Releasing conceptual identifications

[Guest guest]

I'm not an expert.

Because I'm not an

expert, there is no

knowledge I need to

retain.

Free from knowledge,

Being reveals itself

as such.

 

Advaita, "non-twoness"

the non-split,

non-separated,

non-dichotomous nature

of actual reality

is not a point of view.

 

Any point of view is opposed

by a differing point of view.

 

So advaita isn't a point of view.

 

To make "not-two" into a point of

view that can be accepted as

a conceptual arrangment that is

plausible would be to take

advaita for what it is not.

 

Thus, It isn't plausible or not plausible.

 

It isn't a conceptual arrangement of

facts and insights.

 

"Not this, not that" ...

it is by releasing onself

from anchoring concepts

with which one identifies

that one comes to the

nonconceptualizable Truth

that is "not-two".

 

Peace,

Dan

 

At 07:00 PM 7/20/00 -0500, you wrote:

>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>

>>In my original post in response to Robert's original question,

>>I stressed faith (in advaita) and purity of heart make one recognize

>>what he/she is. In a way, it can be addressed as science versus faith,

>>although putting them as two competetive words ( I am uneasy about

>>the word 'versus' here) is not what I was thinking.

>

>For whatever it's worth, it isn't what I was thinking either. I'm sorry I

>ever mentioned the word science at all, because it was not necessary to the

>point I was trying to make. I could just as well have referred simply to the

>consensus view: that we are biological organisms, that our awareness is the

>product of our physical being, and that consciousness as a whole is derived

>from physical existence rather than vice versa. This point of view can

>certainly be identified long before the birth of what we now call science.

>My statement was that, although Advaita is certainly plausible, there is a

>great deal of evidence for the consensus view also, which is plausible as

>well. Therefore plausibility does not equal truth. There need be no element

>of science versus faith in this statement.

>

>[...]

>>Science depends on faith for its advancement. Faith is a fore-runner

>>to any advancement in science. The cutting-edge of science depends on

>>faith. Once the advancement is made in science, science becomes practice

>>and not science any more. Thus the so-called science only tends to the

>>limit of faith, never reaching it. Faith is always ahead of science.

>

>Your statement is certainly true as far as it goes, but it leaves out one

>crucial detail. It's true that insightful, creative hypotheses run ahead of

>established knowledge, but many (probably the majority) of these hypotheses

>never reach the stage of 'truth' because they can't be confirmed. This just

>underscores the fact that a point of view can be elegant, insightful, and

>plausible without necessarily being true.

>

>

>>Trying to *mentally* capture 'all is one' [this, I understand, is the

>>original question by Robert] is like making science to reach the level

>>of faith. It can never be done. Science is an intellectual exercise.

>>Faith is beyond what an intellect can satisfactorily explain.

>

>No, that's not what I was trying to do. In my original question I

>specifically acknowledged that realization can't come through the intellect

>alone. But my question was on behalf of those like myself who are not

>realized, and are groping for something to bring Advaita out of the realm of

>the merely plausible and into something more vital and living. I never asked

>for proof, logical or otherwise, but just for something to make Advaita

>'real' to those who are not yet realized.

>

>

>>When Lord Krishna says in bhagavadgItA, 18th chapter "surrender to Me,

>>I will take care of you", He is saying: have faith in Me. He is not

>>asking Arjuna to logically deduce in the mind that Krishna is the

>>SELF of all; but He is asking Arjuna to make that leap of faith beyond

>>what the intellect can see and beyond what the intellect, with its tool,

>>the logic, can grasp. That is faith.

>

>Not all truth is accessible to logic, even in everyday life, and I have

>never thought otherwise. But as honest human beings we still must retain at

>least some critical standards, including the ability to discriminate between

>the merely plausible and the true. Anyone who has surveyed the history of

>philosophy knows that many views have been propounded beyond the consensus

>realism that I mentioned and Advaita, and that a large number of these views

>have a high degree of plausibility, at least internally. So, in the absence

>of realization, we need something to elevate one plausible view above all

>the others, do we not? Some may make this selection based on tradition

>alone, but for those of us who were born into Western culture, taking this

>approach obviously does not make Advaita a leading option.

>

>Robert.

>

>

>------

>Best friends, most artistic, class clown Find 'em here:

>http://click./1/7078/6/_/489436/_/964137730/

>------

>

>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To

from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other

contact, Email to <advaitins

>

>

>