Advaita Deconstruction by Greg

[Guest guest]

===Thanks for the link. I like the marxists.org site.

Basically, what Heidegger is saying is that phenomenologists

take their project too seriously and don't account for the

historical and linguistic influences that construct their

project and also construct what they take as real things.

That these influences must be themselves looked into and

deconstructed before phenomenology can proceed. And who

knows? This deconstruction might deconstruct the very

impulse that motivates phenomenology.

 

This same critique has been levelled against the advaitin,

and the witness model too. It often seems like these

approaches are saying how things REALLY ARE. As though

they are saying, " The world REALLY IS mere phenomena and

an impersonal witness to which the phenomena appear. "

 

And the critiques would succeed, if that's what the

advaitin were saying. But it's not. Back to the heuristic

notion. The student of advaita most often believes

that there is some way that the world really is.

This is exactly why the student becomes dissaffected

and dissatisfied if he learns that the teaching he

has been given is " only heuristic. " The student will

think, " I want the REAL THING, the TRUE TEACHING. "

The student thinks that there is a true way, and it

is just a matter of finding it or seeing it.

 

But this mind-set is exactly what the nondualist

approach is gently and slowly trying to free the

student from. (This approach is called " sublation "

in academic circles.) This approach uses some

of the more subtle beliefs of the student

(subject/object dichotomy, belief in eternal

or mental or God-like essence) to de-bunk some

of the grosser beliefs (independence of physical

objects and vulnerability of human souls).

This is at work in the Bhagavad Gita in the

first few chapters where Krishna is telling

Arjuna not to worry about his relatives

on the opposing side of the battle because

they are part of an eternal spirit.

 

The reason this approach escapes the Heideggerian

critique is that in the sublational approach,

nondualism isn't making the claim that things

really are part of an eternal spirit (or whatever

tool was used). Rather, it is merely using

this pre-existing belief of the student to

deconstruct other beliefs. And later, this

belief itself will be sublated, and so forth.

 

Until WHAT, it is often asked? What is the

endpoint? The ONE TRUE belief? Not at all,

rather freedom from belief, from fixity, from

essence itself (these things all get sublated).

 

For shorthand it is called Brahman or Emptiness,

but these are only advertising slogans....

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote:

>

> ===Thanks for the link. I like the marxists.org site.

> Basically, what Heidegger is saying is that phenomenologists

> take their project too seriously and don't account for the

> historical and linguistic influences that construct their

> project and also construct what they take as real things.

> That these influences must be themselves looked into and

> deconstructed before phenomenology can proceed. And who

> knows? This deconstruction might deconstruct the very

> impulse that motivates phenomenology.

>

> This same critique has been levelled against the advaitin,

> and the witness model too. It often seems like these

> approaches are saying how things REALLY ARE. As though

> they are saying, " The world REALLY IS mere phenomena and

> an impersonal witness to which the phenomena appear. "

>

> And the critiques would succeed, if that's what the

> advaitin were saying. But it's not. Back to the heuristic

> notion. The student of advaita most often believes

> that there is some way that the world really is.

> This is exactly why the student becomes dissaffected

> and dissatisfied if he learns that the teaching he

> has been given is " only heuristic. " The student will

> think, " I want the REAL THING, the TRUE TEACHING. "

> The student thinks that there is a true way, and it

> is just a matter of finding it or seeing it.

>

> But this mind-set is exactly what the nondualist

> approach is gently and slowly trying to free the

> student from. (This approach is called " sublation "

> in academic circles.) This approach uses some

> of the more subtle beliefs of the student

> (subject/object dichotomy, belief in eternal

> or mental or God-like essence) to de-bunk some

> of the grosser beliefs (independence of physical

> objects and vulnerability of human souls).

> This is at work in the Bhagavad Gita in the

> first few chapters where Krishna is telling

> Arjuna not to worry about his relatives

> on the opposing side of the battle because

> they are part of an eternal spirit.

>

> The reason this approach escapes the Heideggerian

> critique is that in the sublational approach,

> nondualism isn't making the claim that things

> really are part of an eternal spirit (or whatever

> tool was used). Rather, it is merely using

> this pre-existing belief of the student to

> deconstruct other beliefs. And later, this

> belief itself will be sublated, and so forth.

>

> Until WHAT, it is often asked? What is the

> endpoint? The ONE TRUE belief? Not at all,

> rather freedom from belief, from fixity, from

> essence itself (these things all get sublated).

>

> For shorthand it is called Brahman or Emptiness,

> but these are only advertising slogans....

>

> --Greg:

 

 

<nondualphil/>

 

<http://nonduality.com/goode.htm>