Posts: 53
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2007
hi allz..... going by the suggestion that Diana gave.. i am posting notes in the new thread... its her suggestion that otherwise users may not get to know about notes as those would appear on the later pages of the questions thread....
great suggestion, Diana....
keep replying...
so here we go.......
Posts: 53
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2007
so, the today's post-notes is about PURVA MIMAMSA
The philosophy of two Mimamsas (Purva and Uttara) is an attempt to show that the revelations of sruti (Vedas) are in harmony with the conclusions of philosophy. The Purva Mimamsa being earlier of the two (in the logical sense at least) is ritualistic thematically, whereas the Uttara Mimamsa or Vedanta represents knowledge of the truth of things. In Vedanta the emphasis is on the Lord, and not on the Lordship. Purva Mimamsa is generally called the Mimamsa (meaning inquiry or interpretation), and in interpreting the Vedic text discusses the doctrine of the eternity of sound identified with Brahman. The entire Veda, excluding the Upanisads, is said to deal with dharma or acts of duty, of which the chief are sacrifices. Thus Purva Mimamsa is inquiry into or interpretation of the first or the Mantra portion of the Veda, and the Uttara Mimamsa is the inquiry into the later or the Upanisad portion. Note that the performance of sacred rites -- with which Purva Mimamsa deals -- is normally considered the prelude to the pursuit of wisdom leading to Moksa.
The avowed aim of the Purva Mimamsa is to examine the nature of dharma. Its interest is more practical than speculative, and therefore the philosophical speculations found in it are subordinate to the ritualistic purpose. It affirms the reality of the soul and regards it as a permanent being possessing a body, to whom the results of acts accrue. The Veda enjoins the acts of duty, specifying at the same time the beneficial results which follow from their performance. The authority for the character of these acts as dharma and for their capacity to produce beneficial results is the eternal Veda, which needs no other basis to rest on. The most important work in the Purva Mimamsa is the Mimamsa Sutra attributed to Jaimini (fourth century B.C.).
SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
Jaimini accepts the three pramanas (proofs) of perception, inference and sabda (testimony). Some later authors, e.g. Prabhakara admitting upmana (comparison) and arthapatti (implication), and Kumarila adding anupalabdhi (non-apprehension), extend these original three categories. Aitihya (rumor) and recollection (smrti) are excluded however as valid sources of knowledge, since the former cannot ensure certainty about the validity of the resulting cognition in the absence of definite information about the source of rumor (whether trustworthy or not), and the latter can tell only about the things previously perceived.
Perception (pratyaksa) is direct apprehension and it proceeds directly from sense-contact. Perception relates to object that exist, i.e. are perceptible by the senses. It cannot apprehend supersensuous objects. The Mimamsakas do not support the theory of Yogic intuition, by which the Yogis are said to apprehend objects which are in past and future, or imperceptible and distant. Thus all those objects in which there is no sensory-contact (e.g. belonging in the past, future or distant) cannot produce cognition of them. Mental perception, by which there is the cognition of pleasure, pain, and the like, is admitted by the Mimamsa.
Inference depends on the knowledge of a certain fixed relation to subsist between two things. Thus if one of these things is perceived, by inference the idea about the other thing is cognized. Such a knowledge (cognition) is inferential. Inference is of two kinds: pratyaksa-to-drsta, where the invariable relation holds between two objects which are perceptible, as smoke and fire; and samanya-to-drsta, where the relation is not apprehended by the senses, but known only in the abstract, as in the case of the sun's motion and its changing position in the sky. Note that the relation must be unfailing, true and permanent, such as that which subsists between the cause and its effect, whole and part, substance and quality, class and individuals.
Vedic Testimony is greatly emphasized according to the Mimamsa, the aim of which is to ascertain the nature of dharma. Dharma is not a physical existent, and so it cannot be apprehended through the senses. The other pramanas are of no use, since they all presuppose the work of perception. Perception, inference and such other sources of knowledge have nothing to say on the point that the performer of the Agnistoma sacrifice (or specific modes of action) will draw certain benefits. This knowledge is derived only from the Vedas. Though the pramana of the Veda is the only source of our knowledge of dharma, the others are considered, since it is necessary to show that they cannot give rise to a knowledge of dharma. They are also found useful in repudiating wrong views.
Verbal cognition is defined as the cognition of something not present to the senses, produced by the knowledge of words. These words may be uttered by men or may belong to the Vedas. The formers are valid if there is certainty that their authors are not untrustworthy; and the latter are valid in themselves. The Mimamsakas protest against the view, which regards the Vedas as the work of God. They believe instead that the Vedic hymns deal with the eternal phenomena of nature, and attempt to prove that every part of the sacred text refers to acts of duty. The broad division of the Veda is into the Mantras and the Brahmanas (specifics). The contents of the Veda are also classified into (1) injunctions (vidhi), (2) hymns (mantras), (3) names (namadheya), (4) prohibitions (nisedha), and (5) explanatory passages (arthavada).
THE SELF - The Mimamsakas think that the atman is one with consciousness. Therefore the self is regarded as distinct from the body, the senses and the understanding (buddhi). The self is present even when buddhi (intellect) is absent (non-functional), as in sleep. The self is also not the senses, since it persists even when the sense-organs are destroyed. The body is material, and in all cognitions we are aware of the cogniser as distinct from the body. The elements of the body are not intelligent, and a combination of them cannot give rise to consciousness. The body is a means to an end beyond itself, and so is said to serve the soul which directs it. The facts of memory prove the reality of self. It is admitted that the soul suffers change, but through the changes the soul endures. Cognition, which is an activity (Kriya), belongs to the substance called the soul. It is no argument against the eternal character of the soul that it undergoes modifications. Nor is it a serious objection that, when we reap the results, we forget the actions which bring them about. Note that the soul cannot be atomic, since it apprehends changes in different parts of the body. It is regarded as vibhu or all-pervading, and as able to connect itself with one body after another. The soul directs the body, with which it is connected, until release.
The Mimamsakas adopt the theory of the plurality of selves to account for the variety of experiences. Presence of the soul is inferred from the activity of the bodies, which are inexplicable without such a hypothesis. As one's actions are due to his soul, other activities are traced to other souls. The differences of dharma (right action) and adharma (wrong action), which are qualities of souls, require the existence of different souls. The analogy that as the one sun, reflected in different substances, becomes endowed with distinct properties, the one soul reflected in different bodies becomes endowed with different qualities, does not hold, since the qualities that appear different belong to the reflecting medium and not the sun. If the analogy were true, the diverse qualities appearing in connection with the souls would belong to the bodies and not the soul. But pleasure, pain, etc., are qualities of the soul and not of the body.
What appears as the "I" is the self, free from all objective elements. The self is distinct from the body. The self is not perceptible in itself, but is always known as the agent (karta) of the cognition and not the object (karma). The act of cognition does not produce its result (sva-phala) in the self, so that the self is never an object of perception, external or internal. There is no such thing as self-consciousness apart from object-consciousness. The self cannot be the subject as well as object of consciousness. It is the agent, the enjoyer, and is omnipresent, though non-conscious. It is thus entirely distinct from the body, senses and understanding, is manifested in all cognitions, and is eternal. Though it is omnipresent, it cannot experience what is going on another body, since it can experience only that which goes on in the bodily organism brought about by the past karma of the soul. There are many souls, one in each body. In its liberated state the soul continues to exist as a mere esse (sat), serving as the substratum of the collective cognition of all things taken together, but not feeling, since the properties of pleasure and pain cannot manifest themselves except in a body. It is imperishable, since it is not brought into existence by any cause.
Note that the atman is consciousness itself, though the souls are many. Since all souls are of the nature of consciousness, the Upanisads speak of them as one. The atman is consciousness as well as the substrate of cognition, which is a product of the atman. The existence of the self is inferred through the notion of "I". The self is manifested by itself, though imperceptible to others.
THE NATURE OF REALITY - The Mimamsaka theory of perception assumes the reality of objects, for perception arises only when there is contact with real objects. The universe is real and is independent of the mind, which perceives it. Thus the theory of the phenomenality of the world is not accepted. The real can be described in terms of eight categories: (1) substance (dravya), (2) quality (guna), (3) action (karma), (4) generality (samanya), (5) inherence (paratantrata), (6) force (sakti), (7) similarity (sadrsya), and (8) number (samkhya).
DHARMA - Dharma is the scheme of right living. Jaimini defines dharma as an ordinance or command. Dharma is what is enjoined, and it leads to happiness. Activities which result in loss or pain (anartha) are not dharma. Thus the lack of observing the commands leads not only to missing the happiness but becoming subject to suffering also. The Vedic injunctions lay down the details of dharma. Good action, according to the Mimamsaka, is what is prescribed by the Veda (including the Upanisads). The duties which have no scriptural sanction are explained on principles of utility. If any act is performed in response to one's response to natural instincts, there is no virtue in it. These and other rules (aspects) of Mimamsa are used for the interpretation of the Hindu law, which is based on the rules of the Vedas or sruti (open equally to all, irrespective of the varna, caste or vocation). To gain salvation, the observing of nitya karmas (regular or daily duties) like sandhya, etc., and naimittika karmas (duties on a special occasion) are recommended. These are unconditional obligations, not fulfilling of which incurs sin (pratyavaya). To gain special ends, kamya (optional) karmas are performed. Thus by keeping clear of kamya karmas, one frees himself from selfish ends, and if he keeps up the unconditional (nitya and naimittika) duties he attains salvation.
APURVA - Acts are enjoined with a view to their fruits. There is a necessary connection between the act and its result. An act performed today cannot effect a result at some future date unless it gives rise before passing away to some unseen result. Jaimini assumes the existence of such an unseen force, which he calls apurva, which may be regarded either as the imperceptible antecedent of the fruit, or as the after-state of the act. Since sacrifices and the like are laid down for the purpose of definite results to follow after a long time, the deferred fruition of the action is not possible unless it is through the medium of apurva. Apurva is the metaphysical link between work and its result. The Mimamsakas are unwilling to trace the results of actions to God's will, since a uniform cause cannot account for a variety of effects.
MOKSHA - Liberation is defined as "the absolute cessation of the body (or cycle of birth), caused by the disappearance of all dharma and adharma." Liberation thus consists in the total disappearance of dharma and adharma, whose operation is the cause of rebirth. The individual, finding that in samsara (world) pleasures are mixed up with pain, turns his attention to liberation. He tries to avoid the forbidden acts as well as the prescribed ones which lead to some sort of happiness here or hereafter. He undergoes the necessary expiations for exhausting the previously accumulated karma, and gradually, by a true knowledge of the soul aided by contentment and self-control, gets rid of his bodily existence. Mere knowledge cannot give freedom from bondage, which can be attained only by the exhaustion of action. Knowledge prevents further accumulation of merit and demerit. Note that karma, in expectation of reward, leads to further birth. A person's likes and dislikes determine his future existence. He must break through the circle if he wants to attain release. Liberation is the cessation of pleasure as well as of pain. It is not a state of bliss, since the attributeless soul cannot have even bliss. Moksa is simply the natural form of the soul and represents the state of atman in itself, free from all pain.
-------
PS: the earlier notes on Samkhya can be seen in the thread
crack ugc-net 2008 philosophy...
all the best...
Posts: 53
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2007
hi.... today's post features all about LOGIC
LOGIC, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion--thus:
Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds;
therefore--
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second.
Syllogisms are arguments that take several parts, typically with two statements which are assumed to be true (or premises) that lead to a conclusion. There are three major types of syllogism:
Conditional syllogism: If A is true then B is true (If A then B).
Categorical syllogism: If A is in C then B is in C.
Disjunctive syllogism: If A is true, then B is false (A or B).
Also of note for syllogisms is:
THE STRUCTURE OF SYLLOGISM: A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three categorical terms, each of which is used exactly twice. One of those terms must be used as the subject term of the conclusion of the syllogism, and we call it the minor term of the syllogism as a whole. The major term of the syllogism is whatever is employed as the predicate term of its conclusion. The third term in the syllogism doesn't occur in the conclusion at all, but must be employed in somewhere in each of its premises; hence, we call it the middle term.
Since one of the premises of the syllogism must be a categorical proposition that affirms some relation between its middle and major terms, we call that the major premise of the syllogism. The other premise, which links the middle and minor terms, we call the minor premise.
Consider, for example, the categorical syllogism:
No geese are felines.
Some birds are geese.
Therefore, Some birds are not felines.
Clearly, "Some birds are not felines" is the conclusion of this syllogism. The major term of the syllogism is "felines" (the predicate term of its conclusion), so "No geese are felines" (the premise in which "felines" appears) is its major premise. Simlarly, the minor term of the syllogism is "birds," and "Some birds are geese" is its minor premise. "geese" is the middle term of the syllogism.
STANDARD FORM OF A SYLLOGISM - A categorical syllogism in standard form always begins with the premises, major first and then minor, and then finishes with the conclusion.
The mood of a syllogism is simply a statement of which categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O) it comprises, listed in the order in which they appear in standard form. Thus, a syllogism with a mood of OAO has an O proposition as its major premise, an A proposition as its minor premise, and another O proposition as its conclusion; and EIO syllogism has an E major premise, and I minor premise, and an O conclusion; etc.
In addtion to mood, a syllogism is characterized by its figure which is solely determined by the position in which its middle term appears in the two premises: in a first-figure syllogism, the middle term is the subject term of the major premise and the predicate term of the minor premise; in second figure, the middle term is the predicate term of both premises; in third, the subject term of both premises; and in fourth figure, the middle term appears as the predicate term of the major premise and the subject term of the minor premise. as in this chart
Figure 1 2 3 4
M P P M M P P M
S M S M M S M S
There are exactly 256 distinct forms of syllogisms, out of which only 24 are valid.
FORM AND VALIDITY
Validity of a categorical syllogism depends solely upon its logical form. The rules for deciding the validity of syllogism are:
Rule 1: The middle term must be distributed at least once.
Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in a premise.
Rule 3: Two negative premises are not allowed.
Rule 4: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise
Rule 5: If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular.
FALLACIES: Fallacies arise when one of the rules are broken, for example, following fallacies arise when these rules are broken (and the explanation given in the brackets
Rule 1: Undistributed middle (The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. If the middle term is never distributed, then the major and minor terms might be related to different parts of the M class, thus giving no common ground to relate S and P.)
example - All sharks are fish
All salmon are fish
Therefore All salmon are sharks
Rule 2: Illicit major; illicit minor (When a term is distributed in the conclusion, let’s say that P is distributed, then that term is saying something about every member of the P class. If that same term is NOT distributed in the major premise, then the major premise is saying something about only some members of the P class. Remember that the minor premise says nothing about the P class. Therefore, the conclusion contains information that is not contained in the premises, making the argument invalid.)
example - All horses are animals
Some dogs are not horses
therefore, Some dogs are not animals
and, All tigers are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore All animals are tigers
Rule 3: Exclusive premises (If the premises are both negative, then the relationship between S and P is denied. The conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive fashion. That information goes beyond what is contained in the premises.)
example - No fish are mammals
Some dogs are not fish
Therefore Some dogs are not mammals
Rule 4: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, or drawing a negative conclusion from an affirmative premise. (Two directions, here. Take a positive conclusion from one negative premise. The conclusion states that the S class is either wholly or partially contained in the P class. The only way that this can happen is if the S class is either partially or fully contained in the M class (remember, the middle term relates the two) and the M class fully contained in the P class. Negative statements cannot establish this relationship, so a valid conclusion cannot follow. Take a negative conclusion. It asserts that the S class is separated in whole or in part from the P class. If both premises are affirmative, no separation can be established, only connections. Thus, a negative conclusion cannot follow from positive premises.Note: These first four rules working together indicate that any syllogism with two particular premises is invalid.)
example - All crows are birds
Some wolves are not crows
Therefore Some wolves are birds
Rule 5: Existential fallacy (On the Boolean model, Universal statements make no claims about existence while particular ones do. Thus, if the syllogism has universal premises, they necessarily say nothing about existence. Yet if the conclusion is particular, then it does say something about existence. In which case, the conclusion contains more information than the premises do, thereby making it invalid.)
example - All mammals are animals
All tigers are mammals
Therefore Some tigers are animals
all the best........[/align]
Posts: 52
Threads: 33
Joined: Oct 2007
Hello Saki Da
Sorry for the misunderstanding.. I am edited the words he to she...
Thanks and please spare a 5 mins each day for posting... Today i was waiting for your new post tiil now (11.30 pm)
Bye
See you tom.
love
Neets
Posts: 53
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2007
hi.... today's post features ETHICS AND META-ETHICS
Ethics is a normative discipline, not a descriptive discipline. The aim of ethical theory is to give a reasoned account of how we ought to be or act, individually or communally. Ethics is not concerned with describing the sorts of moral views people in fact hold or how they came to hold them. Ethics is concerned with the justification of moral belief.
Meta-ethics is concerned with the nature of morality in general. It is concerned with what justifies moral judgments. Two central meta-ethical issues are whether there are any moral truths and, if so, what makes moral truths true. The view that there are no ethical truths is moral anti-realism or subjectivism. With regard to what grounds ethical truth, if there are such truths, the view that there are ethical truths and their truth is independent of any person or group’s power or command is moral realism. The view that ethical truths are grounded in the power or say so of persons is called conventionalism.
If there are moral truths, an account of what makes moral truths true can be given in terms of a theory of value. Another way to put the fundamental meta-ethical issue is asking if there is value to be discovered. The ancient Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would say all say yes. While these ancients differ in their positive views about the good, they would all agree that goodness exists and is independent of the command of men or gods. The modern empiricist Hume argues that there are no moral truths. Hume takes moral expressions to be expressions of sentiment or feeling. While the ancients were value realists and Hume was a value subjectivist, Nietzche offers a value conventionalist position according to which value is created by willing of great individuals. A society’s system of value is created by its great poets, artists, mystics or leaders.
A meta-ethical theory, unlike a normative ethical theory, does not contain any ethical evaluations. The major meta-ethical views are commonly divided into realist and anti-realist views:
Moral realism holds that there are objective values. Realists believe that evaluative statements are factual claims, which are either true or false, and that their truth or falsity does not depend on our beliefs, feelings, or other attitudes towards the things that are evaluated. Moral realism comes in two variants:
Ethical intuitionism or ethical non-naturalism, which holds that there are objective, irreducible moral properties (such as the property of 'goodness'), and that we sometimes have intuitive awareness of moral properties or of moral truths.
Ethical naturalism, which holds that there are objective moral properties but that these properties are reducible to entirely non-ethical properties. Most ethical naturalists hold that we have empirical knowledge of moral truths. Several have argued that moral knowledge can be gained by the same means as scientific knowledge.
Moral anti-realism holds that there are no objective values. This view comes in three variants:
Ethical Subjectivism, which holds that moral statements are made true or false by the attitudes and/or conventions of observers. There are several different versions of subjectivism, including:
Moral Relativism (sometimes called "cultural relativism"): This is the view that for a thing to be morally right is just for it to be approved of by society; this leads to the conclusion that different things are right for people in different societies. Though long out of favor among academic philosophers, this view has been popular among anthropologists, such as Ruth Benedict.
The Divine Command Theory: Another subjectivist theory holds that for a thing to be right is for a unique being, God, to approve of it, and that what is right for non-God beings is obedience to the divine will. This view was criticized by Plato in the Euthyphro but retains some modern defenders (Robert Adams, Philip Quinn, and others).
Individualist Subjectivism: Another view is that there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are subjects in the world. This view was put forward by Protagoras.
The Ideal Observer Theory: Finally, some hold that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer would have. An ideal observer is usually characterized as a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative, and informed, among other things. Richard Brandt is best-known for his defense of this view.
Non-cognitivism, which holds that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not assert genuine propositions. Non-cognitivism encompasses:
Emotivism, defended by A.J. Ayer and C.L. Stevenson, which holds that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions. So "Killing is wrong" means something like, "Boo on killing!"
Prescriptivism, defended by R.M. Hare, which holds that moral statements function like imperatives. So "Killing is wrong" means something like, "Don't kill!"
Quasi-realism, defended by Simon Blackburn, which holds that ethical statements behave linguistically like factual claims and can be appropriately called "true" or "false", even though there are no ethical facts for them to correspond to.
The error theory, which holds that ethical sentences are generally false. Error theorists hold that there are no objective values, but that the claim that there are objective values is part of the meaning of ordinary ethical sentences (in other words, such claims are truth-evaluable, but fail to correspond to any facts); that is why, in their view, ethical sentences are false. J.L. Mackie was the best-known proponent of this view. The error theory is also sometimes called "moral skepticism" or "nihilism."
Subjectivism, non-cognitivism, and error theory are the only forms of anti-realism: If there are no objective values, this must be either because ethical statements are subjective claims (as subjectivists maintain), or because they are not genuine claims at all (as non-cognitivists maintain), or because they are mistaken objective claims. The only alternative is for ethical statements to be correct objective claims, which entails moral realism.
Another way of categorizing meta-ethical theories distinguishes between monistic theories (in which there is one true, or at least one highest, good) and pluralistic theories.
Value pluralism contends that there are two or more genuine values, knowable as such, yet incommensurable, so that any prioritization of these values is either non-cognitive or subjective. A value pluralist might, for example, contend that both the life of a nun and that of a mother realize genuine values (in an objective and cognitivist sense), yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable. See Isaiah Berlin.
ALL THE BEST..........
Posts: 53
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2007
hi.. today's post features YOGA
Yoga, according to Patanjali (second century B.C.), is a methodical effort to attain perfection, through the control of the different elements of human nature, physical and psychical. The word Yoga is used in a variety of senses. It may simply mean "method." It is often used in the sense of yoking. In the Upanisads and the Bhagavadgita, the soul (divine and eternal part of the being) in the worldly and the sinful condition is said to live separate and estranged from the supreme soul. The root of all sin and suffering is this separation, disunion and estrangement. To be rid of sorrow and sin, one must, according to Yoga philosophy, attain spiritual unification, the consciousness of two in one, or Yoga. In Patanjali, Yoga simply means the effort to bring this union. Thus Yoga, the effort, also signifies exertion, strenuous endeavor, and the restraint of the senses and the mind. The physical body, the active will and the understanding mind are to be brought under control. When this condition is arrived at through certain practices resulting in the increased vitality, prolonged youth and longevity, these are to be employed in the interest of spiritual freedom (i.e. separation between purusa and prakrti). The main interest of Patanjali is the practical motive, rather than metaphysical theorizing, of showing the way to attain salvation by disciplined activity.
The Yoga Sutra of Patanjali is one of the earliest complete texts on the Yoga and it is divided into four parts. The first part explores the nature and aim of samadhi, or meditative absorption (samadhipada), the second explains the means of attaining this end (sadhanapada), the third describes the supernatural powers that can be attained through the Yoga practice (vibhutipada), and the fourth sets forth the nature of liberation (kaivalyapada).
In the early works (the Mahabharata etc.) the Yoga principles appear along with the Samkhya ideas. The twenty-five principles (tattvas) of the Samkhya are accepted by the Yoga. The universe is uncreated and eternal. It undergoes changes. In its noumenal state it is called prakrti. there are two parallel lines of evolution, starting from mahat (subtle matter) to buddhi, which, on the one side, develops into ahamkara (ego), manas (mind), the five senses of cognition and the five of action, and, on the other, develops into the five gross elements through the five tanmatras. Yoga does not recognize ahamkara and manas as separate from budhhi (intellect), and brings these three internal organs of Samkhya under citta. It also looks upon the sense-organs as material in character, and so finds no need for a subtle body.
Citta is the first product of prakrti and includes intellect, self-consciousness or ego, and mind. It is subject to the three gunas, and undergoes various modifications according to the predominance of the gunas. It is essentially unconscious, though it becomes conscious by the reflection of the self which abides by it. Citta, including the mind, undergoes modifications when it is affected by the objects through the senses. The consciousness of purusa reflected in it leads to the impression that it is the experiencer. Citta is really the spectacle of which the self is by reflection the spectator. Citta, as cause, is all pervading like akasa, and there are as many cittas as there are purusas, since each purusa has a citta connected with it. Yoga does not admit a separate subtle body in which the citta is encased. It is the aim of the Yoga discipline to turn back the citta to its original status of all-pervading karana-citta, by the suppression of rajas and tamas. It is by means of citta that the self (purusa) becomes aware of objects and enters into relation with the world. Citta exists for the sake of the purusa, who is deeper than thought, feeling and will.
Mind is an arena of conflicting forces, which require to be subdued to some unity. There are some desires that seek satisfaction, some vital urges of life, such as those of self-preservation and self-reproduction, which refuse to be easily controlled. The obstacles to concentration are said to be the different forms of misconception (representing the general attitude of life unfavorable to concentration), namely, ignorance (avidya), egoism (asmita), attachment (raga), aversion (dvesa), and clinging to life (abhinivesa).
Perception, inference and scripture are accepted as the three means of knowledge. When the citta is affected by some external object, through the sense-organs, there is perception. The mental modification is directly related to the object. The reality of external objects is accepted by the Yoga.
Inference is the mental modification through which the generic nature of objects is cognized. The cognition of invariable conjunction is the basis of inference. Of two things invariably connected with each other, the perception of one establishes the existence of the other.
Scripture or testimony relates to the knowledge of an object seen or inferred by a trustworthy person and communicated to others by means of words.
The human organism consists of the physical body, the vital dynamism, the psychic principles, and the purusa. The purusa is hidden behind veils of corruptible flesh and restless mind, all of which offer hindrances to the method of Yoga. To overcome the hindrances, the Yoga proposes the eightfold method, consisting of yama ( abstention), niyama (observance), asana (posture), pranayama (regulation of breath), pratyahara (withdrawal of the senses), dhyana (fixed attention), dharana (contemplation), and samadhi (concentration). The last three are direct or internal (antaranga) aids, while the first five are indirect or external (bahiranga). Although all these were originally included in one Yoga scheme, later these were classified as Karma yoga (the system of salvation by work), Bhakti yoga (perfection through devotion to God), Jnana yoga (perfection through wisdom), Raja yoga (training of the mind and its psychic powers) and Hatha yoga ( methods of bodily control, breath regulation and mantra).
Ethical preparation (yama and niyama), bodily posture (asana), breath-control (pranayama), and abstraction of the senses from their natural functions (pratyhara) are considered as accessories to the Yoga, and these are not themselves elements in it. One should practice ahimsa (or non-violence), truthfulness, honesty, continence and non-acceptance of gifts. No exceptions are allowed to these (yama) principles, which are absolute in their character. The observances (niyama) are optional but are also to be followed regularly in Yoga practice and comprise purification (external and internal), contentment, austerity (tapas), and devotion to God.
Liberation Freedom in the Yoga is kaivalya, or absolute independence. It is not a mere negation, but the eternal life of the purusa when it is freed from the fetters of prakrti. It is defined as the relapse of qualities (guna) in view of the absence of the purpose of the self or the energy of intelligence grounded in itself. The purusa is in his true form (svarupa).
All the best.......
Posts: 22
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks Saki
This was a much required stuff... I was searching for a long time for notes on Yoga
Posts: 53
Threads: 6
Joined: Dec 2007
hi... today's post features all about VEDANTA
In the Vedanta, emphasis is on Lord and not on the lordship. In other words, the Absolute or the Reality is investigated by considering Brahman first and the creation (souls and the world) follows next (and even as attributable to Brahman). The term "Vedanta" means literally "the end of the Veda," or the doctrines set forth in the closing chapters of the Vedas, which are the Upanisads. The views of the Upanisads also constitute "the final aim of the Veda," or the essence of the Vedas. The Vedanta Sutra (or the doctrine of Vedanta) is called Brahm Sutra or Braham Sutra, because it is an exposition of the doctrine of Brahm / Braham (or Brahman), and also Sariraka Sutra, because it deals with the embodiment of the unconditioned self. While in the Purva Mimamsa (or Karma Mimamsa) Jaimini investigates the duties (dharma) enjoined by the Veda, together with the rewards attached thereto, in the Uttara Mimamsa Badarayana describes the philosophico-theological views of the Upanisads. Together, the two form a systematic investigation of the whole Veda. The Upanisads are but a series of glances at truth from various points of view, and not an attempt to think out the great questions consecutively.
The Vedanta Sutra has four chapters. The first deals with the theory of Brahman as the central reality. This includes an account of the nature of Brahman, its relation to the world and the individual soul. The second (avirodha) meets the objections brought against this view and criticizes rival theories. It also gives an account of the nature of the dependence of the world on God and the gradual evolution from and reabsorption into him. In the latter part there are interesting psychological discussions about the nature of the soul, its attributes, its relation to God, body and its own deeds. The third discusses the ways and means (sadhana) of attaining Braham-vidya or Braham-jnana (divine knowledge). There is in it an account of rebirth and minor psychological and theological discussions, together with many exegetical components. The fourth deals with the fruits (phala) of Braham-vidya. It also describes in some detail the theory of the departure of soul after death along the two paths of the gods and the fathers and the nature of the release from which there is no return. Each chapter has four parts (padas), and the sutras in each part fall into certain groups called adhikaranas.
Shankara's teachings on Advaita center on several important ideas. The most important is “The Brahman is real; the world is unreal. The “jivaâ€(individual soul or spirit) is verily Brahman and no other.†This needs to be unpacked quite a bit. The Vedas teach about many gods, but to Sankara, the key is Brahman. Using many Vedic and Upanisadic texts, Sankara argues that all the deities mentioned in the scriptures are merely hints of the one real god. When Sankara argues in this way, his point is not that the other gods are not gods, but rather, they really represent the one true reality of the universe – Brahman. In the same way, all that appears in the world to the senses is “unrealâ€. In this sense, Sankara thought that the world is “Mayaâ€, the dream or illusion. Maya also means “that which measuresâ€, and is used in the sense that Maya measures the unmeasurable, diversifies the undiversified, and changes the immutable. The world is illusion because of “avidya†or ignorance of the true nature of things. The jiva is the individual soul or “atmanâ€. Each bit of the world is atman. So in essence Brahman really is all that there is, but the individual is blinded by his/her own ignorance into thinking that he/she, as an individual, is separate from the universal one. Maya blinds from the true or higher nature, and through knowledge of the truth “tat tvam asi†(that art thou) the atman recognizes what is real and Maya has no more power over the enlightened mind.
There are several other important ideas for Sankara. The first is Nirguna Brahman. By this he meant that Brahman is pure being, consciousness and bliss (Sat-cit-ananda), and without attributes. This Satcitananda is not three qualities or attributes of Brahman; rather it is “its essential nature. Looked at ontologically, we realize the Being or “Sat’ aspect of Brahman. From the epistemological viewpoint, Brahman is revealed as “chit†or consciousness. And from the point of view of the highest value Brahman is “ananda†or bliss itself.†(4) The idea of nirguna Brahman is in direct contrast with Saguna Brahman or God with attributes. In bhakti devotion it is common to speak of the grace, mercy, love, or anger of the deity. Many of the deities were known for their “specialties†in that they fulfilled certain roles for their devotees. For example, Ganesha the elephant-headed deity was (and is) prayed to for help in starting new endeavors, as Ganesha will clear the path of all obstacles. Brahman for Sankara was beyond all these worldly things. The attributes of Ganesha were of Maya; they were not the ultimate reality. Brahman is also beyond form (nirakar). Brahman could not be perceived in the world of forms. This was quite radical in a time of overwhelming idol devotion.
Brahman also involves transcendentally. Brahman is the all-pervading Self immanent in the phenomenal world. In this sense Nirguna Brahman is manifested as Saguna Brahman in relation to the created universe. So Sankara could argue that Nirguna Brahman was “present†in all of creation but not in the sense of reality, but “behind†or underneath the false perception of reality – maya.
The goal of life is to realize or recognize the unity of Brahman and the identification of the individual self with the ultimate self. This one thing should dominate one’s life. There are different methods of recognition of the true reality, but the ultimate path for Sankara is that of self-knowledge (jnana) through textual study and meditative experience. Moksha or liberation comes in the ultimate sense when the atman/jiva recognizes its true self. Man must realize this liberation intuitively because Brahman is without physical senses. This also cannot be done by reason, whose only role is to show the impermanence of Maya. This liberation is not attained by works or devotion but rather through wisdom and realization. Once liberated, the atman is released from Maya and is absorbed into Brahman consciousness. The individual is under bondage and liberation does not literally cause he/she to be absorbed, because that would mean that there is change in Brahman. The famous illustration is that of the “snake-ropeâ€. One thinks one sees a snake but the illusion vanishes when one realizes the true nature of the rope. But there still are physical consequences in Maya, such as shortness of breath from fear and so on.
To answer about changes in the world, Sankara sets up in essence a two-tiered universe. The lower tier consists of Maya brought about by avidya. For this reason, the physical universe appears the way it does. People trapped in this tier by their ignorance think that they exist as separate atmans. But ultimately enlightened souls are liberated from their ignorance and “sees†that this world can be transcended and not ultimate, and finally recognized that they are not separate but rather identical to Brahman. In this moment their consciousness changes and they now still may live on in the second tier, but remain unaffected by all that happens in it. Good, evil, life, death, and all the rest have lost their hold on them. The upper tier is pure being, consciousness and bliss. This is the true and ultimate reality of Brahman. One famous Advaita illustration is the ocean and raindrops. The hydration cycle pulls the water from the ocean and the clouds move the water over land. Then the water is released as rain drops to fall to the ground. But somewhere in the process the individual drops forgets that they were part of the ocean. They were mistakenly thinking that they were individual drops. So the raindrops fall and then sweep into streams and rivers and finally return to the ocean. It is their return to the ocean, which is moksha and Samadhi (absorption into Brahman) all at once. They don’t change and become the ocean. They merely lose their illusory bondage and return to their pristine state.
RAMANUJA - VISHISTADVAITA
In rejection of these teachings but staying within the same scriptural traditions as Sankara, comes Ramanuja (1017-1137). He was a devotee and leader of a Vaisnava community. He is considered the leader thinker of Visistadvaita Vedanta. This means qualified non-dualism. Like Sankara, Ramanuja is concerned with scriptural adherence and claims that Sankara has misread many of the important Vedic passages. Sankara’s hermeneutic involved seeing a two-tiered system of understanding the text. The higher meaning always refers in some way to monistic Brahman. The lower meaning refers to Brahman as incarnate deities. Ramanuja rejects this distinction and call for an even reading of all texts.
The system is qualified non-dualism because in some important ways Ramanuja still agrees with Sankara, even while he criticizes him. Ramanuja would agree that Brahman is the ultimate reality and that Maya hides that ultimate reality. He would agree that moksha from Samsara is the central goal of life. But his critique of Sankara is centered on the fact that for all intents and purposes idol worship, bhakti devotion, is been relegated to a secondary status or even worse and the thinking of children and fools. Ramanuja’s understanding of Brahman is Brahman is Atman, and that means that each bit of Atman really is Brahman. Therefore Brahman permeates the universe with his presence. As such Brahman has qualities. He is Saguna Brahman. Ramanuja claimed this was not pantheism because he still wants a distinction between creator and creation. His own Vaisnava beliefs saw moksha as being with Vishnu is heaven, saturated by the grace of Vishnu but not identical with Vishnu. So Brahman pervades the universe but is in some way not the universe.
His view of Maya is also distinct from Sankara. This “soft†version of Maya sees avidya as the real problem and liberation coming through realization, but liberation can also come through bhakti. Since the idol really does “contain†deity in some meaningful way, then devotion is just as appropriate as self-realization. Maya still hides the reality of divinity, but itself has some existence. Ultimately at the end of the day Ramanuja still wants to agree with Sankara that Brahman in undivided, but that in some sense is eschatological. During the present age Brahman permeates the universe and so Ramanuja “saves†idol worship from the ravages of the iconoclast Sankara.
ALL THE BEST......
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
HI
I am Krishna
Does this notes relates to mgt subject for net
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
(06-27-2008, 05:05 PM)saki Wrote: hi... today's post features all about VEDANTA
In the Vedanta, emphasis is on Lord and not on the lordship. In other words, the Absolute or the Reality is investigated by considering Brahman first and the creation (souls and the world) follows next (and even as attributable to Brahman). The term "Vedanta" means literally "the end of the Veda," or the doctrines set forth in the closing chapters of the Vedas, which are the Upanisads. The views of the Upanisads also constitute "the final aim of the Veda," or the essence of the Vedas. The Vedanta Sutra (or the doctrine of Vedanta) is called Brahm Sutra or Braham Sutra, because it is an exposition of the doctrine of Brahm / Braham (or Brahman), and also Sariraka Sutra, because it deals with the embodiment of the unconditioned self. While in the Purva Mimamsa (or Karma Mimamsa) Jaimini investigates the duties (dharma) enjoined by the Veda, together with the rewards attached thereto, in the Uttara Mimamsa Badarayana describes the philosophico-theological views of the Upanisads. Together, the two form a systematic investigation of the whole Veda. The Upanisads are but a series of glances at truth from various points of view, and not an attempt to think out the great questions consecutively.
The Vedanta Sutra has four chapters. The first deals with the theory of Brahman as the central reality. This includes an account of the nature of Brahman, its relation to the world and the individual soul. The second (avirodha) meets the objections brought against this view and criticizes rival theories. It also gives an account of the nature of the dependence of the world on God and the gradual evolution from and reabsorption into him. In the latter part there are interesting psychological discussions about the nature of the soul, its attributes, its relation to God, body and its own deeds. The third discusses the ways and means (sadhana) of attaining Braham-vidya or Braham-jnana (divine knowledge). There is in it an account of rebirth and minor psychological and theological discussions, together with many exegetical components. The fourth deals with the fruits (phala) of Braham-vidya. It also describes in some detail the theory of the departure of soul after death along the two paths of the gods and the fathers and the nature of the release from which there is no return. Each chapter has four parts (padas), and the sutras in each part fall into certain groups called adhikaranas.
Shankara's teachings on Advaita center on several important ideas. The most important is “The Brahman is real; the world is unreal. The “jivaâ€(individual soul or spirit) is verily Brahman and no other.†This needs to be unpacked quite a bit. The Vedas teach about many gods, but to Sankara, the key is Brahman. Using many Vedic and Upanisadic texts, Sankara argues that all the deities mentioned in the scriptures are merely hints of the one real god. When Sankara argues in this way, his point is not that the other gods are not gods, but rather, they really represent the one true reality of the universe – Brahman. In the same way, all that appears in the world to the senses is “unrealâ€. In this sense, Sankara thought that the world is “Mayaâ€, the dream or illusion. Maya also means “that which measuresâ€, and is used in the sense that Maya measures the unmeasurable, diversifies the undiversified, and changes the immutable. The world is illusion because of “avidya†or ignorance of the true nature of things. The jiva is the individual soul or “atmanâ€. Each bit of the world is atman. So in essence Brahman really is all that there is, but the individual is blinded by his/her own ignorance into thinking that he/she, as an individual, is separate from the universal one. Maya blinds from the true or higher nature, and through knowledge of the truth “tat tvam asi†(that art thou) the atman recognizes what is real and Maya has no more power over the enlightened mind.
There are several other important ideas for Sankara. The first is Nirguna Brahman. By this he meant that Brahman is pure being, consciousness and bliss (Sat-cit-ananda), and without attributes. This Satcitananda is not three qualities or attributes of Brahman; rather it is “its essential nature. Looked at ontologically, we realize the Being or “Sat’ aspect of Brahman. From the epistemological viewpoint, Brahman is revealed as “chit†or consciousness. And from the point of view of the highest value Brahman is “ananda†or bliss itself.†(4) The idea of nirguna Brahman is in direct contrast with Saguna Brahman or God with attributes. In bhakti devotion it is common to speak of the grace, mercy, love, or anger of the deity. Many of the deities were known for their “specialties†in that they fulfilled certain roles for their devotees. For example, Ganesha the elephant-headed deity was (and is) prayed to for help in starting new endeavors, as Ganesha will clear the path of all obstacles. Brahman for Sankara was beyond all these worldly things. The attributes of Ganesha were of Maya; they were not the ultimate reality. Brahman is also beyond form (nirakar). Brahman could not be perceived in the world of forms. This was quite radical in a time of overwhelming idol devotion.
Brahman also involves transcendentally. Brahman is the all-pervading Self immanent in the phenomenal world. In this sense Nirguna Brahman is manifested as Saguna Brahman in relation to the created universe. So Sankara could argue that Nirguna Brahman was “present†in all of creation but not in the sense of reality, but “behind†or underneath the false perception of reality – maya.
The goal of life is to realize or recognize the unity of Brahman and the identification of the individual self with the ultimate self. This one thing should dominate one’s life. There are different methods of recognition of the true reality, but the ultimate path for Sankara is that of self-knowledge (jnana) through textual study and meditative experience. Moksha or liberation comes in the ultimate sense when the atman/jiva recognizes its true self. Man must realize this liberation intuitively because Brahman is without physical senses. This also cannot be done by reason, whose only role is to show the impermanence of Maya. This liberation is not attained by works or devotion but rather through wisdom and realization. Once liberated, the atman is released from Maya and is absorbed into Brahman consciousness. The individual is under bondage and liberation does not literally cause he/she to be absorbed, because that would mean that there is change in Brahman. The famous illustration is that of the “snake-ropeâ€. One thinks one sees a snake but the illusion vanishes when one realizes the true nature of the rope. But there still are physical consequences in Maya, such as shortness of breath from fear and so on.
To answer about changes in the world, Sankara sets up in essence a two-tiered universe. The lower tier consists of Maya brought about by avidya. For this reason, the physical universe appears the way it does. People trapped in this tier by their ignorance think that they exist as separate atmans. But ultimately enlightened souls are liberated from their ignorance and “sees†that this world can be transcended and not ultimate, and finally recognized that they are not separate but rather identical to Brahman. In this moment their consciousness changes and they now still may live on in the second tier, but remain unaffected by all that happens in it. Good, evil, life, death, and all the rest have lost their hold on them. The upper tier is pure being, consciousness and bliss. This is the true and ultimate reality of Brahman. One famous Advaita illustration is the ocean and raindrops. The hydration cycle pulls the water from the ocean and the clouds move the water over land. Then the water is released as rain drops to fall to the ground. But somewhere in the process the individual drops forgets that they were part of the ocean. They were mistakenly thinking that they were individual drops. So the raindrops fall and then sweep into streams and rivers and finally return to the ocean. It is their return to the ocean, which is moksha and Samadhi (absorption into Brahman) all at once. They don’t change and become the ocean. They merely lose their illusory bondage and return to their pristine state.
RAMANUJA - VISHISTADVAITA
In rejection of these teachings but staying within the same scriptural traditions as Sankara, comes Ramanuja (1017-1137). He was a devotee and leader of a Vaisnava community. He is considered the leader thinker of Visistadvaita Vedanta. This means qualified non-dualism. Like Sankara, Ramanuja is concerned with scriptural adherence and claims that Sankara has misread many of the important Vedic passages. Sankara’s hermeneutic involved seeing a two-tiered system of understanding the text. The higher meaning always refers in some way to monistic Brahman. The lower meaning refers to Brahman as incarnate deities. Ramanuja rejects this distinction and call for an even reading of all texts.
The system is qualified non-dualism because in some important ways Ramanuja still agrees with Sankara, even while he criticizes him. Ramanuja would agree that Brahman is the ultimate reality and that Maya hides that ultimate reality. He would agree that moksha from Samsara is the central goal of life. But his critique of Sankara is centered on the fact that for all intents and purposes idol worship, bhakti devotion, is been relegated to a secondary status or even worse and the thinking of children and fools. Ramanuja’s understanding of Brahman is Brahman is Atman, and that means that each bit of Atman really is Brahman. Therefore Brahman permeates the universe with his presence. As such Brahman has qualities. He is Saguna Brahman. Ramanuja claimed this was not pantheism because he still wants a distinction between creator and creation. His own Vaisnava beliefs saw moksha as being with Vishnu is heaven, saturated by the grace of Vishnu but not identical with Vishnu. So Brahman pervades the universe but is in some way not the universe.
His view of Maya is also distinct from Sankara. This “soft†version of Maya sees avidya as the real problem and liberation coming through realization, but liberation can also come through bhakti. Since the idol really does “contain†deity in some meaningful way, then devotion is just as appropriate as self-realization. Maya still hides the reality of divinity, but itself has some existence. Ultimately at the end of the day Ramanuja still wants to agree with Sankara that Brahman in undivided, but that in some sense is eschatological. During the present age Brahman permeates the universe and so Ramanuja “saves†idol worship from the ravages of the iconoclast Sankara.
ALL THE BEST......
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
sir, i want madhava, nimbarka and also vallabha's notes.
theory of khyatis. please send it in my mail sir. thank u.
send me some link through i can find philosophy's all paper. thank u.
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
DEAR SIR,
I AM PUJA. ACCORDING TO THE 2010 SYLLABUS OF PHILOSOPHY PAPER, I WANT PAPER 3 'S ALL SHORT NOTES A ND ELECTIVE(VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY I.E. SANKARA, RAMANUJA, NIMBARKA, MADHAVA AND VALLABHA) NOTES. PLEASE SEND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN MY MAIL (PUJA4NET@GMAIL.COM). BECAUSE UGC NET EXAM IS 26 DEC. PLEASE SIR SEND QUICKLY. I WILL BE GRATEFUL FOR THE SAME. THANK U.
Posts: 9
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
(12-06-2010, 01:55 PM)pipi Wrote: sir, i want madhava, nimbarka and also vallabha's notes.
theory of khyatis. please send it in my mail sir. thank u.
send me some link through i can find philosophy's all paper. thank u.
plz send it quickly bcz i want 2 study.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2011
PLEASE SEND ME PAPER THREE ALL NOTES UGC PHILOSOPHY AND NOTES ON GANDHI...PLS B 4 JUNE 26TH ON EMAIL ID BECKONINGBEE@GMAIL.COM
|
