Matter

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srinivas-ji,

Your problem has a basis in Advaita. In Advaita the being of the object and pure consciousness are convertible. That does not mean that the object has to be perceived by someone to come into existence. No human perception or ‘divine perception’ is necessary for the object to exist. In fact the perceptuality of the object as stated in the Vedanta Paribhasa is due to the fact that the reality or being of the object is consciousness. Human awareness is therefore logically speaking post this reality. The object can be in the mind of the perceiver as it really is because the substratum is one and the same. Find a close analysis of this in the chapter on Perception in VP.

There is a temptation to interpret Advaita by mixing it up with psychology. An object is analysed as a ‘compound’ of substance and attributes ontologically speaking. In this way the attributes are extracted by the sensory organs of the percipient. The attributes are thus reduced to brain events. It is declared to be obvious that the object is not in the brain of the perceiver. O.K. but what is not clear according to this theory is how the cerebral events are consciousness of a chair or whatever. Advaita has a theory which circumvents this impossible to solve conundrum.

If a thing is made to be by knowing its attributes then as you say the thing would have to exist before it existed which is absurd.

What do we know when we know something? Is it an individual thing that is known? Paradoxical as it may sound Shankara seems to be of the opinion that we do not know individuals in a simplistic sense. Have a look at B.S.B. I.iii.28 and tell me what you think. What we know or what we are capable of knowing is dependent on what he call eternal words or vedic words. (A distinct likeness exists between this theory and the eternal Forms of Plato.) "And words are connected with the general characteristics and not with the individuals, for the individuals are infinite, and it is impossible to comprehend the relation of a word (with all of them)." Knowledge this seems to suggest is generic. What then is the specific object that we encounter? What is its reality status?

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv wrote: " We

are all in effect saying the same

> thing over and over again ... Brahman Alone exists ! Everything whether inert

( with its

> limited consciousness ) or the highest living being ( with the highest state

of consciousness) - All is contained in HIM .. "

 

Dear learned scholars,

 

Everybody is saying the same thing over and over again.

But unfortunately none of the persons who are merely uttering ,

have not established this as a fact which can be verified here and now. Simply

making/repeating a statement does not make one a man of understanding. He is

only a mantravit and not a tatvavit. Will the learned writers when they write

about a BUtavastu like Brahman show or establish what they have written is a

fact. Simply giving doctrines will not help a true jij~asu.Please give/furnish

the appropriate methodology for one to cognize those truths that are being

stated within oneself by oneself. Vedanta is not an intellectual pursuit, but a

spirituan understanding/realization.

 

I may please be excused for expressing my frank opinion about the present

state of affairs.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Michael -and Srinivas PraNAms

 

Please examine the following statements.

 

1. Existence of an object is ESTABLISHED by knowledge of its existence.

 

That 'There is a pot there' is established by KNOWING that there is pot there.

Otherwise pot is there or not is indeterminate.

 

A conscious entity has to come into picture in order to establish that there is

pot there. Otherwise it can be there or it cannot be there - that is what

indeterminacy comes. Determination requires a conscious entity. Conscious entity

is self-existent entity - na udeti na astameti - it is neither born nor dies.

 

No doctrine can disprove the statement 1, leave alone Vedanta paribhaasha.

 

This does not mean that knower is creating the object for him to know it is

there - that is what Srinivas is asking in terms of anavastu dosha. The above

statement is ESTABLISHING the existence of the object not creating the object

for one to perceive.

 

Now the next statement:

 

2. As per scripture - every object is a creation - it is not a self-existent

entity - Ch. 6 sad vidya says - pure existence alone was there in the beginning

and it is of the nature of consciousness - aatma alone was there in the

beginning, it contemplated. Upanishads says - He wanted to become many and He

became many - creation presupposes creator who is conscious entity and Knowledge

of creation rests with the creator. The essence of advaita Vedanta - rests on

these - brahma satyam, jagat mityaa and jiivo brahma eve na aparaH - Brahman

being consciousness (prajnaanam brahma) is the eternal and the whole universe -

obviously no object is excluded including ‘other people’ - are mityaa - has

no independent existence - their existence depends on Brahman, the consciousness

and the jiiva, that I am, being a conscious entity is essentially Brahman. That

is the precisely the reason I can fold the whole universe into a potential form

and go to deep sleep

state - either laya or pralaya.

 

That is advaita - objects cannot exist independent of Brahman, the conscious

entity that I am. But there existence is established by knowledge their

existence - even there, conscious entity has to enter - that is what

perceptuality condition stated in vedanata paribhaasha.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 3/20/09, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

Namaste Srinivas-ji,

Your problem has a basis in Advaita. In Advaita the being of the object and pure

consciousness are convertible. That does not mean that the object has to be

perceived by someone to come into existence. No human perception or ‘divine

perception’ is necessary for the object to exist. In fact the perceptuality of

the object as stated in the Vedanta Paribhasa is due to the fact that the

reality or being of the object is consciousness. Human awareness is therefore

logically speaking post this reality. The object can be in the mind of the

perceiver as it really is because the substratum is one and the same. Find a

close analysis of this in the chapter on Perception in VP.

There is a temptation to interpret Advaita by mixing it up with psychology. An

object is analysed as a ‘compound’ of substance and attributes ontologically

speaking. In this way the attributes are extracted by the sensory organs of the

percipient. The attributes are thus reduced to brain events. It is declared to

be obvious that the object is not in the brain of the perceiver. O.K. but what

is not clear according to this theory is how the cerebral events are

consciousness of a chair or whatever. Advaita has a theory which circumvents

this impossible to solve conundrum.

If a thing is made to be by knowing its attributes then as you say the thing

would have to exist before it existed which is absurd.

What do we know when we know something? Is it an individual thing that is known?

Paradoxical as it may sound Shankara seems to be of the opinion that we do not

know individuals in a simplistic sense. Have a look at B.S.B. I.iii.28 and tell

me what you think. What we know or what we are capable of knowing is dependent

on what he call eternal words or vedic words. (A distinct likeness exists

between this theory and the eternal Forms of Plato.) " And words are connected

with the general characteristics and not with the individuals, for the

individuals are infinite, and it is impossible to comprehend the relation of a

word (with all of them). " Knowledge this seems to suggest is generic. What then

is the specific object that we encounter? What is its reality status?