Re : Discussions with Nanda Chandran

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda, we'll first try to resolve the

object/consciousness issue and then move on to

nirvana.

 

Regarding the non existance of consciousness apart

from the object it perceives :

>It sounds logical.

 

It is not logical. It is every common man's

experience. Just ask yourself - are you ever in a

state in your normal life where your are only

conscious. We're always conscious of some object or

the other - whether mental or physical - either in the

waking or dream state. Even the so called state

of common self consciousness is only we being aware of

ourselves as an object. Only in the deep sleep state

is there no objects, but again neither is there any

consciousness there!

 

By this do not misunderstand that I'm denying there

cannot be something called pure consciousness.

Philosophy - as an attempt to understand the

universe with the faculty of reason - necessarily

involves going from the lower to the higher - from the

phenomenal to the nou-menal - asatoma satgamaya. For

our discussion I would rather have only our common

experience and intellect as the bases of reference

than Advaita theory.

 

If you start with Advaita theory as the base then

there's the presupposition that consciousness alone is

and objects don't exist in reality - and with

that we try to reconcile phenomenal experience. This

apporoach has a basic problem because we're on

absolutely frail ground regarding the state of

Advaita.

Since none of us are in that state it will atbest be

speculation as to what it is. And there will not be

any true knowledge gained by such discussion - it'll

just be my view against yours and ultimately nothing

gained. So in all our discussions let's only use what

phenomenal conditions present and try to move ahead

with our intellect. Let's leave Advaita theory aside

for the moment and try to understand the world as it

is . When we're clear about certain basics then we can

reconcile our understanding with Advaita theory.

>1. object - reality of the object and consciousness.

>a)We both agreed that we can only perceive through

the senses only the

>attributes and never the essense or substratum of the

object. The

>mechanics of the process is through perception an

image is formed in the

>mind which becomes a locus for the attibutes -

form,color, sound, taste

>etc from which mind cognizes that there is an object

out there with those

>attributes. - At this stage it is the mental

inference that the object

>which let us call as substratum or substance is out

there with those

>attributes since the substratum is never seen or

experienced by the object.

>Now qeustion no. 1. Is the object is really out there

or only is it an

>inference by the mind since there is inherent

conclusions that there cannot

>be an object without an attributes. Second question

is how did that inherent

>conclusion or inference by the mind formed - because

we only all the time

>experience only the attributes and 'some how' have

established that there must

>be an object since attributes cannot exist without a

substratum - Here the

>mind is playing a beginningless inferential game -

since normally inference

>involves a perseption as the basis of proof - see the

anumaana prakaraNa of

>BSB notes (chII.)

>But my own personal experience as we do japa yoga

where we become aware

>of the matra or say OM-kaara raising in the mind -

sustaining in the mind

>and going back in the mind - I am aware of the the

thought raising,

>sustaining and going back - where there is a silence

in between the japa -

>I am not aware of absence of thoughts or since I

cannot say I am aware of -

>I am just awareness or consciouseness. Hence

objectless consciousness is

>just my self without an object of consciousness but

pure awareness or just

>myself - I cannot say I am not awere of my self nor I

can say I am aware of

>myself since I am not an object - Essentially the

discussion of can there be

>objectless awareness - has a meaning - Nanda as I

understand does not agree

>- may be he can explain if my understanding of his

discussion is not right.

>(d) Existence of an object - now if we say an

illuminating mind is

>essential for the cognition of the object which is

jadam, and without the mind

>cognizing it we can never know the object exist or

not - can we

>conclude that world ceases to exist when there is no

illuminating mind. Here it

>is the qustion of - sR^ishhTi-dR^ishhTi or

dR^ishhTi-sR^ishhTi - that is -

>It is there, therefore I see it; or I see it,

therefore it is there. I

>know there are two theories in the advaita. But

which one of the two is

>more real! - notice that I did not ask which one is

real! - I maintain that

>world exists becuse the existence of the world is

supported by the

>consciousess that I am. sarva bhuutastamaatmaanam

sarvabhuutani ca

>aatmani - Oneself in all beings and all beings in

oneself. Oneself being the

>consciouness - all raise in consciousness, sustained

by consciouness

>and go back in to consciousness - Here the

consciousness is the independent

>and the objects of consciousness dependent- hence

they are as though waves in

>the consciouness - one can fold it or unfold it -

Hence one cannot say that

>the obejcts exists independent of consciousness then

they become satyam as

>in dwaita or vishishhTadviata philosophies. Nanda

seems to disagree - may

>be he can explain his arguments if I have not

presented correctly his

>openion.

 

Denying conceptual knowledge is one thing. And denying

the physical existence of objects is something else. I

think you're saying that the table before me

doesn't in truth exist and only the perceiving

consciousness does.

 

If so where did the table come from? I think You are

saying that consciousness produces it. If so how does

it produce it?

 

The common argument is that due to previous experience

it produces objects. Then what about the first time -

from where did it first get the conception of the

object in the first place? If consciousness is a thing

in itself, how did it ever get objectivized?

 

Also what makes objects appear in the order they do?

If there's a table before me, when I look away from it

and look at it again, why is it not a chair? Why does

consciousness produce objects which appear in a

predictable manner? Also why do other people also see

the same objects as I.

 

The end of the road to this logic if you going to deny

the existence of other people too, is to deny

everything but oneself - subjective idealism.

 

Ofcourse, all my arguments are based on the

presumption that you're saying that aside from

consciousness the external world doesn't exist as it

is only because of consciousness we apprehend the

external world and infer that it exists.

 

If you take Nagarjuna he'll say that "Yes, it is true

that external objects depend on consciousness for

their existance. But again consciousness itself

depends on the external objects for its existance -

for if there're no external objects, what'll it be

conscious of? So neither consciousness nor external

objects have existence in themselves!"

 

I think the issue here is we've to first decide as to

where the powers of the mind really end. Somewhere

we've to draw a line between ontology and

epistemology.

I see a stone - yes "stone" might itself only be a

concept and beyond its attributes and the label

"stone" I know nothing else of the object.

 

But again, is conceptual activity the problem or

consciousness itself is the problem? There has to be

consciousness apart from conceptual activity and this

is proved in deep sleep since we wake up as the same

person who went to sleep.

 

Though through conceptual activity I might not know

the true nature of an object, I atleast know that 1.

the object exists and 2. it exists as something apart

from me - I know it is not me. (Even "matter" and

"jada" might ultimately be conceptual

constructions and subjective opinions). These two

points of knowledge - that it exists and it is not me,

do not need the activity of the intellect - they are

immediate and intuitive.

 

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./