Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge - 13

[Guest guest]

We are continuing after a long break, the series on Vedanta ParibhASha (VP) of

Dharmaraja Advarindra (DA), based on my understanding. We are still dealing with

pratyaksha pramaaNa or direct perceptual means of knowledge. Here I am going to

summarize the essence of what we have learned so far.

 

The fundamental statement of VP is that perceptual knowledge is nothing but pure

consciousness. Immediacy follows from the condition of perceptuality which is

stated as oneness of the consciousness of the subject that perceives the object

and conditioned consciousness expressed through vRitti of the object in the

mind. This was accounted as follows: The object that is perceived manifests as

vRitti or a thought in the mind of perceiver. Brahman, the all-pervading

consciousness is the material cause for the object and therefore manifests (as

though) as limiting consciousness in the form and name of object, where the form

includes all the associated attributes of that particular object (shabda,

sparsha, ruupa, rasa, gandha- sound, touch, form, taste and smell) that is

perceived. The perception through the senses involves perception of only the

attributes of the object since Brahman, the substantive cannot be perceived as

separate from the perceiver. The

attributive sense input forms vRitti, which is reflected by the saakshii

caitanyam or witnessing consciousness. The knowledge is complete when the light

of consciousness reflected by the mind as the subject who is perceiving the

object, and the reflected consciousness of the vRitti, the contents of the

objects in terms of sense input, become one – expressed as the identity of

subject consciousness and the object consciousness. The sense input provides the

qualifying attributes of the object perceived – as this a pot. Similarly the

reflected consciousness of the mind (cidAbhaasa) with its own attributes forms

the subject, the knower of the object as I am the knower. The perceptual

knowledge said to be complete when the reflected consciousness of the subject(we

are only dealing with reflected consciousness since absolute consciousness is

all pervading and has no differences of any kind – no sajaati, vijaati and

swagata bhedaas) and the reflected

consciousness of the object become one. The statement of VP follows that

perceptual knowledge is the same as pure consciousness and this forms the basis

for the perceptuality condition. Immediacy of the perception of the object

follows since the associated vRitti of that object that is reflecting the light

of consciousness has the attributes of the object perceived as its contents.

 

The process of perception can be understood if we look at the process

objectively. The mind that is perceiving the object through the senses is also

an object in the sense that it is jadam or inert. According to Vedanta it is

nothing but matter only – ‘annamayam hi manaH’ – mind is made up of

matter’ – Ch. Up 6-5-4. Mind becomes dynamic due to the reflection of

consciousness in it or by it. Any object becomes known by the reflection of

light. Similarly the mind becomes known by the consciousness reflected by it and

the reflection depends on the purity of the reflecting medium. When the

attributes of the external object (external to the mind) are brought in by the

senses, they form vRitti, a perturbation or a thought in the mind. The vRitti,

as it forms in the mind, also get reflected in the light of consciousness that

is ever present. We have now two reflections: one, the mind itself as an object

that constitutes the subject since it has

capacity to learn and store the information, and the vRitti of the object which

is a local perturbation of the mind. These two reflections constitute the

subject and the objects in terms of perception. Both reflections are arising

from the same source, witnessing consciousness that I am. The connection

between the two is established via perceptual knowledge and that is stated as

perceptuality condition where consciousness of the subject is united with the

consciousness of the object. Interesting point is the knowledge is complete when

the reflected consciousness as the subject unites with the reflected

consciousness as the object. There is no specific ‘matter’ here, other than

the fact the quality of the reflection depends on the purity of the reflecting

medium. When I say – I see a pot there, what is seen therefore is reflecting

consciousness of vRitti that is formed in the mind containing the attributes of

the object brought in by the senses,

seen by the reflecting consciousness in the mind. ‘Is there really a

‘pot’ out there?’ if one asks, then we can say that at the transactional

level, yes there is pot out there. But if one wants the truth behind that

statement, what is seen is only the vRitti of the mind and ‘pot is there’

only when vRitti is there and vRitti is there only when the mind is there or

awake. Hence without the mind and the vRitti that is formed (vRitti of the

object will not form if all the senses do not bring in the attributive

knowledge), presence of a pot cannot be established out there. It is there or

not therefore becomes an indeterminate problem – just as in the deep sleep

when the mind is not there to reflect consciousness; the world including pot is

not established. Pot is there, only because I see it. If I do not see it, is it

there? – I do not know and therefore I cannot tell if it is there or not.

Others can tell when they see it but I should

have faith in their statements and that becomes a separate means of knowledge

or indirect knowledge or hear-say and not direct knowledge. When I do see the

pot through the sense input, the attributes of the pot that senses bring in are

not my creation. Hence there is no real pot out there for me to see, when I see.

The pot is as real as the mind that sees. But neither the pot nor the mind can

see each other to establish their existence. Seeing takes place when the

consciousness reflected in the mind unites with the consciousness reflected by

vRitti of the object in the mind. Thus both subject and the object of

perception are reflected consciousness of that witnessing consciousness. Pure

consciousness can not be seen since seeing involves duality of seer and the

seen. Hence at the level of perception, perceptual knowledge has to be

understood as pure consciousness alone but perceived as the subject, perceiver

and object, perceived.

 

In the case of internal perceptions that is the objects perception are not

external but internal to the mind - that is they are emotions like fear,

pleasure, anger, desire, etc and also include conceptualized objects by the mind

– the attributes are there with their corresponding vRittis. Only difference

between them and the external objects is that their attributive content does not

arise from external sources via the senses. These internal perceptions also come

under direct perceptions as we experience them directly and immediately which

are characteristics of perceptual knowledge. They fulfill the criteria of

perceptuality established earlier by VP.

 

Knowledge reveals itself: (This segment was posted last time but reposted for

continuity)

 

When there an object ‘pot’ right in front of me and when I open my eyes, I

cannot but see the object, if the mind is not preoccupied. Sense input is

immediate and vRitti of the object formed based on the sense input is also

immediate. When vRitti is illumined by the light of consciousness and

reflection of that light by vRitti constitute the knowledge of the vRitti. Now

not only I know that ‘this is pot’ and I also know that ‘I know that this

is pot’. That is besides having the knowledge of the pot(cognition of the

pot), I also know that I have the knowledge of the pot (knowledge of the

cognition of the pot). Pot knowledge is known by the limiting reflecting

consciousness of the pot-vRitti. If we ask what reveals knowledge of the pot

knowledge, we can only say that knowledge is self-revealing. Knowledge of an

object (cognition of the pot) requires illumination by the light of

consciousness, but we do not need to illumine the illuminated

knowledge. What it means is knowledge is of the nature of illumination and one

does need illumine another illumination. We do not need a light to see the

light. It is similar to if an object is seen by its reflection of sun light

falling on it, I do not need to another light to see the reflected light from

the object. That is, it is the very nature of the knowledge to reveal the

nature of the object and also reveal itself. Knowledge is self-revealing and

does not need another knowledge to reveal it, besides the fact that it leads to

infinite regress. Hence Citsukaachaarya says that knowledge is immediately

apprehended without being objectified, since it is self-luminous. Hence when I

say, ‘here is a pot’ the pot knowledge is apprehended along with the

knowledge ‘I know here is a pot’ – here, we are essentially separating the

knowledge of an object and cognition of the object as two separate aspects

although the cognition of the object and

the knowledge of that cognition follow immediately.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda