Part VI - Attributes and Substantive
We now go into some more detailed aspect of perceptual
knowledge, noting that VP provides general aspects but
not so much detail. These details are mostly based on
my understanding, so you can take it with a grain of
salt!
Knowledge of an object occurs when the perception by
the senses is projected in the mind as a vRRitti. A
vRRitti is a thought and the contents of the thought
are the sense-data of the object to the degree that
this is perceived by the senses. The senses gather the
attributes as they perceive them, not necessarily as
they really are. What the objects are and how they are
seen may match, if all the conditions for the senses
to operate are met. For example, if the light illuminating
an object is dim, or if the sense organs are defective
(like the absence of 20:20 vision), the attributes that
the senses gather could deviate from the actual. This
could bring about an error in perception. The point
I would like emphasize is that the senses can only gather
the attributes of the object - colors, forms, sounds,
smells, tastes, etc. and not substantives. [VP discusses
later how the all pervading consciousness (brahman)
is the substantive for everything. According to Vedanta,
brahman is the material cause for the universe and thus
for the objects to be known (prameya), for the means
of knowledge (pramANa) and for the knower (pramAtRRi).]
We need to have a clear understanding of the processes
of perception, since we do not 'see' Brahman when we
see the objects. In fact what we see is only inert things,
since Brahman being pure consciousness cannot be an
object of perception; in fact cannot be an object of any pramANa.
Considering that consciousness is indivisible, what
we see as a finite object is consciousness 'as though'
constrained by the ‘finitization’ as an
object.[ We use the word 'as though' throughout our
discussions, since that which is indivisible and part-less
appears to be divided, just as indivisible space is
'as though' divided into many compartments by bounding
walls.]
Let us pose the question: what do we really perceive
when we perceive an object? We need the senses in order
to perceive – the eyes can only see form and color;
the ears the sounds, if the object emanates some; the
nose the smell, etc. Each sense has its field of operation
without overlapping any other. But all are attributes
of the object. Hence, the senses can only measure the
attributes of the object. Senses do not create the attributes
but only measure them as they 'grasp' the object. Looking
from the point of view of the object, the object is defined only
by its attributes. All definitions are attributive.
The more precisely the attributes are specified, the
more concisely the object is defined. All the attributes
serve to differentiate one object from the rest of the
objects in the universe.
The attributes are not the substantive. Consider objects
such as bangle, ring, necklace, bracelet etc. All are
names for different forms, each having its own attributes
such as ID, OD, length, thickness, etc. If we examine
the attributes of each object, say ring, bangle, necklace
and bracelet, they enable us to distinguish one from
the other as well as from other forms in the universe.
But none of them really belong to the substantive, which
is Gold. In fact, the attributes of Gold are its atomic
mass, atomic structure, luster, non-corrosion, ductility,
density, or any of the other physical and chemical attributes
which chemists use to differentiate gold from say, silver
or copper, etc. All these have nothing to do with any
of the forms in which gold can exist. These attributes
of gold itself are not helpful in differentiating ring,
bangle, necklace and bracelet, etc., although the substantive
of all these forms and names is the same, namely gold.
Hence, when we see the ring, bangle, necklace and bracelet,
we see two types of attributes. First the attributes
of the superficial aspects associated with the names
for their forms i.e. ring, bangle, etc, and second some
of the attributes of the substantive gold that can be
immediately grasped by the senses, such as metallic
luster, etc . Without going into too much in details,
since some of these were discussed elsewhere (see ‘Introduction
to Vedanta’), we can state in general that:
1. The senses grasp only the attributes of those superficial
names and forms, as well as those of the substantive
that can be perceived directly by the senses. The senses
have no capacity to gather the substantive itself. (I.e.
only the attributes enter the mind and not the gold
itself. If this were not the case, only one person would
ever be able to see anything since, subsequently, there
would be nothing left for anyone else to see!)
2. If the attributes of the substantive are non-graspable
by the senses, then the senses can only gather the attributes
of the superficial name and forms. This is the case
if we say that Brahman is the material cause or substantive,
since this does not have attributes of its own, in which
case the senses can only gather the attributes of those
names and forms that are superimposed on Brahman. Knowledge
of the substantive can only be gained by shastra pramANa,
e.g. by statements such as ‘sarvaM khalvidam brahma’ and ‘neha
nAnAsti ki~nchana’ – ‘all this is
Brahman’ and ‘there is nothing or no thing
other than Brahman’.
The appearance of name and form, whether subtle or
gross, is creation. In accounting for how Brahman appears
to become many names and forms, the Upanishads describe
the appearance of the subtle elements (tanmAtra-s) first,
which subsequently undergo ‘transformationless’ transformation,
involving divisions and recombinations, in order to
form the apparent grosser objects that we can qualify.
Vedanta indicates that every object that we see is nothing
but an assemblage of finer or subtler elements and they
have no substantive of their own. Just as there is no ‘ringly’ substance
or ‘bangly’ substance but only gold, every
object in this universe has no substantive of its own
and is an assemblage of finer parts which can be further
and further sub-divided until all the grossness of the
material object disappears. Ultimately only the conscious
entity that is doing the division remains. This appears
to be where current science is also heading… but
slowly. But they do not end up with ‘consciousness’ since
that is never considered as a factor in the appearance
of objects.
Thus, what we see when we see objects is only their
superficial attributes since the ultimate substantive
is nothing but Brahman, whose nature is existence-consciousness
and limitlessness. Since consciousness and limitlessness
cannot be seen, what we see in the object are its attributes
plus ‘existence, i.e. 'object is' – or actually
existence ‘as an object’, or ‘ an
existent object’, since a non-existent object
cannot be perceived.
We can formally write an equation for an object:
Object = Brahman + superimposed names and forms.
Names and forms cannot be counted as separate. We cannot
count ‘ring one, bangle two, necklace three’,
etc, since ring, bangle, necklace, are just superimpositions
on gold. Knowledge of a ring involves two aspects -
knowledge of name and form (ring) and knowledge of substantive
(gold). Since gold knowledge is the more substantial
knowledge, what counts is that knowledge. Similarly,
when we know brahman, it is not that we will know each
name and form, but what we know is more substantial
than any other knowledge, since brahman is the material
cause for the Universe. Hence, the scriptures declare:
eka vijnaanena sarva vijnAnam bhavati – knowing
that ONE (substantive or cause), knowledge of every
product (effect) is 'as though' gained. Since the senses
do not grasp the substantive, the shAstra alone becomes
the source of that knowledge of the material cause of
all objects in the universe.
Proceed to the next
essay. |
