Brahman - Revelation and Confusion

[Guest guest]

Namaste C.N. & Saddanandaji,

Just looking at your posts I offer a few remarks

and whether you will view them as Attic salt or

plain seasoning is as your taste dictates.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

 

C.N. I think that 'detest' is a typo for detect,

though indeed circularity is the bete noir of

the thinking man. You are right though

in your affirmation of the world as given and

you would go further I believe in holding that

its natural kinds are the words of Brahman

which are the animating reality of language itself

with Sanskrit as its particular vessel. Part of

the 'worldness of the world' as Heidegger

would say is its capacity to deceive and

be found out. Consciousness as such is never

contradicted but its salient feature in the

waking state is the subject/object dyad

of perception. It presents to us whether

true or false an uncanny paradox whereby

the inert out there comes to be in here.

I believe the focus on Psychology which

can interpose itself in here is a pointless

distraction. We have the sort of brain

that we have and we anticipate too much

to bring us into the present and beyond

the natural processing speed of the

cerebral cortex. So mistakes happen and

lesions and damage may produce florid

effects. Oliver Sacks' books are full of

accounts of these lusus naturae or sports

of nature. They matter not. This is the

world and all those illusions, delusions and

confusion are part of the worldness of

this world. In every case whether veridical

or not all perception involves the out there

coming to shine within the consciousness

of the perceiver.

 

Realising this fact Shankara saw the possibility

of a mighty analogy, the same form applies

whether in the veridical or the confused.

However this can only be analogically the

case as what happens within the 'world'

cannot explain the 'world'. So adhyasa is

not a theory. A theory is falsifiable, new

data explodes it. Also if it were a theory

understanding adhyasa in the sense of

confusion which is easy would mean

that we had by parity of reasoning

a corrosponding understanding of how

the upadhi of the object was the identical upadhi

within the subjects consciousness.

 

However this is to be realised and cannot

be understood even though we might

get the feel of it via the analogy.

 

This is the moon on the bough

of the Tai Up.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.