Re : Discussions with Nanda Chandran

[Guest guest]

Is part of the problem our use of the word Consciousness as a synonym for

Brahman or Reality, thus confusing it with the use of 'consciousness' in its

more usual sense of 'being conscious of'?

 

Brahman can only become 'conscious of itself' by manifesting some 'thing' to

be the object of that consciousness. (Hence the view that the universe was

created in order that Brahman could 'enjoy itself'.) Talking of there being

only One (whatever), that One is necessarily subject without an object

(which would be duality). Accordingly, I have to agree with Nanda - our

experience is that there is always consciousness of something; in fact it

seems to me that that is implicit in the semantics of the word itself. Even

in deep meditation there is consciousness of 'peace' or 'stillness' i.e. a

state of one kind or another. Of course, all this is part of the illusion

and these are only concepts. In reality, the manifestation is always and

only Brahman.

 

I like the idea of basing the discussion only on experience and not bringing

in Advaita theory to 'complicate the issue'. However, I fear that it may not

be possible to progress very far in the (assumed) desired direction. If we

are firmly in the grip of adhyaasa, as seems to be the case, then we will

only waste lots of time discussing the toxicity of the snake's venom instead

of the strength of the rope's fibres! However, please don't let me stop you

trying.

>>Denying conceptual knowledge is one thing. And denying

>>the physical existence of objects is something else. I

>>think you're saying that the table before me

>>doesn't in truth exist and only the perceiving

>>consciousness does.

>If so where did the table come from? I think You are

>saying that consciousness produces it. If so how does

>it produce it?

 

Already, it seems we run into this problem. No one can deny the appearances,

the commonality, the continuity and so on of this apparent table. So where

is there to go on the basis of experience? Bringing in Advaita gives us the

theory and explanation. There is only Brahman. The table is a manifestation

of Brahman whose form we recognise from memory and whose name we have called

'table'. The commonality must be so ultimately since there are no separate

individuals (or table). However, (apparent) individual differences in

perceptual ability, concentration, memory etc. means that we may not agree

absolutely on what we (think) we see.

>The common argument is that due to previous experience

>it produces objects. Then what about the first time -

>from where did it first get the conception of the

>object in the first place? If consciousness is a thing

>in itself, how did it ever get objectivized?

>Also what makes objects appear in the order they do?

>If there's a table before me, when I look away from it

>and look at it again, why is it not a chair? Why does

>consciousness produce objects which appear in a

>predictable manner? Also why do other people also see

>the same objects as I.

 

I don't think you can attempt to answer any of these questions without

*some* theory. It seems that Advaita's theory is much better than most!

>If you take Nagarjuna he'll say that "Yes, it is true

>that external objects depend on consciousness for

>their existance. But again consciousness itself

>depends on the external objects for its existance -

>for if there're no external objects, what'll it be

>conscious of? So neither consciousness nor external

>objects have existence in themselves!"

 

Quote from Swami Muni Naryana Prasad: - "Existence without knowledge of it

has no meaning".

 

Dennis