Guest guest Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Sada-ji wrote: 1. Existence of an object is ESTABLISHED by knowledge of its existence. That 'There is a pot there' is established by KNOWING that there is pot there. Otherwise pot is there or not is indeterminate. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Namaste Sada-ji, If that is all you are saying then it is not very interesting or informative, in fact it is a pure tautology i.e. something is not known until it is known. That is of course true but pointless. If you are saying that the <being> of the existence of something is established by someone’s knowledge of it you then move into the sphere of the highly questionable. Is this what you mean? Please clarify. Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Dear Sir, With your kind permission let me say something ..This group is doing yeoman service in enabling all those rooted in advaitic faith to share our experiences and thoughts .. Have not seen any one making any claims to have understood more than others.. Pranams ramesh --- On Sat, 3/21/09, narayana145 <narayana145 wrote: narayana145 <narayana145 Re: Matteradvaitin Date: Saturday, March 21, 2009, 1:07 PM H.N.Sreenivasa MurthyPranams to all.advaitin@ s.com, ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv@ ...> wrote:" We are all in effect saying the same > thing over and over again ... Brahman Alone exists ! Everything whether inert ( with its> limited consciousness ) or the highest living being ( with the highest state of consciousness) - All is contained in HIM .."Dear learned scholars,Everybody is saying the same thing over and over again.But unfortunately none of the persons who are merely uttering ,have not established this as a fact which can be verified here and now. Simply making/repeating a statement does not make one a man of understanding. He is only a mantravit and not a tatvavit. Will the learned writers when they write about a BUtavastu like Brahman show or establish what they have written is a fact. Simply giving doctrines will not help a true jij~asu.Please give/furnish the appropriate methodology for one to cognize those truths that are being stated within oneself by oneself. Vedanta is not an intellectual pursuit, but a spirituan understanding/ realization.I may please be excused for expressing my frank opinion about the present state of affairs.With warm and respectful regards,Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 --- On Sat, 3/21/09, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: Sada-ji wrote: 1. Existence of an object is ESTABLISHED by knowledge of its existence. That 'There is a pot there' is established by KNOWING that there is pot there. Otherwise pot is there or not is indeterminate. |||||||||||| ||||||||| ||||||||| Namaste Sada-ji, If that is all you are saying then it is not very interesting or informative, in fact it is a pure tautology i.e. something is not known until it is known. That is of course true but pointless. If you are saying that the <being> of the existence of something is established by someone’s knowledge of it you then move into the sphere of the highly questionable. Is this what you mean? Please clarify. --------- Michaelji - PraNAms Yes I am saying what you call pointless one by pointing it out first that Knowledge of the world cannot be there without consciousness backing it up. The whole objective sciences fall short because of this, particularly at the quantum level. There is beautiful sloka in Advaita Makaranda, if I remember, pointing out this pointless one. And in my second statement which involves even the so called establishment of the object is also due to consciousness as in dream world. Hence in the process what is being pointed out is that without the consciousness as substantive the world has no other independent substantiality of its own too. That is the essence of advaita Vedanta too that it is pointless to inquire about the objects which are mithyaa since what remains is the consciousness because of which I am conscious of the world. Without me the world has no independent existence too - where I here stands for limitless I that I am - since consciousness that I am is partless too. This I am pointing it out since the question keeps coming with lingering confusion in terms of what mithyaa means and when we say jnaanam involves knowing the world as mithyaa. That involves points 1 and 2 that I stated in my last post. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > There is beautiful sloka in Advaita Makaranda, if I remember, pointing out this pointless one. > Hari Om! Pranaams! Verses VI & VII AbhArUpasya vishvasya bhAnaM bhAsaMnidhervinA. kadAcinnAvakalpeta bhA cAhaM tena sarvagaH.. na hi bhAnAdrte sattvaM narte bhAnaM cito.acitaH. citsambhedo.api nAdhyAsAdrte tenAhamadvayaH.. Cognition of the universe which is a reflection would never be competent, but for the proximity of a light; and I am that light, and consequently omnipresent. For not without illumination is there existence, nor without consciousness is there any illumination of the unconscious; nor without illusory superposition is there any connection with consciousness; therefore I am exempt from duality. (Translated by Shri. A.E. Gough) In Shri Guru Smriti Br. Pranipata Chaitanya 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.