Guest guest Posted November 4, 1998 Report Share Posted November 4, 1998 On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, sadananda wrote: > sadananda <sada > > >"Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 > > > >Question from the newbie: in your statement that ego is never present, > >i.e. in the moment, I offer the following example of what I think is a > >statement from ego without reference to past or future. > > > >I am the best baseball player alive. > > Thanks for your post. > > Suppose if I ask you, how can you say that your are the best baseball > player - assuming that you are not playing, when I am asking - You have to > dig out your historical record - record of your past. In that statement 'I > am' part relates to the present - the rest of the part is identification > with the past - is it not? > > Suppose you are playing at this very moment - obviously you cannot answer > my question, unless you stop at least for a second to answer; at which > time you will not be playing. Your response will be back to the history > up to the point you answer my question. Is it not? Please think about it. > When you are actually doing - ego does not come in - > Hence Krishna's statement - The activities belong to prakriti itself. Ego > unnecessarily goes there and claims. > > The next point is if I ask who is that 'I' who thinks that he is the best > baseball player - you again provide loads of information about that "I' > (ego) that is being referred to in that statement but all references are > again related to the past, nothing about the present. > > I hope that answers your question. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 > > > > > ------ > 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 > Namaste. The above answer makes the present last only an instant with what is now present being rolled into a more or less infinite past, and what is now present rolling onto an equally (like the past) more or less infinite future. That is, it trivializes the present to a trifle second. My concept of present is the other way, that is, everything is the present, with past and future having no significant meanings. I would be grateful for any clarification and pitfall in my thinking. [p.s. while I am typing this, an e-mail from Shri Sadananda flashed on the screen on the same topic, probably an answer to this question.] Regards Gummuluru Murthy --------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 1998 Report Share Posted November 4, 1998 >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > >Namaste. > >This has relevance to Eric Stewart's question of yesterday and my comment >of October 20 (Digest # 41) on the topic. > >I see Shri Sadananda's point that the ego is not there at the present >instant and is there in the past and in the future. However, as we know, >there is no past or no future. It is always ever present. Hence we can >argue that ego is never there. But in the wake-up world, for the >unrealized, there is always ahaMkAra vyAghra vyathitam, the tormentation >by the tiger of ego. > >Thus, intellectually, the argument that (i) the ego is not there at the >present instant, but only in the past and the future, (ii) further, the >past and future are never there, it is always present, (iii) hence, the >ego cannot be there at any time and is unreal; holds. > >However, in practice, the feelings such as for e.g. (i) "I am the best >baseball player alive, (ii) I am the best or the worst interpreter of >Shri Shankara's advaita, (iii) I am the enjoyer of the fruits and I am >the doer of the actions, (iv) I am suffering the misery of this jagat; >all these which Shri Shankara calls ahaMkAra vyAghra vyathitam are the >ones to be eradicated. While technically it is not there in the present, >ego is the one that torments us in the present. > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy I think one has to be careful in this analysis. Ego is with reference to the past or the future, but the error is in the present, in the sense 'I am the best baseball player' is not the past mistake- it is the mistake being committed now. What I had implied is that, while Ego is the sum total of the past and future perceptions of oneself, the identification with the past is the present error. Who does this identification?- is a tricky question. Just like who has the ignorance or who slept well etc. When ego claims I am the doer - that statement reflect present thought and when asked who is that 'I' that it claims it to be, it identifies that 'I' to be with the sum total of the past. Hence in reality there are two errors. One is identifying one self with non-self such as I am this etc., and second the identification with the past memory as 'this' which constitutes all the dead and gone. Ego has a relevance with the past - the error has the relevance with the present. Since the identification is centered on 'I am" - aham vR^itti - it is not easy to get rid of the ego since it's locus is on the eternal I. This is the related question concerning -who has the ignorance? - the one who has is the one who is identifying for the time being with 'this'; and 'this' being the dead and gone past stored as memory. If one actively chases - who has the ignorance? or who is the one who is identifying?, etc. - ego part being past connected disappears leaving just 'being' or just 'I' without identifying with nothing other than itself. I am - I am -Period. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 1998 Report Share Posted November 4, 1998 >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy >Namaste. > >The above answer makes the present last only an instant with what is now >present being rolled into a more or less infinite past, and what is now >present rolling onto an equally (like the past) more or less infinite >future. That is, it trivializes the present to a trifle second. My concept >of present is the other way, that is, everything is the present, with past >and future having no significant meanings. I would be grateful for any >clarification and pitfall in my thinking. > >[p.s. while I am typing this, an e-mail from Shri Sadananda flashed on the >screen on the same topic, probably an answer to this question.] > > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >--------- Both are equivalent descriptions - depends on the reference. Present can be considered as a thin invisible line where the past meets the future! But the one who is present at that present that thin line is all that counts, since past is gone and future has not come. Then, for the one who is at that present, it is beyond the past and future - he is eternally present since that present remains ever present. At that instant one transend the concept of time and one jumps (as though) into the substratum that is present in present where the time is moving or being conceptulized. Eternal is not long time it is beyond the concept of time. Here actually words limited by time fail! Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 1998 Report Share Posted November 5, 1998 On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 "Eric Stewart" <ganesh_82 wrote: > Question from the newbie: in your statement that ego is never present, > i.e. in the moment, I offer the following example of what I think is a > statement from ego without reference to past or future. > > I am the best baseball player alive. When the Atman steps into creation as it were, what arises is aham, the feeling of pure being. When there is the feeling of particular and differentiated being, forming a centre of experience, that is ahaMkAra (ego). So, in your example, "I am" is limited to "the best baseball player alive." That, you will admit, does exclude rather a large part of the creation, which is therefore "other", and hence there is the appearance of duality. Identifying with any limitation is the nature of the ego. In fact, this limited ego plays man roles -- e.g. father, brother, son -- but underlying these parts that the ego plays, is a conviction such as "I am a man." Then this is embellished with further limitations: I am a baseball-playing man; I am the best baseball-playing man, etc; and each qualification excludes more, so that one becomes very limited indeed. One is imprisoned by identifying with these limitations. Such is the ego. > I like your ideas in the post to which this is a response but I question > whether or not ego cannot be present. Perhaps you could clarify. When there is no identification with the limited, then there is no ego (and hence there is no ego in deep sleep). In this sense then, it is possible for the ego to be "not present", i.e. absent; but this does not mean that the ego is absent in the sense of "somewhere else", it means "non-existent" or "unmanifest". There are, however, those who insist that the ego is "not present", referring to time in the sense of past-present-future. This is very confusing, for it does not accord with daily experience. _______ On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 sadananda <sada wrote: > Suppose if I ask you, how can you say that your are the best baseball > player - assuming that you are not playing, when I am asking - You have to > dig out your historical record - record of your past. In that statement 'I > am' part relates to the present - the rest of the part is identification > with the past - is it not? "I am" relates to the universal; the identification with the limited can only takes place in the present moment -- note that the verb is in the present tense, "I am", not "I was". That the identification is with some content of memory is irrelevant to _when_ the identification takes place, which is right now in the present. > Suppose you are playing at this very moment - obviously you cannot answer > my question, unless you stop at least for a second to answer; at which > time you will not be playing. Your response will be back to the history > up to the point you answer my question. Is it not? Please think about it. Thinking is the problem! History is irrelevant: the recalling of information from memory operates in the present. > When you are actually doing - ego does not come in - When you are actually doing - that IS the ego. The ego does the baseball playing; it does the laying down of memory; it does the recalling from memory; and it does the speaking. > Hence Krishna's statement - The activities belong to prakriti itself. Ego > unnecessarily goes there and claims. Indeed, activities belong to prakriti itself. The ego does not "go" there, but arises when "I am" identifies with something appearing there. The ego claims not only the (limited) results (past present or future), but claims agency as the doer/knower/experiencer etc. > The next point is if I ask who is that 'I' who thinks that he is the best > baseball player - you again provide loads of information about that "I' > (ego) that is being referred to in that statement but all references are > again related to the past, nothing about the present. The ego, having already identified with some limitation (body, mind, nation, religion, whatever), justifies its existence by trying to show that it is somehow special, better than "others". This exclusivity is an effect of the ego, and the means by which it re-inforces and perpetuates itself. ______ On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > This is a great question! The reference points for the statement > > "I am the best baseball player alive." > > take you out of the "now" (think of all my past games), and out of the > "here," since you compare all other baseball players. What happens in the present moment is a connection with the memory, which implies a disconnection from the senses. Memory, whether it is storing or recalling impressions, can only operate in the _present_. All action takes place in the present moment -- ALL action. Have you ever had a hard disk crash on your computer? You know the thought: "I must make a back-up yesterday!" It doesn't work! :-( > Besides, at the > moment of uttering the statement, there was just uttering, no comparison, > no past, no future, etc. And the utterance arose from the ego, given the sentence considered. We know nothing of the past, except for impressions stored in the mind; we know nothing of the future, except for hopes, expectations, and other impressions in the mind; we can only know and act in the present, "here" and "now" -- but that present is coloured/interpreted/valued by the ego. We _infer_ that the colouring was laid down in the past, but that inference can only take place in the present. The inference seems logical enough: a habit laid down in the past operates in the present, and in the present we have the choice to re-inforce the habit or not, so that in future the habit will be stronger or weaker. At least that accords with experience. Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 1998 Report Share Posted November 5, 1998 Hello Charles, At 10:17 AM 11/5/98 +0200, Charles Wikner wrote: >It was posted to the list, so respond to the list. >I am curious: what prompted you to respond off-list? I responded off-list because I saw only my own e-mail address in your post, whereas all the others show up in my mailer as: "Delivered-mailing list advaitin " Thanks for posting your reply and mine to the list. >> A note about this discussion -- these statements were not made along the >> lines of the formal panchakosa model in advaita vedanta. Instead, they are >> based on the teachings of Krishna Menon (Sri Atmananda of Tivandrum). > >I don't know him or his teachings, but since your statements are only >"based" on his teachings, I class them as an expression of your personal >understanding. Our opinions differ, or at least, there is a difference >in our expression thereof. First a few words about the model I'm speaking from, then on to your post. Almost everything said by anyone is a concept or refers to a concept. I resonate with the metaphysical concept/model of Atmananda, it seems true to my experience, accounting for its richness, while being conceptually simpler than any other I've encountered. It is definitely a different model from the Shankaracharyan/advaita vedantan. And it is not a popular or widespread model either. The differences between your posts and mine mostly revolve around this one point, and it is by no means a small one: in Atmananda's model, ESSE IST PERCIPI, as in Berkeley. The criteria of existence of a thing or an object of consciousness is that it appear to the witness. Only what is now appearing to the witness can now be said to exist. By the same token, something that is NOT now appearing to the witness cannot be said to exist. If you think about this, it doesn't leave much room for anything to exist, not even other thoughts that seemed to occur in the past. So memory cannot prove a past thought or appearance. It is simply another appearance in the timeless present. This is Atmananda's way of showing that everything is Pure Consciousness only. From the esse ist percipi point, he proceeds as follows: Since the appearance of anything "external" is not separate from the percieving, the external "thing" cannot be said to exist apart from the percieving. So you cannot say that there is an X, and the X is perceived. To say so is an act of faith, since your only evidence is in perceiving. Furthermore, perception never appears without knowledge of the perception. That is, we can't say that perception is separate from knowledge. In that sense, we can't really say that the perception is an X and it is known. It is Knowledge only, which is objectless Pure Consciousness. What applies to perception also applies to anything from manas or buddhi or samadhi. Nothing that appears is separate from knowledge, so it can't be anything but knowledge. Knowledge is that to which it appears. Other differences between our posts are in the usages of words, such as "timeless" vs. "present." They are the same, and I'm happy to use either word. >> Only later does the ego (seem to) enter, saying "I played a great concert >> there." > >The very statement "I played" means that there was the ego there during >the playing. Not necessarily. We're back to esse ist percipi. What is the proof that a present thought "I played" truly refers to anything outside itself? What is the proof that this present thought refers to a past time, an ego, playing, or anything else? This present thought is an appearance in consciousness only. > The ego was impressed with its skill, and stored that >impression in the mind at that time. Later the same ego recalls that >impression, expressing it in the past tense. However, the act of saying >"I played" occurs in the present, and is spoken by the same ego. There >is just one ego having different roles as player, rememberer, speaker. >The ego is the Self identified with some limited aspect of creation, in >this case a body/mind predisposed to playing concerts. Yes, in the formal model, this is the Self identified with some of its uphaadies. >> >CounterFACTuality? Who determines what is a fact and what is not? >> >A smoker trying to give up his habit is faced with conflicting >> >desires: which of the two is a fact? >> >> By counterfactuality I meant something counter to or other than what is >> now. I didn't mean what we usually mean, that a fact is a state of affairs >> that a true statement refers to. Under either definition, a desire isn't a >> fact. > >I desire to respond to your post. That's a fact! It is quite obvious >to me, if not to you. The fact is the state of being or the description of your desire to respond. The desire is your desire to respond. This is an unimportant technical difference. >> It is the impulse to leap out of the here and now into a state of >> affairs that is preferable and different, either into the future, into the >> past, or into a state of affairs that has some description different from >> THIS, which is of course not a description while happening. > >That impulse is the ego too: perhaps this is just a knee-jerk reaction >to your post. Yes, in the formal model. > In fact, what you are describing is a predeliction to >disconnect from the senses and indulge in the imaginings of manas. >That predeliction is a quality of the ego. You can choose to indulge >the habit or not. Yes, in the formal model, the predilection is the effect of the vasana stream influencing and agitating the manas. But the here/now is not limited to manas or any of the sheaths. There can be input from all levels. I think we agree here -- the impulse to depart from the timeless or the present is the same as disconnecting from some aspect of our experience. (In the formal model, choice and self effort are critical. There is another viewpoint as well. Many sages, including Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramesh Balsekar, point out how choice is the outcome of thoughts and desires appearing -- and the supposed doer has no control over the appearance or the strength of the thoughts or ensuing actions. There was quite a large discussion on this free will topic about a year ago on ADVAITA-L.) >That's the ego: "I am X", where X is any limitation, and the effect >is separation and exclusivity. The fact is that the ego loves its >qualifications, especially when they are summa cum laude. Yes, the ego wants to be a lot of things. And these things are in the past, future, or in some other situation outside of the present moment. >> >Then what interacts with the sensory world? >> >> Great question! In the formal advaita teaching, it is taught that the >> manas, being un-agitated, gives over to the buddhi, which then has a >> straight shot through the senses out to the objects of the senses. But in >> higher teachings, such as the Mandukya Upanishad with its ajata vada >> metaphysics, nothing ever interacts with anything. This is Sri Atmananda's >> view also. > >No problem with that. Seems to be the most important point to me! If we agree that nothing ever interacts with anything, then what more is there to be said?? (Now I'll proceed to say more :-) ) >Once the ego is there, having identified with some limited aspect of >the creation, this fixes a reference point to which everything else >in space and time is relative. This fixation is tamas, and gives >rise to time in the sense of past-present-future (mental concepts); >without it, I don't see how there can be any sense of time. There >may be movement, even a sense of sequence, but without any sense of >cause-effect relationship associated with events in time. What about when the ego is not there?? Let me ask you something. I don't know if you are speaking from the formal model, or a combination of that with your own experience. What is the concise statement of your concept? What is the movement from from identified ego to jivanmukta? How does enlightenment fit in? Does the ego exists in its tamasic identification with some aspect of creation, then move to rajas to sattva till the ego disappears? >P.S. The discussion of the ego and time arose with Sadananda's post >of 16 Oct 1998: > >> But when >> analyzed deeply, ego can exist only with reference to the past or future, >> and it has no existence in the present. > >I disagree with that as a statement. I agree with Sadananda's statement.... Regards, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1998 Report Share Posted November 9, 1998 On Thu, 05 Nov 1998 Gregory Goode <goode wrote: > >It was posted to the list, so respond to the list. > >I am curious: what prompted you to respond off-list? > > I responded off-list because I saw only my own e-mail address in your post, > whereas all the others show up in my mailer as: > > "Delivered-mailing list advaitin " > > Thanks for posting your reply and mine to the list. I didn't, I posted it to you! Never mind, the list members have been spared two long and confusing posts. :-) You provide an interesting model, but I don't follow it. > The differences between your posts and mine mostly revolve around this one > point, and it is by no means a small one: in Atmananda's model, ESSE IST > PERCIPI, as in Berkeley. The criteria of existence of a thing or an object > of consciousness is that it appear to the witness. Only what is now > appearing to the witness can now be said to exist. By the same token, > something that is NOT now appearing to the witness cannot be said to exist. Nor, surely, can they be said to NOT exist. > If you think about this, it doesn't leave much room for anything to exist, > not even other thoughts that seemed to occur in the past. So memory cannot > prove a past thought or appearance. It is simply another appearance in the > timeless present. You seem to be implying that, for example, now that you are back in the US, that Tokyo has ceased to exist. Do you mean that in an absolute sense or relatively (inasmuch as it may have sunk beneath the waves last night)? > This is Atmananda's way of showing that everything is Pure Consciousness > only. From the esse ist percipi point, he proceeds as follows: Since the > appearance of anything "external" is not separate from the percieving, the > external "thing" cannot be said to exist apart from the percieving. So you > cannot say that there is an X, and the X is perceived. Is this dRSTi-sRSTi-vAda? X is projected? > To say so is an act > of faith, since your only evidence is in perceiving. How can there be perception without an object? > Furthermore, > perception never appears without knowledge of the perception. I understand perception to be knowledge (awareness) of an object. > That is, we > can't say that perception is separate from knowledge. In that sense, we > can't really say that the perception is an X and it is known. I still see perception as the act of knowing (being aware of) an object. I don't think it matters if that object is illusory or imaginary. > It is > Knowledge only, which is objectless Pure Consciousness. Suddenly it is wit a capital K. A realised man sees objects, but he sees through them too: they are transparent to him, a trick of the light as it were, but there is nothing other than Pure Consciousness. Under ignorance, the same objects are seen as solid, and appear to be real, and separate from the observer. > What applies to > perception also applies to anything from manas or buddhi or samadhi. > Nothing that appears is separate from knowledge, so it can't be anything > but knowledge. Knowledge is that to which it appears. Greg, you have majored in philosophy at college, whereas I have no training in the subjectat all, so please bear with me if I have misunderstood some point, such as perception. Furthermore, assuming that I have misunderstood, and that the model is correct, how do you know that the witness is Brahman and not the ego? In other words, what is the difference between this model and solipsism? > Other differences between our posts are in the usages of words, such as > "timeless" vs. "present." They are the same, and I'm happy to use either > word. That is the essential reason that I entered this thread at all. The dictionary gives "timeless" as: not affected by lapse of time, eternal. For "time" it gives: season, period, duration of life, etc. And for "present" it gives: at this time. In the context of advaita, the Self is timeless, and time is an aspect of the not-Self superimposed upon it, and the present is this instant in time when the creation has a particular configuration in its ever- changing flux. The Self, being timeless is ever-present (never absent), but that does not mean that the not-Self which is present (current) is the Self. Hence the statement that there is no ego (Self identified with not-Self) in the present moment, has no foundation: it may be true, it may be false. There is no relation between premiss and conclusion. The state of heightened awareness to which you refer, is when the mind is more sAttvika: this is a change in the not-Self. There is certainly a change in the quality of the ego because of this shift in the guNa balance, however that does not demonstrate the absence of the ego at all, but in fact proves its presence: there is no change in the Self whatsoever, by definition, so that heightened awareness can only have been a change of the ego. > >> >Then what interacts with the sensory world? > >> > >> Great question! In the formal advaita teaching, it is taught that the > >> manas, being un-agitated, gives over to the buddhi, which then has a > >> straight shot through the senses out to the objects of the senses. But in > >> higher teachings, such as the Mandukya Upanishad with its ajata vada > >> metaphysics, nothing ever interacts with anything. This is Sri Atmananda's > >> view also. > > > >No problem with that. > > Seems to be the most important point to me! If we agree that nothing ever > interacts with anything, then what more is there to be said?? When that is realised, no more need be said; until then, speech steers the ego towards the Self or towards the not-Self. > >Once the ego is there, having identified with some limited aspect of > >the creation, this fixes a reference point to which everything else > >in space and time is relative. This fixation is tamas, and gives > >rise to time in the sense of past-present-future (mental concepts); > >without it, I don't see how there can be any sense of time. There > >may be movement, even a sense of sequence, but without any sense of > >cause-effect relationship associated with events in time. > > What about when the ego is not there?? Re-read the last three lines: without it .... The "it" refers to the fixation, i.e. ego. > Let me ask you something. I don't know if you are speaking from the formal > model, or a combination of that with your own experience. I follow advaita vedAnta as expounded by Shankara so far as I am able to: anything that I write is, of course, limited by personal understanding, and coloured by personal experience. What may be confusing is that I accept both pariNAma/vivarta-vada and ajAti-vAda as causal explanations for appearances in vyavahAra and paramArtha respectively. > What is the concise statement of your concept? I don't know that I have one! The very idea seems somewhat strange: to limit the unlimited to a concise statement semms contradictory. As a pointer, would "brahma satyaM jagan mithyA" (Brahman is real, the world illusory) suffice? > What is the movement from from identified ego to jivanmukta? > How does enlightenment fit in? What comes to mind, is the seven stages of the path of knowledge as given in the Yoga vasishtha: ShubhecchA (good impulse), vicAraNA (enquiry), tanumAnasA (attenuated mind), sattvApatti (sAttvika state), asaMShakti (disconnection), padArthAbhAvanI (objectless), and turyagA (or turIya, transcendence). My understanding is that the first three are stages in the search for the Truth, and that the last three are stages of j~nAna culminating in jIvanmukta; the fourth, being in the middle is the transformative stage, traditionally associated with saMnyAsa. In the first three stages the world is seen as real, and Truth, that is the Self, is accepted on faith alone; in the last three stages the Truth is known directly and the world is known to be illusory. In the fourth stage there is a turning away from the engagement with the world and life becomes more inward-directed: the acquisition of information about the Truth from external sources, now becomes a search within. This stage, sattva-Apatti, can be called enlightenment in two senses: as illumination, which dispells some of the darkness of ignorance so that distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad, useful from harmful, is directly seens and is no longer a matter of convention; and secondly, as a lightening of the weight of the burden of ignorance, a loosening of the knots, so that bondage (moha) is now reduced to attachment (rAga). > Does the ego exists in its tamasic identification with some aspect of > creation, then move to rajas to sattva till the ego disappears? In the early stages it can appear as a shift in the guNa-balance, but I think it more accurate to view it as a movement from the individual to the universal, for untimately there is only one Self. What we call a realized man is not a man at all, but the Self Itself: he sees the whole universe as an illusion, including what others call "his" body. To the realised man the entire physical universe is his body: he does not identify with any part of it, but sees the whole as illusory. The Self realises Itself, ayamAtmA brahma, by ceasing to identify with the illusory not-Self: a Self-realized individual is a contra- diction in terms. [ That, by the way, is why I consider modern teachings, such as those of Nisargadatta and Balsekar, as poisonous rubbish that is positively harmful to any genuine search for Truth: those so-called "teachings" are merely an ego trip, leading to a trap that can be very difficult to get out of. ] The most useful description of the nature of ego is the mutual super- imposition of the Self and the not-Self, as given by Shankara in his introduction to the Brahma Sutra Bhasya. The first paragraph reads (Gambhirananda's translation): " It being an established fact that the object and the subject, that are fit to be the contents of the concepts "you" and "we" (respectively), are by nature as contradictory as light and darkness, cannot logically have any identity, it follows that their attributes can have it still less. Accordingly, the superimposition of the object, referable through the concept "you", and its attributes on the subject that is conscious by nature and is referrable through the concept "we" (should be impossible), and contrariwise the superimposition of the subject and its attributes on the object should be impossible. Nevertheless, owing to the absence of discrimination between these attributes, as also between substances, which are absolutely disparate, there continues a natural human behaviour based on self-identification in the form "I am this" or "This is mine". This behaviour has for its material cause an unreal nescience and man resorts to it by mixing up reality with unreality as a result of super- imposing the things themselves or their attibutes, on each other." Regards, Charles. P.S. This is an inordinately long post (apologies for that), and covers several topics. Please reduce the confusion by starting new threads related to particular topics rather than reply to the whole post. 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.