More on objects

[Guest guest]

Hello Ben and Dennis,

 

Ben, it's good that you value the scientific method and can see its utility in

this kind of investigation. It's important not to go beyond what is given in

experience.

 

You mention this, and the benefits of examining experience with no filter of

preconceptions. So let's look at that.

 

In positing something called "Greg's awareness" you are going beyond what is

given in immediate experience. With no defensible subject/object dichotomy, you

can't speak of an independent Greg. And you certainly have no experience of

something called "Greg's experience." That is a projection, an inference, a

story. And let's say you had a mystical or clairvoyant experience of "Greg's

experience." Just like the object "proved to exist outside of experience," this

would put it within the realm of "Ben's experience" anyway. To prove this, just

consider what you would count as a criterion of success in experiencing "Greg's

experience." It would all come to the same thing as now.

 

But this entire notion of an owner of experience is unfounded.

 

It is going beyond what is given in experience to posit an owner of experience.

"Ben's ownership of experience" is not given in experience. For a "Ben" to

really be the owner of experience would entail that Ben stands outside of

experience in order to do this. Impossible, and no evidence in its favor.

 

Experience is not in Ben. Rather, Ben is an image in experience.

 

See ya!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

 

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

 

Hello Ben and Dennis,

 

< snip >

 

Experience is not in Ben. Rather, Ben is an image in experience.

 

See ya!

 

--Greg

 

 

 

KKT: This phrase invites

much reflection.

 

I'd like to cite an experience

told by Krishnamurti that has

some relevance to the topic:

 

 

There was a man mending the road; that man

was myself; the pickaxe he held was myself;

the very stone which he was breaking was

a part of me; the tender blade of grass was

my very being and the tree beside the man

was myself. I almost could feel and think

like the roadmender, and I could feel the

wind passing through the tree and the little

ant on the blade of grass I could feel.

The birds, the dust and the very noise were

a part of me. Just then there was a car

passing by at some distance; I was the driver,

the engine and the tyres; as the car went

further away from me, I was going away from

myself. I was in everything, or rather

everything was in me, inanimate and animate,

the mountain, the worm and all breathing things.

All day long I remained in this happy condition.

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

Namaste KKT.

 

Nice to see you back.

 

To tell you honestly, that last word of Krishnamurthy quote,

i.e. 'condition' worries me. Nevertheless, his experience is a

pointer to the advaitin's goal - to be everything. Why negate!?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

________________

 

 

advaitin, "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...>

wrote:

>

> I'd like to cite an experience

> told by Krishnamurti that has

> some relevance to the topic:

>

>

> There was a man mending the road; that man

> was myself; the pickaxe he held was myself;

> the very stone which he was breaking was

> a part of me; the tender blade of grass was

> my very being and the tree beside the man

> was myself. I almost could feel and think

> like the roadmender, and I could feel the

> wind passing through the tree and the little

> ant on the blade of grass I could feel.

> The birds, the dust and the very noise were

> a part of me. Just then there was a car

> passing by at some distance; I was the driver,

> the engine and the tyres; as the car went

> further away from me, I was going away from

> myself. I was in everything, or rather

> everything was in me, inanimate and animate,

> the mountain, the worm and all breathing things.

> All day long I remained in this happy condition.

>

>

> KKT

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Greg said:

 

In positing something called "Greg's awareness" you are going beyond

what is given in immediate experience. With no defensible

subject/object dichotomy, you can't speak of an independent Greg.

And you certainly have no experience of something called "Greg's

experience." That is a projection, an inference, a story. And let's

say you had a mystical or clairvoyant experience of "Greg's

experience." Just like the object "proved to exist outside of

experience," this would put it within the realm of "Ben's experience"

anyway. To prove this, just consider what you would count as a

criterion of success in experiencing "Greg's experience." It would

all come to the same thing as now.

 

 

My reply:

 

Oh no! I sense another discussion where we go around in circles,

each restating our position pretty much as before. I'll indulge

myself one more time, to see if it has any effect.

 

We both agree that within the immediate awareness, present right now

at this very moment as we type at our computers, there is no

difference between subject and object. There is just the awareness

containing appearances called 'typing at the computer and cursing our

adversary'. :-)

 

Good, this is definite progress, compared to all those poor folks

mired in so-called common sense.

 

So far, as I see it, there is an awareness called 'Greg' which is

nondual, containing certain appearances, and another awareness called

'Ben' containing other appearances. 'Greg' and 'Ben' are just labels

for the respective awarenesses, and in no sense do they reintroduce

any notion of 'subjects' called 'Greg' and 'Ben' distinct from the

'objects' of their experience. Also, I am using the word 'awareness'

instead of 'stream of consciousness', since the latter may be a bit

more problematic for some people.

 

Let us use 'G' to denote 'Greg-awareness' and 'B' to denote 'Ben-awareness'.

 

Now you then seem to claim that this dissolution of the

subject/object dichotomy within the respective awarenesses called G

and B somehow extends to include G and B, such that G and B are

somehow the same awareness or consciousness. But why? The

dissolution of the subject/object dichotomy within G and B,

respectively, is an entirely different matter from somehow unifying G

and B. Just because we clean up the Ganges does not mean that the

Hudson is clean, and just because we clean up the Hudson does not

make the Ganges clean. Extending nondualism across different

instances of awareness requires entirely new arguments. It is not a

simple matter of generalization. I would love to hear those

arguments.

 

As for solipsism, I reiterate that I have no problem with separate

coexisting awarenesses or streams of consciousness, even after all

material objects are eliminated as mere projections within or upon

the respective awarenesses. There is nothing illogical about this,

as far as I can tell.

 

However, it is important, as I have said, to realize that these

different awarenesses are not like objects in some space; they are

not like stars floating in some enveloping super-space. Ordinary

physical space is within a particular awareness; it is simply the

totality of that awareness. The awareness does not reside in

something bigger called 'space'. And we each have our own space,

which is simply the totality of our awareness.

 

So I agree that our different awarenesses must not be thought of as

distinct objects in some kind of enveloping space. Some may take

this as a clue that if they are not distinct, then they must somehow

be the same. I find this notion intriguing, but from a

phenomenological point of view, our awarenesses still seem different

to me.

 

Don't worry, this time around I won't keep repeating myself ad

infinitum. I will just do it a few times in an attempt to elicit a

heroic attempt at literary brilliance on your part, as you are

perhaps inspired to make an extra strenuous effort to impart your

fascinating vision to me with some convincing reasons. (No sarcasm

here. Please try to blow my mind! I would love that.) After all,

if you can pull it off, then you will spiritually benefit all other

awarenesses that think like this Ben, until the end of time (which is

duplicated within these awarenesses and is not distinct from them nor

are they in it!).

 

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 11:47 AM 10/3/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

 

>So far, as I see it, there is an awareness called 'Greg' which is

>nondual, containing certain appearances, and another awareness called

>'Ben' containing other appearances.

 

Two nondual awarenesses! Doesn't that sound strange, er, dual?? Awareness

isn't limited, nor can you find anything in awareness that establishes limits.

I definitely don't agree on the above, and I notice you didn't support your

belief in something not given in your experience...

 

>Let us use 'G' to denote 'Greg-awareness' and 'B' to denote 'Ben-awareness'.

>

>Now you then seem to claim that this dissolution of the

>subject/object dichotomy within the respective awarenesses called G

>and B somehow extends to include G and B, such that G and B are

>somehow the same awareness or consciousness. But why?

 

We can discuss our "own" experiences, but for me, the subject/object dichotomy

was the last to go. Way before that, the notion of separate loci of awareness

or activity had already dissolved.

 

This stuff isn't personal. The awareness "happens" at a place just doesn't make

sense. That awareness is limited to a place is simply not given in awareness.

 

>The

>dissolution of the subject/object dichotomy within G and B,

>respectively, is an entirely different matter from somehow unifying G

>and B.

 

 

If there's a G and B, then the subject/object dichotomy is still functional.

Either (a) they are both objects to you, or (b) G and B are each other's

objects, or both.

 

>Just because we clean up the Ganges does not mean that the

>Hudson is clean, and just because we clean up the Hudson does not

>make the Ganges clean.

 

It's not cleaning the Ganges or the Hudson. It's the knowledge (sat, chit,

ananda), in which nothing is dirty. It's only a provisional or a didactic sense

in which it's said "Oh, the Ganges doesn't think it's a river anymore. Now,

onto the Nile."

 

>As for solipsism, I reiterate that I have no problem with separate

>coexisting awarenesses or streams of consciousness, even after all

>material objects are eliminated as mere projections within or upon

>the respective awarenesses. There is nothing illogical about this,

>as far as I can tell.

 

Solipsism makes more sense and is more justified by your arguments than the

notion of B and G, both being nondual awarenesses. Nonduality isn't just the

situation where a person doesn't believe in a subject/object distinction. It's

where no dualisms or pluralities at all are operative. The claim of B and G is

quite dual. It's a world filled with things! Subtle things, but things.

 

>And we each have our own space, which is simply the totality of our awareness.

 

You postulate a separate awareness, Ben's. On top of that, you state that you

are Ben. This is very close to solipsism.

(http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s7.htm#solm)

"My awareness is the only one." There's no support or evidence for another

separate awareness. Nor for cars, trucks, or ghosts either. The bits of

evidence seeming to indicate a Greg's awareness are not evidence at all, but

just appearances in Ben's awareness. There's no justification for a Greg or a

Greg's awareness. This is what makes solipsism seem both powerful and

unappealing.

 

Yet, against this, you state that there are other awarenesses. Where's your

evidence???

 

I'd say your arguments so far are consistent with solipsism, and not consistent

with a plurality of awarenesses. This is what happens when awareness is

considered something particularized, or to be happening separate from something

else. Advaita Vedanta is a great antidote to this.

 

Have you read ATMA DARSHAN by Krishna Menon?

 

========================

Here's where as discussion leader for this topic, I apologize for the prolonged

entry into this corner of Western-like philosophy. If many members would rather

read different aspects of the overall topic, I could take it offline with

Benjamin. I'll be sensitive and responsive to people's wishes.

 

Hari OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Greg:

 

Here's where as discussion leader for this topic, I apologize for the

prolonged entry into this corner of Western-like philosophy. If many

members would rather read different aspects of the overall topic, I

could take it offline with Benjamin. I'll be sensitive and

responsive to people's wishes.

 

 

Benjamin:

 

As I said, I don't intend to pursue this topic if it just goes around

in circles. However, the notion that there is a 'Western' vs. an

'Indian' or 'Hindu' version of the truth seems rather silly to me,

especially on a topic as general as objects. It's not like we're

doing textual analysis of some particular Sanskrit scripture.

 

Also, I don't really like discussing things offline, because I end up

discussing them online somewhere anyway, so that my work is

multiplied unnecessarily. Besides, the thrill of online

philosophical discussions is wearing off, since nobody ever furnishes

me with any fresh revelations.

 

 

 

Greg:

 

Two nondual awarenesses! Doesn't that sound strange, er, dual??

Awareness isn't limited, nor can you find anything in awareness that

establishes limits. I definitely don't agree on the above, and I

notice you didn't support your belief in something not given in your

experience...

 

We can discuss our "own" experiences, but for me, the subject/object

dichotomy was the last to go. Way before that, the notion of

separate loci of awareness or activity had already dissolved.

 

This stuff isn't personal. The awareness "happens" at a place just

doesn't make sense. That awareness is limited to a place is simply

not given in awareness.

 

 

Benjamin:

 

Two nondual awarenesses does not sound strange, because I carefully

defined how they are nondual *within* themselves, by the vanishing of

the subject/object relationship *within* the respective streams of

consciousness. A philosophy consisting of a plurality of

consciousnesses, each containing the illusion of an objective

material world, is an intelligible and reasonable view.

 

The further merging of the streams into a single consciousness is a

*separate* issue than requires further discussion and further reasons

and is not simply an extension of the first restricted type of

nondualism, as I said yesterday.

 

As for experience, I repeat that I have no trouble imagining other

experiences or streams of consciousness similar to mine. I can see

no reason why this present consciousness called 'Benjamin' should be

the only one, and indeed I find it highly implausible. However, just

as the so-called 'external' world that appears in this present

consciousness is but an illusory projection, likewise the apparent

external worlds in other consciousnesses are also projections.

 

This projection includes space and time, so that space and time are

but aspects of the respective consciousnesses, and the

consciousnesses are not in some 'enveloping' space and time, as I

said. However, this does not mean that the consciousnesses cannot be

*different*, as far as I can see.

 

In fact, the difference of your consciousness from mine IS supported

by experience, namely, the experience that your experience is not

part of mine. Yet I do believe that your experience exists. I

dismiss the possibility of solipsism as utterly improbable. I

consider it a waste of time, and I will not consider it. Instead, I

want to start from the assumption that our respective streams of

consciousness do indeed exist, and then see how they might be

considered the 'same'.

 

You say that for you the 'subject/object' dichotomy has gone. But I

have pointed out that that occurs within our respective

consciousnesses. It is an unsubstantiated stretch to simply wave

your hand and say that, 'Oh, the difference between our

consciousnesses is just another version of that.' It is something

fundamentally different.

 

Yes, I agree that there are not separate 'loci' of awareness. I

fully agree that our consciousnesses are not objects in some kind of

space, like stars in the sky, as I said before. We each have our own

version of space and time, which is but an aspect of the illusion of

an external world that manifests within our respective

consicousnesses. However, this does not prevent our consciousnesses

from being *different*, as far as I can tell. They can be different

despite not having any loci. They are different simply because they

are different. Your experiences are not mine and vice versa, period.

I guess this is repetitive, but I see no reason to change my mind.

 

 

 

Greg:

 

If there's a G and B, then the subject/object dichotomy is still

functional. Either (a) they are both objects to you, or (b) G and B

are each other's objects, or both.

 

 

Benjamin:

 

Why? I have explained how within a particular consciousness, the

subject/object distinction is one of a perceiving conscious self and

an external world that is other than the self. This we both deny.

The external world is a hallucination within our respective

consciousnesses. But this does not mean that your consciousness is a

hallucination in mine; the whole point is that it is not. Therefore,

the difference between your consciousness and mine has nothing to do

with the subject/object dichotomy, which always takes place within a

particular consciousness.

 

 

 

Greg:

 

Nonduality isn't just the situation where a person doesn't believe in

a subject/object distinction. It's where no dualisms or pluralities

at all are operative. The claim of B and G is quite dual.

 

 

Benjamin:

 

Very well! But please provide some REASONS for this extension of the

notion of nonduality. You see, there WERE reasons for 'eliminating'

the external world within a particular consciousness, namely, the

example of the dream. This example clearly explains how apparently

external objects can be projected as illusions or hallucinations

within a particular consciousness. But it is of no use to the

completely different issue of 'uniting' your consciousness and mine.

Nothing of your consciousness manifests in mine, and so all such

analogies as the dream are irrelevant.

 

 

 

Greg:

 

You postulate a separate awareness, Ben's. On top of that, you state

that you are Ben. This is very close to solipsism. ... Yet, against

this, you state that there are other awarenesses. Where's your

evidence???

 

Benjamin:

 

As I said above, I have no problem with solipsism. My evidence is

the utter improbability that I should be the only one. That would be

arbitrary and bizarre in the extreme. That suffices for me.

 

 

 

Greg:

 

Have you read ATMA DARSHAN by Krishna Menon?

 

 

Benjamin:

 

Being Ananda Wood's teacher, I must read it some time. Ananda wrote

me an excellent email on Advaita, which I published recently on my

list at

 

clearvoid/message/1055

 

I do recommend reading it.

 

Don't worry Advaitins, I don't intend to pursue this much further.

I'm just trying to get poor Gregji to cough up some new reasons that

are convincing to me. If this bothers anyone, I'll drop the issue.

But I do believe it's quite mistaken to think that such 'Western'

discussions are foreign to the topic of Advaita. This is a very

misguided notion.

 

 

Regards

Benjamin