Is the World Self or Non-self?

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

Benjamin was a good sport about the quip of

Sri Sadananda about the rasagoulas which made their

presence felt but actually he is closer to Benjamin

than he thinks. In his continuing explanation of the

concept of an object to Shree Mani he says " when I say

there is cow out there - it is actually there as cow

image in my mind with the attributes gathered by my

senses to the degree they are accurate. The cow out

there is actually in my mind." If there is room for a

cow in his mind why not place for a few rasagoullas.

Further he goes on to say" we never really see the

object out there really - what we see is only image -

in the mind which is in the consciousness.... Hence

whether the object is really there or not is

indeterminate problem - or anirvachaniiyam." Further

down he says " Does the world really exist out there -

we can never prove or disprove without consciousness

lending its support. That object exists can only be a

notion in the mind too."

 

This seems to me on the face of it to be the sort of

undiluted idealism which led Berkeley to say that

because the object as he understood it could never

become a presentation to consciousness it could not be

said to exist in any real sense.

 

Part of the problem with the 'object' is the

subject/predicate fallacy. We imagine that there is

something existing that is red, sweet scented, with

thorns, of layered petals etc. We think that if we

take all those predicates away that there will be

something left over which is an object called a rose.

The rose is all those things together and not an

existent other than them.

 

Sankara is not reducing an object to knowledge when he

says "Therefore an object and its knowledge differ."

He distinguishes between perceptual objects such as

milk, pots, cattle etc and the concepts of whiteness,

cowhood, volume etc.

 

Here's a puzzle: which comes first the concept of

'object' or objects. If you didn't have the concept you

couldn't pick out individual items or actual entities

and without the encounter with actual entities you the

concept would not become activated.

 

"Vedantin: External things too are perceived, and so

they too should be admitted"

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Hello All,

> Benjamin was a good sport about the quip of

> Sri Sadananda about the rasagoulas which made their

> presence felt but actually he is closer to Benjamin

> than he thinks. In his continuing explanation of the

> concept of an object to Shree Mani he says " when I say

> there is cow out there - it is actually there as cow

> image in my mind with the attributes gathered by my

> senses to the degree they are accurate.

........

That object exists can only be a

> notion in the mind too."

>

> This seems to me on the face of it to be the sort of

> undiluted idealism which led Berkeley to say that

> because the object as he understood it could never

> become a presentation to consciousness it could not be

> said to exist in any real sense.

>

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

>

 

Michael -you are right, but not close to idealism that Benjamin points

out. When I said the world is in the mind, -I have not asked where is

that mind! If I could accommodate the cow and the whole world and the

time and space - now where do I locate the mind! That my friend is the

million dollar question. Is the mind going to tell where the mind is! It

can accommodate the rasagullas better than my stomach!

 

Let us ask another way - Am I different from my mind - If you go deeper

it is again not different from consciousness - Hence Ramana asks enquire

into what is the mind? - manasantu kim margane kRite, naiva maanasam

maarga aarjavat| Enquire what is the mind and if one does that,there is

no mind left since enquirer and enquired merge into myself, the

existent-conscious entity.

 

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 all respected Members,

 

“asti, bhati, priyam, roopam, nama, cha iti amsha panchakam

 

aadyatrayam brahmaroopam jagadroopam tato dwayam”

 

(Druk-Drushya Viveka of Jagadguru Adi Sri Shankaracharya)

 

Every entity has five characteristics, viz: EXISTENCE, COGNIZABILITY (which

makes one aware of the existence of an object), ATTRACTIVENESS (dear), FORM and

NAME. Of these, the first three belong to Brahman (the three characteristics

correspond to Sat Chit and Ananda, i.e. Nirguna Brahman)) and the next two

(names and forms are the chief characteristics of Maya) to the world.

 

The entities referred to, include all seen and unseen, including body, mind

(Ahamkara included) and intellect, and Eswara (Saguna Brahman).

 

So whatever one “sees” (though he is not aware of that fact because of

ignorance) is nothing but Brahman, along with nama and roopa. Therefore, the

first knowledge of anything is that of the Brahman and then through anumana, the

object is recognized, as such and such. Of course, the first three never changes

being all pervading and the last two continuously change, i.e. why it is called

“Jagat”

 

The Viswa Roopa means “viswam eva tasya roopam” and Arjuna who had the blessing

of seeing It also saw he himself in that. He saw himself included in the Viswa

Roopam. However, such seeing by Arjuna was through Divya Chakshu, i.e. Gnanam

given by the Lord. This means the “seer” itself is included in the knowledge,

with the seen and object of knowing, no doubt. When this is the position, do we

not see Viswa Roopam every second?

 

Nirguna Brahman being the substratum, can be understood (“Saakshaatkaara”) or

“known”, though not like knowing other objects, say a potato. The Upanishads

give you the “Diyga Chakshu” i.e. the Gnanam to understand It or to “know” It.

Though we see only the Lord everywhere every second and in the second also, but

we do not know it is Lord itself.

 

Nirguna Brahman i.e. Consciousness or Gnanam etc. cannot be separately

experienced even after ignorance of aham, idam and Eswara is removed.

>From the stand point of Nirguna Brahman, i.e. pure consciousness, no experience

is possible because the moment any experience takes place, dwaita comes into

picture.

 

However, to understand Nirguna Brahman or “intuit” It, no special experience is

required, as because of It being there only, all experiences are possible.

Therefore, “chakshusha chakhsu:” “mano mana:” “srotrasya srotram” etc. This

knowledge is possible definitely and that is what all the Upanishads impart

through the Mahavakyas including “sarvam khalu idam brahma” (one can quote quite

a number of them). Even a sort of definition is given for Nirguna Brahman as

“Satyam Gnanam Anantham Brahma”.

 

After self-knowledge what happens is what happened to Arjuna

 

i.e. “Nashto mohaha, smruthi labdhawa”. The “moha” is due to one’s not knowing

the Truth behind, rather pervading all seen and unseen including his notion

about his self and his false identification with the nama and roopa (stands for

guna, sambandha,etc. and all such attributes) of aham, idam, and Eswara.

 

The stories of Avadhuta, whose hand was chopped, and Sri Ramana Maharshi feeling

no pain during operation, etc. are all to highlight their indifference, i.e.

“udaseenatha” to the nama and roopa.

 

Hari Om

 

R.S.Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search