[QUOTE=Surya Deva;31843]The ancient Samkhya scientists …showed that reality consisted of two irreducible substances consciousness and matter, which marked the distinction between knower and known; seer and seen; conscious and unconscious. However, they knew a fundamental error had taken place, because despite the fact that these two substances were ontologically distinct, it appears that consciousness was embodied within matter. They recognised that this embodiment was not a real phenomenon, but was illlusory or unreal(from which the concept of Maya comes from) and this illusion could be undone by becoming aware of oneself as the seer, in other words suspending oneself in a state of awareness(meditation basically) and by doing this one will automatically begin to revert back to the pure state of being and realise the sef.
[/QUOTE]
Although this is well written, it contains a bit of confusion, which I will attempt to deal with, and I invite others to comment as well.
This post confuses the concept of Maya or illusion, which I believe is a Vedanta concept, with Samkhya. The concept of Maya teaches that all of material existence is illusory, and that spirit or Brahman is the only true reality. A key concept of Samkhya is the reality of material nature. Material nature is not considered illusory. Spirit and matter are equally real.
Surya Deva correctly states that a fundamental error occurred. This error is known as [B]aviveka[/B] or non-discrimination, meaning that the Purusa does not recognize his true nature as spirit, but identifies the self with the material nature. This error results in embodiment, but this does not mean that embodiment is illusory. Embodiment serves the purpose of teaching the Purusa about his true nature. This realization or [B]viveka[/B] occurs through knowledge of the principles of material nature and direct experience of the Purusa through meditation. When viveka has been attained, the purpose of material existence has been fulfilled and embodiment is no longer necessary.
Maya is also a Samkhya concept, as references to the notion of maya can be found in Bhagvad Gita. The Bhagvad Gita, although based on Samkhya-Yoga philosophy, also contains many Vedantic themes as well.
One Samkhya or many Samkhyas? There is no single historical Samkhya philosophy, there are atheist, theist, dualist and non-dualist varients of it. You are representing the orthodox interpretation of Samkhya by some Samkhya philosophers, which is realist and dualist and believes in a infinite number of Purushas(as opposed to all pervading atman of Vedanta) In the orthodox Purusha and Prakriti are absolutely ontologically distinct and manifestation is a real phenomenon(parinamavada)
However, later Vedanta philosophers have assmilated Samkhya philosophy as well and made it consistent with Vedanta, and its important concepts of maya, atman and brahman. I have also done this in my dissertation, because I was abe to show that the orthodox interpretation of Samkhya is problematic and poses too many philosophical problems. Such as
If Purusha and Prakriti are both eternal and infinite, then when did creation begin?
If Purusha and Prakriti are dual substances, how does Purusha interact with Prakriti?
If the effect is pre-existent in the cause, then why is the effect still different from the cause?
If Purushas are infinite in number, then what is the nature of these infinite Purushas before embodiment? As number onlys applies to time and space within Prakriti when it is manifest and Purusha only becomes conditioned when Prakriti is manifest, before that it has no content. In the unmanifest stage both Prakriti and Purusha are undifferentiated and contentless.
If Purusha is only a passive substance which reacts to the gunas in the material nature, then how does purusha have any causal efficacy? It would then simply be an epiphenomena of material nature
Badarayana(Brahma Sutras) and the founder of Advaita Vedanta Sankara were some of the strongest opponents to this orthodox interpretation of Samkhya posing the same problems I mentioned and Sankara was succesfull in destroying it. This is why later Samkhya as a separate school of philosophy died out, and was assimilated under Vedanta. Even modern Samkhya philosophers recognise the same problems.
I have used their research and the research of modern physics to show that the main problem with some early Samkhya interpreters was they were approaching Samkhya from a cosmological point of view where everything begins from a certain point in time and space. In fact Samkhya becomes completey consistent if we look at it from a psychological point of view(it is essentially a psychological theory, not a cosmological one) and that is a theory on how perception takes place. Understood this way, reality is understood as a perceptual error, which is indeed what aviveka means. As it is a perceptual error, the effect although is prexistent in the cause in a potential state, is unreal because it is only an apperance(like a snake seen in a rope) and this solves the causality paradox in Samkhya. Now, we can also understand what Prakriti is, it is not a real substance, but a potential which exists within consciousness or a wave of possibility. In other words rather the being separate from Purusha, it is a potential within Purusha. Like Maya. This solves the interaction problem.
Finally, if Prakriti is within Purusha, then everything and everybody is within purusha, therefore there are not infinite purushas, but one common purusha pervading everything and eveybody. Like Atman and Brahman.
Vedanta was needed to bring out the real meaning of Samkhya which was lost on the early interpreters of Samkhya who were interpreting it from a cosmological point of view. Although it was already inherent within Samkhya’s eary texts that it was a psychological theory and its main philosophy was a philosophy of perception, somewhere along the way a cosmlogical bias creeped in with early interpreters. Perhaps motivated by their need to include god in the picture as a creator. Now, with our understanding of modern physics, we can clearly see Samkhya is quantum physics and can divest it of all mystical and theistic baggage it has accumuated. The first modern physicist to recognise Samkhya was physics, was Nicole Tesla and he even attempted to prove it. Then later, Erwin Schrodinger, also recognised Samkhya’s application to modern physics, in formulating quantum paradox.
We have a lot of modern scientific evidence now to back up Samkhya’s notion reality is a perceptual error. It is cleary isn’t what we think it is, for we know that 99% of the universe is empty space, and we know that beyond space in the quantum level the universe is just pure information. In the quantum level no laws of space and time exist, everything can exist in every position at once and in the present, past and future. We also now from neurosciences that reality is completely constructed in the mind, and even before we do anything the brain already knows what we are going to do.
Nature is maya. Senses are maya. Mind is maya. Food is Maya. Sunlight is maya. The zodiac is maya. The bodies of the Devas are maya. Individuality is maya. Death is maya. Life is maya. The bardo is maya. Siddhis are maya. The economy is maya. War is maya. The laws are maya.
Not so. The authoritative texts of the Samkhya darsana are the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram and Tattva-Samasa, both of which are attributed to Kapila, and the Samkhya-Karika, which is an abridgement of the Samkhya-Sutra and attributed to Krishna.
However, later Vedanta philosophers have assmilated Samkhya philosophy as well and made it consistent with Vedanta
The operative words here are “made it consistent with Vedanta”, in other words, they changed it to make it compliant with their pre-existing religious beliefs.
the orthodox interpretation of Samkhya is problematic and poses too many philosophical problems.
This may be true, and I don’t claim to have all the answers (as you do). But I would not jump onto the Vedanta bandwagon so quickly, because Vedanta is very different and very much opposed to Samkhya. On the one hand, Samkhya was the first system to try to explain the working of the natural world on the basis of evidence and reason, truly the seeds of the scientific method. On the other hand, Vedanta is all about interpreting scripture, and is opposed to anything that seems to contradict the Vedas, which is about as unscientific as you can get. In my view, orthodox Samkhya did not die a natural death, it was suppressed by the Vedic thinkers.
The oldest of these texts is the Samkhykarika by Isvakrishna. Kapila is the founder of the Samkhya darsana.
Samkhya philosophy can also be found in the Upanishads, Ayurvedic classics, Bhagvad Gita(an entire chapter on Samkhya-Yoga) all of which are older than the Samkhyakarika. So there are many texts describing Samkhya philosophy. Samkhyakarika is just one of them.
Samkhya philosophy is the oldest philosophy in Hindu philosophy and various interpretations of it have existed. Also the same texts in Samkhya even the Samkhyakarika can be interpreted in different ways and have been.
The literal meaning of the text is not obvious and requires interpeters to expand on them and explain them.
The operative words here are “made it consistent with Vedanta”, in other words, they changed it to make it compliant with their pre-existing religious beliefs.
You are very ignorant of Vedanta philosophy and its history.
The Vedanta philosophers did not change Samkhya but rather they attacked certain prevailing interpretations of Samkhya(dualist, atheist, pradhana) exposed the fatally flawed philosophical problems in it and rendered them absurd. Vedanta spread through the formal debate tradition in India where the opposing camp if defeated in a formal debate would renounce their own positiion and adopt the winning position. The prevailing interpretation of Samkhya was not philosophically defensible and Vedanta philosophers like Sankara were able to demonstrate that, and this is why it died. The same happened with Yoga, Buddhism, Mimasa, Charvaka. Vedanta was able to defeat them all and this is why Vedanta has been reigning supreme in India ever since.
There was no forced suppression of Samkhya thinkers by Vedanta philosophers and Samkhya thinkers were numerically and influencially much stronger than Vedanta philosophers to be suppressed. It was a fair philosophical battle between Vedanta and Samkhya thinkers, and Vedanta won because its philosophy was superior and could explain many of the things Samkhya philosophers could not.
The concept of maya explained the philosophical problem parinamavada(real transformation). So there was no real transformation of the world, but the world was actually a perceptual error and was all taking place within consciousness.
Non-dualism explained the philosophical problems of how purusha and prakriti interacted. They could interact because prakriti was the same substance as purusha and prakriti was within purusha as a field of consciousness. So there was nothing which was outside of purusha.
The problem of the multiplicity of purushas was explained as the multipilcity of only phenomenal selves whereas the noumenal self(essential self) was the same for all beings. This is because purusha is unconditioned and contentless and not limitd by space, time or causation. Therefore purusha cannot be bodies, minds or egos. There are multiple bodies and multiple minds but all take place within prakriti and purusha is separate from that. Therefore there cannot be multiple purushas, there must be only one purusha common to all bodies and minds.
You clearly have a very narrow view of Hindu philosophy looking mainly at very secetarian schools of Samkhya thought. So you miss the forest for the trees. You cannot study Hindu philosophy without studying the wider context of Hindu philosophy, which is vast. I clearly far outdo you when it comes to knowledge of Hindu philosophy. I know not only about Samkhya, but Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Yoga, Vedanta and Mimasa, as well as Ayurveda and Vedas, Upanishads, Vedangas, shastras and the itihas. You are clearly no match for me in my knowledge of Hinduism. I think this is why are you so antagonisic towards me.
This may be true, and I don’t claim to have all the answers (as you do). But I would not jump onto the Vedanta bandwagon so quickly, because Vedanta is very different and very much opposed to Samkhya. On the one hand, Samkhya was the first system to try to explain the working of the natural world on the basis of evidence and reason, truly the seeds of the scientific method. On the other hand, Vedanta is all about interpreting scripture, and is opposed to anything that seems to contradict the Vedas, which is about as unscientific as you can get. In my view, orthodox Samkhya did not die a natural death, it was suppressed by the Vedic thinkers.
Like I said you do not understand Vedanta. Vedanta uses the pramana scientific method of analysis just like every other Hindu philosophical school does. What Sankara is especially renowned for was his conviction that the mystical philosophy of the Upanishads can be demonstrated using rational and scientic reasoning. Prior to Sankara, people thought the mystical knowledge of the Upanishads was beyond the reach of reason and it could not be intellectualized and this is why other darsanas became prominent and Upanishadic philosophy was marginalized. Sankara demonstrated that this was false and the Upanishadic philosophy can be logically demonstrated with the same rigour as the other schools.
This is why Vedanta is not theology but philosophy. It is not merely based on dogmatic interpretations of scripture but first and foremost logic and reason(the pramana method) Every point within Vedanta philosophy is cogently demonstrated. Hence why, except for you, the rest of the world recognises it as philosophy. No philosophy student reading say the Bramasutras and Sankara highly systematic expositions would question that it is not philosophy.
The oldest of these texts is the Samkhykarika by Isvakrishna. Kapila is the founder of the Samkhya darsana.
Samkhya philosophy can also be found in the Upanishads, Ayurvedic classics, Bhagvad Gita(an entire chapter on Samkhya-Yoga) all of which are older than the Samkhyakarika. So there are many texts describing Samkhya philosophy. Samkhyakarika is just one of them.
That statement is a good example of the way you people distort the truth in order to serve your own purposes.
If you had read the Samkhya-Karika, you would know that it is based on an earlier work of Kapila. The Tattva-Samasa, attributed to Kapila, was an introductory text. The Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram, also attributed to Kapila, contains the most complete exposition of Samkhya philosophy, and clearly is the basis for the Samkhya-Karika. The generally accepted wisdom among the Vedanta scholars is that the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram could not have been written earlier than the fourteenth or fifteenth century. But the two commentators, Aniruddha and Vijnana Bhiksu, clearly believed it to be the work of Kapila, probably copied from the original text. Since the original text is no longer extant, we cannot be certain what might have been added or modified by later copyists. But it clearly is the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram that the Karika refers to as its basis.
Kapila was the first to organize Samkhya into a consistent system. Prior to Kapila’s time, some traces of Samkhya thought had appeared in the Upanishads. The Bhagavad Gita, Samkhya-Karika, and probably also Ayurveda came after Kapila.
The prevailing interpretation of Samkhya was not philosophically defensible and Vedanta philosophers like Sankara were able to demonstrate that, and this is why it died. The same happened with Yoga, Buddhism, Mimasa, Charvaka. Vedanta was able to defeat them all and this is why Vedanta has been reigning supreme in India ever since.
The Samkhya philosophers had no trouble defending their views. I study this in my spare time, which I don’t have all that much of, so yes I am at a disadvantage against you. But given enough time, I’m sure I can defend every word I write. I can’t say the same for you. Oh and by the way, the last time I checked, Buddhism and Yoga were still very much alive, although the Buddhists pretty much left India, or should I say, they were driven out(like Samkhya).
The concept of maya explained the philosophical problem parinamavada(real transformation). So there was no real transformation of the world, but the world was actually a perceptual error and was all taking place within consciousness.
Like I said, talk is cheap. This is your great philosophy, that the world is a perceptual error? LOL. If I were your parents, I’d go to your university and ask for a refund.
I study this in my spare time, which I don’t have all that much of, so yes I am at a disadvantage against you. But given enough time, I’m sure I can defend every word I write. I can’t say the same for you. Oh and by the way, the last time I checked, Buddhism and Yoga were still very much alive, although the Buddhists pretty much left India, or should I say, they were driven out(like Samkhya).
Yeah, it is quite evident you only do this as a hobby and you are not well versed in the philosophy. Like I said, my knowledge of Hinduism far outdoes yours. I have also studied philosophy formally and have a degree in it. The only reason I have to tell you this is to remind you that I am qualified in this area and you are not, so you should speak with a bit more respect.
Kapila was the first to organize Samkhya into a consistent system. Prior to Kapila’s time, some traces of Samkhya thought had appeared in the Upanishads. The Bhagavad Gita, Samkhya-Karika, and probably also Ayurveda came after Kapila.
Yes, Kapila is the founder of Samkhya philosophy. The Gita actually mentions Kapila as the greatest rishi. However, Samkhyakarika, Samkhyasutras and other Samkhya texts that are extant today are much later than the Gita, Upanishads and Ayurvedic classics.
In any case it is not clear from the Samkhya texts what their true philosophy is. Like I said different interprets interpret something different. I have read 10 interpretations of the Samkhyakarika by many modern Samkhya philosophers. The commentaries also differ from Samkhya writers through the ages.
The Samkhya philosophers had no trouble defending their views.
Yes they did and this is why Samkhya died out after the advent of Vedanta. They were defeated in formal debate. Samkhya then started to die out and Samkhya no longer exists as a separate school of philosophy. It has been assimilated into Vedanta and Vedanta thinkers use it to explain the Vedic cosmology and metaphysics. In tantra they use it as well to explain the tantric cosmology. It is clear Samkhya is a brillant philosophy and Hindu philosophy is predominantly based on Samkhya, even Krishna in the Gita says Samkhya is the greatest.
However, later philosophers in India misunderstood what Samkhya was about and came up with dualist, atheist and materialistic interpretations. However, these interpretations were fatally flawed and it required Vedanta thinkers to correct the problems and reform Samkhya into the original Samkhya of the past which had been lost.
I showed this very clearly before in papers. How can prakriti be material if the first evolutes of prakriti is mind. Also we know clearly that in Samkhya the purusha or pure consciousness exists prior to manifestations begins but prakriti only is a potential. A potential within what? If all that exists is pure consciousness than prakriti must be a potential within consciousness itself. In other words there is no duality there is only consciousness fundamentally. Therefore Samkhya is not actually a dualist philosophy it is a non-dual and idealist philosophy. Like Vednata. In fact there is no difference:
Chit = Brahman
Purusha = Atman
Prakriti = Maya
Like I said, talk is cheap. This is your great philosophy, that the world is a perceptual error? LOL. If I were your parents, I’d go to your university and ask for a refund.
There is nothing cheap here. You are speaking from ignorance. Samkhya says the manifestation is a result of aviveka(non-discrimination) this ends as soon as develop vivek(discrimination) Yoga says exactly the same that we cannot see the true reality because of misidentification. Guess what, Vedanta says exactly the same thing. Now quantum physics has joined the bandwagon.
So this is indeed the great philosophy of Samhya-Yoga-Vedanta of Hinduism in general the world is a perceptual error. If you don’t like it, fine, but don’t distort the philosophy to say it does not say that, when it very clear it does. We learned Hindus know what our religion teaches very well thank you. We do not appreciate outsiders coming in and telling us what our religion teaches. We know it inside and out, and you do not. So don’t pretend you do. If you are sincere we’ll teach you and you’ll learn something.
OK, Professor. Can you teach me who is making this perceptual error that is creating this illusory world? And what will happen to this illusion if he gets viveka and is emancipated? I know you’ll probably say that the world will go into a cycle of dissolution, return to a state of equilibrium and cease to manifest. But do we really want for that to happen?
Referring to the analogy of the snake and the rope, the subject is dealt with at some length in the Samkhya literature, although in a different context. The subject in question is avidya, that is, ignorance or illusion, but perhaps better characterized as false knowledge. Strictly speaking, avidya is different from misconception, which is described as one of the fluctuations of citta.
The debate among philosophers regarding avidya consists of trying to determine whether it is real or unreal, and what are the implications of either case. For certain technical reasons, the monists cannot admit the reality of avidya. So Sankara avoids the problem by saying that avidya is neither real nor unreal. But to a reasonable person, that statement seems absurd, because contradictory properties cannot exist in the same entity.
In the example of the snake and the rope, once the reality of the rope becomes known, it is clear that the snake itself is not real. The question revolves around the reality of the misperception or false knowledge of the snake, because the individual reacts on the basis of this false perception in the same way as he would if the snake were real. The individual acts based on perception, rather than on reality. So even though the perception is false, the misperception is real.
We frequently encounter this type of action based on false knowledge. It can occur in science, in religion, in personal relationships, in any type of problem-solving situation. Any time that we act based on false knowledge, the results cannot be good. Often we do not ?see the rope? until it is too late. Clearly what we need is right knowledge.
Sankara would have us believe that ?Just as the snake appears because of ignorance of the fact that there is only a rope, this world appears to exist because of our ignorance of Brahman. Thus the world is also neither real nor unreal.? Are we to believe that our entire existence is false knowledge, because we cannot see Brahman? If this is right knowledge, how do we know it? Do the scriptures alone constitute proof?
The position of Samkhya is clear: inclusion of something illogical cannot be allowed. Otherwise we would come to the level of children and madmen. Huge giants do not drop from the sky simply because a trustworthy person says so. Only sayings that are supported by evidence and reason should be accepted.
Sankara would have us believe that “Just as the snake appears because of ignorance of the fact that there is only a rope, this world appears to exist because of our ignorance of Brahman. Thus the world is also neither real nor unreal.” Are we to believe that our entire existence is false knowledge, because we cannot see Brahman? If this is right knowledge, how do we know it? Do the scriptures alone constitute proof?
We know it because purusha and prakriti are ontologically distinct and cannot be reduced to one another but prakriti is contingent on purusha and takes place in the purushas field(kshetra) In other words there is nothing outside of purusha. It is all inside. Prakriti is within purusha. As purusha is nothing but the power of consciousness or seeing it sees through the lens of prakriti(the mind field) This lens is made up of the filters of buddhi, ahamkara, manas, jnanaindryas, karmaindriyas, tanmatras and mahabhuttas(24 tattvas) When this lens become clean purusha only sees itself and does not see any of the tattvas.
It is clear that purusha and prakriti being absolutely distinct cannot combine with another but nonetheless the purusha appears to be embodied. This embodiment therefore cannot be real but is illusory. It can be reversed by jnana gained by vivek and the result will be once the reversal happens the reality that we will see will no longer be seen as it we see it. As each filter falls one by one from the lens of the mind-field we will see a different reality.
Again completely supported by modern physics. If you go deeper than solid atoms you will see subatomic particles. If you go deeper than subatomic particles you will see photons. If you go deeper than photons you will see fundamental forces. If you go deeper than fundamental forces you will see waves.
Each time you peel of a layer your reality changes and you see something else. So what will happen when you reach the summit of Yoga. You will see the actual fundamental substance of reality which is Brahman. Then you will declare everything is Brahman.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32818]
So this is indeed the great philosophy of Samhya-Yoga-Vedanta of Hinduism in general the world is a perceptual error. If you don’t like it, fine, but don’t distort the philosophy to say it does not say that, when it very clear it does. We learned Hindus know what our religion teaches very well thank you. We do not appreciate outsiders coming in and telling us what our religion teaches. We know it inside and out, and you do not. So don’t pretend you do. If you are sincere we’ll teach you and you’ll learn something.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the kind offer. It is quite clear that Vedanta teaches this. It is much less clear to me that Samkhya and Yoga do. My purpose has been to try to remove the Vedanta influence and bias in the interpretation of Samkhya and Yoga. Now I know that the Hindus don’t like it, but I’m not sure that’s a reason for me to stop. You are right, I am rather ignorant of Vedanta. That is partially by design, and partially because I don’t have time.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32842]We know it because purusha and prakriti are ontologically distinct and cannot be reduced to one another but prakriti is contingent on purusha and takes place in the purushas field(kshetra) In other words there is nothing outside of purusha. It is all inside. Prakriti is within purusha.
[/QUOTE]
If prakriti and purusa are ontologically distinct, how can prakriti be contingent on purusa. This is a contradiction. So the purusha has an attribute of having a field? Like a magnetic field? And we know this how? According to common experience, the purusha always occurs within a living being. What evidence shows that prakriti occurs within purusa?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32842]
It is clear that purusha and prakriti being absolutely distinct cannot combine with another but nonetheless the purusha appears to be embodied.
[/QUOTE]
This is again contrary to common experience. We know that spirit and matter do combine in living beings, and that this combination is not present in inanimate objects.
If prakriti and purusa are ontologically distinct, how can prakriti be contingent on purusa. This is a contradiction. So the purusha has an attribute of having a field? Like a magnetic field? And we know this how? According to common experience, the purusha always occurs within a living being. What evidence shows that prakriti occurs within purusa?
The simple logical reason for why purusha and prakriti are ontologically distinct is that the observer can never be the observed. This is an incontrovertible logical dualism. As soon as you become aware of something you become aware of it as separate from you.
The field is not an attribute but is the nature of purusha. When you look out towards you will see as far as your awareness can extend - this is the field of your awareness. If your awareness extends even further out your fields expands and encompasses more. There finally comes a point in the expansion of consciousness that it expands to encompass all of existence and all levels of existence and this is what is known as Brahman.
So prakriti is the consciousness field and purusha is the pure consciousness at every point in the field. So they always go together just like the sun and light always go together.
This is again contrary to common experience. We know that spirit and matter do combine in living beings, and that this combination is not present in inanimate objects.
As prakriti(observed) and purusha(observer) are completely logically distinct they cannot ever logically combine and consciousness will always be just the witness of matter but never combine in it. This means if it appears that consciousness is embodied it must be just a superimposition. Like a garment can get superimposed with perfume and it may seem the perfume is coming from the garment but in fact it is not. Or like a mirror showing you a reflection if the mirror has blemishes on it and you look at it it may seem you have blemishes, but in fact you don’t. The fact is you are aware of your body, so you cannot be your body; you are aware of your mind, so you cannot be the mind. So there is no real embodiment, but in fact your consciousness has become misidentified with matter. This is why the world is a perceptual error.
Consciousness never combines with matter but merely comes into association with it. I have a body and I have a mind, I am not the body and the mind.
Another logical axiom of Vedanta is the rule of non-negation. That is the truth cannot change and if it does change it is not the truth and has no being in itself. The world changes, the body changes and the mind changes so they cannot be be the truth and have no being in themselves, however consciousness always remains still. The fact that your body has undergone a billion births and deaths since you were born, and the thoughts in your mind have undergone the birth of billions of births and deaths of thoughts, but still despite this your consciousness has endured is proof that consciousness is not a changing thing and it is the very substance or ground of all existence.
Something has to be not changing for there to be any perception at all. If it was true that both consciousness was changing every moment and matter was changing every moment then it would be impossible to have any stability or substance at all. However, this is not the case. It is clear that there is substance in reality and therefore something is not changing. This is consciousness. Brahman. It is the ground of all of existence.
