Dreaming and Waking and being fully conscious

[Guest guest]

In dream state, though we're the witness we still do not have total

control. The mind exposes us to many situations and

locations in dream state, whether we desire it or not. Simply put the

mind controls our experience in the dream state.

 

In the waking state we seem to have more control. We go where we want

and can do what we want - most things atleast.

But there're frequent instances in the waking state itself where we

lose this control - to the mind. Even as I walk

across the street my mind is thinking of various things - work, home,

about some object of desire, something experienced

in the past etc. This is like slipping into a mental loop where even

when we're doing something physically, our mind

is somewhere else. While I clean my car my mind slips to reflect on

my meeting at work yesterday. While I wait in the

queue at the shopping mart, my mind slips to reflect on an argument I

had with a friend yesterday. The eye sees, but doesn't

actually see! The senses and the mind aren't in synch - while your

vision rests on an object, the mind is grappling with

a totally different object. You can see people everywhere - doing one

thing and thinking something else. The eyes are

hooded, half closed - indicating mental activity. Because of this for

the great part of their lives people are neither

conscious of themselves or their surroundings. They're simply

conscious of the images created by their mind and thus

for a great part of their lives, live in a sub-conscious mode.

 

And such a mental loop is almost unconcious - we do not will it - but

it happens. Even if you will for it not to happen,

it still happens. The mind is forever churning thinking about this

and that object or experience and there's no controlling

it.

 

So even phases of the waking state is no different from the dream

state where our consciousness is hijacked by

the mind - where we do not have absolute control. We live parallel

lives simultaneously - a life in this world and a life

inside the mind - each coexisting and feeding on each other. Our

interaction with the world is influenced by the thoughts

shaped by the mind and the mind itself goes into its conceptual mode

based on the things it has experienced in the world.

 

Simply put we live only through the mind. Our mind shapes the world

that we know. In relation to all that we experience

our identity too is created. But both are nothing but an illusion,

given seeming reality by the power of the mind.

 

The natural conceptual activity of the mind which constantly dwells

on one object after another ensures that people are

neither fully conscious of themselves or their surroundings. They

live in a sub-conscious mode.

 

One who aspires for chitta vritti nirodah normally meditates - single

point concentration. But when one participates

in the world, how is the mind to be controlled?

 

Simple - just be totally aware and resist the mind from hijacking

your consciousness. Whatever you do, be totally aware of

the task. When you brush your teeth be fully conscious of the brush

touching your teeth - be fully conscious of the way you

hold the brush - be fully conscious of the way you brush the teeth -

the foam on the lips etc. Be conscious of every minute

aspect of your experience. If this is done, where is there scope for

the mind to wander off?

 

If you see somebody you know, there's nothing with the mental

activity which identifies the person and the activity he/she

is engaged in at the moment. It is only a problem if the mind takes

off in a conceptual mode on the subject - thinking

about prior experiences related to the person etc.

 

So the key is to be fully conscious of the present. Instead of

consciousness being distracted towards mental objects, it

should be fully focused on oneself and the objects one experiences

every second. Open your eyes wide and be fully conscious

of yourself and your surrounding each and every second.

 

But it is not easy - but highly difficult. But one desiring

liberation should practice it earnestly. Whether you move

or stand/sit or do a job, be acutely conscious of everything -

yourself, the objects around you and the most important - the

consciousness that links the subject and object.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

vpcnk <vpcnk wrote:

"Simple - just be totally aware and resist the mind from hijacking

your consciousness. Whatever you do, be totally aware of

the task. When you brush your teeth be fully conscious of the brush

touching your teeth - be fully conscious of the way you

hold the brush - be fully conscious of the way you brush the teeth -

the foam on the lips etc. Be conscious of every minute

aspect of your experience. If this is done, where is there scope for

the mind to wander off? "

 

 

 

Don't you think is better to be totally aware of consciusness where appear the

task which is been carried out, to be totally aware of "who" is aware?

 

Love

 

Diego

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Messenger

Nueva versión: Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más

#161;Gratis!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste VPCNK!

 

(Oh, all right! We know it's Nanda, though for some reason you seem

to cherish anonymity. Even saints allow themselves the convenience

of a name, though it often ends in 'ananda', as in Chinmayananda.

Hey, yours almost does too! Just needs an 'a'. But would that

negate anything? Haha! Little insider Sanskrit joke.)

 

OK, back to your message. Well written. A lot of food for thought

there. I would like to offer a few comments.

 

I think you hit on an essential point and one quite relevant to this

month's topic of 'spiritual progress'. We do indeed live our lives

as unconscious or semi-conscious automatons (robots), where our mind

stream is controlled by vasanas or habitual tendencies and habits.

And the only cure is full awareness, which bleaches the habitual mind

just as sunlight bleaches clothes white. Awareness seems to be a key

thread running through all sorts of spiritual traditions, and it is

fully consistent with Advaita's emphasis on our primary nature as

Pure Consciousness. How better to realize and manifest that Pure

consciousness than to just let it shine?!

 

Most of the time we think we are conscious and do not realize how we

are sleepwalking. This can be quite a revolutionary and

counterintuitive discovery and a crucial first step on the spiritual

path. It may be that all our life experiences, both pleasant and

painful, are given to us to stimulate consciousness in some sense.

Suppose you were suddenly standing before a firing squad. Would you

not suddenly become acutely and exquisitely aware of everything? The

exact opposite of vegetating before a television or brooding morosely

about the past!

 

This emphasis on acute awareness in the present moment is also

consistent with the quotes from the great Nisargadatta I just gave

Diego in today's 'Question' thread, in which he asked about sadhana.

Here are a few of them, always worth repeating:

>Where is the need of changing anything? The mind is changing anyhow

>all the time. Look at your mind dispassionately; this is enough to

>calm it. When it is quiet, you can go beyond it. Do not keep it busy

>all the time. Stop it, and just be. If you give it rest, it will

>settle down and recover its purity and strength. Constant thinking

>makes it decay. (311)

>Your mind is steeped in the habits of evaluation and acquisition, and

>will not admit that the incomparable and unobtainable are waiting

>timelessly within your own heart for recognition. All you have to do

>is to abandon all memories and expectations. Just keep yourself ready

>in utter nakedness and nothingness. (498-9)

>A quiet mind is all you need. All else will happen rightly, once your

>mind is quiet. As the sun on rising makes the world active, so does

>self-awareness affect changes in the mind. In the light of calm and

>steady self-awareness, inner energies wake up and work miracles

>without any effort on your part. (311)

 

Again, why the emphasis on simple silent unconditional awareness?

Could it be that simple? Yes, because of the fundamental reality

that we ARE Pure Consciousness, only we do not realize it. We do not

realize it because our mind becomes obsessed, engrossed and entangled

in some finite aspect of consciousness, some severe restriction of

consciousness, like a tightly focused spotlight, or perhaps even like

a black hole. This narrowing of consciousness is equivalent to

semi-consciousness or even unconsciousness. Usually the object of

this narrowing is our own body and mind, which arises through

identification. Identification would be harmless if we identified

with *everything*. In that case, we would only be manifesting the

truth of the Mahavakya that 'Brahman (Consciousness) is everything'.

It is restricted identification that the scriptures warn against, and

not primarily for moral reasons (in my opinion) but rather because of

the harmful *psychological* consequences, namely, the loss of

unconditional awareness, which is the very definition of God and of

our true potential.

 

So you see, it all fits together into a consistent theory containing

deep insight into the causes and processes underlying our nature.

It's not just a lot of moralistic platitudes. We'll leave that to

other religions designed for non-reflective non-philosophers who

react according to their animal and society-conditioned mind.

[Oooops! I don't want to get a message from the moderators telling

me to be super-respectful of all religions, as though tolerance means

having no opinions and making no evaluations. :-) ]

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

> Don't you think is better to be totally aware of consciusness where

appear the task which is been carried out, to be totally aware

of "who" is aware?

 

Can the knower be known? If so who knows?

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

 

 

> Don't you think is better to be totally aware of consciusness where

appear the task which is been carried out, to be totally aware

of "who" is aware?

 

 

Can the knower be known? If so who knows?

 

 

 

 

KKT: I says: Yes.

 

Cogito ergo sum

I thinks, therefore I am

(Descartes)

 

The act of knowing is the knower itself.

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

wrote:

> advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

>

>

>

> > Don't you think is better to be totally aware of consciusness

where

> appear the task which is been carried out, to be totally aware

> of "who" is aware?

>

>

> Can the knower be known? If so who knows?

>

>

>

>

> KKT: I says: Yes.

>

> Cogito ergo sum

> I thinks, therefore I am

> (Descartes)

>

> The act of knowing is the knower itself.

>

>

> KKT

 

Namaste,

 

Descartes thought animals had no souls and were just machines, he was

an idiot.

The quote should be 'I think therefore I am not', if I didn't think

then I would be 'I am'.....Knowing is actually Avidya or ignorance,

truth is only in not knowing. There seem to be a lot of people on

here who do not understand the concept of Advaita at all. There is

much verbose and elementary debate. Not that this is wrong but should

be on a more general site like Harsha's for example.....ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I only meant to pay attention to the attention instead of objets in

the consciousness.

 

In Vivekacudamani Shankara spoke about the requirements of students

or disciples to begin the Path. One of them was detachment/ calm.

Please, let put into practice in our posts.

 

Love

 

Diego

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

>

> Can the knower be known? If so who knows?

 

Namaste,

 

This is the Nisargadatta's answer to your question:

 

"Mere knowledge is not enough; the knower must be known. The pandits

and yogis may know many things, but of what use is mere knowledge

when the self is not known? It will be certainly misused. Without the

knowledge of the knower there can be no peace"

 

Love

 

Diego

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri VPCNK,

> In dream state, though we're the witness we still do not have

total

> control. The mind exposes us to many situations and

> locations in dream state, whether we desire it or not. Simply put

the

> mind controls our experience in the dream state.

 

I think you are right on the dot here. many times i used to think

that it was the absence of the intellect that was the cause of the

dream to go haywire frequently. But it cannot be true. sometimes

intelligence also seems to play its part. we make 'intelligent'

decisions in our dreams too, though not all the time. IMO its the

half manifestation of the individual ego with the absence of body

consciousness that lets the mind go astray that we experience as a

dream. But again, for many people visions of God appear very lucidly

in their dreams. so maybe dreams also act as a medium of

communication between the inividual consciousness and the underlying

higher state of consciousness. (I hope I'm making sense here ).

> Simply put we live only through the mind. Our mind shapes the

world

> that we know. In relation to all that we experience

> our identity too is created. But both are nothing but an illusion,

> given seeming reality by the power of the mind.

 

this part is kind of hard to accept. Though the acharya and all the

great seers seems to say this, it seems too difficult to comprehend.

Maybe until one actually experiences it, we can only share our views

about this. Even the acharya has said "Its real while one is in

it.." ( in vivekachudamani, in his description of maya ). so at the

lower planes of consciousness ( the senses and body level ) it

appears quite real to me. maybe when my consciousness rises to the

level of the absolute i would understand the true meaning of this

statement.

> One who aspires for chitta vritti nirodah normally meditates -

single

> point concentration.

I think this is an ideal way to approach the truth. Single

pointedness of the mind through meditation. But then, its only what

suits me. As Sri Ramana Maharishi has said, different aspirants may

choose their own means.

>But when one participates

> in the world, how is the mind to be controlled?

>

> Simple - just be totally aware and resist the mind from hijacking

> your consciousness. Whatever you do, be totally aware of

> the task. When you brush your teeth be fully conscious of the

brush

> touching your teeth - be fully conscious of the way you

> hold the brush - be fully conscious of the way you brush the

 

I expected you to say here that at all points of time one has to do

a 'Who am I' sort of enquiry. To enquire into oneself as to who is

the cause that causes the 'I' to appear in this body and experience

these actions.

Being aware of all of one's actions is endless. This sounds more to

me like that done by Hatha Yogis, where they seem to control every

organ in the body through the mind.

 

Om Tat Sat

Guruprasad

[Guest guest]

> Can the knower be known? If so who knows?

> KKT: I says: Yes.

>

> Cogito ergo sum

> I thinks, therefore I am

> (Descartes)

>

> The act of knowing is the knower itself.

 

I envy your certainty!

 

BTW Descartes's "cogito ergo sum" is not valid as per Indian

philosophy. Do you think in deep sleep? So is it right to say you are

validated by your thoughts?

 

The modern notion of "free your mind" is not compatible with Indian

philosophy. Rather Indian philosophy enjoins you to free yourself

from the mind.

[Guest guest]

> I expected you to say here that at all points of time one has to

do

> a 'Who am I' sort of enquiry.

 

Can you enquire into yourself when busy with work? Or driving? Or

when doing some action which requires attention?

 

Sure - enquire into yourself when you have the suitable time and

situation for it. But at other times when you don't (which for the

normal man will represent the bulk of his waking hours), try to be

fully aware.

 

We should always try to reconcile spiritual practice with our normal

lives. That way over a period of time, spirituality becomes natural.

[Guest guest]

> We do indeed live our lives

> as unconscious or semi-conscious automatons (robots), where our

mind

> stream is controlled by vasanas or habitual tendencies and habits.

 

Yes - though we say that we are awake, in reality we're sleeping most

of the time that we claim to be awake. To be lost in the mental loop

while awake is no different from the dream state.

 

So let us wake up and be "the one who is awake" - the Buddha.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

 

 

> Can the knower be known? If so who knows?

 

> KKT: I says: Yes.

>

> Cogito ergo sum

> I thinks, therefore I am

> (Descartes)

>

> The act of knowing is the knower itself.

 

 

I envy your certainty!

 

 

 

 

KKT: Why not?

 

To refute the Self is impossible,

for HE WHO TRIES TO REFUTE IT IS THE SELF.

(Samkara - Brahmasutrabhasya)

-------------

 

BTW Descartes's "cogito ergo sum" is not valid as per Indian

philosophy. Do you think in deep sleep? So is it right to say you are

validated by your thoughts?

 

 

 

 

KKT: The problem is that the question

<< Do you think in deep sleep? >>

is asked when both the questioner

and the questioned are in waking state.

 

Can you ask this question in deep sleep?

--------------

 

The modern notion of "free your mind" is not compatible with Indian

philosophy. Rather Indian philosophy enjoins you to free yourself

from the mind.

 

 

 

KKT: But this << yourself >>

is still the mind !

 

 

Thanks for your answer.

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

--- vpcnk <vpcnk wrote:

 

Hai Nanda - Greetings. Where are you now? - I mean which continent?

 

Hari OM!

Sada

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Here is my understanding and comments on the subject.

 

 

--- v_vedanti <v_vedanti wrote:

> Namaste Sri VPCNK,

>

> > In dream state, though we're the witness we still do not have

> total

> > control. The mind exposes us to many situations and

> > locations in dream state, whether we desire it or not. Simply put

> the

> > mind controls our experience in the dream state.

 

There is some contradictions here- who is the 'WE' that "the mind

exposes 'US' to many situations whether 'WE' desire it or not"?

Mind is thoughts and cannot expose us. Dream is nothing but the

suppressions and oppressions (vasana-s) of the waking state that get

projected in the dream. That which is getting ready to germinate will

get projected - under my illumination.

> I think you are right on the dot here. many times i used to think

> that it was the absence of the intellect that was the cause of the

> dream to go haywire frequently. But it cannot be true. sometimes

> intelligence also seems to play its part.

 

I think your first statement is true to a degree. Intellet is there in

the dream but not to the fullest extent. Hence, since it is not sharp -

the more reality is lended to the mental projections - just the same way

we lead more reality to the objective world if we donot have right

'veveka' to discrimination of what is real and what is unreal.

 

we make 'intelligent'

> decisions in our dreams too, though not all the time. IMO its the

> half manifestation of the individual ego with the absence of body

> consciousness that lets the mind go astray that we experience as a

> dream. But again, for many people visions of God appear very lucidly

> in their dreams. so maybe dreams also act as a medium of

> communication between the inividual consciousness and the underlying

> higher state of consciousness. (I hope I'm making sense here ).

 

I would say instead of higher state - lower state - which is the vasana

state. God that is dreamt is also from the vasana-state only. Some

people thinks they are Gods or act like ones not only in their dreams

but in the waking world too!

 

>

> > Simply put we live only through the mind. Our mind shapes the

> world

> > that we know. In relation to all that we experience

> > our identity too is created. But both are nothing but an illusion,

> > given seeming reality by the power of the mind.

 

You are right here - we let the mind shape the world - We can reshape

the mind to view the world correctly too. Objective mind is not a

problme - problem is only with the notional mind.

>

> this part is kind of hard to accept. Though the acharya and all the

> great seers seems to say this, it seems too difficult to comprehend.

> Maybe until one actually experiences it, we can only share our views

> about this. Even the acharya has said "Its real while one is in

> it.." ( in vivekachudamani, in his description of maya ). so at the

> lower planes of consciousness ( the senses and body level ) it

> appears quite real to me. maybe when my consciousness rises to the

> level of the absolute i would understand the true meaning of this

> statement.

 

Yes the reality is notional. Plurality is not notional - plurality is

what mind projects - that is the nature of the mind- but taking the

plurality as reality is the delusion and that comes because of vasana-s.

So illusion is not a problem if we know that it is illusion. Illusion

becomes delusion when we do not realize that it is illusion.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "lantax_metanoia"

<lantax_metanoia> wrote:

> advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> >

> > Can the knower be known? If so who knows?

>

> Namaste,

>

> This is the Nisargadatta's answer to your question:

>

> "Mere knowledge is not enough; the knower must be known. The

pandits

> and yogis may know many things, but of what use is mere knowledge

> when the self is not known? It will be certainly misused. Without

the

> knowledge of the knower there can be no peace"

>

> Love

>

> Diego

 

Namaste,IMO

 

This is not the 'knowing', of western mind thought. This is the

original 'I', or Saguna Sakti. It is prajna rather than avidya. It is

Maya, who projects. In other words mi amigo, it is becoming one with

the Sakti or Praneaswara as Nisargadatta would term. This of course

is becoming Nirguan for Sakti is aware of Nirguna. When the body

drops there is just Nirguna........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Ø Can the knower be known? If so who knows?

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste to all, This is my first contribution to the list and my first language

is spanish also, so I hope to express the best I can this idea.

 

What I have understood about Sankara’s philosophy is that in the absolute point

of view there is non-duality, so “knowing the knower” is not the kind of

relative knowing that expresses in a duality such as subject-object. The

knowledge of the absolute is not a knowledge we can acquire but a knowledge that

we realize, in other words, we don’t know the knower but we ARE the knower. In

fact, there isn’t a knower nor a knowledge but a fusion of knowledge, knower and

the known as stated in the Bhagavad Gita (chapter XIII, 17) In fact, I think

that using the term “knower” is a mere analogy to express the experience of the

supreme reality.

 

I think we have to be conscious of the analogical function of the terms. I

think that when Sankara talks about pure conciousness as the absolute subject it

is a mere analogy, for the term “subject” has only its proper use in correlation

with the object, that is, in the dual reality.

 

 

 

Banjamin said in a previous post:

 

 

 

Ø For example, what Descartes said was true and has been misunderstood.

'I think therefore I am'. The 'I think' is not necessarily

conceptual thought; it can be taken as simple awareness. It is the

same thing Sadanandaji has repeated many times: we cannot deny the 'I

am'. This is the fundamental 'fact' of life, if you want to call it

that.

 

 

 

 

 

I think we have to be more cautious in comparing eastern and western

philosophies. It’s not that it is impossible, but we can miss the point if we

don’t analize it in its proper context. We have to remember that Descartes is a

philosopher of the western Modernity and its main concern is to refute

escepticism in terms of epistemology. Therefore, when he arrives at the “I

think” he is arriving at the cognoscitive subjetc, but this subject is a human

subject and this epistemology carries him to a dualism betwwen the “thinking

substance” and “the extense substance”, and he uses God to build the bridge, but

his notion of God is in fact something that is even external to human.

 

Don’t forget that Descartes is deriving the “I am” from the thought, while in

Sankara’s and hindu tradition, as I understand it, is all the way around. It is

because I am (where the “I” would be by analogy to the Supreme being) that I

think. “I am therefore I think” My being doesn’t depend on my thinking, as it is

in Descartes. And it is when I go beyond my thinking and my mind that I can find

my being as the foundation of it. It would be interesting to contrast what

Descartes understood by “meditation”. I guess that it is REALLY different as

conceived by Indian tradition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net: La mejor conexión a internet y 25MB extra a tu correo por $100 al

mes.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

It would be interesting to contrast what Descartes understood

by "meditation". I guess that it is REALLY different as conceived by

Indian tradition.

removed]

 

Namaste Ana,

 

I think the Western idea of meditation is probably unchanged, it

really is at best concentration. As I said earlier western philosophy

is hampered by its later Greek base. Which is all in the mind, and

doesn't allow for real meditation beyond the mind,,,samadhi etc.

Only the mystics in the west got near to the Vedantic and eastern

position, and even they were caught up in 'Bliss', which is an

impediment........ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Welcome and Namaste Ana!

 

It's nice to see another new Spanish name on this list, and the first

Spanish woman!

 

What you said about knower and knowing in Advaita seems quite correct

to me. Then you said:

>Banjamin said in a previous post:

>

>>For example, what Descartes said was true and has been misunderstood.

>>'I think therefore I am'. The 'I think' is not necessarily conceptual

>>thought; it can be taken as simple awareness. It is the same thing

>>Sadanandaji has repeated many times: we cannot deny the 'I am'. This

>>is the fundamental 'fact' of life, if you want to call it that.

>

>I think we have to be more cautious in comparing eastern and western

>philosophies. ...

 

 

You are right that we must be cautious, if we wish to be scholarly.

And I agree with much of what you said following this. But the

moderators of this list are now trying to get us to focus on just

Shankara and not Western philosophers. So we should now avoid

discussing such stuff. It's a lot of fun, but the list was getting

to be like an octopus, with tentacles all over the place.

 

Nevertheless, I will say this about Descartes. You are absolutely

right that he was a dualist, and Advaita transcends this. But the

essence of his 'I think therefore I am' can indeed be understood in

the classic Advaitin sense of the 'I Am' being the ultimate

irrefutable reality, as our guru Sadanandaji has often said. Whether

our consciousness is dualistic or nondualistic, the mere existence of

our consciousness cannot be denied, and so this is the fundamental

reality. Descartes, like many other philosophers including Eastern

ones, starts out asking whether there is ANYTHING we can truly

believe in. (Philosophers are supposed to ask such questions.) The

'I am' is irrefutable and is the starting point of Advaita. To this

extent, it is interesting to see an aspect of Advaita reflected in

Descartes' key idea, though he of course went on to stumble into the

error of dualism, as do most Western philosophers.

 

I was only trying to get list members to be open-minded to partial

and incomplete reflections of the truth in various philosophers,

instead of getting fanatical about our pet philosophers. Even Dvaita

should be understood as containing a certain truth at a certain

level. When Shankara distinguishes the paramarthika (ultimate truth)

from the vyavahara (relative truth), he doesn't mean to say that the

latter is all bad, but simply partial and illusory. The snake in the

rope is not real, but the rope is!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin, my friend:

 

The other day, I went with several of my office collegues (many were

westerners) to an Indian restaurant (Tajmahal) near Dupont circle,

Washington DC. Tajmahal like every other restaurants in DC provided

the Lunch menu, Since this is an Indian Restaurant, only spicy

Indian food was served and we had a great time discussing the menus

in other restaurant. My frined, David remarked, "I wish that Tajmahal

restaurant served some Greek, Italian and French dishes in addition

to spicy Indian food." Martin immediately pointed out, "If you want

to eat Italian food, you better go to an Italian Restaurant instead

of an Indian Restaurant; Don't you know that in Indian restaurants,

they only serve Indian dishes!" This lunch conversation is a fact of

life and many things that happen around us are quite similar. Book

stores sell books, Grocery store sells groceries and Drug stores

sell drugs. These are also facts of life. Some of these stores may be

little more flexible and sell some related items. But you don't

expect a grocery store to sell computers even though few of us may

not mind buying a computer in a grocery store!

 

I just want to leave it to the members of Advaitin list to make their

own judgement and conclusion on why the list should focus only on

Sankara's advaita philosophy. Just like the restaurants, mailing

lists only can cater to the needs of a section of population.

Honestly, from day 1 the theme of the list is Shankara's Advaita

Philosophy and the duty of the moderators is to protect this theme.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

> You are right that we must be cautious, if we wish to be scholarly.

> And I agree with much of what you said following this. But the

> moderators of this list are now trying to get us to focus on just

> Shankara and not Western philosophers. So we should now avoid

> discussing such stuff. It's a lot of fun, but the list was getting

> to be like an octopus, with tentacles all over the place.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

This is my first post here.

> I was only trying to get list members to be open-minded to partial

> and incomplete reflections of the truth in various philosophers,

> instead of getting fanatical about our pet philosophers. Even Dvaita

> should be understood as containing a certain truth at a certain

> level. When Shankara distinguishes the paramarthika (ultimate truth)

> from the vyavahara (relative truth), he doesn't mean to say that the

> latter is all bad, but simply partial and illusory. The snake in the

> rope is not real, but the rope is!

 

 

The nature of the world is accepted as "only practical" because of its

inderminability in any other sense.

This is quite different from bad and good. Good and bad are a part of this

phenomenal world and have

nothing to do with reality. It is impossible to prove the unreality of the

world. So also is it impossible

to prove its reality. Thus the Indian non-dualist leaves it as something

inexplicable - neither real nor

unreal. After some thought, one realizes that it is a matter of commonsense.

Rival vedantic

philosophies have not understood this and keep mis-representing advaita in their

criticisms.

[Guest guest]

> Honestly, from day 1 the theme of the list is Shankara's Advaita

> Philosophy and the duty of the moderators is to protect this

>theme.

 

Is that really true Ram?

 

If I remember right, this list came into existence primarily because

the Advaita-L became a bit too stifling for people like you, me,

GMurthy, Greg and Sada, who wanted to be open to other ideas too. So

to restrict the scope of this list to "Advaita only" goes against our

original purpose.

 

BTW the frequent discussions on volition and freewill on this list -

how related is it to Advaita? How much of Shankara's arguments are

directed towards this topic?

 

Likewise there're so many topics which have little to do with

Advaita, which are freely discussed on this list. Just because you

associate a name to an idea (like Descartes or Locke) does not mean

that such ideas suddenly become unacceptable.

 

I do not think there's anything wrong in discussing other

philosophies - Dvaita or Descartes - as long as we can learn

something valuable from them. And we most always will.

 

Maybe if the intention is to keep the focus on Vedaanta, then we

should merely say that other philosophies can be discussed in

relation to Advaita, but not on their own (atleast beyond a point).

If a discussion digresses from the subject a bit too much, then at

that point it can be moderated.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michael:

 

The scope of the list confirms both my statement and your statement

regarding the openness. We can't deny the fact that one of the

primary reason for the emergence of this list from Advaita-L was to

be more open. The list has no hidden agenda to become another

Advaita-L but will remain as Advaitin and will keep the promise as

stated in the scope of the list and in FAQ. At the same time, the

list doesn't want to be converted into a list such

as 'nondualitysalon' or 'Harshasatsangh.' It just wants to remain as

advaitin with the primary focus on Shankara's advaita philosophy. No

moderator has ever said that the list is planning to change

its 'present scope.'

 

The moderators just reminded the members not to deviate too much and

too long away from the subject matter of a topic. Also interventions

become necessary when the volume and duration of postings on topics

completely unrelated to advaita go way beyond the list scope.

 

Finally, I do not want to be the lone spokeperson for the list and I

request other moderators to share their thoughts on the questions

raised by Sri Michael and Sri Benjamin.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> > Honestly, from day 1 the theme of the list is Shankara's Advaita

> > Philosophy and the duty of the moderators is to protect this

> >theme.

>

> Is that really true Ram?

>

> If I remember right, this list came into existence primarily

because

> the Advaita-L became a bit too stifling for people like you, me,

> GMurthy, Greg and Sada, who wanted to be open to other ideas too.

So

> to restrict the scope of this list to "Advaita only" goes against

our

> original purpose.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Instead of addressing Sri Nanda, I addressed him as Sri Micahel.

Please note that this is just an human error. My apologies to both

Sri Michael and Sri Nanda for switching their names.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Michael: