Meaning of 'Consciousness is One'

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Two central themes of Advaita, as found in Sankara and the

Upanishads, are that Consciousness is everything (Atman=Brahman) and

that Consciousness is One (or at least not-two, as in 'Advaita').

These are common themes of much 'mystical' literature throughout the

world, and my intuition tells me that reality indeed appears this way

to those who have reached 'higher states of consciousness'. I

believe that these higher states of consciousness exist, as

demonstrated by 'advanced' individuals such as rishis, and are

eventually attainable by all humans, which is why I am interested in

Indian philosophy. (A journey of a thousand miles begins with a

single step!)

 

Furthermore, although I respect the notion that ultimate

reality cannot be completely described by words, I am nevertheless

convinced that there is much that can be understood by reason and

described by words. Mere rational understanding may not be

sufficient for realization, but it should be quite helpful as a

stepping-stone. Hence, I would like to understand these two central

themes of Advaita as well as possible (as we all would).

 

Now I don't have a problem with the statement 'Consciousness

is everything', even though it may seem counter-intuitive. After

all, science tells us to believe only in what we observe, and we

observe only consciousness, taken to mean thoughts, feelings and

perceptions (or sensations). And if 'God' is the 'substratum' of

this consciousness, then it is not unscientific after all to believe

in God. The illusion of an external world of matter is generated by

the fact that our different perceptions are coordinated with each

other and obey a common set of laws (the laws of physics). This is

what essentially distinguishes the waking state from the dream state.

Our common dualistic notion of an unconscious material world 'behind'

our perceptions, which is believed to produce our perceptions, is

extraneous and unverifiable and should therefore be eliminated. It

is nothing but a mysterious 'X' that is said to 'cause' our

perceptions, but in every other way it is a useless and sterile

notion, since we only observe the perceptions, which are a part of

consciousness. So as far as one SINGLE individual is concerned, it

is reasonable to say that everything is one consciousness.

 

So far, so good. Already we are one step closer to the

non-duality of Advaita, in that the subject-object (or

consciousness-matter) distinction of common sense has been collapsed

to one single entity, namely the consciousness of one person. (Some

people claim that they can distinguish a subject and an object within

consciousness itself, but I cannot.)

 

Where I have a problem is that the various individual

consciousnesses (or jivas) are then said to be simply different

aspects of One All-encompassing Consciousness. This presents a major

stumbling block to me, as it seems quite clear to me that my

consciousness is radically different from yours. We do not feel each

other's pain and pleasure, think each other's thoughts, or see each

other's perceptions.

 

Swamiji explained this in terms of the classic analogy of

Sankara to the space in a pot and the space after the pot is removed.

The jivas of the world are like a lot of pots, as long as the

ego-sense remains. But when the ego is gone, the pot is removed, and

the same one space (i.e. consciousness) that was always there hidden

in the pots is now revealed to be everywhere and in everyone once the

pots are removed.

 

However, this analogy does not satisfy me, as it still seems

to me that my consciousness is radically different from yours, for

the reasons given, namely that we do not feel each other's pleasure

and pain and so on. After all, is not one part of space different

from another part? (It has occurred to me that perhaps I feel this

way precisely because I am still blinded by ego. Even so, some kind

of rational explanation would be enlightening.)

 

Any ideas? I would appreciate a response in terms of a

continuation of the ideas enunciated in the third paragraph, since

these represent core convictions of mine that I have thought about

for a long time. At least, if you do not agree with them, then

please start by dissecting them. Also, I realize that this topic has

been discussed recently, but once again, I think that it might be

fruitful to try again in terms of the ideas presented above, since

they consist of reasons rather than analogies.

 

In order to focus the discussion, I suggest that we

concentrate on the following questions:

 

(1) Is the 'unity of all consciousness', including yours and

mine, to be taken LITERALLY? By this, I mean that we all somehow

have the SAME underlying consciousness, appearances notwithstanding.

What does 'same' actually mean in this context? How can our

experiences then seem to be different (your pain is not mine etc.)?

 

(2) If the 'unity of all consciousness' is to be taken

METAPHORICALLY, rather then literally, then just what does this mean?

What is the relevance to the spiritual quest of 'self-realization'?

 

(3) And of course, in the background, will be some reference

to the philosophical ideas enunciated above (third paragraph)

regarding the meaning of 'consciousness is everything' for ONE

particular person, from which this discussion is intended to proceed.

As I said, I would prefer that those ideas be more or less accepted,

since I consider them clear and take them for granted and would like

to build on them to better understand the idea that 'consciousness is

the same' for EVERYBODY. But if you simply can't agree with those

ideas, then perhaps it would be useful to discuss them too.

 

Please remember that I am trying to find what I consider a

'direct explanation' for the central tenets of Advaita, rather than

explanations in terms of analogies. The ideas of the third paragraph

are examples of what I call a 'direct explanation' or

'straightforward description'. I hope you agree.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Shri Benjamin Root has requested us to build on from his third

paragraph and concentrate on the three questions at the end of his

post.

 

I don't think I can afford to do that because that would be like

trying to contain an inflated balloon within one's palm. If the

balloon is to be held, it needs to be deflated.

 

How do we deflate? We have to find a way. Yes. There is an obvious

flaw (advaitically) in Shri Root's understanding because he

says "….. it seems quite clear to me that my consciousness is

radically different from yours. We do not feel others' pain and

pleasure, think each other's thoughts, or see each other's

perceptions." This is an acknowledgement that Shri Root grants the

same validity to his consciousness as well as the consciousness of

others. Besides, he is employing the same method that science adopts

in the study of objective phenomena.

 

To my eyes, this is root of the problem. If my understanding of

advaita is right, I am the only subject. The others are objects.

Their experiences, points of view, thoughts etc. are reported

objects. The objects and reported objects cannot, therefore, be

compared with the one and only subject, "I". They and the whole

universe sprouts out from me and are withdrawn into me. I only

remain, I only shine (as "I KNOW"), the rest shine after me. This is

the totality of Consciousness explained in the pot-space analogy and

also in the Hymn to Lord Dakshinamoorthi.

 

I, therefore, feel Shri Root should stop worrying about others and

their 'consciousness' and literally root himself in himself wherefrom

he can see Sadaji, Ramji, Gregji et al including me sprouting out and

then melting back in himself. That is advaita as different from

scientific quest where we run after millions of objects and

ultimately gasp for breath. Remain the ocean on which the waves

appear and disappear and be really oceanic!

 

If Shri Root is convinced, then what he needs to do is only

contemplate on that conviction, understand scriptural statements from

that point of view and move about in his 'original oceanic form' as

the "root of all". The puzzle will then be undone without any

stumbling blocks.

 

Having said this much, let me now go back to his third paragraph with

the following remarks:

 

1. Why not go a step forward and say: "I am Consciousness.

Therefore, I am everything."?

2. Also, if consciousness is `observed', then that consciousness is

not the subject we are talking about as that is just an object of our

perception. The Consciousness that I am is self-evident, I know that

I exist and I don't have to `observe' it like the consciousness I see

in other things!

3. The suibstratum is I = Consciousness = God – the three cannot be

different to an advaitin.

4. The so called external world is not an illusion. How can it be

when it is understood as verily me!? Only when it is seen as aside

or apart from me, duality plagues it and it becomes conditioned by

space and time. If Shri Root means mAya by the world illusion, then

that English word is a poor translation. Maya only

means "conditioned by space and time".

5. I don't know what Shri Root means by "our common dualistic notion

of an unconscious material world behind our perceptions…..". Well

since he himself calls it a notion, we don't have to worry much about

it because that "unknown" is also an object as a notion supported and

sustained by the self-evident "I".

 

Now to the three questions:

 

1. There is only Consciousness, which is Me. The possibility

of `same' arises only in duality when there are two or more.

2. If Consciousness is the only Reality, why do we have to force a

unity on it metaphorically or literally.

3. As I have always maintained, apart from the Hymn to Lord

Dakshinamurthy referred to above, the other philosophical statement

that effectively guides to my above advaitic conclusion is the

verse "PurNamata, pUrNamidam…..." in the beginning of Iso. Up. An

excellent commentary on it by Poojya Sw. Dayananda Saraswatiji can be

had from Arsha Vidya Gurukulam. There are numerous others but these

two would supremely suffice.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

I reqeust Sri Sadanandaji,

> ProfVK, Sri Sunder, Sri Madhava, Sri Greg Goodie, Sri Stig, Sri

Ken,

> Sri Dennis, Sri Michael, Sri Nair, Sri Carlo, Sri Swaminathan to

> provide their time and participate in the discussion.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

After a long lay-off of more than a year, forced to some extent by

work situation and some personal difficulties, I am once again

joining the discussions of the list, with my one rupee worth comment

on Mr Roots' most thought provoking post.

 

He has asked us to continue his para 3 and find arguments for the

advaitic statement 'Everything is consciousness'. In true shankara

style, I start with an objection to his para 3:

 

Objection: Everything may be consciousness. Just as I have my

consciuosness, there are others with their own consciousness. The way

I react to the world and its events is different from the way others

react. So it seems my consciousness is different from others'

consciousness. If there are more than one consciousness, is it not

contrary to the basic advaitic position that there are 'not two'

 

Reply: Just as the world that you see is merely a reflection in

consciousness and hence not different from consciousness, the others

that you see are also consciousness. There are no others. There is

just consciousness. In fact there is not even a I (ego). Even this I

is merely a reflection in consciuosness. So everything that there is

only consciousness and consciuosness is everything.

 

Does that help, Mr. Root?

 

Regards,

Venkat

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <benroot@r...> wrote:

>

>

> Namaste!

>

> Two central themes of Advaita, as found in Sankara and the

> Upanishads, are that Consciousness is everything (Atman=Brahman)

and

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Shri Nair has provided a compelling explanation by stating that there

is only one SUBJECT and many objects in appearance!. Let me state my

understanding of the 'Oneness.'

 

Suppose we go to a movie theater with a houseful of audience enjoying

a drama on the screen. This drama within our drama of life appears

all real! We also appreciate, criticize and share the joy, sorrow and

adventures that we see on the screen during the projection of the

movie. Suddenly due to electricity failure, the screen become blank

with complete darkness and silence! A thought comes to me as an

observer of the movie on the realization that the movie is not real

and everything that I saw on the screen was just a projection. As a

rational human being with a scientific background, I am fully

convinced that I the subject is unaffected by the happenings in the

movie.

 

A further contemplation on the 'movie projection' can take me a step

further from the 'movie reality' to the 'audience reality.' I

including the audiences of the theater are part of the drama

projected by the "Consciousness - The Brahman." When the projection

stopped due to electricity failure, I observed that the movie stopped

and the drama stopped. Similarly, my imaginative vision of people

around me with each one having their own likes and dislikes will

likely disappear when the consciousness leaves my body!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: It is quite conceivable for Sri Benjamin to point out one or

more flaws with this analogy and this also I take as part of the

projection. In advaita, the power of 'mAyA - illusion' rests only

with the Brahman and we are constrained by 'Avidya - ignorance.' The

question, why 'Avidya' will likely remain with us until we get rid of

the 'Avidya.'

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Shri Benjamin Root has requested us to build on from his third

> paragraph and concentrate on the three questions at the end of his

> post.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Shri Nair has provided a compelling explanation by stating that

there

> is only one SUBJECT and many objects in appearance!. Let me state

my

> understanding of the 'Oneness.'

> > Shri Benjamin Root has requested us to build on from his third

> > paragraph and concentrate on the three questions at the end of

his post.

 

Namaste,

 

As long as the word Consciousness is limited to the Awareness

in the Waking state, the dilemma will remain without solution.

 

The best study of upanishadic use of the word is the Mandukya

Upanishad, the Karikas of Gaudapada, and Shankara's commentary on

them.

 

If one is convinced that Consciousness pervades and transcends

these states, the next step is to follow the disciplines that are

laid down so one can BE THAT.

 

In the words of the Mandukya upan. :

 

"...prapa~nchopashamaM shAntaM shivaM advaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa

AtmA sa vij~neyaH ............."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Benjamin Root.

 

First, let me apologize for the extensive use of analogies. Without them I

can't write anything at all, for reasons I'll explain below.

 

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:12:43 -0500, Benjamin Root

<benroot wrote:

 

<snipped>

> Where I have a problem is that the various individual consciousnesses (or

> jivas) are then said to be simply different aspects of One All-

> encompassing Consciousness. This presents a major stumbling block to me,

> as it seems quite clear to me that my consciousness is radically

> different from yours. We do not feel each other's pain and pleasure,

> think each other's thoughts, or see each other's perceptions.

 

The key word here is "seems". God is greater than man, and what seems

impossible for the jiva is not impossible for the Consciousness in which

the jiva inheres. This seeming separateness only a feature of the

consciousness of the individual. The individual consciousness dissolves

like a salt doll in that oceanic Consciousness. Still, the individual is

able to make near approaches to the One All-encompassing Consciousness by

various means, and may attempt description like Moses on the mountain

glimpsing the Promised Land. Of course, such language obscures more than

it illumines, but it's all we have, and the attempt at description is what

gives rise to philosophical discourse.

> ... it still seems to me that my consciousness is radically different

> from yours, for the reasons given, namely that we do not feel each

> other's pleasure and pain and so on.

 

Again, how do you know this? Perhaps it only *seems* so. Are you sure you

don't feel another's pleasure and pain? Personally, I suspect everyone has

innumerable subtle intimations and palpations at or just below the

threshold of awareness. They are suppressed by the dualistic mind; that's

it's job, that's what the mind does. But there are those among us who feel

this identification quite poignantly, and without necessarily having

recourse to the paranormal. Some are saints, some are mad, and some are

quite ordinary people. Jung talked about archetypes and the collective

unconscious, saints talk about compassion, mystics talk about telepathy and

clairvoyance, philosophers of history talk about zeitgeist; some of us just

wake up on a fine Sepember morning with a feeling of malaise - and turn on

the TV to find out that two towers in a distant city have fallen.

 

And further, speaking strictly of universal consciousness, one wouldn't

expect It to feel anything at all, except sat-chit-ananda.

> After all, is not one part of space different from another part? (It has

> occurred to me that perhaps I feel this way precisely because I am still

> blinded by ego. Even so, some kind of rational explanation would be

> enlightening.)

 

As suggested above, space, time, ego and reason all belong to the realm of

the individual consciousness. Moving beyond that, direct explanation is

impossible in the nature of the case, and we must resort to analogy. How

can one talk in words about that which is beyond words?

> (1) Is the 'unity of all consciousness', including yours and mine, to

> be taken LITERALLY? By this, I mean that we all somehow have the SAME

> underlying consciousness, appearances notwithstanding. What does 'same'

> actually mean in this context? How can our experiences then seem to be

> different (your pain is not mine etc.)?

 

I find the phenomena of dreams to be highly instructive. In a dream, the

stuff of your mind becomes a multitude of persons and things. There are

buildings and streets, crowds, saints, heroes, villains, and the police to

catch them. All these entities act in accordance with their nature, and,

if they are sentient, each acts from a separate center of awareness,

cognition, and volition. Yet all are made of one and the same thing, viz.,

your consciousness, and all exist within that consciousness. In a dream,

your consciousness has its own time, space, and a plurality of egos. And

more amazingly, all these phenomena will be found to arise, undergo

numerous permutations, and dissolve within a few moments of our normal

waking clock-time. For me, it is sufficient to infer from all this that

consciousness is certainly not what it "seems" to be.

 

Pranams,

Shivaram

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

For A long time I have wanted to have a 'serious' discussion about

these topics, and it now seems that I am about to learn the truth of

the saying, 'Don't pray too hard, or your prayer may be answered!'

 

Also, I was about to rush off to a work-meeting in southern Virginia,

but now I will delay it try to reply to all the messages so far

before they pile up any further. I may now arrive at my hotel after

midnight and possibly lose my reservation, but it is worth it for the

sake of our Quest For The Truth!

 

I have promised to Ram to answer everybody seriously and in detail,

and I fully intend to do this. So I will take up each of the replies

so far in their order of occurrence on the mailing list.

 

One hopeful sign. Even though there seems to be a lot of healthy,

contentious, 'red-blooded' criticism of what I have said so far, your

individual reasons mostly seem to be statements that, taken in

isolation, are statements that I happen to agree with! So let's see

if we can straighten this out...

 

 

SRI NAIR (4 Mar 2003 23:43:35)

 

Sri Nair says:

>"To my eyes, this is root of the problem. If my understanding

>of advaita is right, I am the only subject. The others are

>objects. Their experiences, points of view, thoughts etc. are

>reported objects. The objects and reported objects cannot,

>therefore, be compared with the one and only subject, 'I'.

>They and the whole universe sprout out from me and are

>withdrawn into me. I only remain, I only shine (as 'I KNOW'),

>the rest shine after me."

 

This contradicts nothing I said before, if we understand it as the

experience of each PARTICULAR person. I agree that the 'world' for

me is no more that the sum of the perceptions (i.e. sensations)

within my consciousness. I deny the need for any kind of matter or

energy 'outside' of consciousness as the cause of these perceptions.

These are only unfounded hypotheses to explain the fact that we

share similar perceptions when we are 'in the same place'. In fact,

'being in the same place' means no more than the experiencing of

similar perceptions by two different consciousnesses, as when we are

'in the same room' seeing the same 'table', 'chairs', etc. I'll even

go so far as to say that the moon does indeed 'disappear' when no one

looks at it. The moon is no more than my perception of it. However,

this perception obeys the laws of physics, so it cannot be equated

to an insane delusion. In this sense, I agree that the whole

universe 'sprouts out from me'.

 

Furthermore, within my consciousness, I cannot distinguish between

'subject' and 'object'. These are only words that seem to me to

refer to the same conscious experience. The word 'subject' points to

my immediate awareness, as does the word 'object'. I can see no

difference. The distinction between consciousness and matter, as

well as between subject and object, are arbitrary distinctions

imposed upon the same immediate awareness by the seductive power of

words.

 

My views are of course similar to those of the famous western

philosopher Berkeley, who has unfortunately been neglected in the

West, due to unfounded concerns over 'solipsism', which I'll get to

when I reply to Greg Goode's message.

 

So I can agree with what Sri Nair says as far as MY consciousness is

concerned. But I still see no reason to equate my consciousness with

yours. So let us read his message further. He goes on to say:

>"I, therefore, feel Shri Root should stop worrying about others

>and their 'consciousness' and literally root himself in himself

>wherefrom he can see Sadaji, Ramji, Gregji et al including

>me sprouting out and then melting back in himself."

 

I do not doubt that my perceptions of the so-called 'bodies' of

Sadaji, Ramji and other people are entirely within my consciousness.

As stated, they are [to me] no more than those perceptions. However,

it is equally clear to me that Sadaji's perception of my body is NOT

within MY consciousness, though I am quite sure that it is within

his. Even less are Sadaji's private thoughts and feelings lurking

somewhere within my consciousness (thank goodness!), though I am

quite sure that they are present within his. This is the crux of my

whole question, namely, as I said, that my pleasure and pain are not

your pleasure and pain. This simple fact seems immediately evident

to me and does not seem to arise from linguistic confusion regarding

immediate experience, as do the fictions of subject vs. object or

consciousness vs. matter. The 'world' seems to me quite clearly to

consist of a plurality of consciousnesses, each having different

thoughts, feelings and perceptions (some of which may indeed be

similar though not identical to each other). However, my respect for

the Advaitic tradition is driving me to exert every effort to

comprehend the purported ultimate identification of this plurality of

consciousnesses with one all-encompassing Absolute Consciousness.

 

Having said this, I do in fact agree that there must be this Absolute

Consciousness, otherwise called 'God', as the foundation of my

consciousness. I simply cannot believe that my private consciousness

popped out of nowhere. It is a deep mystery and miracle that cries

out for an explanation similar to the traditional concept of God.

God is simply the mysterious and unfathomable source of all being,

where 'being' is understood as the sum of all particular

consciousnesses, yours and mine. Furthermore, I agree that God must

be 'one' in some sense. A plurality of Ultimate Sources of Being

seems nonsensical to me. How many? 2, 3, 25, 4096, ...? And I also

agree that God is not different from my consciousness. To posit a

God 'out there', distinct from my consciousness or yours, raises the

same problems as does the existence of so-called 'matter', and for

the same reasons (it is an unverifiable and fruitless notion).

 

So I agree that the same Universal Consciousness is the substratum of

your particular consciousness and my particular consciousness.

Therefore, I see a glimmer of justification for the notion that all

consciousness must ultimately be the same. Yet I still run into the

'brick wall' of the phenomenological fact described earlier, namely,

that your consciousness and mine seem quite distinct as experiences.

So I am still stuck in my quandary...

 

Sri Nair them makes some remarks concerning my original post:

>1. Why not go a step forward and say: "I am Consciousness.

>Therefore, I am everything."?

 

I agree that I am everything that I see. I do not agree that I am

also what YOU see (i.e. that the contents of my consciousness should

be equated with those of yours). Simply giving the word

'consciousness' a capital 'C' does not demonstrate how every

particular consciousness is identical to every other consciousness,

although it is an intriguing notion that frequently arises in the

mystical literature.

>2. Also, if consciousness is 'observed', then that

>consciousness is not the subject we are talking about as that

>is just an object of our perception.

 

As I said, I cannot distinguish between subject and object, when I

introspect upon my immediate conscious experience. Many people think

that the word 'observation' implies that that which is observed [the

object] must be distinct from the observer [the subject]. I simply

do not find such a distinction when I introspect. My reasons are

similar to those of the famous Western philosopher Hume, though I

disagree with other views of his.

>3. The substratum is I = Consciousness = God - the three

>cannot be different to an advaitin.

 

I agree with this, as discussed above. As I said, it is a puzzle to

me how the same God can underlie your consciousness and mine, as I

agree must be the case. In fact, this is the best 'logical' reason I

know of to equate your consciousness and mine, though it remains

purely 'formal' to me. It does not provide an INTUITIVE

understanding of the alleged identity of your consciousness and mine.

>4. The so called external world is not an illusion. How can it

>be when it is understood as verily me!?

 

This whole question of the Maya and illusion seems to lead to a lot

of confusion. My view is that the illusion consists of thinking that

my perceptions refer to something outside of me, namely what we

commonly call the 'external, material' world. I do not claim that

the world is an illusion in the sense of a hallucination, as when we

take mind-altering drugs. The difference is that ordinary, sober,

waking perceptions obey the laws of physics and are similar for

different people (i.e. consciousnesses) in 'the same place' as

explained above. However, the world is indeed like a hallucination

in that perceptions do not refer to something 'outside' of

themselves, as they often seem to.

>5. I don't know what Shri Root means by "our common

>dualistic notion of an unconscious material world behind our

>perceptionsŠ..".

 

This is the common materialistic view of modern science and of the

modern world. It is true that some quantum physicists are having

doubts about this, based on the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, but I

feel quite sure that the vast majority of scientists feels that

protons and electrons are somehow 'outside' of their consciousness,

just as ordinary people feel that rocks and trees are 'out there'

somewhere. It is a powerful and common illusion, and someone who

truly does not understand this must be a born mystics.

 

Well, I was going to answer everyone in this one mail, but it has

become rather long. I think I will send it in as it is now and see

what else I can do with the other replies before I have to leave. I

will be back late tomorrow night and hope to finish replying Friday

some time (during the lunch hour of course!).

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI VENKATRAMAM (5 Mar 2003 01:23:40 )

>Reply: Just as the world that you see is merely a reflection in

>consciousness and hence not different from consciousness, the others

>that you see are also consciousness. There are no others. There is

>just consciousness. In fact there is not even a I (ego). Even this I

>is merely a reflection in consciuosness. So everything that there is

>only consciousness and consciuosness is everything.

 

Again, I agree that the world that I see (as well as my so-called

ego) are clearly all within my consciousness and no different from

it. However, to say that my perception of the so-called 'body' of

another person is within my consciousness is not to say that his

consciousness is also within my consciousness. In other words, a

perception of the body of Sri Venkatramam arises in my consciousness

and I say, 'There is Sri Venkatramam!' A perception of my body

arises in the consciousness of Sri Venkatramam!, and he says 'There

is Sri Root!' However, these various perceptions clearly seem to

arise to two different consciousnesses, one that goes my the neame of

Sri Venkatramam and another that goes by the name of 'Sri Root'.

>Does that help, Mr. Root?

 

Not quite, but you can call me Benjamin!

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI SUNDER HATTANGADI:

 

Sri Sunder said:

>As long as the word Consciousness is limited to the Awareness

>in the Waking state, the dilemma will remain without solution.

 

As I said several times, I agree totally with the analogy to the

dream, as far as ONE particular person [i.e. consciousness] is

concerned. The world of our waking consciousness, which seems to be

'outside' there surrounding us, is nothing but a dream that we share

in common. It consists of sequences of perceptions, in both your

consciousness and mine. This is fundamentally no different than a

dream. The main difference is that there are SIMILARITIES between

your perceptions and mine when we are in the waking state and in 'the

same place'. (As explained before, being 'in the same place' means

no more than the fact that our perceptions are similar ... similar

trees, rocks, grass, etc.)

 

However, the similarity of our perceptions during the waking state

does not mean that they are IDENTICAL. I seem to have my private

dream and you yours.

>The best study of upanishadic use of the word is the Mandukya

>Upanishad, the Karikas of Gaudapada, and Shankara's commentary on

>them.

 

I have heard that Gaudapada is more convinced that the world is a

dream than Shankara is. Shankara seems more concerned about

avoiding the solipsistic pitfall, which says that ONLY my dream is

true. I am not worried by solipsism, as I will clarify when I reach

Greg Goode's message. Gaudapada's views are said to be close to

some forms of Buddhism which have appealed to me for many years, but

let us not get sidetracked...

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI GOODE:

 

The third paragraph referred to in my initial post begins

with 'Now I don't have a problem with the statement ...'.

 

 

Sri Goode says:

>You seem to psychologize what consciousness is. In your message,

>you say that consciousness can be understood as thoughts, feelings,

>sensations.

 

These three aspects of consciousness are all that I am aware of when

I directly introspect upon my immediate awareness. And 'immediate

introspection' does seem to me like the 'scientific' way to go about

this. Religions based only on faith or revelation seem to produce

trouble: chosen people, tribal god, unique savior, one road to

salvation, final and supreme prophet, infidels are damned, etc. Does

anyone doubt that this is a serious problem in today's world? Did

you think that so-called Western progress had left all that far

behind? So let us proceed rationally, though not with the sterile

rationalism that denigrates intuition. All of mankind's greatest

thoughts arise in intuition and are checked by logic. I'm not just

talking about mystics, philosophers and artists. Ask Einstein.

 

>But consciousness is much more inclusive than mental phenomena associated

>with one person. If *everything* is consciousness, then thoughts, feelings,

>sensations, and other mental phenomena are certainly consciousness. But

>school busses and teacups are also consciousness.

 

School buses and teacups are no more than perceptions (sensations) in

my consciousness. I have argued this extensively on my website

www.benjaminroot.com but will summarize here. Suppose that several

of us have a round red perception we call an 'apple'. We usually

think that something 'out there' (outside of and other than

consciousness) called the 'material apple' produces an image in our

consciousness which is distinct from the material apple. But there

is absolutely no way to prove that the external, material apple

exists at all. It is impossible to refute the statement that the

'outside' world is nothing but the sequence of perceptions that we

share in common. (By 'share in common', I mean that your sequence of

perceptions and mine have strong similarities when we are 'in the

same place', as explained several times already.)

 

So there is no reason to assume that there is ANYTHING other than the

contents of immediate awareness, namely, thoughts, feelings and

perceptions. The word 'psychological' has a misleading connotation.

It suggests that by equating the world to my perceptions, I am having

a mere fantasy. The fantasy occurs when I have perceptions that

others in my environment do not have. As long as I have perceptions

similar to theirs, I am classified as sane. That is all.

 

>The teacup is consciousness - not because it's a thought; it's

>consciousness >because there is nothing other, external, that it can

>be.

 

The teacup is a perception, not a thought. A perception is pretty

much the same as a sensation, e.g. vision, sound, etc. Thoughts, as

I understand the term, are like faint reproductions of sensations

that I draw on the 'blackboard' of my mind in order to ponder

perceptions or whatever else I wish to ponder. So I am not saying

that a teacup is a thought in this restricted sense. However, some

use the word 'thought' to refer to ANY item in consciousness, such as

a perception, a feelings, or a thought in the restricted sense. When

'thought' is thus equated with consciousness in general, I do indeed

agree that All is Thought. (Great confusion arises in philosophy

from using the same words in different ways.)

>Mental phenomena, as well as physical objects, are all *objects*

>of >consciousness. They appear in consciousness and are not caused

>by anything >outside of consciousness.

 

'Mind' is another ambiguous word. Some use it to refer only to

objects in consciousness OTHER than perceptions, namely, thoughts (in

the restricted sense above) and feelings. Others equate it with

thought in the wide sense and hence all of consciousness. In my

view, the distinction between mental and physical objects is a

semantic confusion, like subject vs. object, or mind vs. matter.

The 'physical' objects are perceptions in consciousness, and the

'mental' objects are thoughts and feelings in consciousness. Really

we agree, or so it seems to me.

 

>Note that if (D) [My consciousness is different from your consciousness] is

>true, then it entails that there are objects outside of consciousness, which

>is impossible to demonstrate.

 

Aha, now you are approaching a subtle thought that has occurred to me

too! The denial of a material world 'outside' of consciousness

indeed also implies the denial of the very concept of 'outside' in

any sense. I agree that it makes no sense to assume that anything

whatsoever exists 'outside' of consciousness, whether a material

object or another mind. The very notions of time and space merely

describe certain aspects of consciousness. Time and space are within

consciousness, and consciousness is not within time and space. Space

cannot be separated from the perceptions which we mistakenly

attribute to an 'external, material' world.

 

Therefore, it is indeed a mistake to view the different

consciousnesses of the world (yours and mine and everybody else's) as

existing distinctly and separately within some kind of enveloping

'superspace', like different stars in the sky. It has occurred to me

that this exceedingly subtle thought could provide a clue to the

resolution of our conundrum.

 

But it still seems to me that your consciousness is somehow different

form mine, even though it is a mistake to then think of them as like

distinct stars in the sky. The picture of stars in the sky only

makes sense to me if we then think of some kind of superconsciousness

being aware of these various stars in the sky. (I simply cannot

distinguish between any object whatsoever and the subject that is

aware of them ... it makes no sense to me.)

 

Perhaps this is Brahman, some might say. But if the same one

superconsciousness called Brahman 'sees' all of these stars, which

are your consciousness and mine, then why are our minds not

interconnected so that we can share each other's experiences through

what would amount to mental telepathy? If we are all different waves

in the ocean of God's mind, then why doesn't the unity of god's mind

enables each wave to experience what every other wave experiences?

How can we be God without realizing that we are God?

 

The answer would be 'ignorance', which is viewed as a kind of shadow

or darkness covering and hiding experiences that are really there but

that we cannot detect, like the television waves in the air.

 

I realize that this is all getting very vast and speculative. I am

rushing so I can take off on my long trip. This needs much more

discussion. I believe that the rest of Sri Goode's message is along

the lines I have already addressed. I am prepared to continue this

for some time, as long as others are interested. As I said, I will

be back on Friday.

 

Hari Om to all!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Benjamin,

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <benroot@r...> wrote:

> Now I don't have a problem with the statement 'Consciousness

> is everything', even though it may seem counter-intuitive. After

> all, science tells us to believe only in what we observe, and we

> observe only consciousness, taken to mean thoughts, feelings and

> perceptions (or sensations). And if 'God' is the 'substratum' of

> this consciousness, then it is not unscientific after all to

believe

> in God. The illusion of an external world of matter is generated

by

> the fact that our different perceptions are coordinated with each

> other and obey a common set of laws (the laws of physics). This

is

> what essentially distinguishes the waking state from the dream

state.

> Our common dualistic notion of an unconscious material

world 'behind'

> our perceptions, which is believed to produce our perceptions, is

> extraneous and unverifiable and should therefore be eliminated.

It

> is nothing but a mysterious 'X' that is said to 'cause' our

> perceptions, but in every other way it is a useless and sterile

> notion, since we only observe the perceptions, which are a part of

> consciousness. So as far as one SINGLE individual is concerned,

it

> is reasonable to say that everything is one consciousness.

>

 

It seems to me that we are using the word consciousness in the

limited sense of the word here. Again I see this as a limitation of

language, more than anything else.

Without a body/mind consciousness (note the lower case 'c')there are

no "my perceptions(P), feelings(F) and thoughts(T)". Yes, your PFTs

are different from my PFTs - this is not the same as Consciousness

which is the pure existence. I am conscious of something doesn't

mean I am Consciousness, it means that there is an instrument in me

that made me conscious of my surroundings, my PFTS, my dreams etc.

You may call this instrument sat, chit, Ananda, brahman,

Consciousness (note the upper case 'C'), anything, but it is

undeniable that the power enabled me to be conscious of my

experiences.

As I understand it, all this is one mass of dense Consciousness, it

is thru' Consciousness you experience your experiences, thoughts,

feelings and perceptions. There is no God besides Consciousness - it

is the "one conduit" for all our experiences. Hence there is no talk

of your Consciousness vs. my Consciousness. It is that we are so

heavily veiled in maya / ego that we can't realize we are nothing

but pure Consciouness.

> So far, so good. Already we are one step closer to the

> non-duality of Advaita, in that the subject-object (or

> consciousness-matter) distinction of common sense has been

collapsed

> to one single entity, namely the consciousness of one person.

(Some

> people claim that they can distinguish a subject and an object

within

> consciousness itself, but I cannot.)

>

> Where I have a problem is that the various individual

> consciousnesses (or jivas) are then said to be simply different

> aspects of One All-encompassing Consciousness. This presents a

major

> stumbling block to me, as it seems quite clear to me that my

> consciousness is radically different from yours. We do not feel

each

> other's pain and pleasure, think each other's thoughts, or see

each

> other's perceptions.

 

Yes, the vyAvaharic consciousness, as used in day-to-day life is

different for each individual ego. There are no consciousnesses, so

to speak in pAramArthika - who is there to see who, etc., etc.

>

> Swamiji explained this in terms of the classic analogy of

> Sankara to the space in a pot and the space after the pot is

removed.

> The jivas of the world are like a lot of pots, as long as the

> ego-sense remains. But when the ego is gone, the pot is removed,

and

> the same one space (i.e. consciousness) that was always there

hidden

> in the pots is now revealed to be everywhere and in everyone once

the

> pots are removed.

>

> However, this analogy does not satisfy me, as it still seems

> to me that my consciousness is radically different from yours, for

> the reasons given, namely that we do not feel each other's

pleasure

> and pain and so on. After all, is not one part of space different

> from another part? (It has occurred to me that perhaps I feel

this

> way precisely because I am still blinded by ego. Even so, some

kind

> of rational explanation would be enlightening.)

>

 

Every analogy has its limitations. This is a good one to explain the

individuality and the lack there of. Extending this to my

consciousness and your consciousness in vyAvahArika leads nowhere,

which is what exactly it has turned out to be.

> Any ideas? I would appreciate a response in terms of a

> continuation of the ideas enunciated in the third paragraph, since

> these represent core convictions of mine that I have thought about

> for a long time. At least, if you do not agree with them, then

> please start by dissecting them. Also, I realize that this topic

has

> been discussed recently, but once again, I think that it might be

> fruitful to try again in terms of the ideas presented above, since

> they consist of reasons rather than analogies.

>

> In order to focus the discussion, I suggest that we

> concentrate on the following questions:

>

> (1) Is the 'unity of all consciousness', including yours

and

> mine, to be taken LITERALLY? By this, I mean that we all somehow

> have the SAME underlying consciousness, appearances

notwithstanding.

> What does 'same' actually mean in this context? How can our

> experiences then seem to be different (your pain is not mine etc.)?

>

 

No, it is not to be taken literally. It only means that there is

only Consciousness and nothing else - it is not the noun form of

union as much as it is the only Singular one, so to speak.

> (2) If the 'unity of all consciousness' is to be taken

> METAPHORICALLY, rather then literally, then just what does this

mean?

> What is the relevance to the spiritual quest of 'self-realization'?

 

To me, who is steeped in mAya, this means I have to accept this on

faith in my Guru and the Guru lineage leading all the way to brahman

himself as explained in the srutis.

 

Please excuse my simplistic thinking. Had to say what I thought!

 

Thanks,

Savithri

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:56:26 -0500, Benjamin Root

<benroot wrote:

> Perhaps this is Brahman, some might say. But if the same one

> superconsciousness called Brahman 'sees' all of these stars, which are

> your consciousness and mine, then why are our minds not interconnected so

> that we can share each other's experiences through what would amount to

> mental telepathy? If we are all different waves in the ocean of God's

> mind, then why doesn't the unity of god's mind enables each wave to

> experience what every other wave experiences?

 

In the analogy of the dream, it is because the very nature of God's "dream"

is that it is a dream of separation. If each wave were to experience what

every other wave experiences, all parts would be the same and there would

be no differentiation. And such is indeed the case in the state of pure

subjectivity. But "you" and "I" don't go "there". Not with our egos. If

"you" and "I" are to talk about "this", we must necessarily have "I"-ness

and "this"-ness. When the wave cognizes itself as the ocean, pure

subjectivity arises and there's nothing to talk about, no-one to talk to,

and no words to talk with.

> How can we be God without realizing that we are God?

> The answer would be 'ignorance', which is viewed as a kind of shadow or

> darkness covering and hiding experiences that are really there but that

> we cannot detect, like the television waves in the air.

 

Ignorance would be one answer. Another answer would be that it is Divine

play: God is playing hide-and-seek with himself in a great hall of mirrors.

The joy of the game is the moment of recognition.

 

Pranams,

Shivaram

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Benjamin.

 

I don't quite understand how you can say in one breath "I cannot

distinguish between 'subject' and 'object'" and in the very next

breath say something quite contradictory like "your consciousness and

mine seem quite distinct as experiences". Who has the awareness of

my consciousness here? For all practical purposes, he is the subject

to whom 'my consciousness' naturally becomes the object.

 

Or, let us ask to whom have all these fundamental philosophical

doubts occurred. There is a Shri Benjamin asking questions at

Advaitin. He is the subject and, to him, his questions, Advaitin

Members etc. are all objects. Then, what is that inability to

distinguish between subject and object?

 

Advaita is concerned only with the subject, which is the key to all

the diverse objective phenomena. It sets out on a quest into the

subject and finds out that that subject verily is everything known

and unknown and, being the subject, it cannot be known in the mundane

sense.

 

I see "A". A-body-consciousness. 'A' is me. (I notice that you have

accepted this far.). To continue further, I understand that A is a

conscious being like me. A-is-conscious consciousness. A's

consciousness has certain distinct qualities. Distinct qualities of

A's consciousness consciousness. If I now feel that "A" has a

consciousness separate and distinct from mine, then that is 'that

feeling consciousness" only. I don't have to put myself in the shoes

of "A" and endeavour to peep into 'his consciousness'. Advaitically,

that is irrelevant. What matters is only me as the subject, that

asks questions, that tries to understand, that endeavours to come to

grips, in relation to the objective phenomena it experiences. I

cannot afford to be in everybody's shoes and experience varieties of

consciousness!

 

All experiences of ours can thus be reduced to simple consciousness

equations. That is all there is as the universe. If you say no and

point out that some scientist there at NASA knows more than me, then

that becomes "NASA scientist knows more than me consciousness" or "I

know that I don't know what he knows" consciousness and when the

secret knowledge of the scientist is revealed to me subsequently,

that becomes an 'I know it consciousness'.

I hope that helps.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

________

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <benroot@r...> wrote:

>

>