seeing vs. truth

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

This post is about asaṃbhāvanā śaṇkā vāda

• asaṃbhāvanā - not possible ; impossibility of comprehending
• śaṇkā - doubt ( some say fear); yet the word's definition is also captured by apprehension , alarm , distrust , suspicion
• vāda - explainiation, discussion.

Hence asaṃbhāvanā śaṇkā vāda is one's doubt or suspicion of the possibility of comprehending/believing the discussion on a particular matter. It is usually aimed at what the śāstra's tell us about reality (satyaṁ) vs. what is otherwise held as a belief ( perhaps coming from sight, sound, personal experience and the like).

Perhaps we could boil these words down to seeing vs. truth , as it captures the theme of this post. Let me explain and see if some wish to participate in the conversation...

Some say...
Knowledge and information we gain when we listen to another that is remote and not in one's confidence is considered meager or not robustly accepted. If another has 'credentials' and speaks we are more acceptable of the information. Yet if the person is held in confidence that information received is more acceptable.

If we see something for ourselves we have a direct experience and that trumps all hearing and discussions from others, we say ' I saw it myself and it must be true'. Some even say seeing trumps scriptural knowledge. 'Seeing' is a function of the eye ( and the mind). The eye is an expression of form ( rūpa) and that is ruled/governed by light, owned by the tattva of tejas and associated with the Sun ( sūrya).

We come to the adage 'seeing is believing' , not hearing is believing or touching, but seeing via the organ of sight , cakṣu ( the eye).

Now enter the perception of the body and jīva . For this conversation jīva is the principle of life, vital breath, the living or personal soul.
A person observes others and his own body and says ' how can one see this jīva as separate from the body ? ' . I do not 'see' this jīva , yet only hear of it from others. When one dies the body dies and so must this jīva as nothing more is seen from this body as emerging.

As one gets older this life force also wanes and loses its vitality, hence it too must be controlled by time and it marches ( like the body) to its death - this is what I 'see' says the the one that is critical. Some may call the critical person a skeptic , an atheist or perhaps a mleccha¹ which I believe is a mis-match of definition.

The topic at hand
What ever be the topic , inference standing alone is contradicted by direct perception & personal experience of sight. Hence the conversation at hand and the subject of this post.

One who is āstika¹ has a different view and uses inferences, similes' and metaphors to bring out the truth of an event or concept. The person would say, look at a cow. It eats grass and water yet produces milk. How can this be? Substances when combined are able to produce different results. Take two sticks , fire exits in them but cannot be seen - all that is needed is to rub them together. Take the seed, sūkra¹, from where all we have come. From within this seed there are arms , legs , consciousness, mind. It then becomes the body and a being of action, he would say.

The nāstika¹ says once you are dead, the body is gone and so is this jīva, exhausted never to return. The āstika says the acts that are performed today must in fact come to fruition - in this body or a future one. Hence acts ( karma) are seeds that are placed in the soil of life. Desire & longing is the water and fertilizer that make this seed sprout. Some of the seeds sprout in this life, some need a future life ( rebirth ) to fulfill their quest. He the āstika suggests a chain of existences are at hand with a common thread at its base, the Self.

The nāstika says how can this be? Where is the continuity in remembering one life to the next? What satisfaction can there be for the person of noble action, of spiritual intent to be 'rewarded' in a future life and not know the audit trail on how this occurred? From where can one say I experience sorrows in this life, but do not know from where it comes... I see no present action that I have executed that suggests wrong doing, yet I feel the sky is falling on me. Mere ignorance and karma seems not to explain rebirth sufficiently as to suggest a common thread of a person/being/entity that goes from life to life, says the nāstika.

The Pickle this presents
How then can one explain the Supreme ( anuttara) to the nāstika ? How can one even pursue ātma-vāda ( knowledge of the SELF)
if anchored in the nāstika outlook? Why would one even care to throw off the 5 āsrava (ā-srava or absence of purity ; distress , affliction , pain ):

• mithyātva - blemished outlook ; not in reality , thing are only apparently so
• avirati - limited to no self-control some call incontinence , intemperance
• pramāda - negligence , carelessness about one's duty or dharma
• kaṣāya - has many definitons, yet here I am calling out excessive attachment to worldly objects
• yoga - mixing of various materials; , mixture of actions that take place from the body, mind and speech

Hence asaṃbhāvanā śaṇkā vāda arises and takes root.

What are the tools that are available to explain reality sufficiently ? Is it possible or is this asaṁjña ( without rationality, senseless, fruitless in endeavor) ?

praṇam

words

• nāstika is 'unbelieving, atheistic, or unfaithful' = 'an unbeliever' or atheist. It is made of na+ astika or it is not so.
• āstika is believing, pious, or faithful. This comes from asti , 'there is or exists'
• mleccha - any person who does not speak Sanskrit and does not conform to the usual Hindu institutions
• sūkra - semen virile , seed of animals (male and female)