[Advaita-l] An adhyAsa challenge

S Jayanarayanan sjayana at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 11 18:47:23 CDT 2003

--- Nomadeva Sharma <nomadeva at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Therefore *air that co-exists with earth has form*
> -
> > that of the boundary of the earth. By its contact 
> > with earth, air assumes the form of the earth's 
> > boundary. This is precisely why the analogy is 
> > defective - because consciousness never ever 
> > partakes of *anything* of the nature of the 
> > unconscious. Consciousness remains wholly, purely,
> > nothing but consciousness. 
> You are stretching the analogy beyond what it was
> meant for. The analogy was given to contradict your
> point that two objects with mutually contradictory
> attributes cannot co-exist. Now, your reason for
> rejecting the analogy is different from your
> original
> point: that one of the two objects is partaking the
> nature of other.

So you admit that air partakes of the form of the
earth's boundary? That precisely violates your
assumption that air is formless --> for air has taken
the form of earth's boundary. Now you know why your
analogy is defective: you've given us an example of an
object with "flexible form" (air) that co-exists with
an object with form (earth), not a formless object
co-existing with an object with form. 

Therefore my initial observation that air is NOT
exactly formless, but has "flexible form" still
stands, and in fact has been my contention all along
this line of argument. 


> > Again, this is very closely analogical to that of
> > light and darkness - they never partake of the
> nature
> > of one another. Not a perfect analogy, but close.
> As
> I was just wondering about what happens if one were
> to
> throw a beam of light into a blackhole. Given that
> there is absence of 'that' light, wouldn't it be
> equivalent to saying the light has partaken the
> nature
> of darkness (i.e., its own absence)?
> (Note that I am not advancing this argument
> seriously;
> I am just curious as to see how you'd handle it.)

Some scientists actually say that if light enters a
blackhole, all or some of it could be radiated back,
and that's hypothesised by none other than Stephen
Hawking himself, and is known as "Hawking radiation".
You can
http://www.nature.com/nsu/001228/001228-6.html . 

An extract:
"Black holes ... are called 'black' because gravity
inside the black hole is so strong that even light
cannot escape. Oh yes it can, said celebrated
physicist Stephen Hawking a quarter of a century ago.
Hawking's mathematical gymnastics showed that black
holes could radiate light or particles -- hence the
eponymous 'Hawking radiation'."

So questions like what happens to light within a black
hole are tough, as even the scientists who work on
these problems are undecided as to whether it will or
will not escape. 

> Btw, I just need to give you instances of ignorance
> and incapability (without giving any spl defintion
> to
> those loaded terms) and if you agree that the
> instances do convey such aspects, my point is made. 

Let us go back to what you said regarding your

"If you are asking how the link between consciousness
and body happens, noting that the consciousness is, to
a great extent, incapable and ignorant, I'd postulate
another being, who has inconceivable powers, whose
ichChA shakti can by itself move the world."

Now, if I understand rightly what you're saying: since
a person (who has identified consciousness with the
body) is incapable of several things (e.g. moving the
moon), and ignorant of several things (e.g.
temperature of the moon), you're postulating the
existence of a being (different from the previous
person) that can do/know these things at will, thereby
forming the link between consciousness and

Whew! :-) If so, my only answer is that though that is
indeed a solution, it is NOT satisfactory (my original
posting in this thread specifically mentions a
"satisfactory answer" to the problem) because it
requires an immensely large assumption, which is quite
unnecessary and unwarranted. But if it is satisfactory
to someone, I have nothing else to say, except that it
is satisfactory to that someone and not to me. 

Also, where would you find shruti statements to
support such a theory about the link, for Brahman is
never stated as a being that makes such a link. 


> > > no experience observes C independent of a body.
> > The experience of deep sleep does. 
> Did you observe C in your deep sleep?

Isn't it obvious that you answer your own question?

BTW, Shankara actually mentions this in his

For even my very denial that I did not observe C
implies that I observed, for I only negate the object
of observation during deep sleep but not the process
of observation itself, which requires a conscious
observer. Which means that I was conscious during deep

> Regards,
> Krishna Kadiri



Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list