reality testing

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

In a post I quoted the teasing " The absence of difference from the

subject does not indeed mean identity; it means having no existence apart

from that of the object. " (From V.P. Chap.1 'Perception'pg.25 trans).

There does appear to be a conflict at the heart of that utterance because

we incline to believe that if there is no difference between two things

they must in fact be identical and if not numerically identical then it

must be that all properties are the same except that one is in a

different location. 'Like two peas in a pod', indeed.

 

Clearly we will have to read V.P. more closely and reflect as well on the

nature of mental modifications to resolve this paradox. We are inclined

to give primacy in the matter of perception to the Subject/Object dyad.

Things come to be known in the mind of a knower. We can easily move from

there to the idea that to be is to be known and that the reality status of

the thing that is not known by any mind is indeterminate or anirvacanaya.

Thus we are invited to consider that the world would wink out of existence

for us when we are in the state of deep sleep because the being of a thing

is its being for us or its being know by us. A saving codicil is attached

to this theory by the notion that there is a world-mind or god watching

over all and keeping it in mind and therefore in existence.

 

The fundamental misapprehension here is about reality giving. The

consciousness of the subject does indeed take the form of the object and

is in that sense non different from it. However at the same time the

object is not identical to the subject. The V.P.'s answer to this

conundrum is to ask: what is the reality that makes the object perceptible

by the subject i.e. its perceptuality. How does the inert object pass

over into the sentient subject? What is the ultimate giver of reality to

BOTH THE SUBJECT AND THE OBJECT. (forgive the caps, should be italics,

imp.point) We had been making the reality of the object to be the reality

of a known object. This is contra to the advaitic thought which is clear

if we go down a little on the same page from which I quoted. In effect

unity is the answer.

 

" To be explicit, since a jar etc. are superimposed on the Consciousness

limited by them, their existence is but the existence of the Consciousness

associated with the object for the existence of what is superimposed is

not admitted to be something over and above that of its substratum. "

 

Further down (pg.30 trans by Swami Madhavananda pub Advaita Ashrama):

" Therefore the gist of the matter is this: An object is said to be

cognised by perception when it is capable (of being perceived) and is

devoid of any existence apart from that of the Consciousness associated

with the subject, which (Consciousness) has for its limiting adjunct a

mental state in the form of that object. "

 

Being and Consciousness are foundational for the relative world and there

is no distance from the Relative to the Absolute.

 

Brh.Up. II.iv.11 (comm) Moreover, it is not only at the time of its origin

and continuance that the universe, on account of its non-existence apart

from Pure Intelligence, is Brahman, but it is also at the time of

dissolution also. "

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.