|
Part LIII -
vyAvahArika vs. prAtibhAsika Pt. 2
Since the senses cannot grasp Ishvara, the substantive
of all, they gather the attributive content of the objects
that are within their reach. Since the attributes are
not the objects per se, it appears that in the perceptual
process the attributes are getting separated from the
substantive. But the attributes cannot exist without
the substantive. Since Ishvara is all pervading or infinite
and the substantive of everything, attributes cannot
be separated from the Ishvara, either. In the relative
plane, each of the five senses measure the attributes
of the objects ‘out there’ depending on
their capabilities, and the measured attributes become
locussed in the imaged ‘vRRitti’ that forms
in the mind. Thus, the object ‘out there’ with
its attributes, and the associated vRRitti-s in the
mind with their sense-measured attributes, are inter-related
as the latter is the image of the former, created by
the individual jIva in his own mind.
We can consider that the objects ‘out there’ are
Ishvara’s sRRiShTi while the image formed in the
mind is jIva’s sRRiShTi, although the mind of
the jIva and the capacity of the mind to create come
from Ishvara alone. Thus, the perceptuality condition
is stated by VP as occurring when the existence of the
object out there is imaged in form of the vRRitti. This
existence now in the form of a vRRitti is united with
the consciousness of the subject, on order for the subject
to be conscious of the vRRitti. Thus, through the vRRitti,
consciousness of an object ‘out there’,
together with its attributes as gathered by the senses,
becomes our perceptual knowledge of the object. The
vRRitti replicates in a subtle form the object out there,
only to the extent that the senses were able to capture
the attributive content. Errors can therefore arise
if the attributive content of the vRRitti does not completely
replicate the original object. The reasons could be
defects in the senses or defects in the auxiliary causes
such as insufficient light, or some other obstructions,
etc. Therefore what I see as the world is limited by
my senses.
At the individual level, the jIva also does exactly the same
in the creation of his dream world at the microcosmic level.
He becomes an ‘Ishvara’ for the creation of the
dream world of plurality. The intelligent and the material
cause rests with the jIva for his dream.
We can broadly define the vyAvahArika satyam or transactional
reality as corresponding to Ishvara’s sRRiShTi
and prAtibhAsika as corresponding to the individual’s
mental projection of the world of plurality. When the
jIva goes to sleep, the mind of the jIva, supported
by the same witnessing consciousness, now forms the
basis for the projection of the dream world of plurality.
Interestingly, mind not only projects the inert objects,
but even the sentient entities in the dream world along
with a jIva who is now localized as a separate subject
experiencing the dream world of plurality. That jIva
in the dream is awake and has his own body, mind and
intellect separate from those of the waking beings .
Thus, the analogy between the dream world of the jIva
sRRiShTi and the waking world of Ishvara’s sRRiShTi
is exact. For the dreamer jIva (who is actually awake
in the dream), the dream world is real just as the waker
jIva in the waking world sees the waking world as real,
while concluding that the dream world that he saw in
his dream was not real since it is sublated. This conclusion,
however, is by a waker and not a dreamer. For a dreamer,
the dream world is as real as the mind that sees and
feels in the waking state. Considering the dreamer subject,
he perceives the objects of the dream world in front
of him, through his senses, just as happens in the waking
world – so states the Mandukya Up. In fact, the
Upanishad uses a parallel statement for dream as it
does for the waking world: ‘ekona vimshati mukhaH’ ..
etc, describing the dreamer’s outlook into the
dream world as parallel to the waker’s outlook
onto the waking world.
The perceptuality condition has to be satisfied in
the dream world too. The dream world is external to
the dreamer. His mind may project internal perceptions
and vRRitti-s in his mind, which are different from
the minds of the other jIva-s in his dream world. What
is external and what is internal is now defined from
the point of the dreamer’s tiny mind. The waker’s
mind that went into sleep is now all pervading and forms
the material cause for all the objects and beings, including
their body-mind-intellect assemblies. Thus, we have
vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika in the dream world too,
where vyAvahArika is defined as ‘Ishvara’s’ (the
waking jIva) sRRiShTi and prAtibhAsika is jIva’s
(the dreaming jIva) sRRiShTi. The relative planes have
shifted relative to each other – the systems otherwise
are exactly parallel.
What is real and what is unreal in these projections
therefore depends on the reference plane. The absolute
reality independent of any frame of reference, as the
Mandukya Up. declares in mantra 7, is turIya – the
pure existence-consciousness, which is advaitam, one
without a second. That alone is the absolute truth.
In all other planes of reference, the limiting existence-consciousness
manifests as relative knowledge as a result of the perceptual
process. The declaration of the scriptures is: you are
that. When one is conscious of the object, the consciousness
that beams through as reflected consciousness in the
form of knowledge of the object is nothing but pure
consciousness alone, as declared by VP in the very introduction
to the topic of perception. Every perception of any
object is therefore soaked in my consciousness in order
for me to be conscious of the object. Hence Bhagavan
Ramana says in his Upadesha sAra:
dRRishya vAritam chittamAtmanAH|
chitta darshanam tattva darshanam||
In the perception of every object (dRRishya), there is existence-consciousness
reflected on it. Hence, if we remove the attributive content
(or look beyond the attributive content), what is there in
every dRRishya is pure existence-consciousness alone. The existence
of the object is united with the consciousness of the subject
to cause perceptual knowledge. The substantive for both the
object and the subject is pure existence-consciousness alone.
Ramana states that understanding of the substantive forms the
basis for the inquiry into the nature of the reality of the
jIva-jagat or subject-object duality.
Hence, the introductory VP statement – pratyakshapramA
cha atra chaitanyam eva (knowledge of perception as ‘conscious
of the object’) is nothing but pure consciousness alone – is
justified by the detailed analysis of the perceptual process.
Shifting from the attributing content of the vRRitti to the
illuminating consciousness that forms the basis for the knowledge
of the object forms an essential sAdhanA for recognizing that
the substantive for the whole world of objects is nothing but
consciousness alone. The scriptural declaration ‘sarvaM
khalvidam brahma’ (all this is nothing but Brahman) becomes
evident as a result of inquiry into the perceptual process.
When the objects are perceived with their attributive contents,
along with the attributive knowledge which is represented as ‘form’,
naming has to take place representing the knowledge. Naming
is knowing, and perceptual knowledge therefore leads to name
and form constituting the world of objects, since the substantive
is Brahman, which is beyond name and form. Hence, an object
is nothing but Brahman with name and form. The statement also
implies that world is perceived by a conscious entity establishing
its existence with names and forms. Hence, the world is established
by the knowledge of its existence. Without a conscious entity,
a world cannot be independently established.
This concludes the vedAnta paribhAshA’s analysis
of the pratyakSha pramANa or perception. The next part
will begin analysis of anumAna or inference.
Proceed to the next
essay.
|
