A Course in Consciousness

[Guest guest]

Dear Vidyasankar,

 

I think we are in agreement that the

debate on what I have been calling

materialist vs. idealistic monism is

ultimately

irrelevant to the non-dualism of

Atman-Brahman.

(Thus I said several times in this

thread that I didn't want to

debate the merits of the two monisms and

that my understanding is

that the Upanishads are independent of

both of them. Admittedly

it would never have occurred to me to

question the role of one

monism in Advaita had I not been biased

towards the other; however the

point of the thread is not to argue the

case for materialism but to

disentangle non-dualism from monistic

idealism.)

 

Nonetheless this issue does seem to have

important consequences for one's

understanding of Brahman. (You don't

comment

on Larry's message. Am I right in

assuming that you agree with him that

the idenfication of Brahman with

consciousness is later

than the Upanishads?) That we do not

understand this word in the same way is

clear to me when you write:

> In the non-dual

> realization, it is not

that the material world is revealed as a

void,

> that vanishes into

nothingness, but that the world itself

is seen as

> merged in, and as

having lost separateness from, Brahman.

 

As far as I can see the meaning of the

word Brahman has changed *radically*

over time.

I don't have any references to hand so I

have to improvise here, but in the

Vedas, Brahman

means 'power' and specifically the power

of priestly incantations which were

supposed extend over

everything in creation ('He who controls

Brahman controls the entire world'). The

Upanishads strip the word of its

magical/priestly connotations, so that

Brahman *is* the world ('Verily, all

this is Brahman'). In later Advaita,

Brahman is consciousness

('sat-chit-ananda'). I take the

Upanishads' meaning to be the 'correct'

one (so that my first reaction to your

statement is that it is a tautology)

thus I assume that you must be

identifying Brahman with consciousness

after all.

 

I am also puzzled by your turn of phrase

here:

 

The central spirit of

Advaita is not to deny the reality of

the

material world, but to

adopt a retiring attitude towards it,

because

identification with the

material world *as perceived* results in

bondage of one kind or

the other.

 

Identification of what with the material

world? (Brahman??) Isn't the usual

formulation, identification of the self

with the mind/body?

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

> Question: Is this *retirement* the highest Truth (or state) ? Is

not the realization that "vAsudeva sarvamidam" more *final* in

attainment ? In the latter, retirement is not the attitude, lIla is

the attitude. For if every enlightened person retired, the Guru-

shishya parampara would have stopped !

>

 

If you think of the retirement from the world (nivRtti-dharma) as a

process, instead of as only a state, it would make better sense for

maintaining a lineage.

>

> Question: Is realization mere disappearance of clouds or does it

also require *seeing* the sun ie., is it mere absence of pain ?

There has to be a more positive aspect to it. For is not the *pure

bliss* the basis of pleasure and pain ?

>

 

Once the clouds have been removed, what additional thing is necessary

to see the sun? The state of realization is more than the absence of

pain, but it is not to be thought of as pleasure, its opposite. It is

beyond both pleasure and pain.

 

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

> on Larry's message. Am I right in

> assuming that you agree with him that

> the idenfication of Brahman with

> consciousness is later

> than the Upanishads?) That we do not

> understand this word in the same way is

 

Not quite. What has become a more or less standard formula of

saccidAnanda is not to be found directly in the upanishads. However,

you do find statements that equate Brahman with consciousness, e.g.

prajnAnam brahma (aitareya upanishad) and vijnAnam Anandam brahma

(bRhadAraNyaka upanishad).

 

Even in the upanishads, one can find the word Brahman being used in

many different ways. Thus, in taittirIya, we are told to meditate on

food as Brahman, then on the life-breath or sense-organs as Brahman,

then on the mind as Brahman, then on intellect as Brahman, and

finally, on bliss as Brahman. This is a step-by-step meditation, in

which the previous understanding of Brahman is merged into the next

one. In another place, in the bRhadAraNyaka, speech is Brahman,

evoking an "older" magical or priestly feeling. In the chAndogya, in

nArada's teaching by sanatkumAra, we again find a number of things,

liek hope, memory, fearlessness and concsiousness being equated stage

by stage with Brahman.

 

It is neither that the meaning of Brahman as consciousness is absent

in the older Vedic texts, nor that the ritual and magical usage of

the term is absent in the Upanishads. If you think of Brahman as the

ultimate principle, then such a principle has to be more than a

conscious being who is embodied, and more than a body that has

consciousness as an attribute. It is pure Being itself.

>

> Identification of what with the material

> world? (Brahman??) Isn't the usual

> formulation, identification of the self

> with the mind/body?

>

 

The central problem is, who is doing the identification? The word

self always carries some meaning to everybody. Talking in English is

very deceptive in this regard. We tend to make a distinction

between "my Self" (or "the Self") and "myself".

 

Only by drawing a boundary at the level of the physical body do we

even begin to distinguish between "material world" and "myself". But

the two are never separate entities. We get affected by the material

world and we affect it, in turn, in multiple ways. That is what I

meant, by the term "identifying with the world".

 

Getting back to illusoriness of the world, and an ontological

statement, this stance is dualistic only if illusoriness is set apart

as an independent truth value, as opposed to reality.

[Guest guest]

> Question: Is this *retirement* the highest Truth (or state) ? Is

not the realization that "vAsudeva sarvamidam" more *final* in

attainment ? In the latter, retirement is not the attitude, lIla is

the attitude. For if every enlightened person retired, the Guru-

shishya parampara would have stopped !

>

 

If you think of the retirement from the world (nivRtti-dharma) as a

process, instead of as only a state, it would make better sense for

maintaining a lineage.

 

 

 

That's cool. I didn't think on those lines. Thanks.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Vidyasankar,

 

I agree with your statement here. But I'm curious to know whether in

your view the proposition

 

(i) Atman = Brahman

 

is independent of the propostion

 

(ii) Matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness

 

('independent' in the sense that the truth of (i) tells us nothing

about the truth or falsity of (ii)).

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

> It is neither that the meaning of Brahman as consciousness is

absent

> in the older Vedic texts, nor that the ritual and magical usage of

> the term is absent in the Upanishads. If you think of Brahman as

the

> ultimate principle, then such a principle has to be more than a

> conscious being who is embodied, and more than a body that has

> consciousness as an attribute. It is pure Being itself.

>

[Guest guest]

"Patrick Kenny" <pkenny@c...> wrote:

> Dear Vidyasankar,

>

> I agree with your statement here. But I'm curious to know whether in

> your view the proposition

>

> (i) Atman = Brahman

>

> is independent of the propostion

>

> (ii) Matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness

>

> ('independent' in the sense that the truth of (i) tells us nothing

> about the truth or falsity of (ii)).

 

It is all a matter of interpretation, isn't it?!

 

(i) is an identity statement, while the very prefix "epi" in (ii)

complicates things. One could view them as independent or otherwise,

depending on different perspectives.

 

Let me point out, however, a directionality between i and ii. Put

briefly, going from i to ii is that of bondage, and going from ii to

i is liberation. And once one has reached i, one can forget about ii.

In that sense, it can be said to be independent. But for one who

still worries about ii, the two statements would not be independent.

 

Best wishes,

Vidyasankar