|
Part XXXXV -
Ontological Status of ‘This’
In the last
part, we introduced some fundamental concepts of advaita based
on vedAnta pramANa. We will now discuss the relationship between
perceptual knowledge and absolute knowledge.
The truth is that Brahman is absolute, undifferentiable,
infinite existence-consciousness. From the standpoint
of Brahman, or the absolute reference point, there is
nothing other than Brahman. This is called pAramArthika
satyam. When we consider the creation consisting of
various objects and beings, we are coming down to vyAvahArika
satyam or transactional reality. Here creation, creator,
yoga, yogi, self-realization, sAdhanA, j~nAnI and aj~nAnI,
as well as perception of plurality along with the mistaken
notion that what is perceived is real, including the
Vedas, all appear to exist. Since scripture
says that Brahman alone is real, the vyAvahArika satyam
is mithyA; i.e. it is neither real nor unreal. It is
apparently real but not really real.
Hence, the scriptures say that there is nothing apart
from Brahman - neha nAnAsti ki~nchana. Therefore, all
the objects that I see, as well as the seer that I am,
are nothing but Brahman – sarvaM khalvidam brahma.
Note that the word ‘idam’ means ‘this’,
which refers to an object that is perceived and which,
by the above declarative statement of the scripture,
is nothing other than Brahman. Note that ‘idam’ has
a reference only when there is an ‘idam’ that
is separate from ‘aham’. But ‘idam’ by
definition is inert and, if we say ‘this is’,
it implies that it is existing. Brahman is consciousness
and, by having ‘is-ness’ associated with
it (as ‘Brahman is’), it is also existence.
Since everything is Brahman, as the statement ‘sarvaM
khalvidam brahma’ asserts, and since idam is inert,
we conclude that Brahman expresses in the ‘idam’ as
existence only. Thus Brahman, whose intrinsic nature
is existence-consciousness, expresses in everything
fundamentally as ‘existence’ but it only
expresses as both existence and consciousness
in conscious beings.
In addition, idam’s existence or existence of ‘this’ can
only be recognized by a conscious entity. In the very recognition,
involving knowledge of ‘this’, the perceptuality
condition is met, wherein the limiting existence in the form
of ‘this’ becomes one with the subject’s
limiting ‘existence-consciousness’ in the form
of ‘I am’. This results in the knowledge of a) ‘this
is an object’ and b) ‘I am a knower of this object’.
This is true for all objects that are perceived via the mind
and the senses. Hence, in the perception of ‘this’,
the ‘existence’ expressed as the limiting adjunct
in ‘this’ is linked with consciousness ‘I
am’ in order to establish the knowledge of ‘this
object is’, and cognition of that knowledge in ‘I
know this object is’.
In essence, consciousness-existence of the subject-object
expressed as in the limiting adjuncts of ‘I am’ and ‘this
is’ are involved in the perceptual knowledge of
perceiver and perceived. Knowledge of every object therefore
involves unity of the existence-consciousness, which
is of the nature of Brahman, in the form of this subject-object
relation. Hence, Yagnyavalkya says to Gargi in Br. Up.
3-8-11, ‘nAnyadatosti draShTRRi, nAnyadatosti
shrotRRi, nAnyadastosti mantRRi, nAnyadatosti vij~nAtre – ’ Without
consciousness-existence present, there is nothing other
to see, there is nothing other to hear, there is nothing
other to think and there is nothing other to know.
Hence, Brahman is the substantive for everything including ‘this’ that
is seen and ‘I am’ that is the seer. Creation is
only apparent or mithyA. Seer-seen duality is also part of
that mithyA. mithyA is defined as sat-asat vilakShaNam – that
which is neither sat nor asat; neither real nor unreal. ‘Real’ is
that which does not undergo any transformation and ‘unreal’ is
that which has no locus for existence at any time. Since the
world of objects continuously undergoes mutation, it cannot
be absolutely real; but since the objects are there to experience,
they are not unreal. Hence they are classed as mithyA – apparent.
From the standpoint of Ishvara, the power by which one can
become many is defined as mAyA. It forms the basis for creation.
Creation being apparent and mAyA being apparent, they have
the same degree of reality. Thus, the apparent cause and the
apparent effects are of the same degree of reality – and
this type of transformation is called ‘pariNAma’ in
VP. From the standpoint of substantive Brahman, the existence-consciousness,
there is no transformation or it is only apparent transformation,
appearing as many yet remaining as Brahman only. This apparent
transformation is called vivarta. Having defined both, VP now
addresses the ontological status of the silver that we see
in the nacre; in fact, the status of any object that we see.
Since we seem to see an object ‘out there’, it
is apparent that there is something ‘out there’,
which appears to be there for us to see. (Here, ‘seeing’ includes
all sense perceptions.) When we see an object, the associated
vRRitti forms in the mind and is then seen in the reflected
light of illuminating consciousness, sAkshI. Nothing can appear
in this universe without having a substantive to support that
appearance. Hence, any appearance must have a substantive,
which in-turn cannot be another apparent thing, since any further
apparent thing would again have to have its own substantive
that was not apparent. The only substantive that is non-sublatable
is Brahman – existence-consciousness. Existence itself
cannot undergo any transformation or pariNAma. Hence, VP says
that, when I perceive silver as ‘this is silver’,
there are two types of transformations involved in that perception.
There is an object, prameya, as ‘this’; and there
is a subject, pramAta, the knower ‘I am’. This
results in the knowledge of the object and cognition of that
knowledge.
The perceptuality requirement therefore involves two transformations:
one at the level of prameya (the known) and the other at level
of pramAta (the knower). The perception of silver which is
mithyA, by sense input of its silvery-ness, is transformed
into a vRRitti as ‘this’, which is also mithyA.
The object ‘out there’, and the vRRitti of the
object that is formed in the mind associated with that object,
are both ontologically in par since both are mithyA. Existence
in the form of the limiting adjunct in the object ‘out
there’, is now existence as the liming adjunct in the
object ‘this’ in the form of the vRRitti. Since
both are neither real nor unreal, both are of the nature of
ignorance or nescience only, and in neither case is the substantive
revealed. This is called mAyA at the level of Ishvara and avidyA
at the level of the jIva, since Ishvara knows but jIva does
not know. From both perspectives it is mithyA only. (Krishna
says it is difficult to unlock His mAyA ‘daiviim eshA
guNamayI mama mAyA duratyayA…’ – this mAyA
of mine is of divine origin and cannot be easily overcome.
The only way to overcome it is through complete surrender and
that surrender occurs only with the knowledge of the substantive,
Brahman.)
Hence, the transformation, as per the above definition,
is pariNAma since ontologically the same degree of reality
of existence in the form of limiting adjuncts is maintained.
The substantive for the object ‘out there’ is
Brahman, as existence in the limiting adjunct of the
object ‘is’. This is expressed in the scriptures
by the statement ‘sarvaM idam brahma’, all
this is Brahman. Likewise, the substantive for the vRRitti
in the mind, in the perception of the object as ‘this’,
is also existence as the limiting adjunct of ‘this
is’. Since neither the substantive knowledge of
the object ‘out there’, nor the substantive
of the object perceived as ‘this’, are known
by the perceptual process, due to ignorance or nescience
covering both, the knowledge remains as knowledge of
the object as ‘this’, and not as the substantive
existence-consciousness, Brahman. When the vRRitti is
formed, the ignorance of the substantive knowledge of
the object out there is transferred into ignorance of
the substantive knowledge of ‘this’ .
All that this verbiage really means is that, although
Brahman is the substantive of the object out there and
of the vRRitti in the mind, neither fact is realized
when the object is perceived via the mind. The substantive
is ‘as though’ covered by ignorance or nescience
and is not perceived, since objective knowledge is only
attributive, never substantive. Perception as a pramANa
cannot uncover that ignorance or nescience.
The important point to note is that, when we perceive an object
out there we say that it is an ‘existent object’ not ‘existence
as an object’ (it is like saying that we have a ‘golden
ring’ rather than ‘ringly gold’). Existence
as the substantive is not recognized in the object there. Similarly,
when the object is perceived through the vRRitti, the knowledge
is ‘this is an object’ , i.e. not ‘this object
as existence’ but only ‘this existent object’.
Since knowledge involves consciousness, the subject existence-consciousness
is united with the existence vRRitti of the object as ‘this
is’ in order for the perception to take place. Ignorance
of the substantive pervades the object out there and the vRRitti
of the object as ‘this’, even though the entire
process occurs on the unifying substantive – consciousness-existence
of the subject-object.
Objection: According to the description
above, perception of the object involves formation of a vRRitti
and, when this is identified with the consciousness of the
subject, the knowledge that ‘this is silver’ takes
place. How can the silver that abides in the consciousness
of the subject be identified as an object that is ‘out
there’, expressed as ‘this is silver’?
Essentially, how can the silver in the conscious mind become
silver ‘out there’? One is a subtle thought in
the mind and the other is a gross object. How can a subtle
thought in the consciousness form the basis of the conclusion
that an object outside is silver?
Answer: Since the question is raised by
naiyAyika-s, VP uses their own analysis of the perception
of happiness to answer the question. He uses what is popular
known as a proverb: what is good for the goose is good for
the gander. First, VP differentiates the pure consciousness
from the limiting consciousness. In the discussion of the
jIva, we have stated earlier that the jIva is qualified limiting
consciousness and jIva sAkshI is just the limiting consciousness
(without qualification or identification) or upahita chaitanya,
while pure consciousness is unbound and infinite. According
to the nyAya philosopher, happiness abides in the soul, even
though it is experienced as abiding in the body. Thus the
substratum for happiness is different from where it is experienced.
If naiyAyika-s have no problem in accepting this, they should
not have any problem in perceiving the silver as abiding
in the consciousness as an object silver ‘out there’.
This answer is only to show that naiyAyika-s have no right
to raise this objection.
VP next categorically states that unqualified pure consciousness
is not the substratum of the silver but substratum only for
the consciousness limited by the meaning of the word ‘this’ – that
is for the limiting consciousness in the form ‘this’. ‘This’ is
the vRRitti that is formed, which is illumined by the witnessing
consciousness; and therefore one is conscious of ‘this’.
Thus, ‘this’ is in the consciousness, in order
for one to be conscious of ‘this’. The content
of ‘this’ is the attributive content perceived
through the sense input which, in this case, is the silvery-ness
of the object. The substantive of ‘this’ is the
limiting consciousness itself, established by the unity of
the subject-consciousness with the object ‘this’ of
the vRRitti. Thus, the cognition of ‘this is silver’ in
the limiting consciousness is connected to some object out
there, which has silvery-ness as its attribute.
Since the whole universe is nothing but Brahman, it
is as a result of nescience or mAyA that the world appears
to be out there for the senses to perceive. The substantive
of the silvery object out there is Brahman, expressed
as existence. As a result of the formation of the vRRitti,
with the sense input attribute of silvery-ness, and
its unity with the subject consciousness, the object
is now one with the limiting consciousness that has
the mind as its limiting instrument. The silver out
there is now ‘as though’ superimposed on
the limiting consciousness, which is just the illuminating
consciousness of the sAkshI. Thus, in essence, Brahman
as an object out there is now Brahman as an object in
the mind.
The ignorance associated with the existence of the
object ‘silver’ out
there (since it is taken as silver rather than Brahman)
now becomes the ignorance of the perception of silver
abiding in the substantive consciousness. Neither the
substantive of the object silver out there nor the substantive
of the vRRitti of the object silver in the mind are recognized.
But the truth remains that, without the substantive consciousness
limited by the mind, one could not be conscious of the
vRRitti in the mind and therefore conscious of the object
silver out there. No other agency than limiting consciousness
can cognize the silver out there. Limiting consciousness
is nothing but witnessing consciousness. Hence Yagnyavalkya’s
statement to Gargi in Br. Up. quoted above that, other
than the consciousness, there is nothing else to see,
to hear, to think and to know - ‘nAnyadatosti draShTRi…’.
Proceed to the next
essay.
|
