Why should it matter if objects are unreal?

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I would like to try a fresh approach to the current month's topic of

the 'reality of objects'. Rather than continuing the somewhat

tedious discussion of whether objects 'really' exist, I would like to

share a few ideas about why it should even matter, from a spiritual

point of view. This in turn will make the whole issue more relevant

and provide valuable insight into the strictly ontological question

of whether objects exist.

 

First, though, I would like to comment on this from Sri Ananda:

>If there is any difference between idealism and advaita,

>I would say it's only in the question of how to streamline

>mind's constructions, so as to improve their directness and

>their accuracy. Idealism is inclined to attempt its

>streamlining through a cultivation or development of mind

>and its ideas.

 

I quite agree. Philosophical idealism can indeed become a stale

contrivance of ideas and speculations, especially if it only gets us

more enmeshed in mental operations. Western idealism is often like

this. I really use the word as a convenient 'icon' to draw attention

to the fundamental importance of consciousness. Also, I like the

root 'ideal', as it sounds ... well ... idealistic! This being said,

let us move on to why it should even matter whether objects exist

outside of consciousness, as they normally seem to.

 

In a word, the charm of 'idealism' for me is that, by stressing the

fundamental reality of consciousness, it draws attention to the

inherently miraculous, fascinating, amazing and ultimately sacred

nature of consciousness. These properties of consciousness are so

self-evident, upon some thoughtful and intuitive reflection, that I

will not even try to defend them with any arguments. Rather, I will

assume that the kind of people who are drawn to this list already

have similar feelings, in some form or another. I would only add the

remarkable fact that consciousness is what we in fact ARE. This much

is undeniable, even if you retain some belief in the reality of the

so-called external world.

 

Instead, I would like to stress how BLIND we usually are to the

wonderful nature of consciousness, and I will identify the chief

culprit. This is our tendency to view the world OBJECTIVELY. In my

opinion, our usual view the world as consisting of mere 'objects'

reduces it to a collection of dead, inert 'things', which might even

be called 'junk'.

 

Along similar lines, I take it for granted that anything that is not

consciousness is also not divine, since 'divinity', whatever it is,

must ultimately be of the nature of consciousness. This is simply

one of my primordial intuitions. If 'Brahman' exists, then it must

surely be 'infinite consciousness' in some sense. How could it be

anything else? Hence, anything that is other than this sacred

consciousness, such as the supposed objects, must be worthless 'junk'

in comparison.

 

To repeat, we are usually blind to this when absorbed in our usual

'objective' thinking. Objective thinking, by its very nature,

reduces the 'world' to something other than consciousness and hence

to something not-divine, to mere things or junk. When we see the

world this way, we are basically sleepwalking through life.

Everything looses its value, and we feel a great thirst for spiritual

fulfillment, which we may try to slake in temporary substitutes, such

as an excessive indulgence in mere sensationalism.

 

Note that even if objects could be utterly proven to exist, the

spiritual harm would still be there if we *think* that they do. The

vision outlined above would still recur, and that is what matters.

The world would appear mostly dead and stripped of divinity. Some

may claim that they could still view the material world as the

handiwork of God, but I claim that any beauty that we see in the

world is really a projection of consciousness upon what appears to be

an external world. The light that makes it appear sacred is

consciousness itself, regardless of what we may think.

 

Actually, it does not matter whether objects exist. Regardless of

our philosophy, the simple fact is that we only deal with our

consciousness, in which I include thoughts, feelings and perceptions.

Hence, the ontological reality of the supposed outside world is

ultimately irrelevant. What matters is our attitude towards the

phenomenological appearances in consciousness which make up our

actual life. And if we view these as mere objects, then the

spiritual darkness that I just described appears to be very real.

 

This is my deep reason for stressing the fundamental reality of

consciousness. Technical philosophical questions regarding the true

ontology of the world are interesting enough, but they are not the

driving force behind my attempt to see that world as nothing but

consciousness. Rather, I am trying to satisfy a real spiritual

thirst that won't go away. It is NOT theoretical!

 

We all want inspiration, whether we realize it or not. Only most of

us do not understand the true source of this inspiration and

mistakenly think we will find it in the illusory objects, which are

actually the cause of the problem rather than its solution.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

 

Benjamin you question intrigued me. I was just sitting in front of

beautiful tasty rasamalai and reading all the emails from Benjamin -

keep declaring that there is no real rasamalai there, it is all

illusion, and if it exists it is not real rasamalai and so on. My mind

immediately revolted against my own knowledge of reality and said to

myslef quietly -you fellow! keep your mouth shut and do not talk of

Vedanta here - first enjoy the rasamalai and have a good Madras hot cup

of coffee to go with it. After you had enough, you can leisurely

discuss the high philosophical concepts that there are no object 'out

there' but only in mind and they are illusions. Having eaten enough

rasamalais, I had no problem with that type of discourses either since

as you know I am very much used to give such talks -but my stomach

started showing its presence in the middle of talks, sinceI gulped too

much of unreal rasamalai. All all that unreal objects started revolting

in my stomach, refusing to digest - I have to postpone my talk for few

minutes, get up and take some antacid which is of course unreal too to

eliminate the unreal stomach ache or ache in the unreal stomach itself.

 

 

I agree - why should it matter if the objects are unreal? - now that my

stomach has calmed down.

 

 

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]

Namaste,

 

Sadanandaji said:

 

"... Having eaten enough rasamalais, I had no problem with that type

of discourses either since as you know I am very much used to give

such talks - but my stomach started showing its presence in the

middle of talks, since I gulped too much of unreal rasamalai. All all

that unreal objects started revolting in my stomach, refusing to

digest ..."

 

 

Sadanandaji, this is very funny, but it has no effect whatsoever on

my philosophical arguments. The delicious taste of the rasmalais and

the subsequent indigestion are all 'perceptions' in your

consciousness. Those experiences per se have nothing whatsoever to

do with the supposed 'externality' (to consciousness) or either

rasmalais or your stomach.

 

Indeed, they are somewhat of an argument in favor of 'idealism' or

the belief that only consciousness exists. All we really care about

is what we see, feel, etc. This is all in consciousness. Whether

these perceptions and feelings are produced by some kind of

mysterious and unobservable matter outside of consciousness is

ultimately irrelevant from a practical point of view. Only

philosophers really care about the technical aspects of the

discussion.

 

However, this is not quite the whole story. For ordinary people, the

appearance of 'external objects' is actually a reflection of the

belief in the reality of one's ego. Ego and objects are two sides of

the same coin. They arise and fall together. Since I accept from

those wiser than I that ego is an obstruction to the manifestation of

one's divine nature and the bliss that results, the issue does have

practical importance in this sense.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

dear all,

as far as the uninitiated, gross indian is

concerened, all this "maya" just boils down to the

siddha's diction that " KAAYAME ITHU POYYADAA

KAATTADAITTHA PAIYYADAA"

' MEANING " this body is unreal, it is only a bag

filled with air".

do not be led by this body[and the senses.]

seek GOD instead.

this is practical creed of advaita for the

street corner indian.

a.v.krshnan.

 

 

 

 

 

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: >

> Namaste,

>

> Sadanandaji said:

>

> "... Having eaten enough rasamalais, I had no

> problem with that type

> of discourses either since as you know I am very

> much used to give

> such talks - but my stomach started showing its

> presence in the

> middle of talks, since I gulped too much of unreal

> rasamalai. All all

> that unreal objects started revolting in my

> stomach, refusing to

> digest ..."

>

>

> Sadanandaji, this is very funny, but it has no

> effect whatsoever on

> my philosophical arguments. The delicious taste of

> the rasmalais and

> the subsequent indigestion are all 'perceptions' in

> your

> consciousness. Those experiences per se have

> nothing whatsoever to

> do with the supposed 'externality' (to

> consciousness) or either

> rasmalais or your stomach.

>

> Indeed, they are somewhat of an argument in favor of

> 'idealism' or

> the belief that only consciousness exists. All we

> really care about

> is what we see, feel, etc. This is all in

> consciousness. Whether

> these perceptions and feelings are produced by some

> kind of

> mysterious and unobservable matter outside of

> consciousness is

> ultimately irrelevant from a practical point of

> view. Only

> philosophers really care about the technical aspects

> of the

> discussion.

>

> However, this is not quite the whole story. For

> ordinary people, the

> appearance of 'external objects' is actually a

> reflection of the

> belief in the reality of one's ego. Ego and objects

> are two sides of

> the same coin. They arise and fall together.

> Since I accept from

> those wiser than I that ego is an obstruction to the

> manifestation of

> one's divine nature and the bliss that results, the

> issue does have

> practical importance in this sense.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk