the universe that is

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

I'm enjoying your posts - thanks for writing them.

>

> ................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...)

>

 

I'm not bothered by the non-existence of the

universe because I've never believed any such

thing. Why Advaita Vedanta might have thought so

was a puzzle which bothered me, that's all. But if

all they mean is it is not separate from

consciousness - that's pretty mild (not

problematic).

> 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?

>

 

I don't think whatever is logical is therefore

true.

 

Things may exist (or arise) in relation to other

things without being either separate or identical

and the dialectic of Nagarjuna is intended

precisely to remove such "extreme" views. To

answer your question (on behalf of Nagarjuna :-))

all parts of the universe arise and disappear

interdependently with all other parts, events,

etc. as if everything were made of the influences

of everything else. Nothing whatsoever has

independent existence -- not consciousness, not

the whole universe, not Buddhist enlightenment. In

this view (as I understand it), there is no cause

separate from effect nor identical with it. But

PLEASE let's drop Nagarjuna!!! OK? :-))

>

> 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!!

>

 

I haven't read the one you mention but I'll look

for it.

 

So, what about noumenal presence somehow being the

substance of phenomenon? Why is that more likely

than the Sankhya notion that Purusha (noumenon) is

different from Prakriti (phenomenon) ?

 

-A.

[Guest guest]

>"a c" <ac

>I'm enjoying your posts - thanks for writing them.

 

Same here - it's nice to see insight and a wry sense of humor in the same

post!!

>I'm not bothered by the non-existence of the

>universe because I've never believed any such

>thing.

 

This is nice. Not having either belief (existence OR non-existence) is

best, ?no?

 

....I'm snipping lots of dialetic from me on consciousness and existence,

blah blah, to which you concisely reply:

>I don't think whatever is logical is therefore true.

 

What is true? The normal philsophical definition is that a true statement

is one whose meaning corresponds with a state of affairs in the outside

world. But with the non-dual notion of objects not being separate from

consciousness, there is really no outside world. So in what sense is

something true? We could say, there is nothing but Truth...

>Nothing whatsoever has

>independent existence -- not consciousness, not

>the whole universe, not Buddhist enlightenment.

 

I like this very much!!!!!!!!!! And I promise not to mention the N-word.

 

Greg:

>> 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!!

 

a c:

>I haven't read the one you mention but I'll look

>for it.

 

If you can't find it anywhere, let me know. Ramesh really likes Wei Wu

Wei, and in that particular book, you'll see concepts neumenon/phenomenon,

vertical/horizontal, working mind/thinking mind (I seem to remember), and a

many more.

>So, what about noumenal presence somehow being the

>substance of phenomenon? Why is that more likely

>than the Sankhya notion that Purusha (noumenon) is

>different from Prakriti (phenomenon) ?

 

Neither is more likely. They are models for the seeker, and the seeker

adopts whichever one that resonates better. The purpose of any model is

sublation, to free the seeker from a more conceptually involved model, a

model that requires more belief. You know, like the drishti-shrishti, the

shrishti-drishti, and the ajata-vada models of creation in adviata vedanta.

Then the sublating model itself is eventually sublated, etc., until the

belief in the last model falls away.

 

Regards,

 

--Greg