Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Namaste Sadanandaji, You just gave an excellent discussion regarding Brahmasutras Bhashyas (II,2,28) that helped to relieve some of the distress I was feeling that perhaps Shankara was asserting some kind of reality to the objective world independent of our consciousness of it (i.e. realism as opposed to idealism, in Western terminology). It seems to me that you are saying that Shankara was only saying that the world is not absolutely unreal like a barren woman's child. It has some degree of reality in that it is an illusion in consciousness (which is more real than a barren woman's child since at least we see it). However, when we superpose name and form (nama and rupa) on the illusion and take the object to be something existing independent of consciousness, as we normally do, then we are indeed making an error. Nothing exists 'outside' of Consciousness or Brahman (as we normally think of material objects). So in this sense, Advaita is quite idealistic (in the sense of Western philosophy). As far as Mahayana Buddhism is concerned, Shankara must have been arguing against the mistaken notion that often arises that 'emptiness' is utterly unreal like a barren woman's child. This is false. Other Buddhists say that it certainly exists as an illusion in consciousness. Both Shankara and many Buddhists use the dream analogy, which is one of my favorite analogies. I know that you don't care much for Buddhism, but you might be interested to have these points briefly drawn to your attention, for overall 'cultural' knowledge. If I am wrong on anything, please correct me. One last point. We all agree that in these rigorous and logical discussions, it is essential that we define our terms as precisely as possible. So could you please give a precise and rigorous definition of 'Gaagaabuubu'? Just kidding! :-) Thanks again Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 advaitin, "Benjamin Root" <orion777ben> wrote: > As far as Mahayana Buddhism is concerned, > Shankara must have been arguing against the > mistaken notion that often arises that 'emptiness' > is utterly unreal like a barren woman's child. > This is false. Other Buddhists say that it certainly > exists as an illusion in consciousness. > Before people write in saying that 'emptiness' does NOT exist as an illusion in consciousness, please be advised that 'it' was a poor choice of words. I did not mean emptiness so much as 'the world' or 'the object'. This was clear from the context. Emptiness is the realization that the object is no more than consciousness, and in this sense it is 'empty' of material reality or substance. But please don't reply to this. This list doesn't want to discuss Buddhism. I was only asking Sada whether Shankara was giving some kind of reality to the material world, as many say he does. I believe that Sadanandaji successfully answered this, and I believe that I understood him correctly. ONLY if I did not understand him correctly on that precise point should anyone reply to this thread. This is about Shankara. Thank you Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > You just gave an excellent discussion regarding > Brahmasutras Bhashyas (II,2,28) that helped to > relieve some of the distress I was feeling that > perhaps Shankara was asserting some kind of > reality to the objective world independent of > our consciousness of it (i.e. realism as opposed > to idealism, in Western terminology). Benjamin - I am glad you separated Sada and BSB. Just to emphasize again it is not Shankara's opinion - Baadaraayana suutra says directly by using double negative that it is not non-real since it is experienced. If you follow suutra literature, they try to minimize every letter if it can be possible. Here Baadaraayana uses double negative - not nonreal - he could have eliminated the double negative and said 'baavaH upalabdeH'-real since it is experienced. But deliberately he used double negative since the intension is not to establish the reality but to dismiss non-reality. > It seems to me that you are saying that Shankara > was only saying that the world is not absolutely > unreal like a barren woman's child. That is absolutely correct. In Advaita Siddhi, Madusuudhana Saraswati discusses different definitions of falsity to counter the criticism against Advaita particularly from Dvaitins. > It has some > degree of reality in that it is an illusion in > consciousness (which is more real than a barren > woman's child since at least we see it). Illusion is unfortunately a wrong translation of the word 'maaya' - It is not like non-existent like barren woman' child - that part is true. The analogy is exactly like the ring and the gold. Do you call ring as illusion? Hence we have what is called subjective objectification (praatibhaasika), objective objectification (vyaavahaarika) and absolutely real(paaramaarthika). The first one is 'I see it, therefore it is' and the second one is 'It is, therefore I see it' - third is 'I SEE nothing else'. Example for the first one -I see a snake, therefore it is a snake; For the second; I see a rope, therefore it is rope and The third one is self-consciousness 'I SEE I AM'. Although I have to be there to see a snake or a rope, the vision of a snake on a rope is different from the vision of rope as a rope - is it not? The first one is subjective objectification and the second one is objective objectification (and third one - I am just using out of desperation- objective subjectification!). The first one is more at a local level and second one at a global level and third one is at absolute level. The commonly understood illusion is may fall more close to the first one. The point is maaya is as real as the ring and bangle or a bracelet as long as the vision is only on the names, forms, attributes, utilities (kriya), etc. From the vision of Brahman, it is formless in spite of forms , nameless in spite of names, utility-less or kriyaasuunyam in spite of kriya - essentially - non-duality in spite of duality. That is why the philosophy is non-dual rather than monism. The plurality becomes the glory of that reality - pasyamme yogamaisvaram - look at my glory says Krishna. > > However, when we superpose name and form > (nama and rupa) on the illusion and take the > object to be something existing independent of > consciousness, as we normally do, then we > are indeed making an error. Nothing exists > 'outside' of Consciousness or Brahman (as we > normally think of material objects). So in this > sense, Advaita is quite idealistic (in the sense > of Western philosophy). I do not call it as idealistic in the sense of absence of objects out there - there is 'no out there' is from the absolute sense. By definition no-thing or nothing can exist outside Brahman. But the internal differences can be seen for those who want to see. Seen is different from the seer and the Seen is as real as the seer of the seen. But taking the differences that are seen as real is the delusion. One has to separate here the illusion versus delusion. I am using the word illusion due to lack of any better word - illusion is not a problem by itself but delusion is. A jiivan mukta is the one who can see the illusion - that is objective subjectification but has no more subjective objectification - or notional mind or subjective mind. I am not qualified to comment on the idealism of Western philosophy. The rest of the comments on Buddhism, I am not qualified too. But only state that what is understood by all Vedantic scholars - it is unanimously taken not by Shankara alone that suunya vaada is pure 'emptiness' and not what you have understood. They vehemently criticize the 'kshanika - vij~naanam' or flickering consciousness aspect of the Buddhism in all their puurvapaksha-s. I have not studied Buddhism per se although Shree Nanda has sent me some books to read. Unfortunately I do not have that motivation to read those books. Hence these comments are only for passing and not intended for any discussion either. > As far as Mahayana Buddhism is concerned, > Shankara must have been arguing against the > mistaken notion > So could you please give a precise and rigorous > definition of 'Gaagaabuubu'? > Just kidding! :-) Yes - precise and rigorous definition of 'gaagaabuubu' is, it is that object which cannot be precisely and rigorously defined. Hari OM! Sadananda > > Thanks again > > Hari Om! > Benjamin > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Illusion is unfortunately a wrong translation of the word 'maaya' - It is not like non-existent like barren woman' child - that part is true. The analogy is exactly like the ring and the gold. Do you call ring as illusion? > praNAm prabhuji > Hare Krishna > The passage cited above could give us the impression that the primeval Being or Atman (in the above analogy it is gold) actually modified & transformed itself (ring with nAma-rUpa) into the universe. But this sort of self-transformation is repugnant to the upanishadic purports I believe. How can we reconcile this prabhuji?? kindly clarify. > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 --- bhaskar.yr wrote: > > > The passage cited above could give us the impression that the > primeval > Being or Atman (in the above analogy it is gold) actually modified & > transformed itself (ring with nAma-rUpa) into the universe. But this > sort > of self-transformation is repugnant to the upanishadic purports I > believe. > How can we reconcile this prabhuji?? kindly clarify. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar Basker it is from Upanishad only - Ch. Up gives three examples to illustrate the apparent transformation - yathaa somya ekena loha maNinaa sarvam lohamayam vij~naaata syaat vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam, lohamityeva satyam -Similarly other two examples. The transformation of gold into ring is only apparent since gold remains as gold while the appearace of ring, bangle which are different from each other and from gold exist. That is naama and ruupa. Gold is immutable yet it is the glory of gold to be capable of existing in ring form or bangle form or bracelet form etc. They are not non-existent since their existence is supported by gold. But they are not real in the sense they are only temporal and fall in the catergory of vyaavahaarika satyam - satyasya satyam is gold which is immutable. The same way Brahman and the world. Hence emphasis is given to upaadaana kaarana of jagat as Brahman to emphasize precisely these points. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Basker it is from Upanishad only - Ch. Up gives three examples to illustrate the apparent transformation - yathaa somya ekena loha maNinaa sarvam lohamayam vij~naaata syaat vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam, lohamityeva satyam -Similarly other two examples. The transformation of gold into ring is only apparent since gold remains as gold while the appearace of ring, bangle which are different from each other and from gold exist. That is naama and ruupa. Gold is immutable yet it is the glory of gold to be capable of existing in ring form or bangle form or bracelet form etc. They are not non-existent since their existence is supported by gold. But they are not real in the sense they are only temporal and fall in the catergory of vyaavahaarika satyam - satyasya satyam is gold which is immutable. The same way Brahman and the world. Hence emphasis is given to upaadaana kaarana of jagat as Brahman to emphasize precisely these points. > praNAm prabhuji > Hare krishna > Thanks for the clarification prabhuji. From the above it is clear that from the empirical point of view mAyA is the causal potentiality of the world, projected by avidyA or superimposition. It is but a special aspect of brahman which evolves itself into the world. But brahman in its true & real nature is above all modification. then shall we conclude that as regards to different accounts of creation ( as I mentioned in my earlier mail under the different thread) in upanishads is just adhyArOpita?? is my understanding correct prabhuji. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 --- bhaskar.yr wrote: > From the above it is clear > that > from the empirical point of view mAyA is the causal potentiality of > the > world, projected by avidyA or superimposition. Bhaskar - we need to be clear here - avidya is jadam and by itself cannot project any thing. When we say ignorance is the cause for projection of a snake - it does not mean ignorance has the capacity to project. Only chaitanya swaruupa can project. But ignorance becomes a subsidiary cause but it is neither material or intelligent cause for projection of plurality. Hence maaya is considered as parameshawara shakti - and shakti lies with chaitanya swaruupa. Since it is parameswara shakti - you can call it as liila vibhuuti too. >It is but a special > aspect > of brahman which evolves itself into the world. But brahman in its > true & > real nature is above all modification. Again one has to be careful. Brahma is one without a second hence infinite. Infiniteness cannot have any attributes either. If you say it is a special aspect, it may be considered as special qualification. The fundamental problem is since jiiva has a notion that there is a world out there as "he is seeing the world of plurality", we need to bring all other paraphernalia to explain that which is not real- hence Iswara also comes into the explanation and you can now say that it is his special qualification to be able to project the whole universe by his powers. >then shall we conclude that as > regards to different accounts of creation ( as I mentioned in my > earlier > mail under the different thread) in upanishads is just adhyArOpita?? > is my > understanding correct prabhuji. Yes. Creation is there as long as one is seeing or experiencing one, and hence the suutra that is being discussed says that since you are experiencing it is not unreal. It is not unreal only because the reality supports it - like gold supporting a ring. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Namaste Sadanandaji I deeply appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to clarify these most essential points of Advaita. I will simply make a few comments to verify that I have understood these subtle issues. At least, I think you will agree that we are squarely within the realm of Advaita and are not digressing on 'out-of-scope' topics. Really this whole issue is CRUCIAL to Advaita and also very subtle... > Just to emphasize again it is not Shankara's opinion - Baadaraayana > suutra says directly by using double negative that it is not > non-real since it is experienced. If you follow suutra literature, > they try to minimize every letter if it can be possible. Here > Baadaraayana uses double negative - not nonreal - he could have > eliminated the double negative and said 'baavaH upalabdeH'-real > since it is experienced. But deliberately he used double negative > since the intension is not to establish the reality but to dismiss > non-reality. This is quite interesting. Yes, the sutras do try to minimize every word, so a double negative is meaningful. In ordinary algebra -1 x -1 = +1, and we can just use the +1, but here in this discussion, each minus sign cannot be neglected. Interesting. > Illusion is unfortunately a wrong translation of the word 'maaya' - > It is not like non-existent like barren woman' child - that part is > true. The analogy is exactly like the ring and the gold. Do you > call ring as illusion? Hence we have what is called subjective > objectification (praatibhaasika), objective objectification > (vyaavahaarika) and absolutely real (paaramaarthika). The first one > is 'I see it, therefore it is' and the second one is 'It is, > therefore I see it' - third is 'I SEE nothing else'. Example for >the > first one -I see a snake, therefore it is a snake; For the >second; I > see a rope, therefore it is rope and The third one is > self-consciousness 'I SEE I AM'. Although I have to be there to see > a snake or a rope, the vision of a snake on a rope is different >from > the vision of rope as a rope - is it not? The first one is > subjective objectification and the second one is objective > objectification (and third one - I am just using out of desperation- > objective subjectification!). The first one is more at a local >level > and second one at a global level and third one is at >absolute level. > The commonly understood illusion is may fall more >close to the first > one. I think this is why the words 'Subjective Idealism' have caused problems. To many it seems just like the mind superposing the snake on the rope, i.e. total illusion, something that is utterly imaginary, Let us forget about the words 'Subjective Idealism', since they only confuse this audience. However, one Western word we cannot forget about is 'matter'. After all, you are a physicist, so you must deal with this concept. It was interesting to me that Professor Krishnamurthy, a few days ago, could think that matter was conscious. To me, this is a total contradiction of the very definition of 'matter', and it shows how far apart we can be in our definitions of simple words. This discussion may seem boring or repetitive to you, but it is crucial if you wish to persuade the 'common sense' man of the truth of Advaita. And I cannot believe that this common sense man is only Western. The Indian common sense man must also think this way (i.e. in terms of material objects outside of consciousness, even if he uses different terminology). It is the normal way to see the world. It is also Dvaita and Samkhya, if I am not mistaken. May I respectfully request that you read the following two paragraphs very carefully, as it is the essence of the discussion, as far as I am concerned. Yes, I do want to verify once and for all that Advaita denies 'matter' or 'material objects'. I will define 'matter' once again. When I look at an apple (in my ordinary 'dualistic' state of consciousness), it seems that there is a 'lump of mass' OUTSIDE of my consciousness which is the 'real' apple. It seems that light bounces off of this apple and strikes my eyeballs, producing an *image* of the apple that is *within* my consciousness (i.e. a perception of a round red shape). The lump of mass 'out there' and the perception in my consciousness seem to be *two different things*. This is how the world seems to many, many people, not just Westerners. It is 'common sense'. However, Advaita says something different, if I am not mistaken. It says that there is ONLY the red perception or image in consciousness. This perception is like the ROPE; it is the reality in consciousness. The SNAKE occurs when we *superpose* the following idea upon the perception, that is, when we think: 'This image in my consciousness is only an image of the lump of mass out there [outside of consciousness] which is the *real* apple.' This is how I understand Advaita. The reality (rope) is the perception within consciousness. The illusion (snake) is the idea of the mind which *projects* the perception to an (imaginary) world of material objects *outside* of consciousness. This 'projection' consists of saying that the 'reality' is the material object 'out there' which produced the red image or perception in my consciousness. Note that this illusory matter is NOT considered to be consciousness, since it is taken to be 'outside' of consciousness. Now, according to my philosophy (subjective idealism), this is NOT what I believe. It is only how the world SEEMS to me when I am in my 'common sense' frame of mind, which is also what you call Vyavaharika. In reality, there is only consciousness (e.g. only the perception), and there is NO MATERIAL WORLD OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. The latter is a pure fantasy or superposition of the mind (adhyasa) upon the perceptions. The denial of the material world is essential to Advaita, because it is seen as unconscious (i.e. outside of consciousness). This would mean that something exists which is not Brahman, who is Consicousness by definition. Do you see now why it is essential to 'kill' the concept of matter. It is directly contradictory to the essence of the Vedas. And as a physicist, you should address this notion of matter, as it is essential to the 'scientific' view of the world (although perhaps a very few 'advanced' physicists have moved beyond this). I'll stop here. How does this sound to you? Thank you and Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Hi Benjamin, Couldn't resist butting in here since I find all this sort of stuff as interesting as you do and I wanted to check that my understanding is correct before seeing Sada's response (it's called putting my neck on the line, I think)! I think that your problem arises through trying to understand what Advaita is saying in terms of your understanding of Western ideas such as those of Berkeley. I think that your concern of whether Advaita denies the existence of matter is a non-issue. Advaita does not really differentiate between the so-called object and our perception of it. In reality (paramarthika) both are effectively snakes being imposed on ropes, as it were. <<Yes, I do want to verify once and for all that Advaita denies 'matter' or 'material objects'. I will define 'matter' once again. When I look at an apple (in my ordinary 'dualistic' state of consciousness), it seems that there is a 'lump of mass' OUTSIDE of my consciousness which is the 'real' apple.>> There is nothing outside of Consciousness for Advaita, because everything IS Consciousness. <<It seems that light bounces off of this apple and strikes my eyeballs, producing an *image* of the apple that is *within* my consciousness (i.e. a perception of a round red shape). The lump of mass 'out there' and the perception in my consciousness seem to be *two different things*. This is how the world seems to many, many people, not just Westerners. It is 'common sense'.>> It may be common sense but then the truth is often counter-intuitive! Advaita tells us there are not 'two things' under any circumstance. <<However, Advaita says something different, if I am not mistaken. It says that there is ONLY the red perception or image in consciousness. This perception is like the ROPE; it is the reality in consciousness. The SNAKE occurs when we *superpose* the following idea upon the perception, that is, when we think: 'This image in my consciousness is only an image of the lump of mass out there [outside of consciousness] which is the *real* apple.'>> The red perception is a red snake superimposed upon the rope of Consciousness. The apple object is an apple-snake superimposed upon the rope of Consciousness. In truth there is neither red perception nor apple object; there is only Consciousness. <<This is how I understand Advaita. The reality (rope) is the perception within consciousness. The illusion (snake) is the idea of the mind which *projects* the perception to an (imaginary) world of material objects *outside* of consciousness. This 'projection' consists of saying that the 'reality' is the material object 'out there' which produced the red image or perception in my consciousness. Note that this illusory matter is NOT considered to be consciousness, since it is taken to be 'outside' of consciousness.>> There can be nothing 'outside' of Consciousness. <<Now, according to my philosophy (subjective idealism), this is NOT what I believe. It is only how the world SEEMS to me when I am in my 'common sense' frame of mind, which is also what you call Vyavaharika. In reality, there is only consciousness (e.g. only the perception), and there is NO MATERIAL WORLD OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. The latter is a pure fantasy or superposition of the mind (adhyasa) upon the perceptions.>> Yes, but this does not mean that there is no world, just that this world, too, is nothing but Consciousness and any other concept, perception or whatever that thinks otherwise is simply another superimposed snake. Best wishes (awaiting correction with trepidation), Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > Couldn't resist butting in here ........ > but this does not mean that there is no world, just that this world, > too, is nothing but Consciousness and any other concept, perception or > whatever that thinks otherwise is simply another superimposed snake. > > Best wishes (awaiting correction with trepidation), > > Dennis Dennisji, Your 'butting in' came at the right time. I think the last three lines of your mail form the exact punchline that Benjaminji seems to miss in his presentation of advaita. praNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > However, one Western word we cannot forget about is 'matter'. After > all, you are a physicist, so you must deal with this concept. It was > interesting to me that Professor Krishnamurthy, a few days ago, could > think that matter was conscious. To me, this is a total > contradiction of the very definition of 'matter', and it shows how > far apart we can be in our definitions of simple words. Benjamin -here is where scripture becomes a pramaaNa and not the commonsense as pramaaNa. The first mahavaakya says: praj~naanam brahma - By defining Brahman one without a second and defining as consciousness, we are left with no alternative than to say that consciousness is the infiniteness and that is Brahman. Second these statements are confirmed again by saying that 'Existence' alone was there before creation - that is sat and that is Brahman and that Brahman is of the nature of consciousness by saying it saw- tad aikshataa - since inert things cannot see. Third it defines Brahman as the material cause too - by giving examples of the ornaments out of gold or mud pots out of mud or iron tools out of iron - all are in Ch. Up. This is further confirmed in Ti. Up saying that the Brahman is the material cause for the universe - yatova imaani bhuutaani jaayante ... >From which the whole world came, by which it is sustained and into which it goes back - that is Brahman. This is restated in different words in other places - from aatma only space came .. etc. 'Everything that is seen is Brahman'- and since that Brahman is of the nature of consciousness is already established it becomes imperative to think there cannot be 'anything' other than consciousness. But given the scriptural statement and given also the common sense experience that does not seem to agree with the scriptural statement, one has to question the validity of each since they seem to be contradictory. Since scripture cannot be wrong, one has to reexamine ones experience and that is where the correct epistemological understanding of the knowledge of the experience comes in. Vedanta paribhaasha (VP)correctly states that what is seen is in consciousness and the seer I (notion that I am seeing this) is also in consciousness, since I am conscious of both. Seeing is immediate and direct - and hence it is called aparoksha j~naanam. The VP concludes that immediacy comes from the fact that both (seer and seen) are in consciousness - It is as though consciousness splits into two - seer consciousness and seen consciousness. It is easier to contemplate on seer than seen since seens keep changing(seen is nothing but the world out there. Hence from that point commonsense experience has to be analyzed and understood using scripture as basis for analysis. There is nothing wrong with commonsense experience but experience is not knowledge - knowledge comes from the analysis of experience - just like sun raise and sun set which is common experience and knowledge is sun neither raises nor sets. > This discussion may seem boring or repetitive to you, but it is > crucial if you wish to persuade the 'common sense' man of the truth > of Advaita. And I cannot believe that this common sense man is only > Western. The discussion is interesting and if you promise me to correct my English version of the notes that I am preparing I will send it to you before I post it- this is the one I started writing in response to our friend Dwaitin JNm. I will read the rest of the paragraphs perhaps tomorrow night since I have to attend a workshop outside NRL and will not be back to NRL till monday. Hari OM! Sadananda > May I respectfully request that you read the following two paragraphs > very carefully, as it is the essence of the discussion, as far as I > am concerned. > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 May be this post came already - since I did not see it I am posting again- getting old I guess! Sadananda --- bhaskar.yr wrote: > From the above it is clear > that > from the empirical point of view mAyA is the causal potentiality of > the > world, projected by avidyA or superimposition. Bhaskar - we need to be clear here - avidya is jadam and by itself cannot project any thing. When we say ignorance is the cause for projection of a snake - it does not mean ignorance has the capacity to project. Only chaitanya swaruupa can project. But ignorance becomes a subsidiary cause but it is neither material or intelligent cause for projection of plurality. Hence maaya is considered as parameshawara shakti - and shakti lies with chaitanya swaruupa. Since it is parameswara shakti - you can call it as liila vibhuuti too. >It is but a special > aspect > of brahman which evolves itself into the world. But brahman in its > true & > real nature is above all modification. Again one has to be careful. Brahma is one without a second hence infinite. Infiniteness cannot have any attributes either. If you say it is a special aspect, it may be considered as special qualification. The fundamental problem is since jiiva has a notion that there is a world out there as ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Bhaskar - we need to be clear here - avidya is jadam and by itself cannot project any thing. When we say ignorance is the cause for projection of a snake - it does not mean ignorance has the capacity to project. Only chaitanya swaruupa can project. But ignorance becomes a subsidiary cause but it is neither material or intelligent cause for projection of plurality. Hence maaya is considered as parameshawara shakti - and shakti lies with chaitanya swaruupa. Since it is parameswara shakti - you can call it as liila vibhuuti too. > praNAm prabhuji, Hare Krishna, I am bit confused here. If you say mAyA is a potential positive entity then we will have to accept the concept of mulAvidyA. Whereas mAyA as I said in the other thread (Thread name: Weapon of mass destruction (Request)) that there is only one ultimate reality & i.e. brahman He himself regarded as many through avidyA, just as a magician on account of his mAyA is looked upon to be many. Prabhuji, I think shankara uses both words *mAyA* & *avidyA* in different context. *mAyA* he describes as avidyAkrita/avidyAtmika and it is imagined thing of avidyA. Both these words (avidyA & mAyA) are not synonyms. Hence, root cause of the creation from the empirical point of view, cannot be directly attributed to *avidyA* since srushti is causal potentiality of mAyA which in turn avidyAkrita. Again one has to be careful. Brahma is one without a second hence infinite. Infiniteness cannot have any attributes either. If you say it is a special aspect, it may be considered as special qualification. > No prabhuji, for this shruti itself gives us the further clarity in chandOgya upanishad by saying all this universe has it alone (paramArtha tattva) as its essence, that alone is real. *Pure Being* along which created the universe is strictly real, & that alone is the genuine Atman. By implication the universe is comparatively unreal. We can find the similar verses in Sri GaudapadAchAryA's mAndUkya kArika also there is neither creation nor dissolution, there is no mind born, since there is no object born etc. etc. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2003 Report Share Posted July 23, 2003 --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > However, one Western word we cannot forget about is 'matter'. After > all, you are a physicist, so you must deal with this concept. It was > interesting to me that Professor Krishnamurthy, a few days ago, could > think that matter was conscious. To me, this is a total > contradiction of the very definition of 'matter', and it shows how > far apart we can be in our definitions of simple words. Just continuing the topic of discussion, the problem with the physicist is he excludes himself in the analysis of 'idam' or this - what you call matter (by the by I am a mater-Engineer (materials scientist) rather than physicist. But Vedanta says you can not exclude the subject in analyzing the object. The reason is the object does not say 'I am there' - or the existence of the object cannot be independently established without the subject present - since it is matter and not conscious entity. Hence any analysis that excludes all the three factors - experience, experienced and experiencing or knower, known and knowing - will be incomplete at best. For transactional purposes (vyavahaarika) it is O.K. but if the physicists try to analyze the system without taking complete data then it can lead to erroneous conclusion. Since analysis of subject tend towards subjective analysis we need to establish a proper accepted method of objective enquiry of the subject- and that is precisely where scriptures provide working hypotheses to proceed for valid enquiry. As one goes in to finer analysis of the idam - you reach a level that observer in the very observation interferes with the observed and even the so-called physicist's analysis of the objective world becomes limited. > This discussion may seem boring or repetitive to you, but it is > crucial if you wish to persuade the 'common sense' man of the truth > of Advaita. And I cannot believe that this common sense man is only > Western. The Indian common sense man must also think this way (i.e. > in terms of material objects outside of consciousness, even if he > uses different terminology). It is the normal way to see the world. > It is also Dvaita and Samkhya, if I am not mistaken. > > May I respectfully request that you read the following two paragraphs > very carefully, as it is the essence of the discussion, as far as I > am concerned. > > Yes, I do want to verify once and for all that Advaita denies > 'matter' or 'material objects'. I will define 'matter' once again. > When I look at an apple (in my ordinary 'dualistic' state of > consciousness), it seems that there is a 'lump of mass' OUTSIDE of my > consciousness which is the 'real' apple. It seems that light bounces > off of this apple and strikes my eyeballs, producing an *image* of > the apple that is *within* my consciousness (i.e. a perception of a > round red shape). The lump of mass 'out there' and the perception in > my consciousness seem to be *two different things*. This is how the > world seems to many, many people, not just Westerners. It is 'common > sense'. Benjamin you need to be very careful here in terms of what Advaita really says. It does not really deny matter - it accounts for the matter. The problem is in your very questioning, you have already validated the apple, light, seer of the apple as different from the seen apple etc. you are analyzing the observation by an observer of the observed. The very fact there is analysis involved, you have taken for granted that there is something to analyze different from the analyst. That means you are already in the vyavahaara level. There is no problem in the analysis provided one uses the appropriate analysis to analyze the system. What advaita Vedanta says is that there is no objects independent of the consciousness - since one can separate the objects but not the analyst, he becomes more fundamental than the objects that are analyzed. What is involved is not dismissal of the matter but understanding that matter is nothing but thought in the mind and thought in the mind is nothing but consciousness that pervades both seer thought and seen thought - that is where correct epistemological analysis is required. Does advaita Vedanta denies matter - yes/no. It does not deny at the vyavahaara level but only at paaramaarthika level it explains that it is all apparent projection within the consciousness. > However, Advaita says something different, if I am not mistaken. It > says that there is ONLY the red perception or image in consciousness. I think I have explained above from my understanding. > This perception is like the ROPE; it is the reality in consciousness. > The SNAKE occurs when we *superpose* the following idea upon the > perception, that is, when we think: 'This image in my consciousness > is only an image of the lump of mass out there [outside of > consciousness] which is the *real* apple.' Benjamin - here we need to go into the analysis of errors in perception - in examining the snake vision versus rope vision and validation process and what is exactly involved - these have been extensively treated by all acharya-s as khyaati vaada-s. Advaita does not deny the experience but analyses the experiences at three levels - paaramaarthika level or absolute level and there is denial of 'every thing' or matter there, except the one who is denying. At vyaavahaarika level, rope is there as much as the seer of the rope. And finally at praatibhaasika level - even snake is there for the seer of the snake. Each vision gets negated in steps as we have more valid knowledge. Validation involves analysis of the prior perceptions and not denial of those. Snake gets invalidated with the vision of rope and even rope gets invalidated in the correct vision of oneself. This is true even for Veda-s too as some dvaitin was questioning - (I did not want to respond to him since he said he learned from an advaitin teacher - I don’t know if I have to blame the teacher or the student for his wrong understanding of the advaita doctrine). > > This is how I understand Advaita. The reality (rope) is the > perception within consciousness. The illusion (snake) is the idea of > the mind which *projects* the perception to an (imaginary) world of > material objects *outside* of consciousness. This 'projection' > consists of saying that the 'reality' is the material object 'out > there' which produced the red image or perception in my > consciousness. Note that this illusory matter is NOT considered to > be consciousness, since it is taken to be 'outside' of consciousness. > > Now, according to my philosophy (subjective idealism), this is NOT > what I believe. It is only how the world SEEMS to me when I am in my > 'common sense' frame of mind, which is also what you call > Vyavaharika. In reality, there is only consciousness (e.g. only the > perception), and there is NO MATERIAL WORLD OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS. > The latter is a pure fantasy or superposition of the mind (adhyasa) > upon the perceptions. Benjamin what you said is right from the paaramaarthika level and at that level there is nothing other than consciousness -just as denying the sun raise and sun set, yet enjoying the sun raise and sun set that is not there! > > The denial of the material world is essential to Advaita, because it > is seen as unconscious (i.e. outside of consciousness). This would > mean that something exists which is not Brahman, who is Consciousness > by definition. Do you see now why it is essential to 'kill' the > concept of matter. It is directly contradictory to the essence of > the Vedas. And as a physicist, you should address this notion of > matter, as it is essential to the 'scientific' view of the world > (although perhaps a very few 'advanced' physicists have moved beyond > this). > Sorry - it is not denial of the matter but understanding of the matter - Is denial of sun raise and sun set essential for physicists - No he need to understand the sun raise and sun set when there is no sun raise and sun set. Do I have to 'kill' the concept of sun raise and sun set. I want to enjoy it - If you have been to some Greek islands (of course at Govt. expense) you can see beautiful sun raise and sun set). It is more fun to enjoy knowing very well there is really nothing to enjoy - why kill the fun! Advaita makes you live your life fully, beautifully knowing that matter is really not there (only) at absolute level - how does that matter? Look at the life of Krishna - he enjoyed every minute of it particularly he was surrounded by beautiful gopies in Bridaavan and many wives in the dwaraka - yet he is called 'anaadi brahmachaari' - eternal bachelor. > I'll stop here. How does this sound to you? I too -sounds beautiful from my perspective. Hari OM! Sadananda > > Thank you and Hari Om! > Benjamin > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. 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.