Indian Philosophy v2.c26.s10.78

v2.c26.s10.78

The Naiyāyika objects to this theory on the following grounds: Nobody has experienced pure consciousness, since our empirical consciousness is always conditioned by the mind and the senses. To say that it is known by intuitive consciousness (aparokṣajñāna) is self-contradictory. If it is argued that the self as self-luminous is known immediately, it may be said that a shining lamp is manifested to a blind man though unperceived by him. If the lamp manifests itself only to one who apprehends it, then even the self is known only when it is apprehended, i.e. when it becomes an object of consciousness, and then it ceases to be pure and undefiled. Kumārila asks, if the self as being of the nature of consciousness is selfthe nature of non-objective consciousness.¹ “The Ātman is throughout nothing but intelligence; intelligence is its exclusive nature, as the salt taste is of the lump of salt.”² Spirit cannot have an unspiritual nature. By the law of its being, it is ever shining. As the sun shines when there is nothing for it to shine on, so the Ātman has consciousness even when there is no object.³ It is pure light, clear radiance, not merely the foundation of all our knowledge, but the light of all our seeing.