The Real and the Unreal ( Question to Sadaji )

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji,

>Unfortunately 'illusion' is incorrect translation of maaya. It gives

>impression of unreality. maaya has transactional reality ...

 

The following is not to argue with you, since I think we basically

agree. I am only trying to point out how words like 'real' and

'illusion' are slippery and cause much confusion.

 

Much of the problem does indeed revolve around what we mean by

'real'. For example, I could say that there is also 'transactional

reality' in a dream, since I seem to deal with other people, and

while I am dreaming it seems very real. Yet, when I wake up, I

realize that it was all an illusion, in that it was all in

consciousness, and there were not distinct objects separate from that

consciousness, as there seemed to be in the dream.

 

My understanding of the dream analogy is that something very similar

happens when we are awake, at least from the point of view of the

paramathika state. I think that the dream analogy should be taken

quite seriously; it is not a 'mere analogy' as some people claim.

 

The definition of 'real' in Advaita, as I understand it, is something

that never changes, comes into being, goes out of being, etc. This

applies to the seer itself, that is, the consciousness divested of

the illusion of objects. If objects existed separate from

consciousness, as they appear to, then those objects would actually

come into and out of existence. But since there is only the

ever-constant consciousness, across which passes the waking, dreaming

and deep sleep state, like images across a screen, that ever-constant

consciousness or 'seer' is the reality.

 

So my point is that 'illusion' is correct insofar as the objects

appear to be distinct from consciousness. THAT is the illusion, just

like a dream. It is not illusion like a barren woman's child, but it

is illusion like a dream. Likewise, a dream can be said to have

'transactional reality' in the sense that we are dealing with other

apparent people and objects distinct from our self, yet it remains an

illusion. In this sense, I must say that 'transactional reality' is

*unreal*, in the sense that the people and objects we seem to be

dealing with are indeed illusions, insofar as they are not distinct

from our consciousness, as they appear to be.

 

As I said, I am sure that we agree on the essentials. My only point

is to show how words like 'real' and 'illusion' can mean very

different things, depending on the context.

 

Oh, by the way, speaking of pots, I do feel quite sure that the pot

has no existence as a material object independent of color, but you

knew my opinion already! :-) That means that it is meaningless to

speak of the color (or lack thereof) of the pot in itself. And there

is no light striking the pot either, if that light is also conceived

as distinct from consciousness. I shall argue that most vigorously

if Chittaranjanji graces us with his eloquence as leader of the

realism vs. mayavada issue.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I just said:

 

"I do feel quite sure that the pot has no existence as a material

object independent of color..."

 

I meant 'independent of consciousness'.

 

Actually color is not such a bad word, since the color itself IS an

example of consciousness. The pot is no more that the perception of

it, which includes color, texture, temperature, etc. All within

consciousness...

 

Yes, material 'things' are 'made' of color and other sensations.

 

So are dreams.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Much of the problem does indeed revolve around what we mean by

> 'real'.

 

Benjamin that is the reason why real is precisely defined in Adviata -

trikaala abhaadhitam satyam - that which does not undergo sublation in

three periods of time is satyam.

 

 

For example, I could say that there is also 'transactional

> reality' in a dream, since I seem to deal with other people, and

> while I am dreaming it seems very real. Yet, when I wake up, I

> realize that it was all an illusion, in that it was all in

> consciousness, and there were not distinct objects separate from that

> consciousness, as there seemed to be in the dream.

>

> My understanding of the dream analogy is that something very similar

> happens when we are awake, at least from the point of view of the

> paramathika state. I think that the dream analogy should be taken

> quite seriously; it is not a 'mere analogy' as some people claim.

 

Benjamin - there is nothing to claim or disclaim - It is something to

understand. The whole of ManDukya Upanishad is centered on the analysis

of waking-dream and deep sleep states. It is only the dvaitins that

reject the dream analogy since it does not suite their theory. Any

analysis of human experience taking only the waking state is like

analyzing a partial data ignoring the rest. Hence any conclusions one

arrives at by the analysis of partial data at the best can only be

incomplete solution.

 

The emphasis of difference betwen waking and dream is only in terms of

the degree of reality - praatibhaasika vs. vyaavahaarika - I call the

first as subjective objectification and the second objective

subjectification - just to confuse the others!

> The definition of 'real' in Advaita, as I understand it, is something

> that never changes, comes into being, goes out of being, etc.

 

The first part is right but not the second part - there is no coming or

going for the real. It is eternally present.

> This

> applies to the seer itself, that is, the consciousness divested of

> the illusion of objects.

 

True but with one clause - the seer-seen distinction ceases in the

reality - it is indivisible. The divisions if exist are only apparent.

 

If objects existed separate from

> consciousness, as they appear to, then those objects would actually

> come into and out of existence.

 

One need to be careful - objects can change but not the substantive.

The real part of 'existence' remains - what comes and goes are only

naama-ruupa name and form and function- like ring going into bangle!

 

>But since there is only the

> ever-constant consciousness, across which passes the waking, dreaming

> and deep sleep state, like images across a screen, that ever-constant

> consciousness or 'seer' is the reality.

 

Again yes only if you are careful with 'seer' business. 'Seer' ceases

to be 'seer' when we say reality. It is understanding that both 'seer'

consciousness and 'seen' consciousness is one and the same, which is

really indivisible.

>

> So my point is that 'illusion' is correct insofar as the objects

> appear to be distinct from consciousness.

 

Appearance part may be but not the substantive part since that is

Brahman. That is the point of Chittaranji and if I can say even Michael.

Hence the declaration of Vedanta, as separate emphasis that 'Everything

is Brahman'.

>THAT is the illusion, just

> like a dream. It is not illusion like a barren woman's child, but it

> is illusion like a dream. Likewise, a dream can be said to have

> 'transactional reality' in the sense that we are dealing with other

> apparent people and objects distinct from our self, yet it remains an

> illusion. In this sense, I must say that 'transactional reality' is

> *unreal*, in the sense that the people and objects we seem to be

> dealing with are indeed illusions, insofar as they are not distinct

> from our consciousness, as they appear to be.

 

Benjamin - we make a little distinction to clarify - dream reality vs.

waking state reality. The essence of the argument is the same but

transactions are at different degrees. Hence we use two words -

praatibhaasika and vyaavahaarika just to separate snake reality from

rope reality from Brahman reality!

> As I said, I am sure that we agree on the essentials. My only point

> is to show how words like 'real' and 'illusion' can mean very

> different things, depending on the context.

 

Yes - but that is the reason why maaya is specifically used. Now is

'ring' an illusion or real! - there is objective reality at the

transactional level although we cannot transact with Brahman! You may

say it is similar to dream - yes similar is different from exact - That

is precisely what Shankara uses - sakaale satyavat bhaati - vat means

like or similar but not exact.

 

Of course I fully agree with you and compromise myself if you can bring

all your golden rings and other costly ornaments you have along with

bank accounts and leave it with me since they are all illusory objects!

You can leave the pots out unless they are golden! - I am trying to

raise real money as much as possible for my wife's forthcoming dance

program at the Kennedy Center! The dance program is transactionally real

not pratibhaasically real and as you know we have to raise 40K+ for the

program with in the next two months.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

>

> Oh, by the way, speaking of pots, I do feel quite sure that the pot

> has no existence as a material object independent of color, but you

> knew my opinion already! :-) That means that it is meaningless to

> speak of the color (or lack thereof) of the pot in itself. And there

> is no light striking the pot either, if that light is also conceived

> as distinct from consciousness. I shall argue that most vigorously

> if Chittaranjanji graces us with his eloquence as leader of the

> realism vs. mayavada issue.

>

> 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.

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji

 

Thanks for the guidance. Many PraNAms.

 

But i am still not comfortable with 'Mayaa' and 'Illusion'.

 

Let me put my point. I would request you to go through it and express your

comments. Pls dont think i am arguing, i am just trying to explain my thoughts,

although i have no talent in writing english.

>I would say, the qualities are not created by the sense organs.

>Qualities inhere in the object and are measured by the sense organs.

>Without the sense organs we have no instruments to measure to pick up

>those frequencies you mentioned.

 

Taking the example of the pot - suppose the pot is of color 'Red'. I see the

'red-ness' of the pot. There is my friend besides me, who also looks at the pot.

He also says it is 'Red'. But i am not sure whether the 'Red' color that he is

seeing actually causes 'red-ness' sensation or 'green-ness' sensation in his

mind.

Maybe from childhood he may have been taught to see 'green-ness' and say 'Red'

to it.

This is Qualia. The sensation the sense organs create in our mind.

This is Mayaa. Also this is illusion (An erroneous perception of reality because

one person sees 'red-ness', the other sees 'green-ness', but actually pot is

colorless).

What is reality...reality is pot does not have color of its own...because pot is

an illusion...the color that we see is an illusion (this color can cause

different sesations in different people but they may all call it as 'Red').

 

>It is not just the sense organs - It is the whole gimmick - it is the

>play of intellect supported by mind, which is supported by the sense

>organs. The duality can occur in the dream state without our sense

>organs at gross level functioning. Play of the mind based on the

>memory.

 

Talking about the dream state, i agree that duality occurs in dream caused by

mind without the sense organs functioning. But, mind does all this due to the

memory of past experinece which is caused by sense organs. On its own (wihout

any previous input from sense organs) mind cannot create dreams.

 

conclusion - Mayaa is the sesations caused by the inputs from sense organs. It

is the play of sense organs (including mind/brain which consolidates those

inputs). The world out there that we see during waking or dreaming is illusion

from absolute level.

 

hope i have made myself amply clear.

Would be greatful to hear your comments on this.

 

PraNAms

 

Om tat-sat

Vishal

 

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

 

 

[Guest guest]

Additions to my previous post.

>conclusion - Mayaa is the sesations caused by the inputs from >sense organs. It

is the play of sense organs (including >mind/brain which consolidates those

inputs). The world out >there that we see during waking or dreaming is illusion

from >absolute level.

 

The sense organs(including mind/intellect/brain) themselves are part of maya

(hence illusion) from absolute standpoint. Also the

everyday consiousness that we experience during waking and dream stage is also

mayaa. because the consciousness in those stages is nothing but sum of

experiences caused by sesations from external inputs through snese organs.

 

'I', or Brahma or absolute consiousness is different from the consciousness we

experience while we are awake or dream. In the sense the absolute consiousness

is real (trikala abhadita satya) which experiences the mayaa created by mayaa

itself in waking and dream states.

 

Only during deep sleep i think is the absolute consciousness 'IS'. rest all is

Mayaa.

 

But that absolute consciousness again gets covered by mayaa when we wake up, due

to vasanas of mind.

 

Sadaji and all the learned members here, i would be greatful to have your

comments on this post.

 

PraNAms to all.

 

Om tat-sat

 

Vishal

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4 wrote:

 

> Taking the example of the pot - suppose the pot is of color 'Red'. I

> see the 'red-ness' of the pot. There is my friend besides me, who also

> looks at the pot.

> He also says it is 'Red'. But i am not sure whether the 'Red' color

> that he is seeing actually causes 'red-ness' sensation or 'green-ness'

> sensation in his mind.

> Maybe from childhood he may have been taught to see 'green-ness' and

> say 'Red' to it.

 

Vishal Deshapandeji

 

Here is my understanding of the process:

 

Your statements start first supposing that the pot color is 'Red'. Next

your friend also sees as 'Red'. If every observer with normal vision

sees it as 'red' that so-called 'redness' of the pot is objective

reality than subjective reality. If one see 'red' and other sees 'Green'

and others different colors then it is subjective - we are coming at the

level of praatibhaasika (as it could happen at the very fundamental

level of quantum mechanics where the very observation by an observer

affects the observed).

 

Naming of an object (called abhideyatvam)is the next level and comes

with language convention of standardization for the specific

objecifiable entity. Since everybody is seeing the same color one can

call that color red or green or gaagaabuubu, or whatever. But naming

for 'object' that is seen, is independent of perceptibility. Senses play

a role in bringing that particular wavelength to the retina. Since it

is common observation of all observers that it is the same color- it is

an objective reality or transactional or vyaavahaarika satyam - unlike

our good old snake where everybody may not see it as a snake.

 

Language starts from childhood from parents following their conventions.

One object is red - that is vyakti or particulars of an one object

(vyakti) and if the mother shows a different object which is also red

and say that is red horse or red pen - the child start differentiating

the quality red from the locused object - we are now getting into

'jaati' different from vyakti or general quality of 'red' different from

pot vs. horse etc. 'Redness' becomes a generic quality of ‘RED’, which

is different from 'blueness' of the blue and 'greenness' of the green.

These are similar to 'cowness' of the cow and 'horseness' of the

'horse'. The objectification comes from the qualities being measured are

independent of the 'subject observing' the same object - this makes

vyavahaara or transactions in the world possible by establishing naming

convention at language level for communication.

> This is Qualia. The sensation the sense organs create in our mind.

> This is Mayaa. Also this is illusion (An erroneous perception of

> reality because one person sees 'red-ness', the other sees

> 'green-ness', but actually pot is colorless).

 

I do not think so - if pot is red - everybody with normal vision sees

'redness of the pot only and not different colors; and by conventional

naming establish the use of the same name for that color. That is the

human experience. Maaya is more than that. Taking the transactional

reality or vyaavahaarika satyam as absolute reality not knowing the

substantive of the object seen - is the problem. The substantive

'Brahman' cannot be known by any senses and only qualities like

'redness', 'form-ness' etc are seen and inferred that the object out

there is real.

> What is reality...reality is pot does not have color of its

> own...because pot is an illusion...the color that we see is an

> illusion (this color can cause different sesations in different people

> but they may all call it as 'Red').

 

Reality is defined completely differently. Pot can have the color of its

own but that color and the pot all are transient and not eternal. Hence

what is 'truth' is well defined. Unreal (astyam) -is that which has no

locus for existence - like vandyaa putraH even at transactional level -

some time the word 'tuccham' is also used for this. Confusion arises

since unreal or asat is used for transactional reality too in some cases

- since from absolute point appearances are not real.

 

>

> Talking about the dream state, i agree that duality occurs in dream

> caused by mind without the sense organs functioning. But, mind does

> all this due to the memory of past experinece which is caused by sense

> organs. On its own (without any previous input from sense organs) mind

> cannot create dreams.

>

 

Yes - prior samskaara forms a basis for the dream. Question was the

previous input that prior samskaara- is it purely subjective or there is

objective reality. What we call 'objective reality' is it is independent

of 'a particular observer' since everybody sees ' a pot' or ' a rope'

etc. In that sense, the senses of everybody sense the same thing and

follow the conventional of language using 'namability' for

communication.

 

The analogy of dream and the sublation of the objects takes a different

approach. Even in the dream - there could be many subjects or observers

and everyone will be seeing a 'red pot' and there, relatively speaking,

is real qualities for all the observers in the dream. So there is

objective reality in the dream level too. Since the 'objective dream

world including 'objetifyable subjects of the dream' resolve into the

waking mind, all the world is sublated. Hence its reality is only at a

relative level of 'praatibhaasika'. The analogy of waking world is also

the same but only at a different degree. In the realization of Brahman,

one without a second, all the pots and pans and all objectifyable

subjects in the waking state resolve into one Brahman - Hence Krisha's

statement - yo mam pasyati sarvatra, sarvanca mayi pasyati - who sees me

everywhere and everything in me - he alone sees or realizes the truth.

This is my maaya - diiviiam eShaa guNa mayi mama maayaa duratyaya -

this divine mayaa of mine is very difficult to cross - says Krishna -

since notions of reality of the world are deep rooted.

> conclusion - Mayaa is the sesations caused by the inputs from sense

> organs. It is the play of sense organs (including mind/brain which

> consolidates those inputs). The world out there that we see during

> waking or dreaming is illusion from absolute level.

 

I would put it this way - maaya includes all - starting from the objects

and the sensations experienced through the input from the sense organs

due to contact of the objects outside the sense organs. It is the play

on substratum of Brahman - the whole gimmick - the objective world, its

experience through the senses-mind-intellect complex - The world out

there is projection of the total mind. And the world at the dream state

is the projection of the individual mind. Just as in the dream the

individual minds of different subjects in my dream along with the

objective dream world that these individual minds saw in my dream - all

are noting but a projection by my waking mind, similarly even at the

level of waking state all the minds, the all sense organs of different

subjects and different observers - are all the projection of the total

mind - 'mama maayaa' says Krishna.

 

The problem of this microcosmic level and macrocosmic level are somewhat

similar - one is praatibhaasika level and the other is vyaavahaarika

level - But ultimately they all resolve into me or I - when I realize

that I am that consciousness and not the inert mind. The truth becomes

" aham brahmaasmi'. As long as we are careful at what level of reality

we are discussing the issues, there should not be any confusion.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> hope i have made myself amply clear.

> Would be greatful to hear your comments on this.

>

> PraNAms

>

> Om tat-sat

> Vishal

>

>

>

>

> Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vishal D,

 

Even though I am not Sadaji, please forgive a brief intrusion.

>conclusion - Mayaa is the sesations caused by the inputs

>from sense organs. It is the play of sense organs (including

>mind/brain which consolidates those inputs). The world out

>there that we see during waking or dreaming is illusion from

>absolute level.

 

 

You are *presupposing* that the sense organs (and hence body) exist

as independent entities, prior to your analysis. That is,

independent of consciousness, or, in other words, as material

entities.

 

I could go on at length about the dangers of this common assumption,

but I will content myself with asking you to reflect and consider if

this is not indeed a 'blind assumption' on your part, and what

happens if you dispense with that assumption.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji,

 

I'm know talking too much today, but you raise a very important point

which causes much confusion:

>If every observer with normal vision sees it as 'red'

>that so-called 'redness' of the pot is objective reality

>than subjective reality.

 

 

Here you use 'objective' to mean only that different people are

having the same perception, namely, the perception called 'red pot'.

It does NOT mean that there is an actual red object existing distinct

from those perceptions. That is how the word 'object' is normally

understood, so using the word 'objective' here is likely to cause

much confusion. You simply mean similarity between the perceptions

of different people, which has nothing to do with the hypothetical

and unverifiable world 'external' to consciousness. Different

dreamers might also see the same red pot, and this would not be

fundamentally different from the waking state.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Here you use 'objective' to mean only that different people are

> having the same perception, namely, the perception called 'red pot'.

 

Yes in the sense that observation of 'red pot' is not different from

subject to subject. Is it not the basis of all our 'objective sciences"?

 

 

> It does NOT mean that there is an actual red object existing distinct

> from those perceptions.

 

Now, you are entering different question. Can the object exist

different from those 'objective' perceptions. If you go back - I

mentioned that independent of 'these perceptions of the object' the

existence of he object cannot be independently established - it becomes

an indeterminate problem. All it means is - one cannot say it is or it

is not- hence anirvacaniiyam - inexplicable. 'Many observers' cannot

make any difference here since all have to observe though their minds

and senses and illumined by 'their consciousness (es)'. The problem is

even existence of other observers (other conscious entities) are back to

another observation by the senses etc. That is why we need to be careful

at what level of reality one is discussing these issues.

 

>That is how the word 'object' is normally

> understood, so using the word 'objective' here is likely to cause

> much confusion. You simply mean similarity between the perceptions

> of different people, which has nothing to do with the hypothetical

> and unverifiable world 'external' to consciousness.

 

Actually no confusion as long as we keep the reference states not mixed

up. At the reference of vyavahaara, objects and various subjects (as

additional objects) are all relevant relative to that state.

 

If one goes into deeper analysis of the validity of the so-called

objective world independent of 'consciousness' you are already leaping

into paaramaarthika level. one is shifting the reference state already.

Yes from that point, as I have discussed earlier - the world out there

becomes a questionable since even the space and time are within the

consciousness and there is nothing out there as outside the

consciousness. But Benjamin, we are already shifting the reference now

from transactional reality to absolute reality.

>Different

> dreamers might also see the same red pot, and this would not be

> fundamentally different from the waking state.

 

No, there are no different dreamers in my dream, since I cannot enter

into anybody else's dream. Yes There are different subjects in my dream

who have minds of their own, and if they wish to go sleep (in my dream)

and dream (a second order dream) - they are at liberty to do so. When

they wake up and they can report about their dreams to me in my dream.

The realities are at different reference states, although they are not

fundamentally different but transactionally different at each level. I

maintain that most of the confusion arises if one discusses switching

reference states in the discussion. Even the confusion of multiple

jiiva-s is resolved at the absolute level as just one projected as many.

This is where Veda-s come to our rescue - bahusyaam prajaayeyeti - let

me become many and became many.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

>

> 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.

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji,

>> Here you use 'objective' to mean only that different

>> people are having the same perception, namely, the

>> perception called 'red pot'.

> Yes in the sense that observation of 'red pot' is not

> different from subject to subject. Is it not the basis

> of all our 'objective sciences"?

 

>> It does NOT mean that there is an actual red object

>> existing distinct from those perceptions.

> Now, you are entering different question. Can the object

> exist different from those 'objective' perceptions.

 

 

EXCELLENT! We agree perfectly.

 

I just wanted you to realize that MANY ... probably MOST ... people

will react to the word 'objective' exactly as I said. They will

think of an 'object' distinct from consciousness. In particular,

Western philosophers will think this way, and I believe you will be

encountering some at a conference in the not-too-distant future!

 

As for 'objective science', these 'realists' mean that science

studies reality precisely because it deals with objects independent

of consciousness. Their view is that because of the one single

'real' world of objects, scientists must presumably agree on this one

reality, if they are observing properly. At least, that was the

theory before quantum mechanics came along.

 

However, from an Advaitin point of view, we do not accept the

separate existence of objects. Rather, we realize that science

'works' because the perceptions (or observations) in our waking

consciousness are coordinated with each other by the laws of physics.

This is a different explanation that does not require us to postulate

a world of objects external to consciousness. Perhaps a better word

than 'objective' to describe those observations might be 'consensual'.

 

Now with all this beautiful agreement, and taking into account that I

have far exceeded my email quota for today, I will try to observe a

bit of 'Ramanian mouna' for a while... :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji

 

PraNAms

 

I would like to thank for the effort and time given for my post. Also you

beautifully explain the things and i have learnt a lot from from you. I am

really indebted to you.

 

I understood and digested almost all of what you said except few things

regarding mainly the perceptions.

>Your statements start first supposing that the pot color is 'Red'.

>Next

>your friend also sees as 'Red'. If every observer with normal vision

>sees it as 'red' that so-called 'redness' of the pot is objective

>reality than subjective reality.

 

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.

>Since it is common observation of all observers that it is the same color- it

is

>an objective reality or transactional or vyaavahaarika satyam - unlike

>our good old snake where everybody may not see it as a snake.

 

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.

>'Redness' becomes a generic quality of ‘RED’, which

>is different from 'blueness' of the blue and 'greenness' of the green.

>These are similar to 'cowness' of the cow and 'horseness' of the

>'horse'.

 

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.

>The objectification comes from the qualities being measured

>are

>independent of the 'subject observing' the same object - this makes

>vyavahaara or transactions in the world possible by establishing naming

>convention at language level for communication.

 

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'

For example i have read somewhere that animals (or maybe dogs) see the world as

black & white as they dont have the cells in their eyes that captures the

frequencies of 'visible spectrum (viz blue to red)'.

Also if humans had their eyes evolutionarily developed in such a way that they

could make use of frequencies outside the 'visible spectrum' then the world

would have looked much different from now ( in our example - the pot would have

looked very different)

>I do not think so - if pot is red - everybody with normal vision sees

>'redness of the pot only and not different colors; and by conventional

>naming establish the use of the same name for that color.

 

i think - if pot is red ( i see 'red-nesss') - some will see 'blue-ness', some

will see 'green-ness'. i cannot say for sure that they will see 'red-ness' only.

Although everyone will say that pot is red.

>Reality is defined completely differently. Pot can have the color of

>its

>own but that color and the pot all are transient and not eternal.

 

Agree that color and pot both are transient and not eternal. But i think pot

cannot have color of its own.

>Yes - prior samskaara forms a basis for the dream. Question was the

>previous input that prior samskaara- is it purely subjective or there

>is

>objective reality. What we call 'objective reality' is it is

>independent

>of 'a particular observer' since everybody sees ' a pot' or ' a rope'

>etc. In that sense, the senses of everybody sense the same thing and

>follow the conventional of language using 'namability' for

>communication.

 

i have doubt about 'objective reality' being independent of 'particular

observer'

> alone sees or realizes the truth.

>This is my maaya - diiviiam eShaa guNa mayi mama maayaa duratyaya -

>this divine mayaa of mine is very difficult to cross - says Krishna -

>since notions of reality of the world are deep rooted.

 

completely agree

>Just as in the dream the

>individual minds of different subjects in my dream along with the

>objective dream world that these individual minds saw in my dream - all

>are noting but a projection by my waking mind, similarly even at the

>level of waking state all the minds, the all sense organs of different

>subjects and different observers - are all the projection of the total

>mind - 'mama maayaa' says Krishna.

 

very beautifully said

>The problem of this microcosmic level and macrocosmic level are

>somewhat

>similar - one is praatibhaasika level and the other is vyaavahaarika

>level - But ultimately they all resolve into me or I - when I realize

>that I am that consciousness and not the inert mind. The truth becomes

>" aham brahmaasmi'. As long as we are careful at what level of reality

>we are discussing the issues, there should not be any confusion.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

PraNAms

Om tat-sat

Vishal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!