Vishishtadvaita Ontology

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranji,

>In Vishishtadvaita, the world is real; it is not an illusion

>Brahman is partless, and hence the "isness" of everything is Brahman

 

 

I just can't resist chiming in on this one.

 

If the objects are truly real, in a non-illusory sense, then they

clearly exist as *distinct* objects. This is almost a tautology.

Hence, Brahman would indeed have parts. Just saying that all these

objects have the same 'isness' is not satisfactory, because they are

clearly distinct lumps of isness, if perceived as distinct from

consciousness and existing in their own right. This is essentially

the *definition* of objects.

 

(Sadaji, please don't cite the gold and the bangles, since that won't

work for me in this context. If the bangles truly exist as objects,

then they are different lumps of gold, and Brahman has parts. I know

you are not a Vishishtadvaitin, but you may wish to play devil's

advocate.)

 

And 'substance' and 'attributes' are vague words which can be defined

in different ways. The give a superficial impression of

philosophical meaning, until one examines them closely and realizes

that they are merely deceptive wrappers for philosophical prejudices

which should be clearly enunciated.

 

So, while Vishishtadvaita makes a concession to common sense, it is

logically inconsistent with the shrutis, viz. the nonduality or

partlessness of Brahman.

 

However, the pure nondual Advaitin analogy of dream objects resolves

everything. There are not 'parts' in the dream. They are merely

illusions in consciousness. There was only the one consciousness or

seer in the dream, though we do not realize that until we awaken.

 

My friends, I am afraid that only a brave and uncompromising Advaita

is consistent with shruti. Also, only Advaita is uncompromisingly

spiritual, in the sense of affirming that ONLY consciousness is.

Even a little Vishishtadvaita is inconsistent, however satisfying it

may be to common sense (i.e. common prejudices).

 

However, you did make one good point regarding Vishishtadvaita.

There IS a sense in which even maya is Brahman. The substratum of

illusion is consciousness, just as in the dream. THAT meaning of

maya is real and is Brahman. However, our *belief* that the apparent

objects in that substratum are *other* than consciousness - which is

none other than the objectifying tendency of the mind - is false.

Some hot air currents are swirling over the desert. We mistake them

for water. The vision of the hot air currents is real. Our

mistaking them for water is the illusion. That mistake is an

*interpretation* or *projection* of the mind. That is also the

superimposition, which has not been misunderstood by true Advaitins,

contrary to what Chittaranji says. This is most clearly explained in

Yoga Vasishta.

 

I hope I don't sound too argumentative! I just want to keep Advaita

from becoming contaminated with the seductions of common sense :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste SrI Benjamin-ji

 

> I hope I don't sound too argumentative! I just want to keep

>Advaita

> from becoming contaminated with the seductions of common sense :-)

 

 

I agree with many points in your post. Btw, it is OK even if you are

argumentative as long as you intend to know the truth and I do like

some of your methods. Of course, arguments do not directly contribute

to sprituality and can sometimes even lead to ego clashes, but that

does not mean that divergent schools should be considered as

different ways of looking at the same truth.

 

Regards

Raghavendra

[Guest guest]

-

"Benjamin" <orion777ben

>

> I hope I don't sound too argumentative! I just want to keep Advaita

> from becoming contaminated with the seductions of common sense :-)

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

Benjaminji,

 

All your posts bring out some noble, good qualities in you which obviously

wakes the green-eyed monster in me !!!

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

> I just can't resist chiming in on this one.

> And 'substance' and 'attributes' are vague words which can

> be defined in different ways.

 

Benjaminji, you give me an impossible problem to solve. You deny

substance and then ask me to explain a doctrine that is based on

substance. Therefore the correct approach here would be to

investigate the meaning of substance so that it converges to only one

thing and is not left to be defined in different ways. I shall start

with a question. Please tell me what is the unity that is denoted

when I say something is an apple. Also tell me what is the difference

between an apple that you see in a dream and an apple that you see

when awake.

 

> If the objects are truly real, in a non-illusory sense, then they

> clearly exist as *distinct* objects. This is almost a tautology.

 

What is distinct is not the isness but the attributes. If you

distinguish something in isness, then that very distinction is

predicated of the isness and hence it is an attribute. Isness is the

pure isness of the attribute, not the attribute that predicates it.

 

> Hence, Brahman would indeed have parts. Just saying that all

> these objects have the same 'isness' is not satisfactory,

> because they are clearly distinct lumps of isness, if perceived

> as distinct from consciousness and existing in their own right.

 

Does the distinctiveness pertain to the distinction of lumpiness or

the isness. Isness, qua, isness is devoid of attributes. What is it

then that separates isness one from the other? The one and the other

isness are false divisions derived by conflating attributes with

substance.

 

> This is essentially the *definition* of objects.

 

Yes, but we are not satisfied with this definition of objects and

endeavour to go beyond to That by knowing which all this is known.

 

> I hope I don't sound too argumentative!

 

There is nothing wrong with arguments as long as they remain vada and

do not slip into jalpa and vitanda.

 

> I just want to keep Advaita from becoming contaminated with the

> seductions of common sense :-)

 

I just want to preserve Advaita as it is, subsuming everything in it

and leaving out only falseness which is not a "thing" and hence not

included in the "everything". :-)

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>Benjaminji, you give me an impossible problem to solve.

>You deny substance and then ask me to explain a doctrine

>that is based on substance.

 

Chittaranjanji, I am going to pursue this just a bit with you, since

you are intelligent and articulate and above all NEW to this list.

Ranjeetji is also intelligent and articulate, but I've been through

this at great length with him here and on another list, and I think

we both realize the futility of further discussion.

 

You are obviously well versed in all kinds of philosophy, including

Western philosophy. I refer you to the devastating arguments of

Berkeley and Hume against ill-defined words such as 'substance' or

'attribute'. There are many meanings to 'substance', and this

ambiguity is a major problem which must be recognized before taking

the next step in the discussion. However, you do ask some pertinent

questions, which I will now address.

 

>Please tell me what is the unity that is denoted

>when I say something is an apple. Also tell me what

>is the difference between an apple that you see in a

>dream and an apple that you see when awake.

 

One meaning of substance is 'material substance' or 'matter'. Most

of us suppose that there is a lump of something called the 'apple'

which is somehow 'outside' of our consciousness. This 'object' is

the cause of our perception of the apple, though a mechanism

involving the reflection of light into our eyes.

 

Briefly, as I have said many times here, there is absolutely no way

of verifying such a reality external to consciousness. The only

thing we know for sure is what we observe, which are the perceptions

themselves. The reason we believe in an external world is because

the perceptions are marvelously organized and coherent in such a way

as to project that illusion. Even our notion of light reflecting

from an object can ultimately be analyzed into this coherence of

perceptions. I will leave that as a homework exercise. :-)

 

Some may argue that we cannot *disprove* the external world either.

As I just explained, even our notions of space and time are based on

the coherence of perceptual experience. Space and time are in

consciousness; consciousness is not in space and time. So the very

notion of a world 'outside' of consciousness is meaningless as well

as unverifiable.

 

Hence, the 'unity' that is the apple is really no more than a 'bundle

of perceptions' which behave in such as characteristic way as to give

the illusion of an object 'external' to consciousness. Of course,

our 'body' is equally a bundle of coherent perceptions. So far, we

are up to the thinking of Berkeley.

 

Likewise, our 'empirical ego', including thoughts and feelings, is a

bundle of 'transitory experiences' and nothing more. This is as far

as classic British empiricism went, with Hume. (It is also the

'Neti, neti' of the Upanishads.)

 

However, Advaita makes a further point, with which I agree. After

reducing world, body and ego to mere transitory experiences in

consciousness, we must then inquire into the SEER of these

experiences. I do agree that there is ONE CONSTANT seer,

notwithstanding the multiplicity of experiences. Yet I also agree

there there is ultimately NO DIFFERENCE between the seer and the

seen. My intuition of my immediate experience tells me so (not

shruti). This is Advaita or nondualism.

 

So we have a paradox: the seer is one and unchanging and the seen are

many and changing, yet they are the same. I accept this paradox as a

fundamental reality, but I give priority to the seer over the seen.

Ultimately, the distinction of seer and seen is invalid, and it is in

the dissolution of this distinction that the paradox is resolved and

ultimate reality is revealed.

 

Now, you wish also to know how to distinguish the dream apple from

the 'real' apple observed during the waking state. The difference is

that we cannot control the perceptions of the waking state, since

they follow the 'laws of nature'. Also, they tend to be more vivid

than the dream perceptions, at least in my opinion. And the

perceptions of the waking state are observed by 'others', that is,

other consciousnesses having similar perceptions.

 

How do I know that these others exist, since I am limited to my own

experiences? Because it is incredible that I should be the only one.

I am not that arrogant. So why don't the people I see in my dreams

have a 'mind of their own'? Because my dreams lack the coherence and

regularity of my waking perceptions and seem clearly to be

reproductions of my waking experiences, like a movie, reflecting my

desires and fears. They are subjective in that sense. However, both

waking and dream experiences are like a movie in that they are only

images passing across consciousness, which do not refer to objects

outside of consciousness.

 

One final crucial issue is that my view of reality so far seems to

leave us with multiple 'streams of consciousness'. If we believe

that these streams of consciousness are ultimately One Consciousness,

called Brahman or whatever, then we have a paradox. I do accept that

our consciousness is utterly dependent and inseparable from this One

Consciousness which is the Source of Reality. Yet the powerful

appearance of different 'jivas' remains. I am still working on this.

 

 

>What is distinct is not the isness but the attributes...

 

I think you have had enough of my philosophy for one day. The

'attributes' of, say, the apple, are no more than the perceptions,

such as red, sweet, etc. The 'substance' of these attributes is the

tendency for these perceptions to cohere in a characteristic bundle

called the apple. As I said, Berkeley and Hume discuss this in

detail. They wrote very well, unlike many other philosophers, and

their works are available free on the web.

 

Finally, what you call 'isness' is nothing but the consciousness

itself. The 'isness' in the bundle of perceptions is nothing but the

consciousness. A perception is by definition an 'item of

consciousness'. It makes no sense to distinguish between the

perception and the consciousness. I hardly need remind you that to

reduce Being or Brahman to consciousness is entirely in accord with

the mahavakyas, in particular the one which says that 'Brahman is

Consciousness'.

 

In conclusion, there are no distinct objects 'outside' of

consciousness, since they have been reduced to perceptions in

consciousness. So that gross spatial notion of distinction is the

first to go. But then, having reduced objects to perceptions in

consciousness, one then realizes that there is only one seer of those

perceptions, and the seer and seen are not different. Hence, even

the apparent differences within consciousness, namely the apparent

differences between the different perceptions, are ultimately

illusory, since there is only one seer. So your 'isness' and

'attributes' and 'distinctions' and everything you can think of

reduces to the seer, which is consciousness, which is one and

unchanging and eternal. This is Advaita.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji

>One final crucial issue is that my view of reality so far seems to

>leave us with multiple 'streams of consciousness'. If we believe

>that these streams of consciousness are ultimately One Consciousness,

>called Brahman or whatever, then we have a paradox. I do accept that

>our consciousness is utterly dependent and inseparable from this One

>Consciousness which is the Source of Reality. Yet the powerful

>appearance of different 'jivas' remains. I am still working on this.

 

'our consciousness' is dependent on the 'One Consciousness or Brahma' in the

sense that 'our consciousness' itself is an illusion or transitory which

experiences other illusions ('outside' objects). This 'our consciousness' only

works during waking and dreaming stages, it does not work in deep sleep or after

the death of jiva.

 

So 'One consciousness or Brahma' IS, all the other multiple 'streams of

consciousness' are mere illusions or transitory.

 

But it is through these illusions only that Brahma can be known. The illusion

understands that it is itself an illusion and at that point it becomes brahma.

By the word 'understand' i mean full knowledge after complete vasanakshaya.

 

Brahma is the ultimate seer in the sense that it just 'sees'. It does not know

that it is seeing. it just IS.

 

So everything is consciuousness (not 'our consciousness' which is nothing but a

waking and dreaming exp, but 'Ultimate consciousness')

 

The realtion between them is, 'Ultimate consciousness' IS ALWAYS present in 'Our

consciousness' , not vice-versa.

 

This is my humble understanding, i am free to be corrected.

 

Om tat-sat

Vishal

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> >Benjaminji, you give me an impossible problem to solve.

> >You deny substance and then ask me to explain a doctrine

> >that is based on substance.

>

> Chittaranjanji, I am going to pursue this just a bit with you,

> since you are intelligent and articulate and above all NEW to

> this list. Ranjeetji is also intelligent and articulate, but

> I've been through this at great length with him here and on

> another list, and I think we both realize the futility of

> further discussion.

 

I think the futility arises from a lack of common ground. For

example, I can see the problem arising already in our discussion due

to the fact that I am speaking of substance as it presents itself

within consciousness whereas you are presenting arguments against a

notion of substance as a self-subsisting thing in the "outside

world". With your permission, I would like to suspend this discussion

ffor a few days until I come up with a short prologue for this

discussion. I do believe that we have a lot in common in that we both

make consciousness the ground of all things, but there is a need to

establish common references for the terms we use.

 

> You are obviously well versed in all kinds of philosophy, including

> Western philosophy. I refer you to the devastating arguments of

> Berkeley and Hume against ill-defined words such as 'substance' or

> 'attribute'. There are many meanings to 'substance', and this

> ambiguity is a major problem which must be recognized before taking

> the next step in the discussion. However, you do ask some

> pertinent questions, which I will now address.

 

Benjaminji, I have read Berkeley and Hume as also Kant and I refer

you to Kant's Critique wherein the substance that was demolished by

Berkeley and Hume has again been accorded its rightful place as a

category of the transcendenatl analytic (without which the experience

of the world in the manner in which it is presented to us cannot take

place). The philosophies of Berkeley and Hume are skewed towards

retaining the forms of the transcendental aesthetic while denying the

categories of the transcendental analytic. In particular I refer you

to the manner in which Kant's apriori synthetical judgments are made

possible by the synthetical unity of consciousness. I believe it is a

remarkable explanation of how the world obtains its structure as it

unfolds to us in consciousness.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Yet another fascinating discussion!

 

Benjamin has embarked upon another exposition of his views up from Berkeley.

(This is not a criticism, Benjamin. I enjoy your writing and the

presentation is getting clearer each time! ) (Though I think you are

still on shaky ground when it comes to differentiating waking and dream

experiences and rationalising multiple consciousnesses.)

 

Just a point on one of your paragraphs:

 

"However, Advaita makes a further point, with which I agree. After

reducing world, body and ego to mere transitory experiences in

consciousness, we must then inquire into the SEER of these

experiences. I do agree that there is ONE CONSTANT seer,

notwithstanding the multiplicity of experiences. Yet I also agree

there there is ultimately NO DIFFERENCE between the seer and the

seen. My intuition of my immediate experience tells me so (not

shruti). This is Advaita or nondualism."

 

I think Sri Atmananda would explain it like this. We never actually see

objects, only their 'appearance' or supposed attributes via our senses. The

form of an object is effectively only our seeing. This 'seeing' is what we

see, not any object. And this 'seeing' obviously cannot ever be separate

from us. Therefore we do not really see any 'thing' at all - there are no

objects. Nevertheless, since we obviously do see, and what we see cannot be

anything separate, it must be our Self, the reality.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>I think the futility arises from a lack of

>common ground. For example, I can see the problem

>arising already in our discussion due to the fact

>that I am speaking of substance as it presents

>itself within consciousness whereas you are

>presenting arguments against a notion of substance

>as a self-subsisting thing in the "outside world".

>With your permission, I would like to suspend this

>discussion for a few days until I come up with a

>short prologue for this discussion

 

No problem, Chittaranjanji! We can suspend this discussion

indefinitely. The list lately seems to be overheating with

discussion of this month's 'happiness' topic, so this side-discussion

is too much.

 

For your information, I reject not only material substance but any

notion of substance as a self-subsisting entity *other* than

consciousness. So the apple is indeed a cluster of perceptions in

consciousness and nothing more. And the unity we perceive in the

apple arises from the unity of consciousness, that is, of the seer,

and not from some supposed unity inherent in that particular cluster

of perceptions. In other words, any perceived unity is a reflection

of the Self. Plato was onto something with his 'ideas', but he made

the fatal mistake of locating the ideas somewhere other than the Self

(he was not too clear about just where).

 

>Benjaminji, I have read Berkeley and Hume as also Kant

>and I refer you to Kant's Critique wherein the substance

>that was demolished by Berkeley and Hume ...

 

I studied Kant too. Remember, I was a philosophy major in college.

I reject his 'noumenon' for the same reason I reject material

substance, and with the loss of noumenal reality, his categories

become irrelevant.

 

Bottom line: There is nothing other than consciousness. Any meaning

you could give to 'substance' which I could accept would be little

more than a synonym for 'consciousness'. And I prefer

'consciousness', because it is that which is immediately present, and

is hence utterly unambiguous, at least until we start to try to fit

it into our limited conceptual categories, whereas 'substance' is

quite vague and ambiguous and can lead to much misunderstanding.

 

Enough said for now! Let us happily resume the happiness discussion :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

I missed your message when I replied to Chittaranjanji, or I would

have answered there and saved a message. I do intend to discontinue

the thread, per Chittaranjanji's request, and also because the list

is overheating with happiness! :-)

 

You said:

>I think Sri Atmananda would explain it like this. We never

>actually see objects, only their 'appearance' or supposed

>attributes via our senses. The form of an object is

>effectively only our seeing. This 'seeing' is what we see,

>not any object. And this 'seeing' obviously cannot ever be

>separate from us. Therefore we do not really see any 'thing'

>at all - there are no objects. Nevertheless, since we

>obviously do see, and what we see cannot be anything

>separate, it must be our Self, the reality.

 

I cannot see how this differs one iota from my own views! The only

difference is that Sri Atmananda expresses himself with the elegant

Zen simplicity of a true master! I am still stuck at the philosopher

level.

 

And regarding the multiple consciousness business ... I do NOT

believe in them at the 'metaphysical' level (whatever that means).

For example, I DO INDEED deduce from the unity of Brahman that there

can be no multiple consciousnesses. The only problem for me is that

PHENOMENOLOGICALLY these pesky multiple streams keep intruding on my

vision, paradoxically by the apparent ABSENCE of YOUR consciousness

in MINE. But then, Gregji will tell me that my sin is to use the

words 'your' and 'mine', as though mere language could do anything.

Perhaps these seemingly different streams of consciousness will

coalesce into utter nonduality when I finally become realized. :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 02:10 PM 3/9/2004 -0500, Benjamin wrote:

can be no multiple consciousnesses. The only problem for me is that

>PHENOMENOLOGICALLY these pesky multiple streams keep intruding on my

>vision, paradoxically by the apparent ABSENCE of YOUR consciousness

>in MINE. But then, Gregji will tell me that my sin is to use the

>words 'your' and 'mine', as though mere language could do anything.

 

Yeah, right! By all means, stick with your experience. Translation will not

effect transformation.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

 

I said:

 

"...there can be no multiple consciousnessess. The only problem for

me is that PHENOMENOLOGICALLY these pesky multiple streams [of

consciousness] keep intruding on my vision, paradoxically by the

apparent ABSENCE of YOUR consciousness in MINE. But then, Gregji

will tell me that my sin is to use the words 'your' and 'mine', as

though mere language could do anything."

 

 

And you said:

 

"Yeah, right! By all means, stick with your experience. Translation

will not effect transformation."

 

 

I reply:

 

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with my last sentence. Of course,

I am well aware of illusion, which is fundamental to Advaita.

Illusion arises when the mind superimposes a false interpretation

upon the immediate experience, thus seeing something that is not

really there. The prime example is when it sees objects as being

external to consciousness. The shapes and colors are indeed present

in consciousness, but the interpretation of these shapes and colors

as external to consciousness is the mind-imposed delusion. (Language

forces me to say 'present in consciousness' even though the spatial

connotation is not strictly correct, so don't ding me on that.)

 

The problem is that I do not think that my 'phenomenological' view of

other streams of consciousness being distinct from mine arises from

such an illusory interpretation. It seems to be the way it really

is. Allow me to elaborate.

 

In the case of objects appearing external to my consciousness, I can

understand that illusion in terms of a dream or a holographic

projection. These examples give me vivid instances of how something

that is only in consciousness can seem very much to be distinct from

consciousness in an overpowering and almost magical way.

 

However, my gut impression that other streams of consciousness are

distinct from mine is not like this at all. (Notice that I say 'gut

impression' and not 'belief', because I DO believe that the multiple

streams reduce to Brahman, for reasons I gave earlier.) Now the

problem is not that my mind is superimposing a false interpretation

on the shapes and colors in my consciousness, as was the case with

material objects. Rather, the problem now is that the shapes and

colors which appear to you DO NOT appear to me. I see no way around

this. It is not a snake on the rope situation; it is two different

snakes (or so it seems).

 

This really is a rather difficult problem. With warm and sincere

respect, O venerable debating partner, I think you underestimate the

difficulty... :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin,

 

BENJAMIN

For example, I DO INDEED deduce from the unity of Brahman that there can be no

multiple consciousnesses. The only problem for me is that

PHENOMENOLOGICALLY these pesky multiple streams keep intruding on my vision,

paradoxically by the apparent ABSENCE of YOUR consciousness in MINE.

 

VENKAT - M

Almost an year back when we had our 'Consciousness is All' discussions, I

offered you, if I remeber right, the example of dream state as a solution to

this riddle. In my dream, both Benjamin and Venkat are two separate streams of

conssciousness, subsumed within and non-different from the Dreamer's

consciousness. The contents of Benjamin's consciousness are not accessible to

Venkat in the dream and if in the dream Benjamin asked the question he is asking

above, Venkat will have to wake up to be able to answer him.

 

A fresh attempt from an altogether different angle: If the apple that you see

(mind you, you are now awake) is nothing but your own consciousness, then the

Venkat who you see and interact with is also nothing but your own consciousness.

You do not see Venkat's stream of consciousness but you extrapolate it in your

consciousness from your own experience. So what you call as Venkat's stream of

consciousness is nothing but your own stream of consciousness. Now the final

question to be asked is, 'what you call as your own stream of consciousness, is

it really yours?'. You yourself (I am here referring to the objective you) are

an appearance in your consciousness, and because we commit the mistake of

identifying the ultimate subject with the vyavaharic 'me', you wrongly claim the

'THE CONSCIOUSNESS' that you are able to access as your consciousness when in

fact it is 'THE CONSCIOUSNESS'.

 

I hope you find the above helpful. It's a pity that you want to discontinue your

discussion with Chittaranjan on the subject of Substance. Would request the

moderators to schedule it for a future month. After all it is a discussion on

'Sat' aspect of Advaita.

 

pranams,

Venkat - M

 

 

 

 

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download

Messenger Now

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

I'm going to pursue this a bit just to sharpen my wits. It's only an

exercise, like jogging...

 

 

GREG:

It's not like some seeings are "accurate" and others aren't. No

seeing of objects, gross or subtle, is accurate. That is, no seeing

reflects something that is "really there." For to really be there,

something must be independent of consciousness.

 

BEN:

I cannot accept any philosophy that denies that the raw shapes and

colors (which we call perceptions) are present in consciousness. As

I explained, the issue is what *interpretation* our mind imposes upon

this raw material. The shapes and colors themselves are

indistinguishable from what I call 'consciousness', though

consciousness is surely not exhausted by these shapes and colors.

Insofar as they are consciousness, one cannot speak of them as

'objects', as that very word implies something other than (or

'outside' of) consciousness. Our normal view of them as 'objects' is

precisely the false interpretation of the mind I am talking about,

which is just like the snake being superimposed on the rope.

 

So if by 'seeing' one means the raw shapes and colors, this cannot be

denied or called inaccurate. But if by 'seeing' one means 'seeing

them as objects', then this is indeed false. The word 'seeing' can

be used in different ways.

 

And the words 'really there' are also ambiguous. The raw shapes and

colors are 'really there' in the sense of 'present in consciousness'.

However, they are not 'really there' the way this computer screen in

front of me seems to be sitting on a table as a discrete object

different from me. In the latter case, my mind has imposed that

extra interpretation on my perceptions, whereby some are said to be

'me' and others are said to be 'not me', such that the illusion of

space and discrete objects arises.

 

 

 

GREG:

And the same goes for *subtle* objects, such as states, ideas,

seeings perceptions, lokas, koshas, devas, etc. Advaita doesn't

embrace realism about subtle objects.

 

BEN:

Neither do I. I realize that my thoughts and feelings are no more

different or distinct from my consciousness than the apparent objects

of perception. I never said otherwise.

 

Anyhow, I was talking about how we commonly imagine material objects

as entities entirely distinct from perception. These material

objects are supposedly the cause of our perceptions. In that case,

there are two entirely different entities: the perceptions and the

material objects which supposedly cause the perceptions. In the case

of thoughts and feelings, which are clearly in consciousness, the

issue of an 'external' origin for them does not even arise. So the

arguments used to disprove the existence of material objects are

irrelevant when it comes to 'internal' mental objects.

 

However, even with mental manifestations such as thoughts and

feelings, the objectifying tendency of the mind is so powerful that

it may often *think* of them as objects distinct from consciousness,

however paradoxical this may be. Indeed our own perceptions are

generally treated this way. At least, this is my experience. My

thoughts, feelings and perceptions often seem to be on some kind of

screen in my mind that is somehow distinct from the witnessing

consciousness. These are the 'subtle objects' to which you refer.

This is of course absurd. How could consciousness bifurcate itself

in this way? This is a clear example of illusion, but it is an

entirely separate issue from the existence of material objects.

 

So, to repeat, arguments used to disprove matter are not applicable

to this subtle objectification. In the case of subtle

objectification, one needs only to realize that thoughts, feelings

and perceptions by their very nature must be in consciousness, so

that it is absurd to assume otherwise.

 

And even after clarifying one's thinking in this way, the issue of

multiple streams of consciousness has in no way been addressed. The

gross (material) or subtle (mental) objects which we have been

discussing are all from the standpoint of one seeker, of one witness,

of one 'stream of consciousness'. Just as the arguments used to

disprove material objects are irrelevant to the apparent objectivity

of mental objects for one particular witness, they are even more

irrelevant to the question of whether other distinct witnesses exist.

The arguments used to disprove matter start from the perceptions of

one witness and compare those perceptions to dreams. That one

witness might as well be dreaming the material objects. This has

nothing to do with whether there are other completely different

dreamers dreaming whatever they are dreaming. To reduce different

dreamers to one single consciousness (Brahman) requires entirely

novel arguments.

 

 

 

GREG:

It *is* based on a misunderstanding if it's a view you're defending.

If there is more than one stream of consciousness, then at least one

must be an object.

 

BEN:

This is more of the same. You are confusing two different meanings

of the word 'object'. In one case, from the standpoint of a single

witness, the perceptions are compared to a dream, so that the witness

realizes that it is invalid to postulate material objects in some

kind of physical space surrounding his consciousness, in which his

consciousness occupies a small location. However, in the case of

other streams of consciousness, there is no question of them being

located somewhere else in that very physical space which has just

been denied. So far I agree with you. The distinctness of the other

streams arises not from their supposed location in a fictitious

physical space but from the fact that other witness clearly have

*different* thoughts, feelings and perceptions. No assumptions about

the location of the other streams is necessary. The apparent

distinction of the different witnesses seems to remain regardless of

whether we even consider their possible location in any kind of space.

 

 

 

GREG:

Talking in stream-of-consciousness talk, what makes a stream of

consciousness "your" stream of consciousness? What makes another one

"Greg's"?

 

BEN:

The difference is what I just said. One witness has one set of

thoughts, feelings and perceptions, and the other witness has a

completely different set. Even if they were having identical

thoughts, feelings and perceptions, these would still be different.

When two people view the same movie side by side, they may have

nearly identical perceptions, but the witnesses remain distinct, each

viewing its own 'carbon copy' of those similar perceptions. That is

why your blind friend cannot enjoy the movie.

 

 

 

GREG:

You say it seems like there is more than one s-o-c. What is it that

a stream of consciousness appears to?

 

BEN:

An ill-posed question. The SOC is simply a separate awareness,

consisting of thoughts, feelings and perceptions. One cannot even

say that it appears to itself, since this presupposes a subject and

object within that particular SOC. Remember, I am entirely nondual

within a given SOC, so please don't confuse the issue by implying

that I might not be.

 

 

 

GREG:

Does one s-o-c appear to another s-o-c? Or is there one

Consciousness to which multiple s-o-c's appear?

 

BEN:

More ill-posed questions just like the previous one. One SOC does

not 'appear to' another SOC or even to itself, since this presupposes

a distinction between witness and appearance. In any given SOC, the

appearance and the witness of the appearance are identical.

 

But as I have often said, from a 'metaphysical' point of view, I do

think that there must be one single Source of Reality, which must be

Infinite Consciousness, and which is the substratum of the SOCs.

This line of thinking is based on 'causation' and is entirely

different from the phenomenological analysis of experience, which I

use to refute material objects or the subject-object distinction

within my own consciousness. How the SOCs could seem so different is

therefore a profound mystery, but nothing you have said has shed any

light on this issue. Indeed, I doubt that is can ever be 'explained'.

 

 

 

GREG:

Ben is an object, not a subject. So Ben cannot "intuit/see" even

*one* s-o-c, so what evidence is there that Ben intuits/sees another

s-o-c?

 

BEN:

Same confusion again. There is no subject-object distinction within

the SOC labelled 'Ben'. The subject and objects, or witness and PFTs

(perceptions, thoughts and feelings), are identical *within* that one

SOC. And I certainly never said that I 'saw' another SOC. That is

the whole point. It is precisely because the PFTs of the other SOC

are utterly hidden from me that I think of the other SOC as a

completely different SOC.

 

However, I do 'ascertain' or 'intuit' the existence of these other

SOCs, because I cannot believe I am the only one. The phantasms of

my waking state are coordinated with those of other SOCs. You may

argue that I am not justified is rejecting solipsism, but this would

be a waste of time. I DO reject solipsism, and there is no reason to

embrace solipsism, given any of my assumptions.

 

As they used to say back in the crazy 60s, 'SOC it to me baby!' :-)

 

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Venkat-M-ji,

 

It is most heartening that you are faithfully following these

messages, notwithstanding your reticence. I hope you realize that

your contributions are as thoughtful and articulate as anybody's

here...

 

 

You said:

 

"I offered you, if I remember right, the example of dream state as a

solution to this riddle. In my dream, both Benjamin and Venkat are

two separate streams of consciousness, subsumed within and

non-different from the Dreamer's consciousness"

 

I reply:

 

My last message to Greg was rather long, so I must now be brief. As

I see it, the dream people within my dreams are pure images with no

consciousness of their own. They are like the images on a movie

screen. To argue that they somehow 'inherit' their own

consciousness by being within my consciousness does not seem correct

to me. They are only images, no different from cartoons.

 

However, I believe that the images of people that I see in my waking

state are associated with other streams of consciousness which are

having similar images of me (and of the illusory world we both seem

to see). The material objects such as body and world are denied but

not the other streams of consciousness.

 

 

 

You said:

 

A fresh attempt from an altogether different angle: ... You do not

see Venkat's stream of consciousness but you extrapolate it in your

consciousness from your own experience. So what you call as Venkat's

stream of consciousness is nothing but your own stream of

consciousness.

 

I reply:

 

Venkat, I have no doubt that you exist just as I do. You are not a

figment of my imagination. Your thoughts, feelings and perceptions

are just as real and valid as mine, and they are not mine.

 

You may wish to read the long message I just posted to Greg, where I

emphasize that I am nondual within my own stream of consciousness.

The material world is nothing but a projection of my imagination,

just like a dream, and there is no difference between subject and

object within my own stream.

 

The only problem is that your thoughts, feelings and perceptions do

not manifest within my stream of consciousness, so I am forced to

postulate different streams of consciousness.

 

And contrary to what Greg and you say, the fact that I use language

such as 'my stream' or 'your stream' does not mean that I assume any

kind of subject-object distinction as far as a given stream is

concerned. Rather there are simply the different nondual streams,

labelled by 'Greg', 'Ben' or 'Venkat'.

 

Yet as I have also said many times, I believe that these different

streams must reduce to Brahman. I just don't see how. I think that

the honest answer is that it is impossible for us to see how. The

illusion of a material world can be explained in terms of the dream,

but the ultimate identity of Ben-consciousness and

Venkat-consciousness is an inexplicable mystery.

 

 

 

You said:

 

Because we commit the mistake of identifying the ultimate subject

with the vyavaharic 'me', you wrongly claim the 'THE CONSCIOUSNESS'

that you are able to access as your consciousness when in fact it is

'THE CONSCIOUSNESS'.

 

 

I reply:

 

To my understanding, 'vyavahara' is associated with the illusion of

duality within 'my own consciousness', i.e. this consciousness that

is present right now as I type these words. To see material or

mental objects as distinct from this consciousness is duality. There

are no distinctions within this immediate consciousness; all the

thoughts, feelings and perceptions present in this consciousness

labelled 'Benjamin' are all subsumed under a single seer, which we

might also call 'Benjamin' for lack of a better name.

 

So far so good. Now I would dearly like to extend this nonduality to

your thoughts, feelings and perceptions, but I cannot. Your

thoughts, feelings and perceptions are utterly hidden from me. I

cannot say they are not hidden without lying. I will not commit

perjury! I do not even know what you had for breakfast! :-)

 

Now, as last year, this discussion is beginning to get a bit

redundant, and I am busier now than last year. If anybody has a

brilliant fresh new argument, I will certainly consider it.

Otherwise, I think I had better leave matters here, more or less.

 

Those following this discussion may wish to ponder the following

suggestion. Perhaps realization or enlightenment can be obtained by

eliminating duality within our own stream of consciousness. Perhaps

this is all it takes. Perhaps we do not and should not be concerned

with other conscious beings or whether they can be 'reduced' to us.

Perhaps our 'job' in life is simply to take care of duality within

the immediately present stream we call 'our own' and everything else

will take care of itself.

 

And another thought: Perhaps phenomena such as telepathy and the like

are manifestations of the breakdown of the wall separating different

streams of consciousness. Perhaps as we become enlightened, the

thoughts and feelings of others become our own, and the issue of

different streams of consciousness simply disappears. Perhaps by

insisting on the different streams, I am only being honest about my

present unrealized state. In other words, there is no single correct

answer to this question. It depends on who is asking it.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

The first two paragrpahs of your reply to Sri Venkat has motivated

me for my response. Your first paragraph accurately presents the

advaitic point of view beautifully. But in the second paragraph,

suddenly the 'dreaming Benjamin' jumps up and claims that he

is 'awakened!' Can you please verify whether you are still in the

dream state or in the waking stage? When you resolve this puzzle,

you may be able to recognize that are no other streams of

consciousness except your own'

 

The purpose of the dream example is to illustrate why the waking

state is a 'dream state' until we get awakened!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: King Janaka posed a puzzle to his ministers: He said, I had a

dream where I was a begger. I want to know which one of the two -

Janaka the king or the begger in Janaka's dream is REAL?

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Venkat-M-ji,

> I reply:

>

> My last message to Greg was rather long, so I must now be brief.

As

> I see it, the dream people within my dreams are pure images with

no

> consciousness of their own. They are like the images on a movie

> screen. To argue that they somehow 'inherit' their own

> consciousness by being within my consciousness does not seem

correct

> to me. They are only images, no different from cartoons.

>

> However, I believe that the images of people that I see in my

waking

> state are associated with other streams of consciousness which are

> having similar images of me (and of the illusory world we both

seem

> to see). The material objects such as body and world are denied

but

> not the other streams of consciousness.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben.

 

I'll keep it shorter than it could go, cause I gotta go to lunch. Will get to

the root of the issue as I see it.

 

 

BEN:

I cannot accept any philosophy that denies that the raw shapes and

colors (which we call perceptions) are present in consciousness.

 

===Then you can't be a nondualist. If it really, really seems like they can be

present, then there just might be an unexamined sense in which it seems like

they can be absent. If it is absent, then what is the state of that color? Are

you saying it's somewhere else, like waiting in the wings to pop onto stage

again? This is a key that there's nothing there to which "present" can be

attributed. This is because the color *is* consciousness. And consciousness

itself is "presence." So no need to attribute "present" to colors or shapes.

Think of normal everyday things that seem to be present. Like a student in

class. Smith, present. Jones, absent. If all students were present all the

time, there would be no need to deploy the concept and it would never have

arisen.

 

===I think the difference between our approaches amounts to this -- in my

approach (which follows Krishna Menon's), what can be said about physical

objects also applies in an analogous way to what most people call subtle

objects. This is the implosive move that Dennisji outlined to you yesterday.

Subtle objects don't have spatial location, but they do (seem to) have other

attributes. For example, if X doesn't take up any space and yet seems to arise

and depart, then it can be called a subtle object. If there's RED one moment

and BLUE the next, then these are subtle objects, ideas, arisings, whatever.

They seem to appear *to* consciousness, until it is seen that this is

impossible. But while it seems possible, it is a handy provisional designation

to treat them as subtle objects.

 

I'm not sure what you call RED and BLUE. Consciousness, sure. Then why not

stop there??

 

 

Ben:

The shapes and colors themselves are indistinguishable

from what I call 'consciousness', though consciousness

is surely not exhausted by these shapes and colors.

 

===If shapes and colors themselves are indistinguishable from what you call

'consciousness', then why not rest there? I would re-phrase this as

"consciousness is indistinguishable from consciousness."

 

But you don't rest, because of the second claim. That surely consciousness is

not exhausted by these shapes and colors. It's that you're taking them as

objects. What do you mean by *these* shapes and colors? You might mean "the

ones right now in your stream of consciousness." But where there's a "these,"

there's a "those," referring somewhere else. The specter of subtle objects is

making itself felt again....

 

Ben:

Insofar as they are consciousness, one cannot speak of them as

'objects', as that very word implies something other than (or

'outside' of) consciousness.

 

===Then what is being referred to by the words RED and BLUE? If it's just

consciousness (like Krishna Menon says all nouns point to), then that's it.

 

Ben:

So if by 'seeing' one means the raw shapes and colors, this cannot be

denied or called inaccurate.

 

===It can be denied. Watch! Because exactly what makes them seem "raw" is what

makes them a subtle object. It can arise and fall. If that's what it seems

like, then you're talking about a subtle object. Until it doesn't seem like

that anymore.

 

 

 

GREG:

It *is* based on a misunderstanding if it's a view you're defending.

If there is more than one stream of consciousness, then at least one

must be an object.

 

BEN:

This is more of the same. You are confusing two different meanings

of the word 'object'.

 

===For utility's sake we can distinguish between gross and subtle objects, like

when we're talking Berkeley talk. But that doesn't make too much sense if we

look further into it. Because with respect to consciousness, all objects are

the same, "objects of consciousness."

 

Ben:

In one case, from the standpoint of a single witness, the perceptions are

compared to a dream, so that the witness realizes that it is invalid to

postulate material objects in some kind of physical space surrounding his

consciousness, in which his consciousness occupies a small location. However, in

the case of

other streams of consciousness, there is no question of them being located

somewhere else in that very physical space which has just been denied.

 

 

===Then by what criterion are you distinguishing one "witness" from another?

 

BEN:

The difference is what I just said. One witness has one set of

thoughts, feelings and perceptions, and the other witness has a

completely different set.

 

===The witness starts to sound a lot like a "person." But the person is

witnessed.

 

 

GREG:

You say it seems like there is more than one s-o-c. What is it that

a stream of consciousness appears to?

 

BEN:

An ill-posed question. The SOC is simply a separate awareness,

consisting of thoughts, feelings and perceptions.

 

===A very good question, because your SOCs are what most people would call

subtle objects. This is what others have been alluding to as well in talking to

you about this. The only plausible way to make sense of other SOCs is to

individuate them by spatiotemporal cues. Like "the guy in the corner," vs. "me,

sitting in this chair." Yet you have outlawed this move by a Berkeleian

deconstruction of physical objects (i.e., other people) into thoughts, feelings

and bodily sensations. You must be fair too, and deconstruct Benjamin the same

way. And voila, you are left with no separate people. Therefore, no basis upon

with to posit alternative streams of consciousness. Because you wouldn't say

that an idea can have an idea, would you?

 

Gotta go to lunch. Always nice talking with you!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Benjaminji,

 

You said (with respect to my suggested Sri Atmananda statement): "I cannot

see how this differs one iota from my own views!"

 

Sorry, that was precisely my point - I was merely indicating how what you

said was supported by Sri Atmananda!

 

As for multiple consciousnesses, I appreciate your problem.

 

If you regard the feeling that each of us has as being an 'individual

consciousness' to be caused by the particular set of identifications (i.e.

with body, thoughts, feelings etc.), then the problem disappears. That which

is 'doing the identifying' if you like is the background to all of that and

it is this that we really are. And, of course, there is only one background.

The arisings are simply the waves on the water. Why should one wave have

'cognisance of' the content of another wave?

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

This is an interesting discussion, but I'll just answer your first

two paragraphs. I can't be writing a dissertation every 5 minutes!

 

 

 

BEN:

I cannot accept any philosophy that denies that the raw shapes and

colors (which we call perceptions) are present in consciousness.

 

 

GREG: Then you can't be a nondualist. If it really, really seems

like they can be present, then there just might be an unexamined

sense in which it seems like they can be absent. If it is absent,

then what is the state of that color? Are you saying it's somewhere

else, like waiting in the wings to pop onto stage again? This is a

key that there's nothing there to which "present" can be attributed.

This is because the color *is* consciousness. And consciousness

itself is "presence." So no need to attribute "present" to colors or

shapes. Think of normal everyday things that seem to be present.

Like a student in class. Smith, present. Jones, absent. If all

students were present all the time, there would be no need to deploy

the concept and it would never have arisen.

 

BEN:

It is absurd to think of an unseen shape or color as 'waiting in the

wings'. This is a mere empty play on words, like the use of

'substance' as I was saying to Chittaranji. There is no entity

called 'color' distinct and independent from my consciousness, which

may or may not be present in my consciousness, and which goes

somewhere else when not present in my consciousness. There is simply

a manifestation which may be described in terms of shapes and colors.

There is no difference between the conscious manifestation and the

shapes and colors. They are identical. This is what you then go on

to say. So what is the problem? You are the one who has concocted

the strange idea that my words 'shapes and colors are present to

consciousness' means that there are some entities distinct from

consciousness which may or may not be present. I said no such thing.

 

And none of this has anything to do with different streams of

consciousness. You are inventing some bizarre idea of a color

existing when not present to my consciousness, but this is surely not

what I mean by another stream of consciousness like mine. It sounds

more like the Platonic idea of a color, but let's not go there!

 

 

 

GREG:

I think the difference between our approaches amounts to this -- in

my approach (which follows Krishna Menon's), what can be said about

physical objects also applies in an analogous way to what most people

call subtle objects. This is the implosive move that Dennisji

outlined to you yesterday. Subtle objects don't have spatial

location, but they do (seem to) have other attributes. For example,

if X doesn't take up any space and yet seems to arise and depart,

then it can be called a subtle object. If there's RED one moment and

BLUE the next, then these are subtle objects, ideas, arisings,

whatever. They seem to appear *to* consciousness, until it is seen

that this is impossible. But while it seems possible, it is a handy

provisional designation to treat them as subtle objects. I'm not sure

what you call RED and BLUE. Consciousness, sure. Then why not stop

there??

 

BEN:

The subtle or mental objects (thoughts, feelings and perceptions) are

identical to consciousness, within any given stream of consciousness.

I said this clearly. As far as I am concerned, they do not appear

*to* consciousness, as this would imply a distinction between the

mental objects and the consciousness. Language forces me to say that

they are *in* consciousness, but I don't like this either, because of

the spatial connotations (and hence connotations of separation) which

I expressly deny. When I say that a shape or color is in

consciousness, I simply mean that my consciousness is presently

manifesting as certain shapes and colors, and these are identical

with the consciousness at that particular moment.

 

As I have said many times, I am thoroughly nondual within my own

stream of consciousness. But the other streams still seem different,

though the difference is not one of spatial separation. It is some

kind of mysterious existential difference.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

Let me try to answer you briefly, since what you say is probably

close to the answer, if there is one.

 

DENNIS:

If you regard the feeling that each of us has as being an 'individual

consciousness' to be caused by the particular set of identifications

(i.e. with body, thoughts, feelings etc.), then the problem

disappears. That which is 'doing the identifying' if you like is the

background to all of that and it is this that we really are. And, of

course, there is only one background. The arisings are simply the

waves on the water. Why should one wave have 'cognisance of' the

content of another wave?

 

 

MY REPLY:

First, please realize that I do not want to 'win' this argument. On

the contrary, I would love a blinding revelation, like Paul on the

road to Damascus, which shows me that the consciousness called

'Dennis' is identical to the consciousness called 'Benjamin'.

Furthermore, I would like this revelation to be as clear as 'a fruit

held in the palm of my hand' as Shankara says somewhere in the

Vivekachudamani.

 

If one wave does not have cognizance of the content of another wave,

then how can we identify the waves as the same cognizer? We agree

that within a wave, the cognizer and content must be identified, or

there would be an extra duality within each given wave, above and

beyond the duality between waves. Now if the contents are different,

and if cognizer is identical to contents, then this seems to make my

point that the cognizers must also be distinct.

 

To repeat, I do not wish to win this argument; I wish to lose it.

But the loss must be a blinding revelation which blows my mind. This

is not some polite verbal game between educated gentleman. Who has

time for that? :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 04:28 PM 3/10/2004 -0500, Benjamin wrote:

>As I have said many times, I am thoroughly nondual within my own

>stream of consciousness. But the other streams still seem different,

>though the difference is not one of spatial separation. It is some

>kind of mysterious existential difference.

 

===There's a belief that you are "nondual within your own stream of

consciousness." But you also have a notion of a duality of streams of

consciousness. This is an idea of another stream. You are allowing streams to

be separate in a way that you deny to automobiles and baseballs. Plus, you

maybe a feeling of tension between these notions. But ideas and notions and

allowances are merely consciousness. Consciousness! No problem!!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

At 04:43 PM 3/10/2004 -0500, Benjamin wrote:

Now if the contents are different,

>and if cognizer is identical to contents, then this seems to make my

>point that the cognizers must also be distinct.

 

....

 

>To repeat, I do not wish to win this argument; I wish to lose it.

 

 

===Good! Then let's turn your argument on its head.

 

If all contents are consciousness, and consciousness cannot differ from

consciousness, then contents cannot differ.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Hi again Greg,

 

Let's finish up real quick for today, and then let the issue lie

quiet for awhile. I have an ending here that may satisfy you for the

interim.

 

GREG:

You are allowing streams to be separate in a way that you deny to

automobiles and baseballs...

 

BEN:

But the streams are an entirely different issue than automobiles and

baseballs, for the reasons I gave at length earlier to day. Briefly,

the automobiles and baseballs are dreamlike illusions within my

consciousness, but the other streams are not. They are separate

dreams in their own right, or so it seems to me. So the streams and

automobiles cannot be naively equated.

 

 

GREG:

Let's turn your argument on its head. If all contents are

consciousness and consciousness cannot differ from consciousness,

then contents cannot differ.

 

BEN:

All contents are consciousness, but not necessarily the SAME

consciousness, at least from the level of experience. Now

metaphysically, I repeat that I agree that Brahman or the Source of

Reality must be the same everywhere, but this does not seem to agree

with my experience. That is the problem. I wish to have a vivid

experience of this, and my thirst for experience is not necessarily

an indication of my depraved spiritual nature. Remember what I said

about Shankara saying that experience of Brahman is as real as some

exotic South Indian fruit in the palm of your hand. Can some Keralan

tell me which fruit the Acharya was referring too? :-)

 

 

 

MY TEMPORARY SOLUTION TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY:

 

I've been rereading the 'Talks with Ramana' lately. To all sorts of

questions, Sri Ramana always seems to reply, 'To whom does the

question arise? Inquire.' I will assume that he might have said the

same thing to my question, and I will diligently inquire and

contemplate on it for a while. Specifically, I will inquire to whom

the question arises, rather than what might constitute a logically

satisfying answer. That might produce my sought-after revelation.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste , just to present a short question :

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> At 04:28 PM 3/10/2004 -0500, Benjamin wrote:

>

> >As I have said many times, I am thoroughly nondual within my own

> >stream of consciousness. But the other streams still seem

different,

> >though the difference is not one of spatial separation. It is

some

> >kind of mysterious existential difference.

>

> ===

Wearing Benjamin's hat ( though i may not be qualified:))

The stream of consciousness 'I' experience, is it my own?

I should may be suspect the phenomenon is more like radio waves out

there being picked up by the antennae in a million different radio

sets of different makes and sophistication?

The all pervading consciousness energises all the zillions of BMI,

the output being different according to the constitution and

structure of each individual BMI. could it be that the ego ( part of

the equipment - mind) that says this stream is mine and others seem

to be mysteriously different?

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins

sridhar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Remember what I said

> about Shankara saying that experience of Brahman is as real as some

> exotic South Indian fruit in the palm of your hand. Can some

Keralan

> tell me which fruit the Acharya was referring too? :-)

>

 

Namaste,

 

If anyone would like to relax a little after the heavy

ideological bombardment, here is 'all you asked for' about the not

so 'exotic fruit'!

________

 

The fruit is 'Amalaka', Myrobalan in English; apparently has two

different species - Emblica and Terminalia. I think Shankara was

referring to the former, and Buddha the latter!!!!!!!!

 

 

http://www.holistic-online.com/Herbal-Med/_Herbs/h123.htm

----

-----------

http://ecoheritage.cpreec.org/04_topics/01_sacred_trees/01_sacred_tree

s_datas.html

 

Common name : Indian Gooseberry

Botanical name : Emblica officinalis Gaertn.

Local name : Nellikai

Hindi name : Amla

Sanskrit name : Amalak

Religious association : The tree is sacred to Lord Shiva and Vishnu

and

Goddess Parvati and Goddess Lakshmi is believed to reside in the

fruit of this tree.

Ecological zone : Terrestrial

Distribution : Throughout tropical India.

Status : Not Threatened

Uses : The fruit juice when consumed with honey prevents

tuberculosis,

sthma, bronchitis, bleeding of gums, blood infection, cancer, stress

and tension.

It is also used to treat fever, anemia, nervous disorders, sores and

pimples.

The fruit is edible and it is used to make pickles, preserves,

jellies and curries.

 

----

-----------

http://www.godshaer.co.uk/myrobalan.htm

 

Myrobalan

The Buddha's Chosen Herb

 

Pharmaceutical Name:

Fructus Chebulae

Botanical Name:

1. Terminalia chebula Retz.;

2. Terminalia chebula Retz. var. tomentella Kurt.

Common Name:

Mylobalan fruit, Terminalia fruit, Chebula fruit

 

----

--

 

http://www.ripaladrang.org/medicine/medicine_buddha_practice.htm

 

 

In the practice, reference will be made to the Medicine Buddha

holding

"myrobalan" in his hand. Myrobalan is the only herb in Tibetan

Medicine

which can aid in healing all three types of diseases (wind, bile,

phlegm).

----

--------

 

http://www.siamese-dream.com/statues/buddha_medicine_india.html

 

Medicine Buddha Statues : This is a castcopper and brass statue of

the

Medicine Buddha. The Medicine Buddha holds a blooming myrobalan plant

in his left hand, and his right hand is in the mudra (or gesture) of

bestowing

a gift. Tibetan Buddhists believe that the knowledge of the myrobalan

plant

was a gift from the Buddha, as it can help heal physical and mental

diseases.

They liken its ability to heal and protect to that of the Dharma, or

teachings

of the Buddha.

----

-------

 

http://ignca.nic.in/images/ps03/big/bps31007.jpg

----

-------

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

(I am fron the next-door neighborhood of Kerala!)