Vishishtadvaita Ontology

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

 

Thank you for that delicious information on Keralan fruits. It's

nice to know someone other than Greg was reading that long exchange.

Actually, Sridharji was too, as I see by his questions. I will

briefly answer those, and then I will retire from this thread and

hopefully it will die down. (These threads are a bit like throwing a

match in a dry forest ... the match being the initial question.)

 

 

 

Namaste Sridharji,

 

First of all, that question on reconciling the apparent multiple

jivas with the nondual Brahman was more theoretical than anything

else. It is a fascinating question which, as an amateur philosopher,

I keep coming back to. But I doubt the answer matters much to

sadhana.

 

Now as to what you said.

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

>

>I 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?

 

This is not too different from the ocean and waves analogy, with the

radio waves as the ocean and the ocean waves as the radios.

 

Such analogies are as good as any visual analogy can be, which is to

say, not perfect! Any visual analogy will be described in terms of

parts, in the normal vyahaharik way. One might always ask, 'Are not

the waves distinct and separated from each other?' Same for radios.

 

Just because there is 'one ocean' doesn't quite answer the question.

The ocean is made of many drops of water, and I have no trouble

imagining them separated from each other. Surely a drop of water in

the Indian Ocean is different from one in the Atlantic.

 

Anyhow, I do not quite say that I 'own' a stream of consciousness.

As I said to Greg, I am nondual within my own stream. There is no

subject or object within the stream, just the stream. Seer and seen

are indeed one within this stream called 'Benjamin', so there is no

question of ownership. No external material entities either! Just

images like a dream.

 

 

>I'd agree with this version of dream people except for

>the fact that these dream people sometimes do unexpected

>things to the dreamer very much like in the waking world?

 

Actually, I can believe that *some* dream people may correspond to

some kind of real conscious beings. If Lord Krishna came to me in a

dream and told me that I was going to die at such and such a time,

you could be sure that I would be awake and paying attention when

that time came!

 

Also, you are right that the dream world largely reflects the order

of the waking world, but I have seen some interesting exceptions in

my own dreams. Mostly, though, I think that dreams are a rehash of

waking experience, where the ego tries to come to terms with those

waking experiences. So I do realize that the waking and dreams

states have some important differences, contrary to what some here

have implied. However, in both cases there is only consciousness.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

then I will retire from this thread and

> hopefully it will die down. (These threads are a bit like throwing

a

> match in a dry forest ... the match being the initial question.)

>

Namaste Benjaminji

Many thanks. I like the match in a dry forest- a lot like my vasanas -

which rear up at unexpected moments and places and refuse to go away.

 

I think one should honour your wish to have this thread die down.

I like your words particularly because you so obviously experience

what you write. My personal agenda may be to learn and see if

imitation/ copying would help :) so the forest fires may come up

off line.. but will still be within your consciousness.

 

Endless Crores of namaskaram to all advaitins

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

Really enjoying the discussion between yourself and Greg - far more

interesting that the happiness topic! Is it ok if I attempt to make it into

a coherent web-page discussion for my 'Key Issues' topics?

 

You said: "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."

 

I would answer (acknowledging the limitations of the metaphor) that it is

because you are not the individual wave, you are the entire ocean. The

problem arises because you identify yourself with that limited set of water

molecules that happen to be present in one little wave.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

At 03:01 PM 3/12/2004 +0000, Dennis Waite wrote:

>Hi Benjamin,

>

>Really enjoying the discussion between yourself and Greg - far more

>interesting that the happiness topic! Is it ok if I attempt to make it into

>a coherent web-page discussion for my 'Key Issues' topics?

 

===This would be a good idea - Benjamin's question is not that uncommon.

 

>You said: "If one wave does not have cognizance of the content of another

>wave,

>then how can we identify the waves as the same cognizer?

 

 

===The cognizer is not the wave. The waves are seen, they aren't the seer.

Cognition, or "seeing," is done by the ocean.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste: Gregji:

 

If you read the last paragraph of Dennisji's reply, you will

recognize that he also came with the same answer! This just confirms

that advaitins do agree sometimes though not always!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

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

> ===The cognizer is not the wave. The waves are seen, they aren't

the seer. Cognition, or "seeing," is done by the ocean.

>

> --Greg

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

>

> I would answer (acknowledging the limitations of the metaphor)

that it is

> because you are not the individual wave, you are the entire ocean.

The

> problem arises because you identify yourself with that limited set

of water

> molecules that happen to be present in one little wave.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis,

>Really enjoying the discussion between yourself and

>Greg - far more interesting that the happiness topic!

>Is it ok if I attempt to make it into a coherent web-page

>discussion for my 'Key Issues' topics?

 

Oh no! In my last message in this thread, I said I wanted to let

this topic die down for now so we could get back to 'happiness'. Of

course you are welcome to use this discussion on your site, and I

have complete faith in your editorial integrity and intelligence.

But now I feel compelled to defend myself further. After all, I

couldn't let Greg get the last word, could I? I'm all in favor of

ego diminution, but you are asking for an auto-crucifixion! This

violates my human rights. :-)

 

>I would answer (acknowledging the limitations of the metaphor)

>that it is because you are not the individual wave, you are

>the entire ocean. The problem arises because you identify

>yourself with that limited set of water molecules that happen

>to be present in one little wave.

 

I don't want to make TOO much of this topic. As I said yesterday, it

is probably not directly relevant to sadhana; it seems more like a

fascinating armchair discussion of the kind the Buddha objected to.

 

Nevertheless, I continue to think that my question is valid. If I am

truly the nondual Brahman, then why am I not aware of all the

perceptions, feelings and thoughts (PFT) of all conscious entities

anywhere in any universe? (Leave aside the question of how confusing

that might be.) The key property of any consciousness, it seems to

me, is its unity. There is only ONE seer in any instance of

consciousness. So if Brahman is the one seer that sees all, and if

the seeing is not distinct from the seer (advaita), and if I am

Brahman, then why do I not see whatever is seen by any conscious

entity?

 

I don't consider this a question of identification. Whether I

identify with my PFT or not, the fact remains that I am limited to my

PFT, by which I mean the PFT that are immediately present as I type

these words. (And don't ding me on using words like 'I' and 'my'.

Language forces me to use such terminology to label the unitary,

nondual stream of consciousness called 'Benjamin', which consists of

very specific PFT at any given time.)

 

And guess what? I think what you said might be correct after all, in

a way. I think that after we become realized and consciousness

becomes purified and expands to infinity, we gradually become

sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of others in a telepathic way.

Has this not been the purported experience of sages? I think it must

be the ego sense which erects walls in our consciousness and prevents

awareness of the experience of others. (This is probably a good

thing, insofar as I would want privacy from others as ignorant as

myself, at least while I remain imperfect and ignorant.)

 

In conclusion, I think that we both have a valid point. The truth,

as I see it so far, is that in some unfathomably mysterious way, the

same nondual consciousness which is Brahman can somehow create (or

manifest as) the illusion of multiple jivas within it own nondual

awareness. These jivas are not distinct from the Consciousness which

is Brahman, yet these jivas are not aware of each other's

experiences. It seems like a total logical contradiction of the

nondual nature of Brahman, but it must be accepted. I say so,

because I am otherwise convinced that (i) all reality is

consciousness, (ii) that any instance of consciousness is

indistinguishable from the divine Source which is its essence and

existential support, and (iii) this Source must be an infinite,

nondual Consciousness in its own right. The paradox must be accepted

as inexplicable from the point of view of the jiva.

 

The reason I spent so much time on this is because of my previous

success reducing the apparent external material world to

consciousness, which we all know about. This seems impossible and

utterly self-contradictory to the dualist, yet it CAN be understood

in terms of the dream analogy. No such analogy or understanding

arises, as far as I can see, regarding the fundamental unity if

jivas. I have read enough spiritual literature that I would have

discovered it my now. The ocean and waves analogy doesn't really

satisfy me. I surrender and accept the paradox as inexplicable.

 

 

 

Then Greg said:

>The cognizer is not the wave. The waves are seen, they

>aren't the seer. Cognition, or "seeing," is done by the ocean.

 

If there is ONE ocean (or consciousness) seeing (or being or

manifesting as) all the waves, then how can different little bottled

jivas seem to arise, whereby the contents of the consciousness of one

jiva are not accessible to other jivas? This seems irreconcilable

with the unitary, nondual nature of the ocean-consciousness. We are

now just going around in circles in this discussion, but my point

remains that the consciousness has somehow been fractured into jivas

in an inexplicable way that utterly defies elementary logic. The

dream analogy worked to eliminate matter, because it did not entail

such a fracturing of consciousness. Alas that is not the case with

this far more subtle question.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Dear All,

 

"Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote

 

I would answer (acknowledging the limitations of the metaphor)

> that it is

> > because you are not the individual wave, you are the entire

ocean.

 

We are not even the entire Ocean but pure Water alone. Ocean only we

call Samashti, that is Iswara, but Water is BRAHMAN! (only a

comparison to understand more clearly, does not mean that Ocean, Wave

Water is that alone, even though it is!)

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

> Namaste: Gregji:

>

> If you read the last paragraph of Dennisji's reply, you will

> recognize that he also came with the same answer! This just

confirms

> that advaitins do agree sometimes though not always!

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

>

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

>

> > ===The cognizer is not the wave. The waves are seen, they aren't

> the seer. Cognition, or "seeing," is done by the ocean.

> >

> > --Greg

>

> advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> >

> > I would answer (acknowledging the limitations of the metaphor)

> that it is

> > because you are not the individual wave, you are the entire

ocean.

> The

> > problem arises because you identify yourself with that limited

set

> of water

> > molecules that happen to be present in one little wave.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > Dennis

[Guest guest]

At 11:45 AM 3/12/2004 -0500, Benjamin wrote:

Then Greg said:

>>The cognizer is not the wave. The waves are seen, they

>>aren't the seer. Cognition, or "seeing," is done by the ocean.

>

>If there is ONE ocean (or consciousness) seeing (or being or

>manifesting as) all the waves, then how can different little bottled

>jivas seem to arise, whereby the contents of the consciousness of one

>jiva are not accessible to other jivas?

 

===That's because these waves seem to arise. If they didn't seem to you to

arise, then this more subtle question would never come up. This "seeming" and

this "arising" point to the lingering duality in what you've been calling Ben's

stream of consciousness.

 

And have you considered your criterion of success on this? Total omniscience by

Ben's S-O-C. That is, total access by Ben to all contents of all other sentient

beings' S-O-C's, past present and future. If you had 99.999999% access, that

wouldn't be good enough, and is not in principle different from what Ben's S-O-C

has access to now (I mean the occasional clairvoyant insight.). No, it must be

total to succeed on this criterion. But has that ever happened? Did Shankara

know what I had for breakfast this morning? This is a sort of reductio ad

absurdum for the S-O-C model.

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Benjamin,

>

> I would answer (acknowledging the limitations of the metaphor) that

it is

> because you are not the individual wave, you are the entire ocean.

The

> problem arises because you identify yourself with that limited set

of water

> molecules that happen to be present in one little wave.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Infact a swamiji gave a hilarious example. When you are running

through the new york penn station (or Bombay VT would be a better

example), you may find yourself muttering ' oh my god! what a

crowd' !!!. All the others put together somehow seem to form the

crowd

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gregji,

 

Oh my goodness! A response from Greg! How unexpected! :-)

>That's because these waves seem to arise. If they

>didn't seem to you to arise, then this more subtle

>question would never come up. This "seeming" and

>this "arising" point to the lingering duality in what

>you've been calling Ben's stream of consciousness.

 

OK, for clarity, let me reiterate what I think duality within my

consciousness would be. Then nonduality can be understood in

contrast to this. There are two levels of duality: gross and subtle.

 

The gross level is to see (and believe in) material objects outside

of my consciousness. We both agree that we can forget about that.

 

The more subtle duality would be to see the contents of my

consciousness, namely perceptions, thoughts and feelings (PFT), as

objects. This means that I 'observe' them and they seem to be

different from the seer. Thus there seems to be a seer and a seen,

even as far as the 'internal' mental contents are concerned. This

may seem paradoxical, but it is a fact of experience. Look at your

perceptions. Even those perceptions seem to be 'other', seem to be

objects, seem to be 'out there'. (The hypothetical matter from which

they supposedly originate would be yet another other behind this

other.)

 

Yet I know that the perceptions (and PFT in general) are simply

consciousness. Their nature is sentience, awareness, consciousness,

whatever you want to call it. I do not see how this can differ from

the seer, which is also consciousness. I intuitively realize that

there is just the consciousness. Hence, when the PFT appear as

'objects', this must be an illusion, some kind of holographic

projection. As always, the dream analogy is very helpful.

 

In summary, there is no kind of duality related to my stream of

consciousness, neither the gross one of external matter nor the

subtle one of mental objects. There is just the consciousness, which

I can intuitively realize to be a unity, without parts, without

subject or object, a single seer projecting the illusion of a magical

display. I think you would agree so far.

 

But you then use this realization to somehow 'unite' this nondual

awareness with the same thing that is happening to others. (Let us

avoid solipsism and simply accept that other instances of

consciousness also arise, just like yours and mine, which we call

'people'.) This is the leap which seems totally illegitimate to me.

It is all fine and well to collapse the dualities within my present

awareness, but this gives me no right to merge my awareness like a

siamese twin with another awareness called 'Greg' or 'Dennis'.

 

In the first case, illusory boundaries imagined by the conceptual

mind are being removed within a single conscious experience that only

*seems* to be bifurcated. In the second case, something is being

*added* to the experience which is not present or manifest, namely

the experience of another. The first case is removal of something

that only seems to be there (the distinction between seer and seen);

the second case is addition of something that is most definitely not

there, either as a reality or an illusion. It is one thing to remove

the snake from the rope; it is another thing to see a either a rope

or snake where there is only grass (or to see two snakes where there

is only one).

 

So what do you mean by 'the waves seem to arise'? If by arise, you

mean that they seem to be present as mental objects distinct from the

seer, then I have answered that. If removal of this property of

'seeming to arise' means removal of the illusory distinction between

seer and the seen mental objects, I have just answered that. One

thing I know for sure: the waves of your consciousness do not arise

in mine in any way whatsoever, not as illusions, not as apparent

objects, and much less as an intrinsic nondual part of my

consciousness, where seer and seen are realized to be one.

 

To make any progress, you are going to have to be much more precise

and explicit about the waves 'seeming to arise'. And if it's

anything along the lines of what I just said, you can expect my

response to be the same! :-)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

>

> Anyhow, I do not quite say that I 'own' a stream of consciousness.

> As I said to Greg, I am nondual within my own stream. There is no

> subject or object within the stream, just the stream. Seer and

seen

> are indeed one within this stream called 'Benjamin', so there is no

> question of ownership. No external material entities either! Just

> images like a dream.

>

>

>

Namaste Benjaminji

Since Gregji is keeping the thread alive, i thought let me make a

quick buck of learning while there is an opportunity. I will ofcourse

understand if you do not reply.

 

On the above excerpt, I was with you most of the way until it was

spoilt by the phrase 'just images like in a dream'. If you see them

there is a seer and a seen.

 

Or is it just the limitation of language ?

 

when you say there is just a stream there seems to be someone

observing the stream.

I earnestly hope i am not being obtuse. An understanding of this

could help me understand your other contributions that much better.

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

Hey Benji,

 

You wrote:

>OK, for clarity, let me reiterate what I think duality within my

>consciousness would be. Then nonduality can be understood in

>contrast to this. There are two levels of duality: gross and subtle.

 

That right *there* is a pretty good duality! :-)

 

>The gross level is to see (and believe in) material objects outside

>of my consciousness. We both agree that we can forget about that.

>

>The more subtle duality would be to see the contents of my

>consciousness, namely perceptions, thoughts and feelings (PFT), as

>objects.

 

A more subtle duality is to see them not as objects. Accompanying this is a

belief that what you see is not objects.

 

>To make any progress, you are going to have to be much more precise

>and explicit about the waves 'seeming to arise'.

 

===Actually, it was your message before that mentioned arising. You asked:

 

"then how can different little

bottled jivas seem to arise?"

 

Perhaps this is a report from your experience. So what did *you* mean by "seem

to arise"? Usually, things that seem to arise also seem to subside. Regardless

if it's believed that they are essentially consciousness, there's a felt

experience of coming and going. How's that not duality?

 

Also, in the PFT - if you discern a P from an F from a T - that's duality also.

 

--Greg

 

Messages are getting shorter...

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

Sorry to 'force' you to continue this discussion when you wanted to let it

lapse!

 

You said:

 

"Nevertheless, I continue to think that my question is valid. If I am

truly the nondual Brahman, then why am I not aware of all the

perceptions, feelings and thoughts (PFT) of all conscious entities

anywhere in any universe? (Leave aside the question of how confusing

that might be.) The key property of any consciousness, it seems to

me, is its unity. There is only ONE seer in any instance of

consciousness. So if Brahman is the one seer that sees all, and if

the seeing is not distinct from the seer (advaita), and if I am

Brahman, then why do I not see whatever is seen by any conscious

entity?"

 

There are no 'other' conscious entities in the universe so how could you? In

the context of the metaphor, it is the ocean that is the only consciousness.

Any attempt to extend the metaphor to attempt an intellectually satisfying

explanation is fraught with danger but here goes!

 

Imagine if you like that the ocean consciousness is focussed by the

molecules in a wave to give the illusion of a localised and separate

consciousness. That one ocean consciousness becomes locally identified with

just those water molecules in each wave and seems to bring into existence

something that is separate from all other waves. Clearly, this localised

consciousness, whilst it believes itself to be only this wave and separate

from all others, is not going to have 'objective knowledge' of the

particular configuration of molecules in any other wave. In reality,

however, this imagined state of affairs is false. The only consciousness is

the ocean and there are no separate waves. There is only water. In this

knowledge, it is simply not meaningful to speak of molecule configurations

'belonging' to a particular wave.

 

Similarly, it does not make sense to talk of brahman as a 'seer'. There is

nothing else to see. There is only brahman.

 

You go on to say as much yourself:

 

"In conclusion, I think that we both have a valid point. The truth,

as I see it so far, is that in some unfathomably mysterious way, the

same nondual consciousness which is Brahman can somehow create (or

manifest as) the illusion of multiple jivas within it own nondual

awareness. These jivas are not distinct from the Consciousness which

is Brahman, yet these jivas are not aware of each other's

experiences. It seems like a total logical contradiction of the

nondual nature of Brahman, but it must be accepted."

 

We are back to the usual vyAvahArika versus pAramArthika discussion with

some adhyAsa thrown in! The state you describe, or at least one with the

more normal realist viewpoint, is the illusory state in which 'people' find

themselves. They believe that the separation is real and all of their normal

PFT activity supports this false belief. The truth of the matter cannot be

appreciated until the false superimposition dissipates, when the problem

dissolves. It is not that we then can read other people's minds etc. It is

that we then know for a fact that there are no other minds to read, not even

our own.

 

Apologies if none of these arguments are helping. I'm sure that we all

appreciate your problem, though, so you do not need to keep repeating it!

Probably most of us also actually still feel the same way and there may be

an element of intellectual dishonesty in arguing otherwise. (Speaking for

myself, here.) Nevertheless, perhaps that is what we must do if we are to

make headway.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I guess I'll try another round at this, as briefly as I can.

 

First, let me say why I pursue these discussions. It is because I

believe that Advaita CAN be understood to a considerable extent,

using clear ideas. I wish to explore the utmost limits to which

Advaita can be thus understood, before we start talking about

'incomprehensibility' and 'ineffability' and saying that we simply

can't understand until we become fully realized. This is a

worthwhile endeavor.

 

 

Now Sridharji said:

>it was spoilt by the phrase 'just images like in a dream'.

>If you see them there is a seer and a seen.

 

and

>when you say there is just a stream there seems to be

>someone observing the stream

 

Regarding the dream, the point is that after waking from the dream,

we realize that the dream objects were not other than our

consciousness, even though they seemed that way during the dream. In

the dream, there seemed to be a seer and the seen. When we wake up,

we realize that there was just consciousness, and not two entities

(advaita). This is a classic analogy in Advaita.

 

The word 'see' is ambiguous. It can mean 'to see an object' or it

can simply mean 'to be aware of shapes and colors in consciousness

without interpreting them as objects other than consciousness'. In

the former case, the mind adds an extra dualistic interpretation over

and above what is actually present in consciousness.

 

What you say regarding the stream suggests to me where Greg's

confusion is. I think he is having the same reaction to my

terminology. I don't mean a stream (of consciousness) out there in

front of me, as when I stand on the shore of a river. I simply mean

an isolated flow of perceptions, feelings and thoughts (PFT), in

which seer and seen are identical. This flow is isolated from other

such streams that have different contents; these isolated streams are

called 'people'.

 

 

Now on to Greg:

>That right *there* is a pretty good duality! :-)

 

I was talking about degrees of duality: the gross one of material

objects and the subtle one of mental objects. It is no secret that

within the realm of illusion there is apparent multiplicity. That is

why Advaita contrasts its nonduality to this multiplicity. So

finding apparent multiplicity within illusion is expected; it is the

nature of illusion.

>A more subtle duality is to see them not as objects.

>Accompanying this is a belief that what you see is not objects.

 

The manifestation of shapes and colors is undeniable. But this

manifestation need not entail the belief that there is some kind of

distinction between seer and seen in this manifestation. There is

just the manifestation, also called 'consciousness'. To speak of

this nondual manifestation as being yet a more subtle duality makes

no sense to me. To call my eradication of belief in duality another

belief also seems illegitimate. It prevents me from saying anything.

Your words are meaningless to me. It sounds like a play on words.

This gives philosophy a bad name. Of course, I may be wrong, but the

burden on you is to clarify what you are saying.

>So what did *you* mean by "seem to arise"?

 

No sir, you are the one who first used the expression 'seem to arise'

to try to explain where I am in error. You seem to imply that I

observe the streams as objects, in some sense, however tenuous, when

in fact I do not. Within my stream, I realize that seer and seen are

the same. But I also realize that there are other nondual streams

with different contents. I do not 'see' them in any way. Rather, I

infer their existence from certain patterns within my own stream

(perceptions of talking faces and so on), combined with the

certainty, derived from the merest grain of humility, that I am not

the only conscious being in existence.

 

>Also, in the PFT - if you discern a P from an F from a T -

>that's duality also.

 

Go tell Swami Chinmayananda, who 'invented' the PFT scheme.

 

Actually, there are PFT even for the realized man. Ramana saw shapes

and colors called people, trees, sky, etc. It is all a question of

*interpretation*. These shapes and colors are realized to be not

other than consciousness, just like the dream. Even in a dream,

there are PFT. But whereas in the dream, we may believe that they

are objects, and that there is a seer vs. a seen, upon awakening we

realize that there was only the consciousness. But this does not

obliterate the *appearance* of PFT. To think so it to apply

nonduality in a misleading and formalistic way. Again, the shapes

and colors manifest. The issue is how we interpret them. In other

words, what does the mind *add* to the immediate shapes and colors

(and feelings and even thoughts).

 

 

 

Then Michael returns to this discussion with

>You're still locked into the conceivability thesis i.e.

>that it is inconceivable that anything should be without

>being a presentation to some consciousness or other. The

>Realist opposite number is that the world exists independently

>of our representations of it. It's not as though this

>can be proved but rather that it is the background for all

>intelligibility. ... Sankara takes that short way

>with the Vijnanavadin saying you can't be eating your meal

>and then deny there was meal or eater therof.

 

Having recently taken the trouble to inspect it carefully, I have now

decided that Shankara actually makes my case in the infamous BSB

II.2.28. He is just like Dr. Johnson, who naively tried to refute

Berkeley by kicking a stone. I will quote Shankara's precise words

from BSB (Brahma Sutra Bhashya) II.2.28 (Gambhirananda translation):

 

"How can a man's words be acceptable who while himself perceiving an

external object through sense-contacts still says, 'I do not

perceive, and that object does not exist', just as much as a man

while eating and himself experiencing the satisfaction arising from

that act might say, 'Neither do I eat, nor do I get any

satisfaction'?"

 

Here Shankara acknowledges nothing but the *experience* of eating and

the *experience* of satisfaction from eating. In no way does he

postulate a world external to consciousness. The very words 'who

while himself perceiving an external object through sense-contacts'

is nothing but the 'esse est percipi' of Berkeley. The experience of

eating is entirely within consciousness; it is nothing but the sense

of taste, which is clearly within consciousness. The actual

satisfaction of eating is, if possible, even more in consciousness.

 

Clearly, Shankara fails to understand the Vijnanavadin. He fails to

see that they both agree. He thinks that the Vijnanavadin is denying

the perception. Or else Shankara is being deceived by that subtle

(and merely apparent) duality within consciousness, in which the

perceptions themselves seem to be objects. As I explained before,

the gross duality is to believe that the perceptions are caused by

material objects utterly distinct from perception. This is the

Newtonian and materialistic view. The subtle delusion is to see the

very perceptions as objects, i.e. as other than the seer. This is

actually how our normal state works. If we just look at our

perceptions, they do seem to be other than the seer; they seem to be

'out there' like a holographic projection. There seems to be a

distinction between seer and seen even within perception itself, and

this is totally distinct from the issue of material objects as the

imperceptible source of perception.

 

When Shankara talks about vyahavaharika, he evidently means the

subtle duality whereby ordinary perception seems to manifest as seer

and seen. The whole issue of Newtonian matter utterly distinct from

consciousness is not even on his conceptual radar screen. If

anything, this shows how utterly 'idealistic' he is that he cannot

even understand the gross materialistic dualism, only the subtle one

where a bifurcation seems to occur *within* consciousness, thus

implicitly confirming idealism by refusing to even consider any kind

of 'outside'.

 

 

 

Finally Dennis joins in with:

>Any attempt to extend the metaphor to attempt an

>intellectually satisfying explanation is fraught

>with danger but here goes!

 

Yes, you are right that the ocean and waves analogy is quite

misleading, unlike the dream analogy, which is extremely useful. The

ocean and waves analogy presupposes ordinary dualistic

discrimination, in which the different waves are perceived as

distinct entities in space separated from each other. The word

'ocean' is nothing but a label to indicate the collection of waves.

At best, this is a metaphor and not a serious example for

intellectual discussion. The dream analogy, on the other hand, is a

vivid example of how something that seems to be other (the

dream-object) collapses into consciousness upon awakening. Here we

have the actual experience upon awakening. Vivid indeed!

 

So I could dissect the ocean and waves analogy in light of what you

and I have said, but I think you are smart enough to surmise where I

would go, and it would be only a tedious exercise. Still I might

just as well make a brief comment on this:

>Clearly, this localized consciousness, whilst it believes

>itself to be only this wave and separate from all others,

>is not going to have 'objective knowledge' of the

>particular configuration of molecules in any other wave

 

The issue of whether or not I *believe* that I am or am not the

contents of my consciousness has nothing to do with what contents

actually manifest. That I cannot control, at least when I am awake.

Any such belief is a superimposition *added* by the mind to the

shapes and colors which manifest spontaneously. As I have explained,

all dualistic error is of this nature. For example, to see the

contents of my awareness as other than consciousness is an

interpretation superimposed by the mind upon those contents. But

nothing I believe or do not believe affects those actual contents.

My contents are my contents and yours are yours, regardless of how we

interpret them. And the utter isolation between our respective

contents remains. My consciousness has absolutely no access to

yours, nor yours to mine.

>We are back to the usual vyAvahArika versus pAramArthika

>discussion with some adhyAsa thrown in!

 

For me, vyAvahArika is the false interpretation of the contents of my

consciousness as other than my consciousness ... the subtle duality

mentioned above. pAramArthika is the elimination of that false

interpretation. This has nothing to do with what actual contents are

present in the streams labelled 'Benjamin' or 'Dennis', which we have

been discussing. Specifically, it has nothing to do with whether I

am aware of the contents of another stream. The distinction applies

to each stream separately.

>It is not that we then can read other people's minds etc.

>It is that we then know for a fact that there are no other

>minds to read, not even our own.

 

This is Greg's thesis, and he later agrees with you. I repeat that

it seems like a play on words to me. I can understand what it means

to eliminate the distinction between seer and seen within my

consciousness. But to try to talk in some nebulous way about the

disappearance of even the contents, after eliminating the seer-seen

distinction, is to talk like some kind of hyper-buddhist far more

'dangerous' than even what I accept. There is a limit to which we

can make things disappear before we are just playing games. I'll

have to get the authentic Brahminical moderators here to open files

on both of you!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

I wish to explore the utmost limits to which

> Advaita can be thus understood, before we start talking about

> 'incomprehensibility' and 'ineffability' and saying that we simply

> can't understand until we become fully realized. This is a

> worthwhile endeavor.

>

 

It is a noble endeavour indeed. It also helps people like me progress

with the help of other's understanding .

 

I somehow believe that there is a stage where the mind and intellect

stop and the experience takes over . All our great sages and Rishis

have been able to provide pointers and directions to the goal. But

Brahman will necessarily be beyond contemplation -

achintya,achintyaM, aprameya etc ?

 

All that we can possibly conclude at an intellectual level is that '

it is not of the nature of untruth, it is not of the nature of being

insentient, it is not of the nature of sorrow', .

 

I do not have the temerity to sit on judgment on your practise, but

in general terms, I am not sure if 'exploring advaita (or any path

for that matter) to its utmost limits' will not be counterproductive.

The main goal is realizing one's true nature in the Self within -

understanding the paths to that cannot be an end in itself?

 

A quick quote from 'Letters from Sri Ramansramam' - by Suri Nagamma,

Page 439:

 

".... Bhagwan remarked as follows...

Ancients have said that the super abundance of book knowledge is the

cause of the Rambling mind....

..... A Mumukshu ( a seeker of deliverance) should understand the

essence of Sastras but should give up the reading of sastras as that

is inimical to Dhyana ( meditation). It is like accepting the grain

and discarding the Chaff. There are so many books and religions that

one life is not nough to read all the books relating to even one

religion. where then is time for practise?......."

 

Though the emphasis above is on book learning as a deteriment, the

same could apply to the intellects desire to get a analyse/

understand/ describe or get a complete understanding of one marga.

> The word 'see' is ambiguous. It can mean 'to see an object' or it

> can simply mean 'to be aware of shapes and colors in consciousness

> without interpreting them as objects other than consciousness'. In

> the former case, the mind adds an extra dualistic interpretation

over

> and above what is actually present in consciousness.

>

> What you say regarding the stream suggests to me where Greg's

> confusion is. I think he is having the same reaction to my

> terminology. I don't mean a stream (of consciousness) out there in

> front of me, as when I stand on the shore of a river. I simply

mean

> an isolated flow of perceptions, feelings and thoughts (PFT), in

> which seer and seen are identical. This flow is isolated from

other

> such streams that have different contents; these isolated streams

are

> called 'people'.

 

I agree ' see'- need not be literally taken. It could apply equally

well to hear, touch, smell, feel etc. I believe what you mean is that

you are aware of ( not seeing it or hearing it etc.) a stream. It

would still leave the question of 'who is it that is aware?'.

 

> can make things disappear before we are just playing games. I'll

> have to get the authentic Brahminical moderators here to open files

> on both of you!

 

Now, that is a dire threat . Like some of my vasanas you'll find me

quickly diasppearing if the threat materialises. However, like my

vasanas, I'll slowly come in once I believe that I am all but

forgotten. After all I do intend to learn more from advaita between

my japa and meditation .

 

I must thank you for your detailed and kind attempts to explain, hope

it continues just that bit more...

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins

sridhar

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

In respect of your supposedly non-dual stream of consciousness (SOC), you

say:

 

"The manifestation of shapes and colors is undeniable. But this

manifestation need not entail the belief that there is some kind of

distinction between seer and seen in this manifestation. There is just the

manifestation, also called 'consciousness'. To speak of this nondual

manifestation as being yet a more subtle duality makes no sense to me."

 

I still cannot see the logic of this. Surely if 'you' see a colour, this is

duality? After all, if the colour you see is 'red', it is clearly not

'blue'.

 

And suppose you see a computer. No, I don't mean an external object

computer, I accept that we both mean an internal 'set of perceptions'

computer. If you start taking apart this perception, you will soon reach

circuit boards and chips which, without the help of powerful microscopes

etc., you will be unable further to perceive and understand. Now, I am not

suggesting that a computer is as sophisticated and complex as a 'person' but

the point I want to make is this. I do not see that your concept of 'other

SOCs' is any different in dual/non-dual terms than that of the circuit

board. There are 'things going on' in the circuit board of which you have no

knowledge and there are 'things going on' in the 'other SOCs'. Why should

you treat them any differently?

 

Ultimately it seems to come down to saying that, as long as there is a 'you'

seeing and 'things' (real, subtle, SOCs or whatever) being seen, then you

are still in the realm of duality. Your theory that there is only

consciousness, that the perceptions are themselves non-different from this

consciousness, is a subtle but objective theory. You are still avoiding the

bottom-line conclusion of Advaita.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sridharji,

 

-

"asridhar19" <asridhar19

> A quick quote from 'Letters from Sri Ramansramam' - by Suri Nagamma,

> Page 439:

>

> ".... Bhagwan remarked as follows...

> Ancients have said that the super abundance of book knowledge is the

> cause of the Rambling mind....

> .... A Mumukshu ( a seeker of deliverance) should understand the

> essence of Sastras but should give up the reading of sastras as that

> is inimical to Dhyana ( meditation). It is like accepting the grain

> and discarding the Chaff. There are so many books and religions that

> one life is not nough to read all the books relating to even one

> religion. where then is time for practise?......."

>

> Though the emphasis above is on book learning as a deteriment, the

> same could apply to the intellects desire to get a analyse/

> understand/ describe or get a complete understanding of one marga.

----------

 

This is too much misleading. In my humble opinion, such quotes should not be

reproduced in this list. Jumping into meditation and 'experiencing' bliss is

not advaita. Such an erroneous understanding is the basis of the above

quote. NidhidhyAsana should not be seen as an action to be practised.

Learning the scriptures and relecting on it are essential steps in Vedanta.

NidhidhyAsana is not even needed to the one in whom sravaNa or manana has

done the job.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Namaste Sridharji,

> >

> This is too much misleading. In my humble opinion, such quotes

should not be

> reproduced in this list.

 

It'll be difficult to decide which quotes of Bhagwan or swami

chinmayandaji are appropriate for reproduction and which are not.

Even stand alone, i believe, their quotes can never mislead a

sincere reader. Of course if i have unintentionally given them

a 'wrong' twist , i shall apologize unreservedly and execrcise more

caution going forward.

> Jumping into meditation and 'experiencing' bliss is

> not advaita.

 

That is not the interpretration intended. My apologies if it appears

so.

 

Such an erroneous understanding is the basis of the above

> quote. NidhidhyAsana should not be seen as an action to be

practised.

 

I agree

> Learning the scriptures and relecting on it are essential steps in

Vedanta.

> NidhidhyAsana is not even needed to the one in whom sravaNa or

manana has

> done the job.

>

I agree.

The point i was trying to make was that attachment

to 'learning'/ 'writing'/ 'trying to gain complete understanding' are

means to an end. To think of them as the end would be a pity.

 

> Hari Om

 

Many tousand namaskarams to all advaitins

sridhar

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I'll respond as briefly as possible, with an open mind and a sincere

desire to learn something new. By the way, this thread has become

terribly misnamed, so it will presumably be useless as an archived

item. If Dennis does put some of it on his site, then it might not

be in vain.

 

 

 

Greg:

>Yes, this is still duality. "To be aware of X" where X

>is red or square, is a subject/object dynamic. Even if

>the very next thought is "X is nothing other than consciousness."

 

Sorry, I simply disagree. In my experience, I can distinguish

between discursive thought and intuitive awareness. In discursive

thought, there is the ego sense and the contents of my consciousness

appear as discrete objects other than that ego. In intuitive

awareness, I can immediately realize that seer and seen are identical

and unitary. In an instantaneous and holistic way ('flash of

insight'), I realize that there is one undivided seer and that there

is no distinction between seer and seen. The dream analogy then

helps to understand and explain this further but is not absolutely

necessary.

 

Now I will agree that even in the flash of intuitive awareness, some

traces of discursive thought may remain. I may be dimly aware that

'this is a this' and 'that is a that'. But I still maintain that the

intuitive awareness remains in the background, illuminating the whole

picture as it were, including the discursive thought. It does seem

to be the base of all consciousness.

 

Of course, this does not mean I am enlightened, since the intuitive

awareness is faint and superficial in my case. Nevertheless it

exists; it is present; it envelops and supports and illuminates the

whole. I do believe that withdrawing into this intuitive awareness

must be what Ramana meant by the 'I-I'. I believe that dwelling in

this awareness as deeply and permanently as possible eventually leads

to enlightenment. And dwelling in it even to the superficial degree

that I am capable does seem to illuminate and purify my

consciousness. This furthers my conviction that I am on the right

track.

 

>Let's say you had lunch with Ramana and asked him, "Do you

>*really* see shapes and colors?" What would you say

>if he said, "Benjaminji, all I see is the Self."

 

The shapes and colors and Self are identical. That is the whole

point of Advaita. Seer and seen are the same. There is no ultimate

contradiction between the manifestation of shapes and colors and

their identity with the seer. Once this identity is intuitively

realized, the distinction between seer and seen disappears. All the

problems arise with how we *think* about it ... which is why I am

trying to think as clearly as I can.

 

It is only at the level of words that the identity of one seer and

many seen seems paradoxical. But it can be intuitively realized in a

flash of insight, and the dream analogy helps to clarify it further.

It's not that hard. Surely there are not two seers when I

contemplate my awareness. And in calm awareness, I can detect no

difference between seer and seen. That's my testimony, your honor.

 

But I still maintain that all this happens in what, for lack of

better terminology, I must call the stream of consciousness labelled

'Benjamin', or the 'B-stream', if you wish to sound technical.

Otherwise, my flashes of insight would be simultaneous with yours,

and vice versa. Indeed, let us forget about seekers such as me with

superficial but hopefully promising flashes of insight. (I'll let

you speak for yourself.) Let us consider the truly enlightened. The

fact that some are enlightened and others are not is the clearest

indication that one must discriminate between different streams of

consciousness. Otherwise, all this talk about realization and

enlightenment is ridiculous.

 

I'm still not very concise, am I?

 

 

 

Then Sridharji said:

>I somehow believe that there is a stage where the mind

>and intellect stop and the experience takes over.

 

I believe that what I just said in consistent with this. Still, I

continue to be motivated by the conviction that much of what the

sages experienced can be 'explained' rather clearly, more so than

most people realize. It is worth pursuing to the utmost, while being

very cautious about error. It is a tightrope walk. And I am not

just entertaining myself. These long answers are a lot of work for

me.

 

Anyhow, others have of course said similar things. The 'clear and

modern approach' to realization seems to have started with Ramana and

Nisargadatta and Atmananda and others and is continuing today. What

they said is really quite clear and explicit, though the

Vivekachudmani is not bad either, and the Yoga Vasistha is even

better, as far as clarity is concerned. (I'll admit that my beloved

Buddhist scriptures often lack clarity!)

 

Regarding your quote, Ramana meant it to be taken in moderation.

Otherwise he would not have written books himself, or even bothered

talking to people. But there is no doubt that the wisdom of the

books then needs to be applied in the seat of meditation and turned

into experience.

 

 

 

Then Sir Dennis returned:

 

(Not 'Sri' but 'Sir'. You're from that island over the pond aren't you? )

>I still cannot see the logic of this. Surely if 'you'

>see a colour, this is duality? After all, if the colour

>you see is 'red', it is clearly not 'blue'.

 

This seems to be basically Greg's point, so my answer would be

similar (see above). I would only add, please do need be misled by

language. Language forces me to state that 'I see a red path',

regardless of whether I am in a state of intuitive awareness or

discursive thought. And when I write these words, I am mostly in a

state of discursive thought. But I still have some memory of that

flash of insight, and I am trying to put that into words as best I

can.

>I do not see that your concept of 'other SOCs' is any different

>in dual/non-dual terms than that of the circuit board. There are

>'things going on' in the circuit board of which you have no

>knowledge and there are 'things going on' in the 'other SOCs'.

>Why should you treat them any differently?

 

Unlike Berkeley, who postulated God's consciousness to make the tree

exist when no one was looking, I bravely assert that the tree does

NOT exist when nobody is looking. There is no 'tree' distinct from

the various perceptions in various streams of consciousness (SOCs).

Same for the microscopic contents of circuit boards. However, our

waking perceptions have a marvelous coherence such that, with some

knowledge of the 'laws of nature', which are only 'laws of the

behavior of perceptions', I can infer what perceptions might arise as

I put the circuit board under the microscope, etc. ('Putting the

circuit board under the microscope' is also nothing but a sequence of

perceptions, etc.)

 

So within my own consciousness, nothing exists unless observed. And

this observation is not different in any way from the consciousness,

from the SOC. Only language forces a mere semantic difference.

There is nothing existing but hidden in the minute contents of my

perceptions; there are only the perceptions at any given moment.

Your alleged unseen components of my perceptions simply do not exist

in any sense; they are a contradiction in terms. So comparison to

the existing but hidden content of other SOCs is invalid.

>Your theory that there is only consciousness, that the

>perceptions are themselves non-different from this

>consciousness, is a subtle but objective theory

 

Greg's assertion, and a mere assertion! I have also provided my

assertions, with rather more discussion to back it up, in my humble

opinion.

 

More importantly: Please consider whether my 'intuitive awareness',

as discussed above, might not be the same as your nondual

realization. Wouldn't that simplify things? Perhaps you

misunderstood me, and we all really agree. (Well, I don't mean on

the question of other SOCs but on whether I have some residual

duality within my own when I claim that I don't.)

 

Final word: As I said, I don't think that whether or not we become

realized depends on how this discussion turns out!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> I'll respond as briefly as possible, with an open mind and a

sincere

> desire to learn something new

 

Many Pranams Benjaminji

 

I learn from your specific pointers to me, your portrayal of the

flashes of experience abiding where there is a possibility of

realization of the highest and not the least, from the bhava behind

your painstaking replies .

 

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins

Sridhar