What is the point - Part 3

[Guest guest]

What is the point - Part 3

 

Greg makes a very goode point (sorry, couldn't resist it - I guess you must

be as sick of it as I am about puns on my name!). I know Wayne says many

times that contradictions, even from one teacher, are natural. Nisargaddata

says the same thing too. Why should I complain? I suppose it's the thing

about pramaana. How can it be claimed so ardently that the sruti is (are?)

incontrovertibly true, when a sage can (and does) say things which are

contradictory?

 

I think I am happier with your second point. Since reality is beyond

description, once someone achieves liberation (contradiction of course) they

must be, by definition almost, beyond the contradictions of those teachings

that were not instrumental in their liberation. I accept also that no

teachers are contradictory about the core of Advaita.

 

I agree too with Ram. Contradictions clearly do arise from our ignorance.

Also, we certainly do have to continue to act as though we had free will.

Many of the discussions that we have relate only to intellectual ramblings

and not to practical behaviour, don't they! I know we have had all of these

discussions before under the headings of vyaavahaarika and paaramaarthika.

 

That also bring us to Sadananda's point. All of this stuff is in the realm

of vyaavahaarika anyway so I guess that, yes, all is as meaningless as the

rest ultimately so that whether it is contradictory is irrelevant. I'm not

sure which statements you are referring to as giving you surprise at their

assertiveness. I agree that the problem is self-ignorance and that

self-knowledge is the solution but, as you say, this cannot be willed. You

imply therefore that, since knowledge will not arise randomly, one has to

'make effort and study under proper guidance'. I'm not sure I agree with

this. I have already said that I do not believe one can choose to do this.

It may well be that one's nature predisposes one to study Advaita. Mine

does, so I will continue to do so. But I do not believe that this will help

per se. Nisargadatta puts it very clearly when he says 'so long as there is

an entity seeking liberation, he will never find it'. Also, I don't think

you can use knowledge of chemistry or math as an analogy for

Self-knowledge - the latter has nothing to do with acquired information,

rather with complete transformation and, so I am led to believe, it occurs

instantaneously, regardless of previous preparation. Your reference to the

probability increasing proportional to one's level of commitment implies

that you disagree with Nisargadatta's statement.

 

Also, I am not really happy with your anthropomorphic treatment of grace.

Surely it is not meaningful to talk about 'being on good terms with God'?

Consciousness is not a person (except that our precise trouble is that we

think it is in our own case!) and I do not see that attributing human

behaviour to it can be helpful. This is one of the main quibbles I have with

Christianity and its wrath and retribution rubbish. God is as 'responsible'

for the bad as it is for the good. (That should trigger a few objections!)

 

I have re-read my post several times now and cannot find the 'animal issue'

to which you refer. I agree that animals have no will. Let's not introduce

'sin' - that's another contentious issue, I'm sure!

 

I think perhaps you reach the nub of the issue when you say that the

problems are realities only within vyaavahaara and that when this is

transcended all the concepts become equally meaningless. When the sage or

the sruti talks about paths and freedom of will to choose paths and move

towards enlightenment, or when a sage says something quite the opposite, all

are talking about the unreality of vyaavahaara. You could say that, since

the topic of discussion is unreal, then nothing that can be said is true so

that contradiction is ok. Fine! But then it does make a bit of a nonsense to

cite the sruti as an ultimate authority, doesn't it?

 

I like Robert's analogy of the steel, which either is, or isn't solid,

depending on the instruments used to observe it. I wonder though whether it

is a valid analogy. Could one say that, if life is looked at one way there

is reincarnation; if looked at in a different way, there isn't? I like

Nisargadatta's view that manifestation in the physical universe is only

meaningful in terms of space and time and that, since this framework is

conceptual, the so-called objects must themselves be concepts. (And he

hadn't read Kant either!) 'Therefore', he says, 'understand firmly once and

for all, that no conceptual object, although mistaken as a separate entity,

could possibly have any kind of independent existence or personal volition.

No one is born; no one dies. What is born is only a concept. There is no

entity to be freed. Not understanding this fact constitutes the bondage of

ignorance; apperception of it is the freedom of truth. Remember, truth is

absolute correspondence with reality. It is the unshakeable knowledge of

man's true nature. It is the total negation of entity-ness.'

 

Namaste,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite

advaitin <advaitin >

Saturday, August 12, 2000 11:43 AM

What is the point - Part 3

 

[...]

>I like Robert's analogy of the steel, which either is, or isn't solid,

>depending on the instruments used to observe it. I wonder though whether it

>is a valid analogy. Could one say that, if life is looked at one way there

>is reincarnation; if looked at in a different way, there isn't?

[...]

 

My point was that it's both solid and empty at the same time, depending on

the context. In the absolute sense a piece of steel, like every object, is

mostly empty space. That is the truth. But in the relative, immediate sense,

you can still bash your head in with it, and that is certainly a fact of

which we need to be aware, even though your head (and mine too, of course)

also is mostly empty space.

 

And I'm not sure why you choose to quibble with rebirth particulary. From an

absolute Vedantic perspective, you weren't even born this time, much less

all the other times, especially in view of the fact that 'you' don't even

exist! Instead of questioning rebirth, why not start a movement to abolish

the celebration of birthdays? On the other hand if this suggestion seems

silly, then why shouldn't any hypothetical prior births be counted either in

or out on the same basis?

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

Forgive this message if it's a duplicate - I got an error message from

eGroups.com about the message being unsendable because in HTML...

 

Yes, kids teased me about my name when I was young! It's OK, I'm not sick

of it at all!

 

Thanks for raising some interesting points in a clear, candid way. This is

really breathing some life into the list in these lazy summer months!

 

You seem to agree with most of the philosophical points that are raised by

the correspndents here. But who do you see here claiming that shruti gives

absolute truth? [addendum added before the re-send: in your "Part 4

message" you do deal with this point and I see where you're coming from on

it] Certainly the direct-path teachings don't emphasize the authority or

infallibility of shruti, though they do like to cite it because of its

excellent and skillful pointing to the moon.... Again, if you feel an

affinity with direct-path teachings, what's the problem if some other path

claims to be the absolutely True one? All orthodox paths say this at some

point or another! It inspires faith in some aspirants! In others, it

makes them run away, which is why Christianity isn't growing too fast these

days, or maybe it's even shrinking. I think you'd get lots juicier answers

from the ADVAITA-L list if you posed the same question about shruti there!!

Even then, part of the teaching even in formal advaita is that the

teaching of formal advaita is also Maya....

 

There's another thing you say that I'd like to comment on:

 

Dennis:

Remember, truth is absolute correspondence

with reality. It is the unshakeable knowledge

of man's true nature. It is the total negation

of entity-ness.

 

Back to Greg:

There are three statements here. The second two are the way various

teachings in nondualism define truth.

 

But the first, the notion of correspondence with reality, is an old,

shop-worn claim in Western philosophy. It's also called

representationalism or the "picture theory" and is rife with problems.

Thoughts and language are pictures, but there's supposedly something

external to themselves that they are pictures of.

 

What is the evidence for correspondence? It actually contradicts the other

two statements you gave above, and those other two are much more like what

you see in the direct-path teachings. Correspondence introduces a

subject/object dualism. I'm asking about this, because it's the impulse to

believe that some ideas correspond with reality more than others do that

introduces all the fear, feelings of separation, and doubt that one is on

the right path. The fear that our thoughts might be pointing in the wrong

direction. These are nice teachings in raja yoga and bhakti yoga, but in a

yoga like jnana where the nature of thought itself comes under scrutiny, a

notion like correspondence cannot stand. In nondualism, truth is usually

characterized as the collapse of any dichotomy upon which correspondence

could be based.

 

Once again, I wish to salute you for bringing up these important and

fascinating topics in such an amiable, clear, and skillful manner!

 

Om!

 

--Greg