Object and Consciousness of the Object

[Guest guest]

Sadanandaji wrote:

Until a

conscious entity establishes the existence of an object, object’s

existence is not

established. Object is not a self-existent entity, since it is not

self-conscious. Does

the object exist if I am not conscious of it or if I have no knowledge of

it? Who is

going to establish its existence if no conscious entity is conscious of

it? Hence we can

say existence of such an object is anirvachaniiyam or mathematically an

inderminate

problem. The reason is simple. We have already defined that knowledge of

an object

involves removal of ignorance that is coving it. Until the ignorance is

removed, the

knowledge of its existence is also not established. Ignorance is removed

only when it is

illumined by the light of consciousness.

Until a

conscious entity establishes the existence of an object, object’s

existence is not

established. Object is not a self-existent entity, since it is not

self-conscious. Does

the object exist if I am not conscious of it or if I have no knowledge of

it? Who is

going to establish its existence if no conscious entity is conscious of

it? Hence we can

say existence of such an object is anirvachaniiyam or mathematically an

inderminate

problem. The reason is simple. We have already defined that knowledge of

an object

involves removal of ignorance that is coving it. Until the ignorance is

removed, the

knowledge of its existence is also not established. Ignorance is removed

only when it is

illumined by the light of consciousness.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Sadanandaji,

You say this on a regular basis and I

offer a rebuttal on a regular basis not with the idea that you will change

your mind but to offer an alternative view to the members.

 

Let me take a slightly different approach to my usual one. Imagine this

scene if you will. I am in a quarry with a knowledgable geologist. He

points to a seam in the rock and tells me that it was laid down in the

Devonian era prior to the advent of human life. Are you saying that it

did not exist then? You are not distinguishing between the existence of a

thing and the consciousness of the existence of that thing.

 

Is there anything within the confines of Vedanta that agrees with that

claim? When one makes a statement that runs so counter to common sense

there ought to be some justification for it.

 

Consider this - if the being of everything is consciousness (sat chit)

then there never was a time when this, that or the other rock or galaxy

was not consciousness. That provides a seamless connection with human

consciousness to put it at its broadest advaitic intuition. In this way a

thing does not gain consciousness or come into being by someone being

aware of it.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael,

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

> Namaste Sadanandaji,

> You say this on a regular basis

and I

> offer a rebuttal on a regular basis not with the idea that you

will change

> your mind but to offer an alternative view to the members.

>

> Let me take a slightly different approach to my usual one.

Imagine this

> scene if you will. I am in a quarry with a knowledgable

geologist. He

> points to a seam in the rock and tells me that it was laid down in

the

> Devonian era prior to the advent of human life. Are you saying

that it

> did not exist then? You are not distinguishing between the

existence of a

> thing and the consciousness of the existence of that thing.

>

> Is there anything within the confines of Vedanta that agrees with

that

> claim? When one makes a statement that runs so counter to common

sense

> there ought to be some justification for it.

>

> Consider this - if the being of everything is consciousness (sat

chit)

> then there never was a time when this, that or the other rock or

galaxy

> was not consciousness. That provides a seamless connection with

human

> consciousness to put it at its broadest advaitic intuition. In

this way a

> thing does not gain consciousness or come into being by someone

being

> aware of it.

>

 

 

I completely agree with you on this.

 

Notion that `proof-of-existence' is necessary for `existence'

itself, is highly refutable.

 

It cannot be contended that object's existence, without the

presence of a sentient entity, is only an assumption. For, such

would be illogical to hold that no proof of existence of any object

first brings the object into existence (or otherwise) and then

proves it. One can think of many absurdities this position will

bring in, such as for example, imagine the scenario where one is

trying to prove the existence of gravity.

 

Moreover, what about the `existence' of `proof-of-existence' of X

itself? Wouldn't there be anAvasthA then? In other words, we never

would have proof of anything at all -- not even the proof of

statements made by proponents of such theories.

 

Existence of `Proof-of-Existence-of-objects' is totally different

from 'Existence-of-Objects' itself. Former requires the later and a

sentient entity. Later does not require either former nor the a

sentient entity.

 

Some objects/events we comprehend by using our consciousness

voluntarily, no doubt. But, some other objects/events `draw' our

consciousness when we being not consciousness of their existence.

This necessarily requires their prior existence. Some examples

might help;

 

1. There wouldn't be any concept of `accidents' in our daily life.

It is only `after' we are consciousness of bump on the head and its

pain, we are consciousness of the fact that there was a tree branch

in the path of our motion and we in fact bumped against it. If

existence of tree branch is already their in our consciousness, no

body would have bumped their head!. This is also true in many fatal

accidents such as automotive, fire, gun etc.

 

2. Though we are not consciousness of alarm bell in our deep sleep,

the very existence of alarm bell (objective existence) makes our

consciousness to aware of its existence when it forces us from the

sleep.

 

The only corollary for this is, when we have experiences as `I am

happy' or `I am sorrow'. Existence of happiness or sorrowness is

synchronous with our awareness of their existence. This is what we

call in shAstra-s is `jnyAtayka sat'. Meaning, if a thing exist,

we'll know it. There is no time when a thing exist but we are

unaware of it.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

>

> Namaste Sadanandaji,

> You say this on a regular basis

and I

> offer a rebuttal on a regular basis not with the idea that you will

change

> your mind but to offer an alternative view to the members.

>

>

 

Sri Michaelji and Kotekalji, did you have a look at Sadaji's post

39519 in reply to my 39514 and 39517? I think he has tried to respond

to this point there; perhaps you can check whether my questions

properly addressed your points and whether his explanation is

sufficient. I will have to read it more carefully when freer but it

seems thorough, at first glance.

 

Actually there was also a concept of " world-mind " or " Ishvara-mind "

that Sadaji had mentioned sometime back. These questions are more

easily resolved if we take that concept as the backdrop: so yes,

someOne is " aware " even if none of us are.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

PS. Sri Kotekalji, is your definition of Shastra, etc. in alignment

with Shankara sampradaya? The emphasis on Paancharatra based on

brahmaanda purana (never heard of it) made me suspect.

[Guest guest]

Michael,

 

You said:

" Consider this - if the being of everything is

consciousness (sat chit)

then there never was a time when this, that or the

other rock or galaxy

was not consciousness. That provides a seamless

connection with human

consciousness to put it at its broadest advaitic

intuition. In this way a

thing does not gain consciousness or come into being

by someone being

aware of it. "

 

Pardon me if I didnt fully grasp your post, but isnt

the reconciliation between yours and Sadanandaji's

viewpoint that there is but One consciousness?

It IS true that there was never a point of time when

the galaxies, stars planets of rocks were NOT

conscious, for the one consciousness which exists in

you and me now pervaded all Universe, all the time.

 

When you look at the issue with only One

Consciousness existing, it has to be Infinite and

Eternal, i.e. unbound by space and time.

 

Coming to Sadaji's viewpoint, the very proof that an

object exists without anyone being conscious of it is

that there is no object without a Consciousness, the

only Conscious thing is the Atman, and that is

ever-present.

 

It is only Maya that you " feel " the Consciousness is

limited in your body, or in the animal and plant

kingdom or what is usually defined as " living " . But I

feel that is merely a matter of convenience in

distinguishing between things. There is Consciousness

in every atom and molecule, it is only " manifested "

more and more in these 'living' things. That is the

Vedantic definition of evolution, i.e. a better

manifestation of the One Consciousness. (which was my

assertion in some thread some time back that there is

no difference of kind between a stone and a human

body, but only that of degree.)

 

To summarize, there CANNOT be an object of which the

Advaitiic " I " , the Brahman, is not Conscious of! Hence

the question of an object without Consciousness does

not arise.

 

I am sure there are several scriptural references to

this. The one that comes to my mind right now is Sri

Krishna's assertion in Gita, that 'if I rest even for

a second, the entire Universe will be destroyed';

which means without He, The Consciousness, the

universe wont exist.

 

 

Hari Om!

Vaibhav.

 

 

Explore your hobbies and interests. Go to

http://in.promos./groups