crock of gold

[Guest guest]

Vaibhav-ji wrote:

Exactly what IS an object?

Is there a single entity, object, thing which remains unchanged even for a

moment?

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

Namaste Vaibhav-ji,

 

Re Objects:

 

(A) There's the ordinary descriptive level of ordinary everyday

perceptions.

(B) There's the theoretical and scientific which is about the same basic

stuff but some of our intuitions are challenged eg. sun rise, existence of

atoms, microbes, space-time continuum and so forth. It's the explanatory

level. Physics.

© The Metaphysical: How things must fundamentally be for things to

appear the way that they do. Questions such as - Why is there something

rather than nothing, what is consciousness anyway, could it arise or

emerge from material. Is Change possible, how is change possible? Etc,

etc.

 

In discussing the various levels one shouldn't confuse them and say one is

more true than the other. Is it correct to say that scientific knowledge

is real knowledge that talk about sunrise is lesser knowledge than

Copernican accuracy? That's another discussion. You may realize that it

is an earth-rise rather than a sunrise but it is sure that your perception

will not change.

 

It is important to mark in our discussions the level that we are referring

to and not make vertigo inducing switches between one and the other

without due warning. " So long as the oneness of the true self is not

realized, nobody entertains the idea of unreality when dealing with the

means of knowledge, objects of knowledge, and the results... " B.S.B.

II.i.14.

 

Your question deals with the object from a scientific point of view which

you seem to hold trumps the everyday and which in turn is trumped by the

Advaitic. Questions need to be answered at the level at which they are

posed.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Respected Michael-ji

Humble pranams.

 

I have already elaborated my understanding of the advaitic position on this

issue in posts 39618,39603,39567, etc

There is perhaps little to be gained by reiterating the same for either of us.

 

I will only add a small note here based on your ref to the BSB.

 

The Sutrabhashya talks about, as you are well aware, 5 different types of

cognition or khyatis.

I shall time-permitting elaborate about them soon - but the two that are of

relevant to the discussion are Atmakhyati and Anirvachaniyakhyati.

 

Atmakhyati (perhaps what we today would refer to as subjectivism or idealism) -

where there are no external objects at all - anything is perceived is but

projection of consciousness alone. You are very correctly objecting to any

notion that one cannot deny that there are objects " out there " which do have

existence - that the flower you are seeing does not derive its existence from

the perceiver you.

 

This however is neither the advaitic position, and again, from what I can

understand, this is not what Sada-ji is talking about.

What he is referring to is Anirvachaniyakhyati - the existence or satta to

external objects that we cognize is certainly not denied. After all the satta

for every manifest entity is Brahman alone. But as long as an object is not

perceived by a subject i.e. a conscious entity, nothing can be said about its

nama-roopa aspect - in other words, one refrains from any categorization about

either its existence or non-existence - it is sat-asat vilakshana or mithya.

 

Coming to this crock in your poser.

" Let us imagine that you Mr.X have buried in a secret place a crock of gold. I

Mr.Y do not know of the existence of this crock of gold, only you Mr.X are

privy to that information. Does it exist for me or am I aware of its

existence? No. Does it exist? Yes. Here there is a perfectly intelligible

separation between the existence of a thing and the knowledge of the existence

of a thing. "

 

Please look at this a bit carefully - this " universally " known object has

already been viewed by a conscious entity X, has been identified as a " thing "

based on its nama and roopa, and now has a particular locus in time and space.

Both the universality of it being known as well as its objectification by a

conscious entity are pre-requisities for us to definitively categorize the

existence of this particular object as a crock.

 

Trust this clarifies.

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva

advaitin

Saturday, March 8, 2008 6:18:30 AM

crock of gold

 

 

Namaste Vaibhav-ji,

 

Re Objects:

It is important to mark in our discussions the level that we are referring

to and not make vertigo inducing switches between one and the other

without due warning. " So long as the oneness of the true self is not

realized, nobody entertains the idea of unreality when dealing with the

means of knowledge, objects of knowledge, and the results... " B.S.B.

II.i.14.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs