4.2 METAPHYSICAL ANALYSIS OF BODHAM :
ONTOLOGICAL AND
COSMOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF
SIVAGNANA BODHAM.
ONTOLOGY[i]:
1.How many substances
are there?(monism vs. pluralism)
There are two forms.
2. What are they?
1.siva (pati) 2.
body(pasu).
3.How are they
composed?
Pati is supreme. Pasu
was created and exists independently.
It is bonded by
desires(pasa).
4.How do they interact?
Pati stays and pasu
moves steadfast towards it by removing bonds(pasa). Thus pati, pasu and pasa
becomes three basic entities . (the
god, the human conscious and the world
according to some authors as three entities). The three are real and not
an ideal one( as in the vedic advaida schools). When the three together form as
a whole the ontology in saivism is realist one. Hence it is called the
“ontogenic triadism”.
The verse-1: describes
the basics of the saivite ontology and cosmology,
The ontology of the
soul is in three states
They are :Father,
mother and child
They have three
functions
They are: appearance,
sustenance and disappearance.
This is done by sivam
This ontogeny is part
of the cosmogony(sivam)
The soul leave the
sivam in order to get rid of the malam
The sivam is the
primordial force of the cosmogony.
The saivite ontology
defines the soul as three dimensions. They are father, mother and the child.
The father and mother unite to create the child and the child grows under the
guidance of them till the end of adolescence. The child when becomes an adult
mates with another of the opposite gender to create another generation of
child. This is an infinite process. The triangle of father mother and child is
the basic unit of the existential and phenomenological analysis. All the other
phenomena therefore come after this basic experience.
The purpose of this
creation is to get rid of the three basic contaminations (malam). The malam are anavam(affective),
kanmam(psychomotor) and maya(cognitive) defects in the soul(child).The child
successfully gets rid of its malam and unites with the sivam. Thus with each
generation the malam gets less and lesser.
In Freudian
psycho-analysis the child is in autistic state in the womb. After it is delivered
it goes into a series of relationship stages with the parents. The first stage
is oral stage(0-1years)
The corresponding stage in saiva siddhantham would be the attanga-yogas.
The corresponding stage in saiva siddhantham would be the attanga-yogas.
The next stage is the
cleaning of malam when the soul has problem in eliminating its malams. This
corresponding to the Freudian anal stage(1-3years). Here the child learns to
retain some thing and eliminate something from the mother. The anal function in
Freudian vocabulary does not mean feces but an analogue in the mind. Similarly
the saiva doctrines denote malam as an object to be cleansed from the soul.
Later
theories like Margaret Mahler ‘s separation individuation process also liken
the saiva schools in its core philosophy in psychological development. The
initial autistic stage progress in to a separation individuation states akin to
the saiva siddhantham stages.
1.How did universe come
into being?
The universe is the
creation of Siva.
2. Are there space and
time?
The Siva creates the
space and time and he is beyond that.
The body is the
creation, sustenance and destruction of Siva
and hence within
space and time.
EPISTEMOLOGY[iii]:
Siva is the ultimate knowledge.
The life knowledge is acquired and not a-priori.
It is by the contact with Siva life acquires knowledge.
Life gets knowledge by meditating on Siva.
The knowledge is concealed by the contamination of the
dirts(mala) .
Siddhantha epistemology in short[iv]:
Siva
is the ultimate knowledge.
The
life knowledge is acquired and not a-priori.
It is
by the contact with Siva life acquires knowledge.
Life
gets knowledge by meditating on Siva.
The
knowledge is concealed by the contamination of the dirts(mala) .
The soul cannot realize the absolute through the mind,
knowledge, thought, or by its self love. The sivagnana bodham verse four says that the thoughts and the mental
functioning cannot be sufficient to understand the almighty. In this verse it
refutes the Cartesian rationalism . the dualism of the Cartesian theory is
likened to the mind and the soul relationship to a relationship between the
king and the ministers. The soul joins the mind to produce only the five
avathais. This state is called the SAGASAMALAM(சகசமலம்). In this state the soul will only be illusioned.
In the verse five the SGB points to the empiricism of knowledge and its
inability know the absolute through the senses either. These sense experiences
even though helpful to know the world they cannot know the soul or the
almighty. This is like the magnet and the steel even though are attracted to
each other would not mix with them even as they approximate-they only separate
later. The power of god is like the power of magnet.
SATHU, ASATHU& SADHASATHU;சத்து,அசத்து, சதசத்து
The sathu is sivam. The asathu is the world. The
sadhasathu is the soul . it is capable of knowing both the sivam and the world
by systematic process. The process of
the sadhasathu is important in saivasiddhantham. The verse seven describes the
sadhasathu state in which the soul with the help of both perception and
rationalizing tries to know the absolute. This is called sadha-sathu state.
This is similar to Kantian transcendental idealism.
Here saiva doctrine puts its soul in the Kantian
perspective. Kant in his transcendental idealism emphasized the empirical
knowledge and the rational knowledge both by them self cannot know the reality.
But when the brain uses the both, it results in the knowledge which is
transcendental idealism.
Kant gave the man a new level of importance from the
earlier dichotomy of empiricism which puts man in a passive state and the rationalism which make the man
completely deluded. This brain and its power of acquiring both perceptual
information and the rationalizing process culminate in the new level of
understanding knowledge.
Sivagnana bodham epistemology has brought in the
Copernican revolution well in the 13th century. Epistemology of sivagnanabodham is an important early hindu doctrine.
[i] As a first approximation, ontology is the study of what there is. Some
contest this formulation of what ontology is, so it's only a first
approximation. Many classical philosophical problems are problems in ontology:
the question whether or not there is a god, or the problem of the existence of
universals, etc.. These are all problems in ontology in the sense that they
deal with whether or not a certain thing, or more broadly entity, exists. But
ontology is usually also taken to encompass problems about the most general
features and relations of the entities which do exist. There are also a number
of classic philosophical problems that are problems in ontology understood this
way. For example, the problem of how a universal relates to a particular that
has it (assuming there are universals and particulars), or the problem of how
an event like John eating a cookie relates to the particulars John and the
cookie, and the relation of eating, assuming there are events, particulars and
relations. These kinds of problems quickly turn into metaphysics more
generally, which is the philosophical discipline that encompasses ontology as
one of its parts. The borders here are a little fuzzy. But we have at least two
parts to the overall philosophical project of ontology: first, say what there
is, what exists, what the stuff is reality is made out off, secondly, say what
the most general features and relations of these things are. http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/metaphysics/
[ii] As long as humans have been trying to make sense of the universe, they have
been proposing cosmological theories. Furthermore, the notion of a deity often
plays a central role in these cosmological theories. According to most
monotheistic religions, God is the sole creator and sustainer of the universe.
But
the last one hundred years have seen a different sort of cosmology: a
scientific cosmology. Without running afoul of the demarcation problem, the
notable characteristics of scientific cosmology are that it uses the tools of
mathematical physics (it is formalizable) and that it makes precise and
testable predictions. What has this new scientific cosmology to do with
traditional (often theistic) cosmologies? Has the new cosmology replaced the
older cosmologies? Does the new cosmology inform or interpret the older
cosmologies? http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/m-and-e/metaphysics/
[iii]
Epistemology is the study of knowledge.
Epistemologists concern themselves with a number of tasks, which we might sort
into two categories.
First, we must determine the nature of knowledge; that is, what does it mean to say that someone knows, or fails to know, something? This is a matter of understanding what knowledge is, and how to distinguish between cases in which someone knows something and cases in which someone does not know something. While there is some general agreement about some aspects of this issue, we shall see that this question is much more difficult than one might imagine.
Second, we must determine the extent of human knowledge; that is, how much do we, or can we, know? How can we use our reason, our senses, the testimony of others, and other resources to acquire knowledge? Are there limits to what we can know? For instance, are some things unknowable? Is it possible that we do not know nearly as much as we think we do? Should we have a legitimate worry about skepticism, the view that we do not or cannot know anything at all? http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/
First, we must determine the nature of knowledge; that is, what does it mean to say that someone knows, or fails to know, something? This is a matter of understanding what knowledge is, and how to distinguish between cases in which someone knows something and cases in which someone does not know something. While there is some general agreement about some aspects of this issue, we shall see that this question is much more difficult than one might imagine.
Second, we must determine the extent of human knowledge; that is, how much do we, or can we, know? How can we use our reason, our senses, the testimony of others, and other resources to acquire knowledge? Are there limits to what we can know? For instance, are some things unknowable? Is it possible that we do not know nearly as much as we think we do? Should we have a legitimate worry about skepticism, the view that we do not or cannot know anything at all? http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/
[iv]
SAIVA SIDDHANTHA THEORY OF
KNOWLEDGE,V. PONNIAH PhD, MAHARAGAMA GOVT TRAINING COLLEGE, COLOMBO. PUBLISHED
BY ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY1952, PHILOSOPHY SERIES VII.
No comments:
Post a Comment