Introduction to Vedanta-8

[Guest guest]

Perception of the world:

 

As we discussed before, when I say there is an object

‘out there’ that ‘out there’ is only in the mind as a

thought of the object. Mind is nothing but flow of

thoughts. Every thought is essentially centered on an

object, which may be ‘out there’ or projected in the

mind based on memory. In addition, for me to be

conscious of the object ‘out there’, I have to be

conscious of the thought of the object in my mind.

Therefore the world out there is reduced to the

thoughts in my mind. Hence, when I say I am aware of

the world out there, it actually implies that I am

aware of the thoughts in my mind. If I am not

conscious of the associated thought in my mind, I

cannot be conscious of the object out there either.

Thought is like a wave in my consciousness – a name

for a form. However, the contents of every thought

wave are nothing but consciousness itself. When I say

a table is there, I have a table thought and when I

look around and see a chair out there, instantaneously

there is a chair thought in my mind. It is not that a

chair thought is superimposed on a table thought.

Thoughts arise in my consciousness, sustained by my

consciousness and go back into my consciousness. But

consciousness is unaffected by the observed thought.

I fact, I am the consciousness in which all the

thoughts raise, sustain and go back. Now, let us ask

the question again; ‘where is the inert world?’ Oh! It

is out there. – ‘How do you know it is out there?’ –

Oh! I can see and I can experience’. – What you can

experience or see is only your thoughts in the mind.

Therefore, ‘out there’ is in your mind which is

nothing but thoughts and the thoughts are in your

consciousness. Consciousness has to pervade every

thought for me to be aware of the thoughts. Hence

from my point, the world is perceived though the mind

as thoughts rise in my mind, sustained by my mind and

go back into my mind. My mind is illumined by my

consciousness. Then only I can say I am conscious of

the world. If there is no thought and thus if there is

no mind active, it appears that the whole world has no

existence. We can say it is absorbed in my mind which

itself is absorbed into me, the consciousness that I

am. This, in fact, is our daily experience. When we

go to deep sleep state, there are no thoughts and

therefore no objects and no world either. This

explains that there cannot be any world that can be

separate from my mind. I enliven the mind, or I can

say I am the mind of the mind. I am that because of

which the mind itself is minding. This is not intended

for conceptualization of who I am, but to negate any

wrong notions that I have about myself. I am not the

mind but I am the mind too in the sense I am conscious

of the mind or the thought flow. ‘I am this body’ is

only a notional thought in my mind. I am not this

therefore implies that I am not the name and form that

is associated with the notional object ‘this’ but I am

the very consciousness that supports even that

notional thought in my mind.

 

We mentioned that existence of the object involves

knowledge of its existence. That is the primary

requirement – in fact as we shall see later, that is

the very fundamental basis for the object and that

existence can never cease to exist as Krishna says in

Gita (naabhaavo vidyate sataH), and that existence

itself is of the nature of Brahman as declared in the

Ch. Up as Existence alone was there before any

creation (sat eva soumya idam agra aseet). The

existence is common for all the objects. What differs

for each object are of course details – are the other

attributes which differentiates one object from the

other. ‘I want to know the mind of God and the rest

are all details’ said Einstein – obviously he is

inquiring of the truth of the world itself.

 

What does negation involves?

 

Some are concerned why we cannot provide a positive

definition for I instead of a negative definition as

‘I am not this’. First, I cannot define the subject

at all since any definition objectifies the subject

and therefore can never be a subject. Here are some

rules: (a) subject is different from an object (b)

Subject can never become an object © Object can

never become a subject (d) Subject can only be single

that is, there is only one subject, I, in the

universe. (e) Subject is conscious entity (f) and

object is an inert entity. Hence, in principle, any

positive definition makes the subject an inert or ‘not

I’ (anaatma). In stead of definitions, Vedanta uses

pointers to indicate that which cannot be pointed. I

am the very core of my individuality that transcends

all relations and all relatives. I am the witnessing

agent in all my experiences. Positive definitions are

avoided, since mind has a tendency to conceptualize

that which is being pointed out, and make it object

rather the subject I. Ramana Maharshi puts this

beautifully as ‘analyze the analyst’ – that eventually

will lead to just silence free from all analysis or

silence from any definitions or conceptualizations.

In the case of I am not that or neti – what is negated

is only the name and form and not the substantive, the

object corresponds.

 

Objection: The analysis of the perceptual process has

only indicated that senses only grasp the attributes

and volition, cognition and recognition occur in the

mind. Therefore you have concluded that there is no

valid object out there since all the objects are

reduced to images in the mind which are nothing but

thoughts. The thoughts themselves are pervaded by

consciousness that I am. Therefore you argue that all

object-thoughts and therefore the world itself is

pervaded by consciousness that I am. This is also

what Vijnaanavadins of Buddhism argue. However, this

does not dismiss the objects out there even if we do

not grasp the substantives by our senses. When I eat

good food, do not tell me that it is just thoughts in

my mind and there is nothing for me to eat. Try to

lift 1000 pounds and say that is in your mind. How

can you dismiss the objects out there that they have

no reality at all other than as thoughts in my mind?

The fact that senses are able to grasp the attributes

implies that attributes are not created by the mind.

They are out there locussed on the objects out there.

I did not create the objects out there whose

attributes I could measure by my senses. Therefore

objects and the world should exist independent of me.

Therefore consciousness that ‘I am’ alone is there has

not established by the above arguments.

Answer: Beautiful. You are right. In order to

establish that ‘I am’ is the sources of the objects

out there, we need to examine the three states of

consciousness that every human being experiences.

This has been provided in Mandukya Upanishad, which

provides the most scientific explanations for all

human experiences. In order to understand these

aspects clearly we need to bring in total analysis

from the microcosm and macrocosm aspects. Before we

do that we need to discuss the source of error in the

metal evaluation of the objects out there. This will

also help to understand the subjective objectification

in contrast to objective objectification.

 

Errors in perception:

 

Because we perceive only the attributes and not

substantives along with the attributes, there is a

possibility of making an error of judgment by the

mind. If substantive is also gathered by the senses,

as other philosophers assume, then there is no

likelihood of making any errors by the mind. Let us

illustrate this by taking the famous example of a

snake perception, where there is a rope. Suppose if

the light is not bright, as I was walking in the

bushes, suddenly I felt something soft and long on the

path way. I jumped with fear that it may be a snake,

since I heard that there are lots of snakes around. I

ran as fast as I could to save myself from the snake.

It took some time for my adrenal effects associated

with the fear of the snake to subside before I could

breathe normally. The fellow who passed that path

informed me that it was a rope than a snake. If it is

rope, ‘why did I see a snake?’- I questioned. We both

went back and after shedding light on the object I

learned that it was indeed a rope and not a snake.

Let us analyze this clearly. I perceived an object on

the pathway through my senses. Because of the dim

light, senses could perceive only certain attributes

of the objects that are common for both snake and the

rope. Based on the attributes that are gathered by

the senses and by cognitive process discussed earlier,

mind made a judgment call that it is snake. Because it

is a snake, the rest of the biological reactions

followed – fear, running away from the sources of fear

and heavy breathing, etc all followed. If the

substantive also is perceived along with the

attributes of the object, then there is no reason to

mistake the rope as a snake. Because the attributes

that the senses were able to gather were not

discriminative enough to distinguish rope from a

snake, the error was committed in making the judgment

call by the mind. At this stage, this is no other

means available for me to know that I am making an

error of judgment. Only when I encountered another

experience which contradicted the first, I have to

make an inquiry to resolve the contradictory

experiences about the object. In our case, the

statement of another passer by who declared that it

was a rope rather than a snake provided the

contradiction. Enquiry started because of the

conflict of two contradictory experiences – one is the

intense fearful experience of a snake and the other is

word of a dependable guy (aapta vaakyam). Enquiry is

done using a pramaaNa (using a torch light here) that

reveals the true nature of the object, namely that is

a rope. When I see the rope in the light of the

illuminating light of the torch, I discovered that it

is indeed a rope and the snake that I saw was my

mistaken notion of the object that I perceived. When

I saw the snake first, it was a real snake (as far I

was concerned – I usually do not run for false

snakes). It would have remained as a snake until I

had a contradictory pramaaNa about the object that I

perceived. Because of my faith in that pramaaNa, I

proceeded to inquire further to find out whether it is

a snake or a rope. Only after inquiry, I see clearly

that it is a rope and not a snake. Unceremoniously I

dropped my previous notions about the object as snake.

Where did the snake go? – It went back into the same

place where it came from – into my mind! Was the snake

in the mind? No, it was out there where there rope

is. How can a snake 'out there’ disappear into the

mind? - Sir you are confusing everybody. When I say

there is an object, I have knowledge of the existence

of the object – ‘there is an object’ or ‘there is…’

providing the knowledge of the existence of an object

out there. And based on the attributes that I could

gather by the sense of sight (it is five feet long and

1’ dia, etc) and sense of touch (soft unlike a stick),

my mind made a judgment call that ‘there is a snake’.

‘There is a snake’ is a thought in my mind. The rest

of the body reactions followed to protect myself.

(This also proves the upanishadic statement that fear

arises from duality). When I made a further enquiry I

found that it is a rope and not a snake – hence ‘there

is a snake’ knowledge is replaced by ‘there is a

rope’. In both cases ‘there is..’ part remained and

it is unchanged. That is the existence part remain

what changed is only details - a snake to a rope.

It is not that snake became a rope. It was rope all

the time even when I thought it was a snake. But

based on my perception, I wrongly concluded that it is

a snake. It is my conclusion that was wrong. By the

process of discriminative inquiry, I am able to learn

that the snake was not real since it was a rope. The

fear of the snake is also gone through the discovery

of the truth. Since I alone saw the snake while

others saw it as a rope, the snake knowledge is in my

mind only. That knowledge in my mind is replaced by

the rope knowledge in my mind. Innocent rope remained

innocent in all these perturbations in my mind.

Was the snake real? – It was real since I could see it

or experience. If there is no other contradictory

pramaaNa that it was a rope rather than a snake, my

snake knowledge would have remained as the real

knowledge in my mind. This establishes one fact,

experience alone is not the basis of the reality of

the object. We experience the plurality of the world,

therefore world is real is obviously incorrect. Since

snake experience is only in my mind, the knowledge of

the snake is or reality of the snake is called

‘praatibhaasika satyam’, since the error occurred only

in my mind. In contrast, there is vyaavahaarika

satyam or transactional reality as mentioned before

and related to the relative knowledge of the world of

objects. We took the example of a ‘carpet’ to

illustrate the relative knowledge. Let us take

another example of error at the level of vyaavahaarika

– The famous examples are mirage water or even sunrise

and sunset. Everybody on this earth experience the

sunrise and sunset and now we know from science that

sun neither rises not sets. Here the true knowledge of

the reality of the sunrise and sunset does not dismiss

the sunrise and sunset. While knowing fully that sun

neither rises nor sets, I can still enjoy the

beautiful sunrise and sunset. This error is in

contrast to the snake knowledge which disappeared when

I saw the rope. The transactional truth at this

collective level is called ‘vyaavahaarika satyam’ in

contrast to the truth at individual level-

‘pratibhaasika satyam’. The absolute truth of course

is ‘Brahman alone is real’ and that is called

paaramaarthika satyam. That we have an absolute truth

which is Brahman and we have relative errors one at

collective level (macro level) is called vyaavahaarika

satyam and the other at individual level called

praatibhaasika satyam. Error of the snake is at the

individual level and the snake we can call it

subjective objectification or ‘I see it, therefore it

is’ – I see a snake there and therefore it is a snake.

The errors at the collective level we can call it as

collective objectification or ‘it is, therefore I see

it’. Even if I know that there is no real water in the

mirage water, I still see the mirage water since the

effects that caused the mirage did not disappear with

the knowledge. Same is analysis for the sunrise and

sunset since the source of the error is not eliminated

with the knowledge that sun neither rises nor sets.

 

Adhyaasa or error superimposition:

 

In the discovery of the reality of the object, that it

is rope and not a snake, the existence of the object

or the knowledge of its existence is not negated.

What is negated is that the object that it is a snake

with the correct understanding that it is a rope.

Thus, by gathering more attributes of the object, we

are negating our previous knowledge of the object as a

snake by affirming that it is a rope. Thus ‘there is

a snake’ is replaced by ‘there is a rope’. That

‘there is..’ part remains and only ‘snake’ part is

replaced by ‘rope’ part. That which remains the same

or remains changeless is the truth and that which

changed is the false. This error is called adhyaasa

or error of superimposition. On the ‘there is’ truth

part ‘there is a snake’ knowledge is superimposed.

Shankara defines adhyaasa as ‘mixing up of that which

partly true and with that which is partly untruth to

arrive at a unitary experience – ‘satyaanRita

mithuniikaraNam addhyaasam’.

 

Importance of adhyaasa or error of superimposition

becomes obvious if we understand that Brahman which is

changeless alone is the truth but the world of

plurality is just a superimposition on the truth that

which is changing. When we say the world is – it is

notion in our mind that the plurality that we see is

real and the world is out there. The world of

plurality or the objective world (in the waking state)

is not my mental creation although I perceive the

world only through the mind. World is creation at the

collective level or at macro level and therefore

knowledge that the world is only superimposed on

Brahman does not negate the world. What it negates is

only reality assigned to the world. A Jnnaani or a

realized soul operates in the world, with a different

attitude since he knows it has only a notional

significance in relation to the absolute truth.

 

Currently our understanding of the reality of the

world remains as the truth based on our day to day

experiences – just as sunset and sunrise are real

based on our day to day experience. Vedanta as an

independent means of knowledge says – sarvam khulvidam

brahma – all this is (the world) Brahman. When I

realize the falsity of the world by recognizing the

substratum Brahman through the process of inquiry,

then false knowledge falls down. Just as knowing that

there is no sunrise or sunset and can still enjoy the

sunrise and sunset, one can recognize that there is

nothing other than Brahman (neha naanaasti kinchana),

I can still enjoy the plurality of the world. The

knowledge will only eliminate the delusion that world

of plurality is real. What is recognized is that

plurality is only apparent and apparent plurality is

not reality. The person who has gained that knowledge

is called jiivanmukta. It is similar to a scientist,

knowing very well that everything is nothing but

electrons, protons and neutrons, can still enjoy the

food while discarding the garbage. There is no

confusion in understanding the absolute reality

without confusing with the relative reality of the

world. ‘punishing the wicked while protecting the

good’ can go on without discarding the truth that all

are in me, the unmanifest.

 

The teacher-student- teaching that ‘everything is just

one’ can go on without any confusion, with the teacher

not discarding the knowledge of the unifying

principle. Some of the objections raised against

advaita Vedanta stem from incorrect understanding of

advaita. Advaita is non-duality in spite of duality.

Duality is not negated and what is negated is the

reality assigned to the duality. Krishna himself says

‘I am Arjuna’ while teaching Arjuna that everything is

in Him only. What it amounts to is there is no

confusion in understanding the paaramaarthika satyam

while still acting at the vyaavahaarika level. What

is negated is only the reality assumed to the

vyaavahaarika satyam. It is apparently real but not

really real.

 

What is real?

 

We now provide an operating definition for real – that

which remains the same in all three periods of time –

or that which cannot be negated is real. Unreal is

that which has no locus for existence at any time, for

example the son of a barren woman. Unreal can never

be experienced.

Then what about the world – the world is experienced

therefore it is not unreal. But world itself

continuously changes and hence it is called jagat,

hence it is not real either. We have to come up

another word which is neither real nor unreal and it

is called mithyaa or false. Some aachaarya argue that

there are only two entities – that which is not real

has to be unreal and that which is not unreal has to

be real and there is nothing that is neither real nor

unreal that meets the criteria as mithya. This

criticism is wrong. Advaitic definitions are precise

and are in tune with the Vedanta. The apparent

superimpositions are not real since they are only

apparent and not real. But the substantive for the

superimpositions are real since it is changeless. We

have illustrated with the snake-rope example. ‘There

is’ – part is real since it is changeless what changed

is only from snake to rope in there is a snake to

there is a rope. Existence of the world is not

negated. what is negated as apparent is the

superimpositions of this, this and that, which are

names and forms, naama and ruupa associated with the

world of plurality. All the perceptual knowledge that

we discussed above comes under the category of names

and forms – therefore neither real nor unreal and is

rightly called mithya. Statements that there is

nothing like mithyaa – shows lack of correct

understanding of the reality of the world. Shankara

puts this crisply – world is mithya because I see it –

dRisyatvaat – that is whatever I perceive through the

five senses is only mithya and is therefore neither

real and unreal. For any mithya there has to be

substantive which is unchanging and that is Brahman.

Thus for the changing world, which is mithya, there is

changeless entity which is the truth and that is

Brahman. Thus all scriptural statements that Brahman

is substantive for the world (material cause), the

world is mithyaa and therefore it is only apparently

real but reality of the world is Brahman only, every

thing is nothing but Brahman, sarvam khalvidam brahma,

and there is nothing other than Brahman, neha

naanaasti kinchana, etc are all self consistent along

with our analysis of how the knowledge of an object is

nothing but just image of the name and form in the

mind.