Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge-9

[Guest guest]

(We are discussing Vedanta ParibhASha(VP) of Dharmaraja Adhvarindra, the way I

understand)

 

9. Perceptuality of Objects; Definition vindicated.

 

Here VP provides the basis for immediate and direct nature of perception. It

defines the perceptuality of an object or an object’s immediate perception in

‘not

being different from the consciousness associated with the subject’. Essentially

the

statement says, for a subject (knower or pramAta) to be conscious of an object

(prameya), consciousness associated with the subject cannot be different from

the

object that is being perceived. It is a statement that baffles the intellect at

first. Because we have learned all along that subject is different from the

object,

and subject can never become an object, and object can never become a subject.

Subject is a conscious entity and object is an unconscious entity. The statement

of

VP is carefully worded which does not deny the superficial differences while not

accepting any substantial difference between the two. In addition the statement

actually relates the object perceived to the subject that perceives the object.

It

says that the consciousness underlying the subject is not different from the

object,

for the object perceived. This understanding comes from the fundamentals of

Advaita. In dRik dRisya viveka, Vidyaranya says – antardRik dRisyayoH bhedam

bihischa brahma sargayoH| AvRiNosya paraashaktiH sA samsArasya kAraNam|| The

difference between the seer (subject) and the seen (object) in the mind, and the

difference between Brahman and the creation (world) outside, is due to the

veiling

power of maaya. It is this perceived difference is the root cause for all human

suffering. Maayaa is that which appears to be there, but is not really there

when

one starts inquiring about its nature. Hence the difference between the seer

and

the seen arises due to maaya; therefore only apparent and not real.

 

The important point here is VP states this as the criterion for perceptuality of

an

object. Requirement for perceptuality is taking one step beyond a simple

statement

that consciousness is underlying substantive for everything in the universe that

includes the perceiving subject and perceived object. The requirement for

perceptuality of an object is the subject consciousness not be different from

the

object perceived. If it is different, the object is non-perceptual. Now are

there

any cases where this requirement is not met? This will be elucidated by VP to

justify the statement, through questions and answers.

 

Q. When I see a jar, I say, ‘I see a jar’. I am the subject, seer, and the jar

is an

object, seen. I am different from the jar, for me to see. In fact whatever I

see, I

am not that. If that is the case, how can a jar or any object that I see is the

same

as the consciousness that I am, or more accurately be one with the limiting

reflected consciousness, the perceiver that I am? The objection is that this

equation of the subject with the object contradicts our experience.

 

A. Stating that the consciousness of the subject not be different from the

perceived

object is not the same as the subject is identical with the object. It only

means

perceptual object having no independent existence apart from the existence of

the

knower, ‘pramAtRisattA atirikta sattAkatva abhAvaH, (other than the existence of

knower, there is no other existence for perceptual objects)’. I can stretch this

statement to relate to the one I have been making, that the existence of an

object

is established by the knowledge of its existence. Here VP puts it in slightly

different form that the perceptuality of an object is having no independent

existence apart from the existence of the subject. That becomes a criterion for

all

perceptions being immediate and direct. If it is not perceptible, does it have

independent existence? – This question is not raised.

 

Let us illustrate this with an example of a perception of a jar. We have

discussed

this aspect before. It was stated that Brahman, pure consciousness, is the

material

cause for the universe. Existence-consciousness-limitless is its intrinsic

nature.

Since Vedanta says Brahman is one without a second, there cannot be anything

other

than Brahman. From this it follows that all objects in this universe, without

exception, are nothing but Brahman alone but with different names and forms –

just

as all golden ornaments are nothing but gold alone with different names and

forms.

Gold remains as gold but appears as varieties of ornaments each with its own

attributes that are different from the other. Hence all the ornaments are just

gold

with superimposed differing attributes. As VP clarifies, superimposition

(adhyAsa)

does not mean one on top of the other. It is like ring’s attributes are

superimposed on gold to be named as ring which differs from the attributes of

bangle

that are superimposed on another piece of gold. Similarly Brahman being the

substantive of all objects, the differences between object A from object B is

only

due to differences in the superimposed attributes of A from B. Hence objects A

and B

differ only in terms of their attributes than in their substantives. Ring

differs

from bangle only in terms of their attributes while the substantives for both

remain

the same, namely gold. Knowledge of A should involve discriminative knowledge

of A

from the other objects in the universe. Similarly is the knowledge of B. Hence

knowledge of any object, since all objects have the same substantive, involves

only

knowledge of its attributes. The substantive of all objects being Brahman, it is

expressed as existence itself. Hence every object is existence + its attributes.

The

perception involves grasping the attributes of the object by the senses.

Existence

being all pervading, everything is in existence only. As discussed before,

existence

is not an attribute to be grasped by senses.

 

So far we have been examining the perception from the point of objects. We need

to

raise the question now in terms of who is the subject, since the statement of VP

is

the perceptuality of object involves consciousness of the subject not being

different from the object. When I see the object, I say I am the seer and the

object is seen. But who is this ‘I am’, the seer or the knower of the object.

Obviously when I say I am the knower, unlike the object, I have to be a

conscious

entity since unconscious entity cannot see or know. Object cannot know itself

nor

can establish its existence by itself. I have to be there to say ‘the object

is’. On

the other hand, object need not have to be there to establish my existence.

That

implies my existence, or to be more general, existence of a conscious entity is

independent of the existence of the inert object. On the other hand, the inert

object’s existence cannot be established independent of existence of knower, a

conscious entity. (This logic is called anvyaya-vyatireka used to establish

dependent and independent relationship between two entities – the two entities

here

being object and the knower of the object). Existence of an object is therefore

established by knowledge of its existence by a knower. Hence VP statement

follows:

The perceptuality of an object depends on its having no independent existence

apart

from the existence of the knower of the object. Based on our recent

discussions, we

caution here that the statement only applies to the perceptuality of the object

and

not its independent existence on its own. Whether it has independent existence

or

not can never be known if there is no knower or pramAta to establish its

existence

by perception. Can one establish its existence by inference? By inference one

can

only establish the possibility of its existence and not its existence. For

validation of object’s existence, inference also rests on perception though

cause-effect relationships or vyaapti. If there is no knower, the existence of

the

object, then, becomes indeterminate or anirvacanIyam.

 

Then the next question is who is that ‘I am’, the knower, the pramaata. While

this

aspect will be address in detail again, it is sufficient here to realize that

the

ever present witnessing consciousness, sAkshI can not be a pramaata or the

knower.

Knower involves a modification or vikaara. According to Advaita, the ever

present

witnessing consciousness, sAkshI is all pervading infinite Brahman who does/can

not

undergo any modification. However, in his presence one can say prameya, pramaata

and

pramaaNa - the tripuTi – the three fold division can exist. If sAkshii is not

pramaata can the mind be the pramaata, the knower. Mind is also an inert

entity,

and by itself cannot be a knower. Knower has to be a conscious entity. Then, who

is

the knower? According to Adviata Vedanta, pramaata, subject or knower is a ever

present consciousness, sAkshI chaitanyam, but reflected in the mind as reflected

consciousness – called cidAbhAsa –commonly known as Ego or ahankaara – which has

the

notion of ‘I am the doer’ or ‘I am the knower’ or ‘I am the enjoyer’ – etc, the

hero

of everybody’s autobiography. As discussed before mind being a subtle matter, it

has

capacity to reflect the light of consciousness of sAkshI and the degree of its

reflection depends on its purity. It is analogous to the degree of reflection of

light depends on the cleanliness of the mirror. To eliminate any

misunderstanding

that can arise that the mind is separate from sAkshI, the pure consciousness, we

need to recognize that like all other objects, mind is also a superimposition on

the

all pervading consciousness, like ring on gold. The substantive of the mind is

sAkshI caitanyam or witnessing consciousness only. In contrast to the inert

objects

which are grosser forms, mind being subtle can express Brahman not only as

existence

but also as ‘reflected consciousness’. Hence pramaata, the knower, is the

reflected

consciousness in the mind.

 

Now we can bring all the three factors – pramaata, prameya and pramANa together

to

complete the perception. When the pramANa operates through the senses forming a

vRitti or mental state in the mind, it is also reflected in the light of

consciousness. Now we have two reflected consciousnesses – one directly the mind

as

pramaata or knower, and the other reflection of the vRitti. Since consciousness

is

all pervading, it pervades the mind too. In contrast to the grosser (bhoutika)

elements superimposed on consciousness Brahman, mind corresponds to subtler

element

(bhUta). Being subtle, the mind can ‘reflect’ the all illuminating consciousness

and

that reflected limiting consciousness is called cidAbhAsa or ahankaara or Ego.

In

the case of mental states or vRitti that corresponds to external or internal

perceptions, its illumination is when it forms in the mind. Thus when an object

is

perceived its mental state is formed and illumined. When the next object is

seen,

the next mental sate is formed and illumined. vRittis are formed sequentially

and

the associated thoughts are also sequential in the mind. However, in forming Ego

or

cidAbhAsa, the mind itself is an object of illumination with its attributes.

Hence

the illumination and reflection occurs as long as mind and its attributes are

there;

that is, all the time when the mind is operating. That includes both the waking

state and deep sleep state. Hence cidAbhAsa or ahankaara or Ego is formed all

the

time when the mind is there.

 

We are using the words superimposed or reflection like a mirror etc, only for

the

purpose of illustration. Mind is superimposition on Brahman like a ring on

gold,

while consciousness is adhiShTAnam or substratum for the mind. Hence the mind is

consciousness alone but appears as inert but subtle object. Since it is subtle,

it

can reflect the light of consciousness much better than gross elements. The

illumination and reflection occurs all the time as long as mind is there. Thus

ego

will be there all the time as long as mind is there. This is true even for

jnAni,

except jnaani is the one who realizes that I am not the ego, and knows that ego

is

just a superimposed entity (adhyAsa) like ring on gold, but I am the substantive

or

adhiShTAnam or the absolute eternal consciousness. Hence mind of jnaani is free

from egotistical notions that I am this or that etc. He will use the ego, as he

uses the mind and the body for transactional purposes. Life itself pulsates

through the mind as a subtle body. The reflected light of consciousness

(cidAbhAsa)

in turn illumines the gross body, the five praNas or physiological functions,

five

sense organs and five organs of action. It is like sun illuminating the moon

and

moon in turn illuming the others. The reflected consciousness, cidAbhAsa, for

all

practical purposes (or transactional purposes or vyAvahArika) acts as the

conscious

entity, although it is borrowed consciousness from the original – sAkshI

chaitanya.

Mind is there during waking and dream sleep states and in potential form in the

deep

sleep state, while sAkshI is there as adhiShTAnam or substratum all the time.

Hence

cidAbhAsa or Ego is there in the waking and dream states and in potential form

in

the deep sleep state. We understand from this analysis that as long as mind is

operating that is during the perceptual process, it is getting illumined by

sAkshI

chaitanyam and therefore Ego is there as bankground reflecting limiting

consciousness for all transactions with the mind. It is this Ego that acts as a

knower or pramAta during perception. The reflection is the reflection of light

of

illumination of consciousness that is all pervading – it is

existence-consciousness.

There cannot be any divisions in consciousness, just like there are no divisions

in

space. Any divisions in space or in consciousness are therefore only for

transactional purposes. Since perception is a transaction, it is said to be

complete when the consciousness reflected as knower, pramaata, unites with the

consciousness reflected in the VRitti formed via the operation of pramANa, that

is

the sense input.

 

Thus, existence-consciousness all pervading Brahman remains as substantive for

all,

the knower, knowledge and the means of knowledge. Consciousness expresses itself

by

its reflection as both the knower or the subject and known or vRitti that is

formed

in the mind via the sense input. Both reflected consciousnesses as a knower and

the

known are in the mind only. The former can be considered as general reflection

in

the mind as a knower (Ego or ahankaara) while the other as particular reflection

in

the vRitti as known. That is both the subject and the object are in the mind.

The

substantive for both is expressed as consciousness or existence. Perception is

said

to be complete when reflected limiting consciousness in the subject is united

with

the reflected limiting consciousness of the object. This is stated in two ways

by VP

in term of consciousness and existence. The perceptuality of the object is when

the

consciousness of the subject is not different from the substantiality of the

object.

‘pramAtRi caitanyaH Eva ghaTa adhiShTAnam ..’, ‘the consciousness of the subject

alone forms the substantive of the pot etc.’ Here VP uses as the word

‘substantive’

or adhiShTAnam, instead of ‘consciousness’ of the pot, since pot is inert. For

perception, we are uniting in terms of reflected consciousness of the subject

and

the object. VP also states this in terms of existence as – ‘perceptual object

has no

independent existence apart from the existence of the subject’, ‘pramAtRi satta

Eva

ghaTAdhi satta, na anyaH’ (VP makes an emphatic statement here that existence of

the

knower alone is expressed as the existence of the pots, etc). Hence the above

two

criteria forms the basis of the immediate and direct perception of an object by

a

subject. The above conditions are expressed in terms of subject, since subject

is

independent while the object has dependent existence, as discussed above. Hence

the

perceptuality of objects such as pots etc is established as direct and immediate

means of knowledge– ‘siddham ghaTAdeH aparokshatvam’. VP says the definition of

perceptuality of an object is vindicated. Hence perceptuality of an object is

defined as its being the same as consciousness or existence of the subject, the

knower. This can be viewed as subject’s consciousness forms the substantive of

the

object perceived or subject’s existence forms the basis for the existence of the

object perceived. I am there the whole universe is perceived and I am there the

existence of the whole universe established. Without me present who can

establish

the existence of the universe or its awareness. Ultimately I alone form the

truth of

the Universe – where I am stands for pure existence-consciousness, Brahman that

I

am. That is advaita Vedanta.

 

In the case of inference – as in ‘the distance hill is on fire because I see the

smoke’- VP says, since the mind does not go to the space covered by the fire,

etc.,

the limiting consciousness of the fire is not united with the limiting

consciousness

of the knower, the existence of the fire is not directly established. It is

distinct from the existence of the subject. Hence the definition of

perceptuality in

terms of immediate and direct knowledge of the object is not violated. In terms

of

our understanding it is the same as the VRitti of the fire that is formed has no

attributive knowledge from the sense input to establish the existence of the

object,

fire. Hence fire is only a mental deduction. Whether there is really fire in the

distant hill or not depends on the efficacy of the deductive logic, hence it is

mediate and indirect.

 

Before we discuss about the structure of the mind, VP presents some discussion

in

terms of questions and answers, which we will take up next.