Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2004 Report Share Posted March 7, 2004 - "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 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!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.