Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 *is* isn't defined -- just ask Bill Clinton :-) Logic isn't logical, because it assumes that there could be definitions of *is* and other things besides *is* which *is* could link, like " a cow " and " brown " ... Those assumptions are irrational and unfounded, so logic rests in irrational assumptions. Once those assumptions are made, you can have cause and effect, before and after, and can pursue logical discourses of all types. It is not that you can't get outside of *is* without falling into infinite regress -- although that fall is indeed apparent in terms of logic. On its own term, which *is* the only term that *is*, there isn't any such thing as falling out of. Logic is Alice-in-Wonderland speak -- young children know this -- hence their baffled looks at adults speaking seriously and logically ... Adults may have forgotten this, but can remember all-at-once -- and such rememberence can turn everything inside-out as *is* and back again into everything that *is* -- without any movement at all! Just *is* Thanks for your comments, Michael :-) Peace, Dan Realization , " svahauk <ombhurbhuva@h...> " <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote: > Hello All, > > Dan's puzzles about the real are logical conunundrums in which the real is defined as what is and you can never get outside that without falling into that vertiginous condition known as infinite regress. However if you look at reality in a non-dual way you can ask without fear of heights or depths `how are things in reality that they should appear to be the way that they do'? The problem with infinite regress arises when you remain on the same level in order to grasp something or when grasping in some manner or other is the issue that requires to be accounted for. The classic Buddhist criticism of the Atmam stems from their applying this principle to the notion of the witness and at the same time retaining their idealist epistemology ie. What we are acquainted with are the ideas in our own mind and we know the `external' world only by inference. I have no wish to become a weapon of mass instruction so I'll leave the analysis of the insufficiency of vijnanavada to one side. Suffice to say that the tripartite reality of knower/knowing and the known is reduced to an impoverished `knowing' (Vijnanavada). In that solipsistic view of the world you are always home alone. > > Sidebar: To be fair inferential knowledge of the external world only tends in that direction. " As a serious conviction, on the other hand, it could be found only in a madhouse, and as such it would need not so much a refutation as a cure. " (Schopenhauer/The World as Will and Idea) > > The classic Advaitic question is (a) how is there self luminous cognition and (b) a self. We must bear in mind that they reject the position that you must then espouse a mental subject/mental object view? This mature view appears to be compromised by an intermediate teaching which has the uncertain footing that leads to infinite regress. That is my reading of it e.g. " the form is perceived and the eye is its perceiver. It (eye) is perceived and the mind is its perceiver. The mind with its modifications is perceived and the Witness(the Self) is verily the perceiver. But it (the Witness) is not perceived (by any other). I. Drg-Drsya-Viveka > > To revert again to the real it must be stressed that the real in question is the really real i.e. Metaphysics in the non table turning sense. Those whose grasp of everyday reality is frail should not be confirmed by a literal reading of Sunyavada (Emptiness). In any case it claims much more that it can establish. > > " That by which the non-existence of things is witnessed must be real. All would be ignorant of the existence and non-existence of things if that were not the case. Therefore yours (the Buddhist sunyavadin) is a position that cannot be accepted. " From Upadesasahasri by Sankara > > Best Wishes, Really, Michael. > > Dan Wrote: concern yourself not with words of the real. For you cannot be in need of anything real, unless you could ever be apart from the real. > > Rob wrote: But I don't view this search as a search for the real, because ordinary reality seems perfectly real to me. The only reason I have for suspecting that there's something realer, is that a bunch of dead sages tell me so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2003 Report Share Posted February 20, 2003 Sorry for the two extraneous posts -- some kind of computer/ glitch -- The glitch that *is* yours truly, Dan Realization , " dan330033 <dan330033> " <dan330033> wrote: > *is* isn't defined -- > > just ask Bill Clinton :-) > > Logic isn't logical, because it > assumes that there could be > definitions of *is* and > other things besides *is* which > *is* could link, like " a cow " > and " brown " ... > > Those assumptions are irrational > and unfounded, so logic rests > in irrational assumptions. > > Once those assumptions are made, > you can have cause and effect, > before and after, and can > pursue logical discourses of > all types. > > It is not that you can't get outside > of *is* without falling into > infinite regress -- although that > fall is indeed apparent in terms > of logic. > > On its own term, which *is* the only > term that *is*, there isn't any > such thing as falling out of. > > Logic is Alice-in-Wonderland speak -- > young children know this -- hence > their baffled looks at adults speaking > seriously and logically ... > > Adults may have forgotten this, but > can remember all-at-once -- and > such rememberence can turn everything > inside-out as *is* and back again > into everything that *is* -- without > any movement at all! Just *is* > > Thanks for your comments, Michael :-) > > Peace, > Dan > > Realization , " svahauk <ombhurbhuva@h...> " > <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > Dan's puzzles about the real are logical conunundrums in which the > real is defined as what is and you can never get outside that without > falling into that vertiginous condition known as infinite regress. > However if you look at reality in a non-dual way you can ask without > fear of heights or depths `how are things in reality that they should > appear to be the way that they do'? The problem with infinite > regress arises when you remain on the same level in order to grasp > something or when grasping in some manner or other is the issue that > requires to be accounted for. The classic Buddhist criticism of the > Atmam stems from their applying this principle to the notion of the > witness and at the same time retaining their idealist epistemology > ie. What we are acquainted with are the ideas in our own mind and we > know the `external' world only by inference. I have no wish to > become a weapon of mass instruction so I'll leave the analysis of the > insufficiency of vijnanavada to one side. Suffice to say that the > tripartite reality of knower/knowing and the known is reduced to an > impoverished `knowing' (Vijnanavada). In that solipsistic view of > the world you are always home alone. > > > > Sidebar: To be fair inferential knowledge of the external world > only tends in that direction. " As a serious conviction, on the other > hand, it could be found only in a madhouse, and as such it would need > not so much a refutation as a cure. " (Schopenhauer/The World as Will > and Idea) > > > > The classic Advaitic question is (a) how is there self luminous > cognition and (b) a self. We must bear in mind that they reject the > position that you must then espouse a mental subject/mental object > view? This mature view appears to be compromised by an intermediate > teaching which has the uncertain footing that leads to infinite > regress. That is my reading of it e.g. " the form is perceived and > the eye is its perceiver. It (eye) is perceived and the mind is its > perceiver. The mind with its modifications is perceived and the > Witness(the Self) is verily the perceiver. But it (the Witness) is > not perceived (by any other). I. Drg-Drsya-Viveka > > > > To revert again to the real it must be stressed that the real in > question is the really real i.e. Metaphysics in the non table turning > sense. Those whose grasp of everyday reality is frail should not be > confirmed by a literal reading of Sunyavada (Emptiness). In any case > it claims much more that it can establish. > > > > " That by which the non-existence of things is witnessed must be > real. All would be ignorant of the existence and non-existence of > things if that were not the case. Therefore yours (the Buddhist > sunyavadin) is a position that cannot be accepted. " From > Upadesasahasri by Sankara > > > > Best Wishes, Really, Michael. > > > > Dan Wrote: concern yourself not with words of the > real. > For you cannot > be in need of anything > real, > > unless you could ever be apart from the real. > > > > Rob wrote: But I don't view this search as a search for > the > > real, because ordinary reality seems > perfectly > > real to me. The only reason I have for > suspecting > that > there's something realer, is that a > bunch > of > dead sages tell me so. 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.