Guest guest Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 Namaste Sri Hu Mata: Oh no! This topic was supposed to be dead and buried! On the other hand, I'm glad someone still cares. I'll try to give you the courtesy of an answer, since you went to some trouble to write a long commentary. >If only your immediate awareness is real, and anything external >to it isnt, or is, as you say, unverifiable, who and what are >these others you assert whose consciousness is real, but whose >body is not? On what basis do you determine their consciousness >is real, and "out there" ... This is just the old 'solipsism' argument, which I have repeatedly rejected in other posts as highly improbable and not worth worrying about. How incredibly coincidental that I should be the only consciousness! I don't believe it. It seems rather more plausible to me that there should be a multitude consciousnesses, each consisting of its own set of perceptions, thoughts and feelings (PFT). What I do deny is material substance (Prakriti). So I am not a Sankhyan. Neither an I (yet) a pure Advaitin, since I have some difficulty reducing the multitude of consciousnesses to One. That was my philosophy coming into this, which I still basically maintain, but which 'professional' Advaitins adamantly reject. They would say that I am confusing the pure, eternal Consciousness with the transitory mental modifications of PFT. For them, realization consists in dis-identifying with those modifications. My view is that the modifications are intrinsic to consciousness but that we artificially superpose a subject-object discrimination upon them. I claimed that my equation of PFT with consciousness is equivalent to Brahman=Atman. This was generally not accepted. For me, realization consists of ceasing to superpose the conceptual error of subject-object upon the consciousness, or equivalently, the PFT. This is different from drawing a sharp distinction between PFT and Consciousness and rejecting the former, as other on the list seemed to do and which I consider inconsistent with the Advaitin principle of non-duality. >What distinguishes them [the different consciousnesses]? Why do you >believe in such "unverifiable" unities? With what have you perceived >them? As I said, it seems to me that we are each a distinct stream of consciousness consisting of our own PFT. This seems to me to be the self-evident phenomenological reality. For me, nondualism is something we each separately implement within our own stream of consciousness, by ceasing conceptual superpositions of subject-object upon our own stream of consciousness. You have to understand that I am trying to reconcile two things: (1) my belief that the 'nondual' traditions of the world are on to something and (2) my philosophical principles, developed a long time ago, and which seem persuasive to me. Above, I mentioned that I am not a Sankhyan. I should also say that I am not any kind of Dvaitin, since I reject any kind of matter and also any kind of separation between 'God' and my own consciousness (or yours). This last point gets me into difficulties, which I acknowledge, since God is supposed to be a unity (and I have already distinguished between your consciousness and mine). Ultimately, I believe that 'nondualism' is simply how the sages 'see' the world, and the philosophy is secondary and to some extent arbitrary. The important thing for me is that 'higher' states of consciousness exist and are attainable. The philosophy is a superfluous luxury to try to understand better. You made many more intelligent comments, but I believe that you now understand better how I think. And I will have no hesitation changing my opinions if I can be persuaded. As many wise people have said, how we see the world is a product of our level of consciousness. I am simply being honest. And here's another honest statement: I will discuss this topic no further! Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2003 Report Share Posted April 6, 2003 Namaste Humata. Your attempt to exhume this discussion is laudable. However, I had difficulty determining who said what in your long post. Even the quote from my post looked strange to me! Nevertheless, I should say your views are really enlightening - particularly the manner in which you concluded that chittashuddhi (removal of the moral and mental cataract) will lead to the realization of the unity of Consciousness. PranAms and thanks. Madahtil Nair _______________________ advaitin, "hu_mata" <Humata@a...> wrote: ....... > In my view no conceptual attempt to overcome the duality of subject > and object can accomplish this, as the removal of the moral and mental > cataracts on the minds eye are what result in an ability to see, not > any particular idea you can come up with to trick awareness into > seeing properly. We do not see clearly because we do not want to see. > We are strongly attached to many things. These attachments do not want > light because then the game becomes real, and as desires they can no > longer just feed. ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2003 Report Share Posted April 7, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste Humata. > > Your attempt to exhume this discussion is laudable. However, I had > difficulty determining who said what in your long post. Even the > quote from my post looked strange to me! Nevertheless, I should say > your views are really enlightening - particularly the manner in which > you concluded that chittashuddhi (removal of the moral and mental > cataract) will lead to the realization of the unity of Consciousness. > > PranAms and thanks. > > Madahtil Nair Thank you. I am still sorting out how to post on the board. In the post there should be <<<< surrounding any quote >>>> on either end. However I was dismayed to find that in one of the quotes I'd left the <<<< off the beginning, so it made it even more confusing. There should be <<<< at the beginning of your quote REPLY TO SRI MADATHIL RAJENDRAN NAIR, and >>>> appears at the end of that quote. I didnt know how to quote internet style, but it seems if I highlight text Im quoting in these windows it does it automatically. I dont suppose there is any way to bold or italicize text? And I cant seem to figure out why posting cuts off the last line of my post. The following is from the western teacher Harold Percival, concerning freedom. "Freedom is the state or condition of desire-and-feeling of the doer [jiva] when it has detached itself from nature and remains unattached. Freedom does not mean that one may say or do what he pleases, wherever he is. Freedom is: to be and will and do and have without attachment to any object or thing of the four senses; and to continue to be, to will, to do, and to have, without being attached, by thinking, to what one is or will or does or has. That means that you are not attached in thought to any object or thing of nature, and that you will not attach yourself while thinking. Attachment means bondage." "Thinking that does not create thoughts, that is, destiny: Why does a person think? He thinks because his senses compel him to think, about objects of the senses, about persons and events, and his reactions to them. And when he thinks he wants to be something, to do something, or to get or to have something. He wants! And when he wants he attaches himself and the Light (atma) in a thought, to what he wants; he has created a thought. That means that the Light in his thinking is welded with his desire that wants, to the matter and course of action, or to the object or thing he wants. By that thought he has attached and bound the Light and himself. And the only way he can ever free the Light and himself from that bond is to be unattached; that is, he must balance the thought which binds him, by freeing the Light and his desire from the thing it wants. To do this it usually takes countless lives, ages to learn, to understand; to understand that he cannot act as well and as freely with the thing to which he is attached and bound, as he can if he were not attached, not bound. Your desire is you! The action or thing you want is not you. If you attach and bind yourself to it by a thought, you cannot act as well as if you are unbound and free to act without atttachment. Therefore, the thinking that does not create thoughts is in being free to think, and to not want, have, hold, but to act, to have, to hold, without being bound to the act, to what you have, to what you hold. That is, to think in freedom. The you can think clearly, with clear Light, and with power." "The Law of Thought: Everything existing on the physical plane is an exteriorization of a thought, which must be balanced through the one who issued the thought, in accordance with his responsiblity, and at the conjuction of time, condition and place." -- Harold Percival As I understand it Karma can be interpreted to mean Ka, from kama; Ma, from manas. And "r" as a letter for action or interaction. So Karma could be seen as being the action or interaction of mind (or Light) with desire; the results of the actions and reactions of mind with desire. The externalizations of thoughts. Freedom lies in ones's real identity. If we are not free, is the Self That we are free? Yes. Therefore our bondage is transitory and specific to our thinking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2003 Report Share Posted April 7, 2003 Namaste Humata. I find that you are 'tailless' again. Can't figure out the problem. About quoting, I don't depend on the net. I do it myself by either inserting quote marks or saying QUOTE and UNQUOTE in the beginning and end. Sometimes, I bracket my remarks so that they stand out in the body of the quoted text. Your understanding of karma is interesting like the Percival quote. PranAms. Madathil Nair advaitin, "hu_mata" <Humata@a...> wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2003 Report Share Posted April 7, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste Humata. > > I find that you are 'tailless' again. Can't figure out the problem. Yes it did it again, and unfortunately I didnt have a backup copy, so I dont even know what was cut off from the last line. I think I will just add a line of letters at the end from now on, as I dont know how to fix it either. Thanks, Da Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.