Regarding Sada and BSB (CONCLUSION!)

July 23, 2003

Namaste

The word CONCLUSION is to alert you that I do not wish to pursue this

discussion, any more than the extremely industrious and generous

Sadanandaji wishes to! I am only presenting my conclusions, for your

interest. Thank you, again, Sadanandaji for your heroic efforts.

As I tried to explain before, you are not just answering me, you are

answering all of Western Civilization (and those who fall under its

intellectual influence ... and they are many, even in India) who use

concepts such as 'matter' to understand the world. It is clear that

most of our confusion has revolved around this troublesome word. You

many argue that such 'Western' words should not be introduced here,

but as I just said, you must address Western thinking to some extent,

whether you like it or not, unless you wish to remain a rather

insular and irrelevant group, which is not a very generous attitude

if you truly believe in the value of Advaita for all humanity. And

'matter' is an *essential* word and concept that you must deal with

at some point. It is like going to the dentist. You have to do it

sometime, and I helped you get it over with!

Most importantly, it is clear that Sada and I DO INDEED AGREE on the

essence of Advaita. Only, he seems unable to understand the word

'matter' and why I am trying to 'kill' it. Quite surprising from a

physicist, but more about that later!

Most of the rest of this message simply agrees with 99% of what

Dennis and Sada say, but why not glance at it anyway, for the fun of

it?

DENNIS said:

>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.

Thank you very much for 'butting in' (to use your words), since I

think that this comment (if correct) TOTALLY 'NAILS' THE QUESTION

that has been puzzling (nay, tormenting) me. (Note to Indians: to

'nail' in this context means to resolve by getting to the essence.)

Only, I was worried, because of the passages in Brahma-Sutras Bashyas

(II,2,28) where Shankara seemed to be refuting the 'idealistic'

Buddhists and therefore by implication affirming some kind of

'realism', i.e. some kind of reality to the objective material world

independent of my consciousness. This was a perfectly reasonable

conclusion for me to draw, and quite distressing to any Advaitic view

of reality. Fortunately, Sada came to my rescue.

>There is nothing outside of Consciousness for Advaita, because

>everything IS Consciousness.

Right you are, Dennis! And this is what I call 'idealism'. More

particularly, 'subjective idealism', as Kant's 'transcendental

idealism' surely posits a noumenal world outside of consciousness

(which is false), and Hegel's 'objective idealism' is unclear to me.

Anyhow, we don't care about Western philosophy here.

>It may be common sense but then the truth is often counter-intuitive!

>Advaita tells us there are not 'two things' under any circumstance.

Right again! My reason for talking of light rays bouncing off of

material apples was to show how 'common sense' people think. Sada

also failed to understanding that I was talking about a point of view

not my own.

>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.

I certainly agree that the material apple object is unreal and a mere

superposition upon Consciousness. The red perception is a bit

trickier. I certainly agree with you if you are viewing the red

perception as any kind of an object within consciousness, as when we

say 'I see a red perception' (which seems to imply an I distinct

from the red perception). However, to me, the fact that the red

perception is clearly and absolutely within consciousness makes it

nonsensical to speak of it as any kind of object. For me, 'object'

refers to the hypothetical and erroneous material objects. My views

on perception are like Hume's, who cannot distinguish between the

'self' who sees perceptions and the perceptions themselves. Now,

Advaita sometimes says we should be saying 'Neti, neti' to the mind

as well as the body, and this presumably includes the perceptions in

the mind. I maintain that this is only at the vyavaharika level. At

the paramarthika level, there is nothing (no distinct thing) to be

denied, as you keep saying.

>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.

Now this is getting into semantics rather like Sada's below. On the

one hand you are denying the independent reality of the world at the

paramarthika level, but then you are saying, 'Well let's sort of keep

it for its entertainment value at the vyavaharika level'. OK, you

may play these semantic games, now that I understand that you don't

really mean it in any rigorous sense.

OK, on to SADANANDAJI:

>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.

Exactly. This is the 'idealism' (the only reality is consciousness)

that I have been maintaining all along. However, as I explained to

Dennis above, Shankara in BSB (II,2,28), by refuting the Buddhist

'idealists', seemed to be implying some kind of 'objective reality'

external to consciousness to the objects. This totally contradicts

Advaita, but you have exhaustively explained this, and I have no

doubt now about what you mean.

>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

Again, the same thing. I completely agree. There is only

Consciousness and no material world (according to the definition of

'matter' used by 99.9999999% of the educated world, Sri

Krishnamurthy!)

>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

Well, the words 'material cause' are very dangerous here, since you

seem to be slipping 'matter' back in. I know you say below that

matter exists at the vyavaharika level so you can enjoy sunsets, etc.

But to me that is semantical. Whenever I am discussing philosophy, I

am in the paramarthika level (or as close to it as I can get). You

can say that the vyavaharika level gives the illusion of a material

world a greater degree of 'reality' than the 'praatibhaasika' level

of snake on rope or barren woman's child. I guess that is true in a

sense, but they are still both illusions in that they say that

something is real which is not. Different degrees of illusion are

still illusion, at least if you are a philosopher like me.

>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.

Yes, this is exactly what I have been saying many times. The

subject/object split is falsely superposed by the conceptual mind

upon the immediate reality of consciousness. As I have said, my

reasons are quite similar to the Western philosopher 'Hume', if

anybody cares. I mention this in case I am not clear to somebody who

may also have read and understood Hume.

>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

As I told Dennis above, my discussion of the light rays bouncing off

the apple was from the point of view of the 'common sense' person who

believes in the reality of the material world external to

consciousness. I made this very clear when I discussed it, so you

should not make it seem as though this is my argument. Anyway, I

agree that the model of 'light rays bouncing off of apple and

striking eyes' can only be understood within the context of the

consciousness contemplating that model. This is true of ANY model.

In other words, I am agreeing with you. When we even *imagine* a

model of light rays striking apple etc., that very model is within

our imagination and hence within our consciousness. You cannot

imagine any model without there being a consciousness doing the

imagining. There is no knowledge of any kind whatsoever with the

Consciousness in the background sustaining that very knowledge. I

think we agree completely.

>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.

Once again I am annoyed that you did not realize that I was arguing

from the materialistic common-sense scientist's point of view, not my

own. I made that very clear when I wrote those words. But I will

forgive you, because I am so happy with your overall arguments. :-)

>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 are

>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

This is just like before. Again I agree completely. (And again, it

was not Benjamin the Philosopher who is at the vyavaharika level but

the scientist being described by Benjamin the Philosopher. Benjamin

is always at the paramarthika level, at least in his philosophical

thoughts, if not in his actual realization, which is something else

altogether.)

>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.

Again, more semantics. If you want to say that an illusion is

'real' for the one who is hypnotized by the illusion, well that is a

new meaning to the world 'reality' as far as I am concerned. This is

not to deny that when hypnotized, the illusion seems very real. But

the philosopher standing outside knows better. Anyhow, use the word

'reality' as you wish, provided you are clear.

>Benjamin what you said is right from the paaramaarthika level and at

>that level there is nothing other than consciousness ...

Right!

>Sorry - it is not denial of the matter but understanding of the

>matter - Is denial of sun rise and sun set essential for physicists

>- >No he need to understand the sun rise and sun set when there is no

>sun rise and sun set. Do I have to 'kill' the concept of sun rise

>and >sun set? I want to enjoy it - If you have been to some Greek

>islands

As a tourist, you may wallow in the illusion for your entertainment.

But as a philosopher you should remain at the paramarthika level 24

hours a day, 7 days a week, for ever and ever, beyond the end of time

(which never existed anyway).

>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.

Ah, I am glad you mentioned this titillating topic. I was wondering

if you were perhaps the super-serious Brahmin guru who is a bit

embarrassed by all the gopi stories. Well, one day I will find out

what that gopi stuff is all about, but for the moment I have much

more serious business, namely, hammering out all this philosophy!!!

Professor Krishnamurthy:

>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.

Profess VK, I see that we all understand Advaita after all, you, me,

Sada, Dennis, everybody here... That is excellent. But you clearly

did not understand the world 'matter' when I first used it, and your

redefinition of it to include consciousness was totally illegitimate,

even for a mathematician! Anyhow, please forget about that

troublesome Western word and just stick to the Advaita.

Om!

Benjamin

July 24, 2003

Hi Benjamin,

Just to make one final attempt to clarify one of the points which still

seems to be troublesome!

You say "On the one hand you are denying the independent reality of the

world at the paramarthika level, but then you are saying, 'Well let's sort

of keep it for its entertainment value at the vyavaharika level'. OK, you

may play these semantic games, now that I understand that you don't really

mean it in any rigorous sense."

It is not a semantic game. You still seem to be implying that you believe

that, at the paramarthika level, a 'realised man' will not see any external

world only Consciousness. I don't know what you imagine this might be like.

Alan Watts used to talk about it as an 'amorphous mass of jello' or

something! Of course, at the paramarthika level there can be no realised man

in the first place so perhaps the discussion is 'only for entertainment' but

then presumably you acknowledge the existence of Sages such as Nisargadatta

and Ramana in recent times and that there are people alive who will claim to

have seen them and been seen (acknowledged) by them. How can these Sages

have seen people when they knew that there is nothing other than

Consciousness?

This is why I repeated the metaphor of the rock sculptures recently. You

still seem to be missing the point of this. It is that you and I see the

faces in the rock but without the deep knowledge that there is only rock. We

still see the faces as somehow separate from the rock. The Sage on the other

hand also sees the faces but the key point is that he never sees them as at

all separate from the rock.

In the metaphor, the faces stand for all objects, whether gross such as your

apple or subtle such as your mental impressions of the apple (redness,

roundness etc.). The rock itself, of course, stands for Consciousness.

Hope this clarifies the issue once and for all!

Best wishes,

Dennis

July 24, 2003

Namaste!

Oh my gosh! I really, really wanted to drop this subject. But I

must make a brief comment to Dennis' pertinent point:

>It is not a semantic game. You still seem to be implying that you

>believe that, at the paramarthika level, a 'realised man' will

>not >see any external world only Consciousness. I don't know what

>you >imagine this might be like. Alan Watts used to talk about it as

>an >'amorphous mass of jello' or something!

I totally agree that the realized person can live in the world and

interact with the world, and there is no amorphous mass of jello.

Nobody hates jello more than I do!

I am not a realized person, so I can only try to understand jnanas

such as Ramana as best I can. One thing is clear: the distinction

between subject and object is transcended! They all say this! There

is no more I, you, he, she, it, world, God, ... It all 'melts' into

one undivided reality called Consciousness. And this is associated

with bliss and ecstasy, which is why we should care about it in the

first place! (Very selfish, isn't it?!)

At the same time, I completely agree that the 'shapes and colors'

remain in some sense. In fact, I am quite sure that the colors

become more intense and the whole 'world' becomes more beautiful and

a shining manifestation of 'God' or Brahman.

So ultimately, we are talking about states of ecstasy where the raw

material of our consciousness is *interpreted* differently than we

normally do. And this 'nondual' state of consciousness doesn't just

happen to saints. Sometimes 'ordinary' people can snap into that

state for no apparent reason. There are even reports of being able

to stimulate it with magnetic fields! Then there's drugs, but please

stay away from those!

Anyhow, it is ultimately an 'experience', that must be experienced to

be fully understood. A blind man cannot imagine colors. As I try to

imagine it to the best of my ability, I can only compare it to gazing

at the starry skies and feeling 'one' with the beauty and majesty of

the heavens. I think we have all had this experience to some extent.

If someone on this list is a better poet than I am, please send us a

poem!

By the way, your analogy to the rock sculptures may work as a kind of

poetic analogy. I was only saying that it doesn't quite stand up to

hardheaded 'scientific' analysis. But do you think Ramana would have

cared?!! :-)

I hope that does it for this discussion!

Hari Om!

Benjamin

July 24, 2003

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

Are you kidding? Do you really want to drop this subject? Scientific

evidence indicates, it is very unlikely!

Your statement resembles the common expression from a smoker who

claims - "I have a credible record, and for the 100th time, I have

stopped smoking!!"

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste!

>

> Oh my gosh! I really, really wanted to drop this subject. But I

> must make a brief comment to Dennis' pertinent point:

>

July 24, 2003

Benjmin

A word of caution- Any conclusion is not conclusive. It could be a sign

of blocking the mind from further enquiry of the truth.

I may be repeating like parrot. But that I do not mind either since I

have been doing that as my teacher taught me that too.

I think Dennis got it right.

There is some sort of contradition in your statement Benjamin if you

look carefuly without concluding. You cannot stand apart like a

philosopher and ignore the beauty of the sun raise and sun set - By that

very process you are providing a reality to it which is not there. It

is transcending the experience of the sun raise while experiencing it

and enjoying it. It is in your consciousness and therefore you cannot

ignore it. Rememebr it is not real but it is not unreal either - and

that is the whole point of the suutra. There is a seer and the seen

inspite of the realization that seer and seen are both consciousness-

The difference is there between the seer and seen and one need to

undersand that the difference is only an apparent and not real - It is

not dismissal or ignorance of the experience-experienced but

undersanding of the experience-experienced duality. Hence it is j~naanam

or vij~naanam involved. Hence the emphasis of the suutra we are

discussing that it is not non-real. There is so much of thought went

into it in formulating that suutra - since it says it is upalabdeH - it

is experienced. Therefore what is involved is the understanding of the

experience. That is exactly what I meant by enjoying the beauty of sun

raise and sun set while knowing that sun does not raise or set. We are

not seeking advaitic experience - we are seeking advaitic understanding.

Hope 'I am' clear before you conclude.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Namaste

>

> The word CONCLUSION is to alert you that I do not wish to pursue this

> discussion, any more than the extremely industrious and generous

> Sadanandaji wishes to! I am only presenting my conclusions, for your

> interest. Thank you, again, Sadanandaji for your heroic efforts.

>

=====

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

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

July 25, 2003

Namaste:

Sri Benjamin has been tirelessly discussing his pet

topic, "Benjamin's non-duality theorem" or "subjective idealism" for

quite sometime in this list. His discussions concentrated mostly on

the theme that "Shankara's advaita philosophy" necessarily

implies "subjective idealism." I fully understand and respect his

deep conviction while making his assertions. I strongly believe that

he has every right to postulate and propagate his theories. I also

admire his deep interest in Shankara's advaita philosophy and his

enthusiasm to learn it thoroughly. His posts and discussions also

give me the impression that he doesn't seem to appreciate others to

refute his pet theories and philosophies. Knowing his deep

conviction to what he believes, that didn't surprise me at all.

Here are some examples on his persuasive approach in convincing

others to accept his theology:

(Subject Re: Regarding Sada and BSB (CONCLUSION!))

In his recent reply to Sadaji, he states:

" Well, the words 'material cause' are very dangerous here, since you