Object and Consciousness of the Object

[Guest guest]

Sadanandaji wrote:

Yes I say that on regular basis since that is the correct advaitic stand.

If

object can

exist on its own then we run it dvaita not advaita.

 

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

 

Namaste Sadanandaji,

Simply repeating what you say is not a

justification of your position. I am puzzled by the question as to when

Devonian layers winked into existence in the twinkling of an eye. You

don't address this difficulty. Neither have you offered any Vedantic text

which supports your position. A throwaway reference to Advaita Makaranda

won't do. What exactly does it state and more to the point can you find

anything in the writing of Sankara which is supportive of the notion that

the existence of a thing is equivalent to the consciousness of the

existence of that thing. B.S.B. II.ii.28 seems to say otherwise but as I

recall you rejected that because Sankara was not commenting on a scripture

as such.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

Bhaskaran - Yes you are right. I think I responded to Putranmji's similar

question.

Now let us ask the question that I posed before - Does gaagaabuubu exists in the

universe? If I donot know what gaagaabuubu means, can the existence of that be

ascertained in the universe? Either I or some conscious entity has to estabish

its

existence - otherwise it is only anirvacaniiyam - remains indeterminate problem.

Now does God know that gaagaabuubu exists - suppose he says yes, you would ask

him please

show me that - and if he shows you that then you have knowledge of its existence

-back to

my statement -existence of the object is established by knowledge of its

existence. If he

says -it is there but I cannot show you. Now I have to believe him and that

becomes a

pramaNa or means of knowledge -and that knowledge is paroksha jnaanam mediate

and not

immediate knowledge. Since even there also, now I know through the God's word

that it

exists - hence its existence become deterministic by knowledge of its existence.

It is as

simple as that.

 

Remember I am not saying I am creating gaagaabuubu for me to establish its

existence. It

is God's creation since we are talking at vyavahaara level.

 

Hope I am Clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji.

 

I seem to have a common-sense answer to your vexing question.

 

When I say I am Consciousness and " I am, the things I see are " , I

don't of course mean consciousness as we understand it in a

pedestrian manner in our day-to-day lives.

 

The latter consciousness is time-afflicted. So, what appears as

objects to it are also time-afflicted.

 

Now, let us go back to your Devonian seam in the mine. Yes. It is

Devonian from the point of view of time-afflicted consciousness. It

had its birth in the Devonian era when the *limited I*, who am

viewing it in now in 2008, did not exist. So, my geologist friend

and I say that it formed in the pre-historic when we both (the

limited ones) were not existent.

 

You may now counter me by asking how consciousness can be time-

afflicted. Yes, it is time afflicted because it is something that

the *limited I* know as *I have it*. It is that consciousness with

reference to which we say " Oh, I was totally unconscious " after we

recover from a total black out or " I didn't know anything at all "

when we awake. All these, as you and I know are part of the error

(adhyAsa).

 

The Devonian era, the process of prehistoric seam formation etc. are

an object to it as an understanding in the now. The seam as it is

now, the details of the quarry, the geologist and his words are an

object to it in the now.

 

Vedanta says " I am, all these are " . That " I am " is

Consciousness. " All these " include time, the prehistoric eras,

violent volcanic eruptions, formation of mountains, planets, stars,

spectacular galaxies, voracious black holes and what not. Since time

is in Consciousness, Consciousness is beyond time. No temporality

applies to It. The whole universe exists in It unafflicted by

space/time (nirvikalpa).

 

It is this universe, which exists unafflicted and undifferentiated in

Consciousness, that appears as this duality in space/time matrix to

our pedestrian conscousness as itself (i.e. pedestrian

consciousness), time, Devonian era, antiquity of the seam, the

current shape of the seam, quarry, geologist friend etc.

 

Thus, Vedanta doesn't mean to say that something *comes into

existence* at the instance of my (the limited one's) being awareness

of it. On the contrary, all things known and unknown are ever there

in Consciousness and the world is an unraveling of that Consciousness

to our limited pedestrian sentience. Once we understand this, the

veil of mAyA will naturally wrap up and retreat. One can interpose

an Ishwara here if that facilitates a convenient understanding.

 

Hope this answers your doubt.

 

And now, if you are very particular about authority and don't trust

Madathil Nair, you can ruminate Shankara's " bijasyAnkurarivo…. " in

dakshinAmUrti stotraM. Subbuji had done an expert analysis of it

here before.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> 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.

>