Meaning of 'Consciousness is One'

March 8, 2003

Dear Group,

I would like to add to this discussion by posting a bit from "Song of

Ribhu," the english translation from the Tamil Ribhu Gita.

>From Chapter 17, Verse 25:

Brahman, itself, appears as ignorance.

Brahman, itself, appears as the ego.

Brahman, itself, appears as the intellect and the mind.

Brahman, itself, appears as thought and such.

Brahman, itself, appears as the world and beings.

Brahman, itself, appears as the form of Siva.

Brahman, itself, is all, and That am I.

By such differenceless Knowledge, you yourself be come Brahman.

We are not two,

Richard

March 8, 2003

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

> 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.

>

Sorry to barge in to this discussion.

The theory of multiple streams of consciousness introduces

a set of interesting questions. these questions are

purely intellectual and would show the futility of

trying to answer the fundamental questions through our

limited intellect.

1. What is the boundary between one instance of

consciousness and another? As you have mentioned, the

de-limiter cannot be something in space or time, since

space and time are modifications in consciousness, and

they cannot remain independent of it.

2. a. Assuming that there is a de-limiter, that has to be

outside these individual consciousnesses ( since the

de-limiter has to be something different from consciousness).

That would mean that there is something which is not

consciousness. Then the statement "All is Consciousness"

cannot be true.

b. Also, if there is a de-limiter which is not consciousness,

then we will have to bring in the concept of something

more fundamental than consciousness, on which all the

multiple consciousnesses and their boundaries exist.

What would that be? How can it be known?

c. If there are multiple consciousnesses in my waking state,

what about dream state?

Shouldn't there be individual consciousnesses associated

with each of that characters that I see in my dreams?

Will those consciousnesses cease to exist after my dream

is over?

d. If there is a consciousness associated with each person

I perceive, then that association must have started at

some point, right? So when did the Raj's consciousness

or Benjamin's consciousness come into beng? At the time

of birth? Was Raj's consciousness non-existent before

Raj's birth? Will it cease to exist after Raj's death?

3. Assuming that there is no de-limiter between the individual

consciousnesses, how can they be multiple individual

consciousnesses? They have to be one consciousness.

Then the statement "All is Consciousness" is true.

There is only one consciousness.

4. The premise was that there are multiple streams

of consciousnesses. At the same time it was mentioned

that time and space are just concepts within the

consciousness, and so these multiple consciousnesses

cannot exist in time and space.

But then, what about the concept of single and multiple?

Isn't that also concepts within consciousness?

How can we define something beyond concepts in terms

of conceptual objects?

Human intellect will try to objectify anything so

that it can describe that object in terms of time, space

and other qualities like hot & cold, one & many,

good & bad etc. But the substratum of which the intellect

is made of cannot be described in any of those terms.

Aren't we trying to make consciousness into an object

with qualities when we talk about multiple streams of

consciousness etc. Isn't it a futile exercise?

Regards,

Raj.

March 8, 2003

REPLY TO SRI MADATHIL RAJENDRAN NAIR:

>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.

>hope you can appreciate the difference. Then, the

>worry about your consciousness' being different from

>the other fellow's will vanish.

'Consensus' is not my criterion of truth, unless it be the consensus

of bonafide rishis and other spiritual seers. (Distinguishing the

real ones is a whole other topic.)

My criterion of truth is that something be evident to a calm and

clear introspection upon the contents of my immediate awareness. For

what other than my immediate awareness do I have to work with? Above

all, I wish to avoid the confusion caused by words that are used in

certain ways by force of habit but that do not correspond clearly to

items in my immediate awareness. An example would be the semantic

distinction between 'subject' and 'object' as I have discussed many

times.

Now this whole discussion revolves around what I believe to be a

central tenet of Advaita, namely, that the 'self' [subject or

perceiving consciousness] in you is the SAME as the 'self' in me.

This is where I have a problem. For a calm and clear introspection

upon my immediate awareness does not reveal any of the contents of

your immediate awareness, so in what sense can we say that the self

is the same in both?

I do agree with what I believe to be another tenet of Advaita,

namely, that within any GIVEN consciousness (yours or mine) there is

no real difference between 'subject' and 'object'. I believe that

fully realizing THIS truth in the depths of our being is the famous

'nondualism' that promises to raise our consciousness to a higher

level, according to the experience of those who have preceded us on

the path. But any alleged nondualism of DIFFERENT selves remains to

be demonstrated.

March 8, 2003

REPLY TO SRI GREG GOODE:

>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.

It is my direct experience that I am a separate locus of

consciousness, distinct from other loci of consciousness called,

e.g., Greg, Venkat. However, within my consciousness, I cannot

distinguish between subject and object, as I have discussed.

I certainly do not experience Venkat's consciousness, but I am sure

that he does. But within his consciousness, there is no real

difference between subject and object, even if he thinks there is.

That is, within his consciousness, which I assume to be similar to

mine in a broad sense, the words 'subject' and 'object' point to the

same awareness.

Really, this collapse of subject and object is the same as the

statement 'There is just experience, consciousness'. So we agree.

On the other hand, the statement 'He doesn't experience himself

experiencing anything' is the same kind of linguistic confusion as

'subject' and 'object'. By counting words, there seem to be a number

of distinct entities: 'He', 'experience', 'himself', ... All these

refer to the same immediate awareness of Benjamin. Any distinction

between Benjamin and his experience was never made by Benjamin, and

if it was made by anyone else, it was due to the confusion of words,

where different words seemed to refer to different things.

>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.

'Body' and 'mind' are perceptions, thoughts and feelings within

consciousness, as I have always maintained. Furthermore, even the

word 'within' is misleading, since consciousness is not like a box

containing items called perceptions, thoughts and feelings. The

perceptions, thoughts and feelings are identical to the consciousness

itself and represent different 'modes' of consciousness. So in this

sense, I agree that 'body and mind are appearances in consciousness'.

However, I still clearly see a distinction between the particular

stream of consciousness that we might label 'Ben' or 'X' and another

stream of consciousness that we might label 'Greg' or 'Y'. The

experiences of one of them are not experiences of the other. I have

no use for the word 'owner', but I still wish to maintain the evident

distinction between two streams of consciousness.

March 8, 2003

Excellent thread! Just my luck that I hadn't checked the digests for a few

days so wasn't able to respond to Ram's request to make an early comment to

Benjamin's very good question - certainly one that must have puzzled many of

us in the past (if not more recently!).

I still haven't finished reading all of the posts but there is a danger that

I will miss the heat of the discussion if I wait until then so apologies if

I repeat a comment that has already been made.

There are two ways into this problem that occur to me and that I haven't

(yet) seen made.

The first is regarding the question of adhyAsa. I guess you are familiar

with this, Benjamin - your later posts show that you know an awful lot more

than your first question implied. This is the idea discussed at length by

Shankara in the introduction to his bhAShya on the brahmasUtra. There is a

long writeup of it at my website (www.advaita.org.uk) based on Sadananda's

excellent posts to the list a year or two back. The mistake that brings

about our apparent ignorance in failing to understand our true nature is

described as a 'mixing up' of real and unreal. When we say 'I am a teacher',

say, the 'I am' part of the statement is real but the 'teacher' part is

false. And this applies to all of the ways in which identification or

attachment takes place, 'I am a body', 'I am a mind' etc. But equally, it

applies in the case of 'I am a separate conscious entity'. ANY attribute or

qualification is equally a mistake. Consciousness simply cannot be

predicated. It just is. And the whole shebang of world and other people is

an apparent arising in this consciousness. But it is an arising in the same

sense as the whirling firebrand in Gaudapada's karika on the mANDUkya

upanishad. As soon as you stop whirling the firebrand around your head, the

circles that appeared to be so solid simply disappear. They never really

existed.

The other way in is by comparing our current (waking) state with that of the

dream. (I can't remember who it was who suggested that the reason for the

two states was so that the comparison could help give us insight into

reality - I think it was Ramana Maharshi.) Tell me, does character A in your

dream know what character B in your dream is thinking? Is it not the case

that both of these are arisings in your own mind? So how can it not be so?

Just the same in the waking (dream).

Best wishes,

Dennis

March 8, 2003

REPLY TO SRI KEN KNIGHT:

I love vivid accounts of spiritual experiences provided they seem

sincere, and your quotation from Robert Forman has that flavor. I

know who Robert Forman is, and I approve of his attempt to document

the underlying similarity of the true nondual experience around the

world, as opposed to Steven Katz, who is convinced that all mystical

experiences are conditioned by culture. My own reading of the

mystical literature has convinced me of this underlying similarity,

which is why I believe that the nondual experience corresponds to

something 'real'.

Foreman also has a very good article on the web called 'What Does

Mysticism Have to Teach Us About Consciousness', which can be

accessed here: http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Forman.html

As long as an authentic mystic is talking, he may use whatever

language, concepts and figures of speech he wishes. It is up to me

to read between the lines. It is only when that lesser creature

called the philosopher comes along and tries to interpret the

experience and say, 'Here, this is what is really happening', that I

feel the need to say, 'Stop right there and let us dissect what you

are saying'. Also, I believe that clear thinking about such things

can provide a useful stepping-stone to a humble philosopher trying to

rise to a higher level of consciousness.

I won't requote your quote from Forman, but I will comment on it.

The withdrawal into Pure Consciousness or Pure Self without content

is a commonplace of the mystical literature and can be found in

Ramana among many others. I have no problem with this and consider

that the experience is surely a necessary step along the path,

although I would also point out that a realized person can then

re-emerge from the inner withdrawal and see the same shining Self

that he found within as identical with the universe.

The poses no problem for me, as I have repeatedly said that for ONE

SINGLE consciousness, calm introspection upon immediate experience

reveals that the distinction or boundary between self and not-self

(or between subject and object) is merely semantic. No doubt a true

nondual experience occurs when this conviction advances beyond the

merely intellectual stage and becomes realized in the depths of our

being as a living reality. This is all fine for one particular

consciousness, and it can even be said that FOR HIM both he and his

universe are the same, as I have repeatedly argued (as when I said

that the object of the apparently external and material world are no

more than perceptions in consciousness).

The problem arises when one stream of consciousness is equated to

another stream of consciousness, as I have discussed already ad

nauseum. Have any authentic mystics made this claim, or am I off on

a wild goose chase? I guess the Vedantins at least must imply this,

when they claim that the SAME Consciousness or Brahman underlies each

of us. The Zen Buddhists also sometimes speak of One Mind.

Actually, a bit more needs to be said about the 'pure experience'

described by Forman. I have repeatedly categorized consciousness

into three 'modes': thought, feeling and perception. Where then does

the 'contentless' experience fit in?

Perception is easy to recognize, as it corresponds to the five

senses, which are unmistakable, at least to me. (I know when I am

eating an orange.) Feeling is also pretty clear ... it is a kind of

private perception like warmth or like a flavor. For example, love

can feel warm and taste sweet, or at any rate it has some kind of

'warmth' and 'taste' that I can recognize. And intellectual thoughts

seem to be faint reproductions on the 'blackboard' of my mind of the

various perceptions, feelings or other thoughts that I wish to

analyze.

Which of these is contentless experience? I would have to be an

authentic mystic to know whether it is a whole new mode of

consciousness or whether it falls into one or more of the three

previous categories. However, even my own amateur meditation

produces pleasant, mild and refreshing moments of peace that I would

describe as a combination of a calm, pleasant, peaceful feeling (no

cosmic ecstasy!) and a subtle awareness that resembles thought but

without any trace of a faint reproduction of perception. Or perhaps

this thought is a very pale almost subliminal whiteness something

like Ken's quote from Rajan Aiyar.

Anyhow, regardless of what 'mode' of consciousness this might be, I

agree, based on my introspection, that there is no real difference

between subject and object at any time in our experience, whether we

are realized or not. There only sometimes seems to be, due to the

tyranny of words imposing arbitrary distinctions such as 'subject'

and 'object' on the direct, immediate experience.

Undoubtedly, the confusion caused by this tyranny of the intellect

modifies the 'taste' of consciousness into our ordinary,

unsatisfying, 'dualistic' state, where we are always restless, feel

no inner peace or bliss, and ceaselessly seek for stimulation from

the senses. I have no doubt that that the nondual consciousness in

which the distinction between subject and object has been dissolved

in the depths of our being somehow produces a bliss and inspiration

which leaves us desiring nothing else. I have no reason to

disbelieve the testimony of countless sincere sages over the

centuries who were hardly interested in lucrative book deals based on

deceptive stories. (Surely you don't suppose that every mystic who

ever lived was a fraud... Even Ramana with his open guileless face?)

Let me finish with the last sentence in the second of Ken's quotes:

'My companion dissolved into that ocean of light crying "I am thou

and thou are I" '. This would seem an clear instance of the

identification of two different consciousnesses against which I have

been arguing, but such is not the case. All that is happening, as

far as I can tell, is that Rajan Aiyar is realizing a feeling of

unity with the brilliant and blissful vision that consists of

perceptions and feelings within his own consciousness. That vision

is not to be identified with the actual consciousness of the friend

who inspired the vision.

March 8, 2003

REPLY TO SRI PROFESSOR V. KRISHNAMURTHY

>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 Š.' 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.

As I see it, 'mind' consists of a sequence of thoughts and feelings

within consciousness. These thoughts and feelings are not different

from consciousness but rather constitute different 'modes' (or

flavors if you will) of consciousness itself. They are what I am

directly aware of when I introspect. The only remaining mode of

consciousness of which I am aware, after excluding thoughts and

feelings, are the perceptions (or sensations), which create the

illusion of an external, material world.

As discussed before, the perceptions (or sensations) as well as the

feelings (or emotions) are easy to identify; I have no doubt when I

see a color or hear a sound, nor when I feel happiness or sadness.

Thoughts are a bit more subtle, since they are not so palpable or

vivid. We could define them as whatever remains in consciousness

after excluding feelings and perceptions. I also view them as faint

reproductions of perceptions, feelings or other thoughts on the

'blackboard' of my mind when I try to analyze the contents of my

consciousness.

Some would limit 'mind' to thoughts only and exclude feelings. In

this case, 'mind' has a specifically intellectual connotation, as

when we speak of the mind of Einstein. (We are not interested in his

feelings.) Let us restrict mind to this intellectual meaning for now.

Now, to repeat, I cannot distinguish between 'mind' and

'consciousness', when I introspect upon my immediate awareness.

(Even the words 'introspect upon awareness' are misleading in that

they suggest two processes, the introspection and the awareness.

These two are identical.) Mind is simply one particular mode of

consciousness, that which remains after excluding feelings and

perceptions.

I do agree that 'consciousness does not have thoughts, feelings and

perceptions' if these words are taken to suggest any kind of

distinction between the consciousness, on the one hand, and the

thoughts, feelings and perceptions which are the modes of

consciousness, on the other hand. If I used such language, it was

because I am constrained by English grammar to use words in a certain

way, which can be misleading if taken too literally.

For example, the words 'I see an apple' do not imply any distinction

between the 'I' and the 'apple' even if we are sometimes fooled by

grammar into thinking that they do. These words simply label a

particular segment of a particular stream of consciousness [my own]

consisting of a particular red shape. The use of the word 'I' simply

labels that stream of consciousness and distinguishes it from another

stream of consciousness, called by a name such as 'Prof VK'. The

word 'apple' then provides some more detail regarding the stream of

consciousness labeled 'I' during a particular segment of time (the

time during which the perception of the apple is present in that

stream of consciousness). Furthermore, the very 'time' of that

segment simply indicates the order of its occurrence within that

particular stream of consciousness. It does not imply some kind of

'outside' time in which the segment is embedded.

Advaitin masters do sometimes talk as though it is the 'mind' which

has thoughts, feelings and perceptions, as you say above. I believe

that the masters use such language to make an important point. It is

not that consciousness is different from mind. It is that the mind

(restricted as above to intellectual thoughts within consciousness)

mistakenly believes that the thoughts, feelings and perceptions are

somehow different from consciousness or awareness itself, thus

plunging us into dualistic thinking. This is well illustrated by

your next words, 'Mind being conscious of something and Consciousness

are different concepts'. The very words, 'Mind being conscious OF

something' suggest a distinction between the conscious mind and the

something that mind is being conscious of. There is no difference

between the 'mind', the 'something' of which mind is conscious, and

the process of 'being conscious'. They are all different words for

the same thing ... a segment in a particular stream of consciousness.

But the mind may mistakenly believe that such a distinction exists.

Such a mistaken belief is nothing but another thought passing across

the screen of consciousness and is in no way different from the

consciousness. But since it is erroneous, it is useful to draw

attention to it by speaking of a 'mind being conscious of something'.

The words are used to indicate the error, not to draw any distinction

between mind and consciousness. You basically agree when you finish

by saying that the consciousness is the very substratum of this

mind. (Even the word 'substratum' can be misleading if it suggests

something 'underneath' the mind, as the ground is underneath our

feet. The substratum is in fact indistinguishable from the mind, as

particular waves are indistinguishable from the water in the 'stream'

of consciousness.)

March 8, 2003

REPLY TO V. SRINIVASAN:

>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).

Advaita can seem contradictory, as can the Upanishads. On the one

hand, we are told 'not to identify with the body', and on the other

hand, we are told that 'Atman is Brahman' or consciousness and the

world (including the body) are the same. How do we reconcile

'nondualism' with such a radical distinction between our inner 'Self'

and the 'body'?

The answer depends on whether or not we are already within a

nondualistic mode of consciousness. If we are presently in a

dualistic mode of consciousness, so that subject (consciousness) and

object (body) SEEM distinct, then we should not identify with what

seems to be the body. But if we are presently in a nondualistic mode

of consciousness, then there appears no seemingly distinct body with

which we might identify.

The body does exist as a sequence of perceptions within

consciousness, regardless of whether we are in a dualistic or

nondualistic mode of consciousness (at least when we are awake). But

if consciousness does not think, 'There is a body', as a distinct

entity in its own right, then there is no apparent body to identify

with.

The perception of a body as a distinct entity is pretty much the same

as materialism (in the philosophical sense), where the body is

perceived as a self-sustaining material object. 'Matter' is, by

definition, a 'lump' of 'something' that exists 'outside' of

consciousness. Such a notion of matter does not correspond to

reality, as I have extensively argued. There are only the

perceptions of material objects, which are mistakenly believed to be

produced by so-called material bodies 'external' to consciousness.

I think that it is no coincidence that philosophical materialism,

which seems at first to be a morally neutral view of reality, is in

fact related to the ego and to dualistic thinking. First there are

certain perceptions, then the mind thinks that they correspond to a

distinct, material 'body', and then attachment to that body and the

sense of ego arises. This helps to explain why philosophical

materialism is often associated with a lack of spirituality, a lack

of belief that we are anything other than the body or that anything

other than material bodies exist. (Logical consequences are that God

does not exist and that we perish with the body.)

March 8, 2003

REPLY TO GREG GOODE:

>>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? Is 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.

'Benjamin', properly speaking, is the label for a particular stream

of consciousness, which consists of a sequence of thoughts, feelings

and perceptions (all of which have been previously defined).

Likewise, 'Mathadil' is a label for another distinct stream of

consciousness.

When 'Benjamin' arises as a thought within some stream of

consciousness, as when the stream of consciousness called 'Ram'

thinks of me, it may arise in several ways:

(1) It may arise as a symbol which refers to Benjamin as a stream of

consciousness in his own right. This symbol is some kind of mark on

the 'blackboard' in Ram's mind, such as a subvocal word (i.e. many of

my own 'thoughts' seem to be faint reproductions of spoken words

within my mind which refer to various conscious experiences).

(Remember that the 'mind' of 'Ram' thinking of 'Benjamin' is nothing

but a sequence of thoughts within the stream of consciousness called

'Ram'. This sequence is not something different from the stream of

consciousness which is 'Ram', though it does not exhaust that stream

of consciousness.)

(2) Or it may arise as faint reproductions of various aspects of

Benjamin's 'body', usually his face. As explained before, this body

is (when present to Ram) no more than a sequence of perceptions in

Ram's consciousness. The thought of this sequence of perceptions is

then, in this case, a reproduction of that sequence of perceptions,

i.e. a kind of very faint sequence of perceptions resembling the

original sequence of perceptions.

(3) Or finally, it may arise as a vague emotion, as when my name

triggers a feeling of like or dislike (let us hope the former in

Ram's mind).

It is not my experience that one of these thoughts (such as the

thought of Mathadil) 'possesses its own separate consciousness'.

What in my quote made you think that I suggested such a thing? On

the contrary, I said that 'I am NOT aware any of the contents of your

(i.e. Mathadil's) consciousness within my consciousness', which is

precisely why I deny that your (i.e. Mathadil's) consciousness can be

identified with mine.

March 8, 2003

If I may comment.

If you see consciousness with modes, then this is still what the

masters call "mind." Consciousness, used by masters like Sankara

means the same as Absolute Being or Brahman.

Here is a verse from a new translation of

Sankara's "Svatmanirupanamn" or "The true defination of one's own

Self."

Verse 71

Thus, that pure stainless Knowledge, the Supreme Self,

Is the witness of the universe,

Not bound by the qualities (of the universe),

Being the witness thereof, verily, Existence, Consciousness, Bliss.

Sankara here talks about the 'witness,' in other places called "The

unknown Knower of all the known."

If it has mode or is someting that come and goes or changes, then it

is not this witness, not this Consiousness-Existence-Bliss.

We are not two,

Richard

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> REPLY TO SRI PROFESSOR V. KRISHNAMURTHY

>

> >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 Š.' 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.

>

> As I see it, 'mind' consists of a sequence of thoughts and feelings

> within consciousness. These thoughts and feelings are not

different

> from consciousness but rather constitute different 'modes' (or

> flavors if you will) of consciousness itself. They are what I am

> directly aware of when I introspect. The only remaining mode of

> consciousness of which I am aware, after excluding thoughts and

> feelings, are the perceptions (or sensations), which create the

> illusion of an external, material world.

>

> As discussed before, the perceptions (or sensations) as well as the

> feelings (or emotions) are easy to identify; I have no doubt when

I

> see a color or hear a sound, nor when I feel happiness or sadness.

> Thoughts are a bit more subtle, since they are not so palpable or

> vivid. We could define them as whatever remains in consciousness

> after excluding feelings and perceptions. I also view them as

faint

> reproductions of perceptions, feelings or other thoughts on the

> 'blackboard' of my mind when I try to analyze the contents of my

> consciousness.

>

> Some would limit 'mind' to thoughts only and exclude feelings. In

> this case, 'mind' has a specifically intellectual connotation, as

> when we speak of the mind of Einstein. (We are not interested in

his

> feelings.) Let us restrict mind to this intellectual meaning for

now.

>

> Now, to repeat, I cannot distinguish between 'mind' and

> 'consciousness', when I introspect upon my immediate awareness.

> (Even the words 'introspect upon awareness' are misleading in that

> they suggest two processes, the introspection and the awareness.

> These two are identical.) Mind is simply one particular mode of

> consciousness, that which remains after excluding feelings and

> perceptions.

>

> I do agree that 'consciousness does not have thoughts, feelings and

> perceptions' if these words are taken to suggest any kind of

> distinction between the consciousness, on the one hand, and the

> thoughts, feelings and perceptions which are the modes of

> consciousness, on the other hand. If I used such language, it was

> because I am constrained by English grammar to use words in a

certain

> way, which can be misleading if taken too literally.

>

> For example, the words 'I see an apple' do not imply any

distinction

> between the 'I' and the 'apple' even if we are sometimes fooled by

> grammar into thinking that they do. These words simply label a

> particular segment of a particular stream of consciousness [my own]

> consisting of a particular red shape. The use of the word 'I'

simply

> labels that stream of consciousness and distinguishes it from

another

> stream of consciousness, called by a name such as 'Prof VK'. The

> word 'apple' then provides some more detail regarding the stream of

> consciousness labeled 'I' during a particular segment of time (the

> time during which the perception of the apple is present in that

> stream of consciousness). Furthermore, the very 'time' of that

> segment simply indicates the order of its occurrence within that

> particular stream of consciousness. It does not imply some kind of

> 'outside' time in which the segment is embedded.

>

> Advaitin masters do sometimes talk as though it is the 'mind' which

> has thoughts, feelings and perceptions, as you say above. I

believe

> that the masters use such language to make an important point. It

is

> not that consciousness is different from mind. It is that the mind

> (restricted as above to intellectual thoughts within consciousness)

> mistakenly believes that the thoughts, feelings and perceptions are

> somehow different from consciousness or awareness itself, thus

> plunging us into dualistic thinking. This is well illustrated by

> your next words, 'Mind being conscious of something and

Consciousness

> are different concepts'. The very words, 'Mind being conscious OF

> something' suggest a distinction between the conscious mind and the

> something that mind is being conscious of. There is no difference

> between the 'mind', the 'something' of which mind is conscious, and

> the process of 'being conscious'. They are all different words for

> the same thing ... a segment in a particular stream of

consciousness.

> But the mind may mistakenly believe that such a distinction exists.

> Such a mistaken belief is nothing but another thought passing

across

> the screen of consciousness and is in no way different from the

> consciousness. But since it is erroneous, it is useful to draw

> attention to it by speaking of a 'mind being conscious of

something'.

> The words are used to indicate the error, not to draw any

distinction

> between mind and consciousness. You basically agree when you

finish

> by saying that the consciousness is the very substratum of this

> mind. (Even the word 'substratum' can be misleading if it suggests

> something 'underneath' the mind, as the ground is underneath our

> feet. The substratum is in fact indistinguishable from the mind,

as

> particular waves are indistinguishable from the water in

the 'stream'

> of consciousness.)

March 8, 2003

Namaste Shri Benjamin.

I am quoting from your reply to Shri Greg Goode:

QUOTE

'Benjamin', properly speaking, is the label for a particular stream

of consciousness, which consists of a sequence of thoughts, feelings

and perceptions (all of which have been previously defined).

Likewise, 'Mathadil' is a label for another distinct stream of

consciousness.

UNQUOTE

Now, you must answer where are these labels of 'streams of

consciousness' lighted up. If you find a locus, then you must find

out the locus for that locus, so on and so forth in an interminable

regression. When you appreciate that interminability, you must then

investigate into what lights up that interminability. Obviously,

there is something that you cannot know of, that is ineffable, a

subject, a factor THAT WITNESSES the interminability, the existence

of which you cannot deny despite its being indescribable.

That is our SUBJECT - the capitalized Consciousness. Your engagement

with "separate, distinct streams of consciousness" is therefore a

quixotic fight with inconsequential windmills outside the realm of

Advaita. Please, therefore, lay your weapons and withdraw to IT.

PranAms.

Madathil Nair

March 9, 2003

Hi Benjamin,

You still seem to be making apparently contradictory statements. You say (in

consecutive sentences):

“I do not believe that any kind of a 'finite' consciousness could have

produced the world, and the miracle of existence is the 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.”

The first sentence seems to me to be saying that you accept that there IS a

world out there separate from you despite the fact that you keep saying, as

in the second sentence, that there is no distinction between subject and

object.

If you accept that there is only Consciousness, God or whatever as the

ultimate reality and that all apparent duality is only an appearance, then

surely there is no real problem. That there seem to be objects out there is

accepted but you also accept that this is only apparent and that these are

actually only arisings (names and forms) in Consciousness. But that there

are other people with separate consciousnesses is surely no different. Of

course the form is more complex and we find it more difficult to describe

them with names but this is only an intellectual problem isn’t it? They are

still imagined ‘separate objects’ that are not really so. If these ‘other

people’ were boxes, you would have no problem but because these boxes seem

to have other boxes (i.e. thoughts etc.) inside them, you seem to find it

poses a difficulty.

Incidentally, having just re-read this, I am not talking solipsism here –

‘you’ and ‘your consciousness’ are just as much as arising as the so-called

others.

Best wishes,

Dennis

March 9, 2003

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

Though I do not agree with your rationalization exercise, I have

enjoyed the well articulated series of replies to the respondents.

Sri Dennis in the most recent post has observed the answers that you

provided with the statement: "You still seem to be making apparently

contradictory statements. …" I do agree with his assertion because

you are switching continuosly between advaita framework and

visitadvaita framework. The way that you raised your question I was

able to diagnose the appearance of visistadvaita philosophy. Though

you have stated in number of instances that you strongly believe in

the `oneness,' but suddenly you introduce your own notions and

attributes that do not reflect the framework of Shankara.

Here is a summary of a well documented analysis conducted by Swami

Adidevananda on Ramanuja's Visistadvaita philosophy. I have provided

the source for the complete discussion. This may throw some light on

the distinctions between advaita and visistadvaita. If you read

several of the references at the end (specifically Chari's book) you

will be able to see the problem. Sri Sadananda has organized a

series of lectures by Sri Chari in the Washington area and those who

attended his lectures were able to appreciate the validity of Sankara

after hearing perspectives of the Visistadvaita philsophy.

Overall the list is immensely benefiting from this thread and most of

the credit goes to you. A continued dialog on this thread will

certainly motivate more members to get better understanding of

Sankara's advaita philosophy.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

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

The Visistadvaita Philosophy of Sri Ramanuja

(Summary of the Meaning of the Vedas )

by Swami Adidevananda

Source:

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/acharyas/ramanuja/vedarthasangraha.html

Prior to Sankara, the earlier philosophers (for example,

Bhartrprapanca) held that the self and the universe are identical

with and different from Brahman, the triad constituting a unity in

variety. The reality is one as Brahman and many as the self and the

world. The typical illustration is through the example of an ocean

which contain water, foam, waves, etc. They considered water is real,

so also are the foam, waves, etc. The world, which is a part and

parcel of Brahman, is necessarily real. Sri Sankara rejects the view

of Bhatrprapanca, because mutually contradictory attributes cannot be

predicated of one and the same thing. According to Sri Sankara the

passages which affirm manifoldness and reality of the world do not

embody the essential teaching of the Upanishads. It is a concession

made to the empirical view that demands a real world having causal

connection with time-space. Since variety is but an appearance having

no foundation in the ultimate Reality, the true essential doctrine of

the Upanishads, according to him, is only pure unity. The individual

self is nothing but Brahman itself appearing as finite due to

limiting adjuncts which are superimposed on it.

Sri Ramanuja recognized three lines of thought in the Upanishads

concerning the relation between Brahman, the self and the world:

1. Passages which declare difference of nature between the world, the

self and Brahman.

2. Passages which teach that Brahman is the inner self of all

entities which constitute his body. For instance, "He who dwells in

the earth and within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose

body the earth is, and who rules the earth within, he is thy Self,

the ruler within, the immortal" etc. (Br. III, vii, 3-23).

3. Passages which proclaim the unity of Brahman with the world in its

causal as well as effected aspect. The famous text, 'That thou art, O

Svetaketu' (Cha. VI 2-8) comes under this category.

Sri Ramanuja also recognized that the passages declaring distinction

between Brahman, the world and the self, and those affirming Brahman

to be the same in the causal as well as effected aspects, do not in

any way contradict the mediating passages which declare that the

individual selves and the world form the body of Brahman, and they in

their causal state do not admit the distinction of names and forms

while in the effected state they possess distinct character. The

individual selves and the world constitute the body of Brahman who is

their inner self. Brahman is the integral principle without whom

neither the self nor the world can exist. Hence all names finally

denote him.

The way in which Sri Ramanuja interprets the Mahavakya, 'That thou

art' (tat tvam asi) is unique. The term "thou" which usually stands

for the self here stands for Brahman ("that") who is the indweller of

the self and of whom the self is the mode as a constituent of his

body. The term "thou" does not mean the physical body or the

individual self. Since Brahman has interpenetrated all matter and

self, "thou" signifies Brahman in the ultimate analysis. The

term "that" signifies Brahman himself as the ground of the universe

and the soul of all individual selves. Hence in the identity

of "that" and "thou" there is no rejection of the specific

connotation of the co-ordinate terms. The upshot of the dictum is

that the individual selves and the world, which are distinct and real

attributes, are comprehended in Brahman. Brahman as the inner self of

the jiva and Brahman as the ground of the universe are one. The

central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a

substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that

substance. Thus Sri Ramanuja upholds all the three streams of

thoughts in the Upanishads, namely, unity, plurality and both.

References:

1. The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, p. 176.

2. See Sri Sankara's commentary on Brhadaranyaka Up. 5.1,

3. Prof. Hiriyanna's monograph on Bhartrprapanca.

4. Svetasvatara Up. 1.9-10, 4.9-10, Maha Up. 11.3.

5. "Philosophy of the Vedantasutra: Study Based on the Evaluation of

the Commentaries of Samkara, Ramanuja & Madhva," S.M.S. Srinivasa

Chari, Munishiram, Manoharial Publishers Private Lt. 1998 ISBN:

8121508096 (An Outstanding Visistadaviatic perspective of advaita

and dwaita by an eminent scholar)

March 9, 2003

REPLY TO SRI RAM CHANDRAN:

Namaste all!

First of all, I don't think that I can sustain a detailed answer to

each and every participant in this thread, which I am sure is fine

with most if not all of you. However, I do intend to continue it as

long as Ram Chandran (not I) shows some interest.

For now, I would like to respond to Sri Ram's 'accusation' (joke!)

that I am a 'Visistadvaitan' rather than a true Advaitin in the

tradition of Shankara.

First of all, I must say that I do not know Ramanuja and have spent

the afternoon trying to get up to speed on his basic thought by

visiting several websites, including the one referenced by Ram. I

clearly disagree with Ramanuja on some important points, which I will

summarize in a moment. I believe that I am closer to Shankara in my

basic thinking, though I may not accept everything. I am still

trying to learn.

Secondly, I feel it is important to think things through honestly for

oneself rather than blindly following some tradition because of its

reputation, prestige, etc. What is the point of simply repeating

quotations unless there is true conviction?

Now, regarding Ramanuja, as I said, I am only just learning his

philosophy. But clearly, he seems to believe that the material world

exists in itself in some sense, even if it is 'causally' and

'efficiently' dependent on God. One analogy I have read is that God

is like the spider who projects himself outward in the form of his

web. Let us assume that this is tantamount to the material world

existing in some sense as distinct from the Supreme Consciousness

which is called God. Other websites on Ramanuja speak of

'insentient' matter, which confirms that Ramanuja means matter in the

same sense as I do.

Well, anyone who has been following my responses, even with glazed

eyes, cannot doubt that I have maintained that matter is not separate

from our own consciousness, but rather consists merely of a 'sequence

of perceptions' which the mind erroneously 'projects' outward into a

seeming material world. This is my understanding of the meaning of

'maya'. The snake in the rope is the superposition of the *idea* of

an 'external, material' world on the perceptions which are an

integral part of our consciousness.

Furthermore, I have in several places affirmed that the Supreme

Consciousness or God is necessary as the substratum of our

consciousness and is in fact identical to it. As I said, this seems

necessary to me, as I cannot imagine anything existing in separation

from God, which is the Ultimate Source of Existence. God must be

immediately present wherever anybody's personal consciousness is in

order to sustain it. Indeed the proximity is so immediate to my

thinking that I end up not being able to distinguish between the

immediate presence of God's sustaining infinite consciousness and

what seems at first to be my own personal finite consciousness. This

too differs from Ramanuja I believe, since he seems to draw some kind

of distinction between Brahman and Jiva, as he does with matter.

In fact, Ramanuja's attempt to see 'difference in identity' (or vice

versa) between Brahman and Jiva or between Brahman and the world

seems inconsistent and untenable to me at first glance. However,

I'll have to study him some more to truly understand what he is

saying.

So as I said several times, I do agree that the same 'God' is the

substratum of each of our seemingly different consciousnesses. (I

cannot believe that God is plural in any sense, but let us just

assume that much for now.) So the LOGICAL implication of all this is

that since the same one supreme consciousness is the substratum of

each of us, then we are (at least from a logical point of view) all

'one' after all. I said this in so many words in several posts.

This is really quite close to Shankara, much closer than to Ramanuja.

The whole reason I raised this subject in the first place is because

it ALSO seems clear to me, from a purely 'phenomenological' point of

view upon introspection, that your consciousness is indeed

'different' from mine (because we do not share the same thoughts,

feelings and perceptions).

So I never maintained that I am firmly convinced that our respective

consciousnesses are fundamentally different. Rather, I was drawing

attention to what I consider a fundamental paradox. From a LOGICAL

point of view (as just explained), I must conclude that we are the

same after all. But I do not see this INTUITIVELY, when I use

introspection to consult my immediate awareness (and fail to see

yours in it).

This makes me feel a bit sad, because one other aspect of Advaita,

namely, the identity of subject and object within MY OWN

consciousness, was indeed resolved in an intuitive manner by my

arguments. That is, what seemed to be material bodies (objects)

'external' to consciousness were resolved into perceptions within my

own consciousness, upon which the mistaken notion of externality and

materiality were projected by the conceptual mind.

Resolving this difficult paradox was very encouraging to me. After

all, common sense believes very much that the material world is 'out

there' somewhere, and so do you most of the time if you are honest

(unless you are truly realized).

So I wanted to continue and resolve the second paradox, namely, the

identity of different consciousnesses within the one supreme

consciousness. I've been trying to do this for several years on my

own, and it was only in desperation that I first raised the issue in

the local Falls Church Gita Group. That's when Ram Chandran

suggested I take it to the Advaitin Mailing List. So that's where

I'm coming from folks!

Hari Om!

Benjamin

March 9, 2003

REPLY TO DENNIS WAITE:

>>"I do not believe that any kind of a 'finite' consciousness could have

>>produced the world, and the miracle of existence is the 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."

>

>The first sentence seems to me to be saying that you accept that there IS a

>world out there separate from you despite the fact that you keep saying, as

>in the second sentence, that there is no distinction between subject and

>object.

Hi Dennis!

I can see how the language may have mislead you. It is so difficult

to use language at all in philosophical arguments without falling

into linguistic 'booby-traps'. It is absolutely clear from my posts

that I do not believe in the existence of a material world separate

from consciousness. The 'world' in that first sentence should

perhaps have been replaced by 'the appearance of a world' or better

yet 'my consciousness including the appearance of the world within

it'. All of this seems so miraculous to me that I cannot believe

that a finite consciousness in any sense produced it.

Also, 'existence' means not 'existence of a material world external

to consciousness' but 'consciousness itself'. 'Existence' and

'consciousness' are synonymous for me.

To recapitulate: First I become aware of my own apparently 'finite'

(i.e. limited and non-divine) consciousness. Then I surmise some

notion of God as the necessary causative substratum (i.e. the

Ultimate Source of the Existence of My Seemingly Finite

Consciousness). Then I realize that this divine consciousness must

be infinite for the reasons given. Now since 'substratum' actually

means identity for me (like ocean and wave), then a paradox arises:

how can my consciousness seem finite? This is a paradox well-known

to all of us, and the answer is ignorance. Why is there ignorance?

Or worse, How can God be ignorant? I am ignorant of the answer...

>If you accept that there is only Consciousness, God or whatever as the

>ultimate reality and that all apparent duality is only an appearance, then

>surely there is no real problem. That there seem to be objects out there is

>accepted but you also accept that this is only apparent and that these are

>actually only arisings (names and forms) in Consciousness. But that there

>are other people with separate consciousnesses is surely no different.

>Of course the form is more complex and we find it more difficult to describe

>them with names but this is only an intellectual problem isn't it? They are

>still imagined 'separate objects' that are not really so. If these 'other

>people' were boxes, you would have no problem but because these boxes seem

>to have other boxes (i.e. thoughts etc.) inside them, you seem to find it

>poses a difficulty.

There is a radical difference between 'objects out there' and 'other

people with separate consciousnesses' in the context of my argument.

The 'objects out there' refer to actual perceptions within my

immediate awareness, upon which my mind mistakenly projects the idea

of a material world external to my consciousness. On the other hand,

the 'other people with separate consciousnesses' are NOT present in

my immediate awareness, either as perceptions or as anything else.

So the argument applied to 'objects out there' CANNOT be extended to

'other people with separate consciousnesses', because of this

fundamental difference.

Now, like you, I am not a solipsist. I do not deny that they exist,

only that they are not present in any way in MY consciousness. (The

appearance of their body is indeed present as perceptions, but this

is quite different from their actual consciousness.) So this is why

I have trouble seeing the identity of my consciousness and that of

another. Hope this makes sense.

March 9, 2003

REPLY TO SRI MADATHIL RAJENDRAN NAIR

>I am quoting from your reply to Shri Greg Goode:

>

>QUOTE

>

>'Benjamin', properly speaking, is the label for a particular stream

>of consciousness, which consists of a sequence of thoughts, feelings

>and perceptions (all of which have been previously defined).

>Likewise, 'Mathadil' is a label for another distinct stream of

>consciousness.

>

>UNQUOTE

>

>Now, you must answer where are these labels of 'streams of

>consciousness' lighted up. If you find a locus, then you must find

>out the locus for that locus, so on and so forth in an interminable

>regression. When you appreciate that interminability, you must then

>investigate into what lights up that interminability. Obviously,

>there is something that you cannot know of, that is ineffable, a

>subject, a factor THAT WITNESSES the interminability, the existence

>of which you cannot deny despite its being indescribable.

>

>That is our SUBJECT - the capitalized Consciousness. Your engagement

>with "separate, distinct streams of consciousness" is therefore a

>quixotic fight with inconsequential windmills outside the realm of

>Advaita. Please, therefore, lay your weapons and withdraw to IT.

When I think of the label 'Benjamin' or 'Madathil', that label is

within my consciousness as a thought. As a thought, it is no

different from my consciousness. That is, upon introspection of my

immediate awareness, it is evident to me (if not to you) that

thoughts, feelings and perceptions are clearly the different kinds of

consciousness that occur, just as red, blue and green are different

kinds of colors.

Now I have also repeatedly said that when I introspect upon my

immediate awareness, I cannot distinguish between subject and object.

They are both words that refer to the same thing, namely, that very

immediate awareness itself.

So there is no question of an infinite regress. 'Witness',

'consciousness', 'awareness', 'thoughts, feelings and perceptions',

are all different words for the same thing ... that immediate

awareness. But this immediate awareness is either MY immediate

awareness or YOUR immediate awareness or someone else's. All

immediate awareness is a particular immediate awareness. The

different immediate awarenesses do not overlap, since their contents

are entirely different. This is the crucial point which you must not

forget. Capitalizing Consciousness with a 'C' does nothing to

alleviate the problem. It only creates the illusion of an identity

that is not borne out by immediate introspection. The consciousness

labeled 'Benjamin' and the consciousness labeled 'Madathil' are still

distinct, since their contents do not overlap.

You say that the witness is ineffable and indescribable, because you

want to point to it as some PARTICULAR item in your consciousness

among others. This attempt is doomed. Rather, the witness is the

totally of all consciousness. Or rather, the witness labelled

'Benjamin' is the totality of the contents of the consciousness

labelled 'Benjamin', and likewise for 'Mathadil'. For any given

consciousness, the distinction between witness and witnessed is

ultimately invalid, like the distinction between subject and object.

That is the meaning of 'Atman is Brahman'.

(At least this seems true form a phenomenological, experiential,

introspective point of view, when I introspect upon my immediate

awareness. However, from a logical and abstract point of view, it

does seem that since the witness in each of us is ultimately God,

then there must be some ultimate identity after all. But this is

purely formal and counterintuitive. See my previous post to Ram

Chandran for further clarification.)

As I explained in a previous post, the Upanishads proceed in two

stages. First, they speak as though the witness is distinct from the

witnessed, and in this case they say that the witness must not

identify with the witnessed. This is for the benefit of ordinary

mortals, who are still trapped in a dualistic consciousness which

distinguishes between subject and object. From the standpoint of an

erroneous dualistic consciousness, it is indeed inappropriate to

identify subject with object or self with body, for example. This

would be adding an error to an error. But once the identity of

subject and object is realized (i.e. the second stage), then the

question of identity does not arise, as there are then not two

different things (subject and object) to be identified.

Failure to comprehend these two progressive stages of the spiritual

quest, as described within the Upanishads, leads to endless confusion

.... except for those naive people who fail to realize that this

apparent contradiction exists in the first place.

Now all that I have just said occurs within my particular

consciousness, as pointed out so many times. That is, the

realization of the identity of subject and object occurs within my

particular consciousness when I introspect clearly and calmly upon my

immediate awareness. This has nothing to do with the further alleged

identity of your consciousness and mine, which was the crux of my

initial question. Nothing in what you just said addresses this

issue. So the quixotic fight continues...

March 9, 2003

Namaste Shri Benjamin.

Sorry, I am barging in to your discussion with Shri Dennis.

______________________

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> REPLY TO DENNIS WAITE:

>

> To recapitulate: First I become aware of my own apparently 'finite'

> (i.e. limited and non-divine) consciousness. Then I surmise some

> notion of God as the necessary causative substratum (i.e. the

> Ultimate Source of the Existence of My Seemingly Finite

> Consciousness). Then I realize that this divine consciousness must

> be infinite for the reasons given. Now since 'substratum' actually

> means identity for me (like ocean and wave), then a paradox arises:

> how can my consciousness seem finite? This is a paradox well-known

> to all of us, and the answer is ignorance. Why is there ignorance?

> Or worse, How can God be ignorant? I am ignorant of the answer...

____________________

Who is aware of the finitude of your consciousness here? That is

the substratum, the real you. You don't have to surmise a notion of

God. Finitude and ignorance exist only as long as you identify

yourself with your limitations. When you become the ocean, the

finitude of the waves don't limit you any more. Instead of

asking "Why is there ignorance?", the question to be asked is "How do

I become aware of my ignorance?" or "What is it that lights up my

ignorance to me?". You cannot ask such questions if there is no

answer available. The answer is the SUBJECT we are talking about

aside of which there really is nothing else.

___________________

>

> There is a radical difference between 'objects out there'

and 'other

> people with separate consciousnesses' in the context of my

argument.

> The 'objects out there' refer to actual perceptions within my

> immediate awareness, upon which my mind mistakenly projects the

idea

> of a material world external to my consciousness. On the other

hand,

> the 'other people with separate consciousnesses' are NOT present in

> my immediate awareness, either as perceptions or as anything else.

> So the argument applied to 'objects out there' CANNOT be extended

to

> 'other people with separate consciousnesses', because of this

> fundamental difference.

_______________

If the "other people with separate consciousnesses" are not present

in your immediate awareness, at least you know that they are

somewhere there. Their being somewhere there is a perception. Now,

about the contents of those separate consciousnesses. You do not

know what they are, which means the contents are unknown to you or

you are ignorant about them although you know that they are separate

and distinct from yours. Isn't that then a perception of ignorance?

Any knowing is knowledge including knowing your own ignorance or the

existence of the unknown. Such knowing is possible only because of

the substratum.

Relativity existed even before Einstein. It exists even after him.

Let us talk to a person who knows nothing about both. When we

mention Einstein and relativity, he becomes aware of his ignorance.

That is knowledge - not ignorance (knowledge of ignorance). Now, the

guy reads about Einstein and gathers some knowledge about the life of

the famous scientist. He then says I know about Einstein. The

earlier ignorance has now been removed at least partly. Now, he

learns physics and mathematics and then delves into the mathematical

profundity of Einstein's equations and ultimately says "I now know

the theory of relativity". Again, that is knowledge taking place.

This will apply to your not knowing the contents of other people's

conscisounesses and your subsequent knowing them. Everything is a

flowering of your consciousness!

For the sake of understanding, let us take consciousness as something

that projects out and takes the shape of objects perceived. It can

take up any shape - a distant galaxy, the description of a blackhole

and the ignorance about galactical matter on the far fringes of the

universe from which light is yet to reach the earth. All these are

knowledge. When the light which is yet to arrive reaches ultimately

that is also knowledge. We then say: "Ah! I know! I see a new

galaxy.". In effect, our ignorance is the very light that leads us

to the Truth. Ignorance is knowledge, Sir. And, all the fireworks

flower in your consciousness.

____________

PranAms.

Madathil Nair

March 9, 2003

Dear Benjamin,

Sorry for the delay in responding; but the internet connection

from my house in Mumbai was slow in the weekend that I could not

reply at all.

I have tried to point out below, what appear to me as contradictions

in your arguments:

> 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.

This would then mean that there is absolutely no difference between

the reality of a ghost and that of Venkat. While from the advaitic

point of view this is the correct position, it cannot be so from the

point of view of Benjamin, who thankfully would accord an higher

order of reality to Venkat's consciousness than he would to a ghost's.

> 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.

Here you have argued very well for the impossibility of existence of

Benjamin's consciousness as an entity distinct from Venkat's

consciousness. So where is the problem?

> 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.

If Venkat's consciousness is distinct from Benjamin's consciousness,

then it has to be ouside Benjamin's consciousness. By definition

Benjamin can only be aware of the contents of his own consciousness.

So the very existence of Venkat's consciousness, for Benjamin can

only be an act of faith. Again nothing wrong with faith except that

we agreed not to resort to it in these discussions.

> 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.

If Venkat himself is in Benjamin's consciousness, then how can

Venkat's consciousness be out of or distinct from Benjamin's

consciousness. If here we are talking about the consciousness of a

Venkat outside Benjamin's consciousness then such a Venkat does not

exist for Benjamin.

> 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.

If as you have agreed, there is a consciousness that is infinite,

then there can be only that consciousness and nothing else. To say

otherwise would be argue against its being infinite. I have no issues

whatsoever if you prefer to call it God's consciousness while my own

preference would be to call it just consciousness.

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

> Advaita and Zen Buddhism.

Well I picked it up from an article by Swami Bodhananda.

Another anology to end my post. A pole vaulter cannot get over the bar

without the pole. He also cannot get over the bar, without letting go

of the pole. So is it with logic.

Regards,

Venkat

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

>

> REPLY TO S. VENKATRAMAM

>

March 9, 2003

> Advaita can seem contradictory, as can the Upanishads. On the one

> hand, we are told 'not to identify with the body', and on the other

> hand, we are told that 'Atman is Brahman' or consciousness and the

> world (including the body) are the same. How do we reconcile

> 'nondualism' with such a radical distinction between our

inner 'Self'

> and the 'body'?

>

Benjamin-ji,

Appropriate knowledge at an appropriate state of mind alone reveals

the intended secret of the scriptures. Hence it will make sense only

at that plane of consciousness. My analogy of plastic and iron

explains that. Though scientifically plastic and iron are nothing but

just a different manifestation of a superstring...attempting to take

that as a proof in proving something else in a lower planes of

consciousness will only lead to contradictions and confusions.

When shankara says ...Samprapte sannihite kale. Nahi nahi rakshati

dhukrinkarane ...he might have meant just theories are all not

enough...one needs to mix it with sadhakam to surpass finitude. if we

mistake it as sankara contradicting himself by disapproving knowledge

just vindicates our ignorance.

Upanishads and advaita philosophies are documentations of different

perceptions at higher states of realizations ie., more as a

milestones for a sadhaka to identify with...

Hence these are not exercises for the intellect to comprehend or

reason...thats like kindergarden student proving "f=md3" without

understanding real science behind "E=mc2"...

>This helps to explain why philosophical

>materialism is often associated with a lack of spirituality, a lack

>of belief that we are anything other than the body or that anything

>other than material bodies exist. (Logical consequences are that God

>does not exist and that we perish with the body.)

Yes you are right the concept of God exists only at a lower plane of

consciousness and as one starts evolving (sadhakam guided by

scriptures) the realization reveals the three dimentional human

consciousness is part of a multidimentional reality(Nirvikalpa

Consciousness)... Thats where iron plastic you me are visible or

explainable in one equation...until then we have to take the

inspirations from all sources in moving forward or else we'll be

struck in one place the entire life time....

Pranams to all advaitins.

V.Srinivasan

March 10, 2003

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

You are already providing more than adequate answer to the

respondents to your question and I am confident that everyone is very

pleased. Since members are pleased to discuss with you, you can

continue this discussion for a long time.

I agree that you are not a visistadvaitin, but your language at times

resembles that of a visistadavaitin. Let try with an analogy to

explain what I mean:

In Shankara's framework, Consciousness is like the ray of white

light; when it passes through the 'prism of ignorance' colorful

reflections come out of the prism as 'individual consiousnesses' or

Jivas. When the prism is removed the the true white ray remains and

shines!

In Ramanuja's framework, Narayana the superconsicousness is

responsible for the white ray and also the colorful rays of

individual consciousness and the prism is His toy and only He can

withdraw the prism and liberate the Jivas.

This may explain why Shankara's framework is intellectually more

appealing than Ramanuja's!

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste all!

>

> First of all, I don't think that I can sustain a detailed answer to

> each and every participant in this thread, which I am sure is fine

> with most if not all of you.

March 10, 2003

At 05:38 PM 3/8/03 +0000, rajkumarknair wrote:

>Sorry to barge in to this discussion.

Not barging at all! These were very good points you make. I had mentioned the

very same thing to Sri Benjamin a few days ago. Thanks!

--Greg

March 10, 2003

Well, Sri Ram has once again kindly emphasized that I need

not respond to everyone, which is quite a relief. However, I feel

that if I do not respond, then I have conceded defeat. Now at a

personal level, I could not care less, having obliterated every last

trace of my ego a long time ago. But for the sake of the TRUTH, I

would still not like to leave the misleading impression that I have

conceded defeat. A bit of a quandary...

How are these thing 'won' anyway? Is is through a war of

attrition? And are we really always listening to each other? (I

feel that I am.)

I have heard that in the days of Sankara, the loser of a

religious debate would generally become the disciple of the winner.

In some cases, he would actually immolate himself! Talk about

dedication! Is any of us THAT serious?

Anyhow, my attention was caught by Greg Goode's caption on

the Advaitin List webpage saying in big letters: 'GOT HIM!'

Naturally, I had to respond to that. But when I read it, I saw only

my own previous words. So I guess he agrees with me after all. I

should 'quit while I'm ahead' and take care of other troublemakers

instead, like Sri Nair!

Pranams

Benjamin

March 10, 2003

REPLY TO SRI MADATHIL RAJENDRAN NAIR (15941):

>Who is aware of the finitude of your consciousness here? That is

>the substratum, the real you. You don't have to surmise a notion of

>God. Finitude and ignorance exist only as long as you identify

>yourself with your limitations. When you become the ocean, the

>finitude of the waves don't limit you any more. Instead of

>asking "Why is there ignorance?", the question to be asked is "How do

>I become aware of my ignorance?" or "What is it that lights up my

>ignorance to me?". You cannot ask such questions if there is no

>answer available. The answer is the SUBJECT we are talking about

>aside of which there really is nothing else.

I have no major problem with this. I did say before that the word

'God' leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, being historically

associated with dogmatic religions. I like Brahman quite a bit

better. Sri Brahman has not yet acquired a bad reputation!

However, I still feel that the existence of ignorance (and pain and

suffering) is a non-trivial matter. Maybe you have moved on to the

spiritual anesthesia of realization, but a lot of us poor ignorant

jnanas-to-be are still suffering!

In general though, I very much prefer the Eastern emphasis on

dispelling ignorance rather than the Christian and Islamic emphasis

on sin. For one thing, wallowing in guilt does precious little to

diminish the ego but rather increases it as one becomes obsessed with

one's limitations.

>If the "other people with separate consciousnesses" are not present

>in your immediate awareness, at least you know that they are

>somewhere there. Their being somewhere there is a perception. Now,

>about the contents of those separate consciousnesses. You do not

>know what they are, which means the contents are unknown to you or

>you are ignorant about them although you know that they are separate

>and distinct from yours. Isn't that then a perception of ignorance?

>Any knowing is knowledge including knowing your own ignorance or the

>existence of the unknown. Such knowing is possible only because of

>the substratum.

The consciousnesses of other people are certainly present 'somewhere

there'. The consciousness of another person is in fact present to

the consciousness of the other person. (And this presence is not

dualistic. The words 'consciousness is present to itself' may seem

to imply a false distinction between the consciousness that observes

and the consciousness that is observed. This is emphatically not the

case. The two are identical.)

It is as simple as that, even if this seems a bit tautologous. The

point is, as I have said several times, that space and time are

within consciousness and consciousness is not within space and time.

So we cannot say that the various consciousnesses are present in some

kind of enveloping superspace. Each of us has our own private space

and time, and our perceptions are miraculously coordinated with each

other by the Supreme Consciousness which sustains us all.

Nevertheless, I still see a 'difference' between your consciousness

and mine (but I guess you knew that already by now).

Yes, I agree that 'Their being somewhere there is a perception'. In

fact, it is a perception to the OTHER consciousness who is aware of

his existence. It is NOT a perception to ME.

Yes, I am ignorant of the contents of the consciousnesses of other

people, except in so far as I can surmise them by words I hear or

expressions that I see on their faces. And the words I hear and

expressions I see are all perceptions within MY consciousness, even

though they are miraculously coordinated with the actual thoughts of

feelings of the other people. This ignorance of (some of) the

contents of other consciousnesses is indeed a thought (albeit a

negative one) in my OWN consciousness, whose substratum is indeed the

Supreme Consciousness. So far, so good.

But how does this answer my question? Namely, how does this prove

that your consciousness and mine are ultimately identical? Are you

arguing that it is because we share the SAME substratum. I have

already said a number of times that I am compelled to agree with this

from a purely LOGICAL point of view, since I cannot imagine the

Ultimate Source of Consciousness, or the Infinite All-Sustaining

Consciousness, as being other than a unity. All consciousness is

inherently a unity, by its very nature, including and especially the

Ultimate Consciousness which is the substratum. So from a purely

logical point of view, I accept our ultimate identity, though a kind

of deductive inference, like a mathematical proof.

But like many a mathematical proof, it leaves me feeling unsatisfied,

since I cannot directly perceive the truth of this with my intuition.

Indeed it seems to clash violently with my intuition, when I

introspect upon my immediate awareness. The reason this is a problem

is because my search for the truth starts from immediate awareness,

which is 'reality' as far as I am concerned. Anything else is faith

and revelation. And indeed, Ramana himself always starts with

introspection upon immediate awareness. What else would his search

for the source of 'I' mean?

And don't bring up solipsism! I do accept that others exist as being

an extremely likely inference from my immediate perceptions of other

people. I see only my own perceptions of their so-called bodies, but

I can infer that there are other consciousnesses corresponding to

these impressions, since it would be absurd to assume that I am the

only consciousness. It is NOT counterintuitive to assume that there

are other consciousnesses like mine, which are associated with my

perceptions of other people's so-called bodies (which, once again,

are not more than my perception of them). This belief in other

consciousnesses like mine does not CONTRADICT my immediate awareness

of my own consciousness in any way. There are simply OTHER

consciousnesses like mine, and we do not obstruct or interfere with

each other in any way. However, to say that the other

consciousnesses are IDENTICAL to my consciousness DOES contradict the

immediate awareness of my own consciousness. This is like saying

not-X is X.

Now Sri Nair, you are quite a spirited and dedicated fellow, but I

think I'd better give others a chance, for the sake of fairness!!

Hari Om!

Benjamin

March 10, 2003

Hi Benjamin,

You made the following statements in response to ProfVK’s comments:

“It is not that consciousness is different from mind. It is that the mind

(restricted as above to intellectual thoughts within consciousness)

mistakenly believes that the thoughts, feelings and perceptions are somehow

different from consciousness or awareness itself, thus plunging us into

dualistic thinking.”

This may be the key to your problem. As Ramana pointed out, the mind and the

ego are effectively the same thing and are illusory. If we are still using a

capital C when talking about Consciousness and taking it to refer to the

non-dual reality, then Consciousness is certainly NOT the mind (alone). If

it were, what would all of the other 'things' be?

Best wishes,

Dennis

March 10, 2003

Namaste dear Benjamin:

The doubt, 'whether I have conceded defeat,' often arises because of

our tendency to fall into the pitfalls of 'intellectual debate.' For

interested readers, I recommend the post in the archive:

Just for your information, the debate on the validity of advaita

between Sankara and Mandana misra was as follows: The referee for

their debate was Mandana Misra's wife Bharathi (considered

reincarnation of Goddess Saraswati). The debate was not decided on the

basis of the intellectual abilities of these two great masters.

Instead, the debaters were garlanded with two identical flower

garlands. These two great intellects had the humility to bow down to

faith in the miracle of whether their respective garlands withered

away or not. The debate continued for several weeks. Sankaracharya

was declared the winner by the adjudicator, the wife of his opponent!

The debaters and the assembled intellects have accepted the judgement

that was just based on faith and intuition.

All those who participate in the on going discussion thread are

winners because they have lot to gain. This is true whether they

agree or disagree with everyone's explanations. For we the pole-

vaulters, our intellect becomes the pole to jump over the bar of

ignorance. The intellect is a delicate instrument which at the

appropriate moment needs to be abandoned, otherwise our ignorance

will topple at all opportune moments! The pole-vault coaches advise

the students with the following slogan: "Hold on to your pole if you

are not completely ready to jump and also don't hold on while

jumping!" Intellectual rationalization is similar to the training

exercise for the pole-vault jumping. The jumper while jumping should

be ready to abandon the pole from the hand and the training from the

mind!!

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Well, Sri Ram has once again kindly emphasized that I need

> not respond to everyone, which is quite a relief. However, I feel

> that if I do not respond, then I have conceded defeat. Now at a

> personal level, I could not care less, having obliterated every

last

> trace of my ego a long time ago. But for the sake of the TRUTH, I

> would still not like to leave the misleading impression that I have

> conceded defeat.

Meaning of 'Consciousness is One'

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment