the unknown object

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji, Sastri-ji and all followers of this thread,

 

Sastri-ji wrote:

" All objects in the world derive their existence (satta) from brahman or

pure consciousness. So it is correct to say that they are dependent on

consciousness. But this is not the same thing as saying that their

existence depends on the observer or knower. The knower is the mind with

the reflection of consciousness in it and not pure consciousness. Of

course we say that everything is a creation of the mind. But that only

means that we react to objects in the world according to our mental

make-up. Even after realization, when there is no mind in the sense that

there is no mind of the kind we the unenlightened have, the jnAni still

sees the world of objects, though he does not react to them and consider

them to be good or bad. "

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

 

Succint, to the point and my remarks below are I think in accord.

 

Before all ideas are put into the blender and whizzed into oneness

wouldn't it be a good idea to get straight what ordinary perception is and

what it entails. It's not useful to claim as valid an epistemology which

would make impossible that which we do effortlessly. If dreams,

illusions, confusions, delusions and perceptions are assimilated on the

basis that they are all experience and are thus one from the standpoint of

absolute pure consciousness, that does not resolve the problem as to how

we actually do discriminate between all those experiences. Bringing in

formulas like srishti drishti are of no use for this. We need to start

with the fundamental questions and question our basic assumptions.

 

Here is a quotation from a philosopher Tara Chatterjee from her book

" Knowledge and Freedom in Indian Philosophy "

" In fact the very language of Vivarna-Pramaya-Samgraha shows that the

Advaitins do not accept such idealism. That the known objects are related

to the saksin, through their known-ness, has already been established. It

is declared that although unrelated objects do not possess the property of

being the object of the saksin, the unknown objects, when they are known

as unknown, become related to the saksin, through their unknown-ness.

This show that they have accepted the concept of unrelated objects, which

has no reference to the principle of awareness and this is a mark of

realism. So I do not think that this statement shows the absolute

idealism of Advaita. "

 

This makes sense to me - unrelated objects are objects which I have no

perceptual relation with. I can have a significant rational relation with

objects that I do not know directly. I contrast this with the statement

of Sada-ji:

" But the object existence is ESTABLISHED by conscious entity alone - here

we are referring to jiiva that I am.. Until it is known its existence is

not known -therefore it may exist may not exist -Uncertainty is removed by

conscious entity becoming conscious of its existence. Hence I call it as

indeterminate. "

 

Here is the basic error of tying the existence of an object to knowledge

of that object. Until you recognise that objects are independent of our

knowledge of them you are likely to hold that what we know is merely our

experience of the object and the existence of the object in itself is an

inference from that experience. I contrast this to Advaita in which there

is a 'translation' of the object into the mind of the subject. Due to the

nature of the subject and that of the object nothing is lost in

translation. No inference is required. Talking about brain events, sense

data and the like obscures the fact that physical events in the brain are

at one and the same time mental events. Science has nothing to say about

how this is the case.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji,

 

If no one, anywhere, is aware of the existence of X, nor has

ever been aware of it, in what sense is it meaningful to talk about the

existence of X? Don’t we infer the existence of black holes, for example,

from the observation of bending of light around an area of space?

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

<<Here

is the basic error of tying the existence of an object to knowledge

of that object. Until you recognise that objects are independent of our

knowledge of them you are likely to hold that what we know is merely our

experience of the object and the existence of the object in itself is an

inference from that experience.>>