[Advaita-l] How is an object perceived.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNAms
Just for clarification.
When I look at the moon what I cognize is moonlight only. Now using Shastra or science, I have to recognize the presence of sunlight which is getting reflected and seen as moonlight. That is viveka. 

The same analogy applies when I say I am conscious of the thought and therefore conscious of the object out there. What I am conscious of is only reflected consciousness and not the original which cannot be objectified. I have to use shastra pramaana and Viveka to recognize the original consciousness which cannot be cognized. 
Hence we distinguish the prameya chaitanya, pramaata chaitnya and pramaana chaitanya. 

With this, I should stop.
Hari Om!
Sadananda



 

    On Wednesday, April 15, 2020, 05:26:01 PM GMT+5:30, Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  
 
 

Extending the analogy further, just as it is the sunlight which is cognized
when it is said that moon is cognized, it should be said that it is the
light of Consciousness which is perceived when the object is perceived.

That is the issue. In all objective knowledge, it is the knowledge of
Consciouness as limited by the object that is the result.

Ofcourse I have used the same terminology as is found in the analogy cited
by you just to drive home the point. This is not the most appropriate
terminology concerning objective knowledge.
Pranams and Regards

---------------

Chandramouliji - PraNAms
>From my point, What is cognized is moonlight but I have to use Viveka to recognize the sunlight using the moonlight I am cognizing. 
Nitya anitya vastu - vRitits come under anitya and the ever present saakshi chaitanyam is nitya but 
saakshi cannot be cognized. What is cognized is only the reflected consciousness by the vRiti. From 
that one has to RECOGNIZE the original consciousness that is not cognized but because of which
the Vritti cognized. 
That is my understanding.
At least I am clear from my perspective.
Hari Om!
Sadananda








On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 4:28 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Chandramouliji - PraNAms
>
>
>
> I did not mean that external light can be perceived without consciousness
> illuminating it.
>
>
>
> If that is what was conveyed by my writing, my apologies.
>
>
>
> What I said is analogy of light and the light of consciousness. I did not
> mean that they are equal.
>
>
>
> My statements again.
>
>
>
> Pure light cannot be perceived unless an object reflects it. Look at the
> full moon in the night. Without the moon present and reflecting the
> sunlight, I cannot recognize the presence of the sunlight, where the moon
> is. Between the moon and another planet, sunlight is there but no object is
> there to reflect it, for us to recognize its presence.
>
>
>
> In the same way, the all-pervading, ever-present light of consciousness
> cannot be recognized unless it is reflected by mind or by vRitti or by
> both.
>
>
>
> This point is very important since many have wrong notions about
> self-realization.  Pure consciousness does not need to realize and the mind
> being jadam cannot realize. It is again the mind with chidaabhaasa that has
> to recognize cognitively. While looking at the thoughts that are
> illuminated by the light of consciousness, or even for nirvikalpaka
> samadhi, the thoughtless mind that is reflecting the pure consciousness.
> The analogy similar to recognizing the sunlight while seeing the
> moonlight.
>
>
>
> Just as I am not paying attention to the original sunlight while looking
> at the moonlight, I do not pay attention to the light of consciousness that
> is reflecting the Vritti. I am getting carried away by the contents of the
> Vritti and the light of consciousness that illumining it.
>
>
>
> Meditation is then shifting the attention (of the mind) from the contents
> of the vRitti to the light of consciousness that is reflected by the
> vRitti. Unlike the normal light, reflected light of consciousness is the
> knowledge.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hence in principle, there are no disagreements here.
>
>
>
> The question is only, ‘Does the mind has to go out and grasp the object
> for me to see?’.  I think, that part was an adaptation of the meemamsa
> position.
>
>
>
> Once the vRitti forms, the rest of the VP statements follow.
>
>
>
> Of course, there is also another question related to the observation of
> 'Now' and 'Here'. VP states that time and spatial coordinates are
> recognized by that.
>
>
>
> There is no time in 'Now' as time requires two sequential observations.
> For space what is required is observation of two simultaneous points. When
> I am seeing a pot, I am seeing space since simultaneously I am seeing
> several points on the pot. Hence space is perceived. On the other hand,
> time still needs two sequential observations. In a continuous observation
> time can be defined as one digitizes the continuous observations.
>
>
>
> Shree Dr. Ramesh Vemuri is an expert in this.
>
>
>
> Hari Om!
>
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <Safe emailing | Avast>
> <#m_6408854540552263939_m_-6397712119910313078_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
Safe emailing | Avast


 |

 |

 |

The
  
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org