Object and Consciousness of the Object

[Guest guest]

Sri Sastriji wrote:

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

 

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

 

Namaste Sri Sastraji,

Isn't your account of Sadanandaji's view

equivalent to saying of an object " It was not known to exist until someone

knew of its existence " which is undeniable but not very informative. Is

he saying that the object existed before anyone became conscious of it

which is the commonsense thesis that both you and I hold and which is

consonant with advaita in my opinion. Or is he saying something

different?

 

Thank you for your lucid remarks and the series on sabda according to VP,

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sorry to be a bit irreverent, but this thread brings to mind a couple

of limericks which I heard as an undergraduate (and which Dennis,

Michael and Greg are likely to have heard as well).

 

The first limerick is:

 

The Bishop of Berkeley said: 'God

must find it exceedingly odd

that the sycamore tree

continues to be

when there's no one about in the quod.'

 

The second limerick is a supposed reply from the almighty:

 

'Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd.

For I'm always about in the quad.

So the sycamore tree

continues to be,

as observed by yours faithfully, God.'

 

Beneath the irreverence, I'd suggest that these limericks may have

something to tell us about the paradoxical absurdity of the

phrases 'consciousness of an object' or 'knowledge of an object'.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

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.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 

 

" shyam_md " <shyam_md

 

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:42:46

To:advaitin

Re: Object and Consciousness of the Object

 

 

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@ <advaitin%40> s.com,

ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

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

existence in the twinkling of an eye.

> Michael

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams

My apologies for this repeat post.

The following paragraph in my original post without breaks seemed difficult to

follow and I am re-stating it as intended

**********

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, etc, so do objects.

Where/When Brahman 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.

*********

Once again my apologies for the repost.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[Guest guest]

On 13/02/2008, putranm <putranm wrote:

>

> 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.

>

 

brahmANDa purANa contains the well-known lalitA sahasranAma and lalitA

trishati stotra-s. There is a bhAShya on the lalitA trishati by

sha~Nkara bhagavatpAda.

[Guest guest]

Enjoy this variation. There are many on Berkely on the web!

______________________________

 

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Sorry to be a bit irreverent, but this thread brings to mind a couple

> of limericks which I heard as an undergraduate (and which Dennis,

> Michael and Greg are likely to have heard as well).

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I didn't give the link. Here it is:

 

http://stopthatcrow.blogspot.com/2006/05/bishop-george-berkeley.html

________________________________

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Enjoy this variation. There are many on Berkely on the web!

> ______________________________

>

> advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > Sorry to be a bit irreverent, but this thread brings to mind a

couple

> > of limericks which I heard as an undergraduate (and which Dennis,

> > Michael and Greg are likely to have heard as well).

>

[Guest guest]

List Moderators' Note: Sri Shastriji's very first post of the referenced series

is post # 39553. Follow the thread: <shabdapramANa in VP- 1> to get a coherent

reading. Do not look at other threads which will be confusing since many topics

are simultaneously discussed. We hope that this clarifies your enquiry.

advaitin/message/39553

==========================

 

Sarvabhya Namo NamaH!

This message is addressed for Sri S.N. Shastri ji!

I would like to know, Sir, where is the next part of Sabd Pramana in VP-1.

There apprear to be a mess in postings. I dont find any logical flow. May be i'm

ignorant. Plz try to avoid junk or intermixing of various topics. Shastri ji

Sir, kindly post all about that topic ( Pramana in VP)!

Dhanyavadah!

 

 

 

 

 

 

5, 50, 500, 5000 - Store N number of mails in your inbox.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> On 13/02/2008, putranm <putranm wrote:

> >

> > 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.

> >

>

> brahmANDa purANa contains the well-known lalitA sahasranAma and lalitA

> trishati stotra-s. There is a bhAShya on the lalitA trishati by

> sha~Nkara bhagavatpAda.

>

 

Sri Rameshji, thanks for the clarification. I am an ignoramus in these

things. Anycase, I don't have time to take up serious study of

epistemenology at the moment.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

List Moderators's Note: Inspite of repeated appeal some members continue to

include the entire post of previous posters and please keep only the minimum

necessary part of such postings. Thanks for your cooperation.

=====================

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> Namaste All,

> Now that 'Methods of Knowledge' has been

accepted as a

> useful text may I direct the members' attention to page 69 in which

Swami

> Satprakashananda deals with the thought of Berkeley and its

implications

 

 

Namaste,Michaelji,IMHO,

 

Within illusion as John Lennon said 'anything is possible'. Both

positions are not incorrect. An object at one level exist separate

from the observer and its perception, at another more deeper level it

is just part of a energy soup and is not differentiated but the

potential to differentiate is there as it is all part of the

Universal Mind/Mahat. This all really shows that nothing really

happens at all...........Hu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

> " But according to Sankara, the existences of sensible objects do not

> depend on their perceptions; perceived or unperceived they exist as

such.

> Jadunath Sinha aptly observes:

> " Berkeley argues that the existence of a sensible object consists in

being

> perceived - esse is percipi - and therefore it is an idea of the

mind.

> Sankara on the other hand, argues that an object is perceived

because it

> actually exists external to the mind; an object is distinctly

perceived as

> existing independent of the act of perception. No one can argue a

fact of

> experience out of existence. " . (Sinha's book/Indian Realism)

 

 

Here the issue of existence is established by the knowledge of its

existence (through pratyaksha). Shankara says then there is a definite

object there independent of " what " you perceive it to be. Berkeley

perhaps is saying that " existence " cannot be separated from the " what "

of perception.

 

If 10 blind people feel an elephant and give 10 different

descriptions, the common factor is the existence established through

its knowledge. As to " what " is that " sensible object " , that will be

relative to each person's pratyaksha, unless we are willing to take a

particular standpoint (say that of a non-blind person). Then that

person can characterize the " real " object. (That is what we do with

shabda pramaana.) In any case, all will accept that the object exists

independent of their " what " .

 

I think Shankara's objective in this argument is to not get the

vyavahaarika viewpoint caught in idealism, etc. In vyavahaarika

standpoint, there is jagat, Ishvara, jiva; there are unique

distinctions, and jagat has specifics about it independent of jiva's

perception of it. But for the jiva to describe the " what " of anything,

it must establish existence through its knowledge.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

 

> My problem is with the idea of the individual time bound consciousness

> being linked to the existence or non-existence of the object in itself.

> This is what Sadanandaji appears to be saying.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

 

Michael - PraNAms

 

First my apologies if I sounded as what I know is correct. I keep repeating as

you said

what I think I am correct. That part yes.

 

Second part, I must also apologize for my poor communication skills. The last

paragraph

that you wrote is not I what am saying or appear to be saying either, at least

to me.

 

From the Iswara's point He knows what exists. The universe is not jiva's

creation. The

existence of the universe due to maaya is as real as the wielder of maaya - the

whole

thing is vyavahaara satyam -anirvachaniiyam is also within the systyem when we

say the

world is mityaa.

 

From jiiva's point is the whole analysis is being done. Unless he knows the

existence of

the object is not established - from his perspective. We do not need even

Vedanta to

stipulate that.

 

Now from aviate point - brahma satyam = jagat mithyaa - the second statement

also implies

the whole world is name and form superimposed on Brahman. Naama is naming and

that can

not be done unless one knows - hence Scriptures says vaachaarambhanam vikaaro

naamadheyam

- the creation is by naming by - hence from Iswara's point too the creation

starts with

tat aikshata - that involves planning for the creation. He knows what he is

creating.

Hence knowledge starts before he himself becomes many. Mithyaa itself is sat

asat

vilaxanam - that is the whole of adhyaasa bhaashya that starts before

Brahmasutra

bhaashya.

 

About Suutra 2-28 - I did discuss it when Shree Bejamin raised - Subbu also

mentioned

about it latter if I remember - the whole of second chapter of Brahmassutra is

centeredd

on negation of naastika darshaNas - That suutra is intended for negation of

suunya vaada

- hence it says - it is not unreal since it is experienced. Hence double

negative is

used; not and un real - that is what mithyaa is.

 

I ams still out of town and could not respond. I mentioned Advata Makaranda -

not

intended to throw a statement without basis - Since there was extensive

discussion

related to that text couple of weeks back - but the supporting statements were

provided

in the previous paragraphs, which apparently did not get noticed in the way they

are

intended. If that did not come across in all my mails - it may not come across

any more,

so taking the blame, as suggested by Sri Ram Chandran, I will keep to my

understanding.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

Fr