subjective idealism

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

Deutsch says in a footnote that Sankara opposed the Vijnanavada Buddhist

idea that "the contents of empirical consciousness could be accounted for

entirely in terms of the activities of consciousness alone." He adds that

in "later Vedanta" someone called Prakasananda put forward a kind of

subjectivism called drstisrstivada ("doctrine that perception is creation")

"but it was argued for in a somewhat different philosophical context, and,

in any event, it would clearly have been rejected by Samkara and his early

followers".

 

wow! seems to me I've read quite a few comments on Advaita lists which

sound a lot like this drstisrstivada ("doctrine that perception is

creation") and to think this "would clearly have been rejected by Samkara"

makes me very curious and eager to hear an explanation from more learned

list members.

 

Namaste,

 

--

<ac

[Guest guest]

>"a c" <ac

 

I have not studied Prakaashaananda's dRishTi-sRishTi vaada.

 

But here is what I understand the difference between dRishTi-sRishTi and

sRishTi-dRishTi - for whatever it is worth.

 

It comes down to the question of whose dRishTi one is referring to. Since

perception is involved, if it is an individual perception through the

individual equipment, then what is seen is only limited by the individual

equipment. The illumination of that seen in the mind by the consciousness

result in cognition and recognition. If rope is seen as snake, dRishTi

sRishTi involves congnition of an object which is recognized as snake by

the illumination of consciousness. Now by knowledge, the subjective notion

that it is snake disappears but then the object now remains as a rope.

Thus snake is negated but rope is not. From the individual dRishTi, the

rope now becomes sRishTi-dRishTi since rope is not by individual creation.

Thus from the individual consciousness (reflected consciousness or

empirical consciousness) point then the objective creation can not be

accounted. Hence Shankara dismisses Vijnaanavaada arguments.

 

But if we take the same analogy now as the total consciousness, then

dRishta is the Iswara or collective minds of all, and therefore negation by

one individual mind does not dismiss the rope. Hence from the collective

consciousness or brahmaswaruupa, it is still a projection on the total

consciousness on the total mind. In that case the consciousness is no more

empirical. Then the objective world is only projection of on the total

consciousness since before sRishTi - existence-consciousness alone was

there before creation. Ref- Ch. U. sadeva soumya ....tad aikshata.. etc.

 

Brahavit brahaiva bhavati - for a realized soul - it is an interesting

story. Through the individual equipment he sees and transacts with the

objective world. Through collective consciousness he sees himself

everywhere - nothing to transact with. Hence Krishna statement -

sarva bhuutastamaatmaanam sarva bhuutaanicha atmani|

He is in all beings and all beings are in him. Since the subjetive

projections in the indivudual equipments that he illumines are limited by

the indivudual equipments, he again declares they are in me but I am not

in them. In understanding these reference state has to be clear otherwise

it looks contraditory.

 

Nisargadatta Maharaj explains this beautifully in the "I am that" book.

 

My understanding is dRishTi-sRishTi or sRishTi-dRishTi depends on the

reference state.

 

I am not sure from what reference Prakasananda argues.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

>

>Hi,

>

>Deutsch says in a footnote that Sankara opposed the Vijnanavada Buddhist

>idea that "the contents of empirical consciousness could be accounted for

>entirely in terms of the activities of consciousness alone." He adds that

>in "later Vedanta" someone called Prakasananda put forward a kind of

>subjectivism called drstisrstivada ("doctrine that perception is creation")

>"but it was argued for in a somewhat different philosophical context, and,

>in any event, it would clearly have been rejected by Samkara and his early

>followers".

>

>wow! seems to me I've read quite a few comments on Advaita lists which

>sound a lot like this drstisrstivada ("doctrine that perception is

>creation") and to think this "would clearly have been rejected by Samkara"

>makes me very curious and eager to hear an explanation from more learned

>list members.

>

>Namaste,

>

>--

><ac

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sadananda, your explanation helps quite a bit...

>

>But if we take the same analogy now as the total consciousness, then

>dRishta is the Iswara or collective minds of all, and therefore negation by

>one individual mind does not dismiss the rope. Hence from the collective

>consciousness or brahmaswaruupa, it is still a projection on the total

>consciousness on the total mind. In that case the consciousness is no more

>empirical. Then the objective world is only projection of on the total

>consciousness since before sRishTi - existence-consciousness alone was

>there before creation. Ref- Ch. U. sadeva soumya ....tad aikshata.. etc.

>

 

Is this distinction the same as the one between "mulavidya" and "tulavidya"

(ie. universal vs. individual illusion) ? Are we assuming here that Iswara

is cosmically deluded into misperceiving the universe into being while jivas

misperceive a personal version of that cosmic delusion? You must be right

to suggest it comes down to a question of whose dristi is it, but somehow

I'm left with a lingering uneasiness and am reminded of what the Oxford

Companion to Philosophy credits Ramanuja with saying about it... "Ramanuja

bombards this illusionism with charges of inconsistency, asking tough

questions: 'Whose illusion is it'? It could not be God's because he never

errs, and could not be ours because we are its effects according to

non-dualism."

 

More light please!

 

Namaste,

 

--

<ac

[Guest guest]

>"a c" <ac

>

>Is this distinction the same as the one between "mulavidya" and "tulavidya"

>(ie. universal vs. individual illusion) ? Are we assuming here that Iswara

>is cosmically deluded into misperceiving the universe into being while jivas

>misperceive a personal version of that cosmic delusion? You must be right

>to suggest it comes down to a question of whose dristi is it, but somehow

>I'm left with a lingering uneasiness and am reminded of what the Oxford

>Companion to Philosophy credits Ramanuja with saying about it... "Ramanuja

>bombards this illusionism with charges of inconsistency, asking tough

>questions: 'Whose illusion is it'? It could not be God's because he never

>errs, and could not be ours because we are its effects according to

>non-dualism."

>

>More light please!

>

>Namaste,

>

I am delighted to read this. Iswara is not deluded He is the Lord of the

creation. One has to be careful about the illusion and delusion. Even at

the individual level seeing the plurality is not the problem. Hence

illusion is not the problem. But taking the illusionary plurality as

reality is the delusion. Delusion arises since I identify by self with the

empirical consciousness and assume the separateness between the seer and

the seen is real.

 

>From Iswara point, the creation is his aisvaryam or glory- or in Bhagavan

Raamaanuja's concept it is Leela of the Lord. Buck stops there. You

cannot of course ask the question that why does Lord want to have leela and

that too at my expense - First he is the Lord and second therefore He is

the Lord. He wants to play and he can play and one plays because one likes

to play. The projection of the world is by his Maya and Maya is his shakti

or power. Maaya at the individual level becomes ignorance or avidya. A

limited intellect cannot comprehend the total. A bhakta is happy with the

statement that creation is the Leela vibhuuti of the Lord.

 

At the same time Ramaanuja vehemently criticizes Shankara's avidya concept

in his Sreebhaashya. Who has the avidya - what is the locus of avidya.

Jeeva cannot have avidya since jeeva is the product of avidya. Hence Jeeva

is not the locus of avidya. But at the same time Iswara cannot have the

avidya since he will be no more Iswara. Then who has the avidya. The

problem is the answer depends on who is asking the question similar to my

inquiry into who is the sleeper I? Jeeva asking the question - how did and

when did I become ignorant. When is ruled out, since ignorance is anaadi -

just like when did my ignorance of chemistry started. Ignorance can never

start since if it starts before that I was knowledgeable. But it can end

with knowledge.

 

But now Jeeva is asking who has the ignorance - Since he does not know

since he is asking, right now he has it! That is why when one individual

realizes, all individuals do not realize. The second puzzle is when that

individual realizes he realizes also that there are no others than himself.

Hence there is no one to blame other than himself. Would he ask the

question what happened to my ignorance? and whom he is going to ask? Now

the delusory part is gone but the illusory part can remain and He sees that

it is his glory - it becomes his aiswaryam. The same ignorance at the

individual level manifests as the Iswara shakti or Maya at the level of

Iswara. Of course locus of Maya is the Iswara ( in absolute sense

Brahman). How the avidya at the individual level manifests as Maya at the

paramaarthika level - is unexplainable and Shakara call this as

anirvachaneeyam - unexplainable because the truth is beyond the

intellectual level and intellect cannot comprehend it. Of course Ramaanuja

criticizes this as escapism.

 

But looking from my perspective whether one calls this as Leela or the

other calls this as unexplainable both are essentially saying that the buck

stops here but using different language.

 

Why Iswara is not deluded when he is total sum of all minds - Swami

Chinmayanandaji explained this to me in this way - When the two minds join

it is not just the sum but it is the sum of the positive parts - since the

negative parts have to drop out for them even to join one. Hence if my and

my wife minds have to join into one, and if we want to think as one, we

have to drop all our individual negative roles and to unite as one. Same is

for one family, one nation, one world and one universe. Hence Lord is all

love all compassion all beauty, all auspicious qualities. Ramaanuja calls

him as the locus of ananta kalyaana guna. In fact he protests that

nirguna means not having any guna but not having any durguna. But donot

ask Ramanuja that the Lord who is so compassionate and all love created

this kind of world. He has to again center it on the jeeva as

manefestation of avidya - but here the avidya manefests as not knowing the

Iswara or forgetting the Iswara. Only the language differs. The answers

and problems remain the same. Even in Advaita the Lord is Iswara with

ananta kalyaana guna. Advaita differentiates Iswara from Brahman which or

who is nirguna. This aspect is different from Advaita and

VishishhTaadviata.

 

So who has the ignorance? - You guessed it right!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

My deep and sincere pranams to you Sadananda and others. Tears began to

well up in my eyes when I realized how lucky I was to be having this

conversation at all (even though I feel a bit like the younger brother who

has to run to try to keep up to his older siblings here). I know I'm

missing much of what you say, but I am very grateful for your efforts none

the less. If I blunder badly, please forgive me and shower me with your

patience and wisdom anyway...

>I am delighted to read this. Iswara is not deluded He is the Lord of the

>creation. One has to be careful about the illusion and delusion. Even at

>the individual level seeing the plurality is not the problem. Hence

>illusion is not the problem. But taking the illusionary plurality as

>reality is the delusion. Delusion arises since I identify [m]y self with

the

>empirical consciousness and assume the separateness between the seer and

>the seen is real.

>

 

So we have two simultaneous mistakes in which we project what belongs only

to the true subject onto an illusory object and vice versa? The world then

is not a mere nothing nor is it truly real, as is the personal self neither

real nor non-existent and both illusions depend upon each other?

 

If the illusory personal self were understood aright, it could no longer be

believed and in the abscence of a belief in a personal self, will the

corresponding world relative to that self cease to appear to be

independently real? But until this occurs, will the world appear to be as

real as the assumed personal self to whom it appears even though both

personal self and world are illusory?

 

If the above is correct (please correct what may be wrong) then the entire

question does seem to boil down to the exact nature of the mistaken belief

in a personal self. Because we have immediate access to ourselves but only

indirect access to objects we should be able to ascertain the truth of this

self directly. As a matter of fact, it's my guess that this IS the exact

nature of the problem in so far as the personal self comes into being ONLY

as an object of thought and/or belief. Without thought the personal self

does not exist at all. There certainly is a self which exists before

thought but it is unlike any possible idea about any thing in that it is not

and cannot ever become an object of thought or belief. This is why I guess

the personal self CANNOT be believed and understood at the same time.

 

Is there any other or better refutation of the personal self?

 

Namaste,

 

--

<ac

[Guest guest]

Harih Om,

 

For an explanation on dRshTi-sRshTi vAda please read what Vidyasankar

Sundaresan has written on it in his home at

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~vidya/advaita/creation.html

 

Greetings and Om,

Vishvarupananda

[Guest guest]

>"a c" <ac

>

>My deep and sincere pranams to you Sadananda and others. Tears began to

>well up in my eyes when I realized how lucky I was to be having this

>conversation at all (even though I feel a bit like the younger brother who

>has to run to try to keep up to his older siblings here). I know I'm

>missing much of what you say, but I am very grateful for your efforts none

>the less. If I blunder badly, please forgive me and shower me with your

>patience and wisdom anyway...

 

I am very happy for you. I have to redirect your praNaams to my teachers

who taught me, who themselves learned from their teachers, to their

teachers etc. We can not but bow down with humility to the great sages and

Achaaryaas who discovered the truth and passed on to generations to come.

Hence Advaita Vedanta, as rightly pointed out by Aikya is not a religion or

a philosophy but the science of reality. Dr. T. Mahadevan, who was the

head of the Philosophy Dept of Madras University, provides a beautiful

introduction to his text on Sri Ramana Maharshi, where he discusses why

Advaita is not matam but the exposition of reality.

 

>

>So we have two simultaneous mistakes in which we project what belongs only

>to the true subject onto an illusory object and vice versa? The world then

>is not a mere nothing nor is it truly real, as is the personal self neither

>real nor non-existent and both illusions depend upon each other?

 

Both the universe and the subjective creation, both are illusory to a

different degrees. In all illusions there has to be something that is more

real. Thus snake illusion is real for a subject until he discovers that

there is a rope on which the snake is projected. Then the snake is no more

at the individual level. The world is illusion is real till one discovers

the substratum, the Brahman. - Hence for every appearance there has to

have a non-negatable substratum which is real. Ultimately what is

non-negatable reality is the universal consciousness on which the plurality

is projected - I am that - is the realization.

>If the illusory personal self were understood aright, it could no longer be

>believed and in the absence of a belief in a personal self, will the

>corresponding world relative to that self cease to appear to be

>independently real? But until this occurs, will the world appear to be as

>real as the assumed personal self to whom it appears even though both

>personal self and world are illusory?

 

I am not sure I understand the question correctly. One has to be careful

with the words and language here. What is a personal self? The universal

consciousness reflected through the tiny equipments of the individual

Buddhi, intellect, and through buddhi, mind, and then body is the

individual self. Taking the reflected consciousness as real is the

delusion. Who does that - a simple analogy is given (these analogies are

provided to make a point and not all points) - if there are many buckets of

water and if the sun is reflected in the waters, and sun looking its own

reflection starts crying why I am breaking up into pieces (as the water is

being disturbed by external interactions). When sun realizes they are

reflections of mine - I am in them but they are not in me. I am the total

illumination and the reflections are my glory. The nature of the

reflection depends on the how disturbed the substratum is or how pure that

water is.

 

The true understanding oneself is that (1) I am the consciousness that

illumines the body, mind and intellect and hence I am not the body, mind

and intellect per sec. - This much I can deduce with out the need of

vedanta (2) I am just the reflected consciousness but the total

consciousness - the self in me is the self in all - As Swami Atmaanandaji

pointed out this brahmaswaruupatvam is pointed out by Vedanta- It is a

realization.

Ones I understand who I am or what is my true nature, there is no more

delusion at the individual equipment level or at the collective equipment

level. They are all in me but I am beyond all of them. I can project the

world or go into deep meditation in myself as myself as the total self. It

becomes aatma rati and atma kreeda. I revel in myself or I play my self

because I have the capacity, shakti for both.

 

Existence of myself is self-evident. Myself as total self is the

realization. I have not realized that only because, I take myself to be

the limited equipments along with the pratibimba, reflections are real and

try to cater for these. It is like trying to decorate the image in the

mirror, with more OET - objects, emotions and thoughts. When I shift my

attention from the image to the real self, that is the true self that is

the self in all. Then the duality or plurality is only apparent. The

apparent becomes apparent since it is no more real.

 

>If the above is correct (please correct what may be wrong) then the entire

>question does seem to boil down to the exact nature of the mistaken belief

>in a personal self.

 

Exactly - belief that the personal self (reflected self) as the real self

and further more reflecting medium (intellect, mind and body) is that

personal self. - non-apprehension of my true self and misapprehension of my

self as this and this - although this and this are objects. Subject is

identified as objects.

 

>Because we have immediate access to ourselves but only

>indirect access to objects we should be able to ascertain the truth of this

>self directly.

 

We have immediate access to everything since any accessibility is only

through the mind and mind is nothing but thoughts and thought is nothing

but a wave in my consciousness and I am that consciousness - and that

consciousness is the total consciousness says Vedanta. The whole thing is

right there, yet the delusion goes on because the mind is looking for

answers elsewhere - seeker is searching for an answer out there without

realizing that he is the total answer, says Vedanta. The search will go on

until the reflecting medium (mind and intellect) becomes still or calm to

realize the truth. Hence the need of yoga for purification of the mind.

> As a matter of fact, it's my guess that this IS the exact

>nature of the problem in so far as the personal self comes into being ONLY

>as an object of thought and/or belief. Without thought the personal self

>does not exist at all.

 

In the deep sleep state, where are no thoughts - true there is no

individuality since individuality involves - not only non-apprehension but

misapprehension - since the grosser equipments are all folded. In the deep

sleep state there is still non-apprehension since our experience is 'I

enjoyed the sleep but I donot know anything'. - here it is

non-apprehension without the misapprehension. when the mind wakes up, mind

starts projecting that I am this and that etc.

 

>There certainly is a self which exists before

>thought but it is unlike any possible idea about any thing in that it is not

>and cannot ever become an object of thought or belief. This is why I guess

>the personal self CANNOT be believed and understood at the same time.

 

True Self exists all the time since it is real. - ego, if you are referring

as personal self - yes it is a thought process - as Ramana points out -

aham virtti and idam virtti - "I thought and this thought' - But even this

I thought and this thought, we are conscious off because of the

consciousness that is reflecting through the medium. Ego is not real since

if you try to chase it will hide behind in different forms - I am bhogi -

now I am bhakta or now I am Vedantin or now I am a sanyaasin etc. It never

leaves - only way to get rid off this is by inquiry since being false it

cannot stand any inquiry commission.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>Is there any other or better refutation of the personal self?

>

>Namaste,

>

>--

><ac

>

>

>

>------

>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or

>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit

>/advert.html for more information.

>------

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning,

>profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between

>mind and matter

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

>"Swami Vishvarupananda" <omkar

>

>Harih Om,

>

>For an explanation on dRshTi-sRshTi vAda please read what Vidyasankar

>Sundaresan has written on it in his home at

>http://www.its.caltech.edu/~vidya/advaita/creation.html

>

>Greetings and Om,

>Vishvarupananda

 

Thanks you swamiji for the reference. There is a beutiful discussion of

different vaadas - dRishhTi-sRishhTi and sRishhTi-dRishTi and ajaata vaadas

by Vidyashankar. He concludes that all schools of thoughts ultimately

rest on the ajaata vaada and is the essence of advaita vedanta -Every

thing is nothing but Brahman - ekameeva advitiiyam - one without a second.

He also rightly points out that one should not get lost in these vaadaas.

Basic concepts need to be understood and ultimately all point out to the

essence.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

sadananda wrote:

> sadananda <sada

>

> I am very happy for you. I have to redirect your praNaams to my teachers

> who taught me, who themselves learned from their teachers, to their

> teachers etc. We can not but bow down with humility to the great sages and

> Achaaryaas who discovered the truth and passed on to generations to come.

> Hence Advaita Vedanta, as rightly pointed out by Aikya is not a religion or

> a philosophy but the science of reality. Dr. T. Mahadevan, who was the

> head of the Philosophy Dept of Madras University, provides a beautiful

> introduction to his text on Sri Ramana Maharshi, where he discusses why

> Advaita is not matam but the exposition of reality...........

 

Hari Om! Sadaji & a.c:

 

Let me add some additional materials regarding the role of Guru and the Advaitic

tradition of Guru Parampara. This tradition starts from the great sage Vedavyasa

followed by Sankara and others. The concept of Guru is fundamental in Hindu way

of life and everyone respects the Trinity - Matha (mother), Pitha (father) and

Guru (teacher). This Trinity has close resemblance to the symbolism of life

cycle as represented by the TRINITY - Brahma (creation), Vishnu (preservation)

and

Shiva (liberation). Matha, Pitha and Guru play significant roles in upbringing

the children in material and spiritual growth.

 

It is worthwhile to recall the prerequisites that Sankara prescribes as

necessary qualifications for the study of vedanta:

(1) discretion and the wisdom to discriminate between the eternal and the

ephemeral.

(2) a total non-desire for the enjoyment of mundane benefits of pleasure

(3) the six qualities of s'ama (control of the mind), dama (control of the

senses), uparati (cessation of ignorance), titiksha (endurance), s'raddha

(faith and

conviction), samaadhaana (mental equilibrium),

(4) an intense longing to be free from the ccle of births and deaths,.

 

The spark of realization and the onset of spiritual becoming have to come

through faith and intuition, not through study of books. Intellect alone,

however sharp

it might be, cannot bring you to the consummation of an understanding of

vedanta. Swami Vivekananda points out that to quicken the spiritual growth, the

impulse

must come from another soul. The person from whom such impulse comes is called

the "GURU."

 

The following funny story can illustrate the role of the Guru in the liberation

of ignorance. Ten persons crossed a river and wanted to check whether all had

safely crossed. Each began counting but everyone counted only nine and the tenth

was missing. They all thought that the tenth person was drowned and asked the

passerby to help them. The passer heard their story and immediately spotted the

error. The passer explained to them that counter was missing the counter in the

counting process and that was the error. Immediately, they all understood the

problem of looking only externally and not looking inward!

It required the intervention of the passerby, an intelligent master- Guru to

liberate their ignorance. We need a mirror to see our body image and a Guru to

see

the spiritual image.

 

--

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA