Lotus of the Heart

[Guest guest]

_____

Hello Madathil,

I was basing my remarks on the purely epistemological aspects

of the criticism of vijnanavada. Sankara takes that school on at that level

and shows that their theories are not adequate to the variety of mental

life. The accusation of infinite regress is made against the mental

subject/mental object theory of knowledge both East and West. The Buddhist

erroneously supposes that this is what Shankara is offering. You are right

of course in stating that the definitive response to that accusation is a

metaphysical one viz. how things must fundamentally be for things to appear

the way that they do. Is the substratum concept an affirmation that a

capacity ie. the capacity for self-luminous awareness, cannot exist on its

own like the smile of the Chesire Cat without being the capacity of

something?

 

The mind of the paranoiac was an example of an intentional object, perhaps

even confusion (rope/snake) might be construed as another. Before

establishing the metaphysical end of his philosophy Sankara did some

demolition of the various edifices of error that he encountered using as

wrecking ball their own incoherence. It has been said that his account of

his opponents thought is skewed but on that I have to say 'pass'. Maybe

knowledgable members have a view on this.

 

Best Wishes, Michael

You Wrote

 

The only logic that can vanquish the argument of infinite regression

is the fact that it (infinite regression) needs a substratum to

sustain itself.  It is like the property of  reflection being the

substratum for the infinite regression  experienced on opposite

mirrors.  Advaita is the knowledge that I am that sustaining

substratum where and why things just seem to occur.  There is no

regressing beyond that.

 

An advaitin "knows" nothing outside or other than himself.  A

paranoiac mind is he himself  as also the awareness in a microbe. 

The problems of a paranoiac as a separate object are the worry of

psychotherapists – not advaitins.  To see it as "external" may not

be "dangerous" but  definitely digressing.

 

 

_______________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks Michael for the clarification. I can appreciate your position.

 

I am afraid of terms like metaphysical, ontological and

epistemological. They can often be misleading. As such, I endeavour

my best to avoid them when I talk about the One Knowledge beyond all

regressions. That Knowledge is self-evident and cannot be talked

about with all our linguistic excellence and vocabulary.

 

About the substratum, I would not call it a concept, since it is Me

and it is all that what really exists despite the seeming Cheshire

cat, its smile, that capacity of something, the paranoiac, the

appreciating witness in you and me.

 

Yes. Sankara had to demolish his opponents and he did that very

effectively as you said. But what I mentioned above cannot be found

amidst all that brainstorming. It may show the way. One can be that

only when one loses oneself in all-encompassing solitary silence.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote:

>

> ................I was basing my remarks on the purely

epistemological aspects

> of the criticism of vijnanavada.

 

................... Is the substratum concept an affirmation that a

> capacity ie. the capacity for self-luminous awareness, cannot exist

on its

> own like the smile of the Chesire Cat without being the capacity of

> something?