Its more that conclusions are dictated by the authorities of knowledge that one holds.
As much as I on the one hand agree with this; on the other hand, I can't escape the fear that an attitude of choice about the source of knowledge and about authority is relativistic or subjective - but either way, invalid.
I have read a bit about the pramanas. Although the notion of the pramanas makes sense to me, I have to say it is foreign to me, and I don't think I am the only one.
From my Western perspective, it seems like sabotaging one's efforts in advance to choose a pramana!
"Authority, if it is to be any kind of authority, has to be self-evident, has to impose itself. If an instance does not do that, then it is not an authority. There can be no element of choice regarding authority, a person cannot choose which authority to subject oneself to." - That is the standard view from my experience.
Also, I think that usually, we think that knowledge is that which is objective, independent of the individual, non-subjective; that knowledge, if it is to be any kind of proper knowledge at all, should have nothing to do with choice; that knowledge exists, regardless whether someone chooses to learn it or not. And most of all, that knowledge, if it is to be any proper kind of knowledge, has to come to the person without the person willing it, since any act of will or desire would taint the knowledge and it wouldn't be proper knowledge anymore.
As I type it out, it seems silly, and I don't think anyone would actually support this notion. Yet when you see Western philosophers and pseudo-philosophers debate things, often, the above notion of knowledge is precisely the stance they imply!
It's as if we had te conviction that as soon as you choose a path on which to look for the truth, you have already missed the truth.
Why do you think there is (or seems to be) this conviction?
I know I have it (but it's not the only conviction about looking for truth that I have).
And how to overcome this conviction?
IOW if you accept
abhava - nonexistence (a kind of knowledge based on the absence of perception)
certain conclusions come to the forefront
I have read up on this too a bit, but I don't understand it.
I have read this, among other things:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2008-August/042288.html . I can't see how abhava is relevant to cognition; it seems to be related to the neti-neti principle. Defining something by what it is not is an abstract and drawn-out process, impractical.
there is the word "tivrena" that is sometimes used to describe spiritual life. The idea is that the happiness is so concentrated that there is literally no space for distress to exist. (the same word is also used to explain a concentrated stream of light)
I see.
In material consciousness there is no scope for describing fulfillment as such since whatever one takes as an article of happiness can easily be wielded as an article of torture.
eg -Swimming in water is pleasant for 40 minutes. Swimming for 3 days is likely to kill you. (IOW take whatever desire one has for being the independent enjoyer and it can undo a person)
So it's not that engaging with things would be inherently unsatisfactory - it's that some kind of engagement is unsatisfactory, and another is not?
The idea is that the higher you move up the hierarchy, the more valid your criticism of inferior desire.
For instance living in a certain way grant a hog full satisfaction. A human living the same way will likely get a jail sentence.
IOW there are certain irrevocable standards of happiness according to one's consciousness.
Hierarchy as the basic organization principle is something I still need to get used to.
I am more used to the principle of center-periphery and the principle of parallels, but not hierarchy (thanks to HDG for pointing this out!).
the idea is that illusion (granted potency through one's attachment to the modes of nature) solidifies one's pursuit of happiness.
Hence dogs like to be dogs.
BUddhism tends to under-ride this notion, understanding that desire = misery. The vedic qualifier however is that material desire = misery.
There is the example that a landlord who is being harassed by excessive taxes may find it more beneficial to burn down their house. An intelligent business man however knows how to utilize assets so that they don't attract high revenue.
IOW destruction of the self is an intelligent course of action for the less informed.
Because the less informed cannot properly invest their self and into their self, it's best if they act as if to destruct the self.
But is it ever recommended by anyone to an actual person that they should do that? E.g. saying "Oh, you're not very smart, nor do you have access to the right books and teachers, and you are poor, so you should better stick to just trying to be nice to everyone, hope for a better rebirth, and don't concern yourself with things like the Absolute Truth and having a personality" -?
Suppose that poor and not so smart person does have some cursory knowledge of scriptures and an interest to do and know more. Is it ever recommended (esp. in scriptures) that they should give that up and take up an impersonalist or otherwise simpler path?
At school, for example, they measure your IQ, consider your circumstances and such, and then they tell you what you can do and what you can't do, what you should do and what you should not do - and they list your IQ etc. as reasons for that.
Is there something similar in spirituality? Are we ever supposed to say "I am too poor / too stupid / my reputation is too bad to take on a higher course of spirituality, so I need to settle for a lesser one." -?
I have often encountered situations that in short can be summed up as:
"I have treated your dhiarrhoea, and now it stopped, so why aren't you happy?!"
"I have bought you the shoes you wanted, so why aren't you happy?!"
"You won the first prize, so why aren't you happy?!" ”
this is all prana-maya stuff
On whose part - mine, theirs, both?
If the final last word in reality is "me", what is it exactly that impedes my pursuit of happiness?
I see. Back to the issue of "If I am all that matters, then how come I suffer and am in illusion".
IOW we had such an issue with god that he had to create a world that offers the illusion of his non-existence.
But this would also suggest that living entities, by their nature, are not exactly chopped liver, either - powerless, helpless, stupid - as we are sometimes lead to think.
We (or at least some of us who are confused and suffer) tend to think that maya is strong and intricate. With what you are saying above, this seems to suggest that that which maya is supposed to cover also has some strength and intricacy. Something like a strong leash for a strong dog, or a hard test for a capable student - as opposed to a thin leash for a tiny dog and an easy test for a poor student.
I realize this is relative, as the living entity's strength is negligible in comparison to God's, but by the above reasoning, it is not zero either. Is that correct?
And with such an inferior rendition of God, it is also easy to forget that there are issues of envying God, is it not? Because who would envy a good, but powerless entity, right?
Such a portrait of god is more likely to generate sympathy than envy (yet despite bearing such sympathy, the envy of opulence continues unabated).
I take it that envy of opulence is connected with intense desire for sense gratification?
We could even speculate that that inferior rendition of God (which does not elicit envy, but instead pity or sympathy) serves as a vehicle for justifying and promoting envy of opulence, and that envy of opulence promotes an inferior rendition of God.
