Understanding Sada's position - 3

August 10, 2001

>Without my mind and my consciousness backing it up - there is no way - no

>way is underlined - the existence of the world is established or proved.

>Be my guest if you can do that.

You say the without consciousness the world is not proved. But

again without the world is consciousness itself proved?

As Shankara asks : do we perceive consciousness in itself? Consciousness

is necessarily proved only because of the objects that we perceive.

Since we are conscious of things around us (objects) we say that we're

conscious beings. Without an object of consciousness where's there any

meaning to "consciousness" itself? Even so called self-consciousness is

nothing but consciousness of oneself as a psycho/physical unit - as an

object.

Also for "consciousness" to have any meaning not only do we need objects, we

need a subject too. It is not merely consciousness which is conscious of an

object but a subject - you - who is conscious of the object. So without a

subject which perceives and object which is perceived, how can you establish

consciousness itself?

Without each one the other two cannot be established.

There're more problems here. It is said that the subject is conscious

of an object. So there're three entities in this equation : subject,

object and the consciousness by which the subject perceives the object. But

again what's the connection between the subject and the consciousness?

Without being conscious itself, the subject cannot be conscious of

consciousness or the object presented to it by consciousness. So if the

subject itself was a conscious entity then either its true nature is itself

consciousness or it is something which has consciousness as its attribute

(the consciousness we're discussing here is different from the consciousness

which perceives objects). If the subject were consciousness itself, then

what's the difference between itself and consciousness which perceives

objects? Are they one or two? If the subject is something whose "attribute"

is consciousness then what relates its attribute to itself and what relates

the attribute to the consciousness which perceives objects? Another

consciousness? This would lead to infinite regress.

To bring in the mind into this equation will only add to the problems. If

the mind is something which perceives objects - then what's its true nature?

Consciousness or is it an object whose attribute is consciousness? And

what's its connection with the its attribute consciousness, the self and the

consciousness which perceives objects? Are they one or many?

We can extend this argument to the senses too : the eye perceives.

If the true nature of the eye is vision, then unless the mind too has

vision as either its true nature or as an attribute (which will lead to the

same problems all over again) how can it see what the eye sees? Are they one

or two? We also have to take into account the other senses - unless the mind

has as its true nature or as attributes of

hearing/seeing/smelling/taste/touch etc how can it interpret what the

senses present to it? Multiple qualities cannot be the true nature of a

single thing - then the word "true nature" itself loses all meaning. If all

the qualities are attributes what is the true nature of the mind and what

connects it to these attributes?

The problem doesn't end here as we also have to figure out the connection

between the mind and the self - which experiences everything.

As Nagarjuna says : things which are dependent on each other can neither be

established as one or many. We're just linking things and giving them

individual identities based on common sense. But if we analyze them they

have no substance in themselves.

Psychology/epistemology is beyond comprehension - anirvaacaniya. It can be

used for living a practical life but doesn't have absolute validity.

------------------------------

Sada, I apologize if I offended/hurt you in any of these posts. I'm by

nature a very aggressive debater and that's one of the reasons that I did

not want to get into a debate with you earlier - I didn't want to say

something harsh and hurt your feelings. Again I apologize if I did so - it

wasn't intended.

When you write your reply I would appreciate it if you address each

post individually - also address each point individually.

_______________

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

August 13, 2001

Nanda:

>Without my mind and my consciousness backing it up - there is no way - no

>way is underlined - the existence of the world is established or proved.

>Be my guest if you can do that.

You say the without consciousness the world is not proved. But

again without the world is consciousness itself proved?

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: Nanda, it is like asking without clay pot cannot be there,

now without a pot can clay exist?

In all these the degree of reality of clay and pot are not the same,

since one is the cause and the other is an effect. One is

independent and the other is dependent. To prove that world has to

be there to prove existence of consciousness is like saying dependent

has to be there for independent to be recognized as cause for the

dependent. (in mathematics this is called a converse theorem. Proving

a converse theorem establishes the necessary and sufficient

condition - that is valid only for swaruupa lakshana and not for

taTastha lakshaNa - A house where a crow is sitting right now is

Devadatta's house if I say, the crow is a taTashhtalakshana since

converse is not valid that if there is no crow sitting then it cannot

be Devadatta's house) - In Brahmasuutra, Badaraayana defines Brahman

as the cause for the world since that is the only way for a sadhak

who is involved in the world as real to recognize the cause. But

this definition is as Shankara explains is only a taTasta lakshaNa of

Brahman. Swaruupa lakshaNa of Brahman which one cannot define as

thought is - satyam j~naanam anantam brahma. That is the very

substratum of the thoughts as I explained in my notes. This does not

mean that world is required to define Brahman. That is what is the

implication of taTasta lakshaNa means and I have discussed

elaborately this aspect in my notes related to suutra 2.

ŠŠŠŠŠ

Nanda: As Shankara asks : do we perceive consciousness in itself?

ŠŠŠŠŠ.

Sada- yes or no - if we reject the naama and ruupa in all the

perceptions , yes it is nothing but Brahman. No, if we pay our

attention to only name and form. Nanda if you are sitting in a pitch

dark room and I call out from outside - Nanda - are you there? - What

is your answer. Do you say I cannot perceive anything here - I am

not sure whether I am there or not. Or yes I hear you, therefore I

must be here somewhere! - No Nanda, you do not need any means to know

that you are there and you are conscious -' Existence-consciousness

that you are'- is self evident. Hence it is called swaruupa

lakshaNa. Not even scripture is required to establish your presence

and your consciousness. Scripture is pramaaNa for establishing the

existent consciousness that you are is the same as that which

pervades everthing - tat tvam asi Nanda. - All thoughts raise in your

consciousness, sustained by your consciousness and go back into your

consciousness. But thoughts are not needed to establish your

existence-consciousness. On the other hand your

existent-consciousness is required to establish the existence of the

thoughts. This theory operates only one way not the converse.

ŠŠŠŠ..

Nanda: Consciousness is necessarily proved only because of the

objects that we perceive. Since we are conscious of things around us

(objects) we say that we're conscious beings. Without an object of

consciousness where's there any meaning to "consciousness" itself?

Even so called self-consciousness is nothing but consciousness of

oneself as a psycho/physical unit - as an object.

ŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: Absolutely not Nanda. Please recognize difference between

swaruupa lakshaNa and taTasta lakshaNa. I am existent-consciousness

is what is called aprameyam - no means of knowledge is required to

establish my existence and consciousness. All pramaaNa-s gets

validated only because of my existence and consciousness. It is not

that pramaaNa-s validate me. Please if you have time read my notes

on adhyaasa bhaashya of Shankara.

ŠŠŠŠŠ..

Nanda: Also for "consciousness" to have any meaning not only do we

need objects, we need a subject too. It is not merely consciousness

which is conscious of a subject which perceives and object which is

perceived, how can you establish consciousness itself?

ŠŠŠŠ.

Sada: There is no need to establish that which is self-existent and

that self-existent is I am. I have to be there to establish every

thing else - and that is the gist of what you call sada's position.

That is the gist of Ch. Up. 6th Chapter.

ŠŠŠŠŠ

Nanda: Without each one the other two cannot be established.

ŠŠŠŠŠ..

Sada: No Nanda - one is independent and the other dependent - one is

cause and the other is effect. From effect point, cause has to be

there. But cause can exist independently without becoming effects.

No independent means or pramaaNa required since it is self-existent

and self-effulgent consciousness. When objects are there I am

conscious off. Other wise I am just pure consciousness requiring no

pramaaNa since it is swataH siddham or self-existent. Veda becomes a

pramaaNa not to establish existence and consciousness that I am but

to establish I am ananda swaruupa too or limitless brahman.

ŠŠŠŠŠŠ..

Nanda: There're more problems here. It is said that the subject is conscious