polar concepts

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

Sometimes I sense the proposal that we should be talking about the REAL

and the real/unreal. Is this not dualism and contrary to the spirit of

Advaita? The movement that is supposed to bring us towards a sense of the

Absolute is the progressive negation of differentia. This is said to

represent an ascent towards reality. Clay according to this way of

thinking is more real than cups, plates and pots because these are just

names and forms of clay. I’ve never been convinced of this when it is

offered as a version of basic physics. Are atoms more real than the

elements of the Periodic Table because those elements are merely

constituted out of atoms. As an analogy for the conceptual deconstruction

of the upadhis it works well but it cannot be a challenge to Physics nor

do I think that it was ever meant to be. I would say that it represents

an attempt to give a sense of ontological structure more than a physical

description. Adherence to the imprecision of a raw insight delivered

within an inspired text that is a mixture of poetry and myth combined with

pre-scientific cosmology is not true sraddha but unthinking fundamentalism

that lacks a sense of history.

 

Some are offering the disjunction of vyavaharika/paramarthika as

conceptual WD40 that stops all squeeks and eases all conflicts. Within

limits it has its value but not as a general remedy for what ails us. An

influential interpretation of Advaita puts the real/unreal within the

Real. Unless that were so how could realisation be merely a recognition

of what _is_ the case.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

----------

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.86/2355 - Release 09/08/09

20:45:00

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , RK <krshna19 wrote:

>

> Pranaams too all Scholars who are also members...

>  

> can I say , Truth and Illusion are Polar Concepts? One exists and the other

doesn't in an Empirical Way?

>  

> I have come across several interpretations of " Snake and ROPE " .

>  

> Can any one, and every one  help me with this concept? But there is a

condition.

>  

The suggestion here is that much of the general public operates on an assumption

of mind and body as two different kinds, which is exploited by brain scientists.

If the public reflexively believes that the psychological realm is distinct from

the biological realm, then any correlation shown between brain and behavior can

be identified as a causation between brain and behavior.

 

Criticisms of such causal claims have been leveled elsewhere. An editorial in

the American Journal of Psychiatry in May 1999 asked whether functional magnetic

resonance imaging (or fMRI) is twenty-first century phrenology. The piece notes,

" Neuroimaging offers a powerful probe of brain state, but we are now faced with

metaphysical questions; i.e., what is a brain state, and how is it related to

the outward manifestations of behavior? This has the potential for degenerating

into the old mind-body duality of Descartes... "

 

Similarly, Sandra Blakeslee points out in the New York Times that " just because

a brain area is correlated with a behavior in F.M.R.I. studies does not mean

that it causes the behavior... Imaging studies often make this mistake " (March

14, 2000).

 

As noted above, there is a growing body of evidence showing the direct impact of

environment and experience on the brain, and this is undermining scientist's

ability to exploit dualistic tendencies in popular culture. Nevertheless, the

fact that such a tearing-down process has been necessary with the rise of modern

neuroscience suggests the degree to which a latent mind-body dualism persists,

even in the 21st century.

For the means of knowledge to operate, it requires the notion of a doer, and the

notion of a doer is the result of superimposition on the unattached brain. In

other words, as soon as one falsely identifies the self as a mind, i.e. an

agent, or doer, then all fields that operate are in the field of ignorance.

Science, means of knowledge etc, since they require a distinct doer, are

therefore bound in the field of ignorance.

Simply to say that the instinctive behavior of humans in the empirical field is

due to a series of misconceptions due to non-discrimination between the subject

and the non-subject, and that humans share this behavior with the rest of the

animal kingdom. Now humans, apart from their faculty of discrimination, must be

different somehow, and therefore not subject to ignorance?

In his brief introduction, sankara tells us the reason we cannot attain

enlightenment. It is because it is in our nature to mix up the real and not real

and therefore perceive a world of duality with multiple knower/doers/subjects

and things to be known/done/objects. In particular, we falsely confuse the

eternal Truth that is our innermost self and is The Witness with no role in

empirical life, to be acting as an agent. This confusion is innate to us, and is

a matter of common experience requiring no proof. It is beginning less and

endless in the sphere of the empirical universe. This confusion or

superimposition is the basic ignorance that results in this world of duality.

The world of duality fashioned by ignorance is termed to be illusion, as it can

only be perceived once this basic superimposition has occurred. And all

activities include the secular and scientific fall into the field of ignorance

as they must presuppose a distinct doer. The purpose of the philosophy texts is

to point out this ignorance as essentially the nature of a false mental notion,

and remove all misconceptions, to reveal the nature of Truth. A thorough

understanding of imposition is required as a first step, therefore, is vital to

understand the texts of philosophy and Wittgenstein in particular. It is for

this reason that this text is held in such high regard, and deserves to be

studied by all serious students of philosophy.

Verbatim is super imposed over real for certainty.

Thank you

sekhar

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

 

 

 

You ask: “Clay according to this way of

thinking is more real than cups, plates and pots because these are just

names and forms of clay. I’ve never been convinced of this when it is

offered as a version of basic physics. Are atoms more real than the

elements of the Periodic Table because those elements are merely

constituted out of atoms?â€

 

 

 

I had a scientific education to B.Sc. level but I don’t see any problem with

descriptions such as these. Rather than thinking in terms of relative realities,

think about it in terms of separate substances. The bangle, chain and ring are

not separate substances. You cannot talk about the weight of the bangle, the

weight relates to the gold alone. Try drinking out of the cup if you have

removed the clay. It is not that atoms are more real than the elemental form

but, if you examine the element ‘more closely’, you find that atoms more

accurately describe what you see. Take away the atoms and you have no element.

 

 

 

The point is that the substantial reality of any given form can be successively

reduced to more fundamental substances until *in all cases* you arrive at pure

energy or, as we would rather call it, brahman.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

P.S. Note that I am on holiday next week so will not be replying to comments

after tomorrow.