Nature of Consciousness

[Guest guest]

The question that I posted to the Advaita-L list was a request for an

explanation of where this reasoning goes wrong:

 

1. Every shred of evidence, from brain injuries to psychoactive drugs,

indicates that all mental states are produced by the nervous system.

 

2. This statement applies to sense perception also, but its utility for

survival indicates that it does bear at least some correspondence to what is

really 'out there.'

 

3. In view of these facts, exotic mental states that are described in terms

of bliss, non-dual union, depersonalization and infinity, and so on can not

convey to us any radical facts about reality in general, since they are

merely artifacts of the nervous system.

 

Unlikely as it may seem, I've had a little burst of insight since then, so I

would like to suggest an answer to my own question, and submit it to the

group for appraisal.

 

The Self (using that word in Ramana Maharshi's sense) is not any mental

state, but rather is that which witnesses all mental states; it is the

medium, not the contents, blissful or otherwise. The effects that we see

from brain injuries and drugs concern such things as our perceptions, our

ability to reason, our sense of ourself and our personality, and so on. Body

and mind, including especially the nervous system, are totally intertwined

and interdependent in all these regards. But none of these things are the

Self, which is central to the fact that witnessing is occurring at all,

regardless of what is being witnessed, or whether it has been distorted or

limited by physical causes. So the evidence mentioned about brain injuries

and psychoactive drugs leaves the central issue totally untouched. And the

rishis tell us that withdrawal of identification with and attachment to

these externally influenced factors can eliminate our sense of dependence on

them, leaving only the unconditioned light of the Self.

 

Is this answer close?

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Robert:

 

I believe that your objective is to understand the Vedantic Model that connects

soul, body, mind and intellect. You posed several questions that relate to the

"cause" and "effect" of human life. Finally,

you established a satisfactory assessment that comes close to the Vedantic

Model.

 

The following good book describes the Vedantic Model (BMI Chart) and addresses

the issues related to Self-Realization. This book can greatly help you to

understand what is SELF. Sadanandaji used to lead a

Satsang in Virginia using the book "Self-unfoldment." He has a very clear

understanding on this issue and I am sure that he will respond to your post.

 

 

Self-unfoldment, by Swami Chinmayananda

Published by Chinmaya Publications

Chinmaya Mission West.

 

Regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

Parisi & Watson wrote:

> "Parisi & Watson" <niche

>

> .........................

>

> Is this answer close?

>

> Robert.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

At 08:19 PM 8/5/99 , Parisi & Watson wrote:

 

>The Self (using that word in Ramana Maharshi's sense) is not any mental

>state, but rather is that which witnesses all mental states; it is the

>medium, not the contents, blissful or otherwise. The effects that we see

>from brain injuries and drugs concern such things as our perceptions, our

>ability to reason, our sense of ourself and our personality, and so on. Body

>and mind, including especially the nervous system, are totally intertwined

>and interdependent in all these regards. But none of these things are the

>Self, which is central to the fact that witnessing is occurring at all,

>regardless of what is being witnessed, or whether it has been distorted or

>limited by physical causes. So the evidence mentioned about brain injuries

>and psychoactive drugs leaves the central issue totally untouched. And the

>rishis tell us that withdrawal of identification with and attachment to

>these externally influenced factors can eliminate our sense of dependence on

>them, leaving only the unconditioned light of the Self.

>

>Is this answer close?

 

 

Hi Robert,

 

Yes!! This is a lot closer to the viewpoint that the people on the other

list were communicating to you. I was one of them, and was talking about

Consciousness (the "Self" of Ramana Maharshi) not being an effect of brain

functioning, but rather being that to which brain functioning appeared.

 

--Greg