Excerpts from Atmananda's Atma Nirvriti (Reality of Objects)

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I just received my copy of Swami Atamananda's 'Atma Nirvriti' in the

mail. (I also ordered 'Atma Darshan', but it is currently out of

stock at Blue Dove press and will come later.)

 

Since this month's topic is the 'reality of objects', I thought I

would post a few relevant excerpts from Atma Nirvriti.

 

Note to Ananda: The book is rather short. If you ever think I am

posting an unfair share of the book, please tell me.

 

I must say that Atmanada's book is VERY nondual; one might call it

'Super Advaita' or some such thing. There are definitely no objects

or any reality other than Pure Consciousness. But this is what the

others (Ramana, Nisargadata, Ashtavakra, etc.) say too.

 

This sure seems like 'idealism' to me! But I'm not out to convert

anyone ... I consider that very rude. Also, I detect strong echoes

of Atmananda's thought in Mahayana (cf. Heart Sutra), but I won't

insist on that either, only to say that the similarities seem

striking to me, which strongly suggests that they arise from actual

experience.

 

What matters is that words such as 'All is Consciousness' should

trigger an illuminating and liberating flash of insight. This can

happen if we allow them to sink down to a deep subconscious level.

That is why it is good that this book is so short ... so that we can

memorize a few simple sentences, contemplate them throughout the day

for a long time, and let them sink in.

 

Consciousness is inherently divine; we are that and only that.

 

Benjamin

 

_____________

 

 

 

Ch. 12 - The Non-existence of Objects

 

Before the seeing, there is no 'seen' (drishyam*) and there is no

'seen' after the seeing. There can be no doubt about it.

 

When this truth is clearly understood, it will be evident that there

is no 'seen' even at the time of seeing. And then ceases all bondage.

 

*Drishyam is an object seen, with the accent not on the thing which

has no existence by itself, but upon the seeing as a result of which

the thing comes into existence. (Atmananda's footnote)

 

 

 

Ch. 15 - The Subject and the Object are One in Myself

 

Experience and knowledge are inside. How can their objects be outside?

 

It follows that there is nothing outside: all is within.

 

What is within is Myself, and therefore the experiencer and the

experience are one and the same, that is Myself.

 

 

 

Ch. 17 - Perceptions and Objects

 

Seeing goes into the make of form and form into the make of seeing;

therefore both are non-existent as such. This is true of the other

sense-perceptions also.

 

No one sees anything, no one hears anything, and no one thinks

anything, because objects and sense-activities have no existence.

 

Thus all are in deep-sleep state, a deep-sleep state where there is

no ignorance (non-knowingness).

 

 

 

Ch. 21 - All is Consciousness

 

Knowledge has nothing to know. The insentient can never know, being

insentient.

 

Therefore no one knows anything. All beings stand established as

pure consciousness.

 

 

 

Ch. 23 - *Experience and the Objective World

 

It is experience that must prove the existence of anything. An

object as such is never experienced.

 

It is the knowledge of it that may be said to have been experienced.

Even this is not strictly correct.

 

If an object is not experienced, it must be held to be non-existent.

How can there be knowledge of a non-existent thing? Therefore it is

not even the knowledge of an object that is experienced but knowledge

itself. Thus experience proves that the entire objective world is

knowledge and knowledge alone. That is consciousness and that is

ATMA.

 

*Experience is deeper than superficial knowledge or feeling. It is

in that sense that the word is used here.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> I just received my copy of Swami Atamananda's 'Atma Nirvriti' in

the

> mail. (>

> I must say that Atmanada's book is VERY nondual; one might call it

> 'Super Advaita' or some such thing. There are definitely no

objects

> or any reality other than Pure Consciousness. But this is what

the

> others (Ramana, Nisargadata, Ashtavakra, etc.) say too.

>

> >

> What matters is that words such as 'All is Consciousness' should

> trigger an illuminating and liberating flash of insight. This can

> happen if we allow them to sink down to a deep subconscious level.

> >

> _____________

>

>

>

> Ch. 12 - The Non-existence of Objects

>

> Before the seeing, there is no 'seen' (drishyam*) and there is no

> 'seen' after the seeing. There can be no doubt about it.

>

> When this truth is clearly understood, it will be evident that

there

> is no 'seen' even at the time of seeing. And then ceases all

bondage.

>

> *Drishyam is an object seen, with the accent not on the thing

which

> has no existence by itself, but upon the seeing as a result of

which

> the thing comes into existence. (Atmananda's footnote)

>

>

>

> Ch. 15 - The Subject and the Object are One in Myself

>

> Experience and knowledge are inside. How can their objects be

outside?

>

> It follows that there is nothing outside: all is within.

>

> What is within is Myself, and therefore the experiencer and the

> experience are one and the same, that is Myself.

>

>

>

> Ch. 17 - Perceptions and Objects

>

> Seeing goes into the make of form and form into the make of

seeing;

> therefore both are non-existent as such. This is true of the

other

> sense-perceptions also.

>

> No one sees anything, no one hears anything, and no one thinks

> anything, because objects and sense-activities have no existence.

>

> Thus all are in deep-sleep state, a deep-sleep state where there

is

> no ignorance (non-knowingness).

>

>

>

> Ch. 21 - All is Consciousness

>

> Knowledge has nothing to know. The insentient can never know,

being

> insentient.

>

> Therefore no one knows anything. All beings stand established as

> pure consciousness.

>

>

>

> Ch. 23 - *Experience and the Objective World

>

> It is experience that must prove the existence of anything. An

> object as such is never experienced.

>

> It is the knowledge of it that may be said to have been

experienced.

> Even this is not strictly correct.

>

> If an object is not experienced, it must be held to be non-

existent.

> How can there be knowledge of a non-existent thing? Therefore it

is

> not even the knowledge of an object that is experienced but

knowledge

> itself. Thus experience proves that the entire objective world is

> knowledge and knowledge alone. That is consciousness and that is

> ATMA.

>

> *Experience is deeper than superficial knowledge or feeling. It

is

> in that sense that the word is used here.

-----------------------------

Namaste. I cannot resisit the temptation of quoting from my father's

manuscripts

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/Appa/dRSTisRSTiHpage1.html

 

and the succeeding pages of the same web site.

Here are just a few (there are many more) parallels:

 

14. tyajyete ca kadA hyete apUrvaM dRzyate ca kiM / bhAvidvitIya-

nAmAdi gRhyate ramaNIyavat //

 

When do these names and forms take a future name and form?

When do they cast off their old ones? How do they appear with a name

and form which were never before seen?

 

 

15. vicArite vastu tatve nUtanasya janiH

kathaM / anabhivyakta-nAmAdi-rAdau dRSTaM yad-

adbhutaM //

 

Enquiry into the truth of the matter reveals `what was really not

there can never be truly born'. What really happens is only a

naming of the manifestation of something that was unmanifest

earlier.

 

20. nAyAti na ca tatrAsIt nAsti pazcAn-

nacAMzavat / na hIyate cAdi nAma kimatra

pariziSyate //

 

 

It does not come from anywhere; it was not there earlier; it is not

there later; even in parts; it does not keep its name for ever; then

what persists?

29. JnAna-sambaddha-rUpeNa dRzyaM ca JAyate

kila / JAnAkAraM ca yad-dRzyaM hetur-dRzya-vilApane //

 

 

An object is born dependent on Consciousness only. Appreciation of

the object as non-different from Consciousness is the means of

dissolution of the object.

 

 

 

30. dRSTa-sarva-tirodhAnaM tatraiva

haridarzanAt / bhAvanA to dRzya-zAntiH bhAvAdvaitam-athocyate //

 

Every object is dissolved by seeing the Absolute there itself.

Dissolution of the object through this appreciation (vision) is

called Non-duality by attitude.

 

40. draSTA sAkSI pUrNa iti tena dRzyaM na

sRjyate / jaDenaikena dRzyena jaDam-anyan-na sRjyate //

 

The Seer is the Witness and He is the fullest expression of the

Absolute. So He does not create any object. Nor does one inert

object create another.

 

41. dRzyaM svato'pi svenaiva na

saMbhavitumarhati / stambhaH kUDyaM na sRjati kUDyo vA na bhavet

svayaM //

 

The Seen cannot by itself be born or manifest. The pillar does not

create the wall nor does the wall appear by itself.

54. viJAnAtmA ca draSTeti dRzyazcApi

ghaTAdikaM / tatrAdhyAsika-saMbandhe yanmadhyaM hRdayaM viduH //

 

Consciousness is the Seer. The Perceived are objects like the pot.

The one is superimposed on the other. This is what is known as the

heart.

 

55. pratyagjyotis-tatra bhAti tatra dRSTirhi

tadvapuH / tatpadaM tripuTI-hInaM Japti-mAtra-svarUpataH //

 

There the Inner Light shines. Consciousness is its nature. That

Reality is devoid of the Trinity (namely, the Perceiver, the

Perceived and the Perception). It is just Pure

Consiousness.

 

 

The manuscript goes on like this for 373 nshlokas and then ends

abruptly. This was the last manucript that he wrote.

 

praNAms to all aqdvaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

This is not to complain about Benjamin's quotation of 'Atma nirvriti', but just

to warn

that such extensive quotations could lead to legal trouble.

 

After Shri Atmananda's passing (1959), the copyright for his works passed on to

his eldest

son Shri Adwayananda, who became a respected advaita teacher with many disciples

of his

own. As a matter of principle and long term policy, he was extremely strict and

vigilant

about taking legal action against any copyright infringement. He passed away

recently, and

leaves many sincerely devoted followers who are likely to continue with the same

policy,

both faithfully and effectively.

 

So I would advise that only short and isolated quotations be made, to illustrate

some

particular point that is being discussed. So far as I know, going beyond this

would

infringe copyright law and would invite the kind of legal attention that could

make even

short quotations difficult. But of course, I am open to correction here, if I'm

misinterpreting the law or out of touch with the current legal practice

concerning

publication on the net.

 

I am personally inclined to prefer a more relaxed approach to copyright, in the

interests

of free accessibility and open discussion. And I'm very much in sympathy with

Benjamin's

frank and direct approach.

 

But it must also admitted that Shri Atmananda's copyright holders have their

genuine

concerns about his work being plagiarized or cheapened by the wrong kind of

publicity. And

it is their call to make the judgement of where the line should be drawn in

pursuing legal

action. This being a delicate matter, I'd advise a degree of caution and respect

towards

their copyright.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sri Ananda said:

 

"This is not to complain about Benjamin's quotation of 'Atma

nirvriti' but just to warn that such extensive quotations could lead

to legal trouble."

 

 

My reply:

 

Yes, I was a bit worried about that. I won't post anymore. If it

were a normal length book of say 100-300 pages, I believe that the

little that I posted would be acceptable. But this book is quite

short, so as a percentage of the book, it was probably too much.

 

Ananda, do I need to feel frightened?

 

I guess the 'problem' is that Sri Atmananda was very concise and used

words sparingly, which is one of the reasons I urge buying this book

from Blue Dove. This is one book you will surely finish, regardless

of how busy your schedule is. And it's a very attractive book, from

a physical point of view. Please buy it today!

 

Anyhow, I think it's clear where this spiritual authority stands on

the 'reality of objects'.

 

Fortunately, copious amounts of the works of Ramana and Nisargadatta

are available on the web, where a similar Advaitin view is expounded

with a comparable degree of clarity. But it is always reassuring to

get corroboration from another authority.

 

Benjamin

 

 

 

P.S. I am wondering what happens if I paraphrase. For example,

consider this as an experiment:

 

Sri Atmananda said:

 

"Experience and knowledge are inside. How can their objects be

outside? It follows that there is nothing outside: all is within.

What is within is Myself, and therefore the experiencer and the

experience are one and the same, that is Myself."

 

(I do hope that quoting a few sentences is acceptable, as often

occurs in many published works.)

 

Suppose I were to paraphrase this as follows:

 

"All of our experience and knowledge occurs in our consciousness. We

never experience the so-called 'objects', but only our perception of

them. This perception is 'inside' our consciousness, while the

objects seem to be 'out there'. But notice something important! We

cannot see the 'out there', only the 'in here'. Thus, we have no

reason for believing in an 'out there'. There is only the 'in here';

there is only consciousness. This consciousness, in its totality, is

my true Self, which is not restricted to the transitory thoughts and

feelings of the ego. Therefore, the world and Self, or 'experienced'

and 'experiencer', are one and the same. This is my true Self, which

is the true Self of all that exists."

 

This says much the same thing with less elegance and many more

tedious words. But it gets the idea across, without quoting

directly. Is this the right way to proceed? Would anyone like to

comment?

 

One problem is that people may not believe that I am paraphrasing

properly, unless they have the original to compare! There must be a

degree of trust in the paraphraser's spiritual and linguistic

ability. Maybe a Ph.D. would help. Or a beatification, as with

Mother Teresa and her alleged miracles. (Sorry, I can't work any

miracles.)

 

Regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

 

< snip >

 

Sri Atmananda said:

 

"Experience and knowledge are inside. How can their objects be

outside? It follows that there is nothing outside: all is within.

What is within is Myself, and therefore the experiencer and the

experience are one and the same, that is Myself."

 

(I do hope that quoting a few sentences is acceptable, as often

occurs in many published works.)

 

Suppose I were to paraphrase this as follows:

 

"All of our experience and knowledge occurs in our consciousness. We

never experience the so-called 'objects', but only our perception of

them. This perception is 'inside' our consciousness, while the

objects seem to be 'out there'. But notice something important! We

cannot see the 'out there', only the 'in here'. Thus, we have no

reason for believing in an 'out there'. There is only the 'in here';

there is only consciousness. This consciousness, in its totality, is

my true Self, which is not restricted to the transitory thoughts and

feelings of the ego. Therefore, the world and Self, or 'experienced'

and 'experiencer', are one and the same. This is my true Self, which

is the true Self of all that exists."

 

This says much the same thing with less elegance and many more

tedious words. But it gets the idea across, without quoting

directly. Is this the right way to proceed? Would anyone like to

comment?

 

 

 

 

KKT: Your paraphrase

is very clear.

 

I just want to comment

on this phrase:

 

<< But notice something important!

We cannot see the 'out there', only the 'in here'.

Thus, we have no reason for believing in an 'out there' >>

 

We can only say that

<< WE KNOW NOTHING >>

about what is 'out there'.

 

All we know is what is 'in here'

that is within our consciousness.

 

But we cannot conclude that

there's nothing 'out there'.

 

What do you think?

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

At 02:30 PM 10/19/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

>Sri Atmananda said:

>

>"Experience and knowledge are inside. How can their objects be

>outside? It follows that there is nothing outside: all is within.

>What is within is Myself, and therefore the experiencer and the

>experience are one and the same, that is Myself."

>

>(I do hope that quoting a few sentences is acceptable, as often

>occurs in many published works.)

>

>Suppose I were to paraphrase this as follows:

>

>"All of our experience and knowledge occurs in our consciousness. We

>never experience the so-called 'objects', but only our perception of

>them. This perception is 'inside' our consciousness, while the

>objects seem to be 'out there'.

 

Hey Benjamin,

 

Your paraphrase is OK, with one big difference. Atmananda never goes in for the

notion of a personal consciousness as it seems you sometimes do when you say

"our consciousness" or "your consciousness" or "my consciousness." Another way

to say this might be, use fewer pronouns. Atmananda uses very few!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benji.

 

Just one comment that, I hope, won't hurt your paraphrasing.

 

An 'in here' cannot exist without an 'out there'. So, there is

neither 'in' nor 'out' in the consideration of Consciousness because

it is TOTAL and One without the need for any second. That is

the 'something important' to be noted.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________________

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

> Suppose I were to paraphrase this as follows:

>

> "All of our experience and knowledge occurs in our consciousness.

We

> never experience the so-called 'objects', but only our perception

of

> them. This perception is 'inside' our consciousness, while the

> objects seem to be 'out there'. But notice something important!

We

> cannot see the 'out there', only the 'in here'. Thus, we have no

> reason for believing in an 'out there'. There is only the 'in

here';

> there is only consciousness. This consciousness, in its totality,

is

> my true Self, which is not restricted to the transitory thoughts

and

> feelings of the ego. Therefore, the world and Self,

or 'experienced'

> and 'experiencer', are one and the same. This is my true Self,

which

> is the true Self of all that exists."

[Guest guest]

Sri Nairji, Namaste

Yes, indeed.

Pranam

Mani

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste Benji.

 

Just one comment that, I hope, won't hurt your paraphrasing.

 

An 'in here' cannot exist without an 'out there'. So, there is

neither 'in' nor 'out' in the consideration of Consciousness because

it is TOTAL and One without the need for any second. That is

the 'something important' to be noted.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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Nair, Benjamin,

 

Madathil Nair wrote (on 19 Oct 2003 21:31:44) about Benjamin's paraphrase :

 

"An 'in here' cannot exist without an 'out there'. So, there is

neither 'in' nor 'out' in the consideration of Consciousness because

it is TOTAL and One without the need for any second. That is

the 'something important' to be noted."

 

In this respect, I've heard that Shri Atmananda used to say:

 

The body has an outside and an inside.

The mind has an inside but no outside.

Self, or consciousness, has no outside nor any inside.

 

When the second position is taken seriously enough, the sense of inside becomes

quite

meaningless. Without an outside that's different from what's within, there

cannot

meaningfully be an inside. Then all that seems outside turns out to be false and

meaningless conception. The third position is attained accordingly, by anyone

who stops

prevaricating and follows things through to an unconfused conclusion.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

> Namaste Benji.

>

> Just one comment that, I hope, won't hurt your

> paraphrasing.

>

--------------------reply-------------------------

 

There is also not a "your" with out a "mine".

 

Love,

 

michael

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri-s Greg, KKT, and Nari,

 

 

Greg said:

 

Your paraphrase is OK, with one big difference. Atmananda never goes

in for the notion of a personal consciousness as it seems you

sometimes do when you say "our consciousness" or "your consciousness"

or "my consciousness." Another way to say this might be, use fewer

pronouns. Atmananda uses very few!

 

 

My reply:

 

In other words, where I said,

 

"All of our experience and knowledge occurs in our consciousness. We

never experience the so-called 'objects', but only our perception of

them,"

 

You might say,

 

"All experience and knowledge occurs in consciousness. The so-called

'objects are never experienced, but only the perception of them..."

 

Your point is well taken, and the latter version does actually sound

cleaner and better and more 'scientific'.

 

I guess my problem (if you want to call it that) is that I am like

Descartes, who started from the point of view of extreme skepticism

and asked, 'What can I really believe in?' That is where his famous

'Cogito ergo sum' or 'I think therefore I am' comes from. I start

from a similar standpoint. What I call 'my consciousness' is the one

indubitable reality, at least to a poor ignorant seeker such as

myself. From there, I try to work my way out into Reality, using

reason and intuition. Your impersonal version is the truth from the

realized viewpoint.

 

(By the way, some have criticized Descartes for falling into the trap

of 'conceptual thought', which is a no-no from the Advaitin point of

view. They have even accused him of being 'characteristically

Western'. In my opinion, his 'I think' can be generalized to 'I am

conscious', though the personal emphasis still remains.)

 

By the way, I notice that Ananda did not reply on whether I should be

scared about having quoted a bit too much of Atma Nirvriti. You work

for a law firm, don't you? Then you know that a few hours with a

typical American lawyer can wipe out the life savings of an ordinary

guy like me. And that is before the trial even begins! Here in

America, we have the greatest judicial system ever seen in the entire

History of Human Civilization, but only if you are in the richest 5%.

Let me reassure Sri Ananda (and Blue Dove Press) that I will NEVER

copy any more from Sri Atmananda!

 

 

 

Now on to KKT, who said:

 

"All we know is what is 'in here'

that is within our consciousness.

But we cannot conclude that

there's nothing 'out there'.

What do you think?"

 

My reply:

 

This is the old argument against 'subjective idealism'. I reject it,

though I admit that it is not a bad argument. I explained my reasons

at length on my website, but doesn't seem to want to show it

anymore, which is fine with me. That little ego trip has gone on

long enough. Basically, I have two counter-arguments: (1) The

'outside' is forever unknowable and therefore utterly useless, so

eliminate it by something called Ockham's razor [you can search

Google]; and (2) at a more subtle level, our very notion of 'outside'

is but a faint replica of consciousness and is therefore ultimately

*meaningless* as well as unknowable. The second argument is the

deeper one, but I admit it requires more discussion, due to its

subtlety.

 

By the way, I can't stand the suspense any longer. Please tell me

what 'KKT' stands for. Thank you.

 

 

 

Sri Nair said:

 

"An 'in here' cannot exist without an 'out there'. So, there is

neither 'in' nor 'out' in the consideration of Consciousness because

it is TOTAL and One without the need for any second. That is the

'something important' to be noted."

 

My reply:

 

You are quite correct. I quite agree that once the idea of an 'out

there' is seen to be false, then the idea of an 'in here' is seen to

be equally false. It is the same as with subject and object; they

are like two sides of the same coin that rise and fall together with

our conceptual mindstream or lack thereof.

 

The 'in here' only seems to be there when we first start from the

standpoint of ordinary thinking. Mere mortals must do this. But

then we arrive at your conclusion.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Michaelji.

 

I would take it that you didn't reply me. There cannot be a 'you'

because I am without an outside or inside. Is that ok?

 

PraNAms (to whom?)

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________________

 

advaitin, Michael Bowes <rmichaelbowes>

wrote:

> Dear Friends,

>

>

> --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair>

> wrote:

> > Namaste Benji.

> >

> > Just one comment that, I hope, won't hurt your

> > paraphrasing.

> >

> --------------------reply-------------------------

>

> There is also not a "your" with out a "mine".

>

> Love,

>

> michael

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Madathil Nair,

 

It's ALL OK!!! Or as the saying goes in the ghettos

of the United States: "It's all good"!

 

Love,

 

michael

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

> Namaste Shri Michaelji.

>

> I would take it that you didn't reply me. There

> cannot be a 'you'

> because I am without an outside or inside. Is that

> ok?

>

> PraNAms (to whom?)

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________________________

>

> advaitin, Michael Bowes

> <rmichaelbowes>

> wrote:

> > Dear Friends,

> >

> >

> > --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair>

> > wrote:

> > > Namaste Benji.

> > >

> > > Just one comment that, I hope, won't hurt your

> > > paraphrasing.

> > >

> > --------------------reply-------------------------

> >

> > There is also not a "your" with out a "mine".

> >

> > Love,

> >

> > michael

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ben-ji,

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

 

 

Namaste Sri-s Greg, KKT, and Nari,

 

< snip >

 

Now on to KKT, who said:

 

"All we know is what is 'in here'

that is within our consciousness.

But we cannot conclude that

there's nothing 'out there'.

What do you think?"

 

My reply:

 

This is the old argument against 'subjective idealism'. I reject it,

though I admit that it is not a bad argument. I explained my reasons

at length on my website, but doesn't seem to want to show it

anymore, which is fine with me. That little ego trip has gone on

long enough. Basically, I have two counter-arguments: (1) The

'outside' is forever unknowable and therefore utterly useless, so

eliminate it by something called Ockham's razor [you can search

Google]; and (2) at a more subtle level, our very notion of 'outside'

is but a faint replica of consciousness and is therefore ultimately

*meaningless* as well as unknowable. The second argument is the

deeper one, but I admit it requires more discussion, due to its

subtlety.

 

 

 

 

KKT: Thanks for your explanation, Ben-ji.

 

Your position on Idealism

is exactly the position of

Asanga and Vasubandhu

(Yogacara/Buddhist Idealism)

 

The reason I say that is because

of your insistence on the duality

of subject/object in consciousness

as the main cause of our ignorance

which is also the main theme

of Asanga and Vasubandhu.

 

The nearest position to

the 'subjective idealism' of

Asanga and Vasubandhu

is Shankara's Advaita

with a subtle difference:

 

While Asanga and Vasubandhu

posited that the world is unreal

because its existence depends

on our perception, (the world is

'in here' within Consciousness

which they named Alaya-vijnana

or Storehouse-Consciousness)

for Shankara, the world is unreal

not because its existence depends

on our perception but because

the world is ever changing.

 

Another difference is that while both

Vasubandhu and Shankara stated that

<< only Consciousness is real, absolute >>

for Shankara: Consciousness = Brahman

but for Vasubandhu, although Consciouness

is absolute, it is also ever changing.

Alaya-vijnana is a << stream >> of

consciousness in perpetual movement.

 

On this point (Consciousness = Brahman)

I think you, Ben-ji, is nearer to Shankara.

 

I have another question:

 

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj often

talked of the Absolute as something

<< beyond >> Consciousness.

 

What is this << beyond >> Consciousness,

knowing that Consciousness = Brahman ?

 

Can we say that the 'out there'

of which you deny the existence

is this << beyond >> ?

-------------------

 

By the way, I can't stand the suspense any longer. Please tell me

what 'KKT' stands for. Thank you.

 

 

 

KKT: My name is on the handle

of my email: Pham Dinh Luan.

 

KKT (in Vietnamese) = Kha Kha Tieu = Laughing Ha Ha :-))

 

I use these initials on different

email lists just for fun :-))

 

Please don't feel offense.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

KKT

[Guest guest]

Hey Benjamin-ji,

 

Don't have much time, so will have to talk fast.

 

Starting with what you know - "my consciousness" vs. "consciousness." Both are

possible only as the result of conceptual thought, but adding the "my" with all

it entails actually assumes more stuff. Why not go with "I"? Then be

Cartesian. From there, there's no way to end up entailing *people* and "me" vs

"others" that way!

 

About the copyright - no reason to be worried so far, but the copyright holders

have gone after several people who have printed or publicly written slokas of

Atmananda's. They start with a warning not to promulgate more. So I'd say

you're OK now, but try to stick to paraphrases, discussions and the occasional

citation or quote. Glad you like him!

 

--Greg

 

At 10:48 AM 10/20/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote:

 

 

>Namaste Sri-s Greg, KKT, and Nari,

>

>

>Greg said:

>

>Your paraphrase is OK, with one big difference. Atmananda never goes

>in for the notion of a personal consciousness as it seems you

>sometimes do when you say "our consciousness" or "your consciousness"

>or "my consciousness." Another way to say this might be, use fewer

>pronouns. Atmananda uses very few!

>

>

>My reply:

>

>In other words, where I said,

>

>"All of our experience and knowledge occurs in our consciousness. We

>never experience the so-called 'objects', but only our perception of

>them,"

>

>You might say,

>

>"All experience and knowledge occurs in consciousness. The so-called

>'objects are never experienced, but only the perception of them..."

>

>Your point is well taken, and the latter version does actually sound

>cleaner and better and more 'scientific'.

>

>I guess my problem (if you want to call it that) is that I am like

>Descartes, who started from the point of view of extreme skepticism

>and asked, 'What can I really believe in?' That is where his famous

>'Cogito ergo sum' or 'I think therefore I am' comes from. I start

>from a similar standpoint. What I call 'my consciousness' is the one

>indubitable reality, at least to a poor ignorant seeker such as

>myself. From there, I try to work my way out into Reality, using

>reason and intuition. Your impersonal version is the truth from the

>realized viewpoint.

>

>(By the way, some have criticized Descartes for falling into the trap

>of 'conceptual thought', which is a no-no from the Advaitin point of

>view. They have even accused him of being 'characteristically

>Western'. In my opinion, his 'I think' can be generalized to 'I am

>conscious', though the personal emphasis still remains.)

>

>By the way, I notice that Ananda did not reply on whether I should be

>scared about having quoted a bit too much of Atma Nirvriti. You work

>for a law firm, don't you? Then you know that a few hours with a

>typical American lawyer can wipe out the life savings of an ordinary

>guy like me. And that is before the trial even begins! Here in

>America, we have the greatest judicial system ever seen in the entire

>History of Human Civilization, but only if you are in the richest 5%.

>Let me reassure Sri Ananda (and Blue Dove Press) that I will NEVER

>copy any more from Sri Atmananda!

>

>

>

>Now on to KKT, who said:

>

>"All we know is what is 'in here'

>that is within our consciousness.

>But we cannot conclude that

>there's nothing 'out there'.

>What do you think?"

>

>My reply:

>

>This is the old argument against 'subjective idealism'. I reject it,

>though I admit that it is not a bad argument. I explained my reasons

>at length on my website, but doesn't seem to want to show it

>anymore, which is fine with me. That little ego trip has gone on

>long enough. Basically, I have two counter-arguments: (1) The

>'outside' is forever unknowable and therefore utterly useless, so

>eliminate it by something called Ockham's razor [you can search

>Google]; and (2) at a more subtle level, our very notion of 'outside'

>is but a faint replica of consciousness and is therefore ultimately

>*meaningless* as well as unknowable. The second argument is the

>deeper one, but I admit it requires more discussion, due to its

>subtlety.

>

>By the way, I can't stand the suspense any longer. Please tell me

>what 'KKT' stands for. Thank you.

>

>

>

>Sri Nair said:

>

>"An 'in here' cannot exist without an 'out there'. So, there is

>neither 'in' nor 'out' in the consideration of Consciousness because

>it is TOTAL and One without the need for any second. That is the

>'something important' to be noted."

>

>My reply:

>

>You are quite correct. I quite agree that once the idea of an 'out

>there' is seen to be false, then the idea of an 'in here' is seen to

>be equally false. It is the same as with subject and object; they

>are like two sides of the same coin that rise and fall together with

>our conceptual mindstream or lack thereof.

>

>The 'in here' only seems to be there when we first start from the

>standpoint of ordinary thinking. Mere mortals must do this. But

>then we arrive at your conclusion.

>

>Pranams

>Benjamin

>

>

>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

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

My apologies! I know that I've sent rather too many messages today,

apparently reviving my old bad habits. But a lot of those messages

were only suggested links, and in this case I feel that I must

respond to KKT.

 

KKT-ji, your scholarship on Asanga/Vasubandhu vs. Shankara is

impeccable. That is just what you must say to get a Ph.D., if you

were ever to engage in such a strange pursuit! (That was for Greg.)

 

However, I'd like to believe that the Buddhist Dynamic Duo and the

eminent Advaitin both reach the same 'place' in samadhi ... at which

point all thought ceases and philosophy becomes irrelevant!

 

Also, you raise a very important point in alluding to the

Transcendence of Brahman. I have been so concerned with reducing the

apparent world to consciousness that perhaps I have a bit neglected

the transcendent aspect of Brahman ... that is, the aspect beyond our

present experience, or perhaps even beyond any possible experience.

 

I would only caution that we should never underestimate our potential

experience or realization, if we are truly divine at the core. Who

knows what the limits of our realization are? Perhaps ALL will be

revealed in due course!

 

Note: The 'out there' that I was concerned with eliminating was only

the conceptual monstrosity of matter, with all its harmful spiritual

side-effects. The 'out there' of Brahman's transcendence is of an

altogether different order ... in no way to be confused with matter.

 

I can't imagine why you think I might 'feel offense' at something.

Also, I'm glad to see a Vietnamese person, probably of Buddhist

origins, be sufficiently open-minded to wander into Advaita. Now

let's have some Advaitins wander into Buddhism, just to check it out

and smell the roses.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all,

 

-------------------------------

Ch. 17 - Perceptions and Objects

 

Seeing goes into the make of form and form into the make of seeing;

therefore both are non-existent as such. This is true of the other

sense-perceptions also.

 

No one sees anything, no one hears anything, and no one thinks

anything, because objects and sense-activities have no existence.

 

Thus all are in deep-sleep state, a deep-sleep state where there is

no ignorance (non-knowingness).

-----------------------------

 

In deep-sleep, the ignorance (non-apprehension of the Self) is still present,

but the mis-apprehension is not present. Since removal of ignorance is

Self-realization, this verse would mean that deep-sleep is Self-realization

which is absurd.

 

So the deep-sleep mentioned here is not to be literally taken as the one

experienced by all of us every night.

 

 

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Ranjeetji,

 

I have inserted my understanding of the verses in brackets. I agree

with you that understanding deep sleep literally as Self-realization

is absurd. I hope my explanations will explain.

 

> Seeing goes into the make of form and form into the make of seeing;

> therefore both are non-existent as such. This is true of the other

> sense-perceptions also.

 

[There is only seeing-consciousness which is verily Consciousness.

Please refer to my previous post. The subject and object are

unnecessary, non-existent divisions on final analysis and, therefore,

constitute the ignorance which we are asked to remove. That is the

gyst of Advaitic adhyAsa.]

>

> No one sees anything, no one hears anything, and no one thinks

> anything, because objects and sense-activities have no existence.

 

[True, in view of what I wrote above.]

 

> Thus all are in deep-sleep state, a deep-sleep state where there is

> no ignorance (non-knowingness).

 

[That non-knowingness is, therefore, Consciousness, which we really

are whether awake or asleep. The tragedy is that we don't appreciate

it. When it is *realized*, the blank we call deep sleep becomes

wakefulness. The question: Wakeful to what? does'nt arise because

we have already done away with the subject and object. Afterall, the

blank called deep sleep is a 'blank consciousness' which stands on

its own without a subject and object, and, therefore, pure

Consciousness! Yet, I wish Sw. Atmanandaji had not used that

word 'state' which appears twice in the verse. Also, there is the

danger of interpreting the non-knowingness appearing in brackets as

ignorance (the word preceding it).]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair