[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Lots of hogwash!NOT!!!!!!
>
> > The "perceived universe" is indeed illusory. That is not to say that
> > there are no absolute principles within the universe, but they cannot
> > be perceived by the senses. And it can indeed be proven, even by
> > something as fallible as reason, that perception is relative.
> > Illusory means relativity. And that is indeed supported by
> > conflicting experience of the same phenomenon.
>
> If `illusory' means `relative', as you suggest above, and if reason (a.k.a.
> inference) can prove that "perception is relative," thus proving it to be
> illusory, then you have contradicted yourself, for you earlier said, and I
> quote, "Let's not get into something as silly as inference to prove
> anything." As such, the flawed nature of your inference is accepted by you a
> priori.
(I missed the first parts of this discussion, so my apologies
if I am saying something that has already been covered).
I don't think the Advaitin position is that the "perceived universe"
is illusory - the universe, however it is perceived, does exist. The
maaya is in the 'I'-ness : the perception that I, Gautam, am a
distinct entity, separate from the Universe around me.
So it seems a moot question whether the tree in front of me "exists",
or whether it is illusory. The thought "Is what I am perceiving just
an illusion?" is part of the illusion because of the limited
"I"-ness implicit in the question. As the quote goes (paraphrased),
"It is the mind that is moving, not the wind or the flag". The
"mind movement" is, I think, the maaya.
--gautam
(email: gautam@nskernel.tandem.com)
