Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 Dear Michael The significance of the unreality of the observer and the observed goes deeper than logic. If all you are saying is don't cancel my argument about anything by saying I'm not real then I concur, but the way your post reads it seems to me to go counter to many wise teachings. I picked up a book by Ramana and randomly opened it twice. "The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" by Arthur Osborne p192 "after the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains? The screen again. So it is with the Self. That alone exists; the pictures come and go." p164 "of course we talk loosely of Self-realization for want of a better term, but how is one to realize or make real that which alone is real? What we all are doing is to realize or regard as real what is unreal. This habit has to be given up. All spiritual effort under all systems is directed only to this end. When we give up regarding the unreal as real, then Reality alone will remain and we shall be That." A thing is by definition Real. An Illusion is a real thing; its Content is by definition not real but illusion. Once a course is set upon based on a misconception, the future of the world unfolds along that course as if on firm ground. The Seeker wants the truth to prevail at all times. If the truth prevailed at all times the instrument of seeing (the body-mind complex) would not receive the idea that it has existence as a Seeker and would not identify with an illusion. Much love and appreciation for your presence. Bobby G. ps The zero argument is a good one. , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > Dear all, > > in recent discussion, the argument of "unreality" or "nonexistence" has been > proffered. Those who are familiar with Predicate Logic will be aware that > this argument, when applied to a general class of objects, will lead to > overgeneralization and, ultimately, to self-contradiction. Here is a simple > analogy that is hoped to make this more clear without going into the > intricacies of Predicate Calculus. > > Suppose we want to solve the "philosophical" question as to which number, > when doubled, would yield 10. In other words, we are looking for some number > x for which the equation > > 2.x = 10 > > would hold. Of course, it is immediately obvious that there is only one such > number, 5, which satisfies the equation and thus solves our "philosophical" > question. If we wanted to, we could also apply the rules of mathematical > logic by dividing each side of the equation by 2 (or by multiplying with > 1/2), and we would get the correct solution. > > Suppose now we get the bright idea of multiplying both sides of the equation > with 0 (zero), which gives > > 0.x = 0 > > This operation is not wrong in itself, but look now at what we have done. > > The resulting equation, though still true, has become totally useless for > finding a solution to our original problem. We have introduced spurious > solutions, in fact an infinite number of them, all claiming equal rights > with 5, because 0.x = 0 is trivially true for any number x. By applying this > multiplication with zero we have, therefore, completely robbed ourselves of > the power to solve the original problem. > > By the same token, the introduction of the "unreality" argument into any > line of reasoning causes very similar problems to arise which now could be > traced by using predicate logic instead of mathematical logic. If all > things, or all people, are unreal (zero by analogy!), then anything goes. > Any statement we care to make about them will be trivially true then, > because we have succeeded in creating a logical tautology which is totally > useless for the purpose of finding out the truth about any statement, in the > same way that earlier 0.x = 0 had been totally useless for finding the > correct solution, 5. > > Kindest regards, > > Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2002 Report Share Posted March 28, 2002 Dear all, I owe some of you a reply regarding this Zero and Nonexistence thread, but this will have to wait a little because I am enjoying some days of skiing with the family. I thought I'd better hurry before it dawns on people that no perfect Master was ever seen skiing. Just kidding. Happy Easter to all of you! Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2006 Report Share Posted April 21, 2006 Hi Michael It is good to hear from you. I read your post about taking a weekend so I knew you were busy. I am glad to be able to clarify what I meant when I wrote that the idea of "unreality" or "non-existence" being dismissed as untrue goes counter to many wise teachings. , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > Dear Bobby, > > it's been a while since you wrote, and I apologize for the late reply. I > have been away for a few days of skiing with the family. > > You are quite right about this discussion going deeper than logic. In fact, > I am fully convinced that all phenomena whatsoever point to something deeper > (or higher) than logic, namely, to God or, if you prefer, to the Self. > > However, I have never read anything written by Sri Ramana or Swami Shankara > or any other true Master that did not also completely satisfy the > requirements of logic. To my knowledge, and I have tried to look closely, > they never introduced any circular or inconsistent arguments in any of their > writings or sayings. > > As far as we know, the universe seems to be subject to the structures of > mathematics and logic everywhere. "As above, so below - as below, so above." "Scaling" in chaos theory. > That's what Hermes Trismegistos taught. In fact, in the Bhagavad- Gita the > Lord declares, "In abstract reasoning, I am discriminative logic (vadah > pravadatam aham)." > > The teachings of the great Masters as also the sayings you quoted do indeed > bear witness to that. Logical clarity is, to me, one of the hallmarks of Sri > Ramana's teachings. However, I am not aware of Sri Ramana ever having said > to anyone, "you are unreal," nor, to the best of my knowledge, did he teach > that the observer is unreal (which would also be logically questionable). What Ramana says below is that we are considering what is unreal as real. You must believe he is not referring to the observer in this but I do not know why. > Instead, he told his devotees to relinquish their mistaken identity with the > ego and to find out who they truly were, to discover their (or the > observer's) true identity with the Self. Which is not only deep wisdom but > also impeccable logically. > I will try to be logical here and where I fail I hope you can help. When the observer knows it is an observer it becomes an object. In real time, the subject of an observation cannot be the object of that observation. An eye cannot see itself. One hand cannot clap. The object must be unreal by comparison, that is, it must be an idea about the real Self or a memory of an idea about it instead of 'it'. Consciousness itself or Brahman cannot be viewed, as its nature is only to be, and is hence always subject. While not strictly a viewer, Consciousness provides the reality which the ego mirrors, the mirror itself, and the mirroring. Knowing the Real Self is simply giving up the belief the observer is anything but an idea or thought. More specifically it is the first thought, Aham Vritti, which all other thoughts hinge on. There is not another "thing" or "self" to recognize or know is there. The Real Self both exists because it is 'isness', and doesn't exist because it can't be known. > Kindest regards, > > Michael I believe there are two discussions going on here. There is the discussion of logic and what is real in the relative sense which is about interactions. And there is the discussion about what is real in the absolute sense, that is, the truth concerning the Real Self. Even the phrase 'Real Self' indicates that something ordinarily considered as real is not. It is only in discussions about the Real Self that the idea of the observer being unreal is locical. In the relative sense it is not logical to consider oneself as unreal. That certainly flies in the face of logic. Raja Yoga teaches not to confound these two arenas. Otherwise we have the circular arguments you were writing about. Much Love, Bobby G. > > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > Von: texasbg2000 [bigbobgraham@a...] > > Gesendet: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 03:41 > > An: > > Betreff: Re: Zero and Nonexistence in Philosophical > > Argument > > > > > > Dear Michael > > > > The significance of the unreality of the observer and the observed > > goes deeper than logic. > > > > If all you are saying is don't cancel my argument about anything by > > saying I'm not real then I concur, but the way your post reads it > > seems to me to go counter to many wise teachings. I picked up a book > > by Ramana and randomly opened it twice. > > > > "The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" by Arthur Osborne > > p192 > > "after the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains? The > > screen again. So it is with the Self. That alone exists; the > > pictures come and go." > > > > p164 > > "of course we talk loosely of Self-realization for want of a better > > term, but how is one to realize or make real that which alone is > > real? What we all are doing is to realize or regard as real what is > > unreal. This habit has to be given up. All spiritual effort under > > all systems is directed only to this end. When we give up regarding > > the unreal as real, then Reality alone will remain and we shall be > > That." > > > > A thing is by definition Real. An Illusion is a real thing; its > > Content is by definition not real but illusion. Once a course is set > > upon based on a misconception, the future of the world unfolds along > > that course as if on firm ground. The Seeker wants the truth to > > prevail at all times. If the truth prevailed at all times the > > instrument of seeing (the body-mind complex) would not receive the > > idea that it has existence as a Seeker and would not identify with > > an illusion. > > > > Much love and appreciation for your presence. > > > > Bobby G. > > > > ps The zero argument is a good one. > > > > > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > in recent discussion, the argument of "unreality" or "nonexistence" > > has been > > > proffered. Those who are familiar with Predicate Logic will be > > aware that > > > this argument, when applied to a general class of objects, will > > lead to > > > overgeneralization and, ultimately, to self-contradiction. Here is > > a simple > > > analogy that is hoped to make this more clear without going into the > > > intricacies of Predicate Calculus. > > > > > > Suppose we want to solve the "philosophical" question as to which > > number, > > > when doubled, would yield 10. In other words, we are looking for > > some number > > > x for which the equation > > > > > > 2.x = 10 > > > > > > would hold. Of course, it is immediately obvious that there is only > > one such > > > number, 5, which satisfies the equation and thus solves > > our "philosophical" > > > question. If we wanted to, we could also apply the rules of > > mathematical > > > logic by dividing each side of the equation by 2 (or by multiplying > > with > > > 1/2), and we would get the correct solution. > > > > > > Suppose now we get the bright idea of multiplying both sides of the > > equation > > > with 0 (zero), which gives > > > > > > 0.x = 0 > > > > > > This operation is not wrong in itself, but look now at what we have > > done. > > > > > > The resulting equation, though still true, has become totally > > useless for > > > finding a solution to our original problem. We have introduced > > spurious > > > solutions, in fact an infinite number of them, all claiming equal > > rights > > > with 5, because 0.x = 0 is trivially true for any number x. By > > applying this > > > multiplication with zero we have, therefore, completely robbed > > ourselves of > > > the power to solve the original problem. > > > > > > By the same token, the introduction of the "unreality" argument > > into any > > > line of reasoning causes very similar problems to arise which now > > could be > > > traced by using predicate logic instead of mathematical logic. If > > all > > > things, or all people, are unreal (zero by analogy!), then anything > > goes. > > > Any statement we care to make about them will be trivially true > > then, > > > because we have succeeded in creating a logical tautology which is > > totally > > > useless for the purpose of finding out the truth about any > > statement, in the > > > same way that earlier 0.x = 0 had been totally useless for finding > > the > > > correct solution, 5. > > > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > > > Michael > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.