crock of gold

[Guest guest]

Sadaji wrote:

I can stretch this statement to relate to the one I have been making, that

the existence of an object is established by the knowledge of its

existence.

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

 

Namaste Sadaji and Advaitins,

Let us imagine that you Mr.X have buried in a secret place a crock of

gold. I Mr.Y do not know of the existence of this crock of gold, only you

Mr.X are privy to that information. Does it exist for me or am I aware of

its existence? No.

Does it exist? Yes.

Here there is a perfectly intelligible separation between the existence of

a thing and the knowledge of the existence of a thing.

 

By the way this category of 'exists for me' is a dubious one that I

accepted for the sake of argument. Are we to say that radiation did not

exist for folks before the advent of Ms.Curie?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Michael,

You said:

 

By the way this category of 'exists for me' is a

dubious one that I

accepted for the sake of argument. Are we to say

that radiation did not

exist for folks before the advent of Ms.Curie?

====

 

Consider this example if you will:

(the classic example to demonstrate frame of reference

in physics).

 

X is traveling in a train which runs by a row of trees

Y is standing right besides one of the trees.

 

Assume the train is running smooth, and X can see only

through the window.

 

For X: the trees are moving.

For Y: the trees are NOT moving.

 

So, are the trees really moving?

**That depends on one's frame of reference.**

-------------

 

I think the same applies in your case.

For the person who knows the crock of gold, it exists.

For the person who doesnt know, it doesnt exist.

 

So, does it really exist?

**That depends on one's frame of reference.**

 

The thing to keep track of here is that there is only

one stationary, unchanging frame of reference here,

and it is the Brahman. All other reference frames are

changeable, and 'knowledge' obtained from them isnt

absolute.

 

From the frame of reference of Brahman, only THAT

exists.

 

Hari Om!

~Vaibhav.

 

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html/

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> Sadaji wrote:

> I can stretch this statement to relate to the one I have been

making, that

> the existence of an object is established by the knowledge of its

> existence.

> ||||||||||||||||||||||||

>

> Namaste Sadaji and Advaitins,

> Let us imagine that you Mr.X have buried in a secret place a crock

of

> gold. I Mr.Y do not know of the existence of this crock of gold,

only you

> Mr.X are privy to that information. Does it exist for me or am I

aware of

> its existence? No.

> Does it exist? Yes.

> Here there is a perfectly intelligible separation between the

existence of

> a thing and the knowledge of the existence of a thing.

>

> By the way this category of 'exists for me' is a dubious one that

I

> accepted for the sake of argument. Are we to say that radiation

did not

> exist for folks before the advent of Ms.Curie?

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

Namaste,

 

As it is St Patrick's Day on the 17th March, the leprechauns will be

out teaching people about the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Unfortunately there is no end to the rainbow and the moral is if you

are looking for the material gold/happiness you won't find it. Other

than that the crock doesn't exist at any level, lower mind or

unconscious mind....Hu.