Reason for vRitti at the location of the object.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sastri-ji, Sattvasound-ji and advaitins,

 

(From a slightly different angle and welcoming any corrections or

rebuttals)

 

It is a difficult subject and is all the more so if we forget that in

Vedanta the mind is inert. So also are objects. However the difference

between objects and the mind is that the mind is transparent and the

objects are opaque. Being transparent means that it can in its limited

way take the form of the objects that it is directed towards. The witness

is pure consciousness limited by the mind and the object is a limiting

adjunct (upadhi) of pure consciousness. They share the same substratum.

The clarity and transparency of the mind allows it to take whatever shape

it is projected on to. Perception ensues.

 

Difficulties arise. Is there such a place or condition as 'in the mind'?

Is this 'in' or locus essentially a pictorial or imagistic analogy? Is

this 'in' essentially a superimposition? Might it not be truer to say

that we see through the mind and that we place the mind 'in' us because we

are the source of the organs of perception?

 

This mention of the organs of perception brings on the conundrum: If we

had organs of a different type would not objects appear differently? It

seems undeniable that they would but what is the metaphysical significance

of this admission? For Vedanta the reality of the object is its

substratum so our connection to it is apprehends its reality even through

varying appearances. There is " unity of the consciousness reflected in

the means of knowledge with the Consciousness limited by the object "

(pg.13 trans.VP).

 

A psychological focus, can mislead one into thinking that the

metaphysical 'construction' of the objects takes place via the organs 'in'

the mind. This I believe is incorrect and I think the remarks of

Shankara in Brh.Up. II.iv.11 bear this out. Metaphysically speaking the

organs are on the same level as the objects. I have quoted this passage

before but bear with me because it is of profound significance.

 

" .... the Sruti considers the organs to be of the same category as the

objects, not of a different category. The organs are but modes of the

objects in order to perceive them, as a lamp, which is but a mode of

colour, is an instrument for revealing all colours. Similarly, the organs

are but modes of all particular objects in order to perceive them, as is

the case with a lamp. Hence no special care is to be taken to indicate

the dissolution of the organs; for these being the same as objects in

general, their dissolution is implied by that of the object. "

 

The point that is relevant to our present discussion is that the organs

have no constitutional power in relation to objects, they are on the same

level (of the same category) as them.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2729 - Release 03/07/10

19:34:00