Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 Hello All, It is alarming to see that Benjamin is still claiming that because as he believes that all things being presentations to his consciousness that makes them in fact really consciousness. That doesn't mean that as I approach Benjamin he is in fact getting bigger by virtue of the altering sense data.((not that I accept that account of things)) 'No' he might say 'a law of physics about conservation is at work'. How these laws might be discovered in 'Benjamin's World' is a riddle beyond scrying. Let's just say that he borrows them from his neighbour the Realist that empirical dullard who imagines that to discover whether a thing is or is not involves experiencing it. He, with all the elan of a careless neighbour abuses the barrow he has borrowed i.e. empirical procedure, by saying grandly 'oh that is impossible so therefore I cannot experience it.' Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 Namaste, Michael said: "It is alarming to see that Benjamin is still claiming that because as he believes that all things being presentations to his consciousness that makes them in fact really consciousness..." Michael, I am really glad that you continue to care about this issue, and for all I know you may be right. But here is what puzzles me. It seems to me that others such as Greg have views similar to mine regarding the sole reality of consciousness. (I'll leave Ananda out of this.) Why don't you challenge Greg for a change? He's a really sharp philosopher. :-) Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 At 02:02 AM 11/1/2003 +0000, ombhurbhuva wrote: I wouldn't be too sure that you and Greg >have the precise same views on consciousness apart from >an appreciation of Berkeley. This is true! Benjamin personalizes consciousness, "my consciousness,yours," etc. >Advaita needs to be explained but in its own terms, >simplification and streamlining which Greg claimed to >be a boon to Westerners in my opinion ends up in >distortion. Depends on what's left out and what's retained, as well as who's looking. I remember a few years ago on another advaitin list -- there were differences of opinion on what should be included and what may be excluded in the presentation/discussion of advaita. There were charges and counter-charges between the folks posting, we heard things like "too watered down,too much caste-emphasis,too new-age,too much "purva mimamsa," etc. One of the results of those differences of opinion was this very list! Pranams to all, --Greg >'Expedient teaching' can be a snare and a >delusion when it is taken to be the finished thought of >the master. Sometimes it is not clear whether we are >dealing with coherent philosophy or documents designed >to engender enthusiasm. > >Best Wishes, Michael > > > > >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 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.