Loop the Loop

[Guest guest]

my view is the same as Gregory's:

i produce the world as is see;

and to answer the question:

"can a world be produced without "i produce the world as i see"?"

give a pleasure close to that of cross-words.

eric

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sadananda and Benjaminji,

 

I have read V.P. on perception and inference. You may

have missed my frequent quoting of it on this site,

citation, chapter and verse, a scholastic habit which

I recommend if you have the time for it. It makes it

easier to check the accuracy of interpretation and is

instructive in its own right for advaitin novices.

Having said that I have to state that you do not

address the point I was making. Is a question which

cannot be answered, logically cannot be answered, a

question about facts? It is obvious that it is not.

But that does not mean that I impugn or reject the

mahavaka 'prajanam brahmam' I merely find a different

route to it (Sankara's route in my opinion) that

does not open my flank to idealism.

 

In broad general terms Route 1 is via the individuals

consciousness. Everything in that is a presentation

to consciousness and as consciousness cannot be

conceived as bounded it must be one with absolute

consciousness. Quick and slick it seems to be a

solution but is seriously counter-intuitive as it

dissolves the alteriety of the other into the

consciousness of the perceiver.

 

Route 2 is the broad advaitic highway which starts at

the more fundamental characterisation of experience

as having the general structure of Subject and

Object. It then questions how the inert comes to be

conscious. Remember that up to this point we are in

the world of subjects and objects. Whilst still

retaining that structure it answers the question with

the theory of adhyasa, substratum, witness and the

rest as we know, being generally summarized by

'prajanam brahman' and 'aham brahmasmi'.

 

There is no need to go down Route 1 or anywhere near

it. It is a dead end. There is no need to postulate

within it any notion of maya or anirvacanaya for

there is no need to account for how the

subject/object dyad is real in perception i.e. an

actual division, but a unity in the substratum, in

consciousness.

 

A greatly simplified presentation which I offer,

 

With Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> In broad general terms Route 1 is via the individuals

> consciousness.

> Route 2 is the broad advaitic highway which starts at

> the more fundamental characterisation of experience

> as having the general structure of Subject and

> Object. > A greatly simplified presentation which I offer,

>

> With Best Wishes, Michael.

 

Michael - I am sorry. I fail to see any two routes. The root 2 is

exactly the route 1 since the experiencer is consciousness at the

individual level.

 

May be to make your point -you need to present the details of route 1

and where one get dead-locked and details of Route 2 and where that

dead-lock is absent.

 

I know you are familiar with Vedanta paribhaasha. There are detailed

analysis of that text by Ananatakrishna Shastri (I think) and some

analysis of both works by Prof. Bina Gupta (I think she is in this

country) on 'perception on advaita Vedanta. I plan discuss some of the

aspects of these works in the Manjari series.

 

Better yet, May I request you kindly take up that text Vedanta

Paribhaasha and present the analysis in this list - that will be a great

contribution from you. I am sure the moderators and the readers will be

happy since that is one of the well-acclaimed texts on epistemological

analysis in advaita Vedanta.

 

 

=====

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.

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michealji,

 

-------------

-

"ombhurbhuva" <ombhurbhuva

>

> In broad general terms Route 1 is via the individuals

> consciousness. ...it dissolves the alteriety of the other into the

> consciousness of the perceiver.

>

> Route 2 is the broad advaitic highway which starts at

> the more fundamental characterisation of experience

> as having the general structure of Subject and

> Object.

--------------------

 

I agree to your views.

Route 1 might lead you to " 'MAMA' prajnAnam brahman" if you are not

careful. We might end up in either solipsism or "different streams of

consciousness" !!

 

 

But can we say that adhyAsa was brought forth by SankarAchArya to explain

the subject/object dyad ? Or was it to explain the superimposition of the

Self on non-Self (body, mind and intellect) and the also the other way round

?

 

 

You said:

" how the subject/object dyad is real in perception i.e. an

> actual division, but a unity in the substratum, in

> consciousness. "

 

Perfect !!

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michael:

 

Let me join Sri Sadananda with an appeal to request you to take up a

discussion of the text - Vedanta Paribhaasha during the upcoming

year. This will greatly help and delight the members with this

sumptuous treat. Sri Ananda has provided a delightful discussion of

Sri Atmananda's text and you shuld be able to proceed along the

sameline with this text. This is best way to get out of the loop!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> Better yet, May I request you kindly take up that text Vedanta

> Paribhaasha and present the analysis in this list - that will be a

great

> contribution from you. I am sure the moderators and the readers

will be

> happy since that is one of the well-acclaimed texts on

epistemological

> analysis in advaita Vedanta.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I think what is crucial here is that we first understand each other.

Otherwise, we are truly in an infinite loop the loop! Sadaji's

Advaita Manjari is a good first step towards presenting a clear and

coherent view. He seems to have summarized it in his message of 19

December, which begins

>1. First advaita is not a belief. It is the truth...

 

I will try to make some concise comments on this message.

 

>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.

 

The choice of words here is a bit confusing. By starting with the

word 'given', it sounds like Sadaji is *assuming* that there is

consciousness and the world and both are real. This is what the

Dvaitins do, which he clearly says is wrong in his Advaita Manjari 5.

What I think he meant to say is that it *appears* to ordinary common

sense that two entities are given and real, namely, the conscious

self and the real inert world. But this appearance turns out to be

an illusion.

 

 

>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.

 

I agree with the principles of Advaita, as I interpret them, but I am

still a bit uneasy about statements such as 'scripture says'. I have

seen what this has done in other religions. Also, what justifies

faith in scriptures anyway?

 

Now please do not misunderstand me; I do have a kind of faith. I

have faith in the *spiritual experiences* of Ramana, Nisargadatta,

Shankara, Yagnavalkya, Buddha, etc. I read them, I believe they are

sincere and intelligent, and I believe that they have attained higher

states of consciousness which are accessible to each of us if our

wisdom is purified. This is different from a simple statement such as

'scripture says', which sounds like blind faith. (I know that Sadaji

once said that the scriptures can be taken as a 'working assumption'

until they are verified by personal experience. That sounds like a

good strategy to me.)

 

>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.

 

Yes, this is exactly the logical implication of 'Brahman is the sole

reality' and 'Brahman is consciousness'. It is not possible to be an

Advaitin if one ascribes any kind of reality or existence to external

inert objects. (Now Sadaji did make an interesting point, that we

should say 'Consciousness is Brahman' rather than vice versa.

Hmmm... A subtlety worth pondering.)

 

>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.

 

Ah, here is the crux of the matter.

 

I absolutely agree that one cannot prove the existence of a world

outside of consciousness. Stated otherwise, there is absolutely no

way of disproving that the apparent world is a dream or

hallucination. That is simply a fact. Solipsism (or the belief that

other conscious beings also do not exist) then becomes a problem, but

one which does not bother me, as I am quite convinced that it is

astronomically improbable that I should be the only one.

 

And here is a point of much confusion. What was just said does not

DISPROVE the existence of some kind of inert material world 'outside'

of consciousness. It simply says that there is no way of proving it.

Thus its existence would seem to remain indeterminate or unknowable,

as Sadaji says, and we must resort to scripture to settle the matter.

 

This would be a not unreasonable conclusion (Sadaji note the subtle

double negative!), but I disagree. With a bit of philosophical

perspicuity, we can say more. We can realize that our very notion of

space arises from perceptual consciousness, is defined in terms of

it, and is meaningless except in terms of it.

 

In other words, whenever we imagine a supposed 'other' to

consciousness, this implies a notion of 'space' in which our

consciousness seems to take up a portion and the world the rest. But

this imagination of space is but a faint reproduction in mind of an

actual perceptual experience, with some of the qualities stripped

out. We cannot imagine space otherwise, although we may *think* that

we can. Hence, any notion of space is in terms of a stripped down

version of perception, and perception is a conscious process (though

it does not exhaust it).

 

Therefore, to speak of an 'outside' to consciousness is conceptually

invalid. We are simply playing with words. The very notion of an

'outside world' is meaningless and is based on confusion regarding

the nature of space itself.

 

And what is ironical is that when common-sense people cling so

tenaciously to the notion of an 'object', they really imply just

perception but don't realize it. For example, when I kick a stone,

it feels so solid and so I say that 'surely the stone exists'. But

the reason I feel so strongly is that the experience or perception of

kicking the stone is so vivid and perhaps painful. But that

perception is entirely within consciousness. The 'reality' of the

stone is only the vividness of the perception.

 

It is like a dream, which seems so vivid until we wake up. During

the dream, we thought that the dream-objects were real, but upon

awakening we realize that we were only fooled by the vivid illusion

of the dream.

 

So I cannot accept indeterminacy regarding the so-called 'external'

world. It simply does not exist as any kind of entity independent of

my consciousness. There is only consciousness, and this is what I

call 'idealism'. Sorry for my stubbornness, but that is what I think.

 

Now the question is whether Advaita says this. Well, the dream

analogy is used again and again in the Vivekachudamani, so if that is

written by the 'real' Shankara, or by someone who understands him,

then it clearly seems to me that the Vivekachudamani agrees with me.

And the Yoga Vasistha even more clearly seems to agree with me, as I

pointed out recently with excerpts, which you can read here:

 

http://superprajna.com/Advaita/IdealismVasistha.html

 

And Ramana and Nisargadatta also clearly seem to agree with me. In

the case of Nisargadatta, one need only spend a bit of time reading

 

http://www.nonduality.com/asmi.htm

 

(I say 'seem to' in all these cases only to be humble.)

 

I don't know about the Brahma Sutras Bhashyas (especially II.2.28).

I have that big book, but it seems pretty indigestible to me, and I

don't wish to study it. It does look to me as though BSB II.2.28

postulates some degree of objectivity to the world. I don't know for

sure whether I accept (or even fully understand) the explanations

given by Sadanandaji and Anandaji, so I will leave the BSB II.2.28 as

'indeterminate'. But those other cases of Advaitins who agree with

my view cannot be dismissed. That amounts to a strong consensus!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namste Benjaminji,

 

I know we both have discussed this matter a lot in your ClearVoid list. And

I am not here to start the train once again ! :-)

Just expressing a few thoughts. Thats all.

 

> I agree with the principles of Advaita, as I interpret them, but I am

> still a bit uneasy about statements such as 'scripture says'. I have

> seen what this has done in other religions. Also, what justifies

> faith in scriptures anyway?

.. This is different from a simple statement such as

> 'scripture says', which sounds like blind faith.

 

 

Even if one lacks a bit of vivEka, vairAgya, shama etc, if he has shraddha

(faith in the scriptures and the teachings of the Guru) he will attain

freedom. If you can believe the writings of Shri Nisargadatta, Shri

Atmananda and SankarAchArya, why cant you believe the scriptures which is

the source of all their Knowledge?

 

> Yes, this is exactly the logical implication of 'Brahman is the sole

> reality' and 'Brahman is consciousness'. It is not possible to be an

> Advaitin if one ascribes any kind of reality or existence to external

> inert objects.

 

 

I can easily ascribe reality to the chair in front of me. If I see the

reality of Brahman to be the substratum of the chair, how can I say that the

thing in front of me is Unreal? The name and form may be unreal. But the

*something* in front of me is real. It has to be real. If that *something*

is not *there*, how can the name and form wrap it?

 

Note that I am not saying that the chair is outside of Consciousness or

Brahman. After all, everything is Brahman.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namste Benjaminji,

 

I know we both have discussed this matter a lot in your ClearVoid list. And

I am not here to start the train once again ! :-)

Just expressing a few thoughts. Thats all.

 

> I agree with the principles of Advaita, as I interpret them, but I am

> still a bit uneasy about statements such as 'scripture says'. I have

> seen what this has done in other religions. Also, what justifies

> faith in scriptures anyway?

.. This is different from a simple statement such as

> 'scripture says', which sounds like blind faith.

 

 

Even if one lacks a bit of vivEka, vairAgya, shama etc, if he has shraddha

(faith in the scriptures and the teachings of the Guru) he will attain

freedom. If you can believe the writings of Shri Nisargadatta, Shri

Atmananda and SankarAchArya, why cant you believe the scriptures which is

the source of all their Knowledge?

 

> Yes, this is exactly the logical implication of 'Brahman is the sole

> reality' and 'Brahman is consciousness'. It is not possible to be an

> Advaitin if one ascribes any kind of reality or existence to external

> inert objects.

 

 

I can easily ascribe reality to the chair in front of me. If I see the

reality of Brahman to be the substratum of the chair, how can I say that the

thing in front of me is Unreal? The name and form may be unreal. But the

*something* in front of me is real. It has to be real. If that *something*

is not *there*, how can the name and form wrap it?

 

Note that I am not saying that the chair is outside of Consciousness or

Brahman. After all, everything is Brahman.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael,

> <snip>

>

> In broad general terms Route 1 is via the individuals

> consciousness. Everything in that is a presentation

> to consciousness and as consciousness cannot be

> conceived as bounded it must be one with absolute

> consciousness. Quick and slick it seems to be a

> solution but is seriously counter-intuitive as it

> dissolves the alteriety of the other into the

> consciousness of the perceiver.

>

 

This might seem counter-intuitive as long as one has the notion of

an owner for the consciousness ( as in consciousness of Mr. X). As

long as such a notion is there, one is still in the field of duality,

and it would seem to be a dead-end.

But as one continues with introspection or vichAra, it will be

seen that even that notion of ownership (which is nothing other than

self-conceptualization, jIva or sense of ego) is another arising in

consciousness. That is when Route 1 reaches the logical conclusion

that "Everything is Consciousness".

 

Pranaams,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji,

 

I am glad to see that you are still here. I was also glad to see

that Venkat-M is still here. And others...

 

It seems we can basically agree, based on this latest message from

you. Let me just clarify a few fine points, and I think we can avoid

the protracted discussion of before on my Clear Void list (which I am

allowing to die anyway as I post my own articles to my website at

www.superprajna.com which I can control like a ruthless dictator!).

 

>Even if one lacks a bit of vivEka, vairAgya, shama etc,

>if he has shraddha (faith in the scriptures and the

>teachings of the Guru) he will attain freedom. If you

>can believe the writings of Shri Nisargadatta, Shri

>Atmananda and SankarAchArya, why cant you believe the

>scriptures which is the source of all their Knowledge?

 

What I object to is *blind faith*, the kind that leads to fanaticism.

In the case of Ramana, Nisargadatta, Atmananda, Sankara, it is

different as I explained last time. Here is the difference. FIRST I

read their works with an open yet critical mind. Then I slowly and

carefully get a feeling for their sincerity and authenticity. This

is tricky, and everyone must decide for themselves. Finally, I come

to believe that their experience was genuine and will serve as a

guide to raising my own consciousness. This is NOT what I mean by

blind faith. By the way, something similar happened to me with the

Upanishads, or at least those I read most often. The point is that I

don't want anyone programming my brain. That is how many religions

seem to operate, but I guess we don't need to name names.

 

 

>I can easily ascribe reality to the chair in front of

>me. If I see the reality of Brahman to be the

>substratum of the chair, how can I say that the thing

>in front of me is Unreal? The name and form may be unreal.

>But the *something* in front of me is real. It has to be

>real. If that *something* is not *there*, how can the

>name and form wrap it?

 

The only point I was making is that the chair is not made of some

inert and unconscious 'matter' that is somehow 'outside of' or 'other

than' consciousness. I think that many Indians fail to grasp the

Western concept of matter, even though it has parallels in Indian

philosophy (not to mention common sense everywhere). But to say that

the chair is 'in consciousness' is to say that even our waking

consciousness is like a dream or an illusion or a hallucination. The

greatest Advaitins say this over and over. I don't know how many

people on this list take this seriously, but I do. That is real

Advaita.

 

Notice that a large part of the problem is what do we mean by 'real'?

Materialists say that only 'matter' is real; dualists say that both

consciousness and matter are real; idealists allow only

consciousness, hence true Advaitins must be idealists, according to

this definition.

 

>Note that I am not saying that the chair is outside of

>Consciousness or Brahman. After all, everything is Brahman.

 

Good, going by just these words, we agree. But there are logical

implications, such as the denial of matter.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

You said: "Solipsism (or the belief that other conscious beings also do not

exist) then becomes a problem, but one which does not bother me, as I am

quite convinced that it is astronomically improbable that I should be the

only one."

 

But you are! (And so am I!)

 

Sorry - couldn't resist it.

 

Best wishes, and Happy Xmas,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis,

 

>You said: "Solipsism (or the belief that other conscious

>beings also do not exist) then becomes a problem, but one

>which does not bother me, as I am quite convinced that it is

>astronomically improbable that I should be the only one."

>

>But you are! (And so am I!)

>

>Sorry - couldn't resist it.

 

Forgive me for giving a serious answer to this humorous comment. By

the way, what you just said did occur to me too.

 

Yes, this must be true at the ultimate level, if Consciousness is

One. As you know, I have struggled with this in the past, but I now

basically accept it even if I cannot SEE it. That is, at the

phenomenal level it still seems that there are different streams of

consciousness. Thanks to Advaita, I have learned to be cautious with

respect to appearances.

 

I take it for granted that there must be an uncreated 'source' of

what appears to be the universe. Furthermore, this source must be a

unity. This is reflected in the fact that we have the same illusion

in common, that our various dreams of a common world are

synchronized, at least when awake. But this illusion of a universe

is still nothing but consciousness; that is why it is called

'illusion'. This source sustains what appears to be our finite

consciousness. At this point, it strongly resembles an ocean

sustaining the waves which appear to be our individual

consciousnesses. This is a classic Advaitin analogy, but even this

is dangerous, since it may appear that the waves are distinct.

 

 

>Best wishes, and Happy Xmas,

>

>Dennis

 

Are you an Advaitin Christian? :-)

 

I have heard there are hardly any real Christians left in the U.K.,

but that won't stop them from celebrating! So same to you.

 

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Greetings fellows of this forum.

 

I am not attaching any passage of Gregji's reply to the question on

existence being dependent or independent from the entity undergoing it. I find

interesting to comment further on this, because I think that an analytical

approach might perhaps help to shed some light in this matter.

First of all, being Advaitin or not, nobody can actually claim to be

living in an outside world, outside here meaning out of one's perception. The

world can only be known by the senses. So to start with, there is no such thing

as "the" world. Different people perceive things differently. There is only

perception of the world, not the world per se. Here I don't want to digress into

Buddhism, but it might be interesting to note that the Shakyamuni Buddha did not

teach his doctrine based upon any real existence,i.e., he summarized the whole

process of Maya as 1- the five skandhas or aggregates (form, perception,

sensation, mental formation and volition) and 2- the wheel of Samsara (continued

rebirth until Liberation). And even the form aggregate is only perceived by

senses and consciousness, so from a more rational standpoint one can say that

the body does not exist outside of one's perception of it. When I am very

focused I don't feel my body, therefore it is non-existent to me in these

periods of time.

I think the big question is: who is the subject? Identification. If

one starts assuming that one is the body, then of course one must assume there

is an outside world, separation between beings and separation of experience

subject-object. Nevertheless, as the great Rishis of India have known for

thousands of years this form of identification brings pain, mental affliction,

ego etc. Then they found out -- and I get myself wondering sometimes what was so

special in India that they discovered this thing such a long time ago -- that

the only purpose of life was to eliminate the erroneous identification and

having done that, reach a state of consciousness which is 'beyond' all concepts,

pure, free and unlimited.

Now, I don't understand why the question 'does the world exist apart

from a perceiver'? is so defying to Gregji. I don't mean any offense here, and

in true spirit of brotherhood I write here, but why you avoid this question

Gregji? Perhaps because it goes "checkmate" on you and your philosophy of

objective idealism. If there is a world outside of my perception I cannot know

it, so even if it "exists", I will not be able to go and check for myself if it

really exists. So I say, "it does not exist to me".

Reality is a dream. This has been stated repeatedly by the most wise

and enlightened human beings of the past five thousand or so years. As to

Gregji's question, "does anything really exist?", I would like to comment.

My answer to that question would be: both yes and no. It exists as a

reality while the egoic knot has not been untied. So, in the normal state of

consciousness of Jagrat, it exists. In Sushupti and Turyia, though, the light of

the Atman shines through and nothing exists. For one who is wise, the major aim

in life is to reach Turyia and stay there, because this is Awakening, awakening

from a dream and nevertheless still be part of it, just like "lucid dreaming".

Many pranaams to all,

Fred

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

advaitin/

 

b..

advaitin

 

c..

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjaminji,

 

Namaste.

 

> I think we can avoid

> the protracted discussion of before on my Clear Void list (which I am

> allowing to die anyway as I post my own articles to my website at

> www.superprajna.com which I can control like a ruthless dictator!).

 

 

IMHO, it was going out of focus. So I popped out of it :-)

 

> Notice that a large part of the problem is what do we mean by 'real'?

> Materialists say that only 'matter' is real; dualists say that both

> consciousness and matter are real; idealists allow only

> consciousness, hence true Advaitins must be idealists, according to

> this definition.

 

 

Even the idealist consciousness (buddhi vriti) is inside the Advaitic

Consciousness (Brahman).

So idealists and Advaitins are poles apart !

 

Hari Om