Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 Namaste Sri Sadananda and Benjaminji, "There is no independent proof that the world exists without a conscious entity establishing its existence." (Sri Sadananda) This is the supposed answer to the question - can a world be shown to exist without a conscious entity to be aware of it? What sort of question is it that cannot be answered, logically cannot be answered because the very means of answering it is disallowed in the question? Is it a senseless, absurd question not just an undecidable one or is it a metaphysical statement in disguise? This is where I suspect Benjamin takes comfort in this approach for it links inextricably existence and being in someone's consciousness. This sort of question is an example of self-referential paradox in which one is trapped at a particular logical level, a loop so to speak. A famous ancient one is "All Cretan are liars" said the Cretan. Now the question is Is the Cretan telling the truth or not? The catch 22 questions (Heller's book) have something of the same flavour (a)you can only get out of this detail if you are mad (b) only a madman would volunteer for this detail(bombing mission) © therefore I will volunteer for this mission and be disallowed from going on it (d) but you had to have volunteered to have been judged mad therefore you must do that part first (bombing mission) and then we can say you're mad (e)but to even think of it I must be mad.. And so on something like that. I am sure that the Vedic or folk tradition has such puzzles and riddles in it. Anyway my point is that these are logical conundrums and not empirical one - a question that cannot be answered, logically cannot be answered, is not an empirical question. It is significant that the preamble to B.S.B. starts with the empirical structure of experience namely Subject and Object. Broadly the problem of chit/jada within this gives rise to a transcendental postulate based on the *empirical* adhyasa. Best Wishes, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 At 12:27 PM 12/19/2003 +0000, ombhurbhuva wrote: >Namaste Sri Sadananda and Benjaminji, > >"There is no independent proof that the world exists >without a conscious entity establishing its existence." >(Sri Sadananda) > This is the supposed answer to the question - can a >world be shown to exist without a conscious entity to >be aware of it? What sort of question is it that >cannot be answered, logically cannot be answered >because the very means of answering it is disallowed in >the question? Is it a senseless, absurd question not >just an undecidable one or is it a metaphysical >statement in disguise? This is where I suspect Benjamin >takes comfort in this approach for it links >inextricably existence and being in someone's >consciousness. I think I'm agreeing with you here Michael-ji. This question "Can a world be shown to exist without a conscious entity to be aware of it?" is a disingenuous one, a reverse-engineered question that is based on its own answer. I think it misses the mark and doesn't really address the stirrings in the soul of the sincere inquirer. It doesn't hit the spot. Even if this question is answered, the stirrings remain. What really stirs the soul (it stirred mine for decades) is this question: "Does anything exist?" Now *that* is a *question*! And I think we've had a month to look at it as the topic, though maybe it will return! Pranams to all, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 Gregji said: >I think I'm agreeing with you here Michael-ji. This question > > "Can a world be shown to exist without > a conscious entity to be aware of it?" > >is a disingenuous one, a reverse-engineered question that >is based on its own answer... Be that as it may, the question that is relevant to this list is whether an ADVAITIN can believe that anything other than consciousness exists. Now, as Sadanandaji has reminded us repeatedly, the two mahavakyas 'Brahman is All' and 'Brahman is Consciousness' provide the answer with the same irrefutable logic as '2+2=4'. You don't have to believe this, but if you don't you are NOT an Advaitin. Remember, to be a traditional Advaitin, you have to accept the shruti on faith. My situation is peculiar in that I don't like the idea of accepting any scriptures on faith, but I believe that only consciousness exists for other reasons. Plus I believe that Ramana and Nisargadatta and Atmananda really did achieve a 'higher state of consciousness' and discussed it intelligently. Hence I am here. Michaelji, the question is not whether this philosophy of consciousness-only or idealism is correct, but whether it is Advaitin. It most certainly is, and that cannot be refuted, regardless of what 'Shankara' seems to be saying in this or that passage. You cannot simply ignore the entire Advaitic tradition as you base you entire case on what you think is one single 'smoking gun' (viz. BSB II.2.28). I have my doubts about the true author of that particular passage in the BSB. Who knows what accretions occurred in the text over time? I raised the issue here a short while ago, but nobody wanted to touch it, because once a certain scripture becomes hallowed and revered, Hindus tend to lose their healthy dose of skepticism, or so it seems to me. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > > I am sure that the Vedic or folk tradition has such > puzzles and riddles in it. Anyway my point is that > these are logical conundrums and not empirical one - a > question that cannot be answered, logically cannot be > answered, is not an empirical question. It is > significant that the preamble to B.S.B. starts with the > empirical structure of experience namely Subject and > Object. Broadly the problem of chit/jada within this > gives rise to a transcendental postulate based on the > *empirical* adhyasa. Namaste. Michael-ji You remind me of the following statement of Ramana Maharishi in Tamil on the 'bondage between chit and jaDa': (In Tamil) (uLLadu nArpadu: Verse 24): jaDavuDa-nAnennAdu, saccid-udiyAdu, uDalaLavA nAnenRudikkum-iDaiyil- idu, cij-jaDa-granthi-bandhan, jIvan-nuTpa-mey-yaganthai-iccamusAra- manam-eN. My translation: The body does not claim any proprietorship for the 'I'-feeling; the Atman does not claim the 'I'; In between, the feeling of 'I' is born in the whole system consisting of the body and mind. It is actually a knot (granthi) between Consciousness and the Inert. The knot is the bondage, the individual soul, the subtle body, egoism, samsAra and the mind. praNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 --- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote: > Now, as Sadanandaji has reminded us repeatedly, the two mahavakyas > 'Brahman is All' and 'Brahman is Consciousness' provide the answer > with the same irrefutable logic as '2+2=4'. > > You don't have to believe this, but if you don't you are NOT an > Advaitin. 1. First advaita is not a belief. It is the truth. Brahman means absolute infiniteness and infiniteness by definition does not exclude 'anything'. Hence the scripture says (not because the scripture says) it is one without a second. 2. Given that there are two entities as I have pointed out in my Manjari-4 & 5, I and the world, one is conscious entity and the other is an inert entity. 3. Scripture (as I will be discussing more in my next Manjari) says praj~naanam Brahman. That is consciousness is Brahman. The statement is done in converse form - that is, it says conscious entity is Brahman. That becomes a necessary and sufficient qualification for Brahman. 4. Combining the above three statements it follows that world is not there or it is apparent but reality of the world is it is only a projection on consciousness. 5. What I have established in the Manjari is that world existence is indeterminate problem since without conscious entity existence of the world cannot be established. That is essentially what Bhagavaan Shankara says - anirvachaniiyam and the very quality of maaya. It appears to be there but upon enquiry it is not there. There is sloka in VivekachuuDaamani on maaya- sannapyasanna ubhayaatmikaano ... mahadbhuutaa anirvacaniiya ruupa and next sloka says .. avyakta naamnii paramesha shakti anaadyavidya triguNaatmikaapara ... yayaa jagat sarvam idam prasuuyate. One cannot say it is there it is not there, or it is both, one cannot say it has parts or no parts or both, one can not say it is different or not different or both (from conscious entity) - it is indeterminate and a wonder by itself. It is the power of the Lord, and is of the form of beginningless ignorance and is the cause for the world. 6. Anirvachaniiyam or indeterminacy is different from non-existence of idealistic philosophy. Advaita does not prescribe to that either. Since creation is well defined ordered system following cosmic rules and laws with deterministic behavior, it is not a chaotic system either. This is precisely the reason why we have in advaita - vyavahaara and paaramaarthika frames of reference. As long as I am dreaming the dream world is real and transactions are real but only when I view the world from the point of the waker, it is all in a dream projection and has no absolute reality associated with it. 7. Theory of advaita is impeccably packed taking into consideration human experience as well as the shruti statements. It is the vision of the sages. It is non-duality in spite of duality and that non-duality cannot be any thing other than Brahman. If I am a conscious entity by the very scriptural statement involving converse, I am Brahman and that exactly what the scripture says. Now role of Brahmssutras. It is by sage Badaraayana and is the intended as authority but only for establishing the coherency in the vadic statements. It is used as tool to understand Upanishads not to provide an independent interpretation. The mahavaakyas of the upanishads provide the essential back bone for advaita siddhanta. As Benjamin rightly pointed out, what I wrote in Manjari 4 & 5 was consistent with the mahaavaakyas. But world is included in Brahman. Micheal if you study Vedanta paribhaasha of Dharmaraaja Advariindra, he discusses about pratyaksha pramaNa as direct and immediate unlike anumaana where one has to think the concomitant relations between the hetu and saadhya. The reason it is immediate and direct or (aparoksha) is both the subject, the seer and the perceived object,seen, are in consciousness - I thought (aham vRitti) and this thought (idam) as Bhagavaan Ramana points out. Immediacy arises due to consciouness pervading both idam and aham thoughts as their very substantive. 8. In the final analysis, yes there is nothing other than consciousness and that is Brahman as the mahaavaakya pointes out. In the vyavahaara the same consciousness splits into two - the subject and the object(inert) . If one is deluded (that is how we define the delusion) we take this apparent split as real. It is not dismissing the world as not existent (if that is what idealism says) but understanding the reality of the duality since the basis of the object is consciousness only which is real. That means the reality is the basis even for the world just as gold is the basis for a ring and a bangle. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== 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...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 Namaste, Looks like this one didn't make it the first time... Gregji said: >I think I'm agreeing with you here Michael-ji. This question > > "Can a world be shown to exist without > a conscious entity to be aware of it?" > >is a disingenuous one, a reverse-engineered question that >is based on its own answer... Be that as it may, the question that is relevant to this list is whether an ADVAITIN can believe that anything other than consciousness exists. Now, as Sadanandaji has reminded us repeatedly, the two mahavakyas 'Brahman is All' and 'Brahman is Consciousness' provide the answer with the same irrefutable logic as '2+2=4'. You don't have to believe this, but if you don't you are NOT an Advaitin. Remember, to be a traditional Advaitin, you have to accept the shruti on faith. My situation is peculiar in that I don't like the idea of accepting any scriptures on faith, but I believe that only consciousness exists for other reasons. Plus I believe that Ramana and Nisargadatta and Atmananda really did achieve a 'higher state of consciousness' and discussed it intelligently. Hence I am here. Michaelji, the question is not whether this philosophy of consciousness-only or idealism is correct, but whether it is Advaitin. It most certainly is, and that cannot be refuted, regardless of what 'Shankara' seems to be saying in this or that passage. You cannot simply ignore the entire Advaitic tradition as you base you entire case on what you think is one single 'smoking gun' (viz. BSB II.2.28). I have my doubts about the true author of that particular passage in the BSB. Who knows what accretions occurred in the text over time? I raised the issue here a short while ago, but nobody wanted to touch it, because once a certain scripture becomes hallowed and revered, Hindus tend to lose their healthy dose of skepticism, or so it seems to me. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 Namaste, >Looks like this one didn't make it the first time... I mean ... it didn't make it to the mirror, where I usually look. I see that Sadanandaji has already given an answer, so it must have made it to the site. Sadaji, your Advaita Manajari looks like something really serious and carefully written that we should ponder. It looks like it's got the same intellectual respectability as the Brahma Sutras Bashyas that Michaelji likes so much, but hopefully your text is written in a modern style that will clear all this up, even to Michaelji's satisfaction. Please give me a little time to study it. This is something we should consider carefully, and I intend to. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 Dear Respected Benjamin: Sorry for intruding in the discussion but just could not resist to express myself. advita whatever one may call it is nothing more than inclusion of everything. That includes dnyaata (j~naataa, One who is trying to understand), dnyeya (j~neya, so call concept or the object that one is trying to understand), all the existing previous knowledge (as the tools for such understanding - dnyayate iti dnyaanam). All this in encompassed in the same. Therefore what Sadananda is saying in absolutely correct. To me advita is the closest thing to science. That is why monotheists (dvaita) always have a run into difficulty with advitic thoughts. This is actually expressed elegantly in the purusha sukta. "puruSha evedam sarvarm" that everything is in one. Nothing is there beyond that "pruShaa" advita never has a problem with plurality because it is the realization of unity in the multiplicity. "avibhaktam vibhateShu" Ultimately the whole world in one "HOME" and is expressed as "yatra viShva.m bhavetyekaniiDam" When we say OM is everything, I regard this as "There is no place like OM". Just my 1 and 1/4 Cents. Regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote: > > > Namaste, > > >Looks like this one didn't make it the first time... > > > I mean ... it didn't make it to the mirror, where I usually look. I > see that Sadanandaji has already given an answer, so it must have > made it to the site. > > Sadaji, your Advaita Manajari looks like something really serious and > carefully written that we should ponder. It looks like it's got the > same intellectual respectability as the Brahma Sutras Bashyas that > Michaelji likes so much, but hopefully your text is written in a > modern style that will clear all this up, even to Michaelji's > satisfaction. Please give me a little time to study it. This is > something we should consider carefully, and I intend to. > > Hari Om! > Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 - "Gregory Goode" <goode > What really stirs the soul (it stirred mine for decades) is this question: > > "Does anything exist?" > > Now *that* is a *question*! Only Existence is. It is the all-dimensional reality ! Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2003 Report Share Posted December 19, 2003 Namaste Michaelji. I thought I would submit a few words (in )to this unending yet profound discussion: advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > "There is no independent proof that the world exists > without a conscious entity establishing its existence." > (Sri Sadananda) > This is the supposed answer to the question - can a > world be shown to exist without a conscious entity to > be aware of it? What sort of question is it that > cannot be answered, logically cannot be answered > because the very means of answering it is disallowed in > the question? Is it a senseless, absurd question not > just an undecidable one or is it a metaphysical > statement in disguise? This is where I suspect Benjamin > takes comfort in this approach for it links > inextricably existence and being in someone's > consciousness. [This question is a non-question because the question, asker and answerer are one and the same in *ultimate analysis*. That *ultimate analysis* doesn't materialize on List messabeboards or satsanghs. It does on the crucible of independent enquiry where a *second* dare not tread.] > > I am sure that the Vedic or folk tradition has such > puzzles and riddles in it. Anyway my point is that > these are logical conundrums and not empirical one - a > question that cannot be answered, logically cannot be > answered, is not an empirical question. It is > significant that the preamble to B.S.B. starts with the > empirical structure of experience namely Subject and > Object. Broadly the problem of chit/jada within this > gives rise to a transcendental postulate based on the > *empirical* adhyasa. [AdhyAsa, Michaelji, cannot be termed *empirical* like the measurable laws of physics or chemistry. It is only *heuristic* and helps as a support outside the *crucible*. Once one is in the *crucible*, one has to necessarily relinquish it. Outside, we can only hope to have unending discussions like the one we had on adhyAsa itself a year ago and the one we are currently having with this idealistic stuff. The only answer, therefore, to all those who persist in asking the question "Can a world be shown to exist without a conscious entity to be aware of it?" is "Get into the crucible straightaway. Your question will cease to exist as you won't need it anymore."]. PraNAms. Madathil Nair 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.