Guest guest Posted July 19, 1999 Report Share Posted July 19, 1999 > Greg Goode <goode > > Sounds more like advaita vedanta, which says that phenomenality is real (or > existant) AS consciousness, but not as any kind of thing apart from > consciousness. Not real or existent as something independent. Illusory, > which Shankara said was unspeakable I believe. > yup... OK with me, so we *do* actually have a universe of appearances which *is* real in so far as it is not separate from the underlying Consciousness which causes it to appear and disappear. But this to me is *not* the same thing as saying "the universe never was". The latter seems unnecessarily misleading to me if all that's intended is the much milder "nothing existed separately from Consciousness". > Middle-Way Buddhism (a la Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Middle Way) says that > it is neither existent nor non-existent. Like you said, it would be > ridiculous to say of an X that X does not exist. What this means is: > > Somehow there is an X. > Non-existence is a property of this X. > Well not quite. What I said is it would be ridiculous to assert "this assertion does not exist" but there's nothing wrong with asserting "my children do not exist" because I have no children. > According to Nagarjuna, a phenomenon neither exists nor doesn't exist. And > what existence means in this context is being inherently present, or having > the quality of being in-and-of itself. If something exists according to > the Middle Way, then this means inherent existence, as the nature of the > thing. Then we couldn't account for the impermanence or the appearance of > passing away of phenomena. If something DIDN'T exist inherently, we could > never account for the apparent arising of phenomena, because inherent > non-existence means that it is an inherent property of X not to appear or > exist in any way at all. > I spent quite a long time struggling with Nagarjuna and came to the conclusion it is just a tautology when the dust clears. It amounts to saying "phenomena do not exist independently because they exist dependently". Not very satisfying when you put it that way, is it? The big difference between Advaita Vedanta and Nagarjuna according to most commentators (with the exception of T.R.V.Murti) is the non-existence of any underlying equivalent of Kant's noumenon but I don't think we should venture into Nagarjuna because we might double our trouble to no purpose... :-)) > > Appearances is an OK way to think about it. Appearance means somehow other > than reality. In advaita, the standards of reality are eternality, > immutability and non-compoundedness. No phenomenon (appearance) has these > characteristics. > OK and here is where it gets *real* interesting... According to We Wu Wei (as I understand him), everything knowable about me is just another appearance in the objectively occuring universe and everything happening in that apparent universe is the *output* of some process which determines it completely. The *input* of the process whose output is the apparent universe is nowhere to be found [as an object]. This phenomenal abscence of the origin of phenomena is the presence of the noumenon. So far so good (maybe?) - but then I think he goes on to say this noumenal presence is somehow also the true substance of appearances -- and I lose him. (Balsekar seems to say almost the identical thing in "Experience of Immortality" - commentary on Janshewar's Amritabhava). Can someone help me with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 1999 Report Share Posted July 20, 1999 > > a c [sMTP:ac] > Tuesday, July 20, 1999 4:28 AM > advaitin > RE-universe never was? > > "a c" <ac > > OK and here is where it gets *real* interesting... > According to We Wu Wei (as I understand him), > everything knowable about me is just another > appearance in the objectively occuring universe > and everything happening in that apparent universe > is the *output* of some process which determines > it completely. The *input* of the process whose > output is the apparent universe is nowhere to be > found [as an object]. [Madhava Replies:] I guess, you have answered your own questions put through your earlier mails :-) Actually, that is where "advaita" brings Ajatavada in to picture. Input can not be seen, but the output is *mortally* clear... That which is seen is continuously changing. And the instruments of the seer (I mean the Body, Mind and the Intellect) are also changing. Change seems to be inevitable. It is happening with out anybody's intervention. We are left to understand that there should be a *true* nature to the object --- which is being seen, and the subject --- who is the seer. Everything is changing.... The instrument that is recognizing the changes is "the intellect". But the Intellect also undergoes change. Then where do we actually stand! It is like "show me a place to stand and I will revolve the earth the other way round"... We stand on nowhere. Nagarjuna's middle way stops you at the nihilism. But Advaita goes beyond. There is a supreme state which is true. You are presumed ignorant of it. It is a state where neither the body nor the mind nor the intellect are involved. How do we comprehend it!? > This phenomenal abscence of > the origin of phenomena is the presence of the > noumenon. So far so good (maybe?) - but then I > think he goes on to say this noumenal presence is > somehow also the true substance of appearances -- > and I lose him. (Balsekar seems to say almost the > identical thing in "Experience of Immortality" - > commentary on Janshewar's Amritabhava). Can > someone help me with this? [Madhava Replies:] Just a small correction. The book is Jnaneswar's "AmrutAnubhava" (amruta + anubhava). IMHO, I would suggest that one should read a good commentary available on Amrutanubhava by Swamy Anubhavananda. It is a very interesting and thought provoking commentary. A must reading for advaitins. Your analysis is very interesting. Please keep them coming. Pranams, Madhava > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > Show your ONElist SPIRIT! > > With a new ONElist SHIRT available through our website. > > ------ > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available > at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 1999 Report Share Posted July 20, 1999 a c wrote: >yup... OK with me, so we *do* actually have a >universe of appearances which *is* real in so far >as it is not separate from the underlying >Consciousness which causes it to appear and >disappear. But this to me is *not* the same thing >as saying "the universe never was". As you know, the real/unreal dichotomy goes like, "real as Consciousness, unreal as the world." So maybe I should ask you, what do *you* mean by "the universe never was"? Whence the uneasiness (I think you referred to it in a previous post...) a c wrote: >The latter >seems unnecessarily misleading to me if all that's >intended is the much milder "nothing existed >separately from Consciousness". Sounds mild but is it really? By not being separate from consciousness, it has no relationship other than identity with consciousness. For it to have any kind of relation with consciousness means that it is not consciousness (more Nagarjuna here :-) ) It means that consciousness doesn't perceive it or apprehend it or grasp it or give rise to it or reflect it. It is not in consciousness, nor is consciousness in it. For any of these to be the case, the "it" would have to first exist apart, THEN consciousness could interact with it. So if it goes like this, in what sense was the universe? a c wrote: >Well not quite. What I said is it would be >ridiculous to assert "this assertion does not >exist" but there's nothing wrong with asserting >"my children do not exist" because I have no >children. Yes, the "this sentence doesn't exist" is different in that way from "my children don't exist." But good metaphysical theories try to escape the paradox of the former by not imputing any more reality to themselves than to any other object in the universe. In advaita vedanta, the teachings of advaita vedanta are part of mithya or avidya. Nagarjuna says his Middle Way is not a view, only conventionally true (I know you comment on this later). Some do see a problem with saying "My children do not exist." In western philosophy, the exitential import of the "my children" is avoided by recasting as "There exists no X such that X is my child." >> According to Nagarjuna, a phenomenon neither >exists nor doesn't exist. And >> what existence means in this context is being >inherently present, or having >> the quality of being in-and-of itself. >I spent quite a long time struggling with >Nagarjuna and came to the conclusion it is just a >tautology when the dust clears. It amounts to >saying "phenomena do not exist independently >because they exist dependently". Not very >satisfying when you put it that way, is it? I think he says "arise dependently" and "exist conventionally." I like it. But then conventional existence can't withstand examination or analysis. Most people would think that existence IS something that you can really get at, hold on to. And this is why there is suffering, that things that really seem to exist then disappear, like love, money, relationships, health and life. a c wrote: >The >big difference between Advaita Vedanta and >Nagarjuna according to most commentators (with >the exception of T.R.V.Murti) is the >non-existence of any underlying equivalent of >Kant's noumenon... I agree. Other differences are that Nagarjuna leaves more of a path for after wisdom takes place. Stuff related to the Bhodhisattva way, as in Nagarjuna's Precious Garland. Oops, sorry to go on about him!! :-) a c wrote: >OK and here is where it gets *real* interesting... >According to We Wu Wei (as I understand him), >everything knowable about me is just another >appearance in the objectively occuring universe >and everything happening in that apparent universe >is the *output* of some process which determines >it completely. The *input* of the process whose >output is the apparent universe is nowhere to be >found [as an object]. I think here Wei Wu Wei is trying to guide our thinking, to get us to see that what we might take to be the non-objective source of phenomenality must itself be a phenomenon. So therefore that we should give up this way of thinking, because it's not doing for us what we expect of it. I understand Wei Wu Wei as wanting to get rid of any duality at all, subject/object, neumenon/phenomenon, etc. >(Balsekar seems to say almost the >identical thing in "Experience of Immortality" - >commentary on Janshewar's Amritabhava). Can >someone help me with this? Have you read Wei Wu Wei's Ask_the_Awakened? There's lots and lots (and I mean LOTS) of Wei Wu Wei in Balsekar's writings. Lots!! Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 1999 Report Share Posted July 21, 1999 [Madhava Replies:] Apologies if this message appears twice. > > a c [sMTP:ac] > Tuesday, July 20, 1999 4:28 AM > advaitin > RE-universe never was? > > "a c" <ac > > OK and here is where it gets *real* interesting... > According to We Wu Wei (as I understand him), > everything knowable about me is just another > appearance in the objectively occuring universe > and everything happening in that apparent universe > is the *output* of some process which determines > it completely. The *input* of the process whose > output is the apparent universe is nowhere to be > found [as an object]. [Madhava Replies:] I guess, you have answered your own questions put through your earlier mails :-) Actually, that is where "advaita" brings Ajatavada in to picture. Input can not be seen, but the output is *mortally* clear... That which is seen is continuously changing. And the instruments of the seer (I mean the Body, Mind and the Intellect) are also changing. Change seems to be inevitable. It is happening with out anybody's intervention. We are left to understand that there should be a *true* nature to the object --- which is being seen, and the subject --- who is the seer. Everything is changing.... The instrument that is recognizing the changes is "the intellect". But the Intellect also undergoes change. Then where do we actually stand! It is like "show me a place to stand and I will revolve the earth the other way round"... We stand on nowhere. Nagarjuna's middle way stops you at the nihilism. But Advaita goes beyond. There is a supreme state which is true. You are presumed ignorant of it. It is a state where neither the body nor the mind nor the intellect are involved. How do we comprehend it!? > This phenomenal abscence of > the origin of phenomena is the presence of the > noumenon. So far so good (maybe?) - but then I > think he goes on to say this noumenal presence is > somehow also the true substance of appearances -- > and I lose him. (Balsekar seems to say almost the > identical thing in "Experience of Immortality" - > commentary on Janshewar's Amritabhava). Can > someone help me with this? [Madhava Replies:] Just a small correction. The book is Jnaneswar's "AmrutAnubhava" (amruta + anubhava). IMHO, I would suggest that one should read a good commentary available on Amrutanubhava by Swamy Anubhavananda. It is a very interesting and thought provoking commentary. A must reading for advaitins. Your analysis is very interesting. Please keep them coming. Pranams, Madhava > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > Show your ONElist SPIRIT! > > With a new ONElist SHIRT available through our website. > > ------ > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available > at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 1999 Report Share Posted July 21, 1999 At 10:37 AM 7/21/99 +0300, you wrote: >"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava > Everything is changing.... The instrument that is recognizing the >changes is "the intellect". But the Intellect also undergoes change. Then >where do we actually stand! This is beautiful... it really illustrates that we cannot hold on to anything, not even for a microsecond. It shows how much attachment and clinging form the root of our delusions. > It is like "show me a place to stand and I will revolve the earth >the other way round"... We stand on nowhere. Nagarjuna's middle way stops >you at the nihilism. But Advaita goes beyond. There is a supreme state >which is true. You are presumed ignorant of it. It is a state where >neither the body nor the mind nor the intellect are involved. How do we >comprehend it!? "We" do not. That comprehends Itself. That which is truly Us is One, and when ignorance is peeled away, it is seen there is only That, and That is always Itself, constantly in a state of Being, knowing Itself on a level beyond thought. Satchitananda, Tat Tvam Asi. Hari OM, Tim ----- Visit The Core of the WWW at: http://www.eskimo.com/~fewtch/ND/index.html Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. 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.