Meaning of 'Consciousness is One' (long)

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the reminder about Benjamin Root's post, Ram-ji!

 

Hi Benjamin, I went to the site and looked it up. Your main

question seems to be, "If consciousness is One, then why does it seem like my

consciousness is different from your consciousness?"

 

Benjamin, you refer in your "third paragraph" to where you set out the beliefs

and language you feel comfortable with. Counting from the top of your message,

I tried to find the third paragraph, but the third one down didn't seem

fundamental. Maybe you can repeat these points in a post.

 

There are basically three points that you are discussing.

 

© Consciousness is everything.

 

and

 

(O) Consciousness is one.

 

and

 

(D) My consciousness is different from your consciousness.

 

You state that you agree with ©. You understand that (O) is the Advaita

teaching, but when you consider the matter from your experience, it seems that

(D) is more plausible.

 

I think the reason you find (D) plausible is the way you interpret ©. You

seem to psychologize what consciousness is. In your message, you say that

consciousness can be understood as thoughts, feelings, sensations. This allows

you to say,

 

"So as far as one SINGLE individual is concerned, it

is reasonable to say that everything is one consciousness."

 

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. Benjamin and Greg and the activity

of writing are consciousness too. There's no need to deconstruct the school bus

and teacup as mental phenomena in order to see them as consciousness. The

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

there is nothing other, external, that it can be.

 

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.

 

================================================

 

So how does this affect (D), the core of your question? If your understanding

of © can be pried loose of its personal, psychological assumptions, then (O)

will become quite plausible. It will "pop out" as they say in academic

philosophy. And (D) will dissolve.

 

Let's go to (D). The assumption behind (D) is that there are two different

individuals, each with a separate consciousness somehow animating them, or

flowing through them, etc. This is sort of an advanced question, and shows a

lot of thought about these matters. And note that it contains an irony -- each

individual is assumed to exist outside the other's consciousness..... Note that

if (D) is true, then it entails that there are objects outside of consciousness,

which is impossible to demonstrate.

 

First, the assumption of a separate consciousness can be looked into. How can

consciousness be separate as in this assumption? What are the boundaries?

Think about it - if consciousness is not a physical object, and a person is a

physical object, then how does consciousness stay bottled up inside just one

person? What keeps it from spreading out and out and out, being one with

everything? Or does it somehow just assume the shape of the person? Any

research into the kosas or what science is now calling the Human Energy Field

will show that this assumption is unwarranted. Without these assumptions,

there's no reason to believe that consciousness is localized. Note also that in

English, you see "minds" as the plural, but almost never "consciousnesses"!

 

Second, you can look into what Advaita says consciousness is. In everyday

English, Advaita says that consciousness is that which knows. It is that which

is appeared to. It is that which sees. And it is not localized. It is not

personal. Benjamin doesn't see. Benjamin's mind doesn't see. Benjamin is

seen. Benjamin's mind is seen. Benjamin, Greg, Ram, and everyone else are

seen. Check the evidence on that! The problems and ironies arise when the mind

of Benjamin or Greg are taken as the seer.

 

Not only is the seer consciousness and not personal, but the *objects* are all

consciousness too. I think you already have the key to this understanding,

because in your message you stated that there can't be any external objects

causing perceptions. If you take this very insight far enough, you'll be able

to see how (D) ultimately doesn't make sense.

 

Also, consciousness is never seen as an object. Yes, whatever is seen is

ultimately consciousness. But consciousness never arises like a separate

object, as in "I saw consciousness for a half hour yesterday at 3pm."

 

Benjamin, if you like reading, there are two avenues of research I could

suggest, in addition to the interchanges on this list. And other members will

have suggestions too. One would be the thread on "solipsism" that you might

find in the archives here. That issue comes up every few years. Advaita is

different from solipsism, but can be confused with solipsism, especially if

consciousness is interpreted psychologically. The other avenue would be to find

a copy of ATMA DARSHAN by Krishna Menon (Sri Atmananda). There are several

online booksellers who offer it.

 

Wishing you well,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gregji:

 

Good to see you back with a thoughtful reply to Benjamin. Benjamin

has agreed to respond to all replies on this thread and looking

forward to that.

 

Let me take this opportunity and add some additional comments. It

appears that Benjamin switches back and forth from the framework

established by Sankara. When he is within, he sees the oneness

without any doubt. Suddenly he moves out of this framework and raises

a question which has no relevance for the Advaita framework. There

are no inconsistencies in the Advaita framework but a vision of

duality flashes when our framework changes! This is just a play

of 'mAyA' or the vision of His 'glories.'

 

Now let me try to explain the point using a story: Just like all

Indian stories, this is also a story about a Maharaja. The

Bojamaharaja along with his army was camping near a village. There

was a farmer near the camp who had several lots filled with cucumber

plants with an abundance of cucumbers. It was a hot summer day and

the farmer standing under a Banyan tree was shouting - "Come,

everyone, come and enjoy the cucumbers and I have plenty to give."

The soldiers after hearing it, had gone to the field and enjoyed

eating the cucumbers. But, suddenly, the farmer started

shouting, "Get out of my land, don't steal my cucumbers!" The

soldiers got really puzzled and went back to the Maharaja and

reported the strange behavior of the farmer. The Maharaja carefully

listened and wanted find out the reason behind the strange behavior:

It seems that whenever, the farmer was standing under the Banyan

tree, he was very generous; but when he moved out of the Banyan tree,

he was mean!

 

The Maharaja became curious and concluded that the spot where the

farmer showed magnanimity has to be very special. He ordered the

soldiers to dig underneath the spot where the farmer invited the

soldiers. The soldiers within a few minutes discovered a 'thrown of

the famous king Vikramathiya who was known for his generosity.

 

We are in the same situation like the farmer. When we are within the

Advaita framework, everything is consistent and when we move out, we

get confused and everything looks inconsistent! Shankara noticed this

problem and introduced 'mAyA' to silence our intellect!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, goode@D... wrote:

> Thanks for the reminder about Benjamin Root's post, Ram-ji!

>