Releasing conceptual identifications

[Guest guest]

Dan Berkow wrote:

> 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.

>

 

Dan! Dan!

He is our man!

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Dan Berkow <berkowd

[...]

>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.

 

Advaita is opposed by a differing point of view: Dvaita. Surely you've heard

of it. This opposition is also inherent in your term, non-twoness.

>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.

[...]

 

Your remarks remind me of the ontological 'proof' of the existence of a

theistic God, which has been stated in various ways, including the

following: existence belongs to the attributes of God just as having its

angles add up to 180 degrees belongs to the attributes of a triangle;

therefore God has to exist. Of course this is the ontological 'argument' as

well as a so-called proof, and I'm sure that you would deny stating an

argument, just as you deny that Advaita is a point of view, or can be

plausible or implausible. Then again, this approach reminds me of a

statement that I heard once from a fundamentalist Christian: Christianity is

not a religion, because religion is man's attempt to find God, while

Christianity is God's attempt to reach out to man. Nothing like defining

your beliefs into unquestionable truth before they have even been stated.

 

Rather than dwelling on monism versus multiplicity, how about this for a

basic dichotomy: either consciousness is derived from physical existence, or

vice versa.

 

Robert.