Matter

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chaitanya-ji, Sada-ji and Dennis-ji,

 

There is a difference between saying that ‘cognition would not be possible

without cognition’ and giving an account of cognition that takes the form

‘cognition would not be possible without the mind going out to take the

shape of the object (as per pg.15 VP) and that the mind can do this

because it is transparent, light and mobile and moreover it must do this

for cognition to take place because an object of its nature is inert and

must be connected with a mental state.(cf.pg.188/9 VP) Spinning all this

out you have delineated the ontological underpinning which is

informative. After all someone with a different ontology would mean

something entirely different by ‘cognition would not be possible without

cognition.’ For them cognition might mean merely being in the presence of

the object to be cognised with all faculties intact and paying attention

to that object. In other words a purely psychological account of

cognition.

 

Simply saying

" 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 " is not a

clarification. The second claim about indetermination needs to be teazed

out also. To offer an analogy if I go into a perfectly dark room which is

full of objects whose nature I am not aware of, they still have a nature

and still exist even if I am not aware of them. They are there, they

exist and when I put on the light I can now gain knowledge of what that

nature is. Might it not be similar for the light of consciousness? Of

course the object has not been ‘translated’ by the power of

superimposition until its latent power to manifest consciousness has been

evoked by the knowing subject therefore what it is in the dark is a

mystery. Is it a ‘something’?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

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

 

previously Chaitanya-ji wrote:

Hari Om Shri Michaelji, Pranaams!

 

Here is the word to word meaning:

 

AbhArUpasya - acitrUpasya - jadasya - the inert matter's

vishvasya - jagataH - world's

bhAnam - prakAshaH - shine/effulgence

bhAsannidheH - presence of a light

vinA - without

kadAcit - kadAcit api - by any means

na avakalpeta - na sambhavet - does not happen.

 

The shine/effulgence of an inert world is not possible without the

proximity/presence of a light.

 

By matter, we mean inert i.e. which cannot shine, and which is seen. (Any

other

definition?). The definition itself is self-contradicting. To be seen it

should

shine, but the seen, jada is incapable of shining. So the simple logic is,

there

should be a light to light up the matter to see it.

 

That light could not be seen, if becomes seen, becomes inert and incapable

of

shine.

 

So, the conclusion is:

 

bhA ca aham : I am the light. (I, the subject, which can never be an

object to

be seen, and self-effulgent).

 

Wherever the matter is there(universe/cosmos...), if it is seen, I am the

light.

So I should be there so I become,

 

tena aham sarvagaH - owing to this I am omnipresent.

 

The world is not there is the declaration.

Even if you preceive, it will disappear is the samAdhAna.

If world is there, let anyone perceive it in deep-sleep is the challenge.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael-ji,

You say: “To offer an analogy if I go into a perfectly dark room

which is

full of objects whose nature I am not aware of, they still have a nature

and still exist even if I am not aware of them. They are there, they

exist and when I put on the light I can now gain knowledge of what that

nature is.â€

But you are presupposing knowledge of the existence of the

objects in this dark room, aren’t you (“f I go into a perfectly dark room which

is

full of objectsâ€)? Can they exist *before* you know they exist? Isn’t

the actual scenario as follows?: You do not know that there are objects in the

dark room. You go into the room and bump into something. You then know that

there is ‘something’ but are ignorant of its nature. You then switch on the

light and gain knowledge of that nature. You then have Sada-ji’s first

statement: “Existence of an object is ESTABLISHED by knowledge of its

existence.â€

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste Chaitanya-ji, Sada-ji and Dennis-ji,

> The second claim about indetermination needs to be teazed out also. To offer

an analogy if I go into a perfectly dark room which is full of objects whose

nature I am not aware of, they still have a nature and still exist even if I am

not aware of them. They are there, they exist and when I put on the light I can

now gain knowledge of what that nature is. Might it not be similar for the

light of consciousness? Of course the object has not been ‘translated’ by

the power of superimposition until its latent power to manifest consciousness

has been evoked by the knowing subject therefore what it is in the dark is a

mystery. Is it a ‘something’?

>

 

 

Hari Om Shri Michaelji, Pranaams!

 

If an object exist, it is possible only in two ways - a. as known to me and b.

as not known to me. (The third, unknowable object - alIka vastu is straight

dismissed).

 

Let us now analize how the object which is not known to me exist - as 'I do not

know this/that object' isn't it.

 

For example when I say 'I do not know the chair' the existence of the object -

here the chair is never questioned and admitted alongwith absence of knowledge

about it. In other words 'The chair which exists is not known to me' is the

expression.

 

Take the existance part and analyze - The object is inert(jada), cannot shine,

but seen(shining) is established. How is this possible.

 

The object(inert) is different from me, but it is shining(existing) because of

me, but yet is not known to me.

 

If one thing has to exist purely becaue of another thing, which is different

from it, still the other thing cannot know its existence; it is possible only if

the thing is superimposed on the other.

 

The snake exist purely becaue of the rope, snake is different from the rope,

rope cannot know the snake - implies the only possible relation between the

snake and rope is superimposition.

 

The moment the rope realises, the snake is only superimposed on it, it becomes

non-dual(advaya) which it was always.

 

This is only explained in the verse no: 7 of Advaita Makaranda.

 

acitaH bhAnam - the shining(existence) of jada

citaH bhAnAt rte na - not possible without light(consciousness i.e. me)

cit sambhedaH api - the sambanda of cit and jada also

adhyAsAt rte na - but for superimposition, is possible

tena - owing to this

aham advayaH - I am non-dual.

 

There are many logical ways to proove the matter(world) do not and cannot exist

and arrive at non-duality and this is one among them as per Advaita Makaranda

and SvayamprakAshayati's commentary on it.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Michael- PraNAms

 

Extending Dennis post - if I have no prior knowledge of the existence of the

objects, then any object existence is, as I called as indeterminate - that means

- we cannot say an object exists or does not exist. That is why I asked

Srinivas to prove either its existence or its non-existence of gaagaabuubu.

Conscious entity has to come even to prove or disprove existence - other wise it

is only indeterminate - anirvacaniiyam.

 

In science Schrödinger’s equation gives only the probabilities not

determinate - a conscious entity will tilt the probability to yes or no.

There is a famous problem called Schrödinger’s cat problem - a thought

experiment - that involves placing a cat in a radiation chamber and to solve the

problem theoretically whether the cat is alive or dead. The answer that comes

out it is probably 50% alive and 50% dead. The probability shifts to one side

when one opens the chamber and looks at it. The fellow by name Wagner tried to

solve the problem by putting a man along with the cat. The problem that comes

out is the man may be knowing that cat is alive or dead but from the point of

the outsider - the cat remains 50% alive or 50% dead. The indeterminacy is

intrinsic in the problem since the object is inert.

 

Vedanta paribhaasha deals with operation of pramaaNa and nothing more -

pramaaNa, the means of knowledge involves relating pramaata and prameya -

presupposes the existence of pramaataa and prameya for pramaaNa to operate -

otherwise pramaaNa itself being inert has no meaning. Of the two - pramaata and

prameya - the first one is self-existent entity while the later has dependent

existence - that is what object means - Its existence depends on the conscious

entity, as Vedas proclaim.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

I must say I share Michael's questions on this topic.

 

When we say "existence of an object is established by knowledge of its existence" are we saying:

 

a) the object did not exist until I cognised it?

 

or

 

b) awareness of the object's existence was established through knowledge of its existence.

 

If the former (ie 'a') it raises some interesting questions and assumptions.

 

If the latter (ie 'b') then it is quite a banal statement and no better than saying "perceiving the object was present was established through perceiving it was present."

 

As a result of technological developments in science, in recent years astronomers have discovered galaxies and stars so far away that until the means of perception were developed it was not possible to 'establish knowledge of their existence'. Similar developments have happened on a microscopic scale. Are we suggesting that until the knowledge of the existence of galaxies, black holes & so on arose that none of these existed? I'm putting this as an open question and not a rhetorical question expressing a point of view.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite24 March 2009 16:09advaitin Subject: RE: Matter

 

 

Dear Michael-ji,

You say: “To offer an analogy if I go into a perfectly dark room which is full of objects whose nature I am not aware of, they still have a nature and still exist even if I am not aware of them. They are there, they exist and when I put on the light I can now gain knowledge of what that nature is.”

But you are presupposing knowledge of the existence of the objects in this dark room, aren’t you (“f I go into a perfectly dark room which is full of objects”)? Can they exist *before* you know they exist? Isn’t the actual scenario as follows?: You do not know that there are objects in the dark room. You go into the room and bump into something. You then know that there is ‘something’ but are ignorant of its nature. You then switch on the light and gain knowledge of that nature. You then have Sada-ji’s first statement: “Existence of an object is ESTABLISHED by knowledge of its existence.”

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Peter - PraNAms - answers to some of your questions were provided in my last

mail - But here is some clarification.

 

 

--- On Tue, 3/24/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

Dear All,

 

I must say I share Michael's questions on this topic.

 

When we say " existence of an object is established by knowledge of its

existence " are we saying:

 

a) the object did not exist until I cognised it?

 

or

 

b) awareness of the object's existence was established through knowledge of its

existence.

 

 

--------

KS:It is the (b) from the individual reference and (a) from Isawra’s

reference. From the individual point whether object existed or not is

indeterminate until the knowledge of its existence is established. Since

individual is covered with ignorance until pramaaNa removes that ignorance.

 

From Iswara, he is the creator and being sarvajna or all knower, all objects are

known to exist – then in essence it reduces back to a modification of (b)

only.

 

One can deduce- (deductive) which is anumaana pram Ana - that object must exist

based on logic or theoretical predictions based on again the observed facts.

 

But validation of its existence is established by further pram Ana, or means of

knowledge only. Until then, it is a hypothetical possibility or theoretical

possibility.

--------------

Peter:

If the former (ie 'a') it raises some interesting questions and assumptions.

 

If the latter (ie 'b') then it is quite a banal statement and no better than

saying " perceiving the object was present was established through perceiving it

was present. "

-------------

KS:

Peter - This so called banal statement becomes critical - as the nature of I is

understood more deeply – It also becomes critical at quantum level where the

observation itself affects the observed. Hence what is there is established by

very interaction by the conscious entity - at that uncertainity level.

 

As I start understanding the nature of ‘I’, - that is when advaita Vedanta

steps in - the universe existence is understood as ultimately rests on I, the

existence-conscious entity- That takes into consideration - the waking, dream

and deep sleep states where the whole objective world collapses into a potential

forms - and one reduces to turiiya state by process of anvaya and vyatireka -

that is what Goudpaada kaarika comes in with extensive analysis of ManDukya

Upanishad.

-------------------

Peter:

As a result of technological developments in science, in recent years

astronomers have discovered galaxies and stars so far away that until the means

of perception were developed it was not possible to 'establish knowledge of

their existence'. Similar developments have happened on a microscopic scale.

Are we suggesting that until the knowledge of the existence of galaxies, black

holes & so on arose that none of these existed? I'm putting this as an open

question and not a rhetorical question expressing a point of view.

 

----------

KS:Examine your statement again - until we have established either

theoretically or experimentally do we know they all existed?

The problem reduces to indeterminate problem. They exist or they do not exist -

both possibilities exist. One can deduce that they must exist by anumaana

pramaaNa – where pramaata or the knower has to be there to operate the

pramaana.

 

This can be same with anti-matter and anti-matter universe – right now it is a

possibility based on observations or knowledge.

 

Hope this helps

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda