Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 Namaste, I see that the old 'idealism' debate is percolating again. Let me try to cut the Gordian knot. (How quixotic of me!) It all depends on definitions. If by 'idealism' one simply means that 'consciousness is everything' in *some* sense, then it is absolutely certain that this is what the Mahavakyas say. They are not all that cryptic. On the contrary, this is elementary. Of course, one can then debate about the interpretation of 'consciousness', though clearly any notion of an 'external' world is denied. This includes the usual understanding of an 'object'. In general, an 'object' is anything other than consciousness (if indeed there be such a thing). However, the word 'idealism' as used by Western philosophers may not always adhere to the simple definition above. In particular, there may be an implicit or explicit reintroduction of some degree of objectivity. And the philosopher himself may be confused about this. But if we stick to the simple definition above, then there can be no doubt about it, since 'consciousness' is just another word for Brahman. Ramana, Nisargadatta and all the Advaitins I have read use 'consciousness' in this way, though the translations often give it a capital 'C' for dramatic effect (and to distinguish it from mere personal consciousness). Really, our discussion should be about just what consciousness is and not whether it is the sole reality. That has already been answered for Advaitins. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 Namaste Sri Benjamin: I like your quick note, especially your assessment that 'Consciousness is just another word for Brahman.' I would ofcourse add another corallary to your note that 'Brahman only knows the Brahman.' This simple (look like) statement doesn't need any proof because it is 'SELF-Explanatory.' If and when my understanding merges (superimposes) with the understanding of Brahman then for me, the external world doesn't exist. With that understanding (wisdom), I 'IGNORE' the external world. I wonder whether 'ignorance is bliss' implicitly implies that if we learnt to ignore the external world we can experience bliss! Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> wrote: > > Namaste, > > Of course, one can then debate about the interpretation of > 'consciousness', though clearly any notion of an 'external' world is > denied. > >...................... > > But if we stick to the simple definition above, then there can be no > doubt about it, since 'consciousness' is just another word for > >....... > Hari Om! > Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 Ram - if I can interject further in the note to the Benjamin's note ---there is precisely what is noted in the scriptures - praj~naanam Brahman - consciousness is Brahman - it is one without a second and - when it says it saw - tat aikshata - since there nothing other than itself - scripture essentially declares that it is self-consciousness entity - It is only a self-conscious entity is self-existent entity. Second - no need to ignore the world either since world is nothing but Brahman. It is like I want to ignore myself. The apparent plurality becomes the manifestation of Brahman as its glory. Should gold ignore the ornaments or be happy that it has the capacity to manifest in varieties of forms. Ignoring is one aspect but aiswaryam is the different aspect - It is recognizing its own creative potential. Everybody enjoys his or her own creation compared to somebody's creation- buhusyaam prajaayeyti - let me become many and became many - and that is nature of Brahman too. pasyam me yogaaiswaram - see my glory says Krishna. One can enjoy the world without ignoring it but one should not get carried away by it by taking it as separate from oneself. Hari OM! Sadananda --- Ram Chandran <rchandran wrote: > Namaste Sri Benjamin: > > I like your quick note, especially your assessment > that 'Consciousness is just another word for Brahman.' I would > ofcourse add another corallary to your note that 'Brahman only knows > the Brahman.' This simple (look like) statement doesn't need any > proof because it is 'SELF-Explanatory.' If and when my understanding > merges (superimposes) with the understanding of Brahman then for me, > the external world doesn't exist. With that understanding (wisdom), > I 'IGNORE' the external world. I wonder whether 'ignorance is bliss' > implicitly implies that if we learnt to ignore the external world we > can experience bliss! > > Warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > > > advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> > wrote: > > > > Namaste, > > > > Of course, one can then debate about the interpretation of > > 'consciousness', though clearly any notion of an 'external' world > is > > denied. > > > >...................... > > > > But if we stick to the simple definition above, then there can be > no > > doubt about it, since 'consciousness' is just another word for > > > >....... > > Hari Om! > > Benjamin > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. New Photos - easier uploading and sharing. 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.