Fundamental Question

[Guest guest]

I would like to pose a question that will probably seem simplistic, or even

stupid. But I think on reflection it can be seen to have some substance,

since it's often the most fundamental concerns and issues that escape our

immediate notice. I apologize in advance for the overtly secular

philosophical nature of the question, but it's typical of the issues that

bother me, and that I would like to get straight.

 

"I am not the body." Even most people who share the so-called Western

scientific view of things would agree with this statement. The idea that

someone is "less of a man" because, say, he loses a limb is too primitive to

be taken seriously by any thinking person. Even "I am not the mind" is

within the purview of Westerners, since many people realize that intellect

isn't everything, and that we are normally far from being in control of our

thoughts and emotions, much less from producing them intentionally. So what

would a typical Westerner say that 'I' am? Probably an amalgam of my

memories and tendencies, including my core values and personality, all of

which are subject to gradual change over time. And even if I am not my body

in any crude sense, in the Western view what I experience as 'I' may be

produced from moment to moment by my body - most particularly my nervous

system.

 

This last statement brings me to my point. If it is only an error for me to

identify myself with an individual person, including body, mind,

personality, values, memories, and so forth, then why is it that injuries

can result in a total loss of consciousness? I am aware of Ramana Maharshi's

teaching that we do register deep sleep, because we feel refreshed upon

awaking, and have at least a vague recollection of experiencing peace and

repose. But sleep and unconsciousness are very different states, and this

vestigial memory can be totally lacking in the latter. There is a basis in

reality for the stereotype of a person regaining consciousness after days

and saying, "Where am I? What happened?" and then being amazed at the amount

of time that has passed. Every shred of evidence indicates that

consciousness itself can be obliterated, either temporarily or permanently,

by the disruption or injury of the nervous system. If consciousness is not

only the first principle of our being, but the basis of all existence

itself, then how can these facts be explained? And even if some explanation

can be suggested, would it not run the risk of artificially contorting the

facts to suit a previously chosen conclusion? At some point we have to ask

ourselves whether it might not be more realistic to simplify our assumptions

by eliminating elements that are not directly suggested by the facts

(Occam's razor).

 

Robert.

[Guest guest]

Parisi & Watson wrote:

> [...] ... And even if I am not my body

> in any crude sense, in the Western view what I experience as 'I' may be

> produced from moment to moment by my body - most particularly my nervous

> system.

>

> This last statement brings me to my point. If it is only an error for me to

> identify myself with an individual person, including body, mind,

> personality, values, memories, and so forth, then why is it that injuries

> can result in a total loss of consciousness? I am aware of Ramana Maharshi's

> teaching that we do register deep sleep, because we feel refreshed upon

> awaking, and have at least a vague recollection of experiencing peace and

> repose. But sleep and unconsciousness are very different states, and this

> vestigial memory can be totally lacking in the latter. There is a basis in

> reality for the stereotype of a person regaining consciousness after days

> and saying, "Where am I? What happened?" and then being amazed at the amount

> of time that has passed. Every shred of evidence indicates that

> consciousness itself can be obliterated, either temporarily or permanently,

> by the disruption or injury of the nervous system. If consciousness is not

> only the first principle of our being, but the basis of all existence

> itself, then how can these facts be explained?

 

hariH OM!

 

this appears to be a compelling question. however,

upon closer examination, the 'answerless answer'

emerges: from the egoic (vyavaharika) perspective, the

3 phases of the Mind (waking, dreaming, sleeping) are

operable. destroy the central nervous system and the

[egoic] obliteration of awareness results. however,

the state beyond these 3 phases, being the so-called

Fourth State (turiya), is a continuum of suddha chit

or pure consciousness. however again, any attempt to

understand this state--until it itself is achieved

(via the elimination of the philosophical Mind)--

is consistently met with failure, simply because the

relative Mind is attempting to behold an absolute

condition.

 

'catching' the Absolute is beyond even the subtlest

of the subtle, for 'subtle' itself is yet relative.

 

even if the turiya state were indirectly alluded to,

still wouldn't at all suffice. just as in physics,

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, showing how any

attempt by the observer to analyze an atomic event,

the act of measuring itself alters its properties,

so does the relative Mind alter any attempt at

analyzing the Absolute. in the latter case, in

fact, the outcome is yet only the perception of

the Relative, where the Absolute remains not only

unknown but *unknowable*. and this is the whole

point of the matter. until an apple is actually

bitten, no ideas can ever deliver its taste.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

>"f. maiello" <egodust

>

>this appears to be a compelling question. however,

>upon closer examination, the 'answerless answer'

>emerges: from the egoic (vyavaharika) perspective, the

>3 phases of the Mind (waking, dreaming, sleeping) are

>operable. destroy the central nervous system and the

>[egoic] obliteration of awareness results. however,

>the state beyond these 3 phases, being the so-called

>Fourth State (turiya), is a continuum of suddha chit

>or pure consciousness. however again, any attempt to

>understand this state--until it itself is achieved

>(via the elimination of the philosophical Mind)--

>is consistently met with failure, simply because the

>relative Mind is attempting to behold an absolute

>condition.

<snip>

 

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your response. Let's stipulate

that there is a fourth state of consciousness, and that it can never be

understood by one who has not experienced it. Many commonplace experiences

also fall into this category, such as color vision, or even more so vision

itself. But what does that have to do with the commonly experienced fact

that consciousness itself can be obliterated by physical injury? Do the

ineffable and indescribable aspects of this fourth state of consciousness

constitute any sort of evidence that it continues in the absence of the

nervous system? How so? It just seems to me that a balanced and careful

examination of the vast body of facts that are available to us strongly

suggests that consciousness, of whatever type, is directly dependent on a

functioning nervous system, and that physical existence precedes

consciousness rather than the other way around. Consciousness is a late

arrival on the scene in biological terms, and its existence seems fragile

and precarious rather than fundamental.

 

Robert.