Can we perceive an object?

[Guest guest]

Continuation of my monologue on objects and attributes (you can see how busy

I am in attending the conference talks on fracture)-

 

I have been studying Ramanuja's shree bhaashya wherein he presents adviata

puurvapaksha - Since he does not give exact references to his dialectic

arguments other than -as what adviatin says - it is difficult to know whose

opinions he is referring to.

 

Here are the comments and concerns I have related to advaitin's position as

referred to by Ramanuja.

 

1. what is known as per adviata is really the essense or the substratum and

not the differences (sajaati - vijaati etc), since these differences are

known only by the mind after the cognition of the object or cognition of the

essence of the object, by comparing from its precious congnitions

recollecting from the memory. This may be related to one of Nanda's

question- how do you know that the green leaf turned into an yellow leaf

unless one has two sequential impressions in the unchanging mind - one

present and one past (recollection by the memory) and comparing the two

impressions by the mind. Withtout the conscious mind - can there be

knowledge of conversion of green leaf to yellow leaf or more than that can

there be a leaf at all!

 

Now actually the mind through senses actually knows only the present

attributes and not even the substratum. But advaita as per the above

puurvapaksha ascertains that it is the existence that is really seen or

'naturally inferred' rather than differences since differences are only

projections of the mind. Let me illustrate this - If I say- rope is or

snake is - blue lotus is - all this statements of knowledge involve- blue

is and lotus is etc - that is, it is the is-ness that is really perceived,

which is the existence of the object out there, which is the reality. The

others are names and forms and attributes whose locus is the 'is-ness' of

these attributes which is the substatum. These attributes have no substance

or no substantial existence other than the existence as substratum.

Question - Is the existence perceived or inferred here? Senses can only

perceive the attribtues but existence of the object with a locus of these

atrributes is actually inferred by the conscious mind. There sees to be

some hanky-panky in understanding here. Snake is, rope is, blue is, lotus is

- is the isness a fact or inference - The puzzle lies in the fact that there

is some other 'isness' that is lending its 'isness' to the object, as I

understand - It is the conscious mind where the 'isness' of the

consciousness is lending its support to the existence of the 'object-

isness' out there. Out of mind out of sight - no object is perceived out

there. Essentially it boils down to the 'isness' or existence of ones

ownself is projected to lending its existence to the jadam object out there

since the object has not independent existence as per advaita.

'isness' of oneself is unsubstantiated sicne it does not depend on any means

of knowledge to know that I am - existent and consciousness.

 

As I see it it should be the correct advaitic position and Goudapaada's

ascertion that world is unreal stands factual since without the reality of

the conscious self lending its support to the existence of the object out

there there cannot be an object out there. Hence there is no world of

existence without the existence of the conscious mind projecting it. What do

you think?

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com