Atmanandas witness teaching different from idealism

[Guest guest]

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.

 

Best Wishes, Michael

 

 

Greg wrote:

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