October Discussion Topic / "Existence of Objects" / Intro

[Guest guest]

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

 

Namaste,

 

Yes the world still exists whilst one is in deep sleep. In the same

way that another person's dream exists when we awake from our dream

sleep. The dream will always seem to exist while there are dreamers.

When there are no dreamers, even in pralaya, it ceases to exist. For

a person who is realised the dream no longer exists or ever existed,

for how can the unreal become real to a Jivanmukta?........However as

Sankara said it is real whilst one is in it...it has a relative

validity only.....Om Namah Sivaya...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Sri Sadananda wrote:

Michael

 

One can have pain from the horns of horns or the dream

sand falling in the dream eyes for dreamer who thinks

there is real bull and sand out there. Is that bull and

hand that caused pain the dreamer eyes exist? Do you

want to answer from a dreamer's point of view or from a

waker's point of view or one leg in the dream and one

leg in the dream.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

Namaste Sri Sadananda,

Ouch! There is real pain from dream sand and dream

prong, even for those who realise that the one

existence manifests as the knower and the known and

that this existence (being, tat) knows itself in the

knower and the known (self knows self no matter what

guise it is in). However this self-knowledge is

subverted by the one side of the knower/known dyad

locating consciousness in it. (And not it in

consciousness as Greg pointed out)

 

This location of consciousness is the source of the

problems about objects being outside or inside. As long

as this mistake is current then the mind will bounce

back and forth from one wall to the other. Admittedly

in the Vedic matrix the idealist wall has been most

played against and because chameleon like it uses the

same lingo it has proven the most resistent to

analysis.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Sri Greg has provided an excellent introduction to the topic at the

right time. Sri Nair has just completed a month long discussion on

the question - "Is there 'light' in Existence?" The topic of this

month, "The Existence of Objects" further explores the September

question with a different focus. If we combine the last month topic

with this month topic, we could raise a legitimate question, "Is

light an Object?" Further we could raise the question, "Is Sound an

Object?"

 

In both scientific and religious philosophy, light and sound play a

significant role and hopefully we can expect sound reflections from

our members who can light up the discussions! There is a famous

Hindu prayer song that begins with - "Nada Bindu Kalatheetha Namo,

Namo ….." This prayer is quite important in understanding

what 'existence' means. From the Vedic time, Jeevas (human beings)

are referred to as "Nada Bindu Kala Swarupa." According to this

statement, these three distinct aspects - Nada, Bindu and Kala are

responsible for the existence of humanity.

 

What is the meaning of 'Nada'? Nada is the primordial sound 'Aum'

which emanates as a result of the combination of Prana (vital force)

and 'Vayu (air). Bindu is the combination of the body, mind and

intellect. Kala is the reflection of 'True Divine Nature' that is

reflected through Budhi (intellect). In other words, man is the

embodiment (Swarupa) of 'Nada', 'Bindu' and 'Kala'.

 

The Brahman (Atman) transcends all the above three aspects. This may

explain why the sages, saints while offering prayers to God used this

profound prayer - 'Nada Bindu, Kalatheetha Namo, Namo" (Salutations

to the One,who is beyond Nada, Bindu and Kala). It should be also

noted that 'Vedas" are also referred as 'Sapda - Sound.' Those who

want to get further insights on the importance of Sound can explore

the complete meaning of Gayatri Mantra. Advaitin list archives have

several interesting articles on this topic.

 

Swami Sivananda explains that the Universal Mother, Devi or Sakti or

Durga evolves 'Nada' and 'Nada Bindu.' Her is the URL and

Chapter 7 describes the Sakti Yoga Philosophy.

http://www.thedivinelifesociety.org/download/lordsiva.htm

Also read the article on Devi Tatva at

http://www.ambaa.org/download/Tatvas.doc

Before I conclude, let me add a little note to my dear friend, Sri

Benjamin. First, I am going to treat his idea of closing the

discussion on October topic and move on to the November topics as

a 'Joke!' If it is not a joke, then I suggest him to refer to the

Gita chapter 2, verse 47 which explains the Karma Yoga. This verse

reinforces the fact that our authority is only over the action and we

can't demand the 'desired result.' Whether we like it or not, we have

to accept the fact that October has 31 days and November comes only

after we pass the 31 days!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

[Guest guest]

>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.

 

---

 

Bystander: Is the absence of objects to get illuminated a valid proof for the

non-existence of light?

 

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bystander.

 

Good question!

 

I would like you to go through my last post on Light in Enlightenment

in reply to Shri Ananda Wood-ji if that is not painstaking.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

(yet another bystander)

 

______________________________

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Bystander: Is the absence of objects to get illuminated a valid

proof for the non-existence of light?

[Guest guest]

Are you asking for comments? I think I don't have those articles at hand. Can

you re-send it to me offline (goode), along with Ananda's original post?

Thanks.

 

--Greg

 

At 06:54 AM 10/2/2003 +0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

>Namaste Bystander.

>

>Good question!

>

>I would like you to go through my last post on Light in Enlightenment

>in reply to Shri Ananda Wood-ji if that is not painstaking.

>

>PraNAms.

>

>Madathil Nair

>(yet another bystander)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gregji.

 

I have sent a copy direct to you and clarified.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

 

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

> Are you asking for comments? I think I don't have those articles

at hand. Can you re-send it to me offline (goode@d...), along with

Ananda's original post? Thanks.

>

> --Greg

>

> At 06:54 AM 10/2/2003 +0000, Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

> >Namaste Bystander.

> >

> >Good question!

> >

> >I would like you to go through my last post on Light in

Enlightenment

> >in reply to Shri Ananda Wood-ji if that is not painstaking.

> >

> >PraNAms.

> >

> >Madathil Nair

> >(yet another bystander)