Metaphysics in Vedanta

[sayak83]

Thanks Sayak! Any links about Vedanta?

Not right now. Spirit_warrior made a thread on that I remember.

 

[Terese]

Not right now. Spirit_warrior made a thread on that I remember.

Ah yes i recall

 

[Kapalika]

According to Trika objects and the physical world are very real. IMO not the most "real" things there are, but real none the less. How that all works goes into the 36 tattvas... from what I understand the physical world consists of the pure-impure tattvas, and the impure tattvas is largely how we perceive and experience it.

 

[Shantanu]

Pranam everyone, I am quite unskilled in the language of metaphysics and the philosophies it entails, but after a recent conversation, I must ask, are objects (anything that in normal waking would be considered separate from the "I") real? Why are they real/not real? Does maya play a role?

Thank you

When one lives in total surrender to God everything that one sees around oneself is real and we relate to these objects as real. Maya is just the unimaginable magical power of Sri Krishna that creates the wonderful world that we live in which scientists will never be able to decipher. It is this that creates simultaneous oneness and separateness between jiva and God.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste,

To continue and complete the previous post...

Erroneous knowledge

Erroneous knowledge can be considered as the opposite of valid knowledge constituting the experience of an object as something else or as possessing attributes factually inexistent in it. Traditional examples include: (erroneous) perception of silver (shining when perceived from far away) in nacre and (mis)perception of snake in a rope. Limiting the scope to vedanta:
Advaita -- anirvacanīya-khyāti

The perception of silver(ness) in nacre is neither real (sat) nor unreal (asat) thus introducing a (ontological) category called anirvacanīya (~indescribable) based on the syllogism saccenna bādhyeta asaccenna pratīyeta (by śrī śaṅkara). A dual cognition is adopted, defective sensory perception of shining in the nacre, followed by mental reconstruction as silver, based on previous impressions. Generalising the exceptions in these examples, advaitins extend anirvacanīyatva to the entire world.​

Viśiṣṭādvaita -- yathārtha-khyāti

Here the perception of silver in nacre is relatively true and not absolutely false to the extent / from reference to the element of silver in nacre. It holds that every object in the world has some portion of all other objects in world in varying proportions. So technically, erroneous perception then becomes the actual cognition of subtle truth which is otherwise missed or ignored under normal conditions.​

Tattvavāda -- abhinava-anyathā-khyāti

Knowledge is considered valid as rule and errors are exceptions where sākṣi is the final adjudicator. Whenever doubts arise, the apperceiver resorts to tests to establish validity. Illusion then is merely
• an unreal or non-existent object or relation being presented in immediate perception as real and existing
• and of a really existing object or relation as not existing --> implying illusion is the appearance of an object as different from what it really is i.e., of an unreal or non-existent object or relation as real or existent and vice versa.​

I must ask, are objects (anything that in normal waking would be considered separate from the "I") real? Why are they real/not real? Does maya play a role?

On accepting the intrinsic validity of knowledge (which all vedantins - advaitins, viśiṣṭādvaitins, and tattvavādins do) the doctrine of reality of world and its objects follow naturally.
The objections to reality of the world can primarily be based on two grounds a) śruti texts and/or b) inference. To simplify: the contention based on a) is easily answered by the fact that there are more śruti that support the reality of the world and experience. If held that the supposed few that objecting the reality of world alone convey the truth (tattvavedaka, as held by advaitins), then the acceptability of śruti as pramāṇa is itself compromised. If held that these correspond to various levels of reality (pāramārthika, vyāvahārika), amounts to hypothesising based on unproven assumption (of levels of reality). b) Inferring the from supposed identity texts and imposing provisional reality to the world is akin to inferring that the fire is cold (say for eg., based on śruti āpovāgnerāyatanam) in opposition to the experiential fact.

Another objection could be that it is impossible to establish any logically satisfactory relation b/w consciousness and the objects of consciousness in the world. This objection can be prima facie answered that the objects are revealed thru the cognitive function of vṛtti-s enabled in some cases by sense organs or intuition. The epistemological shortcoming need to (or cannot) deny the ontological reality of an object.

W.r.t other emerging/popular objections which involve some of mixture of non-dualism and quantum theories, i concur with the opinion of scientists that it is nothing more than quantum quackery. (Ref Phys.org). Though i do like many of David Bohm's theories (excluding his communist inclinations among others) on consciousness and ontology of the universe, i think modern science is still far behind in terms of gaining acceptable/respectable understanding of consciousness, creation, and reality.

श्रीभारतीरमणान्तर्गतकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Terese]

Namaste,

To continue and complete the previous post...

Erroneous knowledge

Erroneous knowledge can be considered as the opposite of valid knowledge constituting the experience of an object as something else or as possessing attributes factually inexistent in it. Traditional examples include: (erroneous) perception of silver (shining when perceived from far away) in nacre and (mis)perception of snake in a rope. Limiting the scope to vedanta:
Advaita -- anirvacanīya-khyāti

The perception of silver(ness) in nacre is neither real (sat) nor unreal (asat) thus introducing a (ontological) category called anirvacanīya (~indescribable) based on the syllogism saccenna bādhyeta asaccenna pratīyeta (by śrī śaṅkara). A dual cognition is adopted, defective sensory perception of shining in the nacre, followed by mental reconstruction as silver, based on previous impressions. Generalising the exceptions in these examples, advaitins extend anirvacanīyatva to the entire world.​

Viśiṣṭādvaita -- yathārtha-khyāti

Here the perception of silver in nacre is relatively true and not absolutely false to the extent / from reference to the element of silver in nacre. It holds that every object in the world has some portion of all other objects in world in varying proportions. So technically, erroneous perception then becomes the actual cognition of subtle truth which is otherwise missed or ignored under normal conditions.​

Tattvavāda -- abhinava-anyathā-khyāti

Knowledge is considered valid as rule and errors are exceptions where sākṣi is the final adjudicator. Whenever doubts arise, the apperceiver resorts to tests to establish validity. Illusion then is merely
• an unreal or non-existent object or relation being presented in immediate perception as real and existing
• and of a really existing object or relation as not existing --> implying illusion is the appearance of an object as different from what it really is i.e., of an unreal or non-existent object or relation as real or existent and vice versa.​

On accepting the intrinsic validity of knowledge (which all vedantins - advaitins, viśiṣṭādvaitins, and tattvavādins do) the doctrine of reality of world and its objects follow naturally.
The objections to reality of the world can primarily be based on two grounds a) śruti texts and/or b) inference. To simplify: the contention based on a) is easily answered by the fact that there are more śruti that support the reality of the world and experience. If held that the supposed few that objecting the reality of world alone convey the truth (tattvavedaka, as held by advaitins), then the acceptability of śruti as pramāṇa is itself compromised. If held that these correspond to various levels of reality (pāramārthika, vyāvahārika), amounts to hypothesising based on unproven assumption (of levels of reality). b) Inferring the from supposed identity texts and imposing provisional reality to the world is akin to inferring that the fire is cold (say for eg., based on śruti āpovāgnerāyatanam) in opposition to the experiential fact.

Another objection could be that it is impossible to establish any logically satisfactory relation b/w consciousness and the objects of consciousness in the world. This objection can be prima facie answered that the objects are revealed thru the cognitive function of vṛtti-s enabled in some cases by sense organs or intuition. The epistemological shortcoming need to (or cannot) deny the ontological reality of an object.

W.r.t other emerging/popular objections which involve some of mixture of non-dualism and quantum theories, i concur with the opinion of scientists that it is nothing more than quantum quackery. (Ref Phys.org). Though i do like many of David Bohm's theories (excluding his communist inclinations among others) on consciousness and ontology of the universe, i think modern science is still far behind in terms of gaining acceptable/respectable understanding of consciousness, creation, and reality.

श्रीभारतीरमणान्तर्गतकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Much appreciated post Tattva ji. If it's not too much trouble, may i ask what Bohm's theories about consciousness and ontology were?

 

[Shantanu]

Sankara believes that objects are not real. This view is not universally shared across vedanta and is not very prominent in either the Upanisads or the Gita. However Brahma Sutras probably supports this to some extent. Upanisads deal with the idea that all objects ultimate essence is the one Brahman. That does not make objects illusions however.

That is the great distinction between classical Hindu theology and atheistic appreciation of the universe. Brahman is as @Aupmanyav contends energy, whereas those with information on a Personal God realise that that energy is simply the birth of the universe from God as Sri Krishna.