What is an object?

[Guest guest]

According to advaita, an object isn't what it seems to be. It seems to be a

piece of

world, existing in some part of space and time. But, in fact, no such object is

experienced, by anyone, at any place or time. In all actual experience, each

object is

known along with consciousness. What's actually known is knowledge of the

object, not the

object on its own.

 

So when mind thinks of an 'object', it is thinking of something that is actually

experienced in a different way, as knowledge. But what exactly is this knowledge

of an

object? Again, we need to ask how it is actually experienced. Well, knowledge of

an object

is never experienced quite on its own, but always in contrast and comparison

with knowing

other objects. It's only by such contrast and comparison that objects are

identified and

recognized, as different pieces of existence making up an objective world.

 

The contrast and comparison involves a process of perception and conception, in

which

various objects come into appearance and go away again. All objects are known

through this

process, as they appear and disappear. In order to contrast and compare them,

knowledge

somehow carries on, through their appearances and disappearances.

 

As any object comes into appearance, it shows a knowledge which was there before

and which

continues afterwards, when the object disappears. What then is knowledge of an

object?

Evidently, it has two components. One component is appearance through perception

and

conception. The other is a knowledge that continues through the changes of

perceived and

conceived appearances.

 

As an object is experienced, differing perceptions and conceptions show us

differing

appearances of it, from different points of view. So, while the appearances are

different,

the object in itself is shown in common by them all. That is how we actually

experience

the reality of an object. The appearances depend on how they are perceived and

conceived.

The reality is quite independent of the differing perceptions and conceptions

and

appearances.

 

It is the same with knowledge. Differing appearances of knowledge come and go --

through

differing perceptions, thoughts and feelings -- in the changing process through

which

objects are known. But knowledge in itself is shown in common, by all these

appearances,

as they are created and dissolve away. That is how we actually experience

knowledge. Its

appearances depend on how it's shown by changing acts of perception, thought and

feeling.

Its reality does not depend at all upon these changing acts, of created and

dissolving

show.

 

In the end, our experience of objects and of knowledge is exactly the same. It

is a

reality that stays completely independent and uncompromised, beneath the

compromised

dependence of all physical and mental appearances upon divided space and

changing time. As

different objects seem perceived, and knowledge of them seems to change, reality

remains

the same. There is no way of distinguishing what objects really are from what

knowledge

truly is, beneath the appearances that show them differently.

 

As an object is actually experienced, it is not really different from the

knowledge that

knows it, and so it cannot really make any difference to that knowledge. There

is no

mixture there, of something added into knowledge from outside. There's only

knowledge on

its own -- standing independently, as its own reality and as the one reality of

every

object. That's what each object and all knowledge is, beneath the seeming

changes of

appearance.

 

In this sense, there is no real conflict between vpcnk and the devil's advocate

that Greg

dreamed up (Monday 29 Sept).

 

vpcnk quoted Viveka-cudamani: "If the world exists, let it exist in deep sleep!"

 

The devil's advocate replies: "The world *does* exist while I'm in deep sleep

..... Since

I verify its existence during my waking state, I conclude that it exists even

though my

waking state is not there. If it *doesn't* exist during my deep sleep, then

that entails

that it falls out of existence when I go to deep sleep, and pops back into

existence when

I wake up. It surely doesn't do that!"

 

The devil's advocate is wrong only if he thinks that he is refuting Shankara.

For Shankara

is doing something more than denying the existence of the world. What Shankara

denies is

not the world's *existence*, but rather its misleading *appearance* in the

waking and

dream states. He is saying that if the world exists, that existence must

continue in deep

sleep as well. Yes indeed, the true existence of the world most certainly can't

fall away

as a person falls asleep and then pop back on waking up. No such existence could

be real.

 

As the world in truth exists, through the waking and dream states, that same

existence

must continue in deep sleep. It must be there in deep sleep, quite unmixed with

seen or

dreamt appearances. Deep sleep shows truly what the world and what each object

really is,

undistracted by appearances. The real being of each object is an underlying

truth, which

continues through all changes of appearance. Thus, it is verified in all three

states:

through outgoing body in the waking state; through inward-turning mind in dream;

and

finally, through a return to knowledge and reality, shining by itself in depth

of sleep.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sri Ananda wrote a characteristically elegant essay on 'What is an

object?' I will comment on various statements of his, to show how

one list member understands what he says. If I misunderstood

anything, then perhaps others did too, and so it might be useful to

discuss this authoritative essay a bit.

 

 

SRI ANANDA:

According to advaita, an object isn't what it seems to be. It seems

to be a piece of world, existing in some part of space and time. But,

in fact, no such object is experienced, by anyone, at any place or

time. In all actual experience, each object is known along with

consciousness. What's actually known is knowledge of the object not

the object on its own.

 

MY COMMENTS:

Perhaps readers will object to the Western term 'idealism', but this

sounds like some kind of idealism to me, i.e. the philosophical view

that the true reality of any object is consciousness in some sense.

This follows especially if we equate 'knowledge' with 'consciousness'.

 

Now some people would not equate knowledge with consciousness. For

example, they might think of knowledge in terms of information, so

that an encyclopedia could be full of 'knowledge', even though it is

not conscious. However, Ananda clearly seems to be discussing active

knowledge, as when we actively contemplate an object, and not the

dry, formal 'residue' of knowledge encoded as symbols on the written

page.

 

The key point is that the so-called 'objects' are not separate

entities, distinct and independent of our awareness of them, existing

in some external space and time, as they normally seem to be. This,

for me, is the essence of my understanding of 'idealism'. There is

not my consciousness observing objects that are 'out there', i.e.

outside of my consciousness and merely reflected in it. The object

and my awareness of it are the same. As always, the dream analogy is

extremely illuminating.

 

 

 

SRI ANANDA:

Knowledge of an object is never experienced quite on its own, but

always in contrast and comparison with knowing other objects ...

involves a process of perception and conception ... In order to

contrast and compare them, knowledge somehow carries on, through

their appearances and disappearances...

 

MY COMMENTS:

The seer endures while the appearances dance by like sparkles of

sunlight on the water. Therefore the 'seer' and the 'seen' cannot be

identical. Or can they? In my opinion, one should first realize, by

an inspired act of intuition, that 'seer' and 'seen' are the SAME

consciousness. This is discovered by calmly introspecting, without

thinking, upon the awareness that is immediately present to us. If

we simply dwell quietly in this awareness, without allowing any words

or thoughts to arise in the mind, then we are aware of no difference

between 'seer' and 'seen'. There is just the 'unitary' act of

consciousness or awareness. That is how it seems to me, even though

I am not enlightened.

 

Therefore, paradoxically, 'seer' and 'seen' MUST be the same, despite

the fact that the former remains unchanging and identical and the

latter constantly fluctuates. There is no problem with saying that

the 'seen' fluctuates, but why do I say that the 'seer' remains

unchanging and identical? Again, this is something that I directly

intuit in my silent, wordless introspection. Some liken the seer to

a movie screen, which remains the same while pictures flash across

it. Even this analogy is limited, since one can distinguish between

the atoms of the screen and the photons of the picture.

 

I resolve the paradox by realizing that in each of the 'pictures'

that flashes by, there is a common quality called 'awareness'. This

common quality is always the same, and it is the substratum or

fundamental reality of the flashing image. It is like the water in

the waves. I cannot deny that in each appearance there is something

I call awareness, which is essentially the same as consciousness,

according to my use of the words. If there were not this awareness

in each of the appearances, then I would not be ... well ... aware of

them!

 

But again, the common element of awareness is not distinct from the

changing appearances. The awareness and the appearances are

ultimately identical, notwithstanding that one is unchanging and the

other is changing. This may sound illogical, but it is how reality

appears to me when I silently introspect on my ... awareness! Since

this introspection intentionally suspends thought, there is no need

to be logical.

 

 

 

SRI ANANDA:

What then is knowledge of an object? Evidently, it has two

components. One component is appearance through perception and

conception. The other is a knowledge that continues through the

changes of perceived and conceived appearances. ... The reality is

quite independent of the differing perceptions and conceptions and

appearances...

 

MY COMMENTS:

Now Ananda seems to disagree with what I just said, by saying that

the knowledge (which I equate to consciousness) is quite independent

of the changing appearances. However, this is only a restatement of

the paradox. Viewed as a paradox, it is true. But to even call it a

'paradox', the conceptual, logical, objectifying mind must first be

active.

 

Notice that the logical mind comes and goes, but the substratum of

silent awareness is always present, even if we do not realize it due

to the distractions of thought. Therefore, the mind is just another

appearance dancing across this silent, intuitive awareness. We

should recognize the mind as a mere appearance and play along with it

as appropriate, but we should not be hypnotized by it into taking it

as real. It is all a dream.

 

 

 

SRI ANANDA:

What Shankara denies is not the world's *existence*, but rather its

misleading *appearance* in the waking and dream states. He is saying

that if the world exists that existence must continue in deep sleep

as well ... Deep sleep shows truly what the world and what each

object really is.

 

MY COMMENTS:

What endures in all states is awareness, regardless of the contents

(i.e. appearances). We become enlightened by 'tuning in' to the

substratum of awareness and by becoming detached from the fluctuating

appearances.

 

But did I not insist that substratum and appearances are ultimately

identical? Therefore I would seem to be contradicting myself. But

that is only if the paradox is taken seriously, which as I said,

requires that we first be hypnotized by the mind into believing what

it tells us. The difference between substratum and appearances only

arises if we are first engaged in thinking AND in believing what we

think. I say this, because we must think from time to time, in order

to deal practically with the world of appearances. It is not

desirable to become like a vegetable. The mind is a necessary

instrument and should be used accordingly.

 

But while interacting with the illusory world, a part of us can

remain above it in calm, silent, intuitive introspection, merely

witnessing without being taken it by the appearances, like the calm

blue sky over the buzzing earth. And yet, at the intuitive level,

this sky of silent consciousness is not different from the buzzing

earth of appearances. It only seems that way in contrast to what the

mind is telling us about the appearances, that they are real entities

out there. Once this illusion is abandoned, the paradox can become

resolved, by sinking deeper and deeper into intuitive introspection,

until the last vestiges of objectivity are dissolved.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

I could not resist replying to the reply of Benjamin. Here is my

understanding without burying nomenclature of 'ism's. From quantum

mechanics point the object existence cannot be pinpointed without the

observer present. We can only talk of probabilities. From

epistemological point of view, object, knowledge of the object and

knower of object all seem to be jumbled up and it appears that one

cannot define without the other.

 

First, existence of an object cannot be independently established

without the knower and the knowledge of the object. Ultimately Knowledge

itself cannot be defined, according to Advaita in any absolute sense.

Knowledge of .. is taken as knowledge itself. 'Knowledge of' is

assumed to occur spontaneously when the knower and the object present.

But if no object is really there, then really there is no knower of the

object either and therefore really there is no knowledge either. But at

the same time 'object seems to be there and there is jiiva who seems to

be separate from the object and seems to takes the role of the knower of

the object when the knowledge of the object seems to occur. This seeming

process seems to be real when truth behind the process is not examined

properly. When the objects are considered really existing then real or

valid knowledge (pramaa) takes place when the two real things are

brought together - knower (sakshii) and the object. According to this

epistemological position, capacity to know or knowledge is considered

intrinsic property of the jiiva and come into manifestation when the

jiiva comes into contact with the object. It is like 'light' gets

activated when the sakshii comes into contact with the object through

the senses. Knowledge is spontaneous and the knowledge is

self-illumining in the sense it is known in its own light. This

‘knowledge of’ through these process is called 'dharma bhuuta j~naana-

or qualified knowledge. All achaarya-s agree there is another knowledge

where the object of the knowledge is the subject or knower him/it self.

This is essentially called 'self-consciousness' - that is one is aware

of oneself - where the object of knowledge is the subject itself. This

is considered as separate or pure knowledge or dharmi j~naana in

contrast to qualified knowledge called dharmabhuuta j~naana. Thus a

distinction is established between knowledge of object versus the

knowledge of the subject itself.

 

Similar distinction is effectively made in advaita too - where the self

consciousness is the true knowledge where the consciousness of the

objects which is separate from the subject is only vyavahharika

knowledge which is not really knowledge at all but valid only in the

relative realm of transaction. For aj~naani - the relative realm of

knowledge appears to be the real while the absolute knowledge of oneself

is lacking. When one analyzes correctly, advaita indicates that one

discovers that there is no reality to the relative knowledge while the

knowledge of one own self is absolutely real. The reality of relative

knowledge is not there since three qualifications of the object out

there are not real but apparent while the substantive of that object

cannot be separated from the substantive of the knower - the self.

Hence epistemologically advaita Vedanta s that qualities are

which that distinguishes one object from the other are not real but

apparent.

 

Perception of the object is spontaneous, only because the substantive of

the object out there and subject (oneself), both are just one all

pervading consciousness.

 

Actually one cannot perceive the object out there - one perceives the

qualities only through the senses. The mind integrates all the sense

input and provides an apparent image of the object on the mental screen

and the compares the image with the perceived qualities with the stored

images for re-cognition. If no match occurs, between the current image

with images of the past, fuzzy logic is used to see if it is close to

the qualities of previously stored images in the memory. A statement is

made that the object looks like an object x whose attributes closely

match.

 

In principle there is no perception of the real object there but

perception of only attributes via mental image. Deeper questions arise

if one start asking: Where is this mental image and Where is this mind

to have this image - Is it out there separate from the sakshii or Is it

again the same consciousness. All these are interrelated problems and

analyzed systemically. I don’t want Advaitic theory of perception,

where upon deeper analysis declares that there is no real object out

there for those who want to see beyond the apparently real object out

there, to be bottled in the 'idealism' etc. since from what I understand

it is not an ism of any kind but epistemological analysis of the

conscious process that takes place in the perception of the so called

object out there.

 

I assume that I have confused everybody enough. Now I can retire.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Sri Ananda wrote a characteristically elegant essay on 'What is an

> object?' I will comment on various statements of his, to show how

> one list member understands what he says. If I misunderstood

> anything, then perhaps others did too, and so it might be useful to

> discuss this authoritative essay a bit.

>

>

> SRI ANANDA:

> According to advaita, an object isn't what it seems to be. It seems

> to be a piece of world, existing in some part of space and time. But,

> in fact, no such object is experienced, by anyone, at any place or

> time. In all actual experience, each object is known along with

> consciousness. What's actually known is knowledge of the object not

> the object on its own.

>

> MY COMMENTS:

> Perhaps readers will object to the Western term 'idealism', but this

> sounds like some kind of idealism to me, i.e. the philosophical view

> that the true reality of any object is consciousness in some sense.

> This follows especially if we equate 'knowledge' with 'consciousness'.

>

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New with improved product search