Time and Space

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

I do not have the heart to argue with you because you have such a

large heart! :-) But I am interested in knowing how you would respond

to these words:

 

When Bishop Berkeley said that the world does not exist, and that all

things are merely mind, I believe he was trying to convey an

important discovery cloaked in a strange language that was not unlike

Alice's jabberwocky. For he suddenly stopped calling objects objects,

and instead began calling them mind. I think it is useful to analyse

the texture of our experience and determine the peculiar

characteristic that the mind has, that objects don't, which might

explain this sudden proclivity of the Bishop to call objects mind.

And I think the peculiarity is this: that the mind is dependent on

the perceiver whereas objects are not seen to be so dependent. I

believe that Berkeley was trying to say that the world of objects do

not have an independent existence from the perceiver, and instead he

conveyed this truth in a language wherein objects became mind because

the mind is thus seen to be not independent of the perceiver. In

language, the objects that we see are called objects, and the mind we

experience is called mind, and the philosophical discovery that

objects are not independent of the perceiver is not a license to

stand language on its head.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

 

> Chittaranjanji:

>

> 2. Since Advaita is not idealism, the existence of a thing is not

> tied to its perception. A thing exists even when we don't perceive

> it. Yet unlike "hard realism", objects do not possess non-

> cognisable qualties.

>

> Greg:

>

> This is a very good point.

>

> My reply:

>

> So why does Advaita say that the waking world disappears in deep

> sleep? I cannot agree with the above. Advaita IS 'idealism',

> in the sense that 'objects' are merely manifestations in

> consciousness, which disappear when the manifestation does.

> (Even Berkeley got 'cold feet' to some degree and postulated

> a God whose purpose is to look at the tree in the forest when

> nobody else is. This too is wrong.)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>I do not have the heart to argue with you because

>you have such a large heart! :-) But I am interested

>in knowing how you would respond to these words...

 

 

Actually, Chittaranjanji, I regretted my message to you immediately

after posting it, because I stated my case too strongly. In my mind,

I was striving for clarity, but it comes across looking a bit

aggressive or perhaps even pompous. I had noticed this before and

resolved to give soft edges to my style, while preserving clarity,

but I forgot...

 

Besides, I am in agreement with a certain passage from the Yoga

Vasistha that says that no views are really wrong but merely indicate

a level of consciousness. Our mind determines how the world appears.

Of course, this implies that the different levels are 'higher' or

'lower' relative to each other, so even this generous view can cause

annoyance, as when Advaitins say that Dvaitins are not so much wrong

as they are viewing the world from a lower level of consciousness.

It would probably offend them less to tell them they are simply wrong!

 

As to what you said regarding Berkeley... I do not think he meant

anything other than what he said. He was a very clear, honest and

straightforward thinker and writer. And very likable too. Greg will

back me up on this much.

 

Besides, what he said, and what I discussed yesterday, is repeated in

Ramana, Atmananda, Nisargadata, Yoga Vasistha and so many other

distinguished places. And it is said very clearly too, in my opinion.

 

Briefly, Berkeley was not just saying that objects 'depend' on mind

to some extent, which might be called 'weak idealism'. He

categorically denied the existence of material objects. However,

Greg is right that he still maintained a milder form of dualism, in

that he distinguished between the perceiving mind (or witness) and

its *mental* objects (namely perceptions, thoughts and feelings). In

this sense, he did not go far enough, but he was a radical thinker

for his time (and today).

 

One important point that gets lost in these discussions is that

simply thinking intellectually about these issues does little for

sadhana .. though I think it does do SOME good. The real purpose of

these ruminations is to induce an intuitive state of mind that

enables us to apprehend the ubiquity of Consciousness directly in

some sense. That is, a kind of mediation.

 

OK, that's my one message for today. I posted way too many

yesterday, but Gregji made me do it! :-) I deserve to be scolded as

some other enthusiastic list members have been.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benji and Chittaranjanji,

 

Ben:

As to what you said regarding Berkeley... I do not think he meant

anything other than what he said. He was a very clear, honest and

straightforward thinker and writer. And very likable too. Greg will

back me up on this much.

 

===I do agree on this. Berkeley said what he meant, and said it quite clearly.

 

Ben:

Briefly, Berkeley was not just saying that objects 'depend' on mind

to some extent, which might be called 'weak idealism'. He

categorically denied the existence of material objects. However,

Greg is right that he still maintained a milder form of dualism, in

that he distinguished between the perceiving mind (or witness) and

its *mental* objects (namely perceptions, thoughts and feelings). In

this sense, he did not go far enough, but he was a radical thinker

for his time (and today).

 

===I agree on this too, as far as his openly published items go. (He moved

closer to nondualism later in life, as in _Sirus_.)

 

But Chittaranjanji, I can't really understand what you wrote about Berkeley.

You aren't saying that he drew a distinction between mind and perceiver, are

you? Are you saying that he called objects mind? Can you point to any passages

on that? He comes closer to calling them ideas, which are percieved by the

mind. This is the distinction that Benji noted above.

 

For Berkeley, ideas cannot exist without the mind. Essi ist percipi, to be is

to be percieved. But a tree doesn't disappear when I turn my head, since God is

always seeing the tree. Another dualism in Berkeley!

 

Pranams to all,

 

--Greg