Guest guest Posted September 3, 2000 Report Share Posted September 3, 2000 The book "A Course in Consciousness" by Stanley Sobbatka available at http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/ throws into sharp relief another contrarian question that has been bothering me for some time. Sobattka mentions 'three major metaphysical philosophies': (i) monistic materialsim --- the view that 'all is matter and energy' (so that consciousness is an epiphenomenon or emergent property of matter). See for example, Churchland "Matter and Consciousness" and Dennett "Consciousness Explained" (ii) Cartesian dualism --- the view that mind and body (or consciousness and matter) are different substances (iii) monistic idealism --- the view that 'all is consciousness' (so that matter and energy are epiphenomena). E.g. Berkeley. Both (i) and (iii) are consistent with non-dualism but all modern exponents of Advaita, eastern and western, adhere to (iii). However my own experience is that, incredible as this may seem to many of you, monistic materialism is no impediment to drinking deeply from the Upanishads and the Gita (although it does cause one to balk at much of the later Advaitic literature). My understanding is that the word vijnana refers to a particular type of knowledge or wisdom --- the knowledge of the identity of Atman with Brahman --- and turyia to the particular state of consciousness in which this knowledge is acquired but that neither of these words refers to conscious awareness in general. So my question is how did Advaita come to be encapsulated in statements such as 'You are pure consciousness'? Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2000 Report Share Posted September 4, 2000 I find it very difficult to accept "monistic materialism" as a valid or complete system. The following article discusses the basic problems that I have with the idea that everything is matter and energy. The article was published last month in our Chinamya Mission newsletter and envisions what science must yet discover in the new millennium. I hope it is of some use to the readers. "SCIENCE EXPLAINS MATTER AND ENERGY, BUT WHAT EXPLAINS SCIENCE?" Science has made astounding progress during the last century. Today, as a new millennium begins, some scientists seem confident that with the further expected progress in science in the next 50 to 100 years everything in existence, including consciousness, will be fully explained in terms of matter and energy alone. Such a view however involves a logical contradiction as illustrated in the following imaginary interview by a Smrithi reporter (SR) of a future "materialistic scientist (MS)": SR: Professor, are you saying that your statement "Everything in existence is matter and energy" now stands proved true beyond doubt? MS: Yes, that is correct. SR: If your statement is true at all times, then the statement also must exist in some sense. Is it not so? MS: Yes, I suppose so. That which does not exist cannot be real or true. SR: Sir, then my question to you is this: Is the knowledge conveyed by your statement also made of matter and energy? MS: ??? ! The patent truth is that there is not only matter and energy in this universe, but also the knowledge of their existence. No scientist will claim that science does not exist. Yet science itself is made of something other than matter and energy! This is nothing new to Vedantins who view all manifested existence as the expression of the three gunas in Prakriti: tamas, rajas and sattwa which correspond respectively to matter, energy, and knowledge. A view of existence only as a matter-energy complex is therefore necessarily incomplete. As science progresses it must somehow factor knowledge as well into its models. For example, in Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 relating Energy to matter, it is tempting to hypothesize that the third quantity c (nominally, the speed of light) is a proxy for the knowledge aspect of the universe. This is not as bizarre as it may seem at first! After all, light and knowledge have been linked conceptually in most schools of thought since ancient days. WHAT MAKES SCIENCE HAPPEN? Science, in order to be complete, must also know what makes science happen. The well known magazine, Scientific American, published a special issue in DEC 1999 surveying the unsolved problems in science at the beginning of the new millennium. Two of the basic problems listed there were: (1) the physicists' attempt to develop a "theory of everything" that will explain all aspects of matter and energy in the framework of a single unified theory, and (2) neuroscientists' attempt to explain consciousness by purely biological processes. In Vedantic terms, these two areas of research represent investigations aimed at understanding the sat (existence) and chit (consciousness) aspects of Reality as manifested in creation. The magazine's editor expressed his confidence that scientists will work on and solve these problems in the next 50 years. This assertion on the part of Scientific American raises an interesting question: Based on what natural law does one predict with confidence that scientists will work on these problems? More generally, we ask what causes science to exist and grow? It has to be more than just research grant money! LAW OF ANANDA, OR THE DHARMIC FORCE The answer is related to the third aspect of Reality, namely ananda or Bliss. Ananda manifests itself throughout this creation as the quest for peace and poise amidst the chaos of creative activity. It is a force as real and as universal as any other in nature that scientists have postulated. It is manifested in sentient beings as the pursuit of happiness in truth, virtue, and beauty (satyam, shivam ,sundaram); in social systems as the struggle for freedom, equality and justice; and in inert physical systems as the tendency to reach a stable equilibrium. The course of human history bears ample witness to the existence of this universal law and science itself is one of its glorious products, as are the religions of the world, imperfect as they may be. It is said that Man attains spiritual perfection on discarding his body-mind identification and gaining Self-knowledge. In the new millennium, science also must cast aside its exclusive focus on matter and energy and begin to inquire into its own existence. When science finally succeeds in explaining itself, objective knowledge will have become complete. Then, material science will be one with spiritual science. - Raju Chidambaram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2000 Report Share Posted September 4, 2000 advaitin , Patrick Kenny <pkenny@c...> wrote:> The book "A Course in Consciousness" by> Stanley Sobbatka available at > > http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/> > throws into sharp relief another> contrarian question that has been> bothering me for some time. Sobattka> mentions 'three major metaphysical> philosophies':> > (i) monistic materialsim --- the view> that 'all is matter and energy' (so that> consciousness is an epiphenomenon or> emergent property of matter). See for> example, Churchland "Matter and> Consciousness" and Dennett> "Consciousness Explained"> (ii) Cartesian dualism --- the view that> mind and body (or consciousness and> matter) are different substances> (iii) monistic idealism --- the view> that 'all is consciousness' (so that> matter and energy are epiphenomena).> E.g. Berkeley.> > Both (i) and (iii) are consistent with> non-dualism but all modern exponents of> Advaita, eastern and western, adhere to> (iii). However my own experience is> that, incredible as this may seem to> many of you, monistic materialism is no> impediment to drinking deeply from the> Upanishads and the Gita (although it> does cause one to balk at much of the> later Advaitic literature). My> understanding is that the word vijnana> refers to a particular type of knowledge> or wisdom --- the knowledge of the> identity of Atman with Brahman --- and> turyia to the particular state of > consciousness in which this knowledge is> acquired but that neither of these words> refers to conscious awareness in> general. So my question is how did> Advaita come to be encapsulated in> statements such as 'You are pure> consciousness'? > > Regards,> > PatrickHi Patrick, I was passing thru and noticed your question, where doesthe notion of "all there is is consciousness" come from and how didit come to encapsulate the advaita view. I would like to know theanswer myself, psychologically, philosophically, and historically. My2 cents worth is that there is no object without cons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2000 Report Share Posted September 4, 2000 Sorry, I don't know why that last one didn't work. I'll try a different way. Hi Patrick, I was passing thru and I noticed your question where does the notion "all there is is consciousness" come from and how did it come to encapsulate the advaita view. I would like to know the answer myself, psychologically, philosophically, and historically. My 2 cents worth is that there is no object without consciousness but there can be consciousness without an object therefore consciousness is the basis of all. A counter argument could be: show me consciousness separate from a sentient being. To counter that I would respond: in objectless consciousness there is no sentience and therefore no sentient being. Everywhere we look there it is, always the same (Sat), ultimate goodness (Ananda). Of course, to verify this one would have to see for oneself. Maybe a Seer will respond. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Dear Raju and Larry, Please note that my question did not concern the relative merits of monistic materialism versus monistic idealism but rather why Advaita has aligned itself with the latter rather than the former given that both positions are entirely consistent with the non-dualism of the Upanishads (if I am not mistaken). I do not want to argue which of the two positions is correct for the reason that Berkeley's idealism ('all is consciousness') is generally conceded to be irrefutable even by those who consider it to be entirely implausible. Also I don't want to defend the charge that monistic materialism is not 'consistent' (Raju) because I think the fact that most scientifically trained Westerners adhere to it is evidence enough that it is. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Dear Raju and Larry, Please note that my question did not concern the relative merits of monistic materialism versus monistic idealism but rather why Advaita has aligned itself with the latter rather than the former given that both positions are entirely consistent with the non-dualism of the Upanishads (if I am not mistaken). I do not want to argue which of the two positions is correct for the reason that Berkeley's idealism ('all is consciousness') is generally conceded to be irrefutable even by those who consider it to be entirely implausible. Also I don't want to defend monistic materialism against the charge that it is not 'consistent' (Raju) because I think the fact that most scientifically trained Westerners adhere to it is evidence enough that it is. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 advaitin , "Patrick Kenny" <pkenny@c...> wrote: > Dear Raju and Larry, > > Please note that my question did not concern the relative merits of > monistic materialism versus monistic idealism but rather why Advaita > has aligned itself with the latter rather than the former given that > both positions are entirely consistent with the non-dualism of the > Upanishads (if I am not mistaken). > > I do not want to argue which of the two positions is correct for the > reason that Berkeley's idealism ('all is consciousness') is generally > conceded to be irrefutable even by those who consider it to be > entirely implausible. Also I don't want to defend monistic materialism > against the charge that it is not 'consistent' (Raju) because I think > the fact that most scientifically trained Westerners adhere to it is > evidence enough that it is. > > Regards, > > Patrick Please note that the reason Advaita is aligned with monistic idealism rather than with monistic materialism is given in the next-to-last paragraph of Chapter 1 of my course: "Paradoxical as it might seem, Advaita is more "scientific" than is the materialistic premise of an objective, external world because it is based on the immediate and direct experience of our consciousness, rather than on a metaphysical concept. The concept of an external world is not primary, but is derived from sense impressions and therefore, like all concepts, it must be taught and learned, while the self-evident experience of consciousness is preconceptual and cannot be denied." Thanks for creating such a great group! Stanley Sobottka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Dear Stanley, Welcome to the group. It is indeed ironic that I should be the occasion of your joining us, because I want to take issue with a fundamental premise of your book whereas I am sure that you will find that the vast majority of list members will be on your side! Let me say again that my question is *not* about the relative merits of monistic idealism vs monistic materialism (the issue which you try to settle in the paragraph that you quote below) but about the historical development of advaitic thought. I am open to correction about these two points, but my reading of the Upanishads is that (i) the doctrine of the the identity of atman and brahman is evidently incompatible with Cartesian dualism but it is equally compatible with monistic materialism and monistic idealism. (ii) the Upanishads are not concerned with *either* of these monisms; in particular the emphasis on consciousness per se which characterizes later Advaitic thought is missing from the Upanishads. As far as I know, nowhere is the doctrine of the Upanishads summarized in a formula like "You are pure consciousness" although statements like this abound in contemporary expositions of Advaita. My question is how did this come about? Who is responsible for it? Regards, Patrick > Please note that the reason Advaita is aligned with monistic idealism > rather than with monistic materialism is given in the next-to-last > paragraph of Chapter 1 of my course: > > "Paradoxical as it might seem, Advaita is more "scientific" than is > the materialistic premise of an objective, external world because it > is based on the immediate and direct experience of our consciousness, > rather than on a metaphysical concept. The concept of an external > world is not primary, but is derived from sense impressions and > therefore, like all concepts, it must be taught and learned, while > the self-evident experience of consciousness is preconceptual and > cannot be denied." > > Thanks for creating such a great group! > > Stanley Sobottka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Dear Stanley, Welcome to the group. It is indeed ironic that I should be the occasion of your joining us, because I want to take issue with a fundamental premise of your book whereas I am sure that you will find that the vast majority of list members will be on your side! Let me say again that my question is *not* about the relative merits of monistic idealism vs monistic materialism (the issue which you try to settle in the paragraph that you quote below) but about the historical development of advaitic thought. I am open to correction about these two points, but my reading of the Upanishads is that (i) the doctrine of the the identity of atman and brahman is evidently incompatible with Cartesian dualism but it is equally compatible with monistic materialism and monistic idealism. (ii) the Upanishads are not concerned with *either* of these monisms; in particular the emphasis on consciousness per se which characterizes later Advaitic thought is missing from the Upanishads. As far as I know, nowhere is the doctrine of the Upanishads summarized in a formula like "You are pure consciousness" although statements like this abound in contemporary expositions of Advaita. My question is how did this come about? Who is responsible for it? Regards, Patrick > Please note that the reason Advaita is aligned with monistic idealism > rather than with monistic materialism is given in the next-to-last > paragraph of Chapter 1 of my course: > > "Paradoxical as it might seem, Advaita is more "scientific" than is > the materialistic premise of an objective, external world because it > is based on the immediate and direct experience of our consciousness, > rather than on a metaphysical concept. The concept of an external > world is not primary, but is derived from sense impressions and > therefore, like all concepts, it must be taught and learned, while > the self-evident experience of consciousness is preconceptual and > cannot be denied." > > Thanks for creating such a great group! > > Stanley Sobottka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Dear Stanley, Welcome to the group. It is indeed ironic that I should be the occasion of your joining us, because I want to take issue with a fundamental premise of your book whereas I am sure that you will find that the vast majority of list members will be on your side! Let me say again that my question is *not* about the relative merits of monistic idealism vs monistic materialism (the issue which you try to settle in the paragraph that you quote below) but about the historical development of advaitic thought. I am open to correction about these two points, but my reading of the Upanishads is that (i) the doctrine of the the identity of atman and brahman is evidently incompatible with Cartesian dualism but it is equally compatible with monistic materialism and monistic idealism. (ii) the Upanishads are not concerned with *either* of these monisms; in particular the emphasis on consciousness per se which characterizes later Advaitic thought is missing from the Upanishads. As far as I know, nowhere is the doctrine of the Upanishads summarized in a formula like "You are pure consciousness" although statements like this abound in contemporary expositions of Advaita. My question is how did this come about? Who is responsible for it? Regards, Patrick > Please note that the reason Advaita is aligned with monistic idealism > rather than with monistic materialism is given in the next-to-last > paragraph of Chapter 1 of my course: > > "Paradoxical as it might seem, Advaita is more "scientific" than is > the materialistic premise of an objective, external world because it > is based on the immediate and direct experience of our consciousness, > rather than on a metaphysical concept. The concept of an external > world is not primary, but is derived from sense impressions and > therefore, like all concepts, it must be taught and learned, while > the self-evident experience of consciousness is preconceptual and > cannot be denied." > > Thanks for creating such a great group! > > Stanley Sobottka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Hai Patrick There seems to be undenayable duality in your posts! I am getting two copies of your posts! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Stanley Sobottka wrote: >Please note that the reason Advaita is aligned with monistic idealism >rather than with monistic materialism is given in the next-to-last >paragraph of Chapter 1 of my course: > >"Paradoxical as it might seem, Advaita is more "scientific" than is the >materialistic premise of an objective, external world because it is based >on the immediate and direct experience of our consciousness, >rather than on a metaphysical concept. The concept of an external world is >not primary, but is derived from sense impressions and therefore, like all >concepts, it must be taught and learned, while the self-evident experience >of consciousness is preconceptual and cannot be denied." Beautiful statement - but it is not only pre-conceptual - it exists all the time with or without the concepts (thoughts) present. Since concepts I am aware off , I as consciousness has to be there even to be aware of the concepts. Hence it is self-evident all the time - there is never a time I, referring to consciousness, is not there - Essentially there cannot be a denial or absence of consciousness since it has to be there even to deny it or notice its absence! About A-dvaita - it not just a monism but non-dualism - specifically denial of duality since the duality is our normal experience that involve experiencer and experienced. Hence the emphasis of the teaching as neti - neti - not this, not this - as this and this as the world separate from I is normal experience - Besides one cannot teach as this is consciousness since it is there as you have outlined in the above paragraph that it is pre-conceptual. Hari Om! Sadananda >Thanks for creating such a great group! > >Stanley Sobottka > K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Dear Greg, To say that a theory is irrefutable is not to say that it is true or that its contrary is false. Remember how Chuang-Tsu had a dream that he was a butterfly and began to ponder the question of whether in fact he *was* a butterfly having a dream that he was a man? Just like Berkeley's inversion of common sense, this theory seems to be perfectly irrefutable. Regards, Patrick > Hi Patrick, > > "Scientifically trained Westerners" -- I wouldn't say this is good > evidence! In fact, Berkeley's arguments on immaterialism, which you say is > irrefutable, entails that monistic materialism is inconsistent... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Hi Patrick, Oh, I know! Absolutely! I was responding on the terms of your own message. It so happens that Berkeley's theory is refutable (his theory as a whole, but not on the immaterialism part). It happens that monistic materialism *isn't* irrefutable, when stated in certain ways. As you know there have been many many monisms, such as the ancient Greek theories, ancient Indian theory, etc. Lots of kinds of matter, water, atoms, energy, sub-atomic particles, etc. 1. Consciousness is none other than matter. 2. Matter is none other than consciousness. I guess these are capsule statements of what you are discussing? As for the Upanishads, the Mahavakyas include Consciousness is Brahman (I'll have to get the Sanskrit). Regards, --Greg At 04:04 PM 9/5/00 -0000, Patrick Kenny wrote: >>>> <http://click./1/8969/6/_/489436/_/968169883/> </>eGroups </mygroups>My Groups | <advaitin>advaitin Main Page | <http://click./1/8150/6/_/489436/_/968169885/>Start a new group! Dear Greg, To say that a theory is irrefutable is not to say that it is true or that its contrary is false. Remember how Chuang-Tsu had a dream that he was a butterfly and began to ponder the question of whether in fact he *was* a butterfly having a dream that he was a man? Just like Berkeley's inversion of common sense, this theory seems to be perfectly irrefutable. Regards, Patrick > Hi Patrick, > > "Scientifically trained Westerners" -- I wouldn't say this is good > evidence! In fact, Berkeley's arguments on immaterialism, which you say is > irrefutable, entails that monistic materialism is inconsistent... > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Searchable List Archives are available at: <http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/adv aitin/ Temporary holiday stoppage of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-nomail > To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-normal > To receive email digest (one per day, send a blank email to <advaitin-digest > To to advaitin list, send a blank email to <advaitin-> <<<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 > >As for the Upanishads, the Mahavakyas include Consciousness is Brahman >(I'll have to get the Sanskrit). > >Regards, > >--Greg Greg - that Mahavaakya in Sanskrit is 'praJNaanam Brahma' - consciousness is brahman. Creation starts with that as explained in Chadogya Upanishad- Existence-consciousness is what was there before creation and it is one without a second - Hence it is preconceptual as Stanley stated since creation starts with conceptualization - ' vikaaro naamdheyam' - form and hence name for the form is the creation and that is just an apparent trasformation just as a bangle out of gold. Bangle is just a name and form as Gold remains as gold even in a bangle. Creation involves a concept in consciousness, since there is an intelligence involved in creation. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Dear Greg and Sadananda, OK, I concede that the identification of Brahman with consciousness can be found in the Upanishads. But the Upanishads are at pains to make it clear that absolutely nothing is excluded from Brahman. (I find this word so frustrating that I once set out to nail down the Upanishads' definition of Brahman. I came away with 'Verily, all this is Brahman'.) Likewise when Krishna describes himself as the 'knower of the field in all fields' in Chapter 13 of the Gita, that can be taken as supporting monistic idealism but he has already made it abundantly clear in Chapter 12 that he is also the field (the manifestation of the world form). I do accept 1 and 2 as capsule statements of the two monisms. The point I'm trying to make is that both are compatible with the Upanishads and the Upanishads are not primarily concerned with either of them. I realize that this reading may seem perverse in the light of contemporary Advaita but I came by it honestly as a result of reading the Upanishads and the Gita first and the secondary literature (including Shankara and the Ashtavakra Gita) later. Regards, Patrick > 1. Consciousness is none other than matter. > 2. Matter is none other than consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Hi Patrick, One a kind of side-note, every once in a while this list is visited for a while by someone who wants to convince the list-members of this monism, which I'll call (M): (M) Consciousness is none other than matter. I think those posters didn't find many takers on this list, and maybe that's why they were visitors... I know that's not what you're inquiring about, though. :-) On another topic -- idealism isn't a great term for what advaita talks about. It's a kind of close Western view, but not the same thing. Idealism refers to ideas, which refer to mind. Idealism, like Berkeley's, doesn't really talk about consciousness. In advaita, mind and consciousness are not synonymous. According to advaita, regardless of the relationships between mind and world, both mind and world appear in consciousness and are nothing other than consciousness. Have you found a place in the Upanishads that says anything equivalent to (M)? Regards, --Greg At 05:47 PM 9/5/00 -0000, Patrick Kenny wrote: >>>> <http://click./1/7747/6/_/489436/_/968176083/> </>eGroups </mygroups>My Groups | <advaitin>advaitin Main Page | <http://click./1/8150/6/_/489436/_/968176085/>Start a new group! Dear Greg and Sadananda, OK, I concede that the identification of Brahman with consciousness can be found in the Upanishads. But the Upanishads are at pains to make it clear that absolutely nothing is excluded from Brahman. (I find this word so frustrating that I once set out to nail down the Upanishads' definition of Brahman. I came away with 'Verily, all this is Brahman'.) Likewise when Krishna describes himself as the 'knower of the field in all fields' in Chapter 13 of the Gita, that can be taken as supporting monistic idealism but he has already made it abundantly clear in Chapter 12 that he is also the field (the manifestation of the world form). I do accept 1 and 2 as capsule statements of the two monisms. The point I'm trying to make is that both are compatible with the Upanishads and the Upanishads are not primarily concerned with either of them. I realize that this reading may seem perverse in the light of contemporary Advaita but I came by it honestly as a result of reading the Upanishads and the Gita first and the secondary literature (including Shankara and the Ashtavakra Gita) later. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Greg wrote: > On another topic -- idealism isn't a great term for what advaita talks > about. It's a kind of close Western view, but not the same thing. > Idealism refers to ideas, which refer to mind. Idealism, like Berkeley's, > doesn't really talk about consciousness. In advaita, mind and > consciousness are not synonymous. According to advaita, regardless of the > relationships between mind and world, both mind and world appear in > consciousness and are nothing other than consciousness. > Dear Greg, What I find curious is how many Advaitins look to the tradition of idealism in Western philosophy for confirmation of their views (e.g. Radhakrishnan, _An idealist view of life_). Berkeley's scheme of the infinite spirit (God) and a multiplicity of finite spirits (us) cleary has *nothing* to do with non-dualism so if he has any appeal to advaitins it must be because his monistic idealism does echo this formula > both mind and world appear in > consciousness and are nothing other than consciousness. which, in Berkeley's view at least, has nothing to do with the central teaching of the Upanishads (i.e. Atman = Brahman)! > One a kind of side-note, every once in a while this list is visited for a > while by someone who wants to convince the list-members of this monism, > which I'll call (M): > > (M) Consciousness is none other than matter. > > I think those posters didn't find many takers on this list, and maybe > that's why they were visitors... I know that's not what you're inquiring > about, though. :-) > > Have you found a place in the Upanishads that says anything equivalent to (M)? Of course (M) is not stated in the Upanishads (although I think it might just be possible to make a case for deterministic materialism in the Gita: 'there is no actuality on heaven or earth which is free of these gunas born of prakriti'). But the point is that neither are the Upanishads are generally concerned with: © Matter is none other than consciousness. I grant that Contemporary Advaita = the Upanishads + © but this hybrid seems to me to be about as unnatural as Microsoft's attempt to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows NT. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Hi Patrick, Yes, advaita can use Berkeley as support. What they have in common is arguments for the conclusion that the physical world has no independent existence. Berkeley (and I love the guy!) goes a couple of rungs of the ladder with advaita, but not all the way. For example, on the concept of mental substance, Berkeley commits the same realist fallacies that he charges the materialists with in their arguments for physical substance. Regards, --Greg At 06:52 PM 9/5/00 -0000, Patrick Kenny wrote: Dear Greg, What I find curious is how many Advaitins look to the tradition of idealism in Western philosophy for confirmation of their views (e.g. Radhakrishnan, _An idealist view of life_). Berkeley's scheme of the infinite spirit (God) and a multiplicity of finite spirits (us) cleary has *nothing* to do with non-dualism so if he has any appeal to advaitins it must be because his monistic idealism does echo this formula > both mind and world appear in > consciousness and are nothing other than consciousness. which, in Berkeley's view at least, has nothing to do with the central teaching of the Upanishads (i.e. Atman = Brahman)! > One a kind of side-note, every once in a while this list is visited for a > while by someone who wants to convince the list-members of this monism, > which I'll call (M): > > (M) Consciousness is none other than matter. > > I think those posters didn't find many takers on this list, and maybe > that's why they were visitors... I know that's not what you're inquiring > about, though. :-) > > Have you found a place in the Upanishads that says anything equivalent to (M)? Of course (M) is not stated in the Upanishads (although I think it might just be possible to make a case for deterministic materialism in the Gita: 'there is no actuality on heaven or earth which is free of these gunas born of prakriti'). But the point is that neither are the Upanishads are generally concerned with: © Matter is none other than consciousness. I grant that Contemporary Advaita = the Upanishads + © but this hybrid seems to me to be about as unnatural as Microsoft's attempt to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows NT. Regards, Patrick Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Searchable List Archives are available at: <http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/adv aitin/ Temporary holiday stoppage of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-nomail > To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to <advaitin-normal > To receive email digest (one per day, send a blank email to <advaitin-digest > To to advaitin list, send a blank email to <advaitin-> <<<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Hi Patrick, although your true interest seems to in extracting a viable materialist view from the Upanisads, the answer to your question,phrased as "historically, when did the notion Brahman=Consciousness first arise" may be hinted at in the following: >from "A Thousand Teachings, The Upadesasahasri of Sankara" translated and edited by Sengaku Mayeda, SUNY Press III,A,1 "Although the Brahmasutra does not explicitly characterize Brahman as Knowledge (jnana) or Pure Consciousness (caitanya, cit), the Brahmasutra seems to assume it in its presentation (BS I,1,5; 1,9; 1,10; II,2,3; 2,9; III,2,16). Later Vedanta writers describe the positive nature of Brahman as Being-Consciousness-Bliss (sat-cid-ananda). Though this well known expression is not found in the Brahmasutra, the description of Brahman there may well point to it. Brahman in the Brahmasutra seems to be conceived as the personal Being rather than impersonal principle. This is clear from the fact that the word "parah" (the Highest One in the masculine form) is used for Brahman (neuter form). The same is true of Sankara's work, in which (param) brahma(n) and paramatman are interchangeable with isvara (the Lord). --------------------- Dr Mayeda also commented on how Gaugapada intoduced the notion of illusionistic advaita, but I will leave it for someone else to tie this all together. The key point that caught my eye is that in this presentation pure consciousness is personal, not impersonal (i.e. materialistic). Perhaps if you assert that consciousness is impersonal and tantamount to material, what you get is Buddhism. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2000 Report Share Posted September 5, 2000 Namaste, Brahmasutra has the following aphorisms: sattvachchaavarasya, referring to sat, in II:i:16 chiti tanmaatreNa...., to chit, in IV:iv:6 aanandamayo.abhyaasaat.h, to aananda, in I:i:12 & aanandaaya pradhaanasya, " , in II:iii:11 Regards, s. > > III,A,1 "Although the Brahmasutra does not explicitly characterize > Brahman as Knowledge (jnana) or Pure Consciousness (caitanya, cit), the > Brahmasutra seems to assume it in its presentation (BS I,1,5; 1,9; 1,10; > II,2,3; 2,9; III,2,16). Later Vedanta writers describe the positive > nature of Brahman as Being-Consciousness-Bliss (sat-cid-ananda). Though > this well known expression is not found in the Brahmasutra, the > description of Brahman there may well point to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2000 Report Share Posted September 6, 2000 Dear Larry, Thank you for taking the trouble to answer my question in detail. As your first sentence suggests, I do have an agenda namely to point out that buying into monistic idealism is not a pre-requisite to understanding the Upanishads or the Gita and the reason for this is that I find a materialism which views matter itself as intelligent is more plausible than idealism. (It is a tribute to the standards of this list that nobody has thought to accuse me of the knuckleheaded varieties of materialism such as B.F. Skinner's.) In opting for this view I am more or less consciously in revolt against the Christian view that the material world is a 'fallen' world standing in need of 'redemption' (the second coming) so that the best we can hope for is a nuclear Armageddon to make way for the New Jerusalem. A similar strain of world-negation can be found in Advaita, namely the tendency to deny the reality of the material world (and this seems to me to be very closely related to monistic idealism). As Frank has repeatedly stated in this list, the idea that the world is an illusion is sheer dualism but unfortunately his protests still have much of the quality of a voice crying in the wilderness. Regards, Patrick > Hi Patrick, although your true interest seems to in extracting a viable > materialist view from the Upanisads, the answer to your question,phrased > as "historically, when did the notion Brahman=Consciousness first arise" > may be hinted at in the following: > > >from "A Thousand Teachings, The Upadesasahasri of Sankara" translated > and edited by Sengaku Mayeda, SUNY Press > > III,A,1 "Although the Brahmasutra does not explicitly characterize > Brahman as Knowledge (jnana) or Pure Consciousness (caitanya, cit), the > Brahmasutra seems to assume it in its presentation (BS I,1,5; 1,9; 1,10; > II,2,3; 2,9; III,2,16). Later Vedanta writers describe the positive > nature of Brahman as Being-Consciousness-Bliss (sat-cid-ananda). Though > this well known expression is not found in the Brahmasutra, the > description of Brahman there may well point to it. Brahman in the > Brahmasutra seems to be conceived as the personal Being rather than > impersonal principle. This is clear from the fact that the word "parah" > (the Highest One in the masculine form) is used for Brahman (neuter > form). The same is true of Sankara's work, in which (param) brahma(n) > and paramatman are interchangeable with isvara (the Lord). > --------------------- > Dr Mayeda also commented on how Gaugapada intoduced the notion of > illusionistic advaita, but I will leave it for someone else to tie this > all together. The key point that caught my eye is that in this > presentation pure consciousness is personal, not impersonal (i.e. > materialistic). Perhaps if you assert that consciousness is impersonal > and tantamount to material, what you get is Buddhism. > > Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2000 Report Share Posted September 6, 2000 Greetings Patrick: I agree with you that it is quite possible for us to generate any thought process and rationalize them to be compatible with the Upanishads, Gita and other scriptures. Isn't it true that any such rationalization will not be universally acceptable! Compatibility and acceptability are subjective and they vary between person and person depending on one's knowledge and understanding. Sri Sankara (advaita), Sri Ramanuja (visistadvaita) and Madhava (dvaita) argued that the Upanishads, Gita and Brahmasuutra are quite compatible to their philosophical framework. Though there are distinct differences between their thought processes, we should recognize that fundamentally they all agree that Brahman (or by the other name Naryana) is the cause of all causes. Your statement: " A similar strain of world-negation can be found in Advaita, namely the tendency to deny the reality of the material world (and this seems to me to be very closely related to monistic idealism)" require careful scrutiny. First, Advaita doesn't deny the reality of the material world. What it really says is that our happiness does not depend on the material world. The material world appears and disappears just like the screen savers on the computer monitor. We can enjoy the sunny beaches, smokey mountains and pretty scenaries momentarily. They appear real to our eyes but we do recognize that the screen show is a transient reality. Such transient realities always come and go and they are never permanant. However, we can differentiate between such realities and categorize them into relative measures of realities. some are more real than others. For example, the sunny beaches are more real than the screen savers on the monitor. The process of negation is to reject a lower reality and prefer a higher reality. When we attain the realization of the supreme reality, Brahman, we are able to recognize there is no functional role for the transient material world. As a part of my concluding remarks, I want to ask you the following question: "What do you think are the primary concerns of Upanishads and Gita?" Warmest regards, Ram Chandran Patrick Kenny wrote: > I do accept 1 and 2 as capsule statements of the two > monisms. The point I'm trying to make is that both > are compatible with the Upanishads and the Upanishads > are not primarily concerned with either of them. 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.