Refer to statement of Dr. Greg Goode, previously posted, especially his last sentence. As I understand what he's saying, the "real" question of importance is, does anything exist? If existence is real, (i.e. not the null-set); then we can redefine it (existence) as dream-like conventionality. Then, dream-individuals are consistent with this existence. They exist, can be located, have names like Maharishi and Ramana, and can be located in the dream world as occupying space/time; and are distinguished from other individuals. Similarly, dogs, cats,..etc; are not persons but are individual entities. Thus, Ramana was able to say that the cow Lakshmi had attained Self-Realization; as an individual animal disguishable from the other animals at the Ashram such as the crow, dog, etc (some of whom were given personal Names)..
Dr. Goode says: > > > "If anything exists, then it exists in an individual > > way. I say "if." So > > > let's assume for a moment that enlightened persons > > exist. Look at how the > > > different traditions portray them: In the satsang > > format, it is a person with > > > very large eyes who walks and talks very slowly and > > looks deeply into the eyes > > > of others. In neo-advaita, it is a mind-body with no > > doership inside. In > > > Indian Advaita-Vedanta, it would be a swami wearing an > > ochre robe uttering a lot > > > of Sanskrit phrases. In Zen, it would be a very > > stern old man with a shaved > > > head who shouts oracular phrases at unpredictable > > times and laughs at other > > > unpredictable times. In Tibetan Buddhism it would be > > a person with a shaved > > > head with an endearingly sweet smile all the time. > > > > > > > > > > > Even the sterotypical images of enlightenment are > > individualized and distinct > > > from each other, and we haven't gotten down to the > > level of the person yet. > > > > > > > > > So whatever exists, exists in a context of difference > > from other existents. But > > > the big question is, just what, if anything, what > > really exists?"
