Meaning of 'Consciousness is One'

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

First, let me thank Sri Benjamin for posting this important article

with detailed explanations along with an unresolved question. For

those who don't know Sri Benjamin, he is a collegue of Sadanandaji

and he regularly attends the Chinmaya Mission Falls Church

Gitasatsangh study groups. He has raised the same question to the

study group members and we had some discussion on the same topic for

sometime. But he and I feel that this forum is the right place for a

serious discussion for getting some rational conclusions.

 

To keep this discussion very beneficial to all the members, I request

members with substantive background on the topic area to actively

participate and contribute. Specifically, 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.

 

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

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

> 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'.

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI RAM CHANDRAN:

 

Sri Ram raises an analogy that I DO like, namely, the movie theater.

Just as in a dream, we temporarily believe that the images on the

screen are real. This only serves to illustrate my point that the

so-called objects of the world are no different than my immediate

perception of them. They are like images flashing across the screen

of my consciousness.

 

Furthermore, this screen should not be viewed as something within my

consciousness that is somehow different from the actual observing

consciousness. My direct introspection finds no difference between

the two. So even the analogy of a movie screen is potentially

dangerous if it causes us to revert to any kind of a distinction

between subject and object, even one 'within' consciousness itself.

The analogy of a dream is perhaps better for this reason.

 

So far, so good. But it still seems to me that MY movie screen is

different from YOUR movie screen (or my dream is different from

yours). I don't want to sound dogmatic or obtuse, but this is how it

seems to me. I don't want to believe in Advaita based on blind faith

but on reasons. Already, the elimination of any distinction between

the world and my perception of it is a major step in the right

direction. One duality has been vanquished - a duality that most of

the world firmly believes in!

 

But how do we then equate the various movie screens into one cosmic

movie screen? THAT is the question.

 

Sri Ram tries to continue this analogy by saying that even our

various consciousnesses may be like a movie within the mind of God.

When the movie stops, it is realized that they were never any

different from the mind of God. So we are all ultimately the same

One Consciousness.

 

Actually, I believe that this is a step in the right direction. As I

explained in my reply to Sri Nair, I do in fact believe in God as

the substratum of our consciousness, and the same God is the

substratum of all of our consciousnesses. So from a logical point of

view, I must conclude that our consciousnesses are all ultimately the

'same' after all. But this seems like a dry, formal reason which is

not immediately 'palpable' to me. I would so much prefer a reason

that is evident to my direct intuition.

 

By the way, as an irrelevant aside, I have some problems with the

word 'God'. This word seems beloved by dualistic religions who see

God as 'other'. These religions do not have such a great track

record as far as tolerance is concerned, but this gratuitous comment

undoubtedly has no place here.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin,

 

I do agree with you that the formal 'Mr. Root' does seem incongruous

especially on a list whose members keep telling each other that they

don't exist. But that was only in preference over Benjamanji or

Rootji which is the general form of usage on the list.

 

Now for Venkat's reply to Benjamin's reply to Venkat's response to

Benjamin's original post:

 

You have said that the perception of Venkat's Body in your

consciousness does not mean that you and Venkat share the same

consciousness. You have also said in your earlier post that the world

(which will also include Venkat's body) that you perceive in your

consciousness is an illusion. If so Venkat's body that you see in

your consciousness is also an illusion. Can Venkat's consciousness

have a reality which his body does not have? Either both are real or

both are illusory; it cannot be that Venkat's consciousness is real

and his body is an illusion.

 

What you see as the world and Venkat's body is merely the content of

consciousness. It is NOT your consciousness because the 'you' that

is seeing and the act of seeing are also the the contents of the same

consciousness. By using the word 'content' here, I am not implying

that consciousness is made of parts. It is an indivisible whole which

alone is. So there is no Benjamin's or Venkat's consciousness. There

is just consciousness and nothing else.

 

Also your according a separate reality to the consciousness of Venkat

appearing in your consciousness creates an additional difficulty. If

Venkat is in Benjamin's consciousness, in whose consciousness is

Benjamin? From your original post I get a feeling, you might say

God's consciousness. That will lead to a further question, 'God then

is in whose consciousness?'. There we have an infinite regress which

is not acceptable.

 

Though you have asked us not to resort to stories and analogies in

our replies, taking courage from our moderator Ramachandran's cinema

show analogy, I will tell you one which seems very apt in this

connection.

 

"Tell me," demanded the king, turning to his bewildered minister,

waking up from an afternoon siesta. "Just a while ago I was a

butterfly. Now, on waking up, I find myself to be a king. Which of

these two experiences is the truth?"

 

The minister replied: "Your Highness, doubtless, you are king —

not a

butterfly." The king was not convinced. He said: "O minister, how do

you know? It might be that I am the king in the butterfly's

dream!"

 

Regards,

 

Venkat

 

 

 

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

>

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

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

body

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin,

 

I am enjoying the calibre of this discussion! I see that you were a philosophy

student. So was I. Something mystical, irreversible and unintended happened

to me in grad school. I was in a Berkeley seminar, and actually stopped

experiencing any object as physical or external or causal. So I am in complete

agreement about you in that objects do not cause perceptions. The anecdote is

here, in an article called "Physical Objects Disappear!"

http://www.nonduality.com/goode.htm#western_phil

 

OK, to the topic!

>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.

 

 

Yes, introspection is a very sound way to go. This is indeed a method of

advaita vedanta - test the teachings with respect to your experience.

 

I agree that it is not your experience that what arises is a teacup. But for

exactly the same reason, it is not your experience *that what arises is a

thought*. I submit to you that the same reasoning you use to show that there is

no teacup will also mitigate against there being a thought per se. Let's say

there is an arising. Just what is it? It is part of your belief system that

labels it a thought, versus a feeling or sensation. But why differentiate among

the arisings? Why not lump them all in the same category? For the distinction

among them to make sense, you might be assuming a body/mind mechanism in the

background, producing these arisings. In the same way that you say the teacup

does not produce arisings.

 

But I agree with you - the teacup does not produce arisings. But check the

Mandukya Upanishad, Gaudapada's Karika. The mind and body do not produce

arisings either. So in this way, there are no thoughts or sensations as such.

>>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'.

 

I know where you are going with this example. It has come up many times in

advaita discussions, and indeed it is the core of your question. But the

question is ill-conceived. You are creating the problem in the question itself:

 

These "others" who have perceptions of the apple, and the apple itself. Are

these other people merely perceptions in your consciousness? Yes or No. Either

way, the question does not stand.

 

--If Yes, then the entire question dissolves. It would be a set of arisings in

"your" consciousness that appear to have their own sentience. But this is

merely an arising, just like the apple itself! There are no others, in fact

there is no YOU either which is the possessor of consciousness. You are an

arising in global consciousness.

 

--If No, if these other people are NOT merely perceptions in your consciousness,

then you have allowed something to exist independent of consciousness. This

would contradict your initial belief that consciousness is everything.

 

The question arises because of the belief that consciousness is somehow

localized and associated with a single point.

 

>It is impossible to refute the statement that the

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

>share in common.

 

As you state it, it is self-refuting. Because of the assumption built in about

the equal status of others with consciousness.

 

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

>contents of immediate awareness, namely, thoughts, feelings and

>perceptions.

 

OK, so I have some questions for you, from opposite angles:

 

1. Do these arisings come from anywhere? Where? God? Is God one locus of

sentience and you another?

 

2. You are sure there is nothing external to these thoughts. Do you see that

this same argument goes for the thoughts themselves? You can't establish the

existence of any other than THIS thought. There is NOW no evidence for a past

or a future thought. If you say there is, then you're back to external teacups

and apples again....

 

Welcome back on Friday!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Benjamin again.

 

I am afraid I missed a point in my last post 16115.

 

It is that, despite your plunge into Advaita, you still seem to be

working (or rather labouring) on a consensus view of reality. The

subject of advaita being the subject, there cannot be any consensus

in it; there can only be concesus-consciousness. I hope you can

appreciate the difference. Then, the worry about your consciousness'

being different from the other fellow's will vanish.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Hello Venkat and Benjamin,

 

I see in the answers on this list, that Benjamin came to the right place to post

his questions!

 

At 07:54 AM 3/6/03 +0000, S. Venkatraman wrote:

>You have said that the perception of Venkat's Body in your

>consciousness does not mean that you and Venkat share the same

>consciousness. You have also said in your earlier post that the world

>(which will also include Venkat's body) that you perceive in your

>consciousness is an illusion. If so Venkat's body that you see in

>your consciousness is also an illusion. Can Venkat's consciousness

>have a reality which his body does not have? Either both are real or

>both are illusory; it cannot be that Venkat's consciousness is real

>and his body is an illusion.

 

 

This construct of Benjamin's is the core of his perplexity. In fact, it is not

Benjamin's experience that there is any separate locus of consciousness. That

is, he doesn't experience Venkat experiencing anything. He doesn't experience

himself experiencing anything. There is just experience, consciousness.

>What you see as the world and Venkat's body is merely the content of

>consciousness. It is NOT your consciousness because the 'you' that

>is seeing and the act of seeing are also the the contents of the same

>consciousness. By using the word 'content' here, I am not implying

>that consciousness is made of parts. It is an indivisible whole which

>alone is. So there is no Benjamin's or Venkat's consciousness. There

>is just consciousness and nothing else.

 

 

Yes, consciousness is not owned by anyone or trapped inside a body or mind. The

body and mind are appearances in consciousness - which is no one's.

 

OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <benroot wrote:

>

>

> 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

 

Stay a while longer and greet the dawn.

I could not resist the temptation to join all the

others keeping you up.

You may already know of Robert Forman's book: 'The

Problem of Pure Consciousness'....I have always

thought that the 'problem' was with 'impure' (adhyasa

and avidya to be more precise) consciousness myself

but it is only a title for the book so we must not be

too fussy.

In his introduction he quotes this account from a

person who has put in some practice of meditation (

the language begins clumsily but becomes ever more

precise):

'After about two years, my experience of the

transcendent started to become clearer. At that time,

I would settle down, it would be very quiet and then I

would transcend, and there would just be a sort of

complete silence void of content. The whole awareness

would turn in, and there would be no thought, no

activity, and no perception, yet it was somehow

comforting. It was just there and I could know when I

was in it. There wasn’t a great “Oh, I am experiencing

this.” It was very natural and innocent. But I did not

yet identify myself with this silent, content-free

inner space. It was a self-contained entity that I

transcended to and experienced.

 

'Then, with increased familiarity and contingent on

the amount of rest I had, the process of transcending

became more and more natural. The whole physiology was

now accustomed to just slipping within, and at some

point it would literally “click,” and with that, the

breath would almost cease, the spine would become

straight, and the lungs would cease to move. There

would be no weight anywhere in the body, the whole

physiology was at rest. At this point I began to

appreciate that this inner space was not an emptiness

but simply silent consciousness without content or

activity, and I began to recognize in it the essence

of my own self as pure consciousness. Eventually, even

the thin boundary that had previously separated

individuality from unbounded pure consciousness began

to dissolve. The “I” as a separate entity just started

to have no meaning. The boundaries that I put on

myself became like a mesh, a net; it became porous and

then dissolved; only unbroken pure consciousness or

existence remains. Once I let go of the veil of

individuality, there is no longer “I perceiving” or “I

aware.” There is only that, there is nothing else

there. In this state the experiencer is not

experiencing as it normally does. It is there ready to

experience, but the function has ceased. There is no

thought, there is no activity, there is no

experiencer, but the physiology after that state is

incredible. It is like a power surge of complete

purity.' page. 27-8

 

It has also been my own 'experience' that on

occasions, that which is being observed fades and

dissolves into light. When looking at someone giving a

talk this happens most frequently and it is necessary

to re-establish the idea 'I am looking' for the person

to re-appear.

It was therefore interesting yesterday to come across

the following description from a book published in

1905 called 'Ramblings in Vedanta' by Rajan Aiyar.

This is a collection of writings from a variety of

sources and includes one called 'A Strange Vision':

'When I looked at my friend, I saw, to my great

surprise, that his body melted away like dews before

the sun, leaving behind a vast effulgence which became

clearer every second.....( for a time he sees

differentiation in these colours then he

continues)....Red, yellow, blue and violet, all died

away at once; and what remained..a boundless ocean of

brilliant white but apparently enlarged, if infinity

could be enlarged...a vast effulgence, in the light of

which suns, moons, stars were as nothing; a soft

calmness that no words can describe; a beuaty unheard

of in the highest poetry of any land; a spotless

radiance before which my eyes qualied and to which I

myself was drawn as if by an invisible magnet. My

companion dissolved into that ocean of light crying 'I

am thou and thou art I' ......'

He continues through his feeling of 'ineffable bliss'

to the time when he is 'brought back' by his five

children jumping on top of him.

 

 

Sleep well

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

http://taxes./

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin and all others.

 

What a pleasure to read Benjamin’s post and all the succeeding

discussions! I feel like I am living in the age of Sankara

except that the medium of communication is the English language.

I may not have time today itself to bring into my post my

understanding of all the holy water that has already flown under

the bridge. So I will go piecewise.

First let me congratulate and thank Benjamin for his sparking up

the entire advaitin group.

I quote from Benjamin’s 2nd post. “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.” (The Capitals are mine: VK)

 

This, Benjamin, seems to be your bottom line contention. I

have not yet studied the replies by the others. I shall do so

shortly. But the pitfall in your argument seems to be exactly

in the two words capitalized by me. Consciousness does not

‘have thoughts, feelings and perceptions’. It is the mind that

has these things. So in some subtle sense, are you equating

Consciousness with Mind? The ordinary layman’s statement ‘Mind

is conscious of ….’ is itself a weak helpless usage of the word

‘conscious’. Mind being conscious of something and

‘Consciousness’ (cit in Samskrit) are different concepts. The

very fact that mind is ‘conscious’ is because of the

Consciousness present as the substratum.

 

Your question about plurality of Consciousness arises because

of the above subtle slip of identification between two different

concepts.

 

I have not studied Philosophy in any formal manner. So let me

know whether I am ‘technically’ wrong.

 

I shall continue after I have studied the posts by the others.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

http://taxes./

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin and all advaitins,

 

Please allow me to learn by attempting to put it from my

perspective...

 

I attempted to put the progression of human plane of consiousness and

juxtaposed with the material understanding at different depths of

knowledge as an anology...(taken from a old posting of mine)

 

 

 

.....Plastic & iron

....are different

..........| Element state

..........| ( different atomic number but..etc)

..........|...|........Supersting state

..........|...|....(Iron is nothing but plastic

..........|...|.....which is nothing but you, me etc)

..........|...|...............|

-oo <-|--|---|-----0---------|->+oo

.......|............|

.......|........Atomic state

.......|......(Iron and plastic are same)

.....Multitude

....of objects

 

 

============Progression towards advanced stage ====>

 

 

........Material

........Humanstate

............|.Sadhaka

............|..state

............|...|...Savikalpa

............|...|....state.....Nirvikalpa state

............|...|.....|.........|

-oo <-|--|-|---|-----0---------|->+oo

.......|..|

.......|.ignorant state

.......|

......Animal state

 

 

At the superficial level you and i are different...iron and plastic

is different etc.,. But as one gains knowledge he or she can

principally agree that plastic and iron are technically same but

different as objects. But raising above in consciousness will enable

one to feel or realize the uniqueness (lesser duality).

 

As long as the Consciousness identifies with the body... all the

awareness of the sense organs (which are illumined by the

consciousness -- wonderfully explained by paramarthananda) make it

beleive its an independent individual (virtual reality continues).

 

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

 

Definitely Benjamin-ji but it warrants a total dedicated work. if

just for attaining a doctrate degree one has to slog 24 years in

their life time...some times one needs many life times to go through

to evolve a step beyond this human form...A glimse of such higher

state can be correlated with a child.

 

I know i didn't do a good job of explaining it completely, which is

always my handicap...

 

Pranams to advaitins...

--V.Srinivasan

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:04:17 -0600, Shivaram <conte wrote:

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

> <benroot wrote:

>

> <snipped>

>> (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.)?

 

While reading another list I found the following quotation and thought it

germane to the present discussion:

> When a man reports that he has found beauty in some department of nature,

> in a combination of sounds, a blending of colors or in the proportions

> of forms, he has not merely discovered an external existence. He has had,

> at

> least, a momentary, penumbral glimpse of Himself, but has interpreted it

> as something externally apprehended.

>

>  Dr. Franklin Merrell-Wolff.

[Guest guest]

Namaste all!

 

I have returned from my trip and am delighted and grateful to

see the interest expressed by so many participants. It will be my

pleasure to attempt to honor my commitment to Ram Chandran and answer

each of you. Of course, some answers may be more brief than others

or I will not be able to get any work done! But I will try to

address each of you in turn, at least for a while, so if I happen to

miss anyone please don't feel offended.

 

Right now, I would like to remind everyone of what I am sure

we all feel is actually the central point in any discussion of

Advaita: It is primarily about experience rather than about

philosophy. The basic fact that I start from is that the rishis of

the Upanishads, as well as all true mystics, had an overpowering

spiritual experience that they attempt as best they can to describe

with ordinary words. Ultimately, a statement such as 'I am All' or

'Atman is Brahman' is the spontaneous utterance of someone who has

had a powerful personal experience.

 

However, for mere mortals such as ourselves, I do feel that

it is important to start with some philosophy, at least those of us

who are inclined in that direction. For example, being of a more or

less 'scientific' temperament, I probably would not believe in 'God'

unless I first felt that there was a powerful reason for his

existence, namely, that all that I see could not simply have happened

'all by itself'. Existence, whatever it is, is a miracle that can

only be ultimately explained through some notion along the lines of

'God'. Materialism as a philosophy, however seductive to common

sense, appears impotent to those who have gone beneath the surface

and realize the inherently miraculous nature of existence.

 

Then, starting from 'rational' ideas such as this regarding

the existence of 'God', we can then surmise that life must have an

ultimately spiritual purpose, namely, our spiritual education. As

we become more thoughtful, we progress from 'mere' mythical

religions to the much more refined nondualistic concepts of Advaita

and other similar spiritual trends, such as Zen Buddhism, etc.

 

And it can only be helpful to try to understand the insights

of the rishis and mystics using whatever logic and intuition we can

muster. But we must never forget the primacy of the raw experience

of those realized masters who are undoubtedly the vanguard of

humanity and who have reached higher states of consciousness ahead of

us.

 

Now I must do some work, but I will return later today and

over the weekend to try to answer each of your kind responses (not

already answered on Wednesday). I do appreciate the very high

caliber of the responses and welcome this exceptional opportunity to

sharpen my spiritual wits. Reading books can only take us so far.

Over course, there is also Sadhana in general, of which the Advaitin

Maling List is undoubtedly a valuable part.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

First, let me thank you for starting this topic of discussion with

great dedication and enthusiasm. The discussions were quite sumptuous

and response from the members is a true reflection of your

scholarship and determination. I don't believe that the members

demand response from you instantaneously and please take as much time

as you need for your response. I also believe that this topic is one

of the most important aspects of advaita philosophy and we can afford

to spend a long length of time. This thread will be kept open until

you decide that 'enough is enough!'

 

You are likely to receive responses from several others and current

responsed indicate that the respondents want to keep the dialog going.

In all probability, this question may not necessarily be resolved to

the complete satisfaction of all. But certainly these questions are

quite helpful in strengthening our 'belief that Consciousness is One!'

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

>

> Namaste all!

>

> I have returned from my trip and am delighted and grateful to

> see the interest expressed by so many participants. It will be my

> pleasure to attempt to honor my commitment to Ram Chandran and

answer

> each of you. Of course, some answers may be more brief than

others

> or I will not be able to get any work done! But I will try to

> address each of you in turn, at least for a while, so if I happen

to

> miss anyone please don't feel offended.

>

> Right now, I would like to remind everyone of what I am sure

> we all feel is actually the central point in any discussion of

> Advaita: It is primarily about experience rather than about

> philosophy. The basic fact that I start from is that the rishis of

> the Upanishads, as well as all true mystics, had an overpowering

> spiritual experience that they attempt as best they can to describe

> with ordinary words. Ultimately, a statement such as 'I am All' or

> 'Atman is Brahman' is the spontaneous utterance of someone who has

> had a powerful personal experience.

>

> However, for mere mortals such as ourselves, I do feel that

> it is important to start with some philosophy, at least those of us

> who are inclined in that direction. For example, being of a more

or

> less 'scientific' temperament, I probably would not believe

in 'God'

> unless I first felt that there was a powerful reason for his

> existence, namely, that all that I see could not simply have

happened

> 'all by itself'. Existence, whatever it is, is a miracle that can

> only be ultimately explained through some notion along the lines of

> 'God'. Materialism as a philosophy, however seductive to common

> sense, appears impotent to those who have gone beneath the surface

> and realize the inherently miraculous nature of existence.

>

> Then, starting from 'rational' ideas such as this regarding

> the existence of 'God', we can then surmise that life must have an

> ultimately spiritual purpose, namely, our spiritual education. As

> we become more thoughtful, we progress from 'mere' mythical

> religions to the much more refined nondualistic concepts of Advaita

> and other similar spiritual trends, such as Zen Buddhism, etc.

>

> And it can only be helpful to try to understand the insights

> of the rishis and mystics using whatever logic and intuition we can

> muster. But we must never forget the primacy of the raw experience

> of those realized masters who are undoubtedly the vanguard of

> humanity and who have reached higher states of consciousness ahead

of

> us.

>

> Now I must do some work, but I will return later today and

> over the weekend to try to answer each of your kind responses (not

> already answered on Wednesday). I do appreciate the very high

> caliber of the responses and welcome this exceptional opportunity

to

> sharpen my spiritual wits. Reading books can only take us so far.

> Over course, there is also Sadhana in general, of which the

Advaitin

> Maling List is undoubtedly a valuable part.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI SAVITHRI DEVARAJ:

>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.

 

I guess I simply cannot distinguish between 'Consciousness which is

pure existence' and the 'body/mind consciousness' of immediate

experience. And it seems to me that the general thrust of Jnana Yoga

is to start with immediate experience rather than to hypothesize

entities outside this immediate experience. The problem however, is

that the mind superposes erroneous concepts (i.e. maya) upon this

immediate experience, such as a distinction between subject and

object. As I said before, when I introspect upon my immediate

experience, the words 'subject' and 'object' seem to point to this

same immediate experience.

 

Now, I do not deny that you also have your immediate experience. I

do reject the 'solipsistic' possibility (namely that ONLY my

experience is certain to me and you may all be figments of my

imagination) as exceedingly improbable. Why only me? I simply do

not worry about this.

 

A more serious question is whether God is another, separate,

'Superconsciousness'. As I said before, I agree that God (or

Consciousness with a capital 'C') must be the substratum of our

private consciousness, simply because a merely 'personal'

consciousness would be utterly unable to sustain its existence. In

fact, I believe this so strongly that I do in fact identify my

personal consciousness with the substratum, which must be immediately

present at all times to sustain my existence. It is indeed like the

waves and the ocean. But is there also a Superconsciousness

'somewhere' that is distinct from any private consciousness such as

yours or mine? As discussed before, 'space' and 'time' are within

consciousness, so to even speak of a distinct Superconsciousness

'somewhere else' is highly ambiguous. The concept of 'God' seems

necessary to me but it also represents the horizon of what we can

think. It is like the light radius of a black hole ... it is

impenetrable from the outside and if we look to closely we may get

swallowed up!

 

At any rate, I simply have a problem distinguishing between

Consciousness (with a capital 'C') and consciousness (with a small

'c'). Just as the rishis had their cosmic experiences, I also must

proceed from my personal experience. All I can do is interpret this

as wisely as possible, with guidance from those more enlightened

than I.

 

One thing that I do believe is that overcoming the usual dualistic

consciousness of subject and object is the key to the higher states

of consciousness. This is apparent from the testimony of so may

spiritual masters from all times and places.

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI SIVARAM:

>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.

 

Along these lines, let me express my personal opinion (expressed also

by someone else here) that as we ascend to divine consciousness we

also acquire 'powers' of the divine, such as telepathy and perhaps

even control over phenomena. Now I am not the superstitious kind,

nor am I particularly interested in 'miracles', but this does seem to

me like a likely logical consequence of the discovery that 'God' is

the substratum of our consciousness and not 'somewhere else'.

 

It would then seem to me that our apparent separateness from others

is due to a kind of darkness or shadow that hides what is potentially

there in our consciousness but to which we are not presently

receptive, something like television waves in the air. We could

potentially experience everyone's experience as God undoubtedly does,

but this is usually hidden from us due to ignorance, which takes the

form of the ego.

 

Now why does this ignorance exist in the first place, if we are

ultimately God? On my website, I expressed the opinion that the

illusion of separate existence is in fact a beneficial illusion,

since it seems to multiply the joy in life that a pure consciousness

will feel. In other words, God is creating a charade of different

'people' out of his own 'substance' (i.e. consciousness) in order to

effectively (if not actually) 'multiply' his sat-chit-anada. But

this charade must proceed through evolutionary stages, from darkness

to light, and that is human history. Well, pretty speculative of

course, but the 'problem of ignorance' (the counterpart to the

Christian 'problem of evil') must be addressed at some point...

 

So ... when we finally merge back into the light from which we came,

does this illusory spectacle of different 'spirits' happy to be alive

cease to 'exist'? I think not. And once again, I feel that the key

to this paradox is that the notion of distinctness is closely related

to the notion of space. As I said before, space is within

consciousness and consciousness is not within space. So to speak of

distinct consciousnesses in some kind of 'enveloping superspace' is

incorrect, and this may be the key to the resolution of our paradox.

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Benjamin:

>

> First, let me thank you for starting this topic of discussion with

> great dedication and enthusiasm.

 

Namaste,

 

For those who joined after June 2002, the following thread

would a feast also:

 

advaitin/post?act=reply&messageNum=13592

 

 

and of Frank-ji's classic:

 

advaitinMaiello%2C%

20Frank/Maiello-Freedom.doc

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji:

 

I am glad that you brought to the members' attention about Frankji's

post and article. Let me hope that Frankji reads this message and

provide his wisdom on this important topic.

 

I am also delighted to see responses from Sri Shivaram, Sri

Srinivasan, Sri Venkatraman and Savithriji. I welcome everyother

member to join this bandwagon and provide their insights.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> For those who joined after June 2002, the following thread

> would a feast also:

>

> advaitin/post?

act=reply&messageNum=13592

>

>

> and of Frank-ji's classic:

>

> advaitinMaiello%2C%

> 20Frank/Maiello-Freedom.doc

[Guest guest]

Sunderji, you are a historian standing tall on this Advaitin

landscape where surface-surfing winds of casual enquiry efface the

sand dunes of our past ponderings out of recognition. Oh, those of

you who need answers, have doubts, go back to post # 1 and climb

therefrom before committing yourself to print!

 

Sunderji, I couldn't retrieve Frankji's classic. Is the URL correct?

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________________

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> For those who joined after June 2002, the following thread

> would a feast also:

>

> advaitin/post?

act=reply&messageNum=13592

>

>

> and of Frank-ji's classic:

>

> advaitinMaiello%2C%

> 20Frank/Maiello-Freedom.doc

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO S. VENKATRAMAM

>You have said that the perception of Venkat's Body in your

>consciousness does not mean that you and Venkat share the same

>consciousness. You have also said in your earlier post that the world

>(which will also include Venkat's body) that you perceive in your

>consciousness is an illusion. If so Venkat's body that you see in

>your consciousness is also an illusion. Can Venkat's consciousness

>have a reality which his body does not have? Either both are real or

>both are illusory; it cannot be that Venkat's consciousness is real

>and his body is an illusion.

 

The perception of Venkat's body in my consciousness is an illusion

only in that it does not refer to a material body 'outside' of my

consciousness, as is customary believed by the vast majority of

humanity. There is only the perception of Venkat's body in my

consciousness and not another 'real, material' body 'out there'

somewhere. So in this context, the 'unreality' of Venkat's body only

means the non-existence of the material counterpart to the perception.

 

However, 'reality' in the case of consciousness simply means that the

consciousness occurs. I do not doubt that Venkat's consciousness

occurs, and the occurrence of Venkat's consciousness (as opposed to

his body) has nothing to do with a hypothetical material world.

Indeed, the definition of the hypothetical, material world is: that

which is outside of anybody's consciousness and which allegedly

produces the perceptions in our minds.

 

So we are talking about two different meanings of the word 'reality',

and we can indeed say that Venkat's consciousness is real while his

body is not (except as a perception).

 

 

>(1)What you see as the world and Venkat's body is merely the content of

>consciousness. (2)It is NOT your consciousness because the 'you' that

>is seeing and the act of seeing are also the the contents of the same

>consciousness. (3)By using the word 'content' here, I am not implying

>that consciousness is made of parts. (4)It is an indivisible whole which

>alone is. (5)So there is no Benjamin's or Venkat's consciousness. (6)There

>is just consciousness and nothing else.

 

Sentence 1: I agree that the world, including Venkat's body, are

'merely the content of consciousness'. To be precise, we each have a

replica of the world in our respective consciousnesses as a sequence

of perceptions, and these sequences are coordinated with each other

according to the laws of physics.

 

Sentence 2: As I have argued, I cannot distinguish between subject

and object when I consult my immediate awareness - both words seem to

refer to the same thing, namely the immediate awareness itself.

Hence the 'you' [or rather 'I'] than is seeing, the act of seeing,

and the contents of my consciousness all collapse into the same

reality, namely, this immediate awareness. So by what logic is this

not 'my consciousness'? The words 'my consciousness' refers to this

immediate awareness as I sit here quietly introspecting.

 

Sentences 3 & 4: I agree that consciousness is not made of parts.

Parts do seem to arise in my perception, since, e.g., I see a blue

patch here and a red patch there. But there is ONE consciousness

taking it all in at once and I cannot cut it with a knife, for

instance. I have already argued that space is within consciousness

and consciousness is not within space. It seems to me that

consciousness would have to be within some kind of space in order to

be divided into parts and laid out on a table, as it were. To

clarify this, remember that in a dream, objects separated in space

seem to arise but upon awaking we realize that no such thing

occurred. Such is the power of the mind to cast a spell on us. So

on this point I agree.

 

Sentences 5 & 6: Why should it follow that there is no Benjamin's or

Venkat's consciousness as distinct entities? Benjamin's

consciousness is a unity within itself, and Venkat's within itself.

But these respective unities do not necessarily collapse into one

overall unity.

 

>Also your according a separate reality to the consciousness of Venkat

>appearing in your consciousness creates an additional difficulty. If

>Venkat is in Benjamin's consciousness, in whose consciousness is

>Benjamin? From your original post I get a feeling, you might say

>God's consciousness. That will lead to a further question, 'God then

>is in whose consciousness?'. There we have an infinite regress which

>is not acceptable.

 

Benjamin's thoughts, feelings and perceptions (including Venkat's

body) are within Benjamin's consciousness. (As I mentioned before,

'thought' for me refers to faint reproductions of perception on the

'blackboard' of my mind, when I analyze the contents of my

perception.) Likewise, Venkat's thoughts, feelings and perceptions

(including Benjamin's body) are within Venkat's consciousness. Also,

we have perceptions of our own body, as when I hold my hand out and

look. Again, this obervation is nothing but perception and does not

refer to a material hand distinct from perception.

 

As I have argued several times, I agree that the 'God hypothesis' is

necessary as the substratum of our respective consciousnesses. But

as I also mentioned earlier today, it is debatable whether there is

in addition another separate 'Superconsciousness' which is God's mind

in itself, distinct from the various substrata. Somehow this seems

to me like nothing but a 'bigger' version of Venkat or Benjamin, as

though we simply took your consciousness or mine and 'blew it up'.

On the other hand, I do agree that God is in some sense an 'infinite

consciousness' without limitations, that 'knows' everything and

'feels' perfect bliss. I do not believe that any kind of a 'finite'

consciousness could have produced the world, and the miracle of

existence is he very reason for surmising the existence of 'God'.

At any rate, it is certainly not necessary for God to be in someone's

consciousness, as there is no distinction between subject and object,

as I have argued many times. It is like the atheistic objection,

'Who created God?' God is by definition the Ultimate Source of

Reality, which is its own source is some unfathomable way. There is

no need for an infinite regress.

 

>The minister replied: "Your Highness, doubtless, you are king -

>not a butterfly." The king was not convinced. He said: "O minister, how do

>you know? It might be that I am the king in the butterfly's

>dream!"

 

A charming story from Taoism, which shares much of the wisdom of

Advaita and Zen Buddhism. The images of king and butterfly pass

across the same consciousness like different clouds across the sky.

So it makes no sense to ask whether butterfly is in the king's dream,

or the king in the butterfly's dream, any more than it makes sense to

ask whether one cloud is 'in' another cloud. However, one

king-butterfly stream of consciousness is distinct from another

king-butterfly stream of consciousness. We are not thereby justified

in collapsing all streams of consciousness into one overall Stream of

Consciousness.

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI MADATHIL RAJENDRAN NAIR

>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.

 

When I introspect upon my OWN consciousness, the words 'subject' and

'object' seem to refer to the same immediate awareness. They are two

different words pointing to the same reality. However, I am not

aware of any of the contents of YOUR consciousness within my own

consciousness, namely your thoughts, feelings and perceptions. I see

only mine not yours. And you see only yours and not mine.

Evidently, there are two separate streams of consciousness that

cannot be bridged, at least not until telepathy becomes an actual

experience and not a hypothesis. So the unification of subject and

object, as they refer to MY consciousness, cannot be legitimately

extended into a unification of your consciousness and mine.

 

You allude to Ramana's admonition, 'Who has the experience?' It

seems to me that this serves to overcome the dualism between subject

and object, falsely imposed by my rational mind on my immediate

awareness (or by your rational mind on your immediate awareness). I

agree that the overcoming of this powerful dualism somehow produces

the 'mystical' state of consciousness. I don't know how, but it

seems like an empirical fact based on the copious and rather

consistent mystical literature. (I would like that, please!)

 

However, the overcoming of subject and object within my stream of

consciousness, or within yours, does not thereby unite our

respective streams of consciousness, unless telepathy is a by-product.

 

 

>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!

 

The first sentence is a bit confusing. I presume that the 'I' who is

seeing 'A' is me and the 'A' I am seeing is you. But why cannot I

put myself into A's shoes and endeavor to peep into his

consciousness? Why is this advaitically irrelevant? Are A's

thoughts, feelings and perceptions my thoughts, feelings and

perceptions. I am simply not aware of A's thoughts, feelings and

perceptions within my own when I introspect. So as far as I am

concerned, A is another distinct stream of consciousness, radically

different from my own. It simply makes no sense to say that A's

thoughts, feelings and perceptions are part of my stream of

consciousness if I am not actually aware of them.

 

I agree that it would be quite confusing and undesirable to be in

everybody's shoes, and I do not wish this for myself. But confusion

notwithstanding, by what right do I identify my consciousness yours,

which would seem to be the logical implication of a statement such

as'All is the Same One Consciousness'?

 

Now maybe such an extreme statement is not in fact necessary to

Advaita. Perhaps Sankara, for example, never meant this. I have

been studying the Vivekachudamani for over a year with a local group,

but I cannot offhand recall a specific sentence where he says exactly

this. On the other hand, if the same god is the substratum of all

of our streams of consciousness, then that would seem to be a

logical implication, a I have indicated several times.

 

 

>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.

 

I now think that you work at NASA! Anyhow, 'I know that I don't know

what he knows consciousness' is a thought within MY consciousness.

The scientist's actual knowledge consists of thoughts within HIS

consciousness. When I finally understand what he understand, a

REPRODUCTION of his thoughts has been produced in MY consciousness.

At all times, there are distinct streams of consciousness.

 

PranAms

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 05:25 PM 3/7/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

>When I introspect upon my OWN consciousness, the words 'subject' and

>'object' seem to refer to the same immediate awareness.

 

This is true, when you stick with the direct evidence, which you seem to intend

to do!

 

>They are two different words pointing to the same reality. However, I am not

>aware of any of the contents of YOUR consciousness within my own

>consciousness, namely your thoughts, feelings and perceptions. I see

>only mine not yours. And you see only yours and not mine.

>Evidently, there are two separate streams of consciousness that

>cannot be bridged

 

This paragraph is a case of going beyond your evidence.

 

If you look closely, you can see that experience shows that what you see is

thoughts or arisings, none of which is consciousness. Benjamin arises as a

thought. Madathil arises as a thought. Can a thought contain a thought? Can a

thought possess a thought? It it your experience that one of these thoughts

possesses its own separate consciousness? It is not my experience that Greg

possesses consciousness. It is even further from my experience that Benjamin or

Madathil possesses consciousness.

 

>You allude to Ramana's admonition, 'Who has the experience?' It

>seems to me that this serves to overcome the dualism between subject

>and object, falsely imposed by my rational mind on my immediate

>awareness (or by your rational mind on your immediate awareness). I

>agree that the overcoming of this powerful dualism somehow produces

>the 'mystical' state of consciousness. I don't know how, but it

>seems like an empirical fact based on the copious and rather

>consistent mystical literature. (I would like that, please!)

 

 

This is true - if the gap between subject and object disappears, then of course

the assumed gap between persons and supposed separate consciousnesses vanishes!

 

Harih OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathilji,

 

The URL is correct, but when it is split up on two lines,

often only the colored line gets into the address box, and you have

to copy/paste the remaining part after it.

 

You can access it through the Files menu under 'Maiello'.

 

I always enjoy your poetic prose, though your compliments

this time are truly the stuff of 'illusion'! Still, your reference to

post #1 is of an archaeological magnitude, and dwarfs the historian's

stature!!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

Oh, those of

> you who need answers, have doubts, go back to post # 1 and climb

> therefrom before committing yourself to print!

>

> Sunderji, I couldn't retrieve Frankji's classic. Is the URL

correct?

[Guest guest]

Hello Benjamin, Some of the issues you raised were dealt with by Sankara in

the Brahma-Sutra-Bhasya II.ii.28. I’ve scanned it into my homepage

http://homepage.eircom.net/~ombhurbhuva/ It’s to be found under Quotes:

vijnanavada1.htm upadhi.htm might be of interest also for the notion of

mind being an upadhi of pure consciousness.

 

Here in these two pages is some very condensed thinking. His treatment of

these issues was extremely subtle. At that time the problem field was so

to speak open plain where now there are deep rutted roads. As well too

when you look at a trail in open country you will find that it is never a

rational straight line but a meander for no good reason. Yeats the poet

wrote somewhere of ‘the straight road of logic and the crooked path of

intuition’. There are bewildering shifts of attention in Sankara’s

treatment of subjective idealism (vijnanavada) but I think I have the sense

of his compass and its deviations. If I lose my bearings the members with

G.P.S. will put me right.

 

His chief method of dealing with the idealist position is a reductio ad

absurdum. If according to their stated position we ought not to be able to

do what we can do then they must be wrong. His first assertion of their

error might seem to have a ‘you’re wrong that’s the why ring about it’.Its

strong point is an assertion of common sense. Ordinary language

distinctions are useful because they mark real differences. Perception and

cognition and sense data are different from imagination, fantasy, reverie

and hallucination. It is even viscerally proved when we eat. The idea

that he is pointing towards is that there is primative pre-conceptual

presence in the world of self and others. This is the ground from which we

elaborate an idealist metaphysics.

 

Essentially this is the core of the next paragraph – “Yes, you do not speak

like that, since you have no curb to your mouth..etc.” He demonstrates the

inversion that occurs whereby instead of cognizing an object directly you

merely cognize your perception of it. If that was all you ever did how did

you come to have a concept of internal and external if all you ever had

were internal experiences. You would have no use for it so acquiring would

be redundant. It is clear that this position is parasitic of really having

in the normal realistic way a sense of what is inner and outer. ( That

Sankara is not a naïve realist he makes clear from his superimposition

theory of error.)

 

Another way to attack this position would be the polar concept argument.

If you know what ‘up’ is you know what ‘down’ is etc. Both are acquired

together. There is no meaningful way that you can get one half of a polar

concept at a time.

 

However to stay with Sankara he now deals with the usual fall back position

the ‘as though outside’ because anything else is impossible. Sankara

rejects this use of the term ‘possible’ saying that the possibility of

something is not underwritten by the power to come to know it or not. The

Buddhist is inclined to say that an object which you cannot know is not a

possible object or cannot possibly become an object. Sankara says that

this is hijacking the concept of possible/impossible and inverting the

manner of its acquisition. Really instead of saying ‘I can’t know it

therefore it is impossible’ we actually work from a direct knowledge of

things. That level is conceptually prior to the judgment of possibility or

impossibility.

 

I’ll readily grant you that this ‘priority’ argument is a difficult one but

it leads on to a general account of how Idealism makes the acquisition of

common concepts impossible. This would be the significance of his

establishing the ground rule – what is is possible and creates the concept

of possible/impossible. Possible/impossible does not create ‘is’ or ‘is

not’.

 

I think that is enough to show the rationality of the Advaitic position.

It leads on to the infinite regress rebuttal which is the key to the

understanding of non-duality via the intermediate position of the

‘witness’. I shall have to come back to this later.

Best wishes, Michael.

 

 

 

 

_______________

Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

An oversight. I forgot to mention thought you probably all know that

Brahma-Sutra-Bhasya is published by Advaita Ashrama. The translation is by

Swami Gambhirananda who also did the 2 vol. Upanisads thus ensuring uniformity

of terms and usage. He supplies occasional footnotes to clarify. Although

B.S.B. is not a book you would bring to the beach I would really recommend it.

It is 920 pages long but the excellent chapters and headings section make it

easy to navigate.

Ciao and Blessings, Michael.

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI GREG GOODE:

>I am enjoying the calibre of this discussion! I see that you were a

>philosophy student. So was I. Something mystical, irreversible and

>unintended happened to me in grad school. I was in a Berkeley seminar,

>and actually stopped experiencing any object as physical or external or

>causal. So I am in complete agreement about you in that objects do not

>cause perceptions.

 

If this happened to you - and I have no reason or inclination to

disbelieve it - then you are very lucky. For me, it's still

basically theoretical, with occasional flashes of insight and

inspiration. But I love reading about people who have had near-death

experiences and so forth which turned out to be spiritually

transformative, as with Ramana and many others. I will study your

article with keen interest.

 

One that particularly interests me is the one by John Wren-Lewis at

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/5683/dazzdark.html, not

because his experience is better than others but because he was

originally a skeptical scientist who was trying to disprove mystical

nonsense. I am always encouraged when someone who IS NOT a saint

receives mysterious grace like this. At the same time, it is

important not to be greedy for such experiences, as this no doubt

erects an impenetrable psychological barrier to future spiritual

progress.

 

Actually, to tell the truth, I have had what I consider a few mild

and temporary 'nondualistic' experiences, as I am sure many people

have had, especially when they were younger and their minds were not

yet jaded with the cares of the world and the ignorant preconceptions

of so-called common sense. For example, when our breath is taken

away by our first sight of the Himalayas or the Grand Canyon, I feel

sure that this experience is not unrelated to Advaita, even if it is

not the full-blown thing.

 

 

 

>I agree that it is not your experience that what arises is a teacup.

>But for exactly the same reason, it is not your experience *that what

>arises is a thought*. I submit to you that the same reasoning you use to

>show that there is no teacup will also mitigate against there being a thought

>per se. Let's say there is an arising. Just what is it? It is

>part of your >belief system that labels it a thought, versus a

>feeling or sensation. But

>why differentiate among the arisings? Why not lump them all in the same

>category? For the distinction among them to make sense, you might be assuming

>a body/mind mechanism in the background, producing these arisings. In the

>same way that you say the teacup does not produce arisings.

 

First, let me reiterate that my definition of 'thought' is: those

mental processes on the 'blackboard' of my mind which are like faint

reproductions of perceptions, to which I refer when I am trying to

analyze perceptions. (Yes, I can also analyze the thoughts

themselves, with what might be called 'second-order' thoughts.) At

any rate, I do not mean 'thought' to refer to all the contents of

consciousness, as some do, but only to what remains when perceptions

and feelings have been excluded.

 

My point was that the teacup does not exist as a material object

distinct from and outside of consciousness, as is commonly assumed.

It exists only as a perception and no more. But since we never

attribute any kind of material, external reality to a thought in the

first place, how does the logic get transferred? At no time did I

ever consider a thought to be an entity distinct from my

consciousness, or to refer to an entity distinct from my

consciousness.

 

Now if what you mean is that the thought must not be mistakenly seen

as something within consciousness that is yet somehow distinct from

the observer, then I wholeheartedly agree. As I alluded to before,

the mind's desire to distinguish between subject and object is so

powerful that it often tries to see its very thoughts as objects

distinct from the observing subject. Not only are material objects

seen as distinct entities outside of consciousness, but our very

thoughts are sometimes considered to be objects distinct from the

conscious subject, which makes no sense at all. So in this sense I

agree.

 

I agree that thoughts, feelings and perceptions can all be called

'arisings' in consciousness. This is a nice, streamlined, Zen way of

viewing them, and I have no problem. Now whether thoughts, feelings

and perceptions can merge into each other is an interesting question.

This may seem like a strange idea to some, but I think that I see

your point. They are all 'consciousness', so what is their ultimate

difference? If we (metaphorically) think of consciousness as a kind

a sentient 'fluid', then the difference between thoughts, feelings

and perceptions seems like no more than a superficial difference of

coloration. (I hasten to add that the description of consciousness

in terms of a fluid must be taken with a considerable grain of

thought, for illustrative purposes only.) At any rate, if

consciousness is ultimately 'one' (that is, if MY consciousness is

ultimately one ... let us please not immediately plunge back into

the preceding discussions), then thoughts, feelings and perceptions

should perhaps ultimately be viewed as the same.

 

An interesting effect happens with certain mind-altering drugs, where

colors are perceived as sound and sound as colors. (No, I do NOT

take or advocate this stuff ... I am simply reporting what I have

read.) This also happens to certain people, such as some mystics or

psychotics. (No, I am not saying that all mystics are crazy.) So

perhaps this 'bleeding together' can occurs at a more intense and

comprehensive level, where all the contents of consciousness become

'the same thing'.

 

 

>These "others" who have perceptions of the apple, and the apple itself.

>Are these other people merely perceptions in your consciousness? Yes or No.

>Either way, the question does not stand.

>

>--If Yes, then the entire question dissolves. It would be a set of arisings

>in "your" consciousness that appear to have their own sentience. But this is

>merely an arising, just like the apple itself! There are no others, in fact

>there is no YOU either which is the possessor of consciousness. You are an

>arising in global consciousness.

>

>--If No, if these other people are NOT merely perceptions in your

>consciousness, then you have allowed something to exist independent of

>consciousness. This would contradict your initial belief that consciousness

>is everything.

 

Reply to the 'If Yes' part: My perception of the BODY of another

person exists in my consciousness and does not refer to any material

body distinct from and 'outside of' my consciousness. (Nor does the

perception of my OWN body refer to any material body distinct from

and outside of my consciousness.) However, I do not doubt that the

CONSCIOUSNESS of the other person does indeed exist, distinct from

though not 'outside of' my own consciousness. (As I have said a

number of times, space is within consciousness and consciousness is

not within space. So we cannot view the various consciousnesses as

suspended in an 'enveloping superspace' like stars in the sky. In

this sense, the word 'outside' cannot be applied to another

consciousness. Yet I still say that my consciousness is distinct

from that of another, because the contents of our respective

consciousnesses clearly differ. In other words, our consciousnesses

are evidently different but they are not related in any kind of

space, so that the word 'outside' is not appropriate.)

 

Reply to the 'If No' part: Indeed I have allowed something to exist

independently of my consciousness, namely, the consciousnesses of

other people. This does not contradict my belief that everything is

an instance of consciousness, though I do not see how the different

consciousnesses should somehow be viewed as the SAME consciousness.

When I said that consciousness is everything, I was mostly concerned

with refuting the hypothesis of matter, which inevitably leads to a

split between subject and object that contradicts the fundamental

nondualism of Advaita.

 

 

>>It is impossible to refute the statement that the

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

>>share in common.

>

>As you state it, it is self-refuting. Because of the assumption built in

>about the equal status of others with consciousness.

 

The outside MATERIAL world of science and common sense does not

exist, but this does not refute the distinctness of the plurality of

consciousnesses. I do not view the consciousness of another person

as existing 'outside' of my consciousness, for the reasons just

given. So the refutation of an outside material Newtonian space is

not inconsistent with the distinction between my consciousness and

yours.

 

 

 

 

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

>>contents of immediate awareness, namely, thoughts, feelings and

>>perceptions.

>

>OK, so I have some questions for you, from opposite angles:

>

>1. Do these arisings come from anywhere? Where? God? Is God one locus

>of sentience and you another?

>

>2. You are sure there is nothing external to these thoughts. Do you see

>that this same argument goes for the thoughts themselves? You can't

>establish the existence of any other than THIS thought. There is

>NOW no >evidence for a past or a future thought. If you say there

>is, then

>you're back to external teacups and apples again....

 

Regarding (1): I have already stated my belief that something

corresponding to 'God'is necessary as the Ultimate Source of Being

which is the substratum of my consciousness and yours. And I also

admitted that this seems paradoxical in some respects, namely, how

can the SAME God be the substratum of your consciousness and mine, if

our respective consciousnesses are indeed distinct, as they clearly

seem to be to me?

 

Regarding (2): I am quite convinced that my past thoughts once

passed across the screen of my consciousness. At the present moment,

I have a memory of those past thoughts, and I believe in those

memories (at least under 'normal' circumstances ... no drugs,

hypnotism etc.). Some may argue, How do I know that the memories are

not delusions, produced perhaps by a demon? Like solipsism, I admit

this as an extremely improbable logical possibility that does not

bother me, even if it seems as though it should.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Benjamin.

 

This last sentence of your last post to me is the real root of the

problem:

 

"At all times, there are distinct streams of consciousness."

 

You grant the same validity to your as well as the consciousness of

others, where as I differentiate like this:

 

I am conscious.

I am conscious that A is also conscious.

I am conscious I cannot know what is there in A's consciousness.

I am conscious the contents of A's consciousness is unknown to me.

 

Where A's being conscious and the subsequent two statements are in my

awareness. HIS CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE UNKNOWN NATURE OF THE CONTENTS

THEREOF ARE NOT OUT THERE AS A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE STREAM. Your

knowing more and more about A's consciousness, if that happens, is in

fact your own consciousness' flowering. It is not a 'reproduction' of

the contents of A's consciousness as you state with reference to my

NASA example. Your consciousness is generating that knowledge. With

reference to consciousness, both ignorance and knowledge are

knowing. We are never ignorant because we know our ignorance and

that is knowledge. All the worlds (dream or waking or hallucinatory)

of experiences is thus your own consciousness blooming. It keeps

blooming without your asking for it.

 

I am afraid you aren't able to accept this because of your past

involvement with Berkeley. However, I am sure if you contemplate on

the nature of your consciousness and how it unfolds as this universe,

you will soon be able to appreciate what I am trying to convey. Then,

you will definitely conclude that, despite the variety and diversity

of the contents, Consciousness (the common denominator) is just one

without a second. If It is one without a second, then there is no

division possible of It too. That means the divisions that you

perceive are an error. You then become an advaitin. Best of luck.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

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

>

>

> REPLY TO SRI MADATHIL RAJENDRAN NAIR

>