Re : Discussions with Nanda Chandran

[Guest guest]

No objections to any of the observations in the first section. I agree that,

practically speaking, we are searching for a philosophy that will bring us a

better intellectual appreciation of that which we acknowledge is ultimately

beyond the intellect. Even though we may acknowledge that this may be

counterproductive, still we will go on doing it since that is our nature.

That being the case, I am happy to 'ignore' the basic concepts of Advaita

for the sake of this discussion.

 

As far as the second half is concerned, we seem to be in danger of having a

discussion on Western philosophy here - something that I wished to avoid

since I am not very knowledgeable on the subject! Nanda says:-

 

"Dennis, I'm not saying Advaita is wrong. I'm simply disputing the common

interpretation of Advaita which tries to negate the objects of consciousness

because it is only based on the perceiving consciousness itself. If you too

hold the view - subjective idealism - that I explained in my initial post -

then I'm disputing your interpretation of Advaita".

 

I don't believe that I am claiming this at all. As I understand it, Berkeley

said that only ideas could be considered to be 'real' (perceptions only

taking place in the mind, as already discussed). Isn't this 'subjective

idealism'? What I was saying is that the perceptions are appearances only -

specifically *not* real. The reality that gives rise to the perceptions is

forever beyond our direct knowledge because we must go through the

intermediaries of senses and brain. The perceptions are only name and form

imposed by the mind upon the (one) reality - the snake upon the rope of

adhyaasa. Time and space, cause and effect are all concepts of mind created

in order to make sense of this imposed pseudo-reality. As I understand it

(and I almost certainly don't), the 'transcendental idealism' of Kant and

Schopenhauer does not quite say this either. I know virtually nothing about

Fichte and Hegel but perhaps the 'Absolute' of these and the monism of F. H.

Bradley come closest to a Western view of what is being said by Advaita

(though I thought that non-dualism was not the same as monism).

 

Any reader will clearly see that I am floundering here. Can I not persuade

Greg to write a brief summary of the respective views of these philosophers

here in regard to idealism/non-dualism? I know he knows all this stuff

backwards! If we are going to continue with this thread, we might as well

all agree on the starting point and have some understanding of what we are

talking about.

 

*** HELP GREG! ***

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Got your message Dennis-ji! Am teaching an all-day computer class now.

Will spend some more time with our fascinating philosophical topic later.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 08:25 PM 4/10/01 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote:

Any reader will clearly see that I am floundering here. Can I not persuade

Greg to write a brief summary of the respective views of these philosophers

here in regard to idealism/non-dualism? I know he knows all this stuff

backwards! If we are going to continue with this thread, we might as well

all agree on the starting point and have some understanding of what we are

talking about.

 

*** HELP GREG! ***

 

 

Greg Goode (e-mail: goode)

Computer Support

Phone: 4-5723