06-15-2005, 09:22 PM
Carl, I will post a more complete response later. For now I just wanted to post a brief comment on the following:.
Carl said: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite early -- and repeatedly -- in the BG (from ch. 2 onwards), the Soul (atman) is declared to be atomic, i.e. indivisible, and the unit of conscious experience. Therefore it would make no sense to say that we are all the Supreme Soul, because clearly we are different points of consciousness. If we were not, then one person gaining moksha should mean that all jivas would become liberated simultaneously, since they are all supposedly One Soul according to mayavada. No amount of "maya" philosophizing can reconcile the atomic definition of atman with the FACT of different points of experience. Therefore the term amshaH is significant, and that amshaH-nature is sanatana -- eternal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If one starts to think about the Self as the conscious observer within, then it becomes hard to escape the advaitic conclusion that Self is one for everyone
Advaitic view is that egos are manifold, not the Self. But ego is no more than an idea of the self. This "idea" can be changed. When you step on someone's toe, he may complain that you hurt 'him'. But if that toe gets cut off due to an accident, that persons identity doesn't vanish along with the toe. A person may identify with his body, but body changes every moment and decays, but he still thinks he is the same person. So the identification with the body was merely a supposed identification, not an essential one. This argument can be applied to any idea of self a person may have.
So ego is just a supposed self, it can be changed, dropped etc. Real self is the deepest observer in us, the ultimate witness.
Two objects are distinguished from each other by their attributes. But attributes necessarily imply an observer of those attributes. If the observer inside A is to be distinguished from the observer inside B, then we will have to give these observers distinguishing attributes. But if the observer in A has attributes then supposedly A can find a way to observe those attributes and then A will have a deeper observer inside which is observing this lower observer with attributes. Continue the limiting process and you reach a point where the deepest observer in A is left with no attributes. Same with the deepest observer in B or anybody else. Since these deepest observers don't have attributes they can't be distinguished from each other. And here comes the biggest idea of Vedanta.
There is a SINGLE observer in this universe. It is the deepest observer in all of us. It is our deepest self and it is identical with the self of all.
Samkhya view is merged with advaita at this point. Even though Samkhya proposes a multitude of purushas, the purushas can be distinguished from each other only while there is some disturbance in their prakritis. When the prakritis are comletely silent, then there is nothing left to distinguish the purushas from each other.
The 'soul' or jiva is perhaps the deepest kosha in us. But like other koshas, it perhaps is like a body too, that can be discarded/changed/ etc. Self or Atman as the witness within, must be deeper than the jiva. Advaitic conclusion is that jivas can be manifold, but not the deepest Self.
Carl said: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite early -- and repeatedly -- in the BG (from ch. 2 onwards), the Soul (atman) is declared to be atomic, i.e. indivisible, and the unit of conscious experience. Therefore it would make no sense to say that we are all the Supreme Soul, because clearly we are different points of consciousness. If we were not, then one person gaining moksha should mean that all jivas would become liberated simultaneously, since they are all supposedly One Soul according to mayavada. No amount of "maya" philosophizing can reconcile the atomic definition of atman with the FACT of different points of experience. Therefore the term amshaH is significant, and that amshaH-nature is sanatana -- eternal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If one starts to think about the Self as the conscious observer within, then it becomes hard to escape the advaitic conclusion that Self is one for everyone
Advaitic view is that egos are manifold, not the Self. But ego is no more than an idea of the self. This "idea" can be changed. When you step on someone's toe, he may complain that you hurt 'him'. But if that toe gets cut off due to an accident, that persons identity doesn't vanish along with the toe. A person may identify with his body, but body changes every moment and decays, but he still thinks he is the same person. So the identification with the body was merely a supposed identification, not an essential one. This argument can be applied to any idea of self a person may have.
So ego is just a supposed self, it can be changed, dropped etc. Real self is the deepest observer in us, the ultimate witness.
Two objects are distinguished from each other by their attributes. But attributes necessarily imply an observer of those attributes. If the observer inside A is to be distinguished from the observer inside B, then we will have to give these observers distinguishing attributes. But if the observer in A has attributes then supposedly A can find a way to observe those attributes and then A will have a deeper observer inside which is observing this lower observer with attributes. Continue the limiting process and you reach a point where the deepest observer in A is left with no attributes. Same with the deepest observer in B or anybody else. Since these deepest observers don't have attributes they can't be distinguished from each other. And here comes the biggest idea of Vedanta.
There is a SINGLE observer in this universe. It is the deepest observer in all of us. It is our deepest self and it is identical with the self of all.
Samkhya view is merged with advaita at this point. Even though Samkhya proposes a multitude of purushas, the purushas can be distinguished from each other only while there is some disturbance in their prakritis. When the prakritis are comletely silent, then there is nothing left to distinguish the purushas from each other.
The 'soul' or jiva is perhaps the deepest kosha in us. But like other koshas, it perhaps is like a body too, that can be discarded/changed/ etc. Self or Atman as the witness within, must be deeper than the jiva. Advaitic conclusion is that jivas can be manifold, but not the deepest Self.