--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik@...> wrote:

>
> Sadanandaji, you have rightly pointed out the importance of the
> mechanics of perceptions as a key factor in understanding this
> subject. As per my understanding of the Advaita theory of cognition,
> perception takes place by means of the mind going out alongwith the
> senses to grasp the object -- what the senses grasps is the sensible
> attributes while the mind grasps attributes like smallness, etc, and
> the comprehension of the object taking place in the light of chit.

> Unfortunately, Advaita has been interpreted in the last two centuries
> through the colourations of Idealism. As pointed out by Michaelji in
> an earlier post, this is probably due to the fact that this period
> was the great period of Idealism in the West. The matter was made
> worse I think due to a confounding of Buddhist Vijnanavada doctrines
> with those of Advaita Vedanta.

Chittaranjanji

Thanks for your prompt response. Yes, in the analysis of the cognition
process (Advaita also follows the prevailing tArkika's view), the mind
goes out along with the senses to grasp the object. That was the
understanding at that time, based on their understanding of the
mechanics of the perception process. Here, we are now entering into
the realm of not Vedanta or philosophy but objective sciences. So I
only examine from that perspective rather than from any western
philosophical perspectives that I have no knowledge of. I strongly
believe that philosophy has to accommodate scientific discoveries that
include the space-time concepts as well as quantum mechanical concepts
of matter. The beauty of Advaita is that not only it accommodates the
new discoveries of science without compromising the essential Advaita
nature of the truth or reality, but in fact endorses them. So my
understanding of Advaita has nothing to do modern advaitins adoptation
of western philosophical thoughts during the past two centuries. I
embarked on Advaita purely as a student of science rejecting
VishisshTaadvaita that I grew up with, since childhood.

Let us examine the perception as it occurs. This is my understanding.
When I see a pot there, what do I really see? Eyes can only see forms
and colors, as the input arrives to the senses (hence senses going out
is only metaphorical). Similarly other sense input such as sound, if it
is a singing pot, etc. Each sense input is independent of other and all
feed in the information. The information from different senses has to
be integrated by the mind to a common locus. Senses being maatra-s can
only measure the degrees and magnitudes of the attributes.
Surprisingly, in the volition process, where the integration occurs,
there is an inherent assumption involved that there cannot be attributes
without a locus. The mind perceives only the attributes and not the
substantive. Hence a locus for the attributes is provide by the mind
with an image of the object in the mind taking all the inputs from the
senses and locussing on that image. In the perception of the form, due
to the presence of two eyes with the 7-deg separation between the two,
we have stereographic projection with 3-Dimensional perspective of the
forms as well as the spatial location of the object in relation to the
perception of other surrounding objects. The cognition of the object by
the mind therefore involves the perception and volition along with
spatial relations surrounding the object. Space being too subtle, is not
perceived by the senses but inferred due to stereographic projection of
the 3-D nature of the world. Time is again inferred by the mind due to
movement of the objects in space, and the relation between the
space-time and more importantly the cognition of both space and time
through the mind become inherent process in these perceptions. (Dvaitins
bring in Saakshee for cognition of time and space beyond the senses and
mind, and frankly make a mess of the cognition process)

The cognition process is complete with the attributes measured by the
senses and mind providing a locus for the attributes with space-time
superimposed on it. " I see a pot, right there, right now"- is the
so-called perceptional knowledge. I am not seeing the object as it is
(as Dvaitins claim as yathaartham pramaanam), but always as presented by
the sense input and limited by the mind's capacity for volition and
cognition. If the mind is absent, the whole process does not
materialize. Recognition occurs by comparing the cognized object with
the images from the memory, which are based on past cognitions. Here we
enter the arena of vyakti and jaati aspects.

Here, I need to emphasize one important aspect. Complete perceptual
process, involving that there is an object out there and thus the world
out there, cannot be fully established without the mind being active.
This is unavoidable in the perception process. Does the world exists
without the mind present, is a philosophical question; but I would say
it remains as a unanswerable question, since mind is required even to
answer it, yes or no. To me this is truly an indeterminate problem and
there is no way to get around this. Hence I put this under the category
of anirvacaniiyam only, whether original Advaita concepts directly
implied anirvachaniiya khyaati in this way or not.

In the perception of the world- the mind's role being unavoidable, we
have an inherent problem in establishing the reality of the world
independent of the mind. Personally I am not concerned if there is some
parallelism to Vijnaanavaada. This becomes a problem in the science too
- the investigation of the matter independent of an observer.

Coming back to the philosophical aspect, if the Brahman is
existence-consciousness-infiniteness and thus the material cause for the
universe, there is an inherent problem of the cognition of the world,
which is inert. If what are cognized are only attributes and not
substantive which is Brahman as the above cognition process indicates,
then I have no problem in accounting the world out there. I am not
negating the world as such but negating the attributes as just
superimposition, which includes the forms and therefore names for the
forms. The substantive is myself as my mind. Is the world real, yes
from the substantive point- but from the point of names and forms as the
Upanishads declare - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - It is only
transformation in names and forms - It is only apparent? Hence we have
differentiation of vyavahaara satyam and satyasya satyam. Since the
Upanishads say I am Brahman, the subject-object (dRik-dRisya)
distinctions are only the play of the mind - In the deep sleep state,
when the mind folds - so is the projection of the subject-object
relationships. Identified the world as names and forms, if the question
is asked whether the world real - no - the names and forms are only
superimpositions. But identified from the substantive part - is the
world real - yes, that is Brahman; but when I do identify the world with
Brahman, I have to also recognize that I am that Brahman and therefore
there is no separate world 'out there' since they are nothing but
Brahman that I am - so the concept of 'out-there' with space-time
continuum itself dissolves into I.

So what is real - Brahman alone is real and 'tat twam asi' is the
teaching to a Vedaantic student. Everything else is superimposition on
Brahman. If 'consciousness is Brahman' is the scriptural definition
of Brahman, inert cannot be Brahman and if one see inert (the world)
then what is seen is not real but only apparent. Mind's role in seeing
or experiencing the world therefore requires proper analysis and
understanding in view of the scriptural declaration. As I have
discussed above the current understanding of the mechanics of perception
process are not in violation of adviatic concepts. To me this is pure
Advaita to the core and nothing to do with the idealism Philosophy the
West or Vijnaana vaada of Buddhism of the East, even if there are some
agreements with their concepts. The dream analogy only endorses these
concepts, hence the importance I give to Shankara's prakarana Grantha-s
than his commentary on poursheya Brahmasuutra related to Ch.II.

Hari OM!
Sadananda



> Yes, I have gathered that in Dvaita the material cause is prakriti
> which is dependent on Brahman, whereas in both Vishistadvaita and
> Advaita, the existential core of the world is Brahman Itself. The
> language of Advaita does often create confusion though. I believe
> that when Brahman is hidden, the world seen through avidya 'becomes'
> a limiting adjunct in so far as the substratum is not seen as the
> substratum, and when avidya is 'removed', the same world is seen as
> nothing but Brahman - as features of the non-dual Brahman. But
> Advaita does not stop at this vision of the world, but goes to the
> heart of attributes itself in its doctrine of word-meanings.


The confusion actually is the use of the word in the Vedanta itself-
asat - it is used for both non-existent in the naasato vidyate bhaavo
and sometime used as in the vyavahaarika satyam as asatoma sadgamaya. I
have not seen any confusion in the Advaita - but yes in Brahmasuutra-s.
If ten daarshanika’s claim that their darshana-s which do not agree with
each other but all claim their darshana-s are in tune with B.Suutra-s,
there is an inherent problem in the suutra-s. Agreement with B.Suutra
therefore cannot form basis for the validity of a darshana. Hence I go
by the Shankara's prakarana Grantha-s which are based on Upanishads than
on his B.Sutra commentary. Adhyaasa bhaashya, of course, is the
quintessence of Advaita Vedanta and is independent of B. Suutra-s.

Hari OM!
Sadananda


>
> Warm regards,
> Chittaranjan



=====
What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.
Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only
the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda