[Advaita-l] some points on VP10 (fwd)

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

PraNAms to all. 

Since the comments of Michael was posted in advaitin list and forwarded to this
list, the response I gave for that I am coping here - for the benefit of those
who want to follow the discussion - I am not sure it is good idea to have cross
postings. Anyway here are my comments since Michael forwarded his comments to
this list. 

--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@ eircom.net> wrote:

So to keep it simple I'll just focus on a 
> couple of points:
> You write:
> "Perceptuality of the object in the mind then is when the consciousness 
> underlying the subject becomes one with the consciousness that is 
> substantive of the object, the attributes of the object being only 
> superimpositions on the substantive. "
> |||||||||||| |
> The mind in VP goes out to the object, the mind is not a place in which 
> things happen. The mind becomes modified by the object i.e. it takes that 
> form. There is no 'in' to be in. On page 32 is a summary of what the 
> mind is. Acting in different way it is designated by different titles " 
> The manas, the intellect, the ego and the citta constitue the internal 
> instrument (mind). Doubt, certitude, egoism and recollectio - these are 
> respectively their objects". (32)

Yes - the divisions in the mind are in the next part that I have to post. I am
keeping one post a week since they are too long.

The first part of your comment - As I discussed before that mind goes out along
with the senses only with respect to two senses (visual and audio) the rest of
these stay where they are. But the statement that attributes are only
superposition on the substantive is independent of whether mind goes out or
stays there. It follows from:
Sarvam khalu idam brahma - all this is Brahman and Brahman is the upaadaana
kaaraNa for the world of objects. Hence Brahman is the adhiShTanam and
superimpositions are attributes - just as ring on gold. Conscious-existence
Brahman is the substantive and attributes of the objects that the senses and
themind along with senses (whether going out or staying there) gather. Then
only the statement of VP that the subject consciousness unites the object for
perceptualaty makes sense to me. All object knowledge is only attributive
knowledge since Brahman is all pervading as substantive of pramAta, Prameya and
pramANa. 


> You write:
> "Because of the imperceptibility of their attributes the knowledge of 
> dharma and adharma is
> difficult and has to be known only through shaastras."
> |||||||||||| ||
> Surely a problematic observation because many people without the benefit 
> of Sastras of any kind come to decisions which are similar. Theft is bad, 
> murder is to be discouraged, envy is corrosive etc. Have a look at the 
> writings of the Stoics.
> 
True - that is simplified dharma - I should do to others what I want other to
do to me and I should not do to others what I do not want others not to do me
- simplified ethical living. But dharma is much more deeper - hence we have
dharma shastras. VP addreses these in response to question earlier where dharma
is known through others statements or through their results in terms of good or
bad but not directly. 

Purvamiimaamsa starts - athAthO dharma gijnaasa - Hence enquiry into nature of
dharma which of course dictates one's karma too. Arjuna's problem was based on
dharma -kArpanya dhoshopa hataswabhaavaH, prucchaamitvaam dharma smmuuDha
cEtaaH - I am not able to know what is my dharma - to fight or not to fight. 
Hence we have shaatras determining dharma. swadharmE nidhanam shreyaH - says
Krishna. 

> You write:
> "What is implied in the perceptuality criteria is the perception is 
> limited to
> the vRitti of the object formed. If the sense data is incomplete, the 
> object
> perception is also incomplete to that extent. We defined object as limiting
> consciousness- existence (Brahman) + A + B + C + D + ?. attributes. For
> perceptuality, the limiting consciousness- existence of the subject extends 
> to
> the limiting consciousness- existence of the object + whatever attributes 
> the
> senses have gathered up to the point, say A and B but not C and D."
> |||||||||||| |||||
> The object is a limiting adjunct of pure consciousness. One can speak of 
> an object and the attributes of that object. Attributes are only 'in' the 
> object or can be said of the object, they do not exist in a free floating 
> manner to be plucked out of their realm, wherever that is, and added to 
> anything particularly to Brahman.
> 
> The qualifying attributes are not added on to the object but rather serve 
> to identify the object that is before us. VP gives an example: The 
> coloured jar is transitory - the colour is a qualifying attribute. We 
> can so to speak point to an object i.e. indicate it. Thereafter we can 
> note its attributes so that we will know it the next time.
> 
> I see a note on pg.39 on the substantive (viseya) and it is defined as 
> that which is qualified. Brahman cannot be a substantive according to 
> this line of thinking. Neti, neti.

Michael - true - attributes are not free floating. But the substantive is Sat
only; hence they are locussed on sat. The senses can only measure the
attributes, the sat is ever present and infinite. When the senses gather the
attributes they get locussed in the vRitti - vRitti is a thought the contents
are the attributes - the substantive is caitanyam in terms of
conscious-existent. The theory of knowledge rests on senses gathering
attributes for external perceptions. For internal perceptions the attributes
are there inherent in the vRitti that is formed. All perceptual knowlede is
attributive knowledge only - hence it is direct and immediate. 

The relation between visheshaNa and visheshya in advaita is only adhyaasa since
the vishshya to the core is Brahman only - upAdAna kaaraNa - There is no other
material in the universe. Hence object is attributes + Brahman - otherwise we
will end up with duality as reality. That is the only way I understand the
janmaadhyasya yathaH - suutra - and all sRiShTi prakaraNas in the Upanishads. 

I am glad you brought these issues. We agree or not, it will help others to
think deeply the truths that are being discussed - That is important for the
discussion - especially when the posts are too long even to read! 

Hari Om!
Sadananda