INDOLOGY Digest - 7 Feb 2001 to 8 Feb 2001 (#2001-40)

[Dmitri]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:00:50 -0500, Bhadraiah Mallampalli
<vaidix at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>Please check chAndogya upaniSat. 7.3.1 and 7.5.1 (chAndogya which is part
>of Agama, the last of the three valid pramANas as per YS 1.7)
> ...
First of all, there are no metaphysics in SamAdhi-PAda, as I see it, at all.
Concepts are defined only to help understanding practical techniques.
Therefore, all discussions about various types of mind, intelligence etc.
seem to be out of place when reading SamAdhi-PAda.

Second, it is a common assumption that YS has strong correspondence with
some upanishads and with Samkhya.  I can see no reason whatsoever why it
is so.  Rather, YS is being squeezed into the mold of metaphysical
discources where it does not fit well and does not belong.

Making an assumption that YS might be understood with concepts and
ideas from Samkhya is a good example of cittavRtti called smR'ti. ;-)

>(May I know clearly what is the question regarding the dvanda?)
Hengo Harimoto made a remark that the first compound in I.7
is a dvandva compound that is an enumeration of valid cognitions.
I responded to hin that another deconstruction is possible: see I.7 for
details.

A general remark.

Listing Agama -- usually translated as testimony -- as a valid cognition
is a gross error.  How valid a testimony is?
My view is that of Descartes:  empirical data (rTa) always overweights
testimony. That is why I made the interpretation we currently discuss.

Best regards and thanks for your continuous attention,
   Dmitri.