re:re:the real and unreal

[Guest guest]

In advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>>

> Of course, the brain does not even exist as a material object, but

> let us not belabor the point.

>

 

Namaste, Benjamin-ji,

 

I was thinking all along that the brain is a bundle of neurons and

cells, the working of which is reasonably clear to the neurologist.

You say the brain is not a material object. Can you explain?

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

namaskaar benjamin ji & prof vk ji,

prof vk ji i agree with you that brain is a material object, a bundle

of neurons. i think that the use of the word intellect will solve

this problem. because intellect is the english word used for buddhi

in philosophy not brain & intellect can not be called material too.

 

vk ji you said- the working of brain is reasonablly clear to the

neurologist.

i don't find it true because if it'd have been true, there would have

been no idiopathic diseases(diseases in which no definite organic

cause is found).

 

with regards,

gautam.

[Guest guest]

namaskaar benjamin ji,

first of all, your "old matter doesn't exist" theme

doesn't bore me.but i would like to understand it

more deeply & would like to put my views too.

you said that--

even the body and brain are nothing but sequences of perceptions. My hand is no

more than my perception of it; my blood is no more than the 'red patch'

mentioned above (with also a certain texture and taste); and to my brain

surgeon, my brain is no more than his perception of it, however vivid.

>>now the question arises, who is perceiving? someone is there who is having

perceptions(jiva). please note that jiva bhava still remains because you said--

Now, this is not to deny that perceptions of my body, and in particular of my

nervous system, are coordinated with other elements of consciousness, such as

thoughts and feelings.

>>until & unless thoughts & feelings are there jivabhava is there. what we wish

to experience

is the state where these perceptions(or the world) are no more(that's why once

you said to me, i want to understand something else).

 

one more thing benjamoin ji,i thought that you are referring to the grey &

white matter as brain(but that is perception too). therefore, i asked to use the

world intellect because this is the word commonly used for "buddhi" in

philosophy but let us leave this point.

benjamin ji even if we use the word material for brain(or anything else) that is

not wrong too. materials are also consciousness.every element(material) is

consciousness(every tattva is shiva tattva).here, i would like to compare

advaita with other schools of philosophy.

 

every school (including advaita) believes that at first there was just one

brahman, unmanifested(advaita). then advaita gave rise to this manifested

world. every school believes that at first there was advaita then it gave rise

to duality.

how can it be possible?

iron(advaita) can make iron oxide only when, oxygen(duality) is present. if

oxygen is not present iron can just be moulded to take different shapes but it

is still the same iron.if an iron rod is moulded to give rise to an iron vessel,

it does not mean that iron rod gave rise to iron iron vessel, it's still that

iron. there is just a change in shape, one shape comes & one goes(just like one

jiva dies & one takes birth).

i just want to say that duality comes from duality, and if at first nonduality

was there how can there be duality.

now, how can other schools think of duality existing if they believe that first

of all there was nonduality?

i am not able to understand.

with regards,

gautam.