Vishistadvaita Ontology

[Guest guest]

Hello Benjamin,

You're still locked into the conceivability thesis i.e. that

it is inconceivable that anything should be without being a presentation to

some consciousness or other. The Realist opposite number is that the world

exists independently of our representations of it. It's not as though this

can be proved but rather that it is the background for all intelligibility.

It is to a degree a transcendental postulate. Sankara takes that short way

with the Vijnanavadin saying you can't be eating your meal and then deny

there was meal or eater therof. ((note: I may give up on citation as nobody

else is bothered. Perhaps a signal such as *** may be taken to mean 'now

place the B.S.B. on your head --Q: Where does Sankara talk about

anirvacanaya or is it a deep secret?))

 

As I was saying before I interrupted myself may I offer as intellectual

ascesis the gnome - 'Everything I know is wrong'. (The alert will spot a

self referential paradox in that) Just say no to everything!

 

Can we say no to consciousness? Distinguish between consciousness as given

in individual states and consciousness as such. Is there an illicit move

from states of awareness to general pure consciousness? The Mandukya

Upanisad (***) discusses modalities of consciousness but regards the Fourth

as the underlying reality of the other three. It is thus a metaphysical

entity, a postulate, the culmination of the mystical quest or what you will.

Leave it out you (one) have not earned it.

 

As a postulate pure consciousness must be bedded in good grounds. Here come

the pramana (V.P.***) Advaita is a sort of ontological Realism. The object

is taken to be known as it is with the caveat that our representations are

restricted and may be erroneous. On this extraordinarily modest foundation

scarcely offering any resistance to the frost heave of the analytical

intelligence, you might surmise, the elegent edifice of Advaita is placed.

(B.S.B.***)

 

Best Wishes, Michael.