advaitin Vishishtadvaita Ontology

[Guest guest]

On 3/09/04 06:28 pm Benjamin (orion777ben) wrote:

Illusion arises when the mind superimposes a false interpretation

upon the immediate experience, thus seeing something that is not

really there.

 

===It's not like some seeings are "accurate" and others aren't. No seeing of

objects, gross or subtle, is accurate. That is, no seeing reflects something

that is "really there." For to really be there, something must be independent

of consciousness.

 

Ben:

The prime example is when it sees objects as being

external to consciousness. The shapes and colors are indeed present

in consciousness but the interpretation of these shapes and colors

as external to consciousness is the mind-imposed delusion.

 

===And the same goes for *subtle* objects, such as states, ideas, seeings,

perceptions, lokas, koshas, devas, etc. Advaita doesn't embrace realism about

subtle objects.

 

 

Ben:

The problem is that I do not think that my 'phenomenological' view of

other streams of consciousness being distinct from mine arises from

such an illusory interpretation. It seems to be the way it really

is. Allow me to elaborate.

 

===It *is* based on a misunderstanding if it's a view you're defending. If

there is more than one stream of consciousness, then at least one must be an

object.

 

===Questions you don't seem to have explored, even in a reductio ad absurdum

manner to investigate your phenomenological results. These questions serve to

point up the implausibility of the stream-of-consciousness notion:

 

===1. Talking in stream-of-consciousness talk, what makes a stream of

consciousness "your" stream of consciousness? What makes another one "Greg's"?

"Ramana's"? What is the nature of the relationship between the s-o-c and the

person? Have you settled that for yourself?

 

===2. You say it seems like there is more than one s-o-c. What is it that a

stream of consciousness appears to?

 

===3. Does one s-o-c appear to another s-o-c? Or is there one Consciousness to

which multiple s-o-c's appear?

 

===4. Ben is an object, not a subject. So Ben cannot "intuit/see" even *one*

s-o-c, so what evidence is there that Ben intuits/sees another s-o-c?

 

===5. What makes a s-o-c different from a mind plus the ideas falsely purported

to appear to a mind?

 

===In advaita, the mind never sees, but rather is a subtle object, part of the

inert apparatus. To say that the "mind sees" would be another superimposition,

(i) attributing things to the mind that happen at consciousness, and (ii)

attributing to the supposed s-o-c that which happens to the mind (namely, the

quality of appearing).

 

 

Ben:

However, my gut impression that other streams of consciousness are

distinct from mine is not like this at all. (Notice that I say 'gut

impression' and not 'belief', because I DO believe that the multiple

streams reduce to Brahman, for reasons I gave earlier.)

 

===You get full advaita credit for this belief!! And I hope it dissolves into

direct experience!

 

Ben:

Now the problem is not that my mind is superimposing a false interpretation on

the shapes and colors in my consciousness,

as was the case with material objects. Rather, the problem now is that the

shapes and colors which appear to you DO NOT appear to me. I see no way around

this.

 

===This is where the superimposition comes in. The superimposition is this, the

attribution to Ben and Jerry (er, Greg) that which happens only at

consciousness. Namely, "being appeared to" does not happen at the person.

Nothing appears to Ben or to Greg. Ben and Greg are themselves appearances.

Advaita teaches that appearances appear to consciousness, not to people.

 

Ben:

This really is a rather difficult problem. With warm and sincere

respect, O venerable debating partner, I think you underestimate the

difficulty... :-)

 

===No I don't - I know what a sticking point it can be! You're very earnest and

energetic, and it's still there, in spite of lots of searching.

 

Hari Om!

 

--Greg

 

P.S. Should we be talking about happiness instead?

[Guest guest]

On 3/13/04 11:00 am "Dennis Waite" (dwaite) wrote:

The truth of the matter cannot be appreciated until the false superimposition

dissipates, when the problem dissolves. It is not that we then can read other

people's minds etc. It is that we then know for a fact that there are no other

minds to read, not even our own.

 

===Well said, Dennis-ji!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

On 3/13/04 03:23 pm Benjamin (orion777ben) wrote:

 

 

The word 'see' is ambiguous. It can mean 'to see an object' or it

can simply mean 'to be aware of shapes and colors in consciousness

without interpreting them as objects other than consciousness'.

 

===Yes, this is still duality. "To be aware of X" where X is red or square, is

a subject/object dynamic. Even if the very next thought is "X is nothing other

than consciousness."

 

Ben:

Go tell Swami Chinmayananda, who 'invented' the PFT scheme.

 

===And a good scheme it is, too. But it is a provisional one, a gauged teachng

model.

 

 

Ben:

Ramana saw shapes and colors called people, trees, sky, etc. It is all a

question of *interpretation*.

 

===This is an attribution, a way of speaking by in terms of the PFT model.

Let's say you had lunch with Ramana and asked him, "Do you *really* see shapes

and colors?" What would you say if he said, "Benjaminji, all I see is the

Self."

 

--Greg