ADVAITA-L: BennettJ at CARDIFF.AC.UK requested to join (fwd)

[sadananda]

Jules wrote:

>A 2nd year philosophy/religious studies and yoga student.
>
>I am trying to find comparisons with eastern non dualistic thought
>and western philosophers as well as understand how it is possible to
>conceive of the Absolute through the teachings of Sankara. The method
>of negation; not this, not that does not lead to a positive or
>qualitive conception yet Sankara asserts that his doctrine is not to
>be confused with the buddhist's concept of the void as absolute.
>Any ideas on how he could maintain the distinction without
>attributing positive qualities would be much appreciated.

Welcome aboard Jules.

Not this not this - negates this and this which is an object of perception
or thought.  Conceptualization is also objectification.  Positive
quantification or qualification through mind is conceptualization, and the
process leads to thoughts.  (It) is not an object of perception or thought,
and that was essence of the negations process since our problem is taking
object as a subject.   What remains  in the negation process is not a void
( it may be void in terms of object wise) but the very negater (him)self,
who cannot be negated.  One can only negate the conceptualization of the
negator - as I am this and this but what cannot be negated in the process
is the very conscious entity who is doing the negation process. Void is not
a conscious entity that can do negation process.  Whatever that remains is
not inert but conscious entity.  Since everthing that one is being off is
negated what remains is only oneself that is consciousness.  One cannot
dismiss one self. One self is not nothing as suunyam but the very living
conscious entity - the consciousness itself.

yan manasaa na manute, yenahur manomatam|
tadeva brahma twam viddi nedam yadidam upasate||

That which the mind cannot think of  but because of which the mind can
think is the Brahman not this that we worship here, says Kenopanishad.

Attribute is a visheshana or adjective related to the objects that are
conceptualized.  Lakshana or definition takes one step further and
essentially defines Brahman as SatChitAnanda, existence, that is
consciousness that is infiniteness - a definition that is not meant for
objectification but excludes everything else that does not fit into it.
Only that remains is - ahams - I am which is existence, consciousness and
ananda as infiniteness. I am not a suunya since I am there to negate the
sunyam! Hence it is not positive nothing - it is positive everything
because of which existence of every thing is recognized.

Hari Om!
Sadananda
>
>I am unsure how can we communicate or even interpret
>texts[speech/words] that have meaning from their 'differences' as
>meaning undifferentiated.
>
>Finally, what sort of experience is it [emotional or perceptual] that
>we are to be led to in order to realize our 'true' nature as
>unchanging and subsequently view the world of name and form as
>'illusion'.
>
>all comments gratefully appreciated
>
>Jules
>x
>BennettJ at CF.AC.Uk


K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623