Object and Consciousness of the Object

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Nairji, and others,

Sri Nairji has said:

<<<all things known and unknown are ever there in Consciousness>>>

When I say, the " knower " or the " subject " is also included in the same

consciousness, am I not correct?

Why I mention this is, because the intrisic aspects of existence and

consciouness of anything known and known, i.e. " objects " including the " knower "

i.e. " the subject " belong to Brahman, and when they i.e. the " known " or

" objects " and the " knower " or " subject " are stripped of these aspects, being

their (common) substratum, the " objects " and the " subject " disappear.

However, this " stripping " of is not possible, as there is no " physical distance "

between the substratum and what is projected on the substratum.

There are no two separate entities are there, but appearances of the same entity

only as " two " .

All I wanted to mention is, when we are talking about the " consciousness of the

objects " should we also not ponder about the " consciousness of the subject "

because both have " borrowed " consciousness only?

I may be corrected.

Warm regards and Hari Om

Mani

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji and Madathil-ji,

 

>

> Madathilji wrote:

 

> 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.

>

 

Shifting the frame of reference of doctrine (of proof-of-existence

is necessary for existence) to Ishwara's Consciousness will not

yield intended final result, that is conclusion of non-dual

existence.

 

Let me explain;

 

The position taken by Madathil-ji (also by Putranm-ji) forces to

posit Ishwara's existence independent of my limited awareness.

Otherwise (that is to say existence of Ishwara Himself is not

established unless my limited awareness aware of such existence) we

are back to Sada-ji's position.

 

So, If Ishwara's awareness is independent of my limited awareness,

that leads to duality of existence of limited vs. Ishwara's

awareness.

 

I hope I made clear this implication.

 

Personally I accept the view that all exist due to awarness of

Ishwara only. There are upteen number of vEdic testimony for this

position. For example, shruti says about creation as `icchAmAtram

prabhO srisTi'. The emphasis is the term `iccha' (Will) His Will

can not happen without He being fully aware of what is being

created. If Ishwara does not Wills it (synonym to `if not in His

Will') a object can not exist. Madathil-ji has correctly put this

vEdic concept when he says " all things known and unknown are ever

there in Consciousness and the world is an unraveling of that

Consciousness to our limited pedestrian sentience " .

 

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.

>

> 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.

 

Dear Shri Michael-ji and Shri Sada-ji,

I have not been following this thread and so I do not know whether

my remarks are off the mark. But what Sada-ji seems to say is that

the existence of an object is not established before some one

becomes conscious of it and not that the object itself does not

exist before that.The difference between the two is clear. All

things of empirical reality (vyAvahArika) exist before they are seen

by any one, but their existence is known only after some one has

seen it. But things which have only prAtibhAsika reality, like rope-

snake, have no existence before they are seen by some one, and they

wxist only for the person who sees them. One man may see a rope as a

snake, but another man may see the same rope under the same

circumstances as a rope itself.So the snake comes into existence for

the man who sees it only when he sees it. But the rope, which has

empirical reality was there even before any one saw it.

S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mani-ji.

 

I don't think I understood your question well. I am sure you had

problem wording it due to the complexity of the subject.

 

Let me, therefore, answer you based on the assumption that I

understood you correctly. You said:

 

" There are no two separate entities are there, but appearances of

the same entity only as " two " . "

 

Who can disagree? That echoes the ecstatic exclamation of

Melpathur " OnnAya ninne iha.... " (I can't describe the angst I

experienced when I saw You, the One and only One, as two!)

 

If we really analyze our perceptive processes, they all boil down to

an " I know " . Shankara calls it jAnAmi in dakshiNAmurthi stotra

(Ref: verse beginning " nAnAscidraghatodarastitamaha......). Even

the subject of the transaction of knowing becomes an object in

that " jAnAmi " ocean. If you remove the limited " I " -ness of the

subject in the transaction, " jAnAmi " is like a screen that

encompasses this whole universe of diversity which we divide into

internal and external with reference to the BMI. Just watch it

scintillate in you and be the " jAnAmi " . Despite the glitter and

hallabaloo, you are you are - the ever-present " jAnAmi " screen.

 

So to the end of the verse referred to above. jAnAmIti

tamevabhAntaM anubhAtyedat samastaM jagat (Only That shines as " I

know " , " I know " ; all this world shines after It). Needless

therefore for me to repeat that all the sentience that we encounter

in this world is just an anubhAsa (a shining after or borrowed

shine). Your conclusions are therefore quite right, Mani-ji.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________

 

You said:advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani

wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste, Sri Nairji, and others,

> Sri Nairji has said:

> <<<all things known and unknown are ever there in Consciousness>>>

> When I say, the " knower " or the " subject " is also included in the

same consciousness, am I not correct?

> Why I mention this is, because the intrisic aspects of existence

and consciouness of anything known and known, i.e. " objects "

including the " knower " i.e. " the subject " belong to Brahman, and

when they i.e. the " known " or " objects " and the " knower "

or " subject " are stripped of these aspects, being their (common)

substratum, the " objects " and the " subject " disappear.

> However, this " stripping " of is not possible, as there is

no " physical distance " between the substratum and what is projected

on the substratum.

> There are no two separate entities are there, but appearances of

the same entity only as " two " .

> All I wanted to mention is, when we are talking about

the " consciousness of the objects " should we also not ponder about

the " consciousness of the subject " because both have " borrowed "

consciousness only?

> I may be corrected.

> Warm regards and Hari Om

> Mani

>

>

> R. S. Mani

>

>

>

> Never miss a thing. Make your homepage.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srinivas-ji.

 

Immense thanks for your feedback.

 

I am a Devi bhakta. So, your statement quoted below serves me well in

that context.

 

However, I am passionate about Advaita. Referring back to my previous

post which elicited your response, as limited time-bound sentience, I

would gladly accept your conclusion that everything that unravels

before me is the Will of the Lord.

 

Here, there is an unfortunate chasm between the Lord and the limited

me. The advaitiin in me would like to bridge it.

 

If you refer to my reply of today to Mani-ji, even Melpathur Narayana

Bhattathiri, the author of nArayaNIyaM, the renowned bhakta of

nArAyaNa, has done this when he talked about the One Whom he saw as

two. So, dwaita is astigmatism to me, the Advaitin.

 

My conclusion would, therefore, be:

 

1. As Madathil Nair, the limited sentience, the universe that I

confront (external and internal) is the Lord's Will. I have no

control or say over it.

2. Advaita tells me that I am Brahman - the immutable non-dual. So,

the creation of the diversity (the limited sentience that I am plus

the universe it confronts) has not actually taken place.

3. That the limited sentience apprehends diversity, which actually is

non-existent, is due to an error called adhyAsa.

4. I am Brahman, Consciousness, and the uncreated universe of

diversity *exists* in me. (Verse beginning with bIjasyankurivo... in

dakSiNAmurti stotraM).

5. When the realization of (4) above takes firm root in me, the

limited sentience, I am no more the limited sentience, Madathil Nair,

I am now.

6. Then I am Lord Dakshinamurthi - Brahman, Who I always have been

and am. There is no more any Ishwara then and a Madathil Nair who

endeavours to supplicate Him. Ishwara has been emancipated! He

deserves it for holding my hand through.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

 

 

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote:

......> Personally I accept the view that all exist due to awarness of

> Ishwara only. There are upteen number of vEdic testimony for this

> position. For example, shruti says about creation as `icchAmAtram

> prabhO srisTi'. The emphasis is the term `iccha' (Will) His Will

> can not happen without He being fully aware of what is being

> created. If Ishwara does not Wills it (synonym to `if not in His

> Will') a object can not exist. Madathil-ji has correctly put this

> vEdic concept when he says " all things known and unknown are ever

> there in Consciousness and the world is an unraveling of that

> Consciousness to our limited pedestrian sentience " .

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote:

> Shifting the frame of reference of doctrine (of proof-of-existence

> is necessary for existence) to Ishwara's Consciousness will not

> yield intended final result, that is conclusion of non-dual

> existence.

>

> Let me explain;

>

> The position taken by Madathil-ji (also by Putranm-ji) forces to

> posit Ishwara's existence independent of my limited awareness.

> Otherwise (that is to say existence of Ishwara Himself is not

> established unless my limited awareness aware of such existence) we

> are back to Sada-ji's position.

>

> So, If Ishwara's awareness is independent of my limited awareness,

> that leads to duality of existence of limited vs. Ishwara's

> awareness.

 

Sri Kotekalji, I think the issue is with regard to existence of

objects not validated through any valid pramaana. I believe we accept

Ishvara (total-mind/maaya, etc) in the vyavahaarika standpoint on the

basis of shabda or some valid pramaana. If we (as jiva) are asked

about gaagabubu, then there is no basis for saying " yes " or " no " ; so

the jiva says " I don't know; whether there or not Ishvara knows, but

for me, it is an anirvachaniyam-question. " .

 

The main import of this topic is that when we affirm anything it

should be on the basis of valid pramaana, as accepted within

sampradaya. If no pramaana properly affirms our asserted or desired

existence of an object, then we have to concede our position and not

side one way or other. This care in analysis ensures that we are on

the right track and don't get caught in religious fantasies.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Pranams

 

My namaskarams to both Sada-ji (and Shastri-ji) for bringing to us

the VP in a simplified format. It is a great blessing.

 

When epsitemological issues are taken outside of the context of self-

knowledge or atmavidya, it often ends up spiralling into verbiage,

part of the problem being the very intellect one utilizes in this

exercise, (often of diminishing returns), is a byproduct of the very

ignorance whose scope it seeks to transcend to arrive at an

understanding.

I doubt I can offer any more clarity than what Sada-ji has been

explaining, but perhaps I can attempt to simply offer a more basic

viewpoint - part of this is in a dialog format to facilitate

understanding.

 

First two very basic but extremely crucial points about Vedanta.

 

The only vastu with absolute existence is the subject I - the

knowing principle.

Second, this awareness is a JNAPTI - a know-ING principle and NOT a

JANATI - or a know-ER - another very crucial point.

 

Now as long as these two points are crystal clear, let us try to

understand this issue of existence of an object a bit better.

 

I see a tree.

 

There are three things involved here - a reflected consciousness or

ahankara-saturated " seer " i, a act of seeing, and a object - a tree.

There is a fourth thing, which in a absolute sense is the ONLY

thing, which is the Absolute Consciousness or Knowing Principle,

that enables this whole transaction or vyavahara - which alone IS -

all the other three are only as though being mithya. And

yet " I " " see " a " tree " .

Why? Because of beginingless ignorance or avidya - this entity

the " knower " derives " knowledge " about an " object " the tree.

 

Now let us say in this particular case this jiva is conversing with

another jiva about the age of the tree (to take Michael-ji's

example).

" what is the age of this tree? "

 

Question is quite simple.

Is it really?

 

What is the " tree " - " the tree " is a nama-roopa in the mind of the

knower " i " .

Is the tree the wood>? yes and no. without the wood there is no tree

but the tree in " reality " is this peculiar " thing " or " object " that

is relevant only to this knower who knows it to be a " tree " .

So yes once having known it as a tree one can study the carbon decay

or half life etc etc and say

 

" based on my scientific calculations the age of this tree is 5

million years. "

" Now what is 5 million years old? "

" Did you not hear me - this tree. "

" Really? Is the tree 5 million years old or the carbon in the form

of the tree? And really the subatomic particles? What exactly is the

tree? Is there are a defined stark supra(-or infra-)sub-sub-atomic

particle boundary between the tree and the non-tree in the Universe

5 million years ago or whenever in an absolute sense? "

 

OK you say - Why this hairsplitting? Do you agree that this tree is

5 million years old? Yes. Then do you mean to tell me that 5 million

years ago based on my highly reliable scientific evidence that this

tree did not " exist " simply because there was no one to see it?

Reasonable question?

 

Well let us analyze it. The only thing with absolute existence is

Brahman. This tree, and any " object " cannot be said to " exist " as a

second thing, - independent of the subject, an observer or knower.

OK - how about this - this tree exists as Brahman - after all if

Brahman is everything and is also never non-existent, then this tree

5 million years ago can very well be said to be " existing " - in fact

it provides a continuity for Existence.

 

Not so. Brahman is neither subject nor object - it is beyond the

Subject-Object divison - any " object " independent of a subject is

no " object " - subject in potential form - Brahman is, ekameva

adviteeyam. subject resurfaces - so does seeing, hearing, and so do

objects.

Where/When Brahman alone Is - there is no avidya, and without avidya

there is neither knower nor a object to be known nor a knowing as in

an act of knowing (Janati) Hence alone it is equally incorrect and

downright absurd to say thet Brahman-knower knows this Brahman-

object or Brahman-tree.

This 5 million year old tree can only exist for me - the avidya-

borne knower-me of today - who knows this tree to be 5 million years

old. That is all one can say about it. The avidya under the spell of

which I label this tree a tree cannot be said to exist independent

of me - it pertains ONLY to me - there is no Absolute avidya which

created a tree suspended at a particular point in time and space,

independent of a observer, a ahankara/jiva, to which the avidya

pertained.

 

OK- how about Ishwara? Why cannot we say Ishwara knows the tree

exists? After all Ishwara as Brahman endowed with Its Own Maya-

shakti created this tree. OK<let us repeat this whole prakriya now

with you - the jiva, Mayasahitam Brahman Ishwara, and this tree. I

think you see where we are going with this again.

 

What is Absolute is only awareness or Jnaptih. Choiceless,

objectless awareness. What is Relative is mithya and will always

involve a subject, a object and error or adhyasa.

Minus the subject, you automatically minus the error, no question

now of an object- either existent or nonexistent, there is only

Brahman, One, Nondual.

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

I am puzzled by the question as to when Devonian layers winked into

existence in the twinkling of an eye.

> Michael

>