Guest guest Posted October 2, 1998 Report Share Posted October 2, 1998 Shri Sadananda wrote: >When the conscious entity tries to inquire into "what is >consciousness?" - >among the unconscious entities - he can not find it, unless he turns >inwards and inquires who is this conscious inquirer inquiring into >the consciousness - ANALYZE THE ANALYST - the very inquiry >disappears leaving the inquirer in his full glory. Would you please explain about unconscious entities? Why does consciouness not present in unconscious entities? How do you made a conclusion that one can't find consciousness in unconscious entities? If one understand about consciousness, will he not see it in unconscious entities? Regards Madhavan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 1998 Report Share Posted October 2, 1998 At 02:03 PM 10/2/98 PDT, Maadhavan Srinivasan wrote: >Shri Sadananda wrote: > >>When the conscious entity tries to inquire into "what is >>consciousness?" - >>among the unconscious entities - he can not find it, unless he turns >>inwards and inquires who is this conscious inquirer inquiring into >the >consciousness - ANALYZE THE ANALYST - the very inquiry >disappears >leaving the inquirer in his full glory. > >Would you please explain about unconscious entities? >Why does consciouness not present in unconscious entities? > >How do you made a conclusion that one can't find consciousness in >unconscious entities? > >If one understand about consciousness, will he not see it in unconscious >entities? Good question!! There's no more or less consciousness in "conscious" entities than there is in "unconscious" entities. In fact, what can an "entity" be? After all, what is the nature of ANY entity other than Consciousness Itself? --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 1998 Report Share Posted October 2, 1998 Words, words words! Hope this helps. After someone makes clear to you that the existent awareful self is all pervasive, there is this problem of things which seem to have consciousness like plants animals and people versus those that do not such as rocks and furniture, carpets and kitchen utensils (add your own favorites!). So what about those inert things? If I-awareness is everwhere, what's the matter with them? Or how do we explain that the I-awareness is everwhere but chairs, table, dishes and spoons are inert. (Sorry, I'm having a guest for dinner thus the kitchen examples.) That which is inert is known by the creator and by us. The creator, of course, knows all the laws which govern inert objects. We know the objects too. Inert things participate shall we say via knownness in the consciousness that animals and people reveal more directly. (About plants, one can have a discussion. Conscious? Inert?) Aikya Param Berkeley, CA http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ Gregory Goode <goode advaitin <advaitin >; advaitin <advaitin > Friday, October 02, 1998 3:27 PM Re: Consciousness >Gregory Goode <goode > >At 02:03 PM 10/2/98 PDT, Maadhavan Srinivasan wrote: > >>Shri Sadananda wrote: >> >>>When the conscious entity tries to inquire into "what is >>>consciousness?" - >>>among the unconscious entities - he can not find it, unless he turns >>>inwards and inquires who is this conscious inquirer inquiring into >the >>consciousness - ANALYZE THE ANALYST - the very inquiry >disappears >>leaving the inquirer in his full glory. >> >>Would you please explain about unconscious entities? >>Why does consciouness not present in unconscious entities? >> >>How do you made a conclusion that one can't find consciousness in >>unconscious entities? >> >>If one understand about consciousness, will he not see it in unconscious >>entities? > >Good question!! There's no more or less consciousness in "conscious" >entities than there is in "unconscious" entities. In fact, what can an >"entity" be? After all, what is the nature of ANY entity other than >Consciousness Itself? > >--Greg > > > > > >------ >NewHoo Web Directory -- built by an army of volunteer editors >*** Now the 4th largest human-edited directory of the Web! *** >http://www.NewHoo.com/ "HUMANS do it better" >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 1998 Report Share Posted October 2, 1998 Aikya, Am I to asume that these so called "inert" objects have any characteristic other than those which I notionally asign to them?? You are also implying that I and the "creator" are separate. This is something that I completely don't see. How can I be separate from the Creator if Consciosness is all there is?? Namasde Jon Evans Aikya_Param wrote: > "Aikya_Param" <aikya > > Words, words words! Hope this helps. > > After someone makes clear to you that the existent awareful self is all > pervasive, there is this problem of things which seem to have > consciousness like plants animals and people versus those that do not such > as rocks and furniture, carpets and kitchen utensils (add your own > favorites!). So what about those inert things? If I-awareness is > everwhere, what's the matter with them? Or how do we explain that the > I-awareness is everwhere but chairs, table, dishes and spoons are inert. > (Sorry, I'm having a guest for dinner thus the kitchen examples.) > > That which is inert is known by the creator and by us. The creator, of > course, knows > all the laws which govern inert objects. We know the objects too. Inert > things participate shall we say via knownness in the consciousness that > animals and people reveal more directly. (About plants, one can have a > discussion. Conscious? Inert?) > > Aikya Param > Berkeley, CA > http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ > > > Gregory Goode <goode > advaitin <advaitin >; advaitin > <advaitin > > Friday, October 02, 1998 3:27 PM > Re: Consciousness > > >Gregory Goode <goode > > > >At 02:03 PM 10/2/98 PDT, Maadhavan Srinivasan wrote: > > > >>Shri Sadananda wrote: > >> > >>>When the conscious entity tries to inquire into "what is > >>>consciousness?" - > >>>among the unconscious entities - he can not find it, unless he turns > >>>inwards and inquires who is this conscious inquirer inquiring into >the > >>consciousness - ANALYZE THE ANALYST - the very inquiry >disappears > >>leaving the inquirer in his full glory. > >> > >>Would you please explain about unconscious entities? > >>Why does consciouness not present in unconscious entities? > >> > >>How do you made a conclusion that one can't find consciousness in > >>unconscious entities? > >> > >>If one understand about consciousness, will he not see it in unconscious > >>entities? > > > >Good question!! There's no more or less consciousness in "conscious" > >entities than there is in "unconscious" entities. In fact, what can an > >"entity" be? After all, what is the nature of ANY entity other than > >Consciousness Itself? > > > >--Greg > > > > > > > > > > > >------ > >NewHoo Web Directory -- built by an army of volunteer editors > >*** Now the 4th largest human-edited directory of the Web! *** > >http://www.NewHoo.com/ "HUMANS do it better" > >------ > >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, > profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between > mind and matter > > ------ > NewHoo Web Directory -- built by an army of volunteer editors > *** Now the 4th largest human-edited directory of the Web! *** > http://www.NewHoo.com/ "HUMANS do it better" > ------ > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 1998 Report Share Posted October 3, 1998 Not saying that there is separateness in terms of satchitananda between the creator and created. BUT there is a difference regarding the mind of the creator (all knowing) and created minds (knowing a little) like ours and as such a distinction can be made regarding how thoroughly an inert object is known. In common observation some things reveal consciousness more fully than others: a human being more than a butterfly more than a rock. This is according to our own observation/description of both the object and consciousness. It may be that in the future we will discover more consciousness in objects wwe know consider inert. After someone sees the point that I-awareness is all-pervasive, the existence of inert objects in this all pervasive consciousness can pose a doubt. Questions arise like "If the consciousness is all pervading, how could anything be inert?Is the I-awareness not there for inert objects?" That is all I was addressing. Aikya Param Berkeley, CA http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ Jon Evans <zenman advaitin <advaitin > Friday, October 02, 1998 8:30 PM Re: Consciousness >Jon Evans <zenman > >Aikya, Am I to asume that these so called "inert" objects have any characteristic other than those which I notionally asign to them?? You are also implying that I >and the "creator" are separate. This is something that I completely don't see. How can I be separate from the Creator if Consciosness is all there >is?? Namasde Jon Evans > >Aikya_Param wrote: > >> "Aikya_Param" <aikya >> >> Words, words words! Hope this helps. >> >> After someone makes clear to you that the existent awareful self is all >> pervasive, there is this problem of things which seem to have >> consciousness like plants animals and people versus those that do not such >> as rocks and furniture, carpets and kitchen utensils (add your own >> favorites!). So what about those inert things? If I-awareness is >> everwhere, what's the matter with them? Or how do we explain that the >> I-awareness is everwhere but chairs, table, dishes and spoons are inert. >> (Sorry, I'm having a guest for dinner thus the kitchen examples.) >> >> That which is inert is known by the creator and by us. The creator, of >> course, knows >> all the laws which govern inert objects. We know the objects too. Inert >> things participate shall we say via knownness in the consciousness that >> animals and people reveal more directly. (About plants, one can have a >> discussion. Conscious? Inert?) >> >> Aikya Param >> Berkeley, CA >> http://members.xoom.com/aikya/aikya/ >> >> >> Gregory Goode <goode >> advaitin <advaitin >; advaitin >> <advaitin > >> Friday, October 02, 1998 3:27 PM >> Re: Consciousness >> >> >Gregory Goode <goode >> > >> >At 02:03 PM 10/2/98 PDT, Maadhavan Srinivasan wrote: >> > >> >>Shri Sadananda wrote: >> >> >> >>>When the conscious entity tries to inquire into "what is >> >>>consciousness?" - >> >>>among the unconscious entities - he can not find it, unless he turns >> >>>inwards and inquires who is this conscious inquirer inquiring into >the >> >>consciousness - ANALYZE THE ANALYST - the very inquiry >disappears >> >>leaving the inquirer in his full glory. >> >> >> >>Would you please explain about unconscious entities? >> >>Why does consciouness not present in unconscious entities? >> >> >> >>How do you made a conclusion that one can't find consciousness in >> >>unconscious entities? >> >> >> >>If one understand about consciousness, will he not see it in unconscious >> >>entities? >> > >> >Good question!! There's no more or less consciousness in "conscious" >> >entities than there is in "unconscious" entities. In fact, what can an >> >"entity" be? After all, what is the nature of ANY entity other than >> >Consciousness Itself? >> > >> >--Greg >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >------ >> >NewHoo Web Directory -- built by an army of volunteer editors >> >*** Now the 4th largest human-edited directory of the Web! *** >> >http://www.NewHoo.com/ "HUMANS do it better" >> >------ >> >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, >> profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between >> mind and matter >> >> ------ >> NewHoo Web Directory -- built by an army of volunteer editors >> *** Now the 4th largest human-edited directory of the Web! *** >> http://www.NewHoo.com/ "HUMANS do it better" >> ------ >> Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter > > > > >------ >Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or >service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit >/advert.html for more information. >------ >Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 1998 Report Share Posted October 5, 1998 >"Aikya_Param" <aikya >.......... >After someone sees the point that I-awareness is all-pervasive, the >existence of inert objects in this all pervasive consciousness can pose >a doubt. Questions arise like "If the consciousness is all pervading, >how could anything be inert?Is the I-awareness not there for inert >objects?" That is all I was addressing. > >Aikya Param >Berkeley, CA I think this is the fundamental question - that was raised among the different interpreters of the Vedanta. Question - Does the inert existence exist without the consciousness present? - Advaita brings adhyaasa or superimposition aspect to explain that the inert-ness is only an apparent just as in dream, the inert world that is created in the dream world is only superimposition on the waker's mind. - Dvaita and VishishhTaadvaita resort taking Inert existence as basic as conscious existence. jagat satyam and paramaatma satyam and jiiva satyam. But to remove any implied resulting limitation on paramaatma, they all have to agree the pervasive-ness for paramaatma even in the inert matter, yet remaining different from it, leaving the inert matter still as inert. The analogy is like space pervading the objects. The same scriptural statements are again coated to support this view. The fact that three Achaaryaas provided different interpretations using the same scriptures, shows that there is at least sufficient ambiguity in the scriptures for them to take up different thesis. Sanskrit being very flexible language, it also provides that flexibility to interpret differently. Of course one can endlessly argue who is right; and that has also been going on for the past few centuries. Can logic provide an answer to resolve the issue? - In Brahmasuutra bhaashyaas, logic is used by all the aachaaryaas to resolve the issues to some extent. But logic is subsidiary to the shaastraas themselves. B.Sutra3. shaastra yonitvat - Giving credence to shaastra as the pramaaNa or means to resolve any contradictions. Interestingly all the three aachaaryaas use the same shaastraas to discard any objections and to establish their thesis. In fact, I find, Shankara resorted to logic many times to assert implied meaning rather than the direct literary meaning, while Ramanuja takes up the direct meaning than implied meaning. If fact, sutraas, if one goes for direct meaning, seems to support more Ramanuja's view than Shankara. This may be one reason why Sri Madhusuudana does not give as much importance to B. Sutras. I would like to hear from Swami Atmanandaji relating to this topic. Ultimately, this is where, I think - anubhava or experience of the great mahaatmaas like Ramana Maharshi in this century, helps to understand the scriptures in correct import. The sloka starts something like satvabhaavato chitvavetara .....? I don't remember the rest of the sloka - Aikya can give us the sloka and the interpretation. This also relates to Sri Nanda Chandran's assertion that consciousness is not fundamental. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 1998 Report Share Posted October 5, 1998 >"Maadhavan Srinivasan" <maadhavan > >Would you please explain about unconscious entities? In principle - all objects that I call as this and this and this - idam vastu. Ex. pot, chair, table etc. 'I am' is the only conscious entity. >Why does consciouness not present in unconscious entities? - Chair will start complaining when we sit on it- or it may become selective who sits on it! - just kidding. If consciouness is present in unconscious entities, then it can not be called unconscious entities - is it not true? >How do you made a conclusion that one can't find consciousness in >unconscious entities? Since consciouness is not an object - What we are conscious off are only objects - which reflect as thoughts in the mind. If we can find 'it' - then consciousness becomes it - an object of consciouness. anya adheena prakaashatvam or anya adheena satvam - tat jadam - inert is that whose existence or presence depends on the another(consciousness or existence). Chair cannot say 'I am a chair' - a consciousness entity has to confirm its existence. Please read if you can get hold of the analysis of the "Schrodinger's' cat" - > >If one understand about consciousness, will he not see it in unconscious >entities? If one "understand consciouness" - it will not be as "this is consciouness" - the true understanding will be " I am the consciouness" - since it is not an object of consciousness but consciouness it self. Then what you say is right - I see my self in everything and everything is in me - Everything in consciouness, otherwise we can not be conscious off this and this and this. - Please think about this! - & realize too! It is just like the dream world - both living and non-living entities are projection on the waker's mind. A waker's mind can say - I pervade the whole dream world - they are all in me, but I am not in them ( in terms of naama and ruupa). The naama and ruupa are only superimpositions on me. I am in all of them but free from all of them. This will be the true understanding. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2000 Report Share Posted February 1, 2000 namaste, As the French saying goes: "chacun a son gout" To each his own taste! Charvaka said something similar to what Ron says. The creative impulse, moral virtues, empathy need to be developed by discipline not by electrical stimulation of the brain, even if a 'religious' center has been located. If Ron is happy with his philosophy, maybe that is his choice or fate, whichever he accepts. Faith in intellectual solutions to existential problems/anxiety has a role, but it is not a panacea. May his creative curiosity be tempered by an understanding of other points of view. May he attain happiness and peace and share them with others as well. His essay does neither at this time. Regards, S. ----Original Message Follows---- "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda advaitin "Self Knowledge List" <selfknow-l, "list" <ramakrishna > Consciousness Tue, 1 Feb 2000 15:33:20 -0000 "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.