advaitin Loop the Loop

[Guest guest]

Hello Fredericoji,

 

You write,

 

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".

 

==========Maybe you misunderstood something I said in a previous e-mail. It

seems you would like me to talk about the question you raise here, "Does the

world exist apart from a perceiver?"

 

There are several very helpful ways to talk about it. And in none of these is

the world ever truly independent.

 

(1) As Berkeley does. Then the answer is "No."

 

(2) As advaita vedanta does. Then it would depend on the standpoint --

ajati-vada, srshti-drshti vada, drshti-srshti vada, or ajati-vada. And for the

last vada at least, the answer is "No."

 

(3) Logically. The question mentions a perceiver and a world. Then the

perceiver is either part of the world or not. If you say that the perceiver is

*not* part of the world, then where would the perceiver be? Outside the world?

This would entail that the perceiver exists but is outside the world. This

makes no sense, and the world is missing something that is claimed to exist. If

you say that the perceiver *is* part of the world, then what is it that is

perceiving the perceiver? Rinse and repeat. The question, taken at face value,

makes no sense. Independence need not be presumed.

 

(4) As Shri Atmananda answers it. Cf. Atmananda's short essay "World,"

published with ATMA NIRVRITI:

 

"...What is perceived is not different from perception and perception is not

different from the Perceiver and ... therefore the world is the Perceiver

himself. ... The world is nothing but sense-objects and they are sound, form,

touch, taste and smell. It is not possible to separate these from

sense-perceptions. One cannot even think of a form without allowing the idea of

seeing to get into the act of thinking. The same is the case with the objects

of the other senses also. It can be seen from this that even in idea, the

sense-objects do not admit of separation from the respective sense-perceptions.

Therefore, objects are not different from, but one with perceptions. These

perceptions not being outside, what is called the world cannot also exist

outside. Sense-perceptions themselves may be examined now. They never stand

separatew from consciousness. With eyes open one does not see anything unless

consciousness is there. Therefore sense-perceptions are nothing but!

consciusness. So also are all the activities of the mind. This shows that

the entire gross world and the subtle are consciousness itself."

 

Pranams!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hello and Greetings Gregji,

 

Now you got a better explanation of your viewpoint.

I am sure that I missed it the first time, because I thought you

claimed the world to exist apart from Consciousness.

I would stick to Atmananda's position, being the position I have

had experience of, and the only one I may guarantee anyone that it is

genuine. The perceiver, perception and the perceived are one. This is to me

the basic and true reality. There are not two, there is only one. One

disguised, one may say so. Therefore it comes that Maya=Brahman.

Now I got your point.

Pranaams!

 

-

"Gregory Goode" <goode

<advaitin>; "Frederico S. Gonzales" <fsg

Monday, December 22, 2003 12:07 AM

Re: advaitin Loop the Loop

 

> Hello Fredericoji,

>

> You write,

>

> 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".

>

> ==========Maybe you misunderstood something I said in a previous e-mail.

It seems you would like me to talk about the question you raise here, "Does

the world exist apart from a perceiver?"

>

> There are several very helpful ways to talk about it. And in none of

these is the world ever truly independent.

>

> (1) As Berkeley does. Then the answer is "No."

>

> (2) As advaita vedanta does. Then it would depend on the standpoint --

ajati-vada, srshti-drshti vada, drshti-srshti vada, or ajati-vada. And for

the last vada at least, the answer is "No."

>

> (3) Logically. The question mentions a perceiver and a world. Then the

perceiver is either part of the world or not. If you say that the perceiver

is *not* part of the world, then where would the perceiver be? Outside the

world? This would entail that the perceiver exists but is outside the

world. This makes no sense, and the world is missing something that is

claimed to exist. If you say that the perceiver *is* part of the world,

then what is it that is perceiving the perceiver? Rinse and repeat. The

question, taken at face value, makes no sense. Independence need not be

presumed.

>

> (4) As Shri Atmananda answers it. Cf. Atmananda's short essay "World,"

published with ATMA NIRVRITI:

>

> "...What is perceived is not different from perception and perception is

not different from the Perceiver and ... therefore the world is the

Perceiver himself. ... The world is nothing but sense-objects and they are

sound, form, touch, taste and smell. It is not possible to separate these

from sense-perceptions. One cannot even think of a form without allowing

the idea of seeing to get into the act of thinking. The same is the case

with the objects of the other senses also. It can be seen from this that

even in idea, the sense-objects do not admit of separation from the

respective sense-perceptions. Therefore, objects are not different from,

but one with perceptions. These perceptions not being outside, what is

called the world cannot also exist outside. Sense-perceptions themselves

may be examined now. They never stand separatew from consciousness. With

eyes open one does not see anything unless consciousness is there.

Therefore sense-perceptions are nothing but!

> consciusness. So also are all the activities of the mind. This shows

that the entire gross world and the subtle are consciousness itself."

>

> Pranams!

>

> --Greg

>