Thanks for those replies.



On a lighter note, I am indeed well informed about the well i am in. Joking, of course!



I am not sure, whether i am right or wrong. But i can say, that no books or schools can give complete answers to questions and to the desire to seek explanations of the natural or physical world and its workings.



I am very grateful for this explanation. I should say that you have indeed studied the subject. Although, i can't say that it is my favourite, i can say that all subjects related to the natural world.

If Brahman is non-physical and uncomprehensible than how do one equate it with Atman - which by various accounts is realised by the Self.

Is it only the form that is encountered or does the quality also be the same.?

Hey Jack,
J: I am indeed well informed about the well i am in. Joking, of course!

NS: Whew! That's a relief. I was about to alert a well extraction team. In a very real way, we are all well stuck deep within a well of our subjective perceptions and conceptions. And, from birth to death, you will never directly know any other world, or person, than Jack and Jack's world. Sorry to twist your witicism into some philosophic observation, but alas, we philosophers are like that. Which explains how few party invitations we receive.

J: I should say that you have indeed studied the subject.

NS: Yes, for a very long time. Seeking answers to the big metaphysical questions has been my 'bag' since forever.

J: ...my favourite, i can say that all subjects related to the natural world.

NS: You are a naturalist of some sort?

J: If Brahman is non-physical and uncomprehensible than how does one equate it with Atman - which by various accounts is realised by the Self.

NS: Your True Self is also "non-physical." If you had to have organs removed, or limbs amputated, do you believe that you, as a self, would be a fractional self? Would the severed part of you that was thrown into a bucket, make you also fractionally in a bucket?

Yes, Brahman is uncomprehensible 'to the mind,' as is your Atman. Our minds comprehend our mental definitions of what/who our self is, but our actual living Self is more of an experience than a conceptual definition. A naturalist (or 'herpitologist') may 'know' a great deal 'about' snakes, but a snake knows how it is to 'be' a snake. These are two very distinct ways of knowing snakes.

J: Is it only the form that is encountered or does the quality also be the same.?

NS: As you say, "non-physical," so there is no form. 'Self' has no qualities. It is 'Being' Itself. What qualities does 'Being' have, other than its presence?

Superb! i like wits like that. Good to know you are one of those philosophers who like humour. Hope i am not wrong.




An amateur, Yes.





In life sciences, one does not rule that out. There are examples that can be argued upon. I won't go into it now. Suffice, that in the case of humans, the loss is experienced and lamented upon. As far as the disassociated leg goes, only the leg would know.

anyway, if one has to assume that there is a True Self/Atman, than of course you are theoretically and logically right that it is not fragmented due to being in the state called as non-physical.





Now, here i find something missing. I would rather seek a clarification first.
I will pm you, and then get back here. Thanks for giving your time.

Hi Jack,
J: An amateur [naturalist], Yes.

NS: I'm a mere 'nature nut,' or what was once called, 'a back-to-nature hippie.' I bought 13 acres of woods here in the tennessee hills, and hardly ever budge from it. I figure, when you're already living in heaven, where would you go for a vacation?

J: anyway, if one has to assume that there is a True Self/Atman, than of course you are theoretically and logically right that it is not fragmented due to being in the state called as non-physical.

NS: I don't believe we need to "assume" anything metaphysical in order to know that our Selfhood is not dependent upon the extent of our physicality. We're all quite small in our early years, but this Self experience we all have, our 'me' as compared to our conception of 'me,' never changes. I think even non-amputees know intuitively that, sans a leg, they would still be that same old familiar 'me.'

Even the loss of our mental, conceptual, 'me' won't effect their root Self experience. An amnesiac will say, "I don't know who I am." He's lost his memory's biography, but you'll note that he has not lost a bit of his 'I' experience.

J: Thanks for giving your time.

NS: I'm only here for the fun of it. No strain on this end, I assure you. Besides, I can't "give you my time," unless you're also giving me yours. Instead of us both being deeply in each other's debt, let's just call it even. Feel free to hang up when the fun fades, no problem.
NS

Hey NonSum, did you check out the video on quoting like I asked you to please? Only you know it confuses me if you don't quote properly.
Thanks.

I too had not considered Hinduism very seriously, until I was fortunately invited to attend a service at a Hindu temple. I have always been open-minded about other religions, but I was pleasantly surprised at this service. Luckily, for me the service was mostly in English, so I could follow things fairly well.

I left with a distinct impression that all of those deities are considered examples to learn from, not necessarily "real," which makes more sense to me. (Can any Hindus confirm that for me?) The overall messages were not unlike the central messages of many major religions (compassion, selflessness, etc.), but I found it more clearly stated than many of the Christian services I've attended as of late.

I think Chad you can take the good things from all of these different things, like I've expressed before in my other posts, it's the only way I learned.
Thanks.

Hi Caroline,
C: [this is you talking as 'C'] Hey NonSum, did you check out the video on quoting like I asked you to please? Only you know it confuses me if you don't quote properly.

NS: [this is me talking as NS] I apologize for any confusion. It's more likely my words that confuse, than the format. Have you never read a play? I've read many, and this is that.

[this is me still blabbing, since no new 'C, or NS' has interposed] Yes, I watched the video, and now I'm wondering why I ever bothered to subscribe to Netflix.

Nonsum this is not a play, who told you that pray tell? This is a philosophy forum run on software mentioned right at the bottom, the small print, on the front page, always read the small print darling.

Caroline: Nonsum this is not a play, who told you that pray tell?

NS: Why Shakespeare, of course:
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts," ('As You Like It')

C: This is a philosophy forum run on software mentioned right at the bottom, the small print, on the front page, always read the small print darling.

NS: I'm not your "darling." Try to be as polite and respectful as I am always being towards you; and try to exercise a little tolerance for those unimaginably different from your self, Caroline. After all, "the plays the thing." And, I am sure we can all play together nicely.

Yeah well this is not Shakespeare, this is a Philosophy Chat Fourm so get used to it and what made you think I was being patronizing when I called you dahling, pray tell? Because I wasn't I was being affectionate, but dam you missed that. Im not going to tell you again to watch Justin's video on how to multi-quote properly again, I asked you nicely first, now Im just going to have to report you.
Thanks

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 08:32 PM ----------

And stop derailing this thread why dont you just watch the video, in the video section, at the top of the forums page?

For Philosophy's sake,
let there be freedom! O that freedom!

---------- Post added 09-19-2009 at 05:14 PM ----------

Hi NS, (Jk stands for 'me')

NS: I don't believe we need to "assume" anything metaphysical in order to know that our Selfhood is not dependent upon the extent of our physicality. We're all quite small in our early years, but this Self experience we all have, our 'me' as compared to our conception of 'me,' never changes. I think even non-amputees know intuitively that, sans a leg, they would still be that same old familiar 'me.'

Jk: Yeah....If the 'I' or the 'me' is not consistent than we all will be crack pots. Thats true.



NS: Even the loss of our mental, conceptual, 'me' won't effect their root Self experience. An amnesiac will say, "I don't know who I am." He's lost his memory's biography, but you'll note that he has not lost a bit of his 'I' experience.

Jk: The moot point is that i had never questioned the 'I' principle. The 'I' is the package we receive with 'consciousness'. The generic term Self should cease to exist when the body ceases to be living or 'alive'.
Now the issue here is whether the Self (or the 'I') is equal to or same as this metaphysical/non physical 'being' called Soul/Atman. If so, how?

Hey Jack,
JK: The 'I' is the package we receive with 'consciousness'. The generic term Self should cease to exist when the body ceases to be living or 'alive'.

NS: I don't see why you give precedence to the body, and dependence to Consciousness? My experience is the other way around, that bodies come and go TO my subjective consciousness. They are the object, and I am the subject they appear to. They depend upon me, not I upon them.

JK: The 'I' is the package we receive with 'consciousness'.

NS: I (and Advaitism) take the 'I' as being one and the same with consciousness. 'Consciousness' never occurs impersonally. Nor, can there be a subjective 'I' experience if one is not conscious of it.

JK: Now the issue here is whether the Self (or the 'I') is equal to or same as this metaphysical/non physical 'being' called Soul/Atman. If so, how?

NS: Taken by itself, does 'consciousness, or I' seem to you as a physical object with a certain shape and color? I would say that it is certainly non-physical, no? Does your sense of 'I'-ness ever change? Not your conceptions of who you are, these will change almost constantly throughout your life. But, I am addressing your most central 'Me' experience. This never ages, in my experience. Not even when I am dreaming myself to be a different person in a different world, I still remain this one same intimate 'me' to myself. This is that pure Self that is meant by 'the Atman,' as compared to the changing 'self' of my egoic conceptions.

Bhagavad Gita: "The body and the mind, the sense-organs and the intellect are instruments only. He knows himself as other than the instrument."

Hi NS,

Your quote:
NS: I don't see why you give precedence to the body, and dependence to Consciousness? My experience is the other way around, that bodies come and go TO my subjective consciousness. They are the object, and I am the subject they appear to. They depend upon me, not I upon them.

NS: I (and Advaitism) take the 'I' as being one and the same with consciousness. 'Consciousness' never occurs impersonally. Nor, can there be a subjective 'I' experience if one is not conscious of it.
-------------------------

My reply;
JK: There is no question of giving precedence or priority to the body. I am aware thats how philosophers admonish the commoners like me. Yes that was meant to be sarcastic. I might had some spice or spike, if you may. please dont be dissuaded by my impoliteness.

My point is as follows:
1) If bodies come and go to your subjective consciousness, than it means you believe in Rebirth (Purna Jannamam) or the phenomenon described in many Hindus text as avataras. This concept is very interesting. I will lay it to rest.

2) If the 'I' experience is the same as 'consciousness', than as described by you, the 'I' experience is not possible without 'consciousness'.
If the above is true, than can we say or assume that both are two sides of a single coin. Which means in essence, it is one phenomenon, some one calls it epiphenomenon. Or the one 'subject' as you put it. Am I near you or far from you?

3) If 1 & 2 is correct or judged or assumed to be true, and this be the case, than 'consciousness' can exist outside the body. Apparently and Logically sound. Your comments?
--------------

NS: But, I am addressing your most central 'Me' experience. This never ages, in my experience. Not even when I am dreaming myself to be a different person in a different world, I still remain this one same intimate 'me' to myself. This is that pure Self that is meant by 'the Atman,' as compared to the changing 'self' of my egoic conceptions.

my reply:
JK: If "that pure Self that is meant by 'the Atman,'" is the way to explain the Conceptual aspect of this school of Philosophy (Advaita), than i think you have made it very clear by your explanation. I can now see how it is constructed, and follows logically (the subject-object relationship in language). Thank You. If i have to continue further, i may have to take recourse to comparative studies, which i wont indulge in for now.

As far as Bhagavad Gita sloka you quoted is concerned: I agree with the first part. "The body and the mind, the sense-organs and the intellect are instruments only.

.......He knows himself as other than the instrument."
This part according to me and due to reasons, i think is contentious and subject to further scrutiny. Thanks once again.

Hi Jack,
I’m sorry that I mistook your humor concerning the precedence of the body-mind to that of consciousness. But, ‘epiphenomenalism’ is taken quite seriously by materialists of all stripes. I run into it regularly wherever (so called) “hard thinkers” congregate.

Your point #1:
I was not making any statement supporting reincarnation. I don’t believe in ‘incarnation,’ so ‘reincarnation’ would be difficult. I meant that the presence of my body comes and goes, much like any object, to my awareness. We’ve also had many bodies within this life, as we age, as we dream.

Point #2:
An “epiphenomenona” is a ‘secondary’ effect, dependent upon something primary to it. I would agree with your “two sided coin” analogy, since these “two sides” are actually one, and not detachable one from the other – no matter how you slice it. Nor, is any one side only a secondary effect, caused by its opposing side.

Conceptually, we can speak of the various aspects of this single Reality, but “they” are necessarily one and inseparably the same.
My own personal analysis has divided Self-experience into 5 aspects:
Identity, Being, Consciousness, Infinity, and Eternity; or, I, Am, Aware, Here, and Now.

In Point #3, you mention that, “'consciousness' can exist outside the body,” given the foregoing. It is the contention of Advaitism that consciousness is not ‘inside’ nor ‘outside’ of the body. Similar, I suspect, to a physicist saying that energy is not restricted to either side of our bodies. Particle physicists would likely contend that energy is everywhere: within, without, as well as composing the body itself.

To the Advaitist “everywhere” (i.e. a plurality of locations) is an illusion. The infinite Self exists only within infinity, i.e. ‘Here.’ ‘Here’ is the only real location, and the Self fills it completely, with no room for anything else, including bodies. The Self never leaves ‘Here,’ and can never go ‘there.’ The main reason that It cannot leave Here is that ‘Here’ is Its own unitary nature.

I take it that you find, “He knows himself as other than the instrument," an issue of contention? Could you explain why to me? I would think that it would follow from what preceded it, no?

Shankara (father of Advaitism):
“The fool thinks, "I am the body". The intelligent man thinks, "I am an individual soul united with the body". The wise man thinks, "I am Brahman".

Thanks back, Jack,
NS (No Soul)

Hello NS,

Eid Mubarak!

Somewhere in the above responses, i had stated that i wont be going into or challenging the core contentions of the Hindu Philosophy. Because of the fact that Hinduism is not a monolithically structured vertical understanding of life, mind and matter. It has various disciplines or fields which one needs to contend with.

But i was drawn into this very useful discussion because of your lucid and concise postulations on the conceptual terms, their meanings and interpretations. You have more or less stuck to the usual claims and understandings of the school (in this case, your stands on Advaitism) and the gurus/masters who have given their commentaries on this. That comes from the little bit of readings I had done out of the good fortune I may have had.

But now i am in a fix, should we start a new thread only on Advaitism (Monoism) or start something on Metaphysical Entities in the general sense. ??? Anyway, i would tread this path a bit more for the simple reason that i am enjoying the walk. But i would slowly wind up things, but for now read ahead.
--------------------------

Your quote:
NS: I was not making any statement supporting reincarnation. I don't believe in 'incarnation,' so 'reincarnation' would be difficult. I meant that the presence of my body comes and goes, much like any object, to my awareness. We've also had many bodies within this life, as we age, as we dream.

Jk: Very Interesting! indeed. On the conceptual plane, I agree, you, Your SELF - live moment to moment. Thats the problem of consciousness. While i find that you have not deviated from the scholastic meanings of the conceptual terms, Under the Vedantist Advaitism, your non-believing the reincarnation theory is quite surprisng and ironical. Ironical because, logically, your Pure Self which is meant to be Atman, which is non-physical should adopt another body when it withers away from the natural physical world. Can you explain your position. I am a bit confused.
--------

NS: Conceptually, we can speak of the various aspects of this single Reality, but "they" are necessarily one and inseparably the same.

Jk: Your are refering to the Brahman.

---------
NS: In Point #3, you mention that, "'consciousness' can exist outside the body," given the foregoing.

Jk: A clarification;- I mentioned it as i have stated it. I have not mentioned it as if those contentions are mine. It is yours. If you remember, and what i did was, Point 1 & 2 is your proposition, and from which I deduced Point 3, which according to me followed as an inference from the preceding propositions. You have to tell me whether i am right or wrong.
-----------------

NS: I take it that you find, "He knows himself as other than the instrument," an issue of contention? Could you explain why to me? I would think that it would follow from what preceded it, no?

Jk: Yes, the contention is precisely on the 'subject' here. Who knows or What is he/she/it? Thats the quest.

Hi again Jack,
"Eid Mubarik"?

I should mention, if you are not already aware of it, there is an excellent classic philosophical explanation of, ‘Advaita Vedanta, A Philosophical Reconstruction’ by Eliot Deutsch, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1969. There’s a new edition about every 5 years since.

JK: But now i am in a fix, should we start a new thread only on Advaitism (Monoism) or start something on Metaphysical Entities in the general sense. ???

NS: I will happily follow your lead however you wish to go with this.
BTW, “Advaitism” is ‘non-dual,’ not Monist. I know ‘non-dual’ sounds like an awkward way of saying ‘Monism,’ but the distinction is important. Advaitism is “concerned to show the ultimate non-reality of all distinctions,” (Eliot Deutsch) rather than a single order of reality.

JK: of the conceptual terms, Under the Vedantist Advaitism, your non-believing the reincarnation theory is quite surprisng and ironical. Ironical because, logically, your Pure Self which is meant to be Atman, which is non-physical should adopt another body when it withers away from the natural physical world. Can you explain your position. I am a bit confused.

NS: A common analogy regarding the jiva’s existence is mistaking a post, in the dark, for an actual person. This post has not incarnated as a person, but always remains an unchanged post that has only been misapprehended by someone’s mind. Likewise, the Self is real, and the jiva is Self misapprehended by a mind.

Qustioner: “Is there re-incarnation?”
Ramana Maharishi: “Re-incarnation can be if you are incarnate now. Even now you are not born.”

Jk: Your are refering to the Brahman. [when I say, “this single Reality.”]

NS: Yes. Sorry, many names for what cannot be named. ;^)

JK: Point 1 & 2 is your proposition, and from which I deduced Point 3, which according to me followed as an inference from the preceding propositions. You have to tell me whether i am right or wrong.

NS: Yes, I was trying to reference your conclusion without directly quoting you, in hopes of appeasing certain intruders. I now see that approach as too awkward, and have resumed my Platonic format.

B. Gita: “He knows himself as other than the instrument,"
JK: Who knows or What is he/she/it? Thats the quest.

NS: The quest can be a quick one, since, as Buddha said, “all are already Self-realized.” Therefore, not much needs to be done.

Ramana: “No one is away from the Self. So each one is Self-realised. Yet what a mystery that no one knows this fundamental fact, and desires
to realise the Self? This ignorance is due to the mistaking of the body for the Self. Realisation consists in getting rid of this
false idea that one is not realised. Realisation amounts to elimination of ignorance and nothing more or less.”
Namaste dude, NS

Hey NS

I was about to tell you that..... there are some advantages in the 'quote' reply where the format takes you back to the post from where the quote was taken, although its a bit troubling to non-nerds like me. Hope something better may evolve.

BTW, the 'non' symbol has a lot of advantages, in the context of which we are presently interacting. ha ha......

I will demonstrate the quote system in my reply........herein below:




Thanks a lot. I will look out for that. i will put it into my 'to buy' list.





Ah hah! - The Ramana school. Thats where the 'I' came from. Now I get you. Sir, thanks for bringing him in. It saves a lot, and leaves me less confused.





The Buddha also said, to the effect, 'Do not believe, unless you know it for yourself.'

The Ramana statement (you quote) is a typical philosophers arrogance. I hold him in great esteem, i do not hold on to all that he said. Like for instance, here i hold.... 'ignorance is due to the mistaking of the body for the Self'...... to be true and correct, according to me, as the Gita also affirms the same. But, the same master should refer the phenomenon of Self, Body and that 'no one' realising the Self, as a mystery is a mystery for me.

Anyway, i have now, on record, indulged in criticising the master themselves, (not that i am of any worth equal to the dust on their iconic feet) which is the one thing i did not wanted to or planned to do.

Anyway, i have now got a fair idea of your thoughts. Thanks a ton.
I shall soon try and open a thread on this school of thought. I think it will be in Metaphysics section.

thanks to both of you, i didnt realize this thread was still going on...well was. if i dont show up in the new thread, come and get me!

I dont understand why Nonsum has not responded. Has the fear come true?