Different uses of the same words (reply to Anandaji)

[Guest guest]

Dear Anandaji,

 

I agree with what you say in your post, but I think that there is a

problem in the understanding of the way language needs to be used.

 

"But when you go on to say 'Our natural perspective is SDV ...', then

I must point out that this use of the word 'natural' is also up for

questioning. Advaita very definitely does not accept it as 'natural'

that srishti or creation should come before drishti or perceiving."

 

SDV is our natural perspective (the way we see things) because it is

the perspective we have prior to any instruction. If Advaita were the

natural perspective, then the teaching would be useless. Advaita

always starts from the perspective of the student, and then shows this

perspective to be misconcieved. This is why Advaita tradition has

always held that ignorance is naisargika. Ignorance is not real after

analysis but prior to analysis, it is assumed to be so and the

teaching starts from this standpoint. Similarly, it seems acceptable

to call SDV the natural perspective.

 

I think the same problem is there with subjective and objective. The

English words subjective and objective clearly have a standard meaning

whereby mental content, etc... are considered subjective. It is true

that at another level this is not really subjective. However, if we

want to be even more precise, the Self is not the subject either

because the Self is a non-dual reality and the word subject is clearly

a relational word. However, owing to this reason, we do not stop using

the word "Subject" because it still has a useful role to play.

 

If we used only words that were perfectly valid from the highest

perspective, we would have no words to use. That being the case, I

think it is acceptable to use words such as subject/object and natural

in the different levels of meaning they convey as long as they are

taken in context,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.