Quick note on idealism

December 21, 2003

On 12/21/03 07:12 pm "Frederico S. Gonzales" (fsg) wrote:

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.

===========Hello Fredericoji,

I don't want to give the impression that I am an idealist! How un-advaitin

would that be! I think that idealism is very effective as showing how the

notion of material substance existing external to perception is an incoherent

notion. But idealism leaves a subtle residue, which itself must be looked into.

Idealism (like Berkeley's) presumes the independence of the individual mind.

Individuals' minds and God's mind. Idealism argues against a *physical*

independent world, but bases these arguments on the assumption of a *subtle*

independent world. The notion of independence has merely shifted. This is a

helpful stage, but not final.

What does the advaitin make of the Berkeleyan idealist? They might say the

idealist is like the student-son in the Taittiriya Upanishad who got stuck at

Chapter III:v ("The Intellect as Brahman") instead of continuing to the end to

Chapter III:x.6.

Pranams,

--Greg

December 22, 2003

Namaste Gregji,

Just a quick response to add my two cents. I think we basically

agree. I certainly agree with each and every word in your quotation

from Sri Atmananda, which I will repeat because it is well worth

reading again,

"...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 separate from consciousness. With eyes open

one does not see anything unless consciousness is there. Therefore

sense-perceptions are nothing but consciousness. So also are all the

activities of the mind. This shows that the entire gross world and

the subtle are consciousness itself."

>I don't want to give the impression that I am an idealist!

>How un-advaitin would that be!

Now, as for the vexatious word 'idealism'. Yes, there are many

different kinds of idealism, especially in Western philosophy, and

most are incompatible with Advaita. However, in its most general

sense, idealism is the view that 'only consciousness exists'. In

this generic sense, it is certainly true that Advaita is idealistic,

since this follows inevitably from the mahavakyas saying that

'Brahman is One without a second' and 'Brahman is consciousness'.

You do the math. I have made this point several times, and I think

it is valid, though some would say it is mere semantics. Anyhow, I

like the word 'idealistic', because it sounds ... well ...

idealistic! We don't want to think of ourselves as cynical, do we?

:-)

>Idealism (like Berkeley's) presumes the independence

>of the individual mind.

Just for the record, let me repeat my view, so you understand. We

once had a big debate on this. I have stated my view again recently,

but I don't think anyone is reading my messages, which is just fine

with me. It's still great practice at writing...

My point before is that from a purely *phenomenological* point of

view, it still seems to me that there are independent streams of

consciousness, namely, you, me, Fred and so on. I have to be honest

about that.

Yet, from a more 'metaphysical' point of view, I agree that there

must be an 'uncaused source of reality', that this source must be of

the nature of consciousness, that it must be a 'unity' or at least

nondual, that it must be 'omnipresent' and sustain the existence of

whatever *seems* to be an independent stream of consciousness, and

that ultimately these independent streams merge back into the Source

like drops into the ocean.

That sounds like Brahman to me! But I arrived at it from a

logico-metaphysical point of view, not by empirical or

phenomenological introspection. This still leaves me a bit puzzled.

I feel that metaphysics and phenomenology should be consistent, since

there is only one reality. Thus, I am still reflecting, seeking and

developing spiritually. So what else is new? It is more important

to be honest about one's views than to pretend to be wiser than one

is.

And I have a clue to work on, namely, that any sense of individuality

or independence presupposes some degree of *objectivity*, which I

have vigorously refuted in my long essay at

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

I must at least be consistent with myself!

Above all, we should not simply repeat quotations from classic

Advaitin texts like parrots. We should go out on a limb and really

try to understand, even if we stumble.

Berkeley was merely useful as a Western philosopher who got rather

closer to Advaita than other dead white males. :-) At least they

give him a *little* respect in academic circles, which they do not

give to Indian mystical types (except maybe in the religion and

anthropology departments). But I always felt that he backtracked a

bit by postulating that God was necessary to sustain the tree in the

forest when nobody was looking. (We do need Brahman as the Source,

but not because nobody is looking.) Anyhow, he has sentimental value

for me, because he was the first thinker who got me to reconsider the

self-evident 'fact' of materialism.

If you don't believe that materialism and atheism are still strong in

academic circles, just take a look at this

http://www.celebatheists.com/

Skip the silly Hollywood celebrities and read what all the academic

types have to say, many of them very prestigious.

By the way, Fred, you and I are basically right! Don't be scared by

the bigwigs here. :-)

Hari Om!

Benjamin

December 22, 2003

Hi Benjaminji,

I think we mostly agree too. I prefer to the word "idealism" in the more

technical Western philosophical sense. So for me, idealism doesn't entail "only

consciousness exists." I do, however appreciate your broader interpretation of

the word, and hope that you will come to experience the identity of the

introspective and the metaphysical approaches.

--Greg

At 11:58 AM 12/22/2003 -0500, Benjamin wrote:

>Namaste Gregji,

>

>Just a quick response to add my two cents. I think we basically

>agree. I certainly agree with each and every word in your quotation

>from Sri Atmananda, which I will repeat because it is well worth

>reading again,

>

>"...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 separate from consciousness. With eyes open

>one does not see anything unless consciousness is there. Therefore

>sense-perceptions are nothing but consciousness. So also are all the

>activities of the mind. This shows that the entire gross world and

>the subtle are consciousness itself."

>

>>I don't want to give the impression that I am an idealist!

>>How un-advaitin would that be!

>

>Now, as for the vexatious word 'idealism'. Yes, there are many

>different kinds of idealism, especially in Western philosophy, and

>most are incompatible with Advaita. However, in its most general

>sense, idealism is the view that 'only consciousness exists'. In

>this generic sense, it is certainly true that Advaita is idealistic,

>since this follows inevitably from the mahavakyas saying that

>'Brahman is One without a second' and 'Brahman is consciousness'.

>You do the math. I have made this point several times, and I think

>it is valid, though some would say it is mere semantics. Anyhow, I

>like the word 'idealistic', because it sounds ... well ...

>idealistic! We don't want to think of ourselves as cynical, do we?

>:-)

>

....

December 22, 2003

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

> My point before is that from a purely *phenomenological* point of

> view, it still seems to me that there are independent streams of

> consciousness, namely, you, me, Fred and so on. I have to be honest

> about that.

Benjamin

Let me pose a question to you. I can agree that there are individual

bodies that include BMI-s - You as conscious entity, how can you tell

that there are other independent of streams of consciousness flowing

around? Is it based on perception? Is it based on inference? Or is it

based on shabda or shaastra? - three fundamental means of knowledge of

'anything'? Is it not again a notion in your mind just like the object

out there is real which you are dismissing as not real.

Can you objectify consciousness - if can do how and what do you perceive

as the objectified consciousness. Just now discussions is going on

among our dvaitins friends in the vaadavali that there are multiple

jiiva-s. How do they say that - because based on either experience - or

inference or shaastra. But on those basis only they say there is world

out there too? Now on what basis you can justify the individual streams

of consciousness - You have accused that Hindu's (at least some)

fanatically follow the scriputures. Are you not falling in the same trap

that you are blaming the others? Please think - without getting mad

with me. Now prove to me there are there are different streams of

consciousness(es? - the plural sounds horible!. Is it not again an

inderterminate problem. You have to be there to say there are other

streams of consciousness. If somebody says they are, how do you know?

When space that is the subtlests of all, itself cannot be divided, how

can the consciousness which perceives the space itself be divided. Do

the streams of consciounsess occupy a place or time - now is space in

consciousness or consciousness is in space?

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.

December 22, 2003

Namste Sadanandaji,

Some direct questions to me. I must answer!

You said:

"Let me pose a question to you. I can agree that there are

individual bodies that include BMI-s - You as conscious entity, how

can you tell that there are other independent streams of

consciousness flowing around? Is it based on perception? Is it based

on inference? Or is it based on shabda or shaastra? - three

fundamental means of knowledge of 'anything'? Is it not again a

notion in your mind just like the object out there [which seems] real

[but] which you are dismissing as not real."

I hope you read further, where I said that I DO agree that there is

One Consciousness without a second, but this was based on

'metaphysical' arguments. It still conflicts with how reality seems

to me from a *phenomenological* point of view. By 'phenomenology', I

mean by direct intuition of my immediate experience. This is the

most satisfying kind of proof.

You might say that 'phenomenology' is just samsara anyway, so of

course it is deceptive. But as I have often argued, it seems to me

that I can see directly (i.e. phenomenologically) how 'subject' and

'object' are the same in just ONE jiva (namely me). When I

introspect quietly (i.e. without internal thoughts) upon my immediate

awareness, I can see no difference between subject and object. Those

two words are just labels pointing to the same immediate awareness.

There is just this immediate awareness, which I call 'consciousness'.

It is nice to have such a direct proof of nonduality, at least for

one jiva.

I would now like to find a similar satisfying direct proof of the

identity of different jivas in One Consciousness called Brahman. But

of course this is impossible, since you and I have different

experiences. From the point of view of immediate awareness, nothing

of your immediate awareness is in mine, so this method of direct

verification will simply not work. I have to *infer* the unity of

your consciousness and mine based on metaphysical arguments regarding

the source of reality, namely, Brahman.

Not only is this less satisfying, but I am not even sure what it

means. I may agree that there is only One Consciousness and that it

manifests as you, me and Greg. But do any of us *really* see this in

a direct and vivid way? Let us be honest.

So back to your question. It is the old 'solipsism' question. How

do I know that your stream of consciousness does exist, since I am

not aware of it. Well, this seems to be a big problem for many

people, but not for me. I am happy to believe that I could not

possibly be the only one, the only stream of consciousness. Why

would it be just me? How absurd. There must be others. And I

believe that the different streams of consciousness are *coordinated*

such that when I see a form called 'Sadananda' expounding on Advaita,

there is another stream of consciousness thinking of what to say next

in his lecture. I really don't care to disprove solipsism, since it

seems so absurd and unlikely to me.

A better question is the one you raise last. Is not the other stream

of consciousness just another object, like the material object (which

definitely does not exist)? No, it is not the same. When I imagine

a material object, I imagine something which NOBODY has ever

experienced. The material object is not an element in ANY stream of

consciousness. Only the perception is present in consciousness,

which we falsely think was produced by the hypothetical material

object.

With other streams of consciousness, which we may call 'jivas', it is

different. I am saying that there are other streams of consciousness

similar to my own. Somebody DOES experience the jiva called

'Sadananda', namely YOU. Whatever experiences you are having as you

read this definitely are present (to you). You of all people cannot

deny this. But what material object ever said, 'Here I am. I exist.

I am conscious'. SO there is a BIG difference.

You then said:

"Can you objectify consciousness? - if [you] can [then] how and what

do you perceive as the objectified consciousness? Just now

discussions [are] going on among our dvaitins friends in the

vaadavali that there are multiple jiiva-s. How do they say that? -

[it must be] based on either experience - or inference or shaastra.

But on those basis only they say there is world out there too? Now

on what basis you can justify the individual streams of consciousness

- You have accused that Hindu's (at least some) fanatically follow

the scriptures. Are you not falling in the same trap that you are

blaming the others? Please think - without getting mad with me. Now

prove to me there are there are different streams of

consciousness(es)? - the plural sounds horrible!. Is it not again an

inderterminate problem. You have to be there to say there are other

streams of consciousness. If somebody says they are, how do you

know?"

First of all, I have not used the word 'fanatic" with respect to

scriptures. That is reserved for Jihadis. I used the words 'blind

faith', which are milder. And only for some Hindus, as you correctly

point out. Same is true for Christians and even Buddhists. And why

on earth would I get mad?

I agree that 'consciousnesses' sounds terribles. I would like to

replace 'consciousness' by 'mind', but mind already has dualistic and

conceptual connotations, so it cannot be used in nondual discussions.

Again, I simply accept that there are other streams of consciousness,

because it is so absurd that I should be the only one. Sorry, but

that is good enough for me. If my manifestation as BMI were perfect,

I might convince myself that I am God, but until then, I must assume

that I am one among many.

And as I said, I DO accept that the Source of Reality is Infinite

Consciousness, in some sense, which must be One. Also, there is no

difference between my consciousness and this source, since my

personal consciousness could not exist for a moment 'by itself'. The

source must be immediately present to sustain it at every moment.

Hence my 'personal consciousness' merges back into the Infinite

Consciousness, like a drop into the ocean. And this is the same

Infinite Consciousness which sustains you and all the other streams

of consciousness.

So we ARE all one, at some deep, mysterious and unfathomable level.

But I had to *infer* this through a metaphysical argument. It is

like complicated equations in a physics book. Impressive to look at,

but not as convincing as direct experience.

You said:

"When space that is the subtlest of all, itself cannot be divided,

how can the consciousness which perceives the space itself be

divided. Do the streams of consciousness occupy a place or time - now

is space in consciousness or consciousness is in space?"

On this list, I have often said that space is an illusion within

consciousness. Consciousness is not within space. So I realize that

it is incorrect to think of different jivas as like stars in some

kind of space. I have said this many times. However, even though

the jivas are not in any kind of space, they still have different

experiences. I do not experience your pleasure and pain, and vice

versa. So it remains difficult for me to directly verify that your

consciousness and mine are ultimately the same. I cannot even

understand what this means. But I do not deny it either.

By the way, it seems that poor Ananda's latest topic has been forgotten!

Hari Om!

Benjamin

December 22, 2003

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

>> I hope you read further, where I said that I DO agree that there is

> One Consciousness without a second, but this was based on

> 'metaphysical' arguments. It still conflicts with how reality seems

> to me from a *phenomenological* point of view. By 'phenomenology', I

> mean by direct intuition of my immediate experience. This is the

> most satisfying kind of proof.

>

> You might say that 'phenomenology' is just samsara anyway, so of

> course it is deceptive. But as I have often argued, it seems to me

> that I can see directly (i.e. phenomenologically) how 'subject' and

> 'object' are the same in just ONE jiva (namely me).

Benjamin - You are not far from the truth. What you call

phenomenological level is what exactly the advaita Vedanta calls it as

vyavahaarika level where experience of duality is taken as truth at

relative or vyavahaara level.

What you called metaphysical level is the paaramaarthika level. That is

exactly what is being said again and again - one is, experience of

duality and the other is knowledge of oneness in the apparent duality.

In your mind, you relate to subject and inert object as well as to

other apparent conscious entities, conscious objects, but both

perceived by you only as an object of your consciousness. You are the

only subject and all others are objects only - you only classify some as

inert and some as conscious entities. It is the same objective world

insisting of problem inert world and the world of beings - all are

objects in your mind. Without the mind present, you cannot say the world

is there or other conscious streams are there. That is why in the deep

Sleep State you have neither the inert or apparently sentient or

conscious beings. The dream analogy is exact where one can see both

conscious entities and inert entity both as mental projection. In the

gurustotram - we chant

akhanDa manDalaa kaaram vyaaptam yena cheraacharam

tat patham darshitam yena tasmai shree guruave namaH|

In that indivisible infinite consciousness in which all movable

(sentient or streams of conscious beings) and immovable (inert) exist or

all being pervaded by that indivisible entity - that which is being

pointed by the teacher to him my prostration’s.

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.

December 22, 2003

Namaste Sadanandaji,

Thank you for your latest message. I do agree that the resolution to

this problem lies in the mysterious illusion called

'objectification'. I have partly unravelled this, but I still have

work to do.

Let me please ask you one simple question.

Assume that I do not feel your pleasure and pain, nor you mine. Let

us take this as given. How can we then say that we are 'both the

same Consciousness'. It seems to me that the both of our BMIs would

be present to both of us, whether at the vyavaharika or paramarthika

levels. (And the BMIs do not disappear at the paramarthika level.

They are simply no longer seen as objects. Ramana could see his

disciples and speak to them. They did not vanish into thin air.)

This is the crux of the problem. (Though if I felt the pain of the

entire world, I am sure I would go crazy.)

Thank you.

Hari Om!

Benjamin

December 22, 2003

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Namaste Sadanandaji,

>

> Thank you for your latest message. I do agree that the resolution to

> this problem lies in the mysterious illusion called

> 'objectification'. I have partly unravelled this, but I still have

> work to do.

>

> Let me please ask you one simple question.

>

> Assume that I do not feel your pleasure and pain, nor you mine. Let

> us take this as given. How can we then say that we are 'both the

> same Consciousness'.

Benjamin - you are asking too intelligent questions and there is law

against those!

Now ask yourself a question- who feels pain and pleasure. Consciousness

or the mind in the presence of conscious entity. If the pain belongs to

the conscious entity then they cannot knock it out ever, to make you

forget the pains and pleasures. They will never operate on you! This

clearly shows it is at the mind level - the individual minds are

different just as individual bodies and intellects are different. That

is why we have Mandukya upanishad explaining the analogy of the waking

and dream states. If in your dream, I am a fire man putting out the

fire our house and you are the owner whose house was burning and you are

out there on the street feeling the loss of property perhaps some life;-

now in that dream, your owner’s mind is different, the fireman's mind

is different and there are several spectators who may be very

sympathetic to your loss but their mental suffering is different from

yours - but all this happenning just in your total waking mind that

slept - is it not. Now, can you say the unity of the total waking

mind is different from the individual minds in the dream subjects - the

fire man, the owner and the spectators - in addition to the inert

building, the water hose, the water, the fire etc. CAn you say they have

different consciouness illuminating those individual minds in your

dream. In reality, everything is just projection of your total mind

activated by your consciousness, is it not. This is exactly what

vyavahaara vs. paaramaarthika implies. One transcends the other. The

total consciousness is one - but splits into many plurality - that

involves both inert as well as little individual minds that are

conscious of their suffering and their life's problems. In your own

dream world, during the dream you feel that individuals subjects pains

and pleasures are different. Spectators in your dream, however

sympathetic with you are happy that it is not their house that is

burning. But they are in your dream only. You can see now how the

individual pains and pleasures of the subjects in your dream do not

affect your total waking mind at all.

You can see now Krishna Statement - I pervade this entire universe in

unmanifested form - the beings are in me but I am not in them. Apply

now to the total mind to the individual minds in the dream and the dream

objects - The total waking mind can declare - I pervade this entire

dream world in unmanifested form All beings are in me but I am not in

them. Now you see the relation between the individual streams of

consciousness in the dream world to the total one consciousness that

pervade the dream world. Mind is nothing but consciousness splitting as

subject thought and object thoughts - aham vRitti and idam vRitti. It

can happen at the dream world - it can happen at the waking world The

analogy is exact. Hats of to those great sages who used such an

analytical approach to discover the reality.

It seems to me that the both of our BMIs would

> be present to both of us, whether at the vyavaharika or paramarthika

> levels. (And the BMIs do not disappear at the paramarthika level.

> They are simply no longer seen as objects. Ramana could see his

> disciples and speak to them. They did not vanish into thin air.)

Yes they do not. Hence what scripture says sarvam khalidam brahma - This

entire universe is Brahman - Brahman cannot disappear. Hence jiivan

mukta sees the duality but does not get carried away as reality.

Otherwise Krishna cannot teach Arjuna if he does not see Arjuna as

different from Krishana - yet he declares - I am Arjuna too.

>

> This is the crux of the problem. (Though if I felt the pain of the

> entire world, I am sure I would go crazy.)

Thank God about it - Hence Krishna said their pains and suffering do not

belong to me - just as gold does not have to cry when ring is

transformed to bangle. The transformation does no affect gold but ring

may cry I am getting destroyed and feel the pains associated with the

form.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> Thank you.

>

> 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.

December 22, 2003

Namaste Benji.

Let me jump in from the ringisde from where I was watching the goings-

on with much interest.

As usual, my comments (questions) are in [ ].

In his reply to Sadaji Benji wrote:

"Assume that I do not feel your pleasure and pain, nor you mine. Let

us take this as given. How can we then say that we are 'both the

same Consciousness'. It seems to me that the both of our BMIs would

be present to both of us, whether at the vyavaharika or paramarthika

levels. (And the BMIs do not disappear at the paramarthika level.

They are simply no longer seen as objects. Ramana could see his

disciples and speak to them. They did not vanish into thin air.)"

[MN: Well, even if Bh. Ramana told you so directly, where is He, His

testimony and disciples are located/substantiated? You need YOU to

appreciate the scenario. If YOU aren't there, the scenario also

isn't. So, Ramana, His words and disciples are because YOU ARE.]

Benji continued:

"This is the crux of the problem. (Though if I felt the pain of the

entire world, I am sure I would go crazy.)"

[MN: You have the capacity in you to feel the pain of the entire

world if you know that you are the pain. YOU CANNOT THEN HURT YOU.

Advaita is all about knowing that you are the pain and pleasure too.

Michaelji, if you are reading this, this describes my *crucible*

about which you raised a question in your last post.]

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 23, 2003

Hi again Gregji,

I completely agree with your statement. And perhaps I must review

some of my experience without the veil of the intellectual conceptualization

that tends to arise.

Namaste,

Fredji

-

Gregory Goode

advaitin ; Frederico S. Gonzales

Monday, December 22, 2003 12:44 AM