October Discussion Topic / "Existence of Objects" / Intro

[Guest guest]

OCTOBER DISCUSSION TOPIC:

Existence or non-existence of objects in advaita vedanta.

 

TOPIC BEGINS:

Wednesday, October 1st, 2003.

 

DISCUSSION LEADER:

Greg Goode (other volunteers welcome!)

 

INTRODUCTION:

This question is closely related to the several theories of creation in advaita

vedanta: ajAti vAda (creation is not a real event), dRshTi-sRshTi vAda

(perception is simultaneous with creation), sRshTi-dRshTi vAda (what has been

created is perceived).

 

These are discussed quite well and succinctly here:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/creation.html

 

Let me add that one of the beauties of advaita vedanta is that it has a place

for each of these theories, according to the predispositions of the student. A

compassionate and skillful teacher will explain the scriptures naturally using

the theory that the student is ready for - perhaps compassionately and

skillfully leading the student to stretch his understanding.

 

APPROPRIATE SUB-TOPICS FOR THIS OVERALL "OBJECTS" THEME WOULD ALSO BE:

-Scriptural quotations and citations bearing on the overall topic

-Discussion of these three vAdas

-Can any of these vAdas be taught too soon? Too late?

-How were *you* taught these issues?

-What *is* an object?

-What is a subject?

-What do we mean by "exists"?

-What do we mean by "perception"? "cognition"?

 

OFF-TOPIC TOPICS:

I feel pretty open about what's on topic and off-topic. I'd like the discussion

to focus on what *advaita-vedanta* has to say on these issues. But it depends

partly on the feelings of the members, and I will try to be responsive.

Existence/non-existence has been discussed in other traditions, such as the West

and Buddhism. It's also been dealt with by modern popular neo-advaita teachers

who aren't strictly in the orthodox Shankaracharyan lineage. I think some

discussion of these traditions' approaches is appropriate. I will listen to the

direction of the discussions and the feelings of the members on this. I'd

rather have a lively discussion 30-degrees off-center than a moribund discussion

straight down the center of the topic.

 

See you Wednesday!

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

> -What do we mean by "exists"?

 

Vivekachoodaamani : if the world exists, let it exist in deep sleep!

[Guest guest]

vpcnk <vpcnk wrote:>  -What do we mean by

"exists"?

>Vivekachoodaamani : if the world exists, let it

>exist in deep sleep!

 

Namaste all,

etymologically: exists comes from: exsistere,

(ex-sistere), to come forth, to arise, to be.

'sistere' means to set, place, being the causal form

of 'stare', to stand. From there it is a simple step

to the Sanskrit root 'sta' of the same meaning.

 

Then I am reminded of the hymn that keeps coming back

for consideration for me at the moment although the

word translated as 'station' in RgVeda 10.177.1 is

pada:

'The sapient with their spirit and their mind behold

the Bird adorned with all an Asura's magic might.

Sages observe him in the ocean's inmost depth: the

wise disposers seek the station of his rays.'

pataMgamaktamasurasya mAyayA hRdA pashyanti

manasAvipashcitaH |

samudre antaH kavayo vi cakSate marIcInAmpadamichanti

vedhasaH ||

This hymn is dedicated to mAyAbheda by the way.

 

The emanating light of the immortal sun appears to be

held, to take a stand, to exist as it were, where we

enclose it in name and form. The wise with their heart

and mind seek to discriminate the real from the

non-real in this appearance.

 

Bit of a ramble as always but I am ready for sleep,

 

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

At 08:30 PM 9/29/2003 +0000, vpcnk wrote:

>> -What do we mean by "exists"?

>

>Vivekachoodaamani : if the world exists, let it exist in deep sleep!

 

Since I think so many will agree with this, let me insert a devil's advocate

reply - just to spur discussion.

 

DA:

The world *does* exist while I'm in deep sleep, but I can verify existence only

when I'm in my waking state. Since I verify its existence during my waking

state, I conclude that it exists even though my waking state is not there. If

it *doesn't* exist during my deep sleep, then that entails that it falls out of

existence when I go to deep sleep, and pops back into existence when I wake up.

It surely doesn't do that!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The simple answer to DA is a question. If I exist or the world

exists?

 

"I exist" (sat) is the Truth we go by. Waking, dream, and sleep are

because I exist, i.e. "I know the world outside me", "I know I

dreamt" and "I know I didn't know it rained when I slept" are because

I exist.

 

Then the question "Where did the world where it rained exist when I

slept?" will be answered. It couldn't have existed in a "where"

because space is because I exist. Where was space? I am space. If I

existed, space and the world where it rained also existed. How? As

me. I am space. I am the world. If that is so, I don't have to

witness them and naturally I didn't when I slept.

 

I am the self-iridescence on which the world where it had rained

without my apparent knowledge is self-projected by me and for me on

waking without knowing that the world and the rain are verily me. The

apparent lack of the experiential knowledge of the 'actual' event of

raining, like everything else, is also a knowledge flashing in the

iridescence. And that flash too is me. That I 'see' the iridescent

flashes without knowing that they are me is the error due to which

the so-called wakefulness, dreaming and oblivious deep sleep (the

whole samsArA) with a sense of outsideness result. (Please note that

sleep is also projected as an experience "I slept.".)

 

"In whose eyes, while they are open, this world shines and in whom it

dissolves and abides when the eyes are closed, salutations to Her!".

 

That is from BhadrakAli Stuti (a poor translation, of course) which I

believe has added relevance in the present context because we are

celebrating the NavarAtri festival in immeasurable love for those

beautiful eyes.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________________

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> At 08:30 PM 9/29/2003 +0000, vpcnk wrote:

> >> -What do we mean by "exists"?

> >

> >Vivekachoodaamani : if the world exists, let it exist in deep

sleep!

>

> Since I think so many will agree with this, let me insert a devil's

advocate reply - just to spur discussion.

>

> DA:

> The world *does* exist while I'm in deep sleep, but I can verify

existence only when I'm in my waking state. Since I verify its

existence during my waking state, I conclude that it exists even

though my waking state is not there. If it *doesn't* exist during my

deep sleep, then that entails that it falls out of existence when I

go to deep sleep, and pops back into existence when I wake up. It

surely doesn't do that!

>

> --Greg

[Guest guest]

--- Gregory Goode <goode wrote:

> DA:

> The world *does* exist while I'm in deep sleep, but

> I can verify existence only when I'm in my waking

> state. Since I verify its existence during my

> waking state, I conclude that it exists even though

> my waking state is not there. If it *doesn't* exist

> during my deep sleep, then that entails that it

> falls out of existence when I go to deep sleep, and

> pops back into existence when I wake up.

 

What wakes up? I am told that I 'wake up' when I come

out of my state of ignorance and that I 'wake up' when

I seem to perceive the world of objects every morning,

and correspond with people who aren't there because I

cannot see or hear or touch or smell or taste them but

whose words appear on the screen before me which isn't

real.

The screen is a veil that reveals................

'Waking up' is a very confusing term.

I feel a dose of paramarthika and vyavaharika coming

on,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

> The world *does* exist while I'm in deep sleep, but I can verify

existence only when I'm in my waking state. Since I verify its

existence during my waking state, I conclude that it exists even

though my waking state is not there. If it *doesn't* exist during my

deep sleep, then that entails that it falls out of existence when I

go to deep sleep, and pops back into existence when I wake up. It

surely doesn't do that!

 

you can wake up to the sun a million times - but still logic doesn't

allow that the same thing will happen the next day. because there's

no proof that it will happen so.

 

since you're an admirer of naagaarjuna's you should know that the

main focus of the maadhyamika is on the subjectivity of the

perceiver. things are only as valid as what they mean to us.

[Guest guest]

At 04:26 PM 9/30/2003 +0000, vpcnk wrote:

>> The world *does* exist while I'm in deep sleep, but I can verify

>existence only when I'm in my waking state. Since I verify its

>existence during my waking state, I conclude that it exists even

>though my waking state is not there. If it *doesn't* exist during my

>deep sleep, then that entails that it falls out of existence when I

>go to deep sleep, and pops back into existence when I wake up. It

>surely doesn't do that!

>

>you can wake up to the sun a million times - but still logic doesn't

>allow that the same thing will happen the next day. because there's

>no proof that it will happen so.

>

>since you're an admirer of naagaarjuna's you should know that the

>main focus of the maadhyamika is on the subjectivity of the

>perceiver. things are only as valid as what they mean to us.

 

 

Not sure who you're addressing here. Who mentioned Nagarjuna? The passage you

responded to is devil's advocate talk, a response to an advaitin point. Thrown

in to get the discussion going. I wasn't writing Greg's ideas. But I see the

passage had the intended effect!

 

A previous post said, if it exists (as per advaita), then why isn't it present

during deep sleep? The non-advaitin replies (this is the devil's advocate guy),

it *was* there. Merely my verification of it wasn't there.

 

The advaitin response??

 

--Greg

 

 

 

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

>

> A previous post said, if it exists (as per advaita), then why

isn't it present during deep sleep? The non-advaitin replies (this

is the devil's advocate guy), it *was* there. Merely my

verification of it wasn't there.

>

> The advaitin response??

>

> --Greg

 

 

Namaste.

 

advaitin: Who says it 'was' there? Was it in his knowledge?

 

non-advaitin: ***** says. ***** knows it.

 

advaitin. How does ***** know it?

 

non-advaitin. ?

 

 

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

At 05:05 PM 9/30/2003 +0000, V. Krishnamurthy wrote:

>Namaste.

>

>advaitin: Who says it 'was' there? Was it in his knowledge?

>

>non-advaitin: ***** says. ***** knows it.

>

>advaitin. How does ***** know it?

>

>non-advaitin. ?

 

 

How does **** know? ***** saw it, kicked it, smelled it. What more evidence

need there be?

 

 

PraNAms as well!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

--- Gregory Goode <goode wrote:

> A previous post said, if it exists (as per advaita), then why isn't it

> present during deep sleep? The non-advaitin replies (this is the

> devil's advocate guy), it *was* there. Merely my verification of it

> wasn't there.

>

> The advaitin response??

>

> --Greg

 

One advaitin's response-

 

Existence of the world cannot be established without a conscious being

establishing its existence. One is dependent and the other is

independent. In effect, it is similar to independent gold and

dependent ring. Does the ring exist - yes or no depending on what one

is looking for. It exists as different from bangle and bracelet. But

it does not really exist different from gold - Gold itself is in the

form of a ring. This is precisely why Uddalaka gives the specific

example to drive the fact. Hence apparently it exists but in reality it

is gold alone. It is not non-existent either - hence the word mithya is

brought. At Benjamin's request we discussed a suutra from B.S. that

states that World is not non-existent. A double negative is used

specifically to drive the fact that mithya is not opposite to sat or

asat. Hence adviatin says it is sat asat vilakshaNam.

 

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.

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

At 11:09 AM 9/30/2003 -0700, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:

 

Thanks for playing along, Sadananda! I'll continue too, for a bit.

 

>One advaitin's response-

>

>Existence of the world cannot be established without a conscious being

>establishing its existence.

 

One non-advaitin's response:

Yes, this is true. But it's not what I'm talking about. The *establishment* or

*proof* of existence requires a conscious being. Why? Because "establishing"

is done by conscious entities. That's fine. But I'm talking about the mere

*existence* of the world. Obviously, if a conscious being establishes the

world's existence, then the world is there to be established. It had to be, or

the establishment would never have succeeded. But its mere existence does not

require any conscious beings. So even without any conscious beings, it already

existed.

 

 

Advaitin:

>One is dependent and the other is independent.

 

Non-advaitin:

Yes, the existence of the world is independent and the cognizing of it is

dependent.

 

 

Advaitin:

>At Benjamin's request we discussed a suutra from B.S. that

>states that World is not non-existent. A double negative is used

>specifically to drive the fact that mithya is not opposite to sat or

>asat. Hence adviatin says it is sat asat vilakshaNam.

 

 

Non-advaitin:

I agree with the literary style of the double-negative - this effectively

accomplishes the purpose of emphasis that is sought. But it doesn't prove that

existence is dependent on anything. Quite the opposite, other things, like

knowledge, are dependent upon existence of things to be known.

[Guest guest]

--- Gregory Goode <goode wrote:

> At 11:09 AM 9/30/2003 -0700, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote:

>

> Thanks for playing along, Sadananda! I'll continue too, for a bit.

>

>

> >One advaitin's response-

> >

> >Existence of the world cannot be established without a conscious

> being

> >establishing its existence.

>

> One non-advaitin's response:

But its mere existence does

> not require any conscious beings. So even without any conscious

> beings, it already existed.

>

 

Greg - the first statement is not a statement of fact. Mere existence

also cannot be established either, without consciousbeing endorsing its

existence. But consciounsness has to exist to endore the existence of

mere existence if it exists - you are back to the same thing one is

dependent and other is independent. Independent existence without it

being conscious cannot be established - that it exsits is only an

assumption and not necessorily a fact since non-adviatin cannot prove

either that mere existence exists without his endorsement or assumption.

Either way he has to exist before he proves or disproves.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

>

> Advaitin:

> >One is dependent and the other is independent.

>

> Non-advaitin:

> Yes, the existence of the world is independent and the cognizing of it

> is dependent.

>

>

> Advaitin:

> >At Benjamin's request we discussed a suutra from B.S. that

> >states that World is not non-existent. A double negative is used

> >specifically to drive the fact that mithya is not opposite to sat or

> >asat. Hence adviatin says it is sat asat vilakshaNam.

>

>

> Non-advaitin:

> I agree with the literary style of the double-negative - this

> effectively accomplishes the purpose of emphasis that is sought. But

> it doesn't prove that existence is dependent on anything. Quite the

> opposite, other things, like knowledge, are dependent upon existence

> of things to be known.

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

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

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New with improved product search