PDA

View Full Version : "objects are non different from their names"? explain?



shays860
28 January 2015, 02:54 PM
I keep reading in advaitic texts something to the effect of the above, That objects and their names are the same, but I can't recall this idea actually being explained And it seems to be a fairly important concept so I would be very grateful if someone could help me get a hold on it. If reference is needed it is addressed in The opening of the mandukya upanisad.

Thank you

Believer
28 January 2015, 04:17 PM
Namaste,

Sorry for digressing but in your profile, your profession is listed as 'chai wallah'. I would say that following in Mr. Modi's footsteps, you are destined to be the PM of India some day. :)

Pranam.

shays860
28 January 2015, 04:34 PM
Haha maybe next time around. I work at Starbucks and I had just watched Slumdog millionaire when I made this profile.

devotee
28 January 2015, 09:47 PM
Namaste Shays,


I keep reading in advaitic texts something to the effect of the above, That objects and their names are the same, but I can't recall this idea actually being explained And it seems to be a fairly important concept so I would be very grateful if someone could help me get a hold on it. If reference is needed it is addressed in The opening of the mandukya upanisad.


Mandukya Upanishad doesn't say anything like this. May be, you read it somewhere else or it may be in commentary made by someone on Mandukya Upanishad.

However, I would like to share my piece of mind on above issue :

a) There is no Reality except Self. Consciousness is Self. The objects as perceived in this universe are as imagined within Consciousness (by Cosmic Mind). All objects are projected by the power of Consciousness which is also called MAyA. Due to this power of MAyA, objects are imagined just like Dream-objects and are projected in dimensions suited to the environment.

b) If the above is accepted, then the concept of any object or whatever an object is nothing but concepts imagined in Mind. Now these concepts are nothing but words which describe the objects and their attributes. The concept of the object and all its attributes are symbolised by a name given to that particular object. When you take the name of an object all concept of that object and its attributes are imagined in mind : E.g. If I say "Ice" ... this brings in mind the concept and all attributes of Ice in mind (if I know what Ice is).

c) The objects have no reality on their own. Therefore, the objects are nothing but concepts and their attributes imagined in Mind and that is denoted by a name of the object. Therefore, all objects are nothing but their names.

OM

wundermonk
28 January 2015, 11:05 PM
Hi,


That objects and their names are the same

There are multiple layers to this question.

Per Nyaya realism, everything that exists, exists independent of consciousness. So, Nyaya holds that the following are equivalent.

(a)A thing exists.

(b)A thing is knowable.

(c)A thing is nameable.

Sphotavada (grammarians) find fault with realism and their theory of language and Advaita sides with the grammarians in certain aspects.

The basic argument of the grammarians is that a thing exists only inasmuch as it has a name. That is, think of a possible universe where the gravitational force is different from what is there in this universe as a result of which rain rises from the ground level to the sky. So, the set of words "The rain falls from the sky down to earth" is a meaningless concept in this universe. So, "rain falling down from the sky" which exists/happens in our universe would not exist/happen in this universe.

Alternatively think of bushmen who have never encountered "modern" civilization (I happen to have watched "Gods must be crazy" recently and hence the analogy). Since the bushmen's language does not have a word equivalent to "car", the car does not exist in the world of the bushmen.

The point is that as per Advaita/grammarians, there is no priviledged language whose nouns alone correspond to things existing in reality.

Yet another argument for non-distinctness goes along the following lines.

A word that has meaning seems to possess a mysterious "power" to denote an object that is not possessed by a different word or a word that is composed of meaningless letters together, say, "werweruhuiadf".

Now, how does this word come to have this power? How is the word related to the object it denotes? Either the two are

(a) unrelated, or

(b) another relation is required to explain the relationship, or

(c) it is natural for a word to link to the object it denotes.

(a) is immediately ruled out. If (b) is to be accepted, a vicious infinite regress looms. (c) essentially refutes "distinctness". Non-distinctness (grammarians uphold this) or anirvachaniya (unintelligibility) (Advaitins uphold this) are the only options left on the table.

Hope this is useful.

saswathy
29 January 2015, 07:37 AM
Dear friend ,
Objects are identified with their names only .A rose is a rose by what ever name we call . But still it is identified with that name by an ordinary mortal . The same logic applies to everything we perceive and visualise. This is general logic . When it comes to a highly evolved soul either the name or object do es not carry any significance . It is just a part of maya . Then even maya is perceived conception which goes beyond all attributes in his view.So it is better we confine ourselves to simple perceptory universe till such time we cross that.

shays860
29 January 2015, 02:54 PM
I haven't read over the responses in their entirety yet but I wanted to go ahead and note my mistake. The phrase was in guadapada's karika on the mandukya upanisad As translated by swami gambhirananda in volume two of his 'eight upanisads'. I'd copy and paste the section but my only internet access is via smart phone and it would be an enormous pain. Thanks again.

shays860
29 January 2015, 03:03 PM
Thank you so much for your responses. It seemed the whole karika was based on that foundational principle and I was Afraid I was not going to be able to make any sense of it but maybe now I can actually make some headway. And over and above this particular question I would like to thank the members of this forum in general. If it weren't for you I may have given up on the dharma long ago but you guys always provide me with firm footing.

Namaste,
Stevie