re Lotus of the Heart and Cave of the Heart

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins All,

In his post (24th Aug. )Sri Sadanananda sketched a

conceptual analysis of the mind and distinguished between the various

aspects of what is a single unitary awareness. As long as you do not reify

and turn into a series of linked substantive powers this unity (or even into

a nesting set of Russian dolls) then you are safe. Awareness is saturated

with self (as the salt in solution of the Upanisad) and we are most

intensely self aware when introspection is not on.

 

The I-wave is a sort of primative theory that comes as part of the kit. We

have a point of view and that demands a location in space/time. Yet there

is the experience of the changeless self - a series of conscious states is

conscious of itself as a series. This is an experience that although

imponderable is resistent to scepticism.

 

The infinite regress business is the hinge on which the argument contra

vijnanavada turns. Non Dualism is the key to the response of Shankara to

the Buddhist's charge that a substantive self involves one in an endless

chain of knowers.

Buddhist: "If a cognition is to be known by some entity other than itself,

that second one will have to be known by another, and that one again by

another. This will lead to an infinite regress. Moreover, since cognition

is an illuminator like a lamp, if you should imagine a second cognition (to

know it) then since both cognitions are similar there will be no revelation

of the one by the other, so that this whole assumption will fall to the

ground."

Vedantin: Both these arguments are wrong, for once an awareness of the

cognition occurs, no further desire to apprehend the witness of the

cognition can arise; and so there is no possibility of infinite regress.

And since the witness and the cognition are different by nature, there can

be a relationship of the perceiver and the perceived among them. Besides

the self-evident witness cannot be denied." << this is an explicit denial

that what is known is within the stream of consciousness itself>>

B.S.B.II.ii.28

 

Upadesasahasri #101(prose) Teacher: No, The Knowledge of the knower has for

its object the thing to be known. If it has for its object the knower, <<

in other words the false view that the 'external' object is imbedded in the

stream of consciousness of the knower and is indistinguishable from the

knower>>, there arises a regressus ad infinitum as before.

 

By the bye the use of the term 'external' object is a dangerous practice

which calls up the spectre of the 'internal' object. Now there are

concepts, 'whiteness', 'cowhood', (B.S.B.II.ii.28) but these are not

internal objects but powers excercised in acts of understanding. Then you

have those intentional objects such as the mind of the paranoiac or that

cast which tinges all his awareness and yet cannot be isolated. Sankara

deals with some of these issues and always in a way which is direct and

succinct. I look forward to Sri Sadananda's notes on Sutra 5.

 

Afterword 1: Good Luck with the book Dennis.

 

Afterword 2: I read the Vivekananda piece from Chicago. It is said that

urchins will only throw sticks against a tree that has fruit. These are

matchsticks

Regards to All, Michael

 

 

 

_______________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

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.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

___

 

 

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

> By the bye the use of the term 'external' object is a dangerous

practice

> which calls up the spectre of the 'internal' object. Now there are

> concepts, 'whiteness', 'cowhood', (B.S.B.II.ii.28) but these are

not

> internal objects but powers excercised in acts of understanding.

Then you

> have those intentional objects such as the mind of the paranoiac or

that

> cast which tinges all his awareness and yet cannot be isolated.