/lit/ - Literature

> If consciousness always needs to be consciousness of an object

But that doesn't make sense lad... Consciousness is there even when you aren't conscious, like when you are sleeping for example.

>>12203893
Yes, and the object itself is dependent on consciousness as well. Therefore neither can be self-sufficient. Nothing can be self-sufficient. Take the dependent origination pill.

>>12203893
>What would Vedanta say about intentionality?
Advaita Vedanta holds that intentionality does not inhere in Atma/Brahman and that it's part of the illusionary sense of individuality.

>Since you have been bitten by the black snake, the opinion about yourself that “I am the doer,” drink the antidote of faith in the fact that “I am not the doer,” and be happy. 1.8
>Burn down the forest of ignorance with the fire of the understanding that “I am the one pure awareness,” and be happy and free from distress. 1.9

Vedanta explicitly identifies the mind (manas), and ego (ahamkara) as unreal, the Atma is the unchanging awareness which observes these. So, in the (Advaita) Vedantist view intentionality belongs to the illusionary phantom of (embodied and qualified) self-hood, every aspect of which is observed by the real Self separate from it. Brahman is not a doer or actor and never does anything, it not even really being possible for 'action' to take place when there ares no 'objects' aside from Brahman in relation to which action could take place. The illusion of doership comes to an end with total Self-knowledge, at which point one can still walk around, speak with people etc but it would all be done with the awareness that one is not really doing anything and that one is just interacting with dream-like phantoms that have their origin in none other than the unchanging Self pervading everything.

>If consciousness always needs to be consciousness of an object, does that mean the atma isn't as self-sufficient as they believe
This is not what Vedanta teaches, they don't believe that Consciousness/Atma needs to be always consciousness of an object, this poster >>12203915 mentions that it does not make sense because consciousness still exists in sleep even if one is not conscious of objects and Advaita Vedanta makes literally the exact same point in their texts. Advaita holds that objects and the subject-object distinction are both unreal, they are considered basic elements of the illusion of duality. The Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada's Karika on it are central to Shankara's version of Advaita, in them it talks about how in the first two states waking and dream (Vaisvanara and Taijasa) there is awareness of (unreal) objects, how in the third state of dream-less deep sleep (prajna) that conciousness simply exists in an undifferentiated state without awareness of an objects but that it is still characterized by ignorance of reality (the simple absence of illusion not being the same thing as active knowledge of reality); and that the fourth state and final state of Turiya has this same absence of illusion but also includes knowledge of reality/truth.

>>12205207
>Take the dependent origination pill.
I don't see this as the final answer, the classic Buddhist dependent-origination model leaves A LOT of questions unanswered for which it has been widely criticized in the literature of other doctrines. Buddhists themselves can't even agree on it and there are a range of models to explain origination within Buddhism, some of which are significant departures from the standard model.