[Lt_Apple]

Shankara: Let us first analyse the nature of your direct experience. You say, you perceive that the Self is different from Brhaman. Difference is not a separate substance by itself so as to be the object of perception. It is only a quality and as such it cannot be an object of perception separate from the qualified. The qualified here, Atma the Self, is admittedly not an object of perception. HOW THEN CAN YOU SAY THAT YOU PERCEIVE THE DIFFERENCE?

Mandana: The Atma may not be an object of perception to the senses but the inner sense, the mind may perceive it.


Sankara: Assuming that the mind is an inner sense, it is necessary for all perception that the sense must come in contact with the object perceived. To make such contact possible, the object perceived must have dimensions. The self is either infinite or atomic; in either case, it has no dimensions and therefore cannot be an object of perception to any sense. Strictly speaking, your assumption that the mind is a sense, is by itself incorrect, for the function of the mind is simply to enliven the senses and act as a light to them.

Mandana: Don't ask me how I perceive the difference between the Self and Brahman. It may be that I am not able to explain it logically. But is it not a fact that somehow, it may be supersensually, I do perceive the difference?