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'?

 

Philosophy is the attempt by reason to bring reality

down to the level of understanding. Consciousness in

the realm of reason and experience always needs the

knower, known and knowledge.

 

If you're going to talk of pure consciousness, then

it'll not be philosophy as it is not common

experience.

>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.

 

While I agree with your observations on psychology, I

will resist commenting on your metaphysics.

>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.

 

Dennis there're two options :

1. either accept the metaphysics and see if you can

find happiness.

2. have happiness/contentment itself as the criterion

as to when your probing should stop.

 

Frankly, I cannot find happiness/contentment by simply

accepting everything is brahman and all this world is

only maya. Yes, though I accept that the ultimate

truth is beyond the intellect still when you're trying

to reach it you can go to a much deeper level using

the intellect. The deeper you go the nearer you get to

the truth - or atleast you'll get rid of a lot of

avidhya.

>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.

 

Dennis, I'm not saying Advaita is wrong. I'm simply

disputing the common interpretation of Advaita which

tries to negate the objects of consciousness because

it is only based on the perceiving consciousness

itself. If you too hold the view - subjective idealism

- that I explained in my initial post - then I'm

disputing your interpretation of Advaita.

 

If it is not your view, then please let us know what

your view is and we'll see how far it tallies with

empirical experience. Sure metaphysics need not tally

and we may not be able to reconcile all this diversity

into the one consciousness - but psychology must be

sound - else the path is flawed.

>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!

 

I never said that you should not have any theory. I'm

just disputing the view of subjective idealism. I've

my own views/theory which I'll present (and willingly

open it up to debate) after we settle with subjective

idealism.

>"Existence without knowledge of it has no meaning".

 

There are many ways to interpret the above sentence.

But are we understanding this correctly?

 

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./