The existence of objects

June 19, 2001

Dear Greg,

You said:

> A lot depends on how you interpret "existence."

<skip>

> In advaita discussions, I'm using the word "existence" to mean something

> like, "stands on its own, under its own power, independent of awareness."

> According to this rendering, it doesn't make sense of anything to say that

> it exists or doesn't exist. How are you using the term?

I'm using the term as a synonym of "there is", so in the broadest possible

sense.

In that sense it is perfectly possible to say "external objects don't exist

as such", meaning: "there are no external objects as such". I think that if

you want to restrict this meaning of "existence" you should do it

explicitly. I like to say "external objects don't exist" whereas you prefer

to say "it makes no sense to speak of the existence of external objects".

Anyway this is just discussion about terms, not about the essence, where I

think you and I quite agree.

You also said:

> If you agree that it makes no sense to speak of a multiplicity of jivas as

> true separate subjects , then where is the interest or charge associated

> with the question you ask later? That question melts away with the first

> one. Because the question you ask below is really about *seeming*

subjects

> rather than *actual* subjects.

I agree that there are no jivas as true separate subjects. But I also think

that jivas are objects of Consciousness, clusters of thoughts appearing in

Awareness. So they exist. Not as independent, autonomous entities, but as

ideas or mental images. A jiva is an idea, or rather a cluster of ideas

arising around an imaginary center called ego. A teacup is also a cluster of

ideas, but without an imaginary center. Something else seems to distinguish

jivas: the presence of consciousness. But there are not as many

consciousnesses as jivas. There is only one consciousness. Therefore it is

the one Consciousness that is present in each jiva. What does this mean

(because it is not that Consciousness appears in the jivas, but the jivas

appear in Consciousness)? That means that Consciousness is using the

clusters of ideas it generates as instruments through which to observe the

whole of manifestation. I've taken all this from Ramesh and I hope you will

agree, maybe with other terms and expressions.

You also said:

> But if someone inquires just a bit

> further, then they will quickly discover two huge dualisms in this

> kitchen-appliance answer: (1) The dualism between consciousness and the

> mechanism that consciousness functions through (i.e., consciousness and

the

> body/mind complex), and (2) The dualism implied by the multiplicity of

> mechanisms (i.e., the various body/minds).

And so what? Dualism is a fact. As soon as Consciousness-at-rest becomes

Consciousness-in-movement there appears dualism between subject and object.

There is nothing wrong with dualism. What is wrong is to take the existence

of the object as an addition to the subject. One can very well say that

objects exist as the contents of Consciousness. What one shouldn't say is

that objects exist on their own, as independent entities.

Miguel-Angel

June 19, 2001

Namaste Miguel:

Your summarization of the apparant duality is nice. When we go to an

empty closed hall, there is just silence. However, if we shout, we can

hear the echo of our voice. It seems as though someone is replicating

our voice. But when we are silent, we don't hear any noise and that is

the Truth! Objects are just the reflections of the consciousness and

that is advaita!

regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "Miguel Angel Carrasco" <macf12@w...> wrote:

>

> And so what? Dualism is a fact. As soon as Consciousness-at-rest

becomes

> Consciousness-in-movement there appears dualism between subject and

object.

> There is nothing wrong with dualism. What is wrong is to take the

existence

> of the object as an addition to the subject. One can very well say

that

> objects exist as the contents of Consciousness. What one shouldn't

say is

> that objects exist on their own, as independent entities.

>

> Miguel-Angel

June 19, 2001

Hi Miguel,

Yes, it does seem that we agree on many things here. Mostly I agree that

in this kind of investigation, if it's carried out with innocence, honesty,

openness and love, *any* model or word or definition can work to dislodge

an attachment to an object of some sort. Regardeless of whether the model

be an intellectual construct, a thought, feeling, an image, a person,

another model, or agreement -- or even the very same model itself!

Love,

--Greg

At 07:37 AM 6/19/01 +0100, Miguel Angel Carrasco wrote:

>>>>