Psychological vs. ontological facts

[Allan Curry]

Namaste

I have rearranged the quotes so as they scan a bit better, but the content
has been unaltered...

>>.......................................Well, why can't the experience of
>> non-duality be an illusion which is produced in the mind like other kinds
>> of psychological events, while the real ontological substratum is something
>> like a set of interacting quantum fields?

>This is the reason why the tradition relies on Sruti as a pramANa, and
>then builds its logic around it.

What does pramana mean? If it means scriptural authority, are you saying
that the truthfulness of Advaita Vedanta *cannot* be established without
recourse to it?

>>........................................  Must we assume that energy
>> itself is conscious when we assert that consciousness is the substratum of
>> the apparent universe or do we just ignore science completely?
>
>Does your question about the consciousness of energy entail that energy is
>conscious of itself, or of other things? If so, the problem with this is
>that where there is only one entity, call it the Atman or energy, there is
>no point in talking of such consciousness. It is only where one can admit
>a subject-object duality that one can talk of any entity being conscious
>of itself or of other things. Now, when advaita says that Atman is pure
>consciousness, and that Atman is the substratum of the illusory world,
>it is also quick to point out that this Atman cannot be said to be
>conscious of itself or of external things. At this stage, there is only
>the Atman, which is na antarprajna:, na bahishprajna: (not inwardly aware,
>not outwardly aware). It just IS, and even saying that it is pure
>consciousness is only because one has to deny that the nature of the Atman
>is opposed to consciousness.
>

I was referring to consciousness-without-an-object. Are we assuming that
the energy studied by physics is an illusion or are we assuming that the
energy studied by physics is itself (at its most fundamental level)
Brahman (ie. consciousness-without-an-object)?

>> I noticed a book called "Maya in Physics" in the Motilal Barnarsidass
>> catalog. Has anyone read it? Would you recommend it?
>
>This would depend on the author. I cannot recommend for or against it, but
>I would like to put in a general note of caution. There are many people
>floating about nowadays, who equate advaita with E = mc^2. One has to be
>careful.
>

If memory serves, the author of "Maya in Physics" is N.C.Panda. Ring any bells?


>....................................................... If one is
>willing to accept Sruti as a pramANa, irrespective of whether it is
>apaurusheya or not, the question of logic vs. scripture does not arise.

Sorry, but could you tell me what apaurusheya means?

All the best to you...   :-)


- Allan Curry