Vishistadvaita Ontology

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjan wrote:

 

An object is the "object" or goal of the directedness of the intentionality

of consciousness. While the object is subsumed in the synthetical unity of

consciousness, it is in a way "independent" of the intentionality because it

is (an effect that is) pre-existent in the causal substratum and is hence

prior to the intending "act". In perception the mind takes the form of the

object that pre-exists

prior to the perceptual act and thus becomes "identical in character with

its object without being the object". All (valid) perceptual intentions are

second intentions (like Avicenna's logic) applied to the first underlying

intention wherein "the universe has already been created", thus generating

perception of "real" and not "imaginary"

objects. The Greek "aporia" or the Sanskrit "viparya" is that character of

intentionality whereby it miss the "actual" object resulting in an error of

cognition.

 

This entire argument still remains idealistic and solipsistic. Advaita

recognises the primary intentional "act" of "creation" that underlies all

individual perceptions in as much as it attributes vikshepa shakti to

Ishwara alone whereby the personae of individuated

beings and the world are "created".

 

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

Thank you for your comments as they give me a chance to clarify what was

probably obscure. If these further remarks thicken the fog I hope you will

make allowances for the difficulty of the subject. My view of

intentionality is that it is the nature of every act of perception and

removes the danger of isolation on the mental side. As someone persuaded of

the validity of realism I see idealism as something that can only be stated

on the basis of a pre-existent world which is then de-constructed.

 

Essentially perception is direct and immediately self-luminous. There is no

richochet off a mind to a knowing subject and so no point to insert the

wedge of idealism and its bete noir solipsism. The path is not from object

to mind to knowing subject. A subject is revealed in the act of perceiving.

As Sankara states in Upadesa Sahasri:

 

#75. The teacher said to him,"your doubt is not justifiable, for you, the

Self, are proved to be free from change, and therefore perpetually the same

on the ground that all the modifications of the mind are (simultaneously)

known by you. You regard this knowledge of all the modifications which is

the reason for the above inference as that for your doubt. If you were

changeful like the mind or the senses (which pervade their objects one after

another), you would not simultaneously know all the mental modifications,

the objects of your knowledge. Nor are you aware of a portion only of the

objects of your knowledge (at a time). You are, therefore, absolutely

changeless."

 

 

As humans we are immersed in this world. Our primary interactions assume

this. This is what makes them intelligible. We have come a certain

evolutionary route which provides a framework for the sort of intentionality

that we have. This discussion of what it is like to be human is a meta

level one or a second intention which gives the impression of a knowing

subject reflecting on its operations as though they were objects. Danger

lurks in the thickets of such lucubration.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji,

 

 

"As someone persuaded of the validity of realism...."

 

Count me in too.

 

"I see idealism as something that can only be stated on the basis of

a pre-existent world which is then de-constructed"

 

And thus do objects become sense data or impressions.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

> Thank you for your comments as they give me a chance to clarify

what was

> probably obscure. If these further remarks thicken the fog I hope

you will

> make allowances for the difficulty of the subject. My view of

> intentionality is that it is the nature of every act of perception

and

> removes the danger of isolation on the mental side. As someone

persuaded of

> the validity of realism I see idealism as something that can only

be stated

> on the basis of a pre-existent world which is then de-constructed.

>

> Essentially perception is direct and immediately self-luminous.

There is no

> richochet off a mind to a knowing subject and so no point to

insert the

> wedge of idealism and its bete noir solipsism. The path is not

from object

> to mind to knowing subject. A subject is revealed in the act of

perceiving.

> As Sankara states in Upadesa Sahasri:

>

> #75. The teacher said to him,"your doubt is not justifiable, for

you, the

> Self, are proved to be free from change, and therefore perpetually

the same

> on the ground that all the modifications of the mind are

(simultaneously)

> known by you. You regard this knowledge of all the modifications

which is

> the reason for the above inference as that for your doubt. If you

were

> changeful like the mind or the senses (which pervade their objects

one after

> another), you would not simultaneously know all the mental

modifications,

> the objects of your knowledge. Nor are you aware of a portion

only of the

> objects of your knowledge (at a time). You are, therefore,

absolutely

> changeless."

>

>

> As humans we are immersed in this world. Our primary interactions

assume

> this. This is what makes them intelligible. We have come a

certain

> evolutionary route which provides a framework for the sort of

intentionality

> that we have. This discussion of what it is like to be human is a

meta

> level one or a second intention which gives the impression of a

knowing

> subject reflecting on its operations as though they were objects.

Danger

> lurks in the thickets of such lucubration.

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji and Michaelji,

 

Michael:

"As someone persuaded of the validity of realism...."

 

Chittaranjan:

Count me in too.

 

===As someone not persuaded of the validity of realism, let me say that I enjoy

your contributions on the subject. You are fun and engaging writers to read on

this topic!

 

--Greg