Psychological vs. ontological facts

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> In another post I mentioned that Gaudapada/Shankara use the perception of
> the world as a proof that it is unreal. If reality is not perceived in some
> fashion how can it be distinguished from the merely non-existent?  If it is
> admitted that a jnani does perceive in *some* way, that they are Brahman ,
> how can they then be certain that this knowledge is not merely another
> *illusory* mode of brain/mind function?
>
> I believe one of the responses to this criticism is that you can't have an
> illusion without having a substratum. Well, why can't the experience of

You've anticipated the response that I just posted.

> non-duality be an illusion which is produced in the mind like other kinds
> of psychological events, while the real ontological substratum is something

This is the reason why the tradition relies on Sruti as a pramANa, and
then builds its logic around it. The personal experience of non-duality
can always be dismissed by others as the ravings of a madman. Of course,
one can say, "I wish I were that mad," if one is already convinced of the
logical truth of non-duality, but otherwise, the personal experience does
not serve as a source of the truth. It can be an example for oneself, but
is not to be given epistemological validity.

> like a set of interacting quantum fields?  Must we assume that energy
> itself is conscious when we assert that consciousness is the substratum of
> the apparent universe or do we just ignore science completely?

Does your question about the consciousness of energy entail that energy is
conscious of itself, or of other things? If so, the problem with this is
that where there is only one entity, call it the Atman or energy, there is
no point in talking of such consciousness. It is only where one can admit
a subject-object duality that one can talk of any entity being conscious
of itself or of other things. Now, when advaita says that Atman is pure
consciousness, and that Atman is the substratum of the illusory world,
it is also quick to point out that this Atman cannot be said to be
conscious of itself or of external things. At this stage, there is only
the Atman, which is na antarprajna:, na bahishprajna: (not inwardly aware,
not outwardly aware). It just IS, and even saying that it is pure
consciousness is only because one has to deny that the nature of the Atman
is opposed to consciousness.

As for science, I believe one does not have to ignore it at all. After
all, the analogies used by the ancient writers drew upon their own
scientific knowledge which was based on the theory that there are five
elements, fire, air, water, earth and space. I think that modern science
can be intelligently used to make philosophical points. But one has to
remember that much of modern science is based on notions of logical
positivism. Only the quantum physicists are ready to give up that
philosophy. But then, science is hardly yet close to a theory of
everything. Quantum physics is only a small part of the universe of
science.

> I noticed a book called "Maya in Physics" in the Motilal Barnarsidass
> catalog. Has anyone read it? Would you recommend it?

This would depend on the author. I cannot recommend for or against it, but
I would like to put in a general note of caution. There are many people
floating about nowadays, who equate advaita with E = mc^2. One has to be
careful.

Vidyasankar

ps. Going back to scripture and logic, it is very significant that the
kArikAs are based on the upanishad which explicitly identifies the four
pAdas of the Atman with the four pAdas of brahman. In my opinion,
gauDapAda relies mainly on logic, only because he is addressing a school
that does not accept the scripture as a pramANa to convince them of a
truth that the Buddha did not say (buddhena na bhAshitam). If one is
willing to accept Sruti as a pramANa, irrespective of whether it is
apaurusheya or not, the question of logic vs. scripture does not arise.