Knowledge and the Means of Knowledge - 15.

[Guest guest]

Knowledge and the Means of knowledge 15

 

We discussed in the post 12, Jiiva and Jiiva Saakshii, Iswara and Iswara

Saakshii. In the subsequent posts we deviated from the main topic to address

some of the issues that were raised during the discussion. Now we return back

to the main theme. Jiiva and Jiiva Saakshii have to be understood clearly for

self-realization. Shree Sureswara spends the whole chapter discussing about

saakshii in the Naishkarmya siddhi. Jiiva Saakshii is the limiting witnessing

consciousness, limited by the upaadhiis. Example given is like a pot space

limited by the pot walls, although space is limitless and indivisible and

pot-space is connected to the total space as one. Even the pot-walls are in

space only. The notion of pot-jiiva-hood arises when the pot identifying with

the upaadhiis thinks that I am a small pot with a limited pot-space. Here

besides the limitations, there is identification with the upaadhiis or pot

walls, and taking the limitations of the pot as

its limitations as I am a small-pot, and I wish I am also a big pot like the

next door neighbor pot.

 

Pure consciousness is all pervading, similar to space. Similar to pot-space

limited by the pot-walls, the consciousness (as-though) limited by the upaadhiis

(Body-mind-intellect, BMI) is witnessing consciousness, saakshii, called

‘upahita caitanya’. The consciousness is of the nature of eternal

self-illumining entity. Just as the pot-space is not separate from the total

space, the jiiva-saakshii or upahita caitanya is not separate from the total

consciousness. Yet pot space is different from the total space in the sense that

it appears to be limited by the pot walls. Similarly jiiva saakshii of A is

different from Jiiva-saakshii B. In the presence of this self-illumining

witnessing consciousness, jiiva saakshii, the BMI upaadhiis get illumined and

the reflected consciousness in the mind forms the knowledge of the mind. Up to

this is common, for all including the jnaani. Ignorance of jiiva comes into

play, when I, the conscious

entity,identifying with the reflecting consciousness in the intellect, take

myself to be this intellect that is getting reflected in my presence. This

notion that ‘I am this’ is a thought or vRitti in the intellect only. This

identification with reflected consciousness is jiiva and is called cidaabhaasa

or reflected consciousness.

 

Ego:

 

The formation of a jiiva therefore involves two entities – one is the

reflection of the consciousness by the upaadhiis – here starting from

intellect and then the mind and then the body. This reflection occurs as long

as upaadhiis are there, since illuminating consciousness is always there. Ego

or Jiiva-hood arises, not knowing that I am pure consciousness, when I identify

myself with the limiting reflecting consciousness as I am this, where ‘this’

stands first for the intellect then the mind and then the gross body. That

identification includes then any modification of the body, mind and intellect.

Thus jiiva is the limiting reflecting consciousness, cidaabhaasa, but

identifying or qualifying itself as I am this where this stands for BMI. Hence

jiiva is called vishiShTa caitanya, in contrast to the upahita caitanya of

saakshii. VishiShTa means qualifying or attributive consciousness where I,

subject consciousness identifies myself with

‘this’, the object that I am conscious of. This identification also results

in ownership as ‘this is mine’ – thus both ahankaara (I am this) and

mamakaara (this is mine) get crystallized with the jiiva notion, which together

is called ego. Inclusion of ‘this is mine’ involves exclusion of ‘that is

not mine’, and ‘that is not I’ and thus space-wise, time-wise and

object-wise limitations get superimposed with the jiiva notion, by the

superimposed identifications - addhaasa.

 

Self-realization:

 

Self realization is therefore recognition that I am not this – this being

upaadhiis (BMI)- but I am the Saakshii which is the illuminating consciousness

of the upaadhiis. Saakshii does not really illumine anything and it is just

self-shining ever effulgent all pervading entity. However, in the presence of

saakshii, upaadhiis get illumined. Hence I am ‘not this’ since I am the

subject and this is an object of my consciousness, but I am pure

existence-consciousness, that is ever present. By dropping all visheShaNas or

qualifications, I shift my identification from vishiShTa caitanya to upahita

caitanya. This shift is done in the buddhi only. I, a conscious entity,

currently identifying myself with the BMI, drop that identification and

recognize that I am the self-existing ever present saakshii or upahita caitanya.

When I shift my understanding that I am the saakshii, even the notion that I am

saakshii also drops out (saakshii is there with

reference to saakshyam or witness is there with reference to witnessed) and I

recognize that I am pure eternal all pervading consciousness with no

qualifications or limitations. I become jiivan mukta. Since the upaadhiis

(BMI) are there, I can play the role of a jiiva knowing very well I am pure

consciousness that illumines the upaadhiis. When the upaadhiis drop out, the

upahita caitanya (saakshii) becomes one with the nirupaadhika caitanya (all

pervading consciousness). It is like saying when the pot walls break the

pot-space merges with the total space. In reality pot-space is never separate

from the total space and there is no real merger either. When the walls are

broken, the limiting adjuncts are dropped out leaving all notions of divisions

in the space. Thus as long as the mind and intellect (subtle-body) remain, the

limiting reflecting consciousness will take place and jiiva-hood remains, when

there is no self-knowledge. Meditation therefore

involves shifting my attention from the identification that I am this to the

witnessing consciousness, jiiva saakshii, because of which I am conscious of or

have the knowledge of this (BMI). Since saaskhii is not an object for me to see

(since I am the seer saakshii), I cannot objectify as I am not this but that.

All I can do is negate all my identifications as I am this by negating I am not

this but I am the one who is the negator, who cannot be negated nor objectified.

I am the knower, the pramaataa and this is known, prameyam. I am the pramaata or

I am the subject knower, only when there is prameyam or object, separate from

me, for me to know. Recognition that this duality is superficial or adhyaasa

imposed by the working of the mind and I am pure consciousness where there is

neither pramaata, prameya nor pramaaNa is self-realization. The world is nothing

but an assemblage of objects and they are known only when the perceptuality

conditions are

met. Perceptuality condition is the subject consciousness is identified with

the object-consciousness in the form of existence. Shifting attention from the

superficial names and forms, objects, to that identifying consciousness that I

am (subject) is the essence of meditation.

 

Iswara and Iswara saakshii

 

In the realization of that I am upahita caitanya or jiiva saakshii, there is

also recognition that I am upahita caitanya only because of the presence of the

upaadhiis. But my real nature is I am the all pervading consciousness that is

one without a second. This knowledge arises from the vedantic knowledge that I

am not only the existing-consciousness, but that existence-consciousness is one

without a second. Thus aham brahmaasmi teaching will sink in. It is like

recognition that I am the pot-space also lead to an understanding that I am the

total space too since space is part-less or division-less. This teaching comes

from Vedanta. Significance of this is also understood, since even the saaskhyam

that I am conscious of is not separate from me. In the perceptual process the

object consciousness is identified with the subject consciousness for

perceptuality to occur as discussed by VP. Hence VP says in the beginning of the

analysis of perception that

perceptual knowledge is nothing but pure consciousness. In that understanding,

jiiva, jiiva saakshii, Iswara and Iswara saakshii are merge into pure

undifferentiated consciousness that I am. With that understanding, the very

life existence is fulfilled. Even the scriptures glorify such a realized person.

Presence of such realized master is glorified as ‘kulam pavitram, jananii

kRitaarthaa, vishvambharaa punyavatii ca tena’ – the whole family or lineage

is blessed by his presence, his mother is fulfilled by having such a son, nay

the whole country where he is born is blessed by this presence.

 

Perceptuality of cognition:

 

We discussed before that when the perception of an object arises through the

formation of vRitti, there is an immediate cognition of the object as ‘this is

a pot’, when the vRitti is reflected by the light of consciousness of the

saakshii, since reflected light is knowledge. Along with it, there is also

knowledge of the cognition – that is I know this is pot also arises

immediately. For this knowledge of the cognition, no further reflection is

required since knowledge reveals itself or it is self-revealing. It is similar

to the fact that we do not need a light to see the light since light is self

revealing. Similarly the reflected illumination of the consciousness of the

object-vRitti becomes a self-revealing cognition of the knowledge of that

vRitti. Thus the two fold nature of the perceptual knowledge is understood

–it involves perception of the object – like this is a pot - and perception

of the cognition of the perception as I know this

is a pot. Thus we have two fold nature of the perception – perception of the

object and the perception of the cognition of the object. With regards to the

first – the perception of the object, we have discussed exhaustively the

perceptuality condition and how vRitti forms in the mind based on attributive

knowledge of the object as perceived by the senses. With regards to the second,

that is perceptuality of the cognition, VP says it is just consciousness alone.

This is because when I say I know this is pot, pot is an object, which is inert

and I am the knowing principle, the caitanya vastu. Inert entity cannot know.

Since I say I am the knower of the pot, the knower I, or the subject I, cannot

be different from the conscious entity. Hence VP declares that the

perceptuality of the cognition is nothing but pure consciousness that I am.

When I cognize an object, say pot, I am knower and this is known – the duality

of subject-object sets in with

reference to the object known. When there is no cognition of any object, I

just remain as witnessing consciousness, without any qualification.

Objectless-awareness is pure consciousness.

 

Question: Is the above statement true for direct and immediate perception or

true for other means of knowledge such as inference? For direct perception like

this is pot, the perception of the pot is immediate and direct. The resulting

knowledge is also cognized immediately as I know this is pot. When there is an

indirect knowledge like the distant hill is on fire, does the cognition that the

distant hill is on fire, is immediate and is due to subject consciousness, I am?

 

Answer: Yes it applies to indirect perceptions too. When I say that distant

hill is on fire because I see the smoke, the cognition of the fire is not

immediate. Only the cognition of the hill, cognition of the smoke are

immediate. But that the hill is on fire is based on the logical inference since

we know from the past that wherever there is smoke, there is a fire that caused

the smoke. Hence when I conclude that the distant hill is on fire, the vRitti

that is formed has no attributive content of the fire. Hence it is indirect and

mediate, not immediate. When the vRitti that the hill is on fire is formed by

inferential process, the knowledge of the vRitti is immediate as it forms, since

it gets illumined by the witnessing consciousness, saakshii. Then the cognition

of that knowledge is also immediate since knowledge is self-revealing. Whatever

that is self-revealing is pure consciousness. Hence the above statements are

applicable even for

indirect knowledge.

 

Question: Then the definition of perceptuality of the cognition is too broad

since it can be extended to illusory knowledge also; for example for the

cognition of silver where there is actually nacre.

 

Answer: It is not unduly broad since it extends even to the case of erroneous

cognitions. When I see silver erroneously since it is a nacre and not silver,

cognition of silver is immediate since attributes of the silver alone are

gathered by the senses and consequently vRitti with the silver attributive

content is formed in the mind. The knowledge that it is silver then is

immediate. The cognition of that knowledge that ‘I know it is silver’ is

also immediate. Hence the above definition is not unduly broad and applies even

for erroneous perceptions.

 

We have defined the perception as pramaaNa if it is not negated by subsequent

transmigratory experience or transactional experience. That is, it is silver is

valid knowledge unless it is contradicted by the subsequent transaction

involving picking up the piece of silver and finding that is not silver but

nacre. The knowledge that it is nacre is gained by sense input of the

attributes of the nacre that are different from the pure silver piece. The

knowledge that it is nacre negates the previous knowledge that it is silver. In

the perception of nacre, that it is nacre and not silver is cognized along with

the cognition of that perception – I know that is nacre and not silver. Thus

the definition applies to illusory knowledge as well, since when the illusory

knowledge (that it is silver) was a valid knowledge based on the attributive

content cognized at that time. It was negated only by subsequent perception.

 

In the final analysis, even the perceptual knowledge of the objects and thus the

perception of world are negated when we move from transmigratory experience to

transcendental experience. Within transmigratory experience, the relative

validity of perceptual knowledge of objects is assumed to be valid since there

is no transcendental experience to invalidate it. Thus vyaavahaarika satyam is

satyam until satyasya satyam is recognized.

 

In the above example VP brought the example of the error in cognition when we

perceive silver where there is nacre. The reason that we are seeing silver and

not nacre is that when I see the shining object on the floor, there is only

attributive knowledge of ‘silvery-shining’ by the sense of sight.

Therefore based on the limited attributes of the object, the VRitti that formed

contains only the limited attributes perceived by the sense. The cognition and

the recognition based on the matching attributes of the silver are immediate,

giving rise to the knowledge that it is a piece of silver out there. Only when

I bend and pick up the piece, I gather additional attributes by the senses based

on which I negate that it is not silver (since the attributes are contradictory

to silver attributes), but it is nacre since the attributes matches with that of

nacre. This is intrinsic in the limitation of the attributive knowledge of

objects that errors are

possible even when I am seeing the object since attributes that are gathered by

the senses are incomplete, if not erroneous.

 

Finally because I am getting carried away with the attributive knowledge of the

world and not substantive knowledge, I can never gain the knowledge of absolute

reality by perceptual process since absolute has no attributive content –

nirguNa or guNaatiitaH. Hence negatability of the world as mithya or erroneous

perception cannot be accomplished by any pramaaNa other than shabda pramaaNa or

shaastra pramaaNa.

 

We will discuss more about the erroneous perceptions through objections in the

next post.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda