Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge - 10

[Guest guest]

We are discussing Vedanta ParibhASha(VP) of Dharmaraja Adhvarindra - as I

understand.

 

10. Questions related to Perceptuality

 

VP established the criteria for perceptuality is that the subject consciousness

is the same as the object. Object is nothing but consciousness (Brahman) with

name and form, i.e., attributes of the object. Perceptuality of the object in

the mind then is when the consciousness underlying the subject becomes one with

the consciousness that is substantive of the object, the attributes of the

object being only superimpositions on the substantive, consciousness. That ‘I

am conscious’ is direct and immediate knowledge as no means is required to know

that I am a conscious entity. Criterion of perceptuality therefore demands the

unity in the consciousness of the subject and that of the object. We can say

that perception of an object is direct and immediate since substantive of both

the subject and the object in the mind is consciousness alone, playing a

duality- a unity at substantive level and duality at the transactional level.

 

Additional requirement and implication of the criteria of perception are

illustrated using question and answer format.

 

On Dharma and Adharma:

 

Q. If the criterion for perceptuality is that the subject consciousness is the

same as the object, then one should perceive righteous and unrighteous (dharma

and adharma) instead of inferring them based on the good and bad results that

they generate. The criteria for perceptuality have been met since the

consciousness limited by them is not different from the subject consciousness

and existence of righteousness etc is not apart from that of the subject.

 

A. That is not so. Here the VP reminds us besides the above criteria at

substantial level, there is also a requirement at transactional level that the

mental mood should have attributes as its contents. In fact, to put more

exact, the attributes of the mental moods should be perceptible attributes.

For righteous and unrighteousness the attributes are imperceptible as was

discussed before.

 

Hence we can restate the criteria of perceptuality of an object. The criteria

involve both at substantial level and at transactional level (object has to

have attributes at transactional level which are superimposed on their

substantive Brahman). At the substantive level, the consciousness and

existence of the subject should not be different from the object. At

transactional level the mental mood or vRitti that corresponds to the object

should have contents – attributes of the object. The complete perception of an

object involves - Brahman + the attributes of the object. Brahman is

substantial and attributes are superimpositions or adhyaasa. VP establishes the

criteria for perceptuality in terms of both. In the case of dharma and adharma,

righteous and unrighteous, the attributes are imperceptible. Even if we meet

the substantial part, the transactional part is not met. Because of the

imperceptibility of their attributes the knowledge of dharma and adharma is

difficult and has to be known only through shaastras.

Can perception of one attribute cause perception of the other?

 

Q. If an object has two attributes say color and size, the perception of one,

say color, should also lead to perception of the other, the size. Since both

attributes are locussed on one object, the substantive, the limiting

consciousness is the same for both. When mind through senses perceive one

attribute and VRitti is formed. We are meeting all the criteria for

perception; the consciousness and existence of the knower, subject, is the same

as that of the object and object has perceptible attribute. Since object is

meeting all the perceptuality criteria, one should perceive the object with the

color and the size. Hence, perception of one attribute should lead to the

perception of the other.

 

A. No. when one perceives only one attribute, say color, the vRitti associated

with it will have only that attribute. The consciousness and the existence of

the subject with the object only extend to that attributive existence. For

perception of the size, the VRitti has to have the associated attribute, the

size – for perception of the size of the object. Perception of one does not

lead to the other. A vRitti associated with other attributes have to be formed

for complete or unambiguous cognition of the object.

 

What is implied in the perceptuality criteria is the perception is limited to

the vRitti of the object formed. If the sense data is incomplete, the object

perception is also incomplete to that extent. We defined object as limiting

consciousness-existence (Brahman) + A + B + C + D + …. attributes. For

perceptuality, the limiting consciousness-existence of the subject extends to

the limiting consciousness-existence of the object + whatever attributes the

senses have gathered up to the point, say A and B but not C and D. Then the

immediate and direct knowledge of the object involves object with A and B

attributes but not with C and D. If C and D are imperceptible for different

reasons, the object devoid of C and D are perceived. In the subsequent

recognition process if A and B are not sufficiently discriminative to recognize

the object from other similar object based on memory, then knowledge could be

erroneous. Hence VP says the definition of perceptuality is not wrongly

extended.

 

Perceptuality of internal perceptions:

 

Q. If we accept the perceptibility criteria as stated above then we cannot

extend this to internal perceptions. If we extend it to internal perceptions

involving mental states then we may run to infinite regress of mental state

having a mental state. Since that is not admitted, the perceptuality criteria

cannot be validated for internal perceptions. The internal perception involves

having a mental state itself as an object of perceptions. For perceptuality,

object should be the same as the consciousness-existence of the subject,

knower, with a vRitti consisting of attributes of the object. vRitti is a

mental state and the situation for internal perception reduces to mental state

having a mental state as an object and thus it leads to infinite regress.

 

A: That is not so, says VP. Even though we avoid infinite regress by not

admitting a metal state to be an object of another mental state, mental state

is allowed to be its own object. Hence the object is not separate from the

mental state itself. We have consciousness-existence of the subject not

different from the object, which is consciousness-existence as a mental state.

The contents of the mental state are the attributes of itself as an object –

such as, happiness, anger, compassion, etc. The mental state itself is the

object of perception and there is no need of a separate object. Either way the

end result is the same. Subject or knower perceives these emotions directly and

immediately as these mental moods arise in the mind. VP states that the

criteria for perceptuality are validated even in internal perceptions of

emotions; happiness, anger, love, etc.

 

Further explanation about the mental states:

 

Here VP extends the definition of a mental state. Up to now we have considered

a mental state is vRitti, a perturbation in the mind which has its substantial

content as existence and consciousness of the knower and its transactional

content, the attributes of the object. One can think of vRitti as wave in the

ocean which when it rises is illumined in the light of consciousness of the

sAkshI. The reflected light of consciousness from the illumination is the

knowledge of the vRitti or the mental state. Hence all mental states are

illumined by sAkshI, witnessing consciousness and known because of the

reflection, in analogy of light falling on a body and the reflected light

revealing the object. We have extended next the mental state to include

internal perceptions, the contents of the vRitti being emotions such as

happiness, anger, etc. Mental state itself is an object of perception since

unlike in the external perceptions there is no object external to the mind.

This concept is now extended further to include even the mind with its

attributes as an object of perception.

 

The mind, as we know, is matter and thus an inert entity. It is not

self-effulgent to know itself. For it to be known, it has to be illumined by

the light of illuminating consciousness of the sAkshI and the reflected light

of consciousness forms the knowledge of the mind. Hence mind itself is an

object of knowledge. Thus mind is a peculiar entity – which acts as both the

subject as well as an object. (Because of this reason only there is lot of

confusion, particularly in the western philosophies, to consider mind as the

conscious entity, a subject, at the same time considering it as an object for

analysis by both philosophers and psychologists). Mind can act both as a

subject and an object. When I say I know my mind or I changed my mind, I am

treating the mind as an object that I know and that I can change. Thus the mind

and its attributes are directly illumined and cognized as such. VP says in

considering the mind with its attributes as objective knowledge, we can

consider the mind as though it is also a mental state with its attributes as

the contents. Hence, perceptuality criteria can now be applied in the cognition

of the total mind and its attributes, thus the definition of perceptually is

quite broad or is not narrow.

 

Mind as a subject:

 

In perceptuality of objects, we stated that once perceptuality criteria are

met, the objects are known directly and immediately. We can ask the question,

‘who is that ‘I’, the subject or the knower, who comes to know the objects,

this and that’? It is the experience of everyone that he, the individual, is

the knower. ‘I am a knower’ – pramAta - is also appears to be a mental state

that arises when the knowledge of ‘this’ takes place. It involves a vRitti that

tries to own that knowledge that has taken place (called pramANa phalam or

fruit of the knowing process). Thus we have two mental states – ‘this is a pot’

followed by ‘I know the pot’. They are called idam vRitti and aham vRitti,

‘this thought and I thought’. Thus mind itself seem to act as though it is both

a subject and an object. But we know that mind is a matter and cannot be the

subject, knower, since knower has to be a conscious entity. The

consciousness-existence that is all pervading ever present is SAkshI or

witnessing-consciousness. In advaita Vedanta, witnessing consciousness does

not play any active role, even witnessing that includes witnessing of vRittis

that arise in the mind. It is self-shining ever present entity; yet in whose

light all things get illumined or witnessed or become known. Hence, it does

not do any witnessing action but in its light things get witnessed. Thus, mind

and its attributes are known because of the light of consciousness from sAkshI

that illumines them. When the illuminated consciousness gets reflected by mind

and its attributes, they become known. Hence Krishna says – under my

presidentship, the prakRiti manifests itself as the whole creation – I am not

the doer but things are done in my presence – It is in that sense witnessing is

implied for sAkshI, as witnessing consciousness.

 

Therefore, when I say ‘I know this’, I am the knower; the knower ‘I am’ is not

the sAkshii the witnessing consciousness, since knowing is a process that

involves modification and sAkshI does not or cannot (being infinite) undergo

any transformation. Before the knowledge took place, I was ignorant of ‘this’;

and now I am knowledgeable of ‘this’. Ignorant individual has been transformed

into a knowledgeable individual (with reference to ‘this’). That constitutes a

modification or vikaara. Hence subject or knower, ‘I am’ can not be the sAkshI,

since sAkshI cannot undergo any modification. At the same time, knower has to

be a conscious entity, since unconscious entity cannot know. Then who is the

knower? A short answer is it is jiiva or ego who is the knower, since it is

that who claims as ‘I am the knower’, ‘I am a doer’ and ‘I am an enjoyer’, etc.

Then the next question is who is jiiva or ego, in relation to the mind and its

moods. According to Advaita Vedanta, jiiva or ego is also a mental state that

arises constantly, particularly in the waking and dream states. It is

consciousness-existence that I am, identifying with reflected limiting

consciousness in the mind called cidAbhAsa is jiiva. Generally, when any

mental mood arises, it is immediately illumined, and the reflected illumination

constitutes the consciousness of the mood or knowledge of the mood (We are

using mental mood and metal state interchangeably). The contents of the mental

mood is ‘this’. That is, ‘this’ can be variable depending on the mental mood

that arises at that time – it could be intellect or mind or the body.

 

The reflected consciousness with the identification of the mental mood as ‘I am

this’ – constitutes cidAbhAsa or ahankaara or Ego, or the one who takes the

role of the subject in relation to an object. Thus ego always manifests in

relationships – Otherwise it is pure reflecting consciousness in the mind – as

knower, I am. This is called ‘aham vRitti’ – a mental modification of ‘I am’.

It is a vRitti, mental mood, but rises in the mind which is illumined directly

and immediately by sAkshI as the knowledge of the object vRitti takes place.

Here the whole mind is considered as mental state, in contrast to object

generated mental states. Illumination of the whole mind by sAkshI is like

general light falling in the room everywhere or stage lights illuminating the

whole stage. As long as the mind is functioning, mind as mental mood is

continuously present and it gets illumined in the presence of witnessing

consciousness. The reflected consciousness (same as knowledge) of the mind as

mental state takes the form as ‘I am’ – as existence-consciousness, since that

is the substantive for everything in the universe. The subject ‘I am’ cannot

just remain without having a tangible object that it can identify with - that

is mind cannot remain without thinking. Other mental states that arise in the

mind are like actors coming and leaving the stage who also get illumined by the

stage lights as well as the reflected light from the stage. When other vRittis

start associated with intellect, or subjective feelings of emotions or physical

body along with physiological function etc, the general reflecting

consciousness in the mind as ‘I am’ now identifies with ‘this’ – this being

related to vRittis that are locussed on objects starting from intellect,

emotions, memory, and to gross physical body. These translate as ‘I am this’,

‘I am this’, ‘I am this’, etc where ‘this’ keeps changing, or ‘this is mine’,

etc, since perceptuality criteria involves unity in the existence-consciousness

of the subject with object. This constitutes the formation of ego, where ‘I am’

is the general reflecting consciousness in the mind (which can be considered as

vRitti itself as an object) now identifying with particular vRittis generally

associated BMI (body, mind and intellect).

In the language of VP the reflected consciousness of the Vritti is the

knowledge of myself as ‘I am this’. That ‘this’ can be starting from the

intellect, the emotional mind or physical body – to all that contained in the

pages and pages of one’s autobiography or bio-data. Thus, when mind and its

attributes get directly illumined by sAkshI chaitanyam, cidAbhAsa or reflected

limiting consciousness that is formed is ahankaara or jiiva or the ego. The

reflected light of illumination can illumine subsequent objects just as the

reflected light from the moon can illumine the objects. Because of its

capacity to illumine further ahankaara or Ego also assumes that it is the

knower or subject, although it is actually ‘borrowed light of consciousnesses

from the sAkshI.

 

Self Realization:

 

We can now appreciate what is meant by self-realization involving the mind.

Self or sAkshI does not need self realization since it is ever shining all

pervading pure consciousness. Mind being inert cannot have self-realization,

yet without mind there cannot be any self-realization. As VP says mind itself

can constitute a vRitti. All vRittis are illumined by sAkshI and the reflected

light of illumination is knowledge that includes self-knowledge. Hence

self-knowledge is due to reflection of the pure consciousness by the mind. The

general reflection of the light of consciousness in the mind is knowledge of ‘I

am’. When the mind is ignorant, it identifies ‘I am’ vRitti, which is more

permanent, with other vRittis which are variables, whose contents keep changing

with BMI, body or mind or intellect. Hence a combined (united reflected

consciousness of subject and object) mental state ‘I am this’, which is needed

for all transactions, forms the current understanding of I am, since I am

ignorant of my true nature. When Vedanta teaches – you are not ‘this’ –‘neti –

neti – not this, not this’ guiding us to drop the identification of ‘I am’ with

‘this’. What is involved is not dropping ‘this’ by going into ‘this-less state

such as nirvikalpa samAdhi or deep-sleep’, but by dropping identification with

‘this’. When the identification is dropped, what is left then is pure

reflecting consciousness or knowledge of I am. This ‘I am’ is pure reflected

light of consciousness without any identifications, that is, the reflection of

sAkshI, the all pervading consciousness. Hence self knowledge is the knowledge

(in the mind) that the reflected light is nothing but pure light alone. This is

similar to knowing that the reflected sunlight in the room from all corners is

nothing but sunlight only. That reflected light of consciousness includes not

only the general reflections all around in the mind but even the localized

reflections by vRittis that keep forming due to perception of the world of

objects, involving ‘this’, ‘this’ and ‘this’. That is the unity in the

consciousness of the subject with the object, which is a criterion for

perceptuality. Realization, therefore, is an understanding that I am not only

sAkshI but sAkshyam too, that is I am not only the witnessing consciousness but

witnessed reflected consciousness also. That is I am beyond both sAkshI and

sAkshyam that ever present pure consciousness that I am. This knowledge takes

place in the mind only as reflected consciousness. Interesting aspect is we

need a reflected consciousness to recognize that I am not the reflected

consciousness but the pure consciousness that is getting reflected because of

the presence of upAdhis. That is we need a mind to say I am not the mind. We

need body to say I am not the body. We need speech to say I am not the speaker.

Thus we need upAdhis to say I am not the upAdhis. Without the upAdhis there is

no realization – since without upAdhis who is there to realize what? Hence VP’s

declarative statement in the beginning itself that all perceptual knowledge is

nothing but pure consciousness alone.

 

As long as the mind is there, the reflection will be there. Hence for a jnaani,

who has understood that I am that light of consciousness beyond any reflections

(that understanding is by the reflected consciousness only like reflected room

light realizing that even while reflection is occurring I am actually the

original light without which no reflection is possible), can still enjoy all

the reflections and uses upAdhis identifying with them, for the purpose of

transactions. Hence jnaani, even while identifying with upAdhis does not take

himself to be the upAdhis – that is identifying with the intellect knows that

he is not the intellect, identifying with the mind and its emotions knows that

he is not the mind and the emotions, and identifying with the body knows that

he is not the body with its problems. He is considered as JIvan mukta,

liberated while residing in the limited upAdhis. The upAdhis drop out due to

exhaustion of even the prArabda karma, when there is no compelling reason to

maintain them. Since that includes the subtle body, which is mind with all its

components, all transactions cease including jiiva-hood. There is no more cause

for transmigration or rebirth. He is now pure consciousness itself even without

any reflections – that is called videha mukti. We will address this issue again

when we discuss about jiiva and jiiva sAkshI.

 

Coming back to the mind, VP states here that the mind and its attributes

including the ego can be considered as mental states, which are illumined and

the reflected limiting consciousness forms the knowledge of these states. The

perceptuality criteria can be applied by considering the mind and its

attributes also as vRittis. Just because we are considering the mind and its

attributes are also vRitties with associated attributive objects for the

purpose of direct and immediate perception, we are not contradicting our

assumption that they are directly illuminated by sAkshI chaitanyam. To be

cognized by direct illumination by sAkshI chaitanyam does not mean that the

objects of witness cannot be vRittis or mental states. It only means that for

their cognition we do not need help from any sense organs. In addition, it also

means that the other means of knowledge such as inference is not needed since

cognition of the mind and its attributes are direct and immediate. Hence VP

says that the advaitic masters have admitted ego or cidAbhAsa as a mental state

which can be cognized directly and immediately, since the criteria for

perceptuality are met.

 

Application to illusions:

 

The question next addressed is concerning the prAtibhAsika objects – such a

snake where there is a rope or silver in a shell. Because of the limited data

from the senses, the attributive knowledge of the object is not sufficient for

correct cognition of the object. The perceptuality condition of the object are

met and therefore even when there are errors in the cognition, the cognized

object is recognized based on the attributes available for the mind. The error

occurs in the recognition process from the memory. Cognitive condition or

perceptuality criteria have been applicable even in the case of illusory

perceptions and therefore VP says they are not restrictive or narrow.

Hence in summary, an object is said to be cognized by perception, when (1) it

is cable of being perceived, (2) it has no independent existence apart from the

consciousness associated with the subject or knower, and (3) which has the

limiting adjunct a mental state or vRitti in the form of the object

(attributive content of the object).

 

In forming the vRittis or mental states Nyaaya philosophers have considered

various other relations between the substantives and the attributes, and how

the sense organs relate to these in grasping and forming mental states. We

have discussed already some aspects of these, such as samyoga and samavaaya.

Additional relations are considered such as samyukta-tAdAtmya, samyukta

abhinna-tAdAtmya, sannikarSha, etc. These are involved in the production of

mental states of objects with attributes that are revealed by reflected

consciousness. From advaita point all are superimpositions on the all

pervading conscious existent entity, Brahman.

 

Next we will consider the components of the mind.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda