/lit/ - Literature

>>16492177

Shankara: And that other entity which reveals consciousness (ideations) is the self—the intelligence (sentience) which is different from that consciousness (ideation).

Objection (by the sophist Buddhist): But that would lead to a regressus in infinitum.

Reply (by Shankara): No; it has only been stated on logical grounds that because consciousness (ideation) is an object revealed by something, the latter must be distinct from that consciousness (ideation). Obviously there cannot be any infallible ground for inferring that the self literally reveals the consciousness (ideation) in question, or that, as the witness, it requires another agency to reveal it. Therefore there is no question of a regressus in infinitum.

Objection (by the sophist Buddhist): If consciousness (ideation) is revealed by something else, some means of revelation is required, and this would again lead to a regressus in infinitum.

Reply (by Shankara): No, for there is no such restriction; it is not a universal rule. We cannot lay down an absolute condition that whenever something is revealed by another, there must be some means of revelation besides the two—that which reveals and that which is revealed, for we observe diversity of conditions. For instance, a jar is perceived by something different from itself, viz. the self; here light such as that of a lamp, which is other than the perceiving subject and the perceived object, is a means. The light of the lamp etc. is neither a part of the jar nor of the eye, But though the lamp, like the jar, is perceived by the eye, the latter does not require any external means corresponding to the light, over and above the lamp (which is the object). Hence we can never lay down the rule that wherever a thing is perceived by something else, there must be some means besides the two. Therefore, if consciousness (ideation) is admitted to be revealed by a subject different from it, the charge of a regressus in infinitum, either through the means or through the perceiving subject (the self), is altogether untenable. Hence it is proved that there is another light, viz. the light of the self, which is different from consciousness (ideation).

- Shankara, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad commentary 4.3.7.

>You're just creating an infinite regress, as each consciousness will be broken down into parts
No I didn’t, I have not once said that there is another consciousness in addition to this consciousness. There is no way that what I am saying results in an infinite regress. Insentient things (i.e. things which lack self-awareness) like thoughts, memories and sensory data are apprehended by consciousness, and that is how it works, there is no other consciousness or explanation needed.

>Consciousness is composite, ergo Empty. There you go.
You are only restating without justification here what I already explained is wrong, I would ask if you completely lack self-awareness but you are a Buddhist after all.