reality testing

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji.

 

I admire your perseverance with V.P. The same publication is with me

for the last over fifteen years. Yet, I am ashamed to admit I

haven't read half of it and understood even ten percent of what I

have read. The English translation is rather tough on me. The

Sanskrit original sometimes reads easier!

 

By the way, is the codicil (world mind and God) mentioned in the same

publication or is it external to it? Are you, perhaps, referring to

the usual interpretation of Mandukya?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

...........

> Clearly we will have to read V.P. more closely and reflect as well

on the

> nature of mental modifications to resolve this paradox. We are

inclined

> to give primacy in the matter of perception to the Subject/Object

dyad.

> Things come to be known in the mind of a knower. We can easily

move from

> there to the idea that to be is to be known and that the reality

status of

> the thing that is not known by any mind is indeterminate or

anirvacanaya.

> Thus we are invited to consider that the world would wink out of

existence

> for us when we are in the state of deep sleep because the being of

a thing

> is its being for us or its being know by us. A saving codicil is

attached

> to this theory by the notion that there is a world-mind or god

watching

> over all and keeping it in mind and therefore in existence.

[Guest guest]

Madathilji writes:

Namaste Michaelji.

 

I admire your perseverance with V.P. The same publication is with me

for the last over fifteen years. Yet, I am ashamed to admit I

haven't read half of it and understood even ten percent of what I

have read. The English translation is rather tough on me. The

Sanskrit original sometimes reads easier!

 

By the way, is the codicil (world mind and God) mentioned in the same

publication or is it external to it? Are you, perhaps, referring to

the usual interpretation of Mandukya?

 

 

||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Madathilji,

Thank you for your close attention to my continuing struggle with the

complexities of that text. I was speaking of the things that we, the

modern readers, are inclined to do in the consideration of the problem of

perception. We are led by the nose down Berkleyean cul de sacs whether we

are aware of it or not because such ideas have sunk into the common

currency of metaphysical speculation both East and West. V.P. being a

text of the 17th.century is free of all such influences so it does not

allow the individual consciousness to be the arbiter of reality.

Anirvacanaya then has not anything to do with perception but with the

ontological question as to 'Why avidya' or 'Why is there something rather

than nothing?'.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.