Question to Ananda Wood: What do you think of idealism?

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Aha! So Sri Ananda Wood may be participating in this list. Or is his

one message posted today a flash in the pan? Maybe that depends on

how we treat him. I will try my luck and see if I can get a brief

answer from him on a topic that is dear to my heart, namely,

philosophical idealism.

 

Discussions along these lines generated much verbiage on this list

before, with more heat than light, and I certainly do not wish to

repeat that. I would just love to see some kind of brief statement

from him, or a reference to something else he wrote. I have read

some of what he wrote on the Upanishads, but found no unambiguous

philosophical viewpoints in the little that I have read so far. He

seems more 'literary' than philosophical. Nevertheless, he may have

some views.

 

Of course, a term such as 'philosophical idealism' is loaded and has

many different meanings. You can forget about Kant and Hegel, for

example. The closest my version of idealism comes to is Berkeley,

but I do not agree with everything he says either.

 

In order to focus the question, let me put it this way. Do you not

think that the Mahavakyas logically imply that only Consciousness

exists? Brahman is Consciousness, and Brahman is 'One without a

second.' Put those two together, and the result is that 'All is

Consciousness.'

 

You might say, 'Of course!', but this has implications. Please take

note of this. One corollary is that there is no such thing as

'matter' and the proper view of the world is that it is a 'dream'

quite literally, not just in some figurative way. Mahayana and

Advaita frequently use the dream example, and I consider this just

one piece of powerful evidence of a common underlying spiritual

vision.

 

If you wish, you can read more about my philosophical views, in

Sections I and II of my essay on 'Indian Nondualism' at

 

http://www.benjaminroot.com/Philosophy/Hinduism/IndianNondualism.html

 

The main theme of that essay is that there is a common spiritual

vision underlying Advaita, Mahayana and even Early Buddhism, namely,

a nondual idealism. I discussed that before on this list, expecting

only the Early Buddhism portion to be controversial. Instead,

everyone on this list seemed to feel a deep urge to draw a sharp line

between Advaita and any school of Mahayana. I can't help feeling

that there is a bit of 'politics' in this (i.e. rivalry of some

kind), but that is only my impression. One would expect 'saints' to

emphasize whatever underlying unity is there rather than the

superficial differences, mostly of cultural origin. I also thought

that such an enlightened and open-minded attitude was in the spirit

of Hinduism.

 

Anyhow, to Sri Ram, I assure you that I have no desire to revive the

same old long-winded and useless debates here. I would just like

some kind of brief statement from somebody who most likely has some

kind of significant spiritual experience, whatever that might be.

 

And I know that philosophy alone does not advance one spiritually.

No need to remind me of that. I am just wondering if Ananda has an

opinion.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

I am quite hopeful that Sri Ananda Wood would reply to your request

and provide his insights on 'Idealism as characterized by you.' I may

like to follow Sri Ranjit and call your theology by using the more

appropriate term 'Benjaminism.'

 

I believe that your statement, "I have no desire to revive the same

old long-winded and useless debates here" qualifies to be a

revealation or 'prasad' from His Grace for your excellent service

to 'clearvoid' list members. I have been longing for the

same 'prasad' but the Lord doesn't seem to hear my repeated appeals!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste!

>

> Aha! So Sri Ananda Wood may be participating in this list. Or is

his

> one message posted today a flash in the pan? Maybe that depends on

> how we treat him. I will try my luck and see if I can get a brief

> answer from him on a topic that is dear to my heart, namely,

> philosophical idealism.

> ............

> Anyhow, to Sri Ram, I assure you that I have no desire to revive

the

> same old long-winded and useless debates here. I would just like

> some kind of brief statement from somebody who most likely has some

> kind of significant spiritual experience, whatever that might be.

>

> And I know that philosophy alone does not advance one spiritually.

> No need to remind me of that. I am just wondering if Ananda has an

> opinion.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Benjamin

 

In response to your question, I must confess that I have not read any

'philosophical idealists' in any depth or detail. So I can only give you a

general sort of answer, as an advaita sadhaka who looks at idealist

philosophies from the outside. Generally, the idealist position seems to be

useful, in as far as it goes, which is to show that objective matter can't

exist independent of ideas.

 

But what, in turn, about ideas? Basically, an idea is a thought or a concept

about something. It is an intermediate knowing, in between a self that knows

and an object that is known. The mind is thus consciousness going out

towards objects, and an idea is essentially the knowing of an object. Since

objects can't appear unless they're known, it is clear that they have no

independent existence. No object is ever experienced by itself. It is always

experienced along with knowledge. An object on its own is only imagined by

thought. What's actually experienced is knowledge of the object, which is an

idea. That's as far as idealism goes. It reduces objects to ideas. And

monist idealism goes on to reduce all objects to just one idea, which

comprehends the entire universe.

>From an advaita view, no such idealism can go far enough, not even monist

idealism. Having established that objects don't exist outside of knowing,

one needs to consider further what is meant by the 'knowing of an object'.

Since the object has no independent existence, it brings in nothing from

outside. Its appearance cannot add to the knowing; nor can its disappearance

take anything away. As objects appear and disappear, they mix nothing from

outside into consciousness, and they can make no difference to it. There is

in fact no outside, and therefore no inside as well. There is nothing but

unmixed and unchanging consciousness, shown in common by all differing

appearances and disappearances.

 

It follows thus that consciousness is the complete reality of all that's

known. Or, as you summed it up in your conclusion from the mahavakyas: 'All

is Consciousness.' But this is still in the realm of monistic idealism. And

there is still a trace of duality in it. When we say 'All is Consciousness',

this 'Consciousness' is still an idea, conceived by thinking in the mind. It

is a very subtle and a very comprehensive idea, conceived at a great depth

of mind, by very powerful and subtle thought. But it is still an idea of

mind, with a trace of objectivity mixed into it. A final question still

remains. It has not yet been rightly asked how consciousness is known.

 

That question leads to non-duality. Since consciousness is that which knows,

it can only be known in identity, by being what it is oneself. It is each

person's true identity, one's own true self. It is at once the self that

knows and the reality that's known. There, known and knower are at one, in

perfect peace and happiness. That is its non-duality, beyond all mind and

ideas.

 

In such an advaita view, there is a special use of philosophy and reasoning,

which it might help to clarify. Most people speak loosely of philosophy as

basic system-building -- which uses reason to lay out first principles, from

where we build up our explanations and descriptions and pictures of the

world. This kind of philosophy is theoretical. I think it's what you had in

mind when you said in your message that 'philosophy alone does not advance

one spiritually'. But I would suggest that this theoretical aspect is only

an outward and superficial appearance of philosophy.

 

The essence of philosophy is a reflective reasoning -- which does not build

our pictures up, but rather questions skeptically down. The questioning

takes reason down, into the basis of belief on which our pictures have been

founded. It questions down through underlying assumptions, in order to

remove what's false and thus to clarify what's true. Such questioning is the

actual practice of philosophy. Where it is genuine, it is inherently

practical, in taking one to clearer truth and understanding. And it requires

an eventual leap from theoretical descriptions and ideas, to some truth that

they express.

 

In order to compare different schools of thought, as you are attempting, one

has to know not just the ideas they present to the world outside, but also

how they use those ideas for their inward questioning. I am afraid I just

don't know enough about the schools you mention, to comment sensibly about

them.

 

With best wishes,

 

Ananda Wood

[Guest guest]

What a brilliant exposition from Shri Ananda. There are a couple of aspects

I would like to go into a bit more here for greater clarity - there seemed

just a slight hint of non sequitur or circularity that I would like to clear

up. But I presume that we want to hold off discussion until the October

topic - what was Benjamin thinking of raising this again in advance? Shame

on you Ben!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ananda Wood,

 

I posted my question on 24 August, and you answered on 27 August. I

confess that I only returned to the Advaitin List today (3 September)

for a very good reason: my great fear of being drawn into the Samsara

of verbose debate. Believe me, I know some of my own weaknesses!

Not to mention the mischievous baiting of others.

 

One thing that delights me is the following statement of yours:

>From an advaita view, no such idealism can go far enough,

>not even monist idealism.

 

This is such good news that I think I will 'quit while I'm ahead'.

The dear friends here gave me such a hard time over my sincere and

careful attempt to clarify Advaita in terms of a certain kind of

idealistic philosophy that it is most refreshing to finally encounter

someone who for once goes in the opposite direction and criticizes me

for not being idealistic enough.

 

Seriously, though, I did read your entire message carefully and found

it quite thoughtful. I could say a great deal more, but I think I'll

leave it at this. Suffice it to say that I entirely agree with the

further statements of yours:

>There is in fact no outside [of consciousness], and therefore

>no inside as well. There is nothing but unmixed and unchanging

>consciousness ...

>It [consciousnes] is at once the self that knows and the reality

>that's known. There, known and knower are at one, in perfect peace

>and happiness. That is its non-duality, beyond all mind and ideas.

 

Let me just say that my dear friend Sri Ram, whom I meet face to face

from time to time, is being perhaps a bit unfair in characterizing my

'theology' as 'Benjaminism'. Such a clever choice of words suggests

that I concocted some eccentric ideas of my own. However, I am quite

convinced that I correctly assembled a judicious sequence of ideas

from classical Western philosophy which go a long way toward making

the 'esoteric' knowledge of Advaita rather clear and comprehensible,

as far as can be done with mere ideas.

 

Just my opinion of course.

 

Anyhow, I cannot see how anything you said in your message is in

conflict with anything I ever said. May I permit myself the

indulgence of feeling encouraged? Of course, actual realization is

beyond any ideas, but I feel that the correct philosophical thinking

can help to clear away the 'cobwebs of the mind', such as our deeply

rooted belief in 'subject' and 'object' or 'self' and 'other'. As

far as I am concerned there is only the 'stream of consciousness'.

But as you correctly point out, any idea such as this runs the danger

of being objectified by the mind in some way, however subtle. We

must not start thinking of an actual stream!

 

That will do for this discussion of idealism, as far as I am

concerned. I have not yet checked to see if anyone else responded,

but I will not continue this discussion.

 

Thank you for joining this list. And I must say, you writings are

very enjoyable to read, in terms of their style, and the content is

not half-bad either! :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

Good to hear from you after a long absence. Sri Nair was also

anxiously looking for your insights on the on going discussions on

this month's topic. Your dear friends were trying their level best to

give you 'good' time and they didn't realize that you had a 'hard'

time.

 

Honestly, the term, "Benjaminism" is not my creation and it was

suggested by Sri Ranjit and I read it at your list! Also my objection

to your 'theology' not with reference to 'idealism' but mostly I

disagreed with you on your inappropriate equation (advaita =

buddhism). Shankara did not consider them equal and consequently your

theology needs a separate identity and the most appropriate is the

term, Benjaminism. I do not believe that your ideas are eccentric and

I have never said so in any of my posts. Please remove those

illusions and accept that each of us at the vyavaharika level will

likely perceive the 'paramarthika truth' differently.

 

Your discussions here in this list on 'idealism' is quite similar to

discussions previously conducted by Patrik Kenny during January to

August in the year 2000. He called it 'determinism' and he mostly

quoted ethics propogated by Spinoza. These discussions may be of

interest to you and they are available in the list archives.

 

Thread Titles:

Spinoza and the upanishads (August 2000)

Doing - me or God (August 2000)

Spinoza (January 2000)

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> The dear friends here gave me such a hard time over my sincere and

> careful attempt to clarify Advaita in terms of a certain kind of

> idealistic philosophy that it is most refreshing to finally

encounter

>

> ...

> Let me just say that my dear friend Sri Ram, whom I meet face to

face

> from time to time, is being perhaps a bit unfair in characterizing

my

> 'theology' as 'Benjaminism'. Such a clever choice of words

suggests

> that I concocted some eccentric ideas of my own.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

Your reference, "the dear friends here gave me such a hard time"

reminds an interesting episode that happened about 20 years back

during a discourse by Swami Sushil Muni (Jain Acharya). During the

question/answer session, one person asked Swamiji the following

question: "Swamiji, my friends and relatives always give me hardtime.

They kick me around, what should I do with them?" Swamiji had a big

smile and said: "One day Swami Vivekanda while walking across the

soccer field saw kids kicking and playing with a soccer ball. He

started watching the game from a distant corner. One of the boys

kicked the ball hard and ball fell right at the hands of Swamiji.

Suddenly, the ball turned and asked Swamiji, 'I hate being kicking

around and can you help me?' Swamiji said, everyone is kicking you

because you have too much air and if the air is completely removed,

no one will kick you around. After telling this, Swami Vivekananda

removed the air from the ball and no kid wanted to kick the ball

without the air!"

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> The dear friends here gave me such a hard time over my sincere and

> careful attempt to clarify Advaita in terms of a certain kind of

> idealistic philosophy

[Guest guest]

I hate being kicking around and can you help me?' Swamiji said, everyone is

kicking you because you have too much air and if the air is completely

removed,

no one will kick you around. After telling this, Swami Vivekananda

removed the air from the ball and no kid wanted to kick the ball

without the air!"

> praNAm prabhuji, hare krishna

> prabhuji, dont you think football shirking from its swadharma:-)) Its

swadharma is being kicked by others is it not?? Ofcourse, I know the moral

behind this story. Just thinking it in the other way!!

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram,

>After telling this, Swami Vivekananda removed the air from the ball

>and no kid wanted to kick the ball without the air!"

 

It sounds like you are saying I am full of hot air! That will not

bring me back. :-)

 

No, seriously, I always knew how to take a joke. The main reason I

was away from this list was because I was engrossed in my own. But

now I've put that on autopilot (i.e. light or no moderation), and it

seems to be working fine. Also, as I said yesterday, I am seriously

concerned about getting myself trapped again in the samsara of

verbose debate. That would be my fault, of course. Bad habits die

slowly.

 

What Sri Ananda said was quite thought provoking. I think he may

have provided a solution (or partial solution) to a problem that

bothered me on this list when I first came on board and which

generated tremendous discussion. The rest of this message will spell

this out. I hope Sri Ananda at least takes a look, even if he

(correctly) fears getting bogged down in discussion. I will try not

to answer if anyone answers to this!

 

Basically, I had agreed with Advaita that 'All is consciousness',

which I take to be the legitimate translation of one or more

mahavakyas. This does eliminate not only the material object

'outside' of consciousness, but also the more subtle objectification

that can occur within consciousness. That is, although we may agree

that our perceptions are not caused by some 'dead inert matter' that

is somehow 'outside' of consciousness, we may yet feel that the

perceptions themselves are somehow objects, as when we say 'I see a

perception.' I think that Sri Ananda was alluding to this. The

conceptual mind is so determined to see 'objects', i.e. entities that

are 'other' than the self (or Self), that even after eliminating the

material objects, it still tends to see the contents of the mind,

such as thoughts and perceptions, as objects. This fundamentally

violates the essence of Advaita, as I understand it. Brahman or

Consciousness is 'One without a second'.

 

Indeed, as I have often said, to me there is only the 'stream of

consciousness'. 'Subject' and 'object' are mere labels which always

refer to this same stream of consciousness, regardless of which

objects we are talking about. This is my basic understanding of

Advaitin nondualism, and if I am seriously wrong, then I ask you to

pray for me!

 

But the problem, as you remember, is that it seems to me that we are

each individually a stream of consciousness. Your thoughts and

feelings and pleasure and pain are not mine (or do not seem to be).

This seems to conflict with an uncompromising Advaitin nondualism,

which says that even the different streams of consciousness must all

ultimately be reflections of (or rather identical with) the one

Consciousness. (Even this 'One Consciousness' is better described as

'not two', since the word 'one' tends to make us think of some kind

of entity 'hanging in space' as it were, and then the surrounding

'space' seems to be something other than the One, which is incorrect

from an Advaitin point of view.)

 

So for me the problem was that 'reality' consists of different

streams of consciousness, and I saw no way to unite them into a

single Brahman. However, Sri Ananda said something interesting (if I

understood him correctly). He said I was not idealistic enough

(Thank you again Sri Ananda!) because in seeing everything as

'consciousness' (i.e. philosophical idealism) there was some

tendency, however subtle, to objectify that 'consciousness' in some

way, similar to what I mentioned above. This led me to think that my

picture of different streams of consciousness may incorporate that

subtle objectification in some way, and that fully comprehending this

error may be the solution to my problem. I will definitely think

about this some more.

 

Still, I insist that my pleasure and pain are not yours, or do not

seem to be, and this still remains an obstacle to me, as far as

'total advaita' is concerned.

 

Well, already Sri Ananda can see my tendency towards verbosity.

Actually, I would like to copy some of this over to my list at

 

clearvoid/

 

I know that I have the moderators' permission to copy over whatever

they say. If Sri Ananda objects to me copying over the answer he

gave on August 27 to my idealism question, then I hope he tells me on

this list or by email at my address, which he can find on my list.

If he takes a look at that list, I think he will agree that it

consists of a friendly and thoughtful group of people. I will wait

for a few days to give him time to read this and realize that I have

such an intention.

 

By the way, Sri Ram, there are good reasons for wanting to find an

underlying unity to Advaita and Buddhism. It is not just a pet

theory which I have become egoistically attached to. You will find

these reasons succinctly spelled out in the brief introduction to my

essay at

 

http://www.benjaminroot.com/Philosophy/Hinduism/IndianNondualism.html

 

in the form of a paragraph which I added since you first took a look.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

Honestly, the friends (including me) who give you the hardtime

perceive that they provide you 'goodtime!' As you correctly pointed

out, we all perceive differently inspite of the fact that there is

fundamental unity within the diversity. No one denies the fact that

you have very good reasons for wanting to finding the underlying

unity between advaita and buddhism. At the same time we can't ignore

the diversity of individual opinions.

 

As for as this list is concerned, the moderators do not mind other

lists taking materials from this list to facilitate reading and

discussing on those materials. Most of the authors who post here may

not object if the materials are reposted in other lists with

appropriate acknowledgement of authors and the source of the original

posting. But it is a good idea to contact the authors and inform them

that their articles have been reposted.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

> By the way, Sri Ram, there are good reasons for wanting to find an

> underlying unity to Advaita and Buddhism. It is not just a pet

> theory which I have become egoistically attached to.