Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 Namaste Chittaranjanji, >As regards our seeming differences, let me assure >you that I don't mean to say that the world is apart >from consciousness. The difference lies in the way >that language is used, but I would say that language >is not a trivial thing. Language relates to the way in >which forms arise in consciousness, ... I think you are touching on something very important here. At the absolute level, Shankara cannot be a realist, if a 'realist' is someone who believes in the existence of the world independent of consciousness. This much follows with impeccable and irrefutable logic from the mahavakyas. Yet sometimes Shankara does speak in realistic language, as many have pointed out, e.g. in BSB II.2.28. It now seems to me that when he does this, he is putting himself at the student (or opponent's level), namely, at the vyavahirka level, where the illusory constructs of language seem real enough to those under their spell. And language is indeed closely related to the dualistic notions that we take for granted in day to day life. We might understand at a theoretical level that all is consciousness, but in practice mind, and its expression as language, retains its iron grip over our beliefs. So you are quite right that language is not a trivial thing... Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 Namaste Sunderji, I am almost overwhelmed by the invitation, and not a little afraid of standing alongside the scholars in this group. But I am compelled by the warmth of this family to accept the invitation, with the pre- warning that I am almost illiterate in the shastras. With regards and respect, Chittaranjan advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > Namaste Chittaranjanji, > > It is only an acknowledgement of the honor you have > done to the list by your presentation, and corroborated by subsequent > posts from others. > > The topic will follow nicely after Ken Knight's > presentation on Maya in the Vedas. > > Hope you will keep the invitation under consideration > and as Benjamin put it, help us 'refine our thoughts' to untie > the 'knots of ignorance'. > > > Regards, > > Sunder > > > > advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" > <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > > > > Thank you, I am honoured by this invitation. At the same time I am > > not sure if I am capable of leading this discussion. > > > > contrasted with Mayavada', later in this year? Thank you. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Sunder > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 Namaste Chittaranjanji, Thank you for your gracious acceptance of the invitation. You are welcome to choose a co-host also! In fact, the supporters of your standpoint become the co-hosts, and the harshest brickbat you read has already been hurled by Benji - 'no good deed goes unpunished!' So, between the honor and the punishment you have the chance to practise equanimity - samatvaM yoga uchyate | !! As Newton said, each of us finds a colorful 'pebble on the shore of the vast ocean of knowledge', and we try to share the joy with the other beachcombers! Regards, Sunder advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Namaste Sunderji, > > I am almost overwhelmed by the invitation, and not a little afraid of > standing alongside the scholars in this group. But I am compelled by > the warmth of this family to accept the invitation, with the pre- > warning that I am almost illiterate in the shastras. > > With regards and respect, > Chittaranjan > > > > > advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> > wrote: > > Namaste Chittaranjanji, > > > > It is only an acknowledgement of the honor you have > > done to the list by your presentation, and corroborated by > subsequent > > posts from others. > > > > The topic will follow nicely after Ken Knight's > > presentation on Maya in the Vedas. > > > > Hope you will keep the invitation under > consideration > > and as Benjamin put it, help us 'refine our thoughts' to untie > > the 'knots of ignorance'. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Sunder > > > > > > > > advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" > > <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thank you, I am honoured by this invitation. At the same time I > am > > > not sure if I am capable of leading this discussion. > > > > > > contrasted with Mayavada', later in this year? Thank you. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Sunder > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2004 Report Share Posted January 21, 2004 Namaste Venkatramanji, Something in your post touches my heart. There is a sadness and an irony in the study of philosophy. Bhakti is closeness to the Heart, and the Heart is that very same Brahman that philosophy tries to reach. I sincerely believe that Bhakti is the living water whereas philosophy is only the spade that digs to reach the hidden springs. We get attached to philosophy. I can feel it and I am a victim to it. I did not mean in my post that Ishwara is only for people under the sway of Maya. I meant that Ishwara is real. We tend to forget that Maya is inexplicable, that it is both real and unreal. Maya is not only unreal. Maya is also real. We may deny this entire universe as being unreal, but there is this very real power to project this unreality, otherwise even this projection wouldn't be there. This is His Shakti and She is His power. It may be latent as in Nirguna Brahman or kinetic as Sagunam Brahman or Ishwara, but it is Real. Therefore Ishwara is real. Thus argues my heart very simply. Is there anything wrong with this argument? With regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, S Venkatraman <svenkat52> wrote: > Namaste Chittaranjanji, > > Your name roughly means 'Delighter of mind-stuff' and that is exactly what you did in your last post on the subject. After that post, being modest is not likely to succeed. So I would like to join others in requesting you to lead the discussions on the the topic of 'Shankara's Realism as contrasted to Mayavada' whenever it is convenient to you. Not many on this list or elsewhere can express lofty ideas in equally elegant prose as you have been doing in your last few posts. > > While on the subject I would request you to clarify the only thing that was not clear to me in your post. You say in the last para, > > "This emphasis helps me keep a balance when speaking about Maya, and prevents me from unwittingly slipping into a locution where Ishwara becomes only a concession to the play of Maya.Ishwara is real." > > It is not clear to me how the above follows from whatever you said earlier.Just as 'Neti, Neti' is only for people who are still under the sway of Maya, so is 'Ishwara'. By saying 'Neti, Neti' to the statue, one gets to the stone from which it is carved out. But how does that lead one to Ishwara. > > My question may seem only intellectual on the surface. But behind it a very real problem I face in my daily life. Before I got very deeply into vedanta, with Bhakti for my Ishta Devata, any problem that life contrived for me became manageable. But now calling that problem 'Maya' somehow does not seem to be doing the trick. I want to bring back Ishwara in to my life. Hence the question to you. > > praNAms, > Venkat - M > > > Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Namaste Sunderji, > > Thank you, I am honoured by this invitation. At the same time I am > not sure if I am capable of leading this discussion. I have just now > posted a message on this topic and have exhausted almost everything > that I know about the subject. > > > > Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Namaste. yA dEvI sarvabhUtESu cEtanEtyabhidhIyatE namastasyai namastasyai namastasyai nomO namah! Bhakti is seeing Her in everything as me and spontaneously being Love (not in love) which we already are although unwittingly. PraNAms to Her and all. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: Maya is not > only unreal. Maya is also real. We may deny this entire universe as > being unreal, but there is this very real power to project this > unreality, otherwise even this projection wouldn't be there. This is > His Shakti and She is His power. It may be latent as in Nirguna > Brahman or kinetic as Sagunam Brahman or Ishwara, but it is Real. > Therefore Ishwara is real. > > Thus argues my heart very simply. Is there anything wrong with this > argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 --- Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4 wrote: Thank you Vishalji for your kind words. > > In vyavaharika level, 'redness' of the pot i think is subjective > because the same 'Red' pot can create differenet sensations in > different peopleX, Y and Z( say it causes 'green-ness' sensation in > X, 'blue-ness' sensation in Y and 'yellow-ness' sensation in Z). > But X has been taught from childhood to say 'Red' whenever he > experiences 'green-ness' > Y has been taught from childhood to say 'Red' whenever he experiences > 'blue-ness' > Z has been taught from childhood to say 'Red' whenever he experiences > 'yellow-ness' > > So they all will say the pot is 'Red' even though the sesations caused > in their respective minds may be different. Personally or experientially, I don’t think objective sensations are different for different people unless they have defective equipments. The fact that the spectral frequencies are fixed for each color which is nothing to do with color sensation, we have more objectifiable demonstration that red is different from green. Every body reads 'A' as 'A' not see as B and read as A; sweet as sweet and salt as salt. Otherwise I may end up with salty coffee if I asked the hostess I wanted the coffee to be sweeter! Just kidding. Vyavahaara becomes impossible if there are no standard perceptions. Transactional reality is real at that level and that was the emphasis of Chittaranjanji. Suppose for the time being you are right, then how can you tell that every body has divergent color sensations - is it not an assumption on your part, even if they are conditioned to say that it is red even though they see green ness in the red! There seems to be a mix up of a reaction to a color to the perception of the color. The reactions by a subject can be subjective due to variations in ones samskaara or vaasana-s. That does not mean perceptions are different. In fact 'perception' is considered as immediate and instantaneous and is vastu tantra or depends on the object and not subject. That the moment I open my eyes and if my mind is behind my eyes (I am not day dreaming) I cannot but see the object in front of me immediately and instantaneously. I have no control on the perception. I may react differently with what I perceive - I like it or I hate it or I do not care, etc. > I think the observation may not be common of all observers, although > they may call it with a same name. X, Y and Z observe 'gereen-ness', > 'blue-ness' and 'yellow-ness' respectively but call it 'Red' due to > the language convention of standardization which they have been taught > from childhood. Is it not your first sentence an assumption on your part? Is it possible to prove that it isn’t the same? > > > Do not agree on this. 'Redness' cannot be generic quality of 'RED' > because there is no way to find if the 'redness' sensation caused in > my mind by something 'RED' will cause similar sensation in other > person's mind. > Independence of 'red' from 'Green' comes from the difference in frequencies. Now if monochromatic 'red' color is shown to different subjects, you feel that their subjective senses are greenish for one and bluish for the other. And they are different when the monochromatic blue is shown for the same subjects they may see reddish or brownish -Let us say you are right even though you cannot prove that the individual sensations are different. Now if they see every time 'monochromatic red' is shown the same identical sensations - call them whatever you want' and is independent of palce and time but always the same sensation, then that sensation is independent of the subject - is it not? As long as that exclusive sensation associated with 'monochromatic red' which is different from exclusive sensation with 'monochromatic blue', that exclusiveness is independent of the subject in the sense the same object gives the same sensation of that subject. That is what vastu tantra means. In that case perception is still independent of the subject - is it not. That independent sensation related the object is what is named after that object by a language convention. > I think qualities of a thing observed are not independent of the > 'subject observing', because those qualities are created by the mind > of the 'subject observing' I would say - the qualities are measured through the senses by the mind - not created subjectively by individual mind. Subsequent conclusions that the mind draws from the objective perceptions are subjective. Anyway that is my understanding of the physics of the process. What you may be saying and what Benjamin is also pointing out is little different. What one perceives through the sense are qualities that include color, form, sound, taste and touch. Senses cannot perceive the substantive like chair-ness of the chair or horseness of the horse. Mind integrates all the sense input and provides an image in the mind for the locus of the qualities of the object. If the mind is absent or for an absent-minded professor, there is no image of the object seen even though senses do their job. The cognition of the object is completed at that stage - all-occurring very rapidly in the time scale - depending on the input from the senses. The mind goes into memory and pulls out past images to match the current image and that is when 're-cognition' takes place. If there is nothing to mach (first time seeing) and if bystander tells that the object is 'so and so' that image with that language is stored and next time when he sees that object the recognition process occurs. The fact that the sense perceive only the qualities and not substantive (substantive being Brahman which cannot be perceived), the validity of the existence of the object itself is questionable - 'I see it therefore it is' - is the only validation proof. If I don’t see it then? - is the object there or not? - It is impossible to prove or disprove since for a proof a conscious entity has to step in. Hence it is called 'anirvacaniiyam' or inexplicable or indeterminate. Here to make to nirvachaniiyam - we go back to scriptures which say that Brahman alone is and consciousness is Brahman. Hence there cannot be anything other than consciousness. If that is the case the existence of unconscious entities which were left as questionable is resolved in to appearances on Brahman since I see an object out there. This becomes an understanding at the paaramaartika level. We can still transact with the world as if it is real at transactional level understanding based on scriptural teaching that what is seen is only apparent and not really real. This does not mean that there is no objectification at the vyavahaara level. Vedantic analysis only points out that the object perception is in consciousness and the subject who perceives is also in consciousness and from consciousness there are no real divisions but only apparent divisions. Apparent is not real but not unreal either since it is real at transactional level. Our problem is taking the transactional reality as absolutely real and suffer the consequences of that misunderstanding. That is samsaara. > i have doubt about 'objective reality' being independent of > 'particular observer' > Well - I have presented my understanding. Now we have made our points - we may have to agree to disagree - discarding the parenthetic title opening the discussion to others who may have different opinion from both of us. > Yes this causes a lot of confusion. I would like to make a suggestion > here, not sure if it is practical. > All the members on this list can be requested that whenever they > express their opinions, they should see that it is from the paramartik > level, since that is the aim and that is the level in which the other > two levels merge. Just a suggestion can think over it. Yes - your suggestion is taken. > > Conclusion - we agree on all points except the concept about the > sesations. > You say in vyavaharik level a object cause same > sensation in all > observers and i say they cause different sensations > in different observers. > This difference is insignificant from paramartik > level. > > Once again i would like to thank for the time, effort and patience. > > also i would like to thank Benjaminji for his thoughtful comments. Thank you too for the lovely discussions. As Benjamin said these are getting addictive. I still have to work on my Manjari-6. Hari OM! Sadananda > PraNAms > Om tat-sat > Vishal > > SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! > > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity > of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Links > > > advaitin/ > > > advaitin > > Your > > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting./ps/sb/ 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.