Postscript on the 'Consciousness' discussion

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

A recent off-line discussion with a local list member named

Raja has prompted me to add this brief postscript to the marathon

'Consciousness is One' discussion that produced so much agony a week

or two ago. I add it as a postscript, because I feel that the actual

thread should be considered dead! Raja said something important that

I believe a variety of people such as Greg were trying to say and

that I did not fully understand. I still do not agree with it, but

at least I now understand better what others were trying to say.

 

The issue was how your consciousness and mine can be part of

the same One Supreme Consciousness (viz. Brahman) since our

experiences seem so different.

 

As Raja points out, I had started from a basic premise that

can be written as an equation:

 

CONSCIOUSNESS = PERCEPTIONS + FEELINGS + THOUGHTS = PFT

 

The 'PFT' is Swami Chinmayananda's well-known shorthand. If

such an identity is assumed between both sides of the equation, then

a resolution does seem impossible. If A=B and A=C, where A is

Consciousness, and B and C are your PFT and mine respectively, then

we must have B = C (if '=' means a strict identity throughout).

Conversely, if B=C is NOT true (your PFT and mine are different),

then we cannot equate A for you and me.

 

What various people were trying to do, it seems, was to

challenge this basic assumption in the first place. If such a strict

identity does not hold, then I suppose that it is indeed logical to

maintain that the differences between your PFT and mine do not

preclude a basic underlying identity in the consciousness.

 

This is not unreasonable or glaringly opposed to common

sense, as would be a statement such as 'The red apple is blue.' To

me, it did indeed seem that equating your consciousness and mine was

like saying 'The red apple is blue', because of my assumption of the

identity above.

 

Frankly, this assumption still seems valid to me, and

self-evident in fact, but at least now I can understand others

better. But let me leave you with something to think about. If the

above equation is not strictly an identity, then where does this

leave 'nondualism'? If the above equation is not a rigorous

identity, then are we not postulating some kind of 'dualism'?

 

I know that Swami Chinmayananda himself stressed that our

problems arise when the Consciousness mistakenly identifies with the

PFT. But as I was trying to argue, it seems to me that this

misidentification can only arise if we FIRST mistakenly view the PFT

as OTHER than Consciousness. Only then is identification possible.

My point was that nondualism suggests that the PFT themselves ARE the

Consciousness, when viewed in a 'nondualistic' mode, otherwise

nondualism does not seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. It is

how we VIEW the PFT that matter. Viewing them as other, as I see it,

superposes something on them that is not really there, and only then

can the erroneous identification take place. If they are not first

viewed as other, then how can identification take place? This would

be like marrying yourself.

 

This is just something to think about. I don't really want

to revive the thread, or launch off on a new tangential one.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> A recent off-line discussion with a local list member named

> Raja has prompted me to add this brief postscript to the marathon

> 'Consciousness is One' discussion that produced so much agony a

week

> or two ago. I add it as a postscript, because I feel that the

actual

> thread should be considered dead! Raja said something important

that

> I believe a variety of people such as Greg were trying to say and

> that I did not fully understand. I still do not agree with it, but

> at least I now understand better what others were trying to say.

>

> The issue was how your consciousness and mine can be part of

> the same One Supreme Consciousness (viz. Brahman) since our

> experiences seem so different.

 

Namaste,

 

The problem is partly because you are attributing too much status to

the consciousness and mind of the person. Even a whirlpool seems

individual in an ocean, when it is patently not. Although all

whirlpools may be different in some way.

 

The lower mind cannot see anything but itself for it doesn't have a

purified Buddhi or higher awareness sheath that's all. Its like a

finger thinking it is separate from the body.

 

We are all persons and persons make up humanity like electrons etc

make up material.......Also one mustn't ignore the fact that like

people who have passed over we have all agreed on the same

dream......ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Your clarification along with the mathematical equation certainly

brings further insights to the on going discussion on consciousness.

Here is my understanding of the flaw pointed out Raja in your

assumption:

 

Let us explore the definition (or our understanding) of the left hand

side (LHS) and the right hand side (RHS) of the stated mathematical

equation.

 

Consciousness (The Brahman) on the LHS is changeless (beyond time and

space) but each term of the RHS - perceptions, feelings and thoughts

(PFT) differ by time and space. Mathematically speaking the LHS

will not be equal to RHS because the changeless LHS can't be equal to

changing RHS!

 

Shankara carefully distinguishes between Paramarthika (absolute

reality) and Vyavahara (relative reality). At the paramarthika level

only consciousness remains which is equal to universal perception

with zero feelings and zero thoughts! I believe that your assumption

of equating the LHS to RHS is in fact valid at the paramarthika level

but invalid at the vyavahara level. At the vyavahara level both time

and space are assumed present and consequently perceptions, feelings

and thoughts vary. Equating LHS to RHS introduces logical fallacy

for reasons explained above.

 

As I have stated in several of my previous postings on the original

thread, to resolve your puzzle, you should recognize the presence of

paramarthika and vyavahara level of realities.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> ………

> As Raja points out, I had started from a basic premise that

> can be written as an equation:

>

> CONSCIOUSNESS = PERCEPTIONS + FEELINGS + THOUGHTS = PFT

> ……..

> What various people were trying to do, it seems, was to

> challenge this basic assumption in the first place. If such a

strict

> identity does not hold, then I suppose that it is indeed logical to

> maintain that the differences between your PFT and mine do not

> preclude a basic underlying identity in the consciousness.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

> As Raja points out, I had started from a basic premise that

> can be written as an equation:

>

> CONSCIOUSNESS = PERCEPTIONS + FEELINGS + THOUGHTS = PFT

>

 

If consciousness is just perceptions, feelings and thoughts (PFT)

then it cannot exist at the interval between two thoughts,

two feelings or two perceptions.

Also, it cannot exist in deep sleep state where there are

no thoughts, feelings or perceptions.

By definition, consciousness is Brahman, which is ever-existent.

So isn't consciousness something more than just thoughts,

perceptions and feelings ?

 

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Various people kindly expressed some opinions reagrding my

'postscript'. I will give my responses in a few cases where I have

something to say, for what it is worth.

 

 

Ram Chandran wrote:

>Consciousness (The Brahman) on the LHS is changeless

>(beyond time and space) but each term of the RHS -

>perceptions, feelings and thoughts (PFT) differ by time

>and space. Mathematically speaking the LHS will not be

>equal to RHS because the changeless LHS can't be equal to

>changing RHS!

 

Shankara defines the 'real' as that which does not change. To me,

the word 'real' is one of the most slippery words in philosophy (and

for many people philosophy may be little more than the art of using

slippery words in confusing ways). To me, 'real' means 'present to a

consciousness'. For this reason, I argued against 'matter' or

'prakriti' as not real; rather they are illusory projections upon

consciousness.

 

However, I do not quite see why the 'real' should necessarily be

unchanging. I say 'not quite' because I do in fact almost glimpse

what is being said. That is, whatever is seen can be said to exist

for an instant and then pass into oblivion. Even a perfectly

motionless object can be said to exist as a sequence of 'snapshots',

and each snapshot is real only for the infinitesimal instant that it

is present to consciousness.

 

On the other hand, it does seem to me that the 'seer' within me is

constant and unchanging. The consciousness within me when my body

had the appearance of a boy does somehow seem the same as the

consciousness that presently sees my adult body.

 

So the 'seer' seems constant and unchanging, and the 'seen' seems to

consist of a sequence of snapshots that each exist only for an

instant. The 'seer' might be equated to the Atman, and the 'seen' to

Maya.

 

And yet, from another point of view, introspection suggests to me

that 'seer' and 'seen' are really ultimately identical in some

mysterious way. When I introspect, I can simply see no difference.

This is something mysterious and paradoxical to me, as I said on my

website long before coming to this group.

 

So I certainly don't claim to understand everything. I just thought

that I had a reasonably self-evident set of philosophical principles

which could shed much light on Advaita. Alas! '

 

And then there is the problem that we cannot really understand

Shankara until we have also become realized. I do believe that

people like him had a genuine spiritual experience of the highest

order, to which I aspire but cannot fully comprehend at present. So

I am presented with a kind of intriguing brick wall.

 

>Shankara carefully distinguishes between Paramarthika

>(absolute reality) and Vyavahara (relative reality).

>At the paramarthika level only consciousness remains

>which is equal to universal perception with zero feelings

>and zero thoughts! I believe that your assumption of equating

>the LHS to RHS is in fact valid at the paramarthika level but

>invalid at the vyavahara level. At the vyavahara level both

>time and space are assumed present and consequently perceptions,

>feelings and thoughts vary. Equating LHS to RHS introduces

>logical fallacy for reasons explained above.

 

The Buddhists, whom I have been studying far longer than Advaita,

also distinguish these two levels of reality. I roughly equate them

to the nondualistic and dualistic views of reality. But do I really

understand this distinction?

 

 

 

Rajkumar Nair wrote:

>If consciousness is just perceptions, feelings and thoughts

>(PFT) then it cannot exist at the interval between two

>thoughts, two feelings or two perceptions. Also, it cannot

>exist in deep sleep state where there are no thoughts, feelings

>or perceptions. By definition, consciousness is Brahman, which

>is ever-existent. So isn't consciousness something more than

>just thoughts, perceptions and feelings ?

 

This too is intriguing and suggestive. I might simply define a

'thought' as whatever is left in consciousness after eliminating

perceptions and feelings. Even if I am not thinking conceptually,

there seems to be some kind of 'sentient blankness' like a white

screen in the movie theater.

 

What happens between thoughts? If thought is as I just defined it,

then there is no 'between thoughts'. If a feeling or perception is

not present, then what remains is a thought. But I agree that this

issue is very subtle. I don't know the answer with confidence. But

I agree that contemplating the stream of consciousness, and

particularly the subtle moments between the grosser stirrings of this

stream, is an excellent spiritual practice much like Ramana's 'Who am

I?'

 

 

 

 

Svahauk wrote:

>Non-duality is not a cunning way of saying unity. The

>non-duality between the self and particular states of awareness

>could also be expressed as non-unity. "And since the witness and

>the cognition are different by nature, there can be a relationship

>of the perceiver and the perceived between them. Besides the

>self-evident witness cannot be denied".(B.S.B.II.ii.28)

 

You may be right. But then, what do you make of 'Atman = Brahman'?

I had assumed that 'nonduality' meant some kind of ultimate identity

between seer and seen, after we rise above the 'discriminative' level

of ordinary consciousness. Perhaps I am wrong. But if God is 'one'

and is also 'everything', then shouldn't nonduality mean the ultimate

identity of absolutely everything?

 

I guess we are all working on the same thing. We accept that the

rishis of the Upanishads had some kind of transcendent spiritual

experience. But their statements often seem contradictory, e.g.

'Neti, neti' vs. 'Aham Brahmasmi'. Shankara essentially devoted his

life to resolving these apparent differences. Now we are trying to

understand HIM!

 

As Nanda (VPCNK) says, these discussions are ultimately useless to

spiritual progress, although they may help along the way. Remana's

search for the origin of 'I' is experiential and not conceptual. But

clear thinking along the way may help prevent confusion and

skepticism. Also, I am simply interested in understanding all of

this as well as possible while waiting for the thunderbolt of

realization!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

> This too is intriguing and suggestive. I might simply define a

> 'thought' as whatever is left in consciousness after eliminating

> perceptions and feelings. Even if I am not thinking conceptually,

> there seems to be some kind of 'sentient blankness' like a white

> screen in the movie theater.

>

> What happens between thoughts? If thought is as I just defined it,

> then there is no 'between thoughts'. If a feeling or perception is

> not present, then what remains is a thought. But I agree that this

> issue is very subtle. I don't know the answer with confidence.

But

> I agree that contemplating the stream of consciousness, and

> particularly the subtle moments between the grosser stirrings of

this

> stream, is an excellent spiritual practice much like Ramana's 'Who

am

> I?'

>

>

I am not sure if I could agree with the analogy of thought

as the white screen in a movie theatre. Do you mean that

feelings and perceptions appear and disappear in thought?

A movie screen is unchanging, while thoughts come and go.

 

Any thought is always associated with one object or another.

You cannot have a thought without an object.

When there are no objects, there can be no thoughts ( and

viceversa). Intellect which is the "thinking and analysing

instrument" cannot conceive the state of no thoughts.

( since intellect itself cannot exist when there is no

thought ). At the most, it can conceive a blankness, that is it.

 

In the space between two thoughts can anything exist

other than the consciousness which is the Advaitic Brahman?

 

Raj.

[Guest guest]

> As Nanda (VPCNK) says, these discussions are ultimately useless to

> spiritual progress, although they may help along the way. Remana's

> search for the origin of 'I' is experiential and not conceptual.

But

> clear thinking along the way may help prevent confusion and

> skepticism.

 

Like a thorn is used to remove a thorn stuck in the foot, the mind is

used to free oneself from the clutches of the mind. So there's some

utility to conceptual analysis.

 

Except one should not make it as the end all and should be constantly

on the look out for moving beyond it. As Naagaarjuna says "when the

cries of the intellect are subdued", that's the first step to serious

spirituality.

 

Actually eating and experiencing the sweetness of a mango is not the

same as thinking how a mango would taste, is it? Likewise actually

experiencing reality is quite different from merely thinking about

it - building theories about it.

>Also, I am simply interested in understanding all of

> this as well as possible while waiting for the thunderbolt of

> realization!

 

But conceptual knowledge can never give rise to non-conceptual

knowledge - brahman. However deep conceptual knowledge might be still

it is only an alternate way of the mind working - so it is still

pain. We should be careful not to give more importance to it than it

is worth. We should try to move beyond it after a stage.

 

Meditation should necessarily complement philosophical analysis.

[Guest guest]

Rajkumar Nair said:

>I am not sure if I could agree with the analogy

>of thought as the white screen in a movie theatre.

>Do you mean that feelings and perceptions appear

>and disappear in thought? A movie screen is unchanging,

>while thoughts come and go.

>Any thought is always associated with one object or

>another. You cannot have a thought without an object.

>When there are no objects, there can be no thoughts

>(and viceversa). Intellect which is the "thinking and

>analysing instrument" cannot conceive the state of no

>thoughts (since intellect itself cannot exist when there

>is no thought). At the most, it can conceive a blankness,

>that is it.

>

>In the space between two thoughts can anything exist

>other than the consciousness which is the Advaitic Brahman?

 

 

Dear Raj,

 

I agree that the 'space between thoughts' is really quite subtle, and

I cannot quite agree or disagree with what you said. I think maybe I

need to do some more introspection, i.e. use the 'laboratory' of my

consciousness, as did the ancient Rishis. I confess that when I try

to catch the 'space between thoughts', it is like grabbing for

goldfish in a bowl. They keep slipping through my fingers!

 

I think that we all agree that perceptions, thoughts and feelings

(PFT) are the rather noticeable 'gross' features of our consciousness

that are clearly present in some sense. As for the space between

thoughts, I am at present inclined to think that this is a very faint

mix of thought, feeling and perception, but as I said, I am not sure.

Very subtle indeed!

 

Perhaps I will known Brahman (or Consciousness) better if I focus on

this and spend time seriously contemplating the space between

thoughts. As I said before, this seems closely related to Ramana's

search for the 'I' (or 'I-I' as he sometimes called it).

 

Also, you had mentioned deep sleep. This is a big mystery to me.

Since I can't remember it, what can I say about it at all? And yet,

this is an important and confusing topic in Advaita...

 

Finally, as for your claim that thought has to have an object... As

my previous messages indicate, my own introspection suggests to me

that 'subject' and 'object' are always just different words pointing

to the same experience in consciousness, whatever that is. In other

words, the distinction to me is purely semantic and ultimately

invalid. That is just how it seems to me, and a famous Western

philosopher named Hume said the same thing, for whatever that might

be worth to you. For me, there is always just the 'immediate

awareness', whatever that might be. Conceptual thought then

*superposes* the false distinction of subject and object upon the

immediate awareness, and this is called 'dualism'. In my previous

posts, I was trying to link this perceived identity of subject and

object at the pre-conceptual level to the nondualism of Advaita, but

it does not seem that I convinced many people!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

> Also, you had mentioned deep sleep. This is a big mystery to me.

> Since I can't remember it, what can I say about it at all? And

yet,

> this is an important and confusing topic in Advaita...

>

> Finally, as for your claim that thought has to have an object...

As

> my previous messages indicate, my own introspection suggests to me

> that 'subject' and 'object' are always just different words

pointing

> to the same experience in consciousness, whatever that is. In

other

> words, the distinction to me is purely semantic and ultimately

> invalid. That is just how it seems to me, and a famous Western

> philosopher named Hume said the same thing, for whatever that might

> be worth to you. For me, there is always just the 'immediate

> awareness', whatever that might be. Conceptual thought then

> *superposes* the false distinction of subject and object upon the

> immediate awareness, and this is called 'dualism'. In my previous

> posts, I was trying to link this perceived identity of subject and

> object at the pre-conceptual level to the nondualism of Advaita,

but

> it does not seem that I convinced many people!

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

 

Dear Benjamin,

Every thought has to be about some thing, right ? That thing

is what I meant by object, when I said that thought has to

have an object.

That object could be a perceived physical object, a previously

experienced feeling, or a previous thought itself.

Memory's function is to store these thought objects, and

intellect's function is to analyze them. Memory cannot

store anything other than thought objects and Intellect cannot

analyze anything other than these thought objects.

That is why we can never analyze the gap between thoughts

using memory and intellect.

Same is the case with the deep sleep state.There are no

thoughts and thought objects in deep-sleep state. Hence

there is only a blankness in memory.

When the waking-state intellect tries to analyze the

deep-sleep state, it can conceive only a blankness.

Only thing that can be inferred about the deep-sleep state

is that there was existence. This is the first clue for the

intellect that PFT is not the reality, and that there is

more to consciousness than PFTs.

But can intellect know that unconditioned consciousness?

It is not something that is a "thought-object", and so

it can neither be stored in memory, nor can it be analyzed

by intellect.

Trying to know it using intellect is like trying to think

using one's eye. It is impossible.

But as Nandaji mentioned in an earlier mail, the whole

purpose of philosophy is to let the intellect know about

its limits.Once the intellect accepts it's limitations,

it will stop too much questioning and analysing, and

that might help in realising the unconditioned consciousness.

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raj-Ji.

 

If you know that there is a "space" between two thoughts, then

that "space" is apparent to you as an object. That cannot then be

Consciousness.

 

I am afraid there is an error in this talk about "the space between

two thoughts" in as far as it can mislead. I would like to look at

the problem from a different angle. There isn't a moment when we are

not aware of something or the other. But, when the

awareness 'occurs', we are simply the 'thing' we are aware of. Thus,

I am the Moon, the Sun, the thoughts, the "space" between thoughts,

the knower of the knowing, knower of the knower, the knower of the

knower of the knower interminably, so on and so forth. If "I" am all

these, then all these seen as different things resolves into one

Unity in Me (sUtre maniganA iva - the analogy of different jewels on

a string may be very close.)

 

Once this is understood, then I am Consciousness inspite of the

universe or universes or multitudes of other consciousnesses I am

aware of. That knowledge would help us write the obituary for

all "postscripts".

 

PranAms.

 

Madahtil Nair

 

____________________

 

advaitin, "rajkumarknair" <rajkumarknair>

wrote:

> In the space between two thoughts can anything exist

> other than the consciousness which is the Advaitic Brahman?

[Guest guest]

Yes, this postscript is having a rather unintended consequence,

namely, prolonging the life of our daunting consciousness discussion!

However, Rajkumar Nair wrote somehting quite revealing to me:

>Every thought has to be about some thing, right ? That thing

>is what I meant by object, when I said that thought has to

>have an object.

 

This may indicate the source of much of the misundertanding between

various people on the list. Just what DO we mean by 'subject' and

'object' and so forth? Did I not earlier say that philosophy can

sometimes be criticized as the art of using ill-defined words in

confusing ways?

 

Here is my question regarding what Raj just said. The words

'subject' and 'object' suggests that there is some kind of

*difference* between subject and object. Otherwise, why two

different words? When people discuss 'subject' and 'object', I

believe that they are often confused about this. They are not clear

in their minds whether these two words point to the exact same

reality in awareness or not.

 

This is very subtle, and one needs to contemplate this very carefully

before jumping to conclusions. Suppose you see a red apple. You

say, 'I see a red apple', as though 'I' and 'red apple' were two

different things. But where in your awareness can you point to an

'I' that is distinct from the 'red apple'? You are being fooled by

words into thinking they are two different 'things'. This is the

source of much confusion in philosophy in general and in our

discussion in particular.

 

Later you say:

>There isn't a moment when we are not aware of something or

>the other. But, when the awareness 'occurs', we are simply the

>'thing' we are aware of. Thus, I am the Moon, the Sun, the

>thoughts, the "space" between thoughts, ...

 

To me, this seems to agree with my statement above equating 'subject'

and 'object'! So what is the point of distinguishing subject and

object? Why use two different words.

 

Now I know that Sri Ram Chandran just gave us the classic Advaitin

reason for distinguishing between subject and object, or seer and

seen. The former is eternal and unchanging and the latter is

transitory. And in a recent post, I gave my response to this, which

was equivocal since I realize that there are ambiguities involved...

 

My humble opinion, for what it is worth, is that the 'nondualism' of

Advaita and Zen is simply a statement about consciousness as it truly

IS. Somehow we are fooled by words into thinking that consciousness

is dualistic (subject vs.object) when in reality no such distinction

exists. I also believe that fully absorbing this identity of subject

and object at a very deep level somehow raises the consciousness of

those who have done this. This seems to be a psychological/spiritual

discovery of rishis and people like them. Just my little theory, but

it kind of makes sense to me...

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

Since you are attending the Falls Church Gita Study group, you should

be able recollect the on going discussions on Gita Chapter 13 - "The

Field and the Knower of the Field"

 

The field is the reference to the 'object' and 'knower' is the

subject. In reality there is only the knower and the field is just an

appearance or indirect revealation (or reflection) of the subject.

The entire chapter contains the subtle message that 'consciouness'

only exists!

 

The light (consciouness) passes through the prism (mAyA) and provides

the vision of rays with different color! When the prism is removed

only the pure light exists!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

> Somehow we are fooled by words into thinking that consciousness

> is dualistic (subject vs.object) when in reality no such

distinction

> exists. I also believe that fully absorbing this identity of

subject

> and object at a very deep level somehow raises the consciousness of

> those who have done this. This seems to be a

psychological/spiritual

> discovery of rishis and people like them. Just my little theory,

but

> it kind of makes sense to me...

>

> Pranams

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair

>There is no equation possible for Consciousness since

>It is the only One there. How can we equate It with

>anything else? We can only say Consciousness = Consciousness

>or call Consciousness by the other known names like Existence,

>Fullness etc. Shri Benjamin's equation is invalid right from

>the very beginning and I believe Shri Ramji has already pointed

>this out.

 

Sri Ram said that my equation is invalid from the absolute

(Paramarthika) level but is valid at the relative (Vyavahara). I now

at least understand this distinction even if I have some qualms about

it. See the relatively brief post I just sent to Sri Shivaram

(16267) if you are interested.

 

>About this discussion, I was the first one to respond to

>Shri Benjamin's strange (abnormal!) problem of seeing distinct,

>separate consciousnesses while he is not afflicted by the normal

>subject-object relationship we mundanes encounter. I simply

>couldn't understand his problem and that was why I desisted from

>posting further on this topic.

 

Well, I guess there is no point revisiting this. All I can do is

reiterate that my arguments seemed clear, reasonable and carefully

expressed, at least to me. It is quite fascinating to me that you

and others have so much trouble understanding what seems so clear to

me. That was the most valuable lesson that I've learned so far from

this list, namely, that when it comes to philosophical discussions,

we might as well sometimes be on different planets.

 

As for your statement 'while he is not afflicted by the normal

subject-object relationship we mundanes encounter', let me say this.

This lack of subject-object distinction that I perceive upon

introspection is essentially the same as first discussed by the

famous Western philosopher Hume, and he was no mystic, not even

religious. So I was making no pretentious claim, as you seem to

somewhat cavalierly imply. Many students of philosophy have had no

trouble understanding Hume, even if they did not agree with hem.

 

This whole Advaitin List experience has been quite revealing,

stimulating and amusing for me, more from the human angle that from a

philosophical point of view. (I do not believe that anybody really

studied my arguments in detail, but who cares? Not I.) Still I have

just one question for you. Do you feel love and compassion for my

ignorance, like a true Advaitin? Or do you feel even a trace of

contempt or ridicule? I simply cannot tell from reading mere text,

but I have a slight, nagging suspicion. I would have to hear your

voice and see your facial expression to know for sure. But perhaps

you would be willing to simply give me a completely honest answer

right here?

 

Thanks

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Easy, easy, Shri Benjamin. Or, Shanti, Shanti as Carlo says.

 

I am in love with you as I am with everything else. I am honest

here. You can take my word whether I am advaitin or otherwise. No

contempt or ridicule at all. Don't worry about my facial

expression. Nobody, including my unfortunate wife, has ever liked

it! However, I am sure the street cat that I feed regularly likes it

and I am going to write a poem about her (the street cat, not my

wife!) and send it to Harsha-ji for consideration.

 

About the other points you have raised, I hope Providence would grant

me the opportunity to reply you in detail. Oh, that is fate or free

will? Fate indeed! I am coming back on that. Since Sunderji has

given me up, I am looking at the other saviours like Dennis-ji and

Ram-ji. Please rest assured that whatever I have to say will be

based on the terra firma of (Indian) advaita.

 

Thanks for writing. You proved your greatness by the very act of

replying me.

 

Shri Benjamin Root, here I remain, your companion on this turbulent

quest for Truth.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________________

 

In advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> wrote:

> just one question for you. Do you feel love and compassion for my

> ignorance, like a true Advaitin? Or do you feel even a trace of

> contempt or ridicule? I simply cannot tell from reading mere text,

> but I have a slight, nagging suspicion. I would have to hear your

> voice and see your facial expression to know for sure. But perhaps

> you would be willing to simply give me a completely honest answer

> right here?