Understanding Sada's position - 2

August 9, 2001

Sada, though you say both the subject and object are only produced by

consciousness you've not stated as to how how/why it produces them. How can

consciousness produce the diversity of the objects that we see? And what's

the logic in the predictable order in which it produces them? ie right now I

have this computer in front of me, if I close my eyes and open them, why is

the computer still there? Why does not consciousness produce a sailboat in

front of me? To merely say that it had already produced the computer and so

it remains, is not enough - for what caused it to produce the computer in

the first place? And before I came into the office and sat in front of the

computer, in the couple of hours prior to that how/why did consciousness

produce my house, the road on which I walked to the railway station, the

train in which I came to work in, the building of my office, my cubicle etc?

Since you say the subject too is created by consciousness, why should it

always be constant? Why isn't the principle of diversity which we find in

objects, not at work in the subject? Why can't I be Nandu now in my cubicle

in London and a lion in the next moment in the Kalahaari? What's the logic

behind the sustained meaningful expereince of me and the world that I live

in?

Also how would you explain other people? By your logic even people external

to you are only created by your consciousness and have no existence in

themselves. If so whom are you writing these posts on Vedanta to - for

there's nobody apart from consciousness for you to teach Vedanta to. This

way you should totally reject everthing other than consciousness - yourself

and all that's external to you : your near and dear ones, eating, sleeping

etc. Can your heart/body agree with what your mind has intellectually

conceptualized? Or can you ignore even the pangs of the body and the heart

as they are only imagination and abide in consciousness only? And who'll

abide - since you yourself has no existence apart from consciousness which

"pervades" you?

If producing the subject/objects (samsaara) was the true nature of

consciousness, then it'll always produce them - then where's liberation? Or

if liberation according to you is the mere intellectual appreciation that

the subject and object have no existence apart from the consciousness which

perceives them, how durable is this knowledge? Can it exist when your

attention is distracted or in deep sleep? Or can it still exist if you lose

your memory or if your mind gets weak due to old age? So when you lose that

understanding will you become bound again? Also since consciousness in your

concept of liberation will keep producing objects where's the meaning in an

absolute then - for by definition itself absolute means the changeless -

Being - incontrast to the changing world that the normal man experiences -

becoming. Is this the ideal of immortality and the escape from the cycle of

rebirths that the Upanishads talk about?

In a way your arguments are similar to that of Vijnaanavaada Buddhists. But

Vasubandhu in his Vijnaaptimaatrattasiddhi though misguidedly dabbles a bit

with metaphysics in his Vimshatika, which has earned his school the mantle

of subjective idealism, but in his Trimshika he is much more consistent in

sticking only to epistemology and psychology - at one place he clearly says

: "to hold an object before oneself and say it is the product of mind-only,

is not mind-only, but a result of grasping". This should clearly dismiss

accusations of subjective idealism regarding the Vijnaanavaadins. By

"consciousness only" Vasubandhu only meant Asparsha - contactless

consciousness/consciousness with neither subject nor object but as a thing

in itself. But he's not clearly formulated it and where he dabbles with

metaphysics he's logically incorrect - but concession has to be given to him

as he was the first philosopher to explore this issue. We find a clearer

exposition of the same in Gaudapaada who though follows the same logic as

Vasubandhu and infact quotes heavily from Vijnaaptimaatrataasiddhi, still

he's careful to distinguish between psychology and metaphysics and stresses

on the former to place the argument in its correct perspective. To say

everything in the world is impermanent (in the psychological sense) except

the consciousness which perceives them and thus we should inquire into the

nature of consciousness is one thing (which is the thrust of the Vaitathya

Praakarna of the Gaudapaadiya Kaarika); but to give it a metaphysical twist

and claim that both the subject and the object are merely creations of the

mind is another - and this suffers from incorrect logic as Shankara rightly

points out in his dialectic against Vijnaanavaada (I'm presenting only a few

relevant arguments here as the rest of Shankara's dialectic against the

Vijnaanavaada is against other complex arguments presented by the Bauddhas

to substantiate their position) :

To deny the world even while experiencing it is like the words of a person

who while he is eating and feeling satisfied says he is not eating or

feeling satisfied.

To say that we don't perceive any object apart from consciousness is a

purely arbitary statement. Nobody is conscious of perception only, but

everybody perceives external objects like post wall etc. To say

consciousness appears *as if* it is external is also contradictory - for

then how would we ever get a conception of "externality"? Possibility always

involves actuality. So perception of external objects necessarily implies

their existence external to us.

The possibility and impossibilty of things are determined only by means of

right knowledge. The means of right knowledge themselves do not depend on

pre-conceived possibilty or impossibility. That is possible which can be

proved by any valid means of cognition like perception etc. And that is

impossible which cannot be so proved. External objects are apprehended by

valid means of cognitions and how can their existence be legitimately

denied?

Also how do we perceive diverse objects? (According to the Vijnaanavaadins

it is due to the endless serious of impressions the we perceive objects).

But again how did the first impression occur? Without external objects there

cannot be impressions either and consciousness would be pure. Also while

perceived objects differ why does the perceiving consciousness remains the

same?

If there were no distinction between subject and object all ethical

practices will be useless. The authors of the scriptures have to be looked

on as ignorant. Bondage and liberation will be impossible. Enjoyer and

enjoyed would be the same. And being natural these qualities cannot be

removed - there'll always be suffering.

-----------

One thing to be noted here is that the Vijnaanavaada Buddhists never made

the mistake of saying that jnaana was merely an intellectual understanding

that everything that we perceive in the world has no existence apart from

consciousness that perceives it - for that would negate all

ethical/spiritual practice. They said that consciousness produces

representations of the subject and objects and liberation/nirvaana means

making it pure - making it devoid of both subject and objects. And this

state can be attained only by the practice of yoga - which is the reason the

Vijnaanavaadins are also called Yogaacaarins.

_______________

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

August 13, 2001

Nanda: Sada, though you say both the subject and object are only

produced by consciousness you've not stated as to how/why it produces

them. How can consciousness produce the diversity of the objects that

we see? And what's the logic in the predictable order in which it

produces them? ie right now I have this computer in front of me, if I

close my eyes and open them, why is the computer still there? Why

does not consciousness produce a sailboat in front of me? To merely

say that it had already produced the computer and so it remains, is

not enough - for what caused it to produce the computer in the first

place? And before I came into the office and sat in front of the

computer, in the couple of hours prior to that how/why did

consciousness produce my house, the road on which I walked to the

railway station, the train in which I came to work in, the building

of my office, my cubicle etc? Since you say the subject too is

created by consciousness, why should it always be constant? Why isn't

the principle of diversity which we find in objects, not at work in

the subject? Why can't I be Nandu now in my cubicle in London and a

lion in the next moment in the Kalahaari? What's the logic behind the

sustained meaningful expereince of me and the world that I live in?

Also how would you explain other people? By your logic even people

external to you are only created by your consciousness and have no

existence in themselves. If so whom are you writing these posts on

Vedanta to - for there's nobody apart from consciousness for you to

teach Vedanta to. This way you should totally reject everthing other

than consciousness - yourself and all that's external to you : your

near and dear ones, eating, sleeping etc. Can your heart/body agree

with what your mind has intellectually conceptualized? Or can you

ignore even the pangs of the body and the heart as they are only

imagination and abide in consciousness only? And who'll abide - since

you yourself has no existence apart from consciousness which

"pervades" you?

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: Nanda- what you are asking does pertain to essentials of

advaita Vedanta. Cause for creation? Why particular thoughts -

computer thoughts and not boat thoughts - etc. Without going into

details whatever is discussed under advaita Vedanta doctrine is all

applicable here since I have not deviated an iota from the doctrine.

All questions pertain at vyavahaara level.

Creation is cyclic process and hence no beginning or an end. avidya

is anaandi and your vasana-s dictate the particular thoughts. Why

computer and why not a boat while the guy who has boat and not

computer may ask a reverse question - why boat and not a computer.

These are explained by ones own vaasana-s or kaaraNa shariira. How

did one became many? How could consciousness which is one without a

second could produce unconscious entities such as computers and boats

etc. You are familiar advaita explanations. My explanations are no

different for the doctrine of advaita.

According to Advaita, this is all projection of the mind at the level

of Iswara for totality and at jiiva at individuality. Ultimately if

you go through my analysis, Iswara and the world, both are notions at

the individual mind level. When I take the world of plurality as

real, I also create an Iswara who is the creator of this world.

Iswara and the world of reality as creation go together. When I

reject the reality of the world and shift my attention to the very

substratum, the world and Iswara both become apparent both merge into

me. That is true knowledge. All are in me and I am in all of them

applies as a fact only at that time.

How does the split occurs in the mind as subject and object - if

consciousness is only one?. Vedanta answers in two ways - there is

no split in reality but only it appears as such. That split is seen

only in vyavahaara level and at paaramaarthika level there is no

creation either - it is one without a second. There cannot be any

valid connection between the two -one can say it is anirvachaniiyam,

inexplicable or one can say it is all liila or play of the

consciousness. Play ground is the mind. Either explanation is not

really an explanation since from absolute point there is no split

either and hence any need of explanation. Vyavahaara is not real,

and hence any split is only apparent and explanation is not

absolutely valid since that is also unreal. Appearance is only at

the intellect level. Those who are ignorant takes the apparent as

real and those who know will take it as it is. But even the

intellect on which the apparent appears itself is of the same degree

of reality. Hence explanations at the intellectual level have no

more validity at the paramaarthika level when there is no apparent

plurality needing any explanation. The question of 'how' - is trying

to seek a connection between one and the many. Since there is no

really many, the question has no validity since it is seeking to

relate non-relatable things - vyaavahaarika and paaramaarthika.

Hence Shankara rightly says anirvachaniiyam. Ramanuja s to

'Liila' of the Lord. Liila cannot be questioned either. The buck

stops there. It is explaining something where explanations which fall

under the category of again naama ruupa or concepts, fall short of

the truth.

ŠŠŠŠ..

Nanda: