[Advaita-l] some points on VP10 (fwd)
Jaldhar H. Vyas
jaldhar at braincells.com
Mon Mar 17 10:35:18 CDT 2008
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva at eircom.net>
Namast Sada-ji and learned members,
I must say it's hard to keep up with you. This article is 3,848 words long,
the previous one was around 3,000 and the one before that was around 5,000.
And there were others. So to keep it simple I'll just focus on a couple of
"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
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
"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
"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.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list