Guest guest Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 Hello Ananda, Ananda Wood wrote: According to advaita, an object isn't what it seems to be. It seems to be a piece of world, existing in some part of space and time. But, in fact, no such object is experienced, by anyone, at any place or time. In all actual experience, each object is known along with consciousness. What's actually known is knowledge of the object, not the object on its own. *******(comment)** I'm being a bore on this but I must refer you back to the locus classicus on these issues B.S.B.II.ii.29. Here Shankara rejects the vijnanavadin idea that what we perceive is our perception of a pillar or knowing the knowledge of an object in other words. We perceive a pillar. I am confused about objects being known along with consciousness. Does that mean there are two knowings or consciousnesses, one that knows the object and the other that knows the knowing of the object. It is this interpretation that the Vijnanavadin puts on the Vedantins account of knowledge and he thus rightly says that this will lead to infinite regress. If it takes a knowing to know a knowing then that knowing will require another one and so on. Shankara rejects this by bringing in the witness/saksin which knows immediately what is presented to it. The saksin is pure consciousness with the limiting adjunct of the mind and is individual because the mind is individual but is neverthless of a different order of being and is not thus involved in infinite regress. This concept of the Saksin is a vital component in Advaita and is not dreamt up as an entry level explanation. Leave it out and the Buddhist critique holds..******** Ananda: Again, we need to ask how it is actually experienced. Well, knowledge of an object is never experienced quite on its own, but always in contrast and comparison with knowing other objects. It's only by such contrast and comparison that objects are identified and recognized, as different pieces of existence making up an objective world. *****comment**** Quite correct, the single isolated object is a fallacy in the sense of its being a primitive datum. In fact it takes an artist's training to perceive appearances! I am puzzled by the following. Ananda: It is the same with knowledge. Differing appearances of knowledge come and go -- through differing perceptions, thoughts and feelings -- in the changing process through which objects are known. But knowledge in itself is shown in common, by all these appearances, as they are created and dissolve away. That is how we actually experience knowledge. *****comment***** If differing appearances are what is known and the object is different from this then it is difficult to avoid the Berkleyan dismissal of the object as a non-empirical fiction devised to hold all these appearances down. Ananda: As an object is actually experienced, it is not really different from the knowledge that knows it, and so it cannot really make any difference to that knowledge. There is no mixture there, of something added into knowledge from outside. There's only knowledge on its own -- standing independently, as its own reality and as the one reality of every object. ****comment*** I presume this is substratum talk, consciousness itself as the reality of both subject and object. It is not this that is in question for this present discussion but the existence in the ordinary sense of the tree in the quad and the books and table in my room when I'm not there to see them. It's an interesting question whether 'chair' and 'table' are more primitive than appearances of chairs and tables. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2003 Report Share Posted October 5, 2003 What are these repetitions all about? Some ad? Some bug? This is the second time I am confronting it today. Shri James Hash, are you trying to say something but not able to manifest? Are you denied 'existence as an object'? Madathil Nair ____________________ advaitin, James Hash <silverdust399> wrote: > > > Dennis Waite <dwaite@a...> wrote:Hi Benjamin (& Greg), > > Sorry I was less than clear last time - I'll try harder! > > It seems to me, Benjamin, that you have still not stepped back far enough > conceptually. This 'Benjamin awareness' that you are talking about is not, I > suggest, the non-dual consciousness that you are proposing at all. (Of > course, it obviously cannot be because you are also accepting the existence > of a separate 'Greg awareness'.) It seems to me that you are still talking > about an ego or jiiva that happens to be attached to an idea that subjects > and objects are not separate. This does not differ in essence from an ego > that believes that we go to heaven or hell when we die. Speaking from the > vantage point of Advaita, this ego is a fiction arising from superimposition > of false notions of name and form etc. upon the non-dual reality. It is > itself a fiction regardless of whether it believes in Advaitic truths or any > other philosophic fictions. In fact, both the 'Benjamin awareness' and > (Benjamin's conception of) the 'Greg awareness' are examples of these > arisings. Benjamin could not be aware of either without this Consciousness > but only the Consciousness is. Benjamin and Greg are not. > > Of course, the conceptual 'stepping back' does not make all of this a > suddenly intuited revelation of truth (unfortunately) but at least it might > stop the repetitive aspects of the discussion! :>) > > (Incidentally, I wondered if a lucid explanation of the 'bundle theory' of > consciousness from someone - Greg? - might help.) > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > > Sponsor > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Terms of Service. > Is this about Hinduism > > > > > > > > The New with improved product search > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 Shree Mani - I salute you - You have clear grasp of adviata Vedanta. Your presentation is clear for whose who want to go beyond the seer-seen-seeing. Unfortunately the mind being in the realm of seer-seen-seeing refuses to take that leap and wants to indulge in the analysis of the nature of the seen forgetting the seen cannot be established independent of the seer while seer can exist independent of seen - That is the emphasis of Ramana Maharshi too. In order to take that leep mind needs conviction and hence the discussion from various points from rational intellects. Hari OM! Sadananda --- "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote: > > > > > > Namaste all, > > > > I have been trying to follow the discussions going on in the > electronic forum with regard to “Existence of Objects”. Quite > frankly, I must confess, being a person with no knowledge of science, > I am not able to understand much of them as most of the discussions > center around scientific theories such as relativity etc. > > However, from advaita point of view I hope the learned members would > not mind my “understanding” on the subject. ............. .......... ===== 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 Namaste all, With regard to Objects/things “out there” I would like to quote the following verses from Druk-Drushya Viveka,(also known as Vakyaa Shudhi) a prakarana grandha authored by Jagat Guru Adi Shankaracharya Bhagavadpada. “roopam drushyam lochanam druk, tad drushyam druk tu manasam, drushya dhee vruththaya:, druk eva na tu drushayate” The form is perceived by eye and eye is its perceiver. Eye is perceived by the mind and mind is its perceiver. The mind with modifications is perceived and the Witness (the Self) is verily the perceiver. But it (the Witness) is not perceived by another. “na udethi na astam eti esha na vrudhim yathi na kshayam swayam vibathi atha anyanani bhasayet saadhanam vina” The Witness (Consciousness) does neither rise nor set. It does not increase nor does it suffer decay. Being self-luminous, it illumines everything else without any other aid. “asti bhati priyam roopam nama cha iti amsha panchakam aadya thrayam brhamaroopam jagadroopam tato dwayam” Every entity has five characteristics, viz: existence, (Sat) cognizability (chit), attractiveness (therefore Aanandam), form and name. Of these the first three belong to Brahman and the next two to the world. I hope the learned members can make their own analysis of the above verses to arrive at what is/where is/whether there is any object or things. Subject and objects have the relationship of mutual dependence, if one is there the other is there, and if one is not there the other is also not there, but Consciousness always shine witnessing both, i.e. presence of subject and objects, and also absence of subject and objects. With kind regards and hari Om R.S.MANI kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:Shree Mani - I salute you - You have clear grasp of adviata Vedanta. Your presentation is clear for whose who want to go beyond the seer-seen-seeing. Unfortunately the mind being in the realm of seer-seen-seeing refuses to take that leap and wants to indulge in the analysis of the nature of the seen forgetting the seen cannot be established independent of the seer while seer can exist independent of seen - That is the emphasis of Ramana Maharshi too. In order to take that leep mind needs conviction and hence the discussion from various points from rational intellects. Hari OM! Sadananda --- "R.S.MANI" wrote: > > > > > > Namaste all, > > > > I have been trying to follow the discussions going on in the > electronic forum with regard to “Existence of Objects”. Quite > frankly, I must confess, being a person with no knowledge of science, > I am not able to understand much of them as most of the discussions > center around scientific theories such as relativity etc. > > However, from advaita point of view I hope the learned members would > not mind my “understanding” on the subject. ............. .......... ===== 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 Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages Your use of is subject to The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.