAjebhirvasubhirvasurdadiH

yuSmAkaM devA avasAhani priye.abhi

tiSThemapRtsutIrasunvatAm

8.nishcarmaNa Rbhavo gAmapiMshata saM vatsenAsRjatA

mAtaraM punaH

saudhanvanAsaH svapasyayA naro jivrI yuvAnA

pitarAkRNotana

9 vAjebhirno vAjasAtAvaviDDhy RbhumAnindra citramA

darSi rAdhaH

tan no ..

 

 

 

Best wishes

 

 

ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kenji.

 

Your post 18830.

 

No need to be sorry about bringing Plato in. He has added the much-

needed contrast in our visualization of THAT ONE WHICH REMAINS ITSELF

but seems to appear as many.

 

Even the great Bhattathiripad, who authored NArAyaNIyam, exclaimed in

total exasperation: "I cannot describe the angst I underwent when I

saw YOU, THE ONLY ONE, as two!". (Or was it Poonthanam, another

devotee of Lord Krishna, who sang so?) He could have kept quiet but

instead took to ecstatic singing using words like "describe"

and "saw". Bhattathiripad also sang: "Agre pAsyAmi...." in

NArAyaNIyam. Mark the pasYAmi which gives the impression that what

he "saw" was an objective phenomenon! We are all singing. The more

we sing, the more THE ONE reveals in our words. Revealing is light.

So, please keep writing.

 

Thank you for all your efforts at pearl-diving in the scriptural

oceans and coming out with gems. However, I must confess the quotes

from RgVeda went over my head. I need assistace there.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

 

 

Having said that, I find in it a

> glorious teaching for the topic of light in

> enlightenment (eg.v.3)and may be able to post more

> when I find or have offered (Sunder please maybe)a

> better translation.

 

Namaste Kenji,

 

Wilson's translation of Sayana's bhashya is at:

 

http://www.srivaishnava.org/scripts/veda/rv/rvbook1.htm

 

I don't feel qualified to compare it with Griffith's.

 

Aurobindo's book, The Secret of the Vedas, has a chapter

devoted to Guardians of Light, and his major poem, Savitri, of course,

deals with the the Sun.

 

Regarding Nairji's references to congenitally blind persons,

the Panchamahabhutas (5 great/subtle elements - constituents of

Srishti) include Tejas as the 3rd step in the 'evolution' , and it

definitely would not be different for them. Fire is the 'gross'

representation of Tejas.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder