Atmananda's "witness" teaching different from idealism

[Guest guest]

Dennis wrote:

 

B.S.S.II.ii.29 seems to be lacking the usual intellectual rigour and

(presumably I must be missing something!) appears to use false logic.

Shankara says that we cannot use the dream state as an analogy because it is

sublated upon waking. And so it is. But I thought that this was precisely

the point. Namely that the things dreamt appeared real at the time we were

dreaming but, upon awakening, are realised to have been false. I thought

that the analogy was that, although we appear to see separate objects,

people etc. whilst in the waking state, this will be sublated upon

enlightenment and will be realised to have been false.

 

When he says that the perceptions of the waking state cannot be classed with

those in a dream, surely that is so only from the vantage point of the

waker. From the vantage point of the Self, the analogy is perfectly valid. A

thing 'seen in the waking state is not sublated under any condition' *of

waking*. Furthermore, dream vision is 'only a kind of memory' from the

vantage point of the waker. The vision was real enough to the dreamer.

Please explain. (If the last part of this sutra provides clarification,

please clarify, since although I have read it several times, I still do not

follow it!)

 

Hello Dennis,

Vijnanavada is dealt with in II.ii.28 not 29. 29 continues his

refutation by considering an argument sometimes offered. It is held that

because dream seems real enough at the time and then it turns out not to be

might not a similar thing happen to the external object?

 

What you were taking exception to was the idea that external objects or

things seen in the waking state are never sublated in any circumstance. The

circumstance that seems to you to be an exception is the state of

enlightenment. It is often held to be that state in which we shall see 'not

in a glass darkly' or that this apparent solidity will be a mere shadowland.

I think that these metaphors are an expression of the psychological

detachment that comes from the vision of reality. Perception may be

enhanced but it is essentially of the same order. What the world may be like

to a jnani is an imponderable but they can find their cup of tea and feel

pain. What is true is unsublated through the three moments of time (past,

present and future) is a saying that I came across somewhere which seems to

imply that the waking state is sublated or surpassed in a more complete

vision. Which is true (I'm told) but in this instance Sankara is treating

of the assimilation of dream images to perception. "But a thing seen in

the waking state is not sublated under any condition". Insight wouldn't

sublate in that sense.

 

The latter part of the sutra makes the point that though dream images and

waking images are alike it is unsafe on this basis to say that there is a

substantial likeness. The dream is different from the waking state.

 

That's just my understanding of it, I'm open to correction and welcome it.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

What is true is unsublated through the three moments of time

(past,

> present and future) is a saying that I came across somewhere

which seems to

> imply that the waking state is sublated or surpassed in a more

complete

> vision. Which is true (I'm told) but in this instance Sankara is

treating

> of the assimilation of dream images to perception. "But a thing

seen in

> the waking state is not sublated under any condition". >

> The latter part of the sutra makes the point that though dream

images and

> waking images are alike it is unsafe on this basis to say that

there is a

> substantial likeness. The dream is different from the waking

state.

>

> That's just my understanding of it, I'm open to correction and

welcome it.

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

 

Namaste, Michaelji

 

I had also a problem with Br.S.II.ii.29, like Dennisji. So I am

interested in your explanation above. But I still don't seem to

understand your words:

"in this instance Sankara is treating

of the assimilation of dream images to perception.....

Insight wouldn't

sublate in that sense."

 

Can you elaborate this? Thanks.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

 

You said:

 

"What you were taking exception to was the idea that external objects or

things seen in the waking state are never sublated in any circumstance.

The

circumstance that seems to you to be an exception is the state of

enlightenment. It is often held to be that state in which we shall see

'not

in a glass darkly' or that this apparent solidity will be a mere

shadowland.

I think that these metaphors are an expression of the psychological

detachment that comes from the vision of reality. Perception may be

enhanced but it is essentially of the same order. What the world may be

like

to a jnani is an imponderable but they can find their cup of tea and feel

pain."

 

This is not quite what I had understood Shankara to claim. I refer you to

the Advaita Ashrama publication of the mANDUkya upaniShad with gauDapAda's

kArikA and shaNkara's commentary (that sounds suitably authoritative!). In

II-9-10, Shankara comments: "... Both kinds of objects (in dream), imagined

by the mind internally and externally, are found to be unreal. Similarly in

the waking experience objects known as real and imaginary (mental) should be

rationally held to be unreal. Objects, internal and external, are creations

of the mind (whether they be in the dream or in the waking state)."

 

No one is denying that the 'realised man' still sees the same apparent world

and appears to act in accordance with this seeing. The point is that it is

now known that all of this seeming appearance is only name and form imposed

upon the non-dual reality.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

 

Your message also reminded me of reading Ramana's golden words:

"If you wake up from a dream, do you try to ascertain if the

persons of your dream creation are also awake?" Therefore, Maharshi had no

disciples. And for the same reason I think, it is said that the Bodhisattvas

choose to refrain from Nirvana to be able to teach other beings the Secret

Dharma.

best regards,

fred

-

"ombhurbhuva" <ombhurbhuva

<advaitin>

Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:14 AM

RE: Atmananda's "witness" teaching different from

idealism

 

> Hello Ananda,

> I posted in reply to Greg before I spotted your delineation

of

> the position of Shri Atmananda. "it is through mind that objects are

known.

> An object is never known directly, but always through mind..... And it

makes

> knowledge of an object indirect, thus distancing the known object from

the

> self that knows."

>

> This position is technically known as mediate realism and it is an

> inherently unstable one. Under pressure it tends to degenerate into

> Idealism and likewise Idealism tends to mutate into it. Putting it

bluntly,

> if all you know is a mental appearance how do you know that there is

> anything 'outside' corrosponding to it. Nothing in your data tells you

so.

>

> I have scanned B.S.B. II.ii.28 (not 29, sorrry Dennis) into

> http://homepage.eircom.net/~ombhurbhuva/vijnanavada1.htm

> and there you can read for yourself what Sankara's position is (Swami

> Gambhirananda's trans. Advaita Ashrama publ)

> That it is different from what you are saying is obvious to me but I

could

> be wrong and maybe I'm missing something.

>

> You say "This distancing of knower and known is dvaita or duality". In

> these discussions I always took non-duality to be the non-duality of

atman

> and Brahman and duality by extension to mean a transcendent Braham.

Roughly

> a transcendent/immmanent opposition. What you propose is a topic for

> epistemology.

>

> You say: "The outward-going mind is found to be misleading and

inadequate.

> What it takes for knowledge isn't really knowledge in itself. Instead,

it

> is a confusion of knowledge with ignorance, which produces a compromised

and

> misleading appearance of truth mixed up with falsity."

>

> Can you give examples of this. They help to focus the mind and mitigate

the

> tendency to bounce off the abstract.

>

> Please don't think I am being importunate and a pest. This is what is

known

> as the rigour of peer review which entering into print exposes you to.

>

> 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

>

>

>