Namaste

Here is a message I just posted in my discussion group at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/clearvoid/

which you might like...
__________________________


I believe that I have a potent weapon of mass destruction to refute
all those who claim that Advaita (or Shankara in particular) is NOT
idealistic, according to my uncompromising discussion of Subjective
Idealism presented in the Introduction of Message 7. This is the
philosophy that 'all is consciousness' and that a material world of
distinct entities does not exist.

The succinct argument, as I gave it recently is:

> Anyhow, the very Upanishads are idealistic to the core.
> Brahman is declared to be Infinite Consciousness and also
> 'One without a second'. Therefore, there is nothing but
> Brahman, which is Consciousness. Therefore the Upanishads
> are utterly idealistic, by simple logic. QED.
>
> Thus do I refute all those who claim that Advaita is not
> idealistic to the core, as I have discussed it here.


Note the pun in 'weapon of MASS destruction', i.e. the annihilation
of 'mass' or 'matter'. Haha!

Now even if you accept this, you may wonder, 'So what?'

Well, I believe that materialism (the view that a world of distinct
material objects 'external' to consciousness exists) has many harmful
though often subtle psychological effects.

- It reinforces the ego, since we then seem to be in a world of
distinct objects, of which my own ego is seen as supreme.

- Furthermore, we start to *crave* the material objects and think
they are the source of our happiness, forgetting all about the purity
of our inner Consciousness. Hence the *other* meaning of
'materialism'.

- Also, we tend to *identify* with certain objects, such as body and
mind, which makes us forget our true nature as Pure Consicousness.
If we fail to realize this nature, then we cannot *manifest* it.

- Finally, the view of a world of distinct objects is simply
psychologically incompatible with the nondual or 'advaita' state of
consciousness, which clearly is essential to Advaita, and also is
essential to Mahayana, as I hope to argue incoming months.

One of my key guiding stars is the discovery, through reading much
'mystical' literature, that this nondual state is somehow a necessary
precondition for rising to the 'higher' level of consciousness in
which we discover our true inner nature and identity with the Supreme
Infinite Consciousness and Substratum of All Being and in which we
achieve peace and bliss and the fulfillment of all desires. And I
believe this not on blind faith but from examining the spiritual
record of mankind.

Om!
Benjamin

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben@...> wrote:

Benjamin - apparently real mass and apparently real mass destruction
occur everyday when we go to deep sleep.

You think all apparently real dvaitins will let you destroy them that
easily. They think they are real.

How did you reconcile now the individual or multiple consciousness - or
did you put that question aside in the light of the Upanishadic
statement - one without a second? Just curious.

Do not leak out your recipe to Pentagon!


Hari OM!
Sadananda

=====
What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift
to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Namaste

> I believe that I have a potent weapon of mass destruction to refute
> all those who claim that Advaita (or Shankara in particular) is NOT
> idealistic, according to my uncompromising discussion of Subjective
> Idealism presented in the Introduction of Message 7. This is the
> philosophy that 'all is consciousness' and that a material world of
> distinct entities does not exist.

I would be extra cautious to not consider brahman as mere
Consciousness. (Btw, Benjamin, I guess you have a passion for
consciousness. May I know why?) In the first place that would appear
to be giving a positive description to brahman which I vehemently
(and sometimes fanatically) deny. Moreover that would reduce
something indescribable like brahman to something that can be
described or intuitively understood, like consciousness. It does not
mean that prajNa is not brahman as such, but I prefer to think of it
as a relative description only, there being ultimately one and only
one (non)description - neti neti. The BU says that is the best
description.

> The succinct argument, as I gave it recently is:
>
> > Anyhow, the very Upanishads are idealistic to the core.
> > Brahman is declared to be Infinite Consciousness and also
> > 'One without a second'. Therefore, there is nothing but
> > Brahman, which is Consciousness. Therefore the Upanishads
> > are utterly idealistic, by simple logic. QED.


But the upanishads dont say anywhere that objects exist only because
you are perceiving them.


> > Thus do I refute all those who claim that Advaita is not
> > idealistic to the core, as I have discussed it here.


Are you talking of subjective idealism here?


> Note the pun in 'weapon of MASS destruction', i.e. the annihilation
> of 'mass' or 'matter'. Haha!

Matter or mass is not destroyed on realization of brahman. So may I
know in what sense you are speaking about annihilation.

Btw, I liked your comments on materialsim.


> Finally, the view of a world of distinct objects is simply
> psychologically incompatible with the nondual or 'advaita' state of
> consciousness, which clearly is essential to Advaita, and also is
> essential to Mahayana, as I hope to argue incoming months.

Advaita is not incompatible to the existence of distinct objects.
Just think about this - Does a jIvan-mukta see every thing as the
same or does he "not see" anything(literally blind)? Obviously, the
answer is the former. If there were no distinct objects then a jIvan-
mukta should be blind, dumb, deaf etc. The solution to this problem
is - just renege the perceiver along with the perceived. (This is the
reason why I would like to happily renege on Consciousness also. I
would prefer to use the word brahman)

Namaste

Nagarjunasiddhartha said

>the second level or the vyavaharik satya cannot be treated
>as absolute non-existence.

You are right. The dualistic level of perception is not utterly
nonexistent like a barren woman's child (or a round square). It
exists as phenomenal perception, as an illusion, as a mirage. But it
does not exist as an independent, inert, self-sustaining reality, as
matter is presumed to be.


>This analogy might help - The space is always one. But jars or pots
>can appear to cause divisions in space

I of course know of this famous analogy. But it does really help me
because it uses a fundamentally dualistic model. That is, it uses
our ordinary perception of space as composed of regions distinct from
each other. So at most it is a mere metaphor. Likewise the ocean
and waves metaphor may be inspiring, bit it doesn't really stand up
under intense analytical scrutiny, in my opinion, for the same reason.


>I would be extra cautious to not consider brahman as mere
>Consciousness. (Btw, Benjamin, I guess you have a passion for
>consciousness. May I know why?)

Brahman is described as One and as Consciousness. Therefore it is
ONLY Consciousness. It is also described at Being and Bliss.
Therefore Being, Consciousness and Bliss must all be identical, at
least at the paramarthika level. You could probably add Energy into
this list.

As for my passion for consciousness, see my reply to your latest post
on my list.


>But the upanishads don't say anywhere that objects exist only because
>you are perceiving them.

That's not my claim. I'm not saying that perceptions act like a
magician or miracle worker, who supposedly pulls a *real* (i.e.
material) rabbit out of a hat. I am saying that there is not a real
material world beyond the perceptions. I am NOT saying that the
perceptions are *producing* anything. That would be contrary to
Gaudapada's ajati vada, which I DO accept (insofar as I understand
it).

By the way, why are you making me do all this work over here for a
topic that is supposed to be on my list? :-) The moderators here
don't want too much of this 'Western philosophical' discussion. They
prefer orthodox Advaita, and I am quite sympathetic to their goals.

All of your comments would be excellent over at my cozy little place,
and I will answer them in more detail there when I can. In fact, if
you do not repeat your excellent ideas over there, I will quote from
what you wrote here, unless you explicitly refuse. I think it would
make everyone happy to continue over there. 'Subjective idealism' is
a dirty word here, because Shankara didn't use it. ;-)

Om!
Benjamin