advaitin Atmanandas witness teaching different from idealism

[Guest guest]

Hello Michael,

 

Sorry, I had a hard time understanding the intent of much of your last message.

What do the "it"s refer to in the following sentences?

 

1. ...Sankara considered it important.

 

2. It was central to an influential school of Buddhism viz. Vijnanavada...

 

3. So in fact it's far from being a Western obsession or indeed my obsession.

 

4. However I think it's worth working at because the position

which it impugns is regarded highly by western intelligentsia today whereas

Advaita is barely considered.

 

I agree with much of what you say about idealism, but don't see the witness

prakriya as idealism. You remember that Berkeley accepted the reality of minds

or spirits, and ideas. The source of an individual mind's ideas was God, a

spirit. Whereas in Atmananda's witness prakriya minds and ideas are merely

phenomena appearing to consciousness. For example, it would be a

misunderstanding of the prakriya to ask, "To whose consciousness do appearances

appear?" Any notion of mind, and any distinction between minds -- and in fact

any individuation whatsoever, is merely another appearance.

 

By the way, did you hear that supposedly Berkeley himself later in life applied

the reasoning to the notion of mental substance that he previously did to the

notion of physical substance??

 

>From the excerpts which you offer from the writings of Shri Atmananda one

can't be sure what his position is eg.

 

Ha! Then how about this quote from Atmananda?

 

The gross and subtle worlds (physical and mental)

cannot be separated from knowledge (consciousness)

at any point of time. Therefore they are nothing

but Consciousness.

"World," from ATMA NIRVRITI

 

Ask yourself what is the difference between

(a) I see a chair. (object in front)

(b) I am conscious of a chair

© The chair is in my consciousness

(d) Chair consciousness is my consciousness.

 

 

I like this one:

 

(e) I am appeared to chairdly.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

On 12/03/03 06:37 pm ombhurbhuva (ombhurbhuva) wrote:

Hello Greg,

I was referring to the topic of idealism. I have no objection to

the Witness as a fundamental tenet and I certainly don't think it is

idealistic. In fact it is proffered by Sankara as way out of the charge of

infinite regress made by the Vijnanvadin (Subjective Idealist). The

question I would ask about Shri Atmananda's position is whether the chair

(the object in front) is a phenomenon appearing to consciousness or an

external object that is perceived or what.

 

============

Hi Michael,

 

Thanks for your explanation -- I understand better what you are getting at now.

Your question for Atmananda's position is, "what does Atmananda say a chair is?"

 

Of course the only true nature of anything is consciousness, and he says this

throughout all his written works. But, how else does Atmananda tend to speak of

chairs and trees?

 

What one takes an object to be depends upon one's standpoint. A passage from

ATMA DARSHAN illustrates this:

 

<quote begin>

 

(20. I-V) "The Seer and the Seen"

(I.) If one looks through the gross organ eye, gross forms appear. The same

relation exists between other gross organs and their objects.

 

(II.) Leaving the physical organs, if one looks through the subtle organ called

mind, subtle forms appear.

 

(III.) Looking through the attributeless pure Consciousness, one sees

Consciousness only and nothing else.

 

(IV.) This experience proves that the objective world will always appear in

perfect tune with the stand taken up by the subject.

 

(V.) Therefore it is not the objective world which presents obstacles to one's

spiritual progress, but the false stand one has taken up.

 

<quote end>

 

Hope this clarifies it a bit!

 

--Greg