[Advaita-l] The Foundations of Adhyāsa - 5.1 (The Siddhānta: The Self is not the Body) (Part I)

[S Jayanarayanan]

 (Continued from previous post.)
 
 
If the previous arguments were “minor”, then this is the MAJOR one – The Argument – provided by Sankara. The Argument will first be
stated as it appears in the BSB (plain translation), and then expanded with an interpretation.
 
  BSB 3.3.54 (continued):
  
  Vedāntin: We further must question our opponent as to the nature of that Consciousness which he assumes to
  spring from the elements; for the Materialists do not admit the existence of anything but the
  four elements.
 
  Opponent: Consciousness is the Perception of the elements and what springs from the elements. 
  
  Vedāntin: Then we remark that in that case the elements and their products are objects of Perception
  and hence the latter cannot be a quality of them, as it is contradictory that anything should act on itself
  (i.e. the Self is the Subject of Perception, but the Body is the Object of Perception). Fire is hot indeed
  but does not burn itself, and the acrobat, well-trained as he may be, cannot mount on his own shoulders.
  As little could Perception, if it were a mere quality of the elements and their products, render them objects
  of itself. For form and other qualities do not make their own color or the color of something else their objects;
  the elements and their products, on the other hand, whether external or belonging to the Self, are rendered
  objects by Perception. Hence in the same way, as we admit the existence of that Perception which has the
  material elements and their products for its objects, we also must admit the separateness of that Perception
  from the elements. Since Perception constitutes the character of the Self, the Self must be distinct from the Body.
  The Self recognizes judgments such as ‘I saw this,’ and from this fact, memory becomes possible. The argument
  that Consciousness is an attribute of the Body because it is where a Body is, has already been refuted.
 
The Argument is very simple, but exceedingly subtle, hence may require multiple attempts at understanding it. What follows is an
interpretation of Sankara’s Commentary above.
 
Consider a perfectly healthy person standing across and looking at a building that is 100 feet tall, making the observation:
 
  “I see a partly unfocussed 100-foot tall building in front of me.”
 
To render it in the passive voice:
 
  Observation #1:  “A partly unfocussed 100-foot tall building is being seen (or perceived).”
 
The reason for the including the phrase “partly unfocussed” is that no one sees a 100-foot tall building in complete focus – a part of
the building is always unfocussed, even in persons with normal, undefective vision.
 
The question is: Can the above Observation #1 be completely explained only by appealing to material reality?
 
It will now be shown that Observation #1 cannot possibly be explained by physical entities alone, hence Materialism (i.e. Self is
the Body) is false.
 
What are the physical entities that may explain Observation #1? The relevant ones are:
 
(1) The 100-foot tall building.
(2) Light.
(3) Eyes.
(4) Brain.
 
Let us now examine each of the individual entities and check if they are capable of Vision:
 
(1) The building does not see itself (obvious – otherwise, the Vision of it would continue even upon closing the eyes).
(2) Light does not see the building (obvious – there can be light with no Vision of the building).
(3) The eye does not see the building. There are at least four reasons for this:
 a. There are two eyes, each containing a 2-D image of the building on the retina. The Vision is that of one 3-D building.
 If either eye were to see the building, why is it that 3-D is perceived, not 2-D?
 b. The size of the image in the eye is very small – measuring less than an inch, but the building seen is 100 feet tall!
 Why should an inch-size image result in the Vision of a 100-foot tall building?
 c. The images in the eye are inverted, but the Vision is that of a building that is upright.
 d. If the optic nerve that goes from the eye to the brain is damaged, Vision disappears. If the eye were the seat of Vision,
 why should it be dependent upon the optic nerve at all?
(4) The brain does not see the building. (This is a bit subtle and hardest to explain.) The brain simply does not contain any
 images of any sort. It is only a collection of blood, nerve cells, tissue, and the like. But the image perceived is that of
 a 100-foot tall building. Why should the Vision of such a building arise from the brain that does not have any images?
 
Given that none of the above explains Vision, one is left with the conclusion that it cannot be sufficiently explained by material
reality. Therefore, the Self which is the Subject of Vision, is different from the Body which is the Object of Vision.
 
 
(To be Continued)