Mananam

Guru: ki ṃ jyotis tava? What is your light? (By what light do you see, know things) Śiṣya: bhānumān ahani me, rātrau pradīpādikam. During the day, the sun is my light. At night, a lamp and such things are my light. (The disciple answers from the standpoint of knowing things through the senses) Guru: syād evam. ravi-dīpa-darśana-vidhau ki ṃ jyotir ākhyāhi me? Granted. But in the very act of seeing the sun and the lamp, what is the light by which they are known? Tell me. (How do senses function? – think Kena Upaniṣad) Śiṣya: cakṣu ḥ . The eye. (But the disciple thinks of the stula indriya… Here we must be reminded of Drg Drsya Viveka sloka “rūpa ṃ d ṛ śya ṃ locana ṃ d ṛ k…”) Guru: tasya nimīlanādi-samaye ki ṃ ? When the eye is closed (i.e. what is the light then?) (But Sri Guru is persistent, in his infinite compassion) Śiṣya: dhī ḥ . The mind, or intellect. (……..tadd ṛ śya ṃ d ṛ ktu mānasam) (Mind is the seer, the stula Indriyas are the seen) Guru: ...

Vedānta certainly uses reasoning, but it does not treat Brahman as something produced or arrived at by reasoning alone. The method can appear discursive and analytical. But the pramāṇa is śruti. And the recognition is immediate. This is the important distinction between independent philosophical speculation (only observation and dependent logic) and śruti-anugṛhīta tarka, reasoning guided by the Upaniṣads. Ordinary reasoning tries to reach truth through conceptual analysis, inference, or intellectual construction. Vedāntic reasoning functions differently. It operates within the vision unfolded by the Upaniṣads, and its purpose is not to “discover” Brahman as some unknown object, but to remove mistaken identification. Take pañca kośa viveka for example. It is analytical in method, but revelatory in function.  The inquiry negates identification with the body, prāṇa, mind, intellect, and even ānandamaya. But this negation is not meant to infer some distant metaphysical ent...

I am aware of the body. Therefore, I am not the body. I am aware of sensations. Therefore, I am not the sensations. I am aware of thoughts. Therefore, I am not the thoughts. I am aware of emotions. Therefore, I am not the emotions. I am aware of the ego-sense, the feeling “I am this person.” Therefore, I am not the ego-sense. All these are witnessed: body, sensations, thoughts, emotions, and ego-sense. Therefore, provisionally, I take myself to be the sākṣī , the witness. This sākṣī standpoint is a necessary adhyāropa . It separates me from the body-mind complex. Now the thought arises: “I am consciousness.” The thought “I am consciousness” also appears in the mind. Therefore, I am not that thought as a mental event. But this thought is a pramāṇa-vṛtti , a knowledge-form produced by śāstra. Its function is not to create consciousness or objectify consciousness. Its function is to remove the error, “I am the body-mind.” Therefore, I do not cling to the thought as an object. N...