This loop dissolves

[Guest guest]

Hello Michael-ji,

 

You present two routes. They are no problem, for with a little inquiry it can

be seen that Route 1 dissolves into Route 2. Let's look.

 

Route 1 is via the individual's consciousness. Route 2 characterizes experience

generally as having the structure of subject/object.

 

Route 1 is like Route 2 in that it characterizes experience has structured into

subject/object. Yet it adds the assumption that the consciousness is the

individual's. That assumption I'll call (L), and (L) is the main difference

between Route 1 and Route 2. Route 2 doesn't claim (L):

 

(L) Consciousness is limited to or belongs to an individual.

 

Yet when (L) is looked into, it has no support whatsoever. In fact, any

individual or limit or owner that arises as evidence for (L) always arises on

the object side of the distinction. There is no evidence that subjecthood

itself is individuated.

 

And of course this is just what Route 2 says.

 

So, Route 1 becomes Route 2, because upon examination, (L) makes no sense .

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

 

 

On 12/20/03 09:26 am ombhurbhuva (ombhurbhuva) wrote:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: <a

href="http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/"

target="NewWin">http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/</a>

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: <a href="advaitin/messages"

target="NewWin">advaitin/messages</a>

 

 

 

 

 

<a href="advaitin/"

target="NewWin">advaitin/</a>

 

 

advaitin

 

Your

<a href=""

target="NewWin"></a>