Guest guest Posted October 25, 2006 Report Share Posted October 25, 2006 Subbuji wrote: The tripuTI, triad – the dRRik (seer), chitta (the mind) and dRRishya (the seen object) – is experienced in dream as much as it is experienced in the waking. The distinction between the mind and the ideas therein, and the outside objects are there in the dream as in the waking. The instrumentality of the dream senses is also in evidence. The distinction between fancies of the mind, as for example, in day-dreaming and the so-called real objects outside, is maintained in the dream as also that between the real and the illusory, the latter being exemplified by the rope-snake. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Namaste Subbuji and all Advaitins, It's clear that Subbu is very committed to a particular view and is able to justify it following certain well known scriptures and commentaries. Others with equal access to the scriptures in the original; a point which he often stresses; take a different view. Is it possible to rationally distinguish the fundamental difference in orientation to the problem of consciousness that issues in such clear divergence? I believe so. By the way this view which is sometimes referred to by the slightly pejorative title of 'illusionism' was held by one of the greatest figures in European philosophy who founded a branch of mathematics, did major work in hydraulics, optics and vacuum theory, was a noted stylist in Latin and the vernacular as well as an advisor to the Queen of Sweden. He writes: "How often has it happened to me that in the night I dreamt that I found myself in this particular place, that I was dressed and seated near the fire, whilst in reality I was lying undressed in bed! At this moment it does indeed seem to me that it is with eyes awake that I am looking at this paper; that this head which I move is not asleep, that it is deliberately and of set purpose that I extend my hand and perceive it, what happens in sleep does not appear so clear nor so distinct as does all this. But in thinking over this I remind myself that on many occasions I have in sleep been deceived by similar illusions, and in dwelling carefully on this reflection I see so manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefullness from sleep that I am lost in astonishment. And my astonishment is such that it is almost capable of persuading me that I now dream."(Descartes: First Meditation) I would say that this position is very easy to understand and that its genesis is easily traced. It is predicated on a certain type of personality which is dominated by inwardness, introspection and a powerful imagination for whom the world behind the knitted brow is as real as that which is palpable. I believe that I would not be going out on a limb if I suggested that this is a type not unheard of in the annals of yoga. As well as a natural propensity for introversion they would add that there is a rational basis for the assimilation of all states to one another. What is it, they would ask, we are immediately acquainted with? Our perceptions? And what are perceptions but the mental analogue of the busy neuronal traffic which is by definition intracerebral. From that base we make our inferences to the existence of an external world. The proof that such is the case is arises from our often being deluded about what is really out there. That in short is the basis for the melding together of all sorts of consciousness into the one undifferentiated consciousness which is the mayvic. This single consciousness is pure consciousness with the limiting adjunct of the mind. There in a nutshell, by which they are bounded, is one version of Advaita. Very well, but is it Advaitic? If not, why not? Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2006 Report Share Posted October 25, 2006 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > > undifferentiated consciousness which is the mayvic. > This single consciousness is pure consciousness with > the limiting adjunct of the mind. There in a nutshell, > by which they are bounded, is one version of > Advaita. Very well, but is it Advaitic? If not, why > not? > > Best Wishes, > Michael. > Namaste Michael A Chara, How can it be Advaitic if there is an adjunct, so compromising or qualifying the pure Consciousness. Therefore it cannot be the ultimate consciousness for then there would be no adjuncts at all.........Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.