Which substratum? (was: Gaudapada's Karika)

[Anand Hudli]

  Allan Curry wrote:

>Yes, I agree that the perceptions occuring in waking state and dream state
>are both equally created through the agency of the brain/mind. It seems
>likely to me that dream perceptions are entirely created by the mind while
>waking state perceptions also have input from outside the mind. Regardless,
>I still want to know how we can *prove* the most basic substratum of the
>mental and extra-mental worlds is consciousness instead of non-conscious
>energy/matter? It seems that any recourse to scripture amounts to faith and
>belief, while pointing to the experience of oneself or others (however
>hoary) just begs the question.


   Reductio ad absurdum. Suppose the most basic substratum is energy/matter.
   Then it should be perceivable in some sense. Even if it is not perceivable
   directly by our senses, it should be indirectly so because it can be
   detected by scientific instruments, etc. We can treat these scientific
   instruments as extensions of our senses. Now, anything that is perceivable
   is not real, just as objects in the dream and waking state are not real.
   Thus, we are led to the absurd conclusion that the substratum is not real.
   Or in other words, there is no reality whatsoever. This is not far from
   nihilism.

   If the substratum is not perceivable at all, you  have admitted it is not
   energy/matter. Again, there are two possibilities. 1) The substratum is
   a void. 2) The substratum is a positive entity. Shruti (scripture) affirms
   2), but not 1). On a purely logical basis, one can argue that 1) is the
   correct view because 2) entails making unnecessary assumptions. After all,
   2) involves accepting the "attributes" of Existence, Consciousness,
   and Bliss, as per the words of the Shruti.

   In short, logic dictates that
   the Occam's-razor principle may be invoked, which says if there are two
   or more explanations of the same thing, accept the one which makes the
   least assumptions. But the principle of Occam's-razor (or laaghava as
   it is called in Sanskrit) is still within the realm of logic. As I will
   show in more detail in a separate post, Shruti makes those things known
   which can neither be perceived nor be inferred by logic! So in this special
   case, we have to side with Shruti and accept 2). Moreover, 1) will land
   us squarely in the Shuunyavaada of Buddhism, something not good for
   health. :-)



  >Allan Curry


  Anand