Object and Consciousness of the Object

[Guest guest]

Shyam-ji wrote:

As an example, take a cloud in the sky which is shaped like a castle. From

the

standpoint of the sky, there is only sky - no castle. But for a person

seeing

the sky he is able to see a castle which is 100 feet tall, etc - he may

even be

able to study the " castle " and say based on the density, etc it formed so

many

days ago, and may burst at such and such time, etc. The existence of this

" castle " in this case is not predicated on the perception of the jiva, in

the

sense that its existence is borrowed from the sky alone - but the

attributive

existence i.e. the nama-roopa existence, its being a 3 storied castle, and

blue

in colour, etc is relevant purely from the observer's viewpoint.

 

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

Namaste Shyamji,

It is worthwhile looking at the intuitions that

is fundamental to Advaita. Sankara in the preamble to the B.S.B. affects

puzzlement. How can it be that something which ought to be impossible ie.

knowledge, yet is? In other words he is led to consider that there is a

fundamental way reality is constructed that causes this paradox. There is

a tension between the way that things must fundamentally be and how they

appear. Yet we must not over accentuate the notion of appearance;

knowledge is real enough and so is communication: it is their actuality

that causes us to probe deeper. However this actuality is not

free-standing or self-supporting which is why Tripura Rahasya says that

when we take the world to be the basis of its own reality it is then

unreal.

 

There are those who would regard this subsuming of reality as tantamount

to unreality, who would say that the world being without foundation within

itself must be regarded as 'unborn'. This is the strong doctrine of

ajativada which is but a whisker away from the sunyavada of the scholiasts

of the void.

 

To emphasize the substratum as being the sole reality is to forget that of

which it is the substratum. The observer's reality is then real enough.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

>

> So an object does not borrow its existence from the perception but

from the satyam which is its substratum - so object IS, mind IS and

perception IS.

> All being mithya and everything that is mithya has Existence which

is borrowed from satyam alone - there cannot be anything in mithya

which has existence depending on anything OTHER than satyam, and

hence alone nothing in mithya can be nonexistent including time and

space.

>

> BUT one thing - whenever we speak of mithya we are by default in

the realm of avidya and hence the discussion cannot begin with a

perspective which does not include the jiva. Without jiva/ avidya/

(nonperception of substarum) agrahana+anyathAgrahaNa (consequent

projective perception of " another " ) / - without this whole process

there is no duality and without duality there is no object, no mind,

no perceiving or seeing or any means of objectification. Brahman

cannot perceive - cannot know - where Brahman IS there is naught

else.

>

> As an example, take a cloud in the sky which is shaped like a

castle. From the standpoint of the sky, there is only sky - no

castle. But for a person seeing the sky he is able to see a castle

which is 100 feet tall, etc - he may even be able to study

the " castle " and say based on the density, etc it formed so many

days ago, and may burst at such and such time, etc. The existence of

this " castle " in this case is not predicated on the perception of

the jiva, in the sense that its existence is borrowed from the sky

alone - but the attributive existence i.e. the nama-roopa existence,

its being a 3 storied castle, and blue in colour, etc is relevant

purely from the observer's viewpoint.

>

> Humble pranams

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

>

> Dear Shyam-ji,

The cloud appearing as a castle is an illusion similar to a rope

appearing as a snake. Like the rope, the cloud has vyAvahArika

reality. Like the snake, the castle has only prAtibhAsika reality.

All vyAvahArika objects exist before they are seen by any one. They

are seen only because they already exist. But the illusory snake was

not there before some one wrongly saw it and exists only for him,

because another person may not necessarily see that same rope as a

snake under the same citcumstances. The same thing applies to the

castle which is also an illusory appearance. This difference between

vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika realities is established in advaita.

A jiva is necessary for cognizing a vyAvahArika object, but it is

not necessary for it to exist. Its existence is independent of any

one perceiving it.

The illusory castle you have referred to is called Gandharvanagara

in the bhAshya. It is equated with illusory snake, etc., by Sri

Shankara.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

__