[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Lots of hogwash!NOT!!!!!!
In article <ghenDs4Kqn.ExC@netcom.com> you write:
>In article <ghenDryBHF.Hvy@netcom.com>,
>vallabha_gautam <gautam@nskernel.tandem.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't think the Advaitin position is that the "perceived universe"
>>is illusory - the universe, however it is perceived, does exist. The
>
>I assume you meant does not, rather than does.
>
Actually, I meant "does". 'Illusory', in whatever context, does not
mean non-existence.
>>maaya is in the 'I'-ness : the perception that I, Gautam, am a
>>distinct entity, separate from the Universe around me.
>
>The problem, of course, is that this begs the question: who, or what,
>is the entity afflicted by maayaa? The universe itself? Then, the
>whole of the universe is afflicted by maayaa, causing a small part of
>it to develop a feeling of `I' with respect to the rest. This is an
>unprecedented conclusion, and cannot be supported by any kind of
>evidence.
I believe you are stating the essential position of Advaita. Only the
Brahman (aka. Atman) is Real, identification of 'I' with anything other
than Brahman/Paramatman is maaya. By the way, I am using 'Real' in
something other than its usual sense. One level is "everyday reality",
e.g. humans have two legs and two arms, 2*3=6 etc. The other level can
be called "Spiritual Reality", and this is what I am referring to.
You are quite correct in that it cannot be supported by any kind of
"evidence", any more than the difference between the Jivaatma and
Paramaatma in Dvaita is susceptible to "evidence".
> If one says that no, the individual himself, rather than the
> >whole universe, is afflicted by maayaa, then the individuality that is
> >the substance of the feeling of `I' is accepted as true, and is not
> >due to maayaa at all. In fact, note that the feeling of `I' is used by
> >Shankara himself in denouncing shuunyavaada, and cannot thus be
> >dismissed easily.
>
I am not saying that 'I' don't exist, or that it is an invalid
concept. It is simply a matter of false association (identifying
'I' with "Gautam").
>>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.
>
>I'd say this is closer to the Buddhist position than to the Advaitic
>one: in fact, I'd go a step further, and say that the above is a
>variation of a Buddhist theme that Gaudapaada and Shankara do not
>accept.
Good point. My statement was one of personal belief, and I was not
really trying to represent the philosophy of Gaudapada. I am still
thinking about this issue, so it's best if I concede this point.
>One point to be noted is that even the notion that "mind is moving" is
>not comprehensible or expressible unless one accepts the motion of
>external entities as flags to be real; if all external motion is
>illusory, then `motion' itself is illusory.
>
I think you are interpreting the "mind is moving" metaphor too
literally. But your basic statement is, I think, correct -- 'motion'
is illusory. Pushing it further, even 'mind' is illusory.
regards,
--gautam
(email: gautam@nskernel.tandem.com)
