Superimposition

[Guest guest]

--- edmeasure wrote:

> There was no intent for disrespect. There is a

> chasm here in communication.

> While I am mostly aware of the abode that is herein

> expressed in advaita, I

> feel (know) that there is yet a significant

> experiential domain that is not

> included (rejected) in such expressions. That is,

> from my side I know from

> where you are coming but you do not know (have

> experience) of where I am

> coming from. From your side, a set of precision

> intellectually devised

> expressions out of buddhi are all inclusive and the

> ultimate authority for

> settling any point, it matters not what. From my

> side, your side appears to

> lie in the glory of dissolution, the fullness of

> nothingness, whereas my

> side, in contradistinction, lies in the movements

> from the fullness of

> nothingness to the fullness of fullness, back and

> forth. From your side, my

> side appears as a deception while your side appears

> as the truth, motionless

> thoughts of brahman, thoughts of being. So be it....

 

 

Shree Edmeasure - Pranaamas. I request you to study

your response very carefully. Are you not making

assumptions and conclusions of so called my-side.

What I have discussed is not my-side but what I

understand from Shankara's adhyaasa Bhaashya. The

notes based on Shree Swami Paramaarthanandaji lectures

on these are stored in the Brahmasuutra file in

adviata list.

 

Only bhaava ruupa aj~naana is only thing I do not

to and I learned that it is not shankara's

position but came from post-Shankara advaitins.

 

I think there is a gross misunderstanding of what 'my

side' is. I have never mentioned that " as the truth,

motionless thoughts of brahman, thoughts of being"

Frankly - I donot know what that means . What I have

stated is thoughts are in consciouness - not thoughts

of being or thoughts of consciousess" Thoughts rise

in consciousness, sustained by consciousness and go

back into consciousness- They are only naama and ruupa

like ring, bangle and other ornaments of gold - they

are born of gold, sustained by gold and go back into

gold - so is the universe - that is what was discussed

by Shankaara in his commentary on the 2nd suutra of

B.S.

 

For me, experience is time-bound. The knowledge of

experince is different from experience. Longing for

experince of Brahman itslef can be an obstacle since

it involves a conclusion that I am not experiencing

Brahman right now. A mind that has concluded is not

ready to inquire further. We infact experince Brahman

with the thoughts, without thoughts, and all the time.

But understanding that it is all Brahman is far from

experiencing Brahman. That is what I have emphasized.

The knowledge is not 'Knowledge of objects - since in

truth there is no objects which are truely real' but

the knowledge of the unreality of the superpositions

through the knowledge of ones own substatum of all

thoughts - since object is nothing but a thought and

thought is nothing but consciosness just as ring is

nothing but gold. I am not emphasizing 'Intellectual

knowledge' - that falls under the category of

objective knowledge only - what is being emphasized is

the subjective understanding of ones own self -

essentially what is called self-relazation - it is

done by rejecting what is not - neti - neti - na iti.

na iti takes root only if one understands that it is

the adhyaasa that is causing the problem. Hence it is

not blind rejection of iti but true understanding that

iti itself has not validity- and that is vichaara or

inquiry. It is not intellectual understanding of all

iti or intellectual understanding of 'what is a

snake'- it is understanding that there is no snake to

start with. I hope at least 'my-side' is little more

clear.

 

God Bless you in your pursuit.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Autos - Get free new car price quotes

http://autos.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

We seem to be getting carried away by this rope-snake analogy. Any

analogy is not a complete answer and shall, therefore, not be used to

support unwarranted questions. Wanting the world to disappear when

Truth is appreciated is indeed an unwarranted expectation.

 

It is also sad that we still labour with the same old analogies even

after so many centuries after Sankara. Why don't we look at the

present and try to come with some fresh and more satisfying analogies?

 

There hangs a picture of a wheat-field in my colleague's office. She

maintains that it is not a wheat-field at all but the photograph of a

man. If you have the right knack of observation, you will realize

that she is cent percent right. It indeed is a man and once you see

the man there, you have to labour really hard to bring the wheat-

field back! The man has taken the place of the wheat-field!

 

Similarly, when Truth is appreciated, the world does not disappear.

It remains as the non-dual "man" encompassing you and all that you

know of.

 

My daughter receives many similar puzzles from her friends through

the Net where you are asked to find hidden images in various

pictures. When you succeed in identifying the hidden images, the

easily gained first impressions simply vanish so much so that you are

most often unable to get them back again in focus. This world as we

know it is a similar "easy first impression". It has to give way

through the logic of advaita. It does not disappear then. It sort

of "metamorphoses" itself into Truth. There ends the matter.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

________________________

 

 

advaitin, "capanellius" <capanellius> wrote:

>

> We can pick up with your statement:

>

> >> Yes. Certainly the snake disappears when the truth of the rope is

> known. In the same way it is legitimate to expect the world to>

> disappear once we discover the illusion. But the world does not

> disappear. >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Well said!

 

For a fascinating journey into perceptual [optical] illusions, pl.

visit:

 

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/305_html/Gestalt/Illusions.html

 

http://psych.pomona.edu/illusions/illusions.html

 

http://www.cfar.umd.edu/users/pless/illusions.html

 

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/resources/cogillusion.h

tml

 

http://www.mos.org/exhibits/current_exhibits/seeing_deceiving/seeing_d

eceiving.html

 

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/ap/aust-203.htm#3

 

http://alexandrah.tripod.com/illusions.html

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> We seem to be getting carried away by this rope-snake analogy. Any

> analogy is not a complete answer and shall, therefore, not be used

to

> support unwarranted questions. Wanting the world to disappear when

> Truth is appreciated is indeed an unwarranted expectation.

>

> It is also sad that we still labour with the same old analogies

even

> after so many centuries after Sankara. Why don't we look at the

> present and try to come with some fresh and more satisfying

analogies?

>

> There hangs a picture of a wheat-field in my colleague's office.

She

> maintains that it is not a wheat-field at all but the photograph of

a

> man. If you have the right knack of observation, you will realize

> that she is cent percent right. It indeed is a man and once you see

> the man there, you have to labour really hard to bring the wheat-

> field back! The man has taken the place of the wheat-field!

>

> Similarly, when Truth is appreciated, the world does not

disappear.

> It remains as the non-dual "man" encompassing you and all that you

> know of.

>

> My daughter receives many similar puzzles from her friends through

> the Net where you are asked to find hidden images in various

> pictures. When you succeed in identifying the hidden images, the

> easily gained first impressions simply vanish so much so that you

are

> most often unable to get them back again in focus. This world as

we

> know it is a similar "easy first impression". It has to give way

> through the logic of advaita. It does not disappear then. It sort

> of "metamorphoses" itself into Truth. There ends the matter.

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> ________________________

>

>

> advaitin, "capanellius" <capanellius> wrote:

> >

> > We can pick up with your statement:

> >

> > >> Yes. Certainly the snake disappears when the truth of the rope

is

> > known. In the same way it is legitimate to expect the world to>

> > disappear once we discover the illusion. But the world does not

> > disappear. >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

WOW! That is just too many, Sunderji. Thanks.

Nair

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> For a fascinating journey into perceptual [optical] illusions, pl.

> visit:

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathil-ji,

 

That would give enough choice of names as alternative to -

'rope-snake'! like "Escherian" !! (or Escheric!)

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> WOW! That is just too many, Sunderji. Thanks.

> Nair

> advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> > For a fascinating journey into perceptual [optical] illusions,

pl.

> > visit:

> >

[Guest guest]

Thank you, that is all that I have to say.--- In

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> Namaste Madathil-ji,

>

> That would give enough choice of names as alternative to -

> 'rope-snake'! like "Escherian" !! (or Escheric!)

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

> advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> > WOW! That is just too many, Sunderji. Thanks.

> > Nair

> > advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> > > For a fascinating journey into perceptual [optical] illusions,

> pl.

> > > visit:

> > >

[Guest guest]

Greetings Madathil and members generally,

Thank you for your gentle rebuke and if I gave offence in anything other

than being obscure I would regret that.

 

Your point about a restricted diet of examples was astute. Daniel Dennett

in his book 'Consciousness Explained' has some very interesting examples of

illusions from which he draws philosophical conclusions. What is known as

the Phi Phenomenon is one of them. It's the basis of the movies. When

lights flash in close sequence the illusion occurs of the light moving.

When you have a red light and a green light flashing in sequence (or any

two colours) an interesting thing happens. The light travels but half way

between the two the colour changes from red to green. How is that? The

green light hasn't flashed yet so how does the light know to change to

green. The order of representation is not the order of occurence. It is a

persistent illusion and does not vanish on your being aware of the 'true'

sequence.

 

However it's a long passage and I won't trivialise it by a brief summary.

Does he explain consciousness? If you look very carefully you will see in

tiny writing almost part of the weave of the paper the word 'away'.

Seriously that would be his position if he was not too shy to admit to it.

He is well represented on David Chalmer's consciousness site and of course

he being a champion of computer consciousness has a site out of Tufts

University. But don't ask him where computer consciousness leaves karma as

he is a militant atheist and he regards 'god talk' as intellectual tennis

without a net.

 

Now may I take my leave of you for 5 weeks. We are going en famille to

that country which an early traveller said was bigger than the world -

India. If we reach the samadhi of Ramana I will remember you all there and

of course Vicky.

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

 

_______________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Greetings Michael,

 

Please correct me if I am wrong. Isn't it the Phi Phenomenon

that Gaudapada refers to in his Mandukya-Karikas, Chapter 4 -

Quenching of Firebrand, and in verses 47-50, actually describes the

phenomenon?

 

#47 - "As a firebrand, when set in motion, appears as straight,

crooked, etc. so also Consciousness, when set in motion, appears as

the perceiver, the perceived, and the like.

 

#48 - As the firebrand, when not in motion, is free from all

appearances and remains changeless, similarly, Consciousness, when

not in motion (imaginary action), is free from all appearances and

remains changeless.

 

#49 - When the firebrand is in motion, the appearances (that are seen

in it) do not come from elsewhere. When the firbrand is not moved,

the appearances do not go elsewhere from the motionless firbrand.

Further, the appearances, when the firebrand is not moved, do not

enter into the firebrand itself.

 

#50 - The appearances do not emerge from the firebrand because they

are not of the nature of a substance. This also applies to

Consciousness on account of the similarity of appearances (in both

cases)."

[sw. Nikhilananda's translation, 4th ed. 1955]

(Shankara's commentary omitted).

 

Best wishes to you and your family on your pilgrimage to

Ramanashram, bearing in mind its uniqueness:

 

'kAshyantu maraNAnmuktiH smaraNAdaruNAchale .'

 

[Liberation follows death in Varanasi, but is achieved just by

remembrance of Arunachala.]

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote:

 

Daniel Dennett

> in his book 'Consciousness Explained' has some very interesting

examples of

> illusions from which he draws philosophical conclusions. What is

known as

> the Phi Phenomenon is one of them. It's the basis of the movies.

When

> lights flash in close sequence the illusion occurs of the light

moving. > Now may I take my leave of you for 5 weeks. We are going

en famille to

> that country which an early traveller said was bigger than the

world -

> India. If we reach the samadhi of Ramana I will remember you all

there and

> of course Vicky.

> Best Wishes, Michael.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear SunderSaab,

 

I think you are quite right. I believe any illusion resulting from

the limitations of our organs of perception should fall under the Phi

phenomenon.

 

Our ancestors were well aware of this phenomenon although they didn't

have movies then. Look at the way they understood the seeming

continuity of the mind as a flow or procession of individual

thoughts/associations interspersed with "micro-samaadhis". Isn't

that another Phi phenomenon at a subtler level?

 

Extending this line of thinking further down, I should believe that

the seeming solidity of all solids, including our body, is yet

another Phi phenomenon which crumbles under an electron microscope.

I often wonder what would have been our state of avidya if we all had

electron microscope vision. Do you think we would have been better

off then on the advaitic path? If the answer is in the affirmative,

then one should think that our levels of avidya are directly

proportional to perceptual limitations and, in true advaitic style,

grant self-realization the status of infinity and thus keep it out of

all proportionality.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> Greetings Michael,

>

> Please correct me if I am wrong. Isn't it the Phi

Phenomenon

> that Gaudapada refers to in his Mandukya-Karikas, Chapter 4 -

> Quenching of Firebrand, and in verses 47-50, actually describes the

> phenomenon?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/22/2002 7:33:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

sunderh writes:

 

> Although you had screamed 'Enough' on the examples of

> illusion, I can hardly restrain myself from referring to even more

> striking examples of "Afterimage Illusions" as they relate

> principally to motion:

>

> http://www.brl.ntt.co.jp/IllusionForum/basics/visual/index-e.html

>

 

I have a wheel with circumferentially repeating black and white sections,

that is, a series of wide circular tracks at different diameters, each great

circle with varying numbers of repeating black and white areas around their

circumference. When the wheel spins, on axis, at various RPM speeds,

different colors appear. Pink and pastel blue, predominantly. I find this

most incredibly amazing. Color is also, in some way, associated with

flickering pattern speeds of black and white.

 

In the era of the beginnings of color television, scientist and engineers

were busy trying to find the best, easiest way to render color. There are

valid systems of effectively bringing about the conscious perception of

virtually all colors, with just two primary colors (for instance the Polaroid

Land Camera Color Film, now apparently becoming extinct), and several three

color systems, and a four, five, six, and seven color system, and probably

more systems by now. In each of these systems, some subtle shades and depths

of saturation are found missing in various sections of the color scale, but

hardly noticeable except to the expert measuring observer.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathil-ji,

 

Michael-ji did write to me in a separate personal message

(as he has signed off the list for the duration of his travels)

agreeing with Gaudapada's illustration.

 

Although you had screamed 'Enough' on the examples of

illusion, I can hardly restrain myself from referring to even more

striking examples of "Afterimage Illusions" as they relate

principally to motion:

 

http://www.brl.ntt.co.jp/IllusionForum/basics/visual/index-e.html

 

[There is also an online demo. of the color Phi phenomenon elsewhere!]

 

Consciousness is said to be subtler than space! So even

electron microscopic vision would not have solved the problem!

Only 'Brahmaakara vritti' (vision) of the Buddhi would satisfy the

condition, for which all the different methods are prescribed

('viveka and vairagya'- discrimination and dispassion) to refine the

vision.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Dear SunderSaab,

>

> I think you are quite right. I believe any illusion resulting from

> the limitations of our organs of perception should fall under the

Phi

> phenomenon.

> I often wonder what would have been our state of avidya if we all

had

> electron microscope vision. Do you think we would have been better

> off then on the advaitic path? If the answer is in the

affirmative,

> then one should think that our levels of avidya are directly

> proportional to perceptual limitations and, in true advaitic style,

> grant self-realization the status of infinity and thus keep it out

of

> all proportionality.

>