Guest guest Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 The quantum mechanic teach that everything depends on a observer.Ramana Maharshi spoke that perception is priort o creation in his Drishti-Srishti vada theory.George Berkerley told something similar.John Levy [Atmananda diciple] wrote something similar too in his book " the nature of man according Vedanta " .Sankara for other part denied that the objects were projections of the perception of the jiva.My points is: If this Drishti-Srishti-vada theory have some validity then that mean for example that when I left a plant in my backyard and there is nobody observing it ,there is no growing because the plant cease to exist? That is not my experience after returning to my backyard 2 week latter and see the growing plant. Someone can answer, God o Conciousness observe the plant and keep it existing and growing,but how we reconcile this with the statement made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object not exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other internal process that we are not aware of? Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Atagrasin wrote: > for example that when I left a plant in my > backyard and there is nobody observing it ,there is no growing > because the plant cease to exist? That is not my experience after > returning to my backyard 2 week latter and see the growing plant. > Someone can answer, God o Conciousness observe the plant and keep it > existing and growing,but how we reconcile this with the statement > made by Nisargadatta Maharaj that without a body/mind instrument > Conciousness can't know any object.The conclusion might be that > objects exist by itself without the need for an observer, if we > follow Shankara statement, or we we can conclude that the object not > exists without an observer, but in the last conclussion how we > explain change in the object between the time lapsus that there is > not an observer present? How we explain diggestion or other internal > process that we are not aware of? > Atagrasin Dear Atagrasin, you are asking a very good question. Let me give it a try. " Growing " involves both change and the concept of continuity. Nisargadatta says that there cannot be change unless there is a changeless background. This background is the real, change is unreal. But why? When you look at the plant after it has grown up, how do you know that it has grown? Only through memory. But, how real is memory? It is flux, imagination, conceptual, unreliable. The idea of memory itself is memory! Only that which never changes is called " real " in Nisargadattas terminology. This is an insight with quite harsh consequences, especially when it is realized that literally all perception is memory (and therefor changing, unreal). The perceiver, the personality itself is memory. It comes down the unreality of time (and with it: space). Below is an excerpt from Nisargadatta Maharaj. " Your being a person is due to the illusion of space and time; you imagine yourself to be at a certain point occupying a certain volume; your personality is due to your self-identification with the body. Your thoughts and feelings exist in succession, they have their span in time and make you imagine yourself, because of memory, as having duration. In reality time and space exist in you; you do not exist in them. They are modes of perception, but they are not the only ones. Time and space are like words written on paper; the paper is real, the words merely a convention. " Greetings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 Maybe my question was not so clear ,let try again 1. Realism (or philosophical materialism): is the view that external objects exist by itself separated and independent of any observation, and will continue to exist even if they are not observed. 2.Subjetive Idealism: is the view that matter does not exist in its own right, that in fact it is a product of perception. So all objects are only mental creations. All models or views of reality are variations of these two basic views. There is no conclusive way to decide between them. There is no experiment that can be performed to decide whether reality is formed by realism or by Idealism. The subjetive idealist preach, " When I see a tree,for example what I really observe is the idea of that tree in my mind. " The point at issue is whether that tree exists independently of the idea of it that is in the observer mind. Subjetive Idealism has a long " tradition " . It was first propounded in Buddhism [Yogacara " mind only " sect] Vijnanavada sect,and in later vedanta Advaita, through several Shankara successors.Shankara himself do not belive in subjetive idealism [the doctrine that experienced objects can be reduced to the perceptive subject ( " To be is to be perceived " or " esse is percipi " – that is, existence occurs through perceptiono or like George Berkeley said " the perception of an object is that object " .But Nisargadatta Maharaj teach something very similar to the Subjetive Idealism ,here a quote: " You know only what is in your consciousness. What you claim exists outside conscious experience is inferred ... You may postulate a world beyond the mind, but it will remain a concept, unproved andunprovable ... The world appears to you so overwhelmingly real because you think of it all the time ... All happens in consciousness.The world is but a succession of experiences ... Your conviction that you are conscious of a world is the world ... Once you realize that the world is your own projection, you are free of it ... The world can be said to appear, but not to be ... Even space and time are imagined. All existence is imaginary ... In reality all is here and now and all is one. Multiplicity and diversity are in the mind only " ... I AM THAT (Chapter 2) My point again is If objects are only projections of an observer or let said it ,Conciousness ,and Conciousness depend on a body/mind as Maharaj teaching assure,then how is that assumed objects that were left unobserved can change,grow,decay,grow old ect....[see my first post about this issue]if has this vedanta o buddhism teachers said " existence = being perceived or being known " ? Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2007 Report Share Posted September 24, 2007 advaitin , " atagrasin " <k1c2 wrote: > > Maybe my question was not so clear ,let try again > > 1. Realism (or philosophical materialism): > > is the view that external objects exist by itself separated and > independent of any observation, and will continue to exist even if > they are not observed. > > 2.Subjetive Idealism: > > is the view that matter does not exist in its own right, that in > fact it is a product of perception. So all objects are only mental > creations. > > All models or views of reality are variations of these two basic > views. There is no conclusive way to decide between them. There is > no experiment that can be performed to decide whether reality is > formed by realism or by > Idealism. > > The subjetive idealist preach, " When I see a tree,for example what I > really observe is the idea of that tree in my mind. " The point at > issue is whether that tree exists independently of the idea of it > that is in the observer mind. > Subjetive Idealism has a long " tradition " . It was first propounded > in Buddhism [Yogacara " mind only " sect] Vijnanavada sect,and in > later vedanta Advaita, through several Shankara successors.Shankara > himself do not belive in subjetive idealism [the doctrine that > experienced objects can be reduced to the perceptive subject ( " To be > is to be perceived " or " esse is percipi " – that is, existence occurs > through perceptiono or like George Berkeley said " the perception of > an object is that object " .But Nisargadatta Maharaj teach something > very similar to the Subjetive Idealism ,here a quote: > > " You know only what is in your consciousness. What you claim exists > outside conscious experience is inferred ... You may postulate a > world beyond the mind, but it will remain a concept, unproved > andunprovable ... The world appears to you so overwhelmingly real > because you think of it all the time ... All happens in > consciousness.The world is but a succession of experiences ... Your > conviction that you are conscious of a world is the world ... Once > you realize that the world is your own projection, you are free of > it ... The world can be said to appear, but not to be ... Even space > and time are imagined. All existence is imaginary ... In reality all > is here and now and all is one. Multiplicity and diversity are in > the mind only " ... > > I AM THAT (Chapter 2) > > My point again is > > If objects are only projections of an observer or let said > it ,Conciousness ,and Conciousness depend on a body/mind as Maharaj > teaching assure,then how is that assumed objects that were left > unobserved can change,grow,decay,grow old ect....[see my first post > about this issue]if has this vedanta o buddhism teachers > said " existence = being perceived or being known " ? > > Atagrasin > Dear Atagrasin, Swami Vivekananda says, " Supposing that the external world is the cause of the internal, yet we shall of have to admit that the external world, as cause of ours mind, is unknown and unknowable, because the mind can only know that much or that view of the external or that view which conforms to or is a reflection of its own nature. That which is its own reflection could not have been its cause. Now that view of the whole mass of existence, which is cut off by mind and known, certainly cannot be the cause of mind, as its very existence is known in and through the mind. Thus it is impossible to deduce a mind from matter. Nay, it is absurd. Because on the very face of it that portion of existence which is bereft of the qualities of thought and life and endowed with the quality of externality is called matter, and that portion which is bereft of externality and endowed with the qualities of thought and life is called mind. Now to prove matter from mind, or mind from matter, is to deduce from each the very qualities we have taken away from each; and, therefore, all the fight about the causality of mind or matter is merely a word puzzle and nothing more. Again, throughout all these controversies runs, as a rule, the fallacy of imparting different meanings to the words mind and matter. If sometimes the word mind is used as something opposed and external to matter, at others as something which embraces both the mind and matter, i.e. of which both the external and internal are parts on the materialistic side; the word matter is sometimes used in is the restricted sense of something external which we sense, and again it means something which is the cause of all the phenomena both external and internal. The materialist frightens the idealist by claiming to derive his mind from the elements of the laboratory, while all the time he is struggling to express something higher than all elements and atoms, something of which both the external and the internal phenomena are results, and which he terms matter. The idealist, on the other hand, wants to derive all the elements and atoms of the materialist from his own thought, even while catching glimpses of something which is the cause of both mind and matter, and which he oft-times calls God. That is to say, one party wants to explain the whole universe by a portion of it which is external, the other by another portion which is internal. Both of these attempts are impossible. Mind and matter cannot explain each other. The only explanation is to be sought for in something which will embrace both matter and mind. It may be argued that thought cannot exist without mind, for supposing there was a time when there was no thought, matter, as we know it, certainly could not have existed. On the other hand, it may be said that knowledge being impossible without experience, and experience presupposing the external world, the existence of mind, as we know it, is impossible without the existence of matter. Nor is it possible that either of them had a beginning. Generalisation is the essence of knowledge. Generalisation is impossible without a storage of similarities. Even the fact of comparison is impossible without previous experience. Knowledge thus is impossible without previous knowledge — and knowledge necessitating the existence of both thought and matter, both of them are without beginning. " !! SrI Adi SankarArpaNamastu !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 > Hi Aragrasin, > > let me try to elaborate in another way. > > Event 1. You look at a plant: > " plant perceived " > Event two. You look at a plant one week later: > " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " > Event three. > Conclusion that between point one and point two the plant must have > been there to grow. > > All three events are valid inside of the conceptual mind. They all are > having the same " reality " : the reality of a consciousness which makes > sense through the concept of time/space. This concept puts everything > automatically into a time/space raster of duration, change, movement, > birth and dead, causality etc... > > But Nisargadatta points out, that this raster is not presenting the > true reality. The true reality is timeless and changeless. The mistake > is that we take the conceptual for the real to an extend, that we are > completely identified with it. This way we forget our true nature. > > Insofar I would say Nisargadattas teachings belong to subjective > realism. But his approach is very practical, he repeatedly says: once > the false is seen as the false the true reality is revealed He > suggests to continuously investigate to which extend we take something > which is only conceptual for the absolute reality. > > Did this answer your question? > > If time/space is not relevant, then the question what happened to the > plant in order to grow is also not relevant. Thanks for your eloquent response,but there is something missing,the context of my question. Let see your example: 1. You look at a plant: " plant perceived " 2. You look at a plant one week later: " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " your conclusion: 3.between point one and point two the plant must have been there to grow. Ok,this is Shankara Vedanta Advaita founder view but not the Nisargadatta,Berkeley/Quantum mechanic,subjetive idealism view.For them, the plant was not existing [in the lapsus that the plant was not being observed]and for the subjetive idealism proponents like Maharaj is now my question: If the plant not exist between point one and point two [using Stefan example here]because as subjetive idealism teach " esse is percipi " [exist is to being perceived]then how we can explain the one inch later grow? any suggestion? Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Dear Atagrasin, This is an interesting question and here is my understanding of the matter. The Ultimate Reality (paramarthika satya) does not depend upon mental activity for its existence in any way. Illusions and hallucinations (which are pratibhasika satya) have no existence apart from the mind that imagines them. Relative reality (vyavaharika satya) also depends upon mind for its existence, but the functioning of the mind is not enough in itself. It might help to take an example of each. Paramarthika: My existence is not dependent upon the mind in any way. Pratibhasika: The dream-tiger has absolutely no existence apart from the dreamer's mind, the dream-tiger is mental activity alone. Wherever the mind sees the dream-tiger, if it saw a dream-goat instead, the perception would be just as valid. Vyavaharika: A pot does not exist unless there is mental activity superimposing it upon its material cause (ie: clay). However, the pot's existence is not dependent upon any one mind and the same pot could be superimposed on the same clay by any mind. This means that it is possible to superimpose the pot on the clay because it has been designed that way for all minds, and not just for any one mind. It is only because the pot exists as a potential in awareness for all beings that it can be superimposed on clay by any being. Unlike pratibhasika satya, this superimposition is not arbitrary (ie: you cannot superimpose a wallet on clay instead of the pot, and if you do, it is no longer vyavaharika, its pratibhasika). I would like to request learned members to point out my misunderstandings about this matter. Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Dear Atagrasin: You wrote: " If the plant not exist between point one and point two [using Stefan example here]because as subjetive idealism teach " esse is percipi " [exist is to being perceived] then how we can explain the one inch later grow? any suggestion? " If You " are " Consciousness, then you existed all the time to " see " and " be " the growing plant, the blooming plant and even the dead plant in a few years. If you take yourself as the body, then you were not there while it grow and you can consider it a " magic trick " from Ishvara. PraNamas, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 very nice indeed. However, i wonder, the perception does not become * non existant * during the one week you are away. Does that sound sensible or stupid - I do not know LOL ******************** note ********* I am not deleting the portion below as one who read this will not even know what is being discussed without the following. so pardon me for not deleting. thanks atagrasin <k1c2 wrote: > Hi Aragrasin, > > let me try to elaborate in another way. > > Event 1. You look at a plant: > " plant perceived " > Event two. You look at a plant one week later: > " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " > Event three. > Conclusion that between point one and point two the plant must have > been there to grow. > > All three events are valid inside of the conceptual mind. They all are > having the same " reality " : the reality of a consciousness which makes > sense through the concept of time/space. This concept puts everything > automatically into a time/space raster of duration, change, movement, > birth and dead, causality etc... > > But Nisargadatta points out, that this raster is not presenting the > true reality. The true reality is timeless and changeless. The mistake > is that we take the conceptual for the real to an extend, that we are > completely identified with it. This way we forget our true nature. > > Insofar I would say Nisargadattas teachings belong to subjective > realism. But his approach is very practical, he repeatedly says: once > the false is seen as the false the true reality is revealed He > suggests to continuously investigate to which extend we take something > which is only conceptual for the absolute reality. > > Did this answer your question? > > If time/space is not relevant, then the question what happened to the > plant in order to grow is also not relevant. Thanks for your eloquent response,but there is something missing,the context of my question. Let see your example: 1. You look at a plant: " plant perceived " 2. You look at a plant one week later: " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " your conclusion: 3.between point one and point two the plant must have been there to grow. Ok,this is Shankara Vedanta Advaita founder view but not the Nisargadatta,Berkeley/Quantum mechanic,subjetive idealism view.For them, the plant was not existing [in the lapsus that the plant was not being observed]and for the subjetive idealism proponents like Maharaj is now my question: If the plant not exist between point one and point two [using Stefan example here]because as subjetive idealism teach " esse is percipi " [exist is to being perceived]then how we can explain the one inch later grow? any suggestion? Atagrasin Travelling to a new city? Search for ATMs in that city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Dear Shri Atagrasin, I remember saying here long back that your user id is Nisargat(dat)a in reverse. No wonder you are quoting the Maharaj so profusely. Now to address your question: Advaita says I am the entire universe. So, everything from ants to galaxies and naked singularities is me alone. The universe is my entire being. Like it is said in the prayer, vyomavat vyAptadehAya dakshiNAmUrtaye namaH. No sparrow chirps, no comet streaks the skies, no galaxy in the yet unknown yonder ever accelerates, without my knowledge. I am knowledge unlimited. Then, what to say about a small plant in the backyard. It has grown in me with my full knowledge. The limited me might have been absent from the scene for a couple of days. But, " I " was always everywhere all the time witnessing the great drama of the universe within me! In fact, the plant has grown without the limited me noticing is proof enough to show that I am not the limited one I think I am! Any moment of any event that unravels before you is Consciousness. If it is the unfortunate morning of 9/11, be sure the WT Towers and the crashing planes will be there. If that moment ever returns to you again, you will not know that you have traveled a few years ahead of the incident as you think you have done now. As Consciousness lighting up, you can be anywhere in any time and that time would be your present. Sequential time has no meaning except for the one who likes to be limited doing limited things and thinking limited thoughts. Subjective idealism might preach that matter does not exist in its own right and it is a product of perception. However, it remains stifled at that point. There is no sublation in idealism for the mind and the diversity it perceives. In that respect, Advaita has taken a quantum final leap over it. One has to feel one's oneness with everything right under one's skin. Advaita helps in that. Then the universe and the way it works from micro to macro levels wouldn't baffle you any more. It is simply thrilling and ecstatic. You can only roll on the ground and horripilate in acknowledgement of the wonder you are. The mew of a baby-cat or the shaking head of a little plant in the breeze fills you with the joy of your union with them. Then you are done, Shri Atagrasin. Nay, you are then Atagrasin in reverse gear. You are the very Nisargadatta! Mind you, you have never been anything else! If you thought otherwise, that was ignorance. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 namaskaram Shri Nairji, wonderful is too small a word to explain your this post. Simple and simply beautifully told for our simple mind to understand. thanks a lot namaskaram Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Dear Shri Atagrasin, I remember saying here long back that your user id is Nisargat(dat)a in reverse. No wonder you are quoting the Maharaj so profusely. Now to address your question: Advaita says I am the entire universe. So, everything from ants to galaxies and naked singularities is me alone. The universe is my entire being. Like it is said in the prayer, vyomavat vyAptadehAya dakshiNAmUrtaye namaH. No sparrow chirps, no comet streaks the skies, no galaxy in the yet unknown yonder ever accelerates, without my knowledge. I am knowledge unlimited. Explore your hobbies and interests. Click here to begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Dear Shri Atagrasin, > > I remember saying here long back that your user id is Nisargat(dat) a > in reverse. No wonder you are quoting the Maharaj so profusely. > > Now to address your question: Advaita says I am the entire > universe. So, everything from ants to galaxies and naked > singularities is me alone. The universe is my entire being. Like it > is said in the prayer, vyomavat vyAptadehAya dakshiNAmUrtaye namaH. > No sparrow chirps, no comet streaks the skies, no galaxy in the yet > unknown yonder ever accelerates, without my knowledge. I am > knowledge unlimited. > > Then, what to say about a small plant in the backyard. It has grown > in me with my full knowledge. The limited me might have been absent > from the scene for a couple of days. But, " I " was always everywhere > all the time witnessing the great drama of the universe within me! > > In fact, the plant has grown without the limited me noticing is proof > enough to show that I am not the limited one I think I am! > > Any moment of any event that unravels before you is Consciousness. If > it is the unfortunate morning of 9/11, be sure the WT Towers and the > crashing planes will be there. If that moment ever returns to you > again, you will not know that you have traveled a few years ahead of > the incident as you think you have done now. As Consciousness > lighting up, you can be anywhere in any time and that time would be > your present. Sequential time has no meaning except for the one who > likes to be limited doing limited things and thinking limited > thoughts. > > Subjective idealism might preach that matter does not exist in its > own right and it is a product of perception. However, it remains > stifled at that point. There is no sublation in idealism for the > mind and the diversity it perceives. In that respect, Advaita has > taken a quantum final leap over it. > > One has to feel one's oneness with everything right under one's skin. > Advaita helps in that. Then the universe and the way it works from > micro to macro levels wouldn't baffle you any more. It is simply > thrilling and ecstatic. You can only roll on the ground and > horripilate in acknowledgement of the wonder you are. The mew of a > baby-cat or the shaking head of a little plant in the breeze fills > you with the joy of your union with them. Then you are done, Shri > Atagrasin. Nay, you are then Atagrasin in reverse gear. You are the > very Nisargadatta! Mind you, you have never been anything else! If > you thought otherwise, that was ignorance. > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair .....great response to the subject! no need for further speculations.....about " creator " , " creations " ..... except, ignorance still don't give any Peace Marc > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2007 Report Share Posted September 25, 2007 Dear Madhatil: Madhatil: Now to address your question: Advaita says I am the entire universe. So, everything from ants to galaxies and naked singularities is me alone. The universe is my entire being. Like it is said in the prayer, vyomavat vyAptadehAya dakshiNAmUrtaye namaH. No sparrow chirps, no comet streaks the skies, no galaxy in the yet unknown yonder ever accelerates, without my knowledge. I am knowledge unlimited. Atagrasin: Your answer here seem to be in equal terms with Berkeley position.He argued that when we investigate the concept of existence, it automatically includes the concept of observation. That is, " to be " means " to be observed " . The concept of unobserved existence was, according to subjetive idealists, incoherent.However, this immediately leads to obvious absurdities. Since the vast majority of the physical universe [including internal physical process like digestion] is not being observed, it must not exist. In fact, when you leave an empty room, it pops out of existence -- at least until someone re-enters it [see my example of the plant growing 1 inch taller in a time lapsus of 1 week of not being obsevednot being observed, it must not exist. But Berkeley apparently formulated his ontology with this problem in mind, because he used it to argue for the existence of an omnipresent observer or God. Since it will always be more rational to believe that the universe exists even when we are not observing it, this proves that the universe as a whole is always being observed. There is, in other words, a Cosmic Observer. When we leave a room and it has no human observer,but it is still observed by God .The only difference between your point and Berkeley position is that Berkerley seem to posit a God separate from himself and that you call God, " Knowledge Unlimited " .Someone from a realism school [objects not need an observer] can said that you have a pretty ingenious but not valid argument here. Madhatil: Then, what to say about a small plant in the backyard. It has grown in me with my full knowledge. The limited me might have been absent from the scene for a couple of days. But, " I " was always everywhere all the time witnessing the great drama of the universe within me! In fact, the plant has grown without the limited me noticing is proof enough to show that I am not the limited one I think I am! Atagrasin: When you talk about this " small plant in the backyard. that " has grown in me with my full knowledge " ,and " I " was always everywhere all the time witnessing it " and agree that " the limited me might have been absent from the scene for a couple of days " what you mean by " witnessing'? Subject /object Witnessing " ? Subject without an object witnessing? How do you know that the " plant " was witnessed? Can Conciousness witness something without using alive organism [human or not] used as the vehicle of knowing or witnessing?? For this last question Nisargadatta Maharaj answer was " NO " . Madhatil: One has to feel one's oneness with everything right under one's skin. Advaita helps in that. Then the universe and the way it works from micro to macro levels wouldn't baffle you any more. It is simply thrilling and ecstatic. You can only roll on the ground and horripilate in acknowledgement of the wonder you are. The mew of a baby-cat or the shaking head of a little plant in the breeze fills you with the joy of your union with them. Then you are done, Shri Atagrasin. Nay, you are then Atagrasin in reverse gear. You are the very Nisargadatta! Mind you, you have never been anything else! If you thought otherwise, that was ignorance. Atagrasin: Whats wrong with Atagrasin? I can't help in asking those questions to the proponents of the subjetive idealism in Advaita.This questions are pointing to the contradictions [reduction to the absurd] of their assumptions.You said " If you thought otherwise, that was ignorance " [in reference to Nisargadatta] but my dear Madhatil you can think !fire! !fire! ! fire! ,but this thoughts in any way are going to burn your mind, in the same way if I think or not that " I'm [or not] Nisargadatta " o better said it, Nisargadatta essence, that thought will not go to touch in any way the direct inmediatly obvious realisation here/now of what truly I'AM. Atagrasin . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2007 Report Share Posted September 26, 2007 Namaste. Conceptual thinking is based on the framework of space and time, which is a construct, to maintain the perceived reality logical. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj dismissed any talk on conceptual thinking. He did repeat, 'ad nauseam', that our queries have to be on the 'I am' and prior to our birth. Viewing/comprehending/understanding must be done from there and only from there. The functioning of Maja should not be my business. With respect and humility. Cheers and om. Mario Jose Medjeral > 1. You look at a plant: > " plant perceived " > 2. You look at a plant one week later: > " plant perceived, it is the same plant, but one inch taller. " > > your conclusion: > 3.between point one and point two the plant must have > been there to grow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2007 Report Share Posted September 26, 2007 What/Who is Maja? Kindly clarify. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin , " Mario Jose Medjeral " <medjeral wrote: >> > The functioning of Maja should not be my business. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2007 Report Share Posted September 26, 2007 26/09 Sorry, it was a typo. Maja => Maya (mAyA). Cheers and om. M. J. Medjeral advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > What/Who is Maja? Kindly clarify. > > Madathil Nair > ________________ > > advaitin , " Mario Jose Medjeral " <medjeral@> > wrote: > >> > > The functioning of Maja should not be my business. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2007 Report Share Posted September 26, 2007 Dear Shri Atagrasin: Reference the objections raised in your post 37424. I have to contend as follows: I would request you to visualize two scenarios: Scenario 1: You, as BMI, have ceased to exist. Will the world be perceived? The obvious answer would be that you will not perceive the world but others still living will. Scenario 2: Some catastrophe of a universal scale obliterates all life (of all types we can conceive) in the Universe. Will the Universe be then perceived? I will answer this. My answer would be a big " Yes " because that lifeless universe has no validity without the existence of a perceiving intelligence. Even if nothing remains to be perceived, that `nothing' will need an intelligence to appreciate it. The point is that the lifeless Universe of Scenario 2 is not in any way separate from the intelligence perceiving it. You can, therefore, call it a self-aware Universe – an Immortality (existence or sat) that is Knoweldge (chit) and Unbounded Totality (Ananda). That perceiving intelligence known as Knowledge is the prajnAnaM of the mahAvAkya " prajnAnaM brahma " . Advaita tells you that you are that prajnAnaM = brahma. It does so through another mahAvAkya: " tat twam asi " , where the `tat' is brahma. You asked the following big question and also tried to answer it through the Maharaj: QUOTE " Can Conciousness witness something without using alive organism [human or not] used as the vehicle of knowing or witnessing?? For this last question Nisargadatta Maharaj answer was " NO " . " UNQUOTE Now, after reading Scenario 2 above, will you still require Consciousness (the perceiving intelligence) to look for a living organism to do the perceiving? No. You will not, because the thing perceived is not separate from Consciousness and the perception in the case of the scenario is akin to self-awareness. The growth of the plant in a week's time when the limited you were absent was in that self-awareness. Every moment and every micro- micro-millimeter of the growth was in that self-awareness. The word " witnessing " , which I used in my previous mail, implied only that. I don't know in which context Maharaj gave a negative answer. I have reason to believe that he was only referring to ordinary sensory perception and not the perceiving of Scenario 2. Will you still maintain that all this is still an ingenious but invalid argument? If you will, then let us stop talking here and now. Shri Atagrasin, I am not a Berkeley expert. The omniscient God he posited to escape the problem of happenings taking place in the absence of observation is a Western AdhyAropa. To my limited knowledge, he stopped short of sublating that omniscience. Vedanta also posits an omnipotent and omniscient Ishwara to make the explanation simpler but makes sure to take Him further along for a final sublation in Brahman in a manner similar to devotees in Mumbai submerging idols of their beloved Ganesha in the bosom of the Arabian Sea. There are changes taking place in the Universe every micro-micro second. The limited you, bound by space-time, may not be aware of all that. But, the perceiving matrix of the Universe that you really are is aware of everything in a manner of self-awareness. It is up to you to sublate your limitations in the omniscience of the matrix and go universal. Advaita shows the way. [by the way, this is not subjective idealism of Advaita as you accuse. Subjective idealism leaves you only intelligently baffled without hope of salvation.]. Looks like you have taken my reference to your name as a personal affront. I only meant that your name is Nisarga(dat)ta anagrammatized (in reverse) like the Universe with the limited you inside it is Brahman anagrammatized; look through the jumble of letters by shifting your focus, you can see the `real you' (Nisargadatta) within it. There was no insinuation (not even the remotest) meant. I apologize for the misunderstanding. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2007 Report Share Posted September 28, 2007 > Dear Shri Atagrasin: > Madhatil wrote: > Reference the objections raised in your post 37424. I have to > contend as follows: > Now, after reading Scenario 2 above, will you still require > Consciousness (the perceiving intelligence) to look for a living > organism to do the perceiving? No. You will not, because the thing > perceived is not separate from Consciousness and the perception in > the case of the scenario is akin to self-awareness. > > The growth of the plant in a week's time when the limited you were > absent was in that self-awareness. Every moment and every micro- > micro-millimeter of the growth was in that self-awareness. The > word " witnessing " , which I used in my previous mail, implied only > that. > Will you still maintain that all this is still an ingenious but > invalid argument? If you will, then let us stop talking here and now. Atagrasin: Thanks Madhatil for answer,I don't call your argument,invalid,here a quote of what I said: " Someone [not me] from a realism school [ that teach that objects can exists without an observer ] might said, that you have a pretty ingenious but not valid argument here. " Madhatil: > Vedanta also posits an omnipotent and omniscient Ishwara to make the > explanation simpler but makes sure to take Him further along for a > final sublation in Brahman in a manner similar to devotees in Mumbai > submerging idols of their beloved Ganesha in the bosom of the Arabian > Sea. > > There are changes taking place in the Universe every micro-micro > second. The limited you, bound by space-time, may not be aware of > all that. But, the perceiving matrix of the Universe that you really > are is aware of everything in a manner of self-awareness. Advaita shows the way.[by the way, this is not > subjective idealism of Advaita as you accuse. Subjective idealism > leaves you only intelligently baffled without hope of salvation.]. Atagrasin: No madhatil I don't accuse Advaita of subjetive idealism. Here again what i said: " I can't help in asking those questions to the proponents of the subjetive idealism in Advaita.This questions are pointing to the contradictions [reduction to the absurd] of their assumptions. " Do you see? I wrote there in refence to the subjetive idealists [those who misunderstand Shankara's absolute idealism [as I call it] in Advaita.Subjetive idealism have a lot of flaws and fall short to explain for example if space exist as an object,subjetive Idealism assume the separaration of the individual mind and god mind,assume also a subtle independent world created by independant minds,it ignore " universals " , don't accept that qualities are always found inhering in things [substance and attributes are no two] ect... Madhatil: > Looks like you have taken my reference to your name as a personal > affront. There was no insinuation (not even the > remotest) meant. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Atagrasin: No problem with that Madathil,everything is ok.My respect to you. PraNAms. Atagrasin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 Namaste, Nair-ji! Thank you for the wonderful explanations. My thinking on this subject has become much clearer after reading your two mails on this. Our sensory perception is indeed very limited and as long as we identify with the limited BMI, we cannot even perceive what is happening in our own body. The heart beats on untiringly, but we do not hear it. We put food in our mouths and once we have swallowed it, we know not how it gets digested (except for occasional turbulence in the stomach:-)). Are we aware of these processes inside our own bodies every instant, let alone the plant in the backyard? Regards, Neelakantan advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > > > There are changes taking place in the Universe every micro-micro > second. The limited you, bound by space-time, may not be aware of > all that. But, the perceiving matrix of the Universe that you really > are is aware of everything in a manner of self-awareness. It is up > to you to sublate your limitations in the omniscience of the matrix > and go universal. Advaita shows the way. [by the way, this is not > subjective idealism of Advaita as you accuse. Subjective idealism > leaves you only intelligently baffled without hope of salvation.]. > 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.