Guest guest Posted April 14, 2003 Report Share Posted April 14, 2003 Jay: "Thus, your thinking that "the question does not arise" is not inline with that webpage information." D: If you *know* that there are not two things, so that you *know* that there are not two concepts to be mixed up or superimposed, then it cannot be meaningful to talk about 'I' and 'not-I'. The question will not arise, as I said and maintain. The "human innate error (naisargika) and lack of discrimination (avivekena)" to which you refer could only arise in the absence of such knowledge. The way in which you phrased your question implied the former situation. You now seem to be saying that you were still talking at the level of appearance. Obviously if you still believe in concepts then it remains possible to mix them, superimpose them or otherwise confuse them and this possibility (and propensity) will remain until they dissolve and vanish into the non-dual reality. Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2003 Report Share Posted April 14, 2003 Dear Dennis-jI, What I am trying to say is that 'I' and 'non-I' by their very nature can not be superimposed. What you are saying is, that dichotomy will vanish once knowledge dawns. When "knowledge" dawns, it does not destroy its object. It only corrects itself. That is what I am trying to say. When we had the "incorrect knowledge" that earth was flat ( I don't know the origin of that theory) and eventually when the "correct knowledge" dawned upon us that the earth was after all spherical, the object of knowledge which is the earth in this case, did not get destroyed. The new knowledge corrected the old knowledge. This is how "knowledge" operates. Why this should be any different in vEdanta?. "brahma-vidyAm sarva vidyA prathishTam" says mundakOpanishat, ( Origin and goal of every branch of knowledge is brahma-vidyA), so what applies to other branches of knowledge must necessarily apply to brahma-vidyA. But in adhyAsa-theory, because of our incorrect knowledge this world of 'I' and 'non-I' exists, and correct knowledge will destroy its object ( which is the world of 'I' and 'non-I' ). When has knowledge known to have destroyed its object? I hope you see where I am coming from. If it is okay with the moderators, I can post a series of articles on various aspects of adhyAsa-theory, so all of us can understand what it is, where it is coming from, what the implications of that theory are as seen by some one outside the "choir". Let me know. - Dennis Waite advaitin Monday, April 14, 2003 3:37 PM RE: Fate abd Free Will Jay: "Thus, your thinking that "the question does not arise" is not inline with that webpage information." D: If you *know* that there are not two things, so that you *know* that there are not two concepts to be mixed up or superimposed, then it cannot be meaningful to talk about 'I' and 'not-I'. The question will not arise, as I said and maintain. The "human innate error (naisargika) and lack of discrimination (avivekena)" to which you refer could only arise in the absence of such knowledge. The way in which you phrased your question implied the former situation. You now seem to be saying that you were still talking at the level of appearance. Obviously if you still believe in concepts then it remains possible to mix them, superimpose them or otherwise confuse them and this possibility (and propensity) will remain until they dissolve and vanish into the non-dual reality. Dennis Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2003 Report Share Posted April 14, 2003 Everything is a superimposition on Brahman. Superimpositions do not affect Brahman. Everything other than Brahman is a superimposition. Kathy Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:Dear Dennis-jI, What I am trying to say is that 'I' and 'non-I' by their very nature can not be superimposed. What you are saying is, that dichotomy will vanish once knowledge dawns. When "knowledge" dawns, it does not destroy its object. It only corrects itself. That is what I am trying to say. When we had the "incorrect knowledge" that earth was flat ( I don't know the origin of that theory) and eventually when the "correct knowledge" dawned upon us that the earth was after all spherical, the object of knowledge which is the earth in this case, did not get destroyed. The new knowledge corrected the old knowledge. This is how "knowledge" operates. Why this should be any different in vEdanta?. "brahma-vidyAm sarva vidyA prathishTam" says mundakOpanishat, ( Origin and goal of every branch of knowledge is brahma-vidyA), so what applies to other branches of knowledge must necessarily apply to brahma-vidyA. But in adhyAsa-theory, because of our incorrect knowledge this world of 'I' and 'non-I' exists, and correct knowledge will destroy its object ( which is the world of 'I' and 'non-I' ). When has knowledge known to have destroyed its object? I hope you see where I am coming from. If it is okay with the moderators, I can post a series of articles on various aspects of adhyAsa-theory, so all of us can understand what it is, where it is coming from, what the implications of that theory are as seen by some one outside the "choir". Let me know. - Dennis Waite advaitin Monday, April 14, 2003 3:37 PM RE: Fate abd Free Will Jay: "Thus, your thinking that "the question does not arise" is not inline with that webpage information." D: If you *know* that there are not two things, so that you *know* that there are not two concepts to be mixed up or superimposed, then it cannot be meaningful to talk about 'I' and 'not-I'. The question will not arise, as I said and maintain. The "human innate error (naisargika) and lack of discrimination (avivekena)" to which you refer could only arise in the absence of such knowledge. The way in which you phrased your question implied the former situation. You now seem to be saying that you were still talking at the level of appearance. Obviously if you still believe in concepts then it remains possible to mix them, superimpose them or otherwise confuse them and this possibility (and propensity) will remain until they dissolve and vanish into the non-dual reality. Dennis Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2003 Report Share Posted April 14, 2003 advaitin, kathy rabold <karatagi34677> wrote: > Everything is a superimposition on Brahman. Superimpositions do not affect Brahman. Everything other than Brahman is a superimposition. Kathy > Namaste, Even the term 'super-imposition' is in the 'nAma-rUpa' class; there is nothing other than Brahman;it is 'anupameya'/'anirvachanaIya' (incomparable/inexplicable). The upanishads use the word 'iva' (as if), brahmasUtras use the word with an affix '-vat', etc. It is another aspect of 'vivarta-vAda', the effect being nothing else than the cause itself. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2003 Report Share Posted April 14, 2003 Could you please explain this in your own words. Kathy Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:advaitin, kathy rabold <karatagi34677> wrote: > Everything is a superimposition on Brahman. Superimpositions do not affect Brahman. Everything other than Brahman is a superimposition. Kathy > Namaste, Even the term 'super-imposition' is in the 'nAma-rUpa' class; there is nothing other than Brahman;it is 'anupameya'/'anirvachanaIya' (incomparable/inexplicable). The upanishads use the word 'iva' (as if), brahmasUtras use the word with an affix '-vat', etc. It is another aspect of 'vivarta-vAda', the effect being nothing else than the cause itself. Regards, Sunder Sponsor Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. 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.