Time and Space (a fresh view of idealism vs. realism)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranji,

 

" ... my view is not much different than yours even though it may

seem to be quite the contrary when I say that the entire universe is

real. It is all a question of words ... wherein the world of "names

and forms" is not false but is "something" within the One Reality of

Consciousness ... independence from the possessive hold of words ...

I don't know if I am making sense in saying all this.... "

 

 

I think I do understand you to some degree.

 

Let me put it this way. I now think that even those who claim to

believe in the reality of objects (names and forms) are 'idealists'

without knowing it. A classic case is Samuel Johnson's 'refutation'

of Berkeley, which I shall quote

 

http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html

 

" 7. Refutation of Bishop Berkeley

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time

together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the

nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is

merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine

is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the

alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty

force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- 'I refute

it thus.'

Boswell: Life "

 

 

Unwittingly, Johnson was making Berkeley's point. When you kick a

stone and exclaim 'Look how real and vivid this experience is! How

can you deny the reality of this stone?', it all takes place in

consciousness. You have only affirmed a vivid *experience*, which by

definition is in consciousness.

 

I will have a similar argument against Shankara in BrahmaSutra Bashya

II.2.28 in a paper I am writing for a conference. There Shankara is

refuting Buddhist 'idealism' in much the same way. (Frankly, I am

also a bit skeptical that the Shankara of BSB is the same as the one

who wrote the Vivekachudamani, since the latter is so explicitly

idealistic, as is the Yoga Vasistha.)

 

In other words, those who are confused by idealism because objects

seem so vivid and undeniably present simply need to realize that that

entire vivid experience happens within consciousness, or we would not

even know about it! Hence, it does come down to words and not being

seduced by them...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hey Benjamin-ji,

 

Yes, the Johnsonian reply to Berkeley. I had a girlfriend who used to say, "See

how true that is when you get his by a bus!" We're not together any more!

 

Your paper sounds exciting. If you take issue with Shankara, that should be

dramatic! I would like to see a copy at some point.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

I've exceeded my message limit for today, but I want to make a quick

point about Shankara.

>Yes, the Johnsonian reply to Berkeley. I had a girlfriend

>who used to say, "See how true that is when you get

>hit by a bus!" We're not together any more!

 

What happened? Did she get run over by a bus? :-)

 

>Your paper sounds exciting. If you take issue with

>Shankara, that should be dramatic! I would like to

>see a copy at some point.

 

The quick point I wish to make, is that if we do make a big deal out

of the 'realism' of Shankara in BSB II.2.28, then we must conclude

that although a supreme mystic, Shankara was not necessarily the most

precise and consistent philosopher, since other parts of BSB are

undeniably idealistic (as they MUST be if you assert that Brahman is

both consciousness and the sole reality).

 

This is not such a shocking statement. The Upanishads are also

inconsistent, if interpreted in a prosaic and literal manner. God

save us from prosaic and literal scholars, even if they have tenure

somewhere.

 

Then, as I said, other voices of 'Shankara' are explicitly

idealistic, as in Vivekachudamani and Atma Bodha. And who would deny

that the Yoga Vasistha is an authentic Advaitic text, not to mention

the Ashtavakra Gita? All sublimely idealistic in their reduction of

reality to pure infinite consciousness. Who would want it otherwise?

 

Finally, as I said in my last message, even the realists are

idealists without knowing it. No thinking, perceiving or any other

kind of experience can escape the embrace of consciousness ... though

there may still be error and confusion about all this, which is also

in consciousness!

 

Enough said for now...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

When I first read Johnson's refutation of Berkeley (that was 25 years

ago), a very simple refutation of Johnson's refutation came to my

mind: the leg that kicked, the Jonson-body that possessed the legs

that kicked, the mind that sought to kick, and the stone that was

kicked, were all ideas. This is of course another way of saying that

it all takes place in consciousness.

> I now think that even those who claim to believe in the reality

> of objects (names and forms) are 'idealists' without knowing it.

 

This would be applicable only to 'naive realists' and not to those

who believe in impossible "objects" out there beyond the ken of the

senses (or consciousness). But whereas you would call such 'naive

realists' idealists, I would call idealists 'reductionist realists'

because they believe in the reality of ideas. I feel that when these

ideas are seen as true to the forms of the respective ideas, they

become fit to be called objects, just as idealists feel that objects

when seen as nothing but forms in consciousness become fit to be

called 'ideas'.

> I will have a similar argument against Shankara in BrahmaSutra

> Bhashya II.2.28 in a paper I am writing for a conference.

 

That is brave, but I like it the way you say it. :-)

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranji,

>

> I think I do understand you to some degree.

>

> Let me put it this way. I now think that even those who claim to

> believe in the reality of objects (names and forms) are 'idealists'

> without knowing it. A classic case is Samuel Johnson's

> 'refutation' of Berkeley, which I shall quote

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

This thread started by Sri Benjamin to 'jump start' the list

discussions! The car started well, but it accelerated with no

control, direction and a road map! Fortunately, the Lord provided

the car, the battery, the accelarator and also the 'brakes.' This is

the best 'time' to the brakes and keep the car in the 'space' in the

garage before run out of gas!

 

Really speaking, Sri Ken has started this month's important

topic, 'mAyA in the Vedas' and let us use our valuable 'time'

focusing on mAyA in Advaita. I request members not to entertain new

threads of their own creations interfering with the monthly

discussions. At the same time, members are encouraged to ask and

answer advaita related questions when it become necessary.

 

If any member wants to pursue any lengthy discussions on a advaita

related topic, please send your requests to moderators's email

address: <advaitins

 

Thanks again for your cooperation and understanding,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Hi Greg,

>

> I've exceeded my message limit for today, but I want to make a

quick

> point about Shankara.