Which substratum? (was: Gaudapada's Karika)

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Mon, 26 May 1997, Allan Curry wrote:

[..]

> Yes, I agree that the perceptions occuring in waking state and dream state
> are both equally created through the agency of the brain/mind. It seems
> likely to me that dream perceptions are entirely created by the mind while
> waking state perceptions also have input from outside the mind. Regardless,
> I still want to know how we can *prove* the most basic substratum of the
> mental and extra-mental worlds is consciousness instead of non-conscious
> energy/matter? It seems that any recourse to scripture amounts to faith and
> belief, while pointing to the experience of oneself or others (however
> hoary) just begs the question.

In this connection, read Agehananda Bharati's work, "The Light at the
Center: the context and pretext of modern mysticism" published by
Ross-Erikson, Santa Barbara, 1976. Also, "The Tantric Tradition" and "The
Ochre Robe" and "The Realm of the extra-human: agents and audiences" by
the same author.

In most language associated with a mystical insight, paradox plays a great
role. Logic cannot tolerate paradox, and it is extremely difficult, if not
impossible, in my opinion, to prove anything about the basic substratum of
the universe. Even within the highly orthodox darSanas, there are those
who hold that it is futile to hold that there exists such a substratum, or
that even if one exists, it is futile to say that it is pure non-dual
consciousness.

Bharati touches upon precisely these points, and he also holds that the
mystic's insight is psychological at one level, and that any claim to
invest it with ontological significance is fraught with danger. Yet, what
are we without our beliefs and faith? Within a given set of beliefs, I
think the ontological claims may be supported, but to make universal
statements outside the belief system can be very tricky indeed.

And as an aside, just because pointing to one's own experience begs the
question, Sankara and others rarely, if at all, refer to their personal
experience as proof.

>
> Please remember that I'm not trying to disprove Advaita Vedanta here,
> rather I want it to emerge from the fire of my doubt like tempered steel.

Of course, doubt is always good to test the limits of any philosophical
system. But what I am saying is that some basic statements of any system
will have to be accepted without proof. If this is belief, there you go.

Vidyasankar