Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 Patrick, Some interesting observations (I particularly liked the quotation from Goethe) but I have problems with the way that you talk about the world. (If I understand what you are saying correctly, so, I believe, would most others on this list.) I was with you up until your statement that <Since the world is infinite no individual can be endowed with a 'God's eye' view of the world but it is the aggregate of these limited individual perspectives which constitute what Spinoza calls 'the infinite intellect of God'.> You see I do not believe that the world is ultimately real. See Sadananda's excellent analysis of 'real vs unreal vs appearance' in the last digest (Tues 7th March). And I do not believe there are any individuals, only appearances of minds, clouded by ignorance. I agree that 'neti, neti' IS used to help the student begin to break down his identifications but I also think this aphorism goes all the way, as I suggested in my last post, and I feel that this was its ultimate intended meaning. (It would not really make sense to negate something that doesn't exist in the first place!) But what do you mean by "The only 'thing' that will not be destroyed is the world itself... ?" How is the world different in this respect from all other (implied) objects? Agreed it will last a little longer than most but in terms of the eternal reality, it will be gone in an instant. What exactly is your problem with respect to mind, ego and identification? Can you put it in terms of manas, buddhi, chitta, ahaNkAra, Atman? I would be extremely surprised (but most intrigued!) if there are no references in the scriptures. Regards, Dennis 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.