Object and Consciousness of the Object

[Guest guest]

Pranams Shri Shastri-ji

Thank you for your note about the " stock " use of the Gandharvanagara

example to differentiate between pratibhasika satyam and vyavaharika

satyam.

 

The context in which I was using that example was however, not from

this standpoint of vyavaharika vs pratibhasika i.e. " cloud " knowledge

vs " castle " knowledge. I only talked about " sky " i.e. substratum and

" castle " i.e. namarooopa - and obviously this example has its

limitations, as does any illustration.

 

The thrust of what I was trying to illustrate (in my 2 prior posts) it

is that any " object " can be relevant only in the sphere of a observer,

a subject, i.e a conscious entity, (and by default entails the triputi

of subject, object and the act of congnition itself - all of which

share the very-same substratum of Awareness or Consciousness). Object

is not a self-existent entity in isolation, even if one were to state

that " it is self-existent being Brahman " . Only the " is " ness of an

object is Existence, and this " is-ness " does not have any object in

its field - it is namaroopa aspect of an object alone that renders it

" an object " and this aspect is ever-relevant only in the realm of a

conscious subject. In my humble opinion there is a mixing of levels

when one says " Object IS. "

 

Dear Michael-ji with regards to your post, yes the truth of ajativada

is only one number away from the doctrine of shunyavada, but the

" one " difference between the One and the zero is the Everything, the

Whole!.

 

My apologies if I have not been clear on what I intended to convey or

if there was scope for it to be misleading in any way.

 

 

Humble pranams.

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> 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.

> S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Michael,

 

If you restrict the meaning of 'object' to 'object for

some subject'

then

you have painted yourself into the corner of ascribing

some mysterious

 

status to those objects-in-waiting as yet to be

crowned by falling

under

the spell of a subject.

 

" object for some subject " ...there can be no other

" type " of object, can there? By our " rules " ,

subject/object are necessarily a pair of opposites

completely and totally dependent upon each other, just

as good/evil, heaven/hell etc have no meaning without

each other. So it seems there can be no

objects-in-waiting. " Undiscovered " objects have no

subject to perceive them, so they will not extist

until seen/known/percieved by a subject...or could I

say " Oh, I perceive that undiscovered object! " ...?

 

We're into Schroedinger's Cat here. Did the cat in

the box exist before a consciousness/person opened the

box and saw it? Yeah, I know! Quantum physics is lots

of fun!

 

Interesting to me that the Greeks got it, although

maybe unconsciously. Aries (god of war) and Aphrodite

(goddess of love) were a pair, a couple. They were

lovers. War and love, tied together. Maybe a hint re

the opposites. They attract because they are

opposites, dependent upon each other just as subject

and object are...so it seems.

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

It is a scientific fact that there are things that we don't

know that we don't know. These are the objects-in-waiting. Call them

occult entities if you wish and do not adjust your set.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

 

It is a scientific fact that there are things that we

don't

know that we don't know. These are the

objects-in-waiting. Call them

 

occult entities if you wish and do not adjust your

set.

 

Okay, I won't adjust my set!

You mentioned finding a shard of pottery in your

garden and apparently considering it a new object.

However, it wasn't a new object. The fact that you

used the words " pottery " , " shard " indicates those

categories were already present as descriptors. It

seems it's impossible to find any new objects because

we already have definitions for all possible objects

within our perception and liguistic structures.

 

What you described is a situation of location. Sounds

as if you found an object in an unexpected place. Now

that is possible. We won't find any new objects

anywhere. We will find objects that already have

identities which we impose on them. So the object

won't be new. Its odd location might be new. I already

know what a " shard " is just as I know what " pottery "

is. Your mind transmitted known qualities to mine via

language.

 

The old saying " There's nothing new under the sun "

seems right.

 

Anything described as " new " must fit into our

perceivable categories or we could not even perceive

it so it's not new. I may be newly percieving it but

the thing in itself is not new. I will go so far as to

say that we will discover objects and we will, by

habit of language, describe it as new. It's new to our

perception only, not new in itself. I'm describing

individual discovery here. I come upon something in

the world I hadn't known before and describe it as

new. Others may have known about it for years but it's

" new to me " . Limits of perception means limits in what

can be perceived.

 

Even astronomical discoveries via stronger telescopes

still is only describing what we're already only

capable of perceiving, qualities within our range of

percpetion. Quasars, black holes etc are not new--our

perception already had the capacity for knowledge of

them. Our discovery of them was " new " , not those

things in themselves...at least that's how I see all

this at this point in " time " ! Well, nothing stay " new "

for long!!!

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

 

Isn't this precisely what is happening, though? The 'piece of pottery' is

not that at all until someone 'discovers' it; it is only clay. It is the

person who 'names' it as something discrete and meaningful. It seems you are

using this example exactly in the metaphorical way it is used in the

teaching of advaita. Effectively every 'thing' *does* sit there as nothing

but brahman until some ignorant person comes along and decides to separate

it from the rest of the apparent creation and give it a name and form of its

own.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

If you restrict the meaning of 'object' to 'object for some subject' then

you have painted yourself into the corner of ascribing some mysterious

status to those objects-in-waiting as yet to be crowned by falling under

the spell of a subject. This status might be the anirvacanaya that Sadaji

refers to. For myself I have no difficulty with the previous reality of

the piece of pottery that I dug up in the garden. It was there all along

as an undiscovered object.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Dear Steve and others,

 

I have not followed this thread and am not a scientist or a philosopher

and so cannot speak about black holes and quasars. I am reminded of what

Sri Ramana used to say about the mind. Wherever we go, the mind follows

like a shadow. If we could travel a billion light years in any

direction, there would always be more to see and more to discover for

the mind. Within the framework of mental perceptions, there is no end to

possibilities.

 

And so ultimately, it is the nature of the mind (and not its

perceptions) that become central in teachings of Advaita.

 

That is why the Upanishads say, " Know that by which all else is known. "

In following these instructions, one does not look for anything (new or

old) and does not go anywhere, but recognizes where one already is.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

Steve Stoker wrote:

> Even astronomical discoveries via stronger telescopes

> still is only describing what we're already only

> capable of perceiving, qualities within our range of

> percpetion. Quasars, black holes etc are not new--our

> perception already had the capacity for knowledge of

> them. Our discovery of them was " new " , not those

> things in themselves...at least that's how I see all

> this at this point in " time " ! Well, nothing stay " new "

> for long!!!

>

>

>