Mundane questions asked as above are either diplomatic or commercial in attitudes today, especially among the corporate background youths as well as the elders. Many ancient ancestors including the vedas and the Upanishads and Birthrhari like had set in relevant questions to ask. There is one PRASHNOPANISHAD WHERE q & a ONLY IS THE UPANISHAD: "That seer said to them ; as yet, live another year in tapas, Brahmacharya and faith ; then ask us questions as you please and if we know, we shall, indeed, explain all to you. Those among the Brahmins and the rest who follow only what is done, as Islttam (sacrifices) and pfa lam (pious acts) and not what is not made, i.e. 9 nothing eternal, attain the world of the moon, i.e. 9 the world of food, a portion of the lord of creatures, who is both food and eater, the worlds of the moon being in the nature of one made, i.e., not eternal. Which, among the senses divided into intellectual and active, manifest their glory outside. Who again of these is the greatest, i.e., the most important of these which are in the nature of cause and effect. what form of yours, lodged in speech moves the mouth of the speaker, what in the ear, what in the eye, and what united with the mind acts as volition, etc., make that passive, i.e., quiet. If the identity of the knowable and knowledge is conceded, it is mere word to say that the knowable is distinct from knowledge, and that knowledge is not distinct from knowable, as is the statement that vahni (fire) is distinct from agni (fire), though agni is not distinct from vahni. If knowledge is distinct from the knowable,* the statement is inappropriate, that where there is no knowable, there is no knowledge. Nor can it be said that where there is no knowable there is no knowledge, as it is not perceived ; for, they concede that in sleep knowledge exists. It is well-known that Vaindsikas admit the existence of knowledge even in sleep. But the existence of a knowable is also ad*mitted. If it be said that in that case, knowledge is knowable by itself, we say * no '; for, the distinction between knowledge and knowable exists then. As the knowledge which perceives the non-existence of all things is distinct from the non-existence of the things themselves, the distinction between knowledge and knowable is inevitable even then ; and a hundred Vaindsikas cannot get over this objection and make knowledge itself a knowable, as surely as they cannot revive a dead man. It may be objected that, according to our theory, one knowledge has to be known by another and so on without limit. We answer 'no': for, all things can be classified as 1 knowledge ' and * knowable,' and those that are not Vaindsikas concede only a two-fold classification of 4 knowledge ' and 'knowable/ and do not admit a third knowledge, which perceives the other knowledge* It may be contended, if knowledge could not know itself, there can be no omniscience." lIFE IS NOT A MIRAGE KR IRS 231222
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 21:19, Rangarajan T.N.C. <[email protected]> wrote: > https://storycorps.org/participate/great-questions/ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorPi%2Br9nO3%3D%2BTQb5eq15PJWsTrgYystUAzkLGZt0eBctw%40mail.gmail.com.
