Meaning of 'Consciousness is One'

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

In response to my last message about equivalence of mind and ego, you said:

 

"I believe that the ego that the rishis wish us to eliminate is

identification with a PARTICULAR subset of the thoughts, feelings and

perceptions within our stream of consciousness."

 

I don't think you are right here. Ego refers not to a subset of thoughts,

nor even to the complete set but to the presumed observer who has the

thoughts. To clarify, Ramana Maharshi says:

 

"Actually, the idea of the Self being the witness is only in the mind; it is

not the absolute truth of the Self. Witnessing is relative to objects

witnessed. Both the witness and his object are mental creations."

 

You are partly right in that which you (repeatedly!) say: the subject and

object are the same. But it is the same illusory 'thing', not the same real

thing. What is permanent and real (and non-dual) is that 'out of which' this

sense of individual awareness arises (the source of the 'I-thought' as

Ramana terms it).

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

At 09:30 AM 3/11/03 +0000, Dennis Waite wrote:

>I can anticipate that you might say that, of course, you accept this with

>respect to the bodies of other people but not with respect to their

>apparently separate consciousness. But, I repeat, how can you posit a

>separate consciousness other that as a result of what you perceive, feel or

>think? And is not that 'positing' only another concept?

 

 

I agree, Dennis. The question couldn't have so much force or poignancy with Sri

Benjamin if he weren't allowing externality to these "other" consciousnesses

(strange word to pluralize!). Now whether these consciousnesses are localized

in external *physical* bodies or external *subtle* bodies isn't relevant. Some

border or boundary or distinction or container is being assumed as real and

independent. And for that, there is no evidence.

 

In one message, Benjamin stated

 

"I have no use for the word 'owner', but I

still wish to maintain the evident

distinction between two streams of consciousness.

 

Two points - he wishes to maintain that distinction. One, we don't always get

our wishes!! Two, he says that the distinction is evident. Just ask a

behaviorist if it's evident!!! When I went to undergrad school for Psychology,

behaviorism was all the rage. And the notion of an internal consciousness was

one of the first bugaboos they tried to erase from the students' belief systems!

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI TKB:

>Following your discussion, a question came to my mind.

>

>on a scale of 0 to 10

>how much does

>Benjaminji/Benjaminji's conscience/Benjaminji's mind

>know about

>Benjaminji/Benjaminji's conscience/Benjaminji's mind ?

>

>0 = knows nothing

>10 = knows everything

 

 

ANSWER: undetermined. I do not know so precisely how much I know

about my mind.

 

I think it was Socrates who said something like, 'A fool is not

someone who does not know, but someone who does not know that he does

not know.'

 

 

Now one other comment. I realize that Sri Ram said that I do not

need to answer everyone, but I wanted to try to do that as much as

possible for a while. But I am starting to get into trouble with by

boss. I was supposed to give him something yesterday. So I will

unfortunately have to attenuate my effort to some extent, but it was

a great experience to go through for once in my life. I will keep in

touch with this thread and with this site for the foreseeable future,

as the people are well worth talking to. The greatest benefit is not

to convince or be convinced, but to learn how discuss such matters in

a detached manner with other intelligent and spiritually oriented

people who also have strong views. (I am sure that you all have some

spiritual orientation and none of you are jokers, because a joker

would have lost interest in Advaita a long time ago. How many

comedians make Advaita jokes?)

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 05:53 PM 3/10/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

>The criterion or border would be that I do not feel your pain nor you

>mine.

 

No "I" feels any pain. The pain and the "I" arise together in a flash. Then

another thought arises that says "that pain was mine." This is the notional

ownership and identification at work.

 

>Now you are quite free to ecstatically utter that the same

>Consciousness (with a capital 'C') is behind both your experience of

>pain (or pleasure) and mine, but is this not just a word mistakenly

>being applied to two similar yet distinct realities, namely, your

>experience and mine?

 

No, it's not a word mistakenly applied to two similar yet distinct realities.

If a consciousness is something that can be seen, then how can it see, know? As

mentioned by others, what you are calling consciousness is referred to by

advaita as the suksma sarira or waking state or subtle body - something, but not

consciousness. Consciousness, according to Advaita, is that which sees. How

can it itself be seen?

 

You have probably read Douglas Harding, same idea.

 

>You may argue, By what right do I make a

>distinction between these two instances of consciousness? I might

>reply, By what right do you equate them?

 

 

What do you mean "equate"? I'm not saying that there's one big Consciousness

that does what you believe the personal one does. Not at all. Consciousness

isn't just like a person, only bigger. No. It is THAT to which appearance

appear. It is THAT in which arisings arise. It is that in which there is no

darkness or ignorance. In the manner of speaking where we talk of arisings, all

that arises arises in it.

 

There's one thing you and I agree on -- the immaterialism! I don't say idealism

because I don't say ("It's all ideas"). But it's not material. Like you said

in another message, not even the brain!

 

We could have used you in the past here on Advaitin. Every once in a while

there is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist that wants to convince folks that

everything is just brain states.

 

Ram-ji mentioned that your language sounds more like Visishtadvaita. It also

sounds more like plain old Dvaita or Tattvavâda. Have you looked into it, into

"Dvaita Vedanta? There's an informative site here

http://www.dvaita.org/

 

It posits five differences, some of which seem similar to your writing. Maybe

you wouldn't go for all five. From their FAQ page:

http://www.dvaita.org/faq.shtml

 

 

========================== (begin quote)

Five Differences of Dvaita:

 

Simple -- by considering the three types of entities in pairwise fashion, one

can derive the list of differences between them, which are:

 

(i) jîva-Îshvara-bheda, or difference between the soul and Vishnu;

 

(ii) jaDa-Îshvara-bheda, or difference between the insentient and Vishnu;

 

(iii) mitha-jîva-bheda, or difference between any two souls;

 

(iv) jaDa-jîva-bheda, or difference between insentient and the soul; and

 

(v) mitha-jaDa-bheda, or difference between any two insentients. Here,

"insentient" is used to refer to _all_ entities which are not 'chit' or having

consciousness, such as matter, energy, etc. -- including so-called "living

bodies" of creatures, and also such other insentients as space, linguistic or

mathematical entities and their symbols, etc.

 

========================== (end quote)

 

 

>But there is a subtlety that someone mentioned before in this thread.

>If I am right, and it is arbitrary and unjustified to equate your

>consciousness and mine, then by what right do I equate my past

>memories with my present awareness and speak of a continuous stream

>of consciousness? In other words, the sequence of experiences within

>a single so-called consciousness may perhaps be arbitrarily united.

>Perhaps even a single consciousness disintegrates into a sequence of

>instantaneous blips of experiences. Some Buddhists seemed to argue

>this, didn't they?

 

Yes, most Buddhists do. It's sort of like this. In many forms of Buddhism,

there is said to be no consciousness where there is no arising. In Madhyamika

Buddhism (the Dalai Lama's sect), every arising is seen by a separate

consciousness! An eye consciousness, an ear consciousness, a mental

consciousness. There is no overarching Consciousness aware of it all.

 

>And yet I do feel that within my own consciousness, there is some

>kind of unity over time. It seems as though it is the same 'me' who

>is now remembering something and who once actually experienced what

>he now only remembers. In fact, I am quite sure of this but I am not

>sure I could 'prove' it, due to the objection just raised.

 

This is because you probably allow some thoughts to carry more weight, like the

"higher order" thoughts, which tell you what's going on with "first order"

thoughts. Among the higher order thoughts are often the mystical experiences,

conjectures, memories, hopes and fears. They get to boss around the other

thoughts. But the old American mystics used to say, "Thoughts are things," and

treat them all alike. YOU have an equal relationship to all thoughts. After

all, it is only a thought that says "this thought is more important than that

thought."

 

Have you read ATMA DARSHAN? I recommend that. You probably won't ever look at

memory the same way again....

 

>Please do share with us any websites that may have techniques for

>acquiring spiritual experiences. I like to at least read about that

>stuff, and I think that by now I have seen most of those sites.

>However, I am reluctant to try any of those techniques, other than

>simple meditation. Somehow I feel that Ramana's sober and

>streamlined approach of inquiry is the 'truest' and safest approach.

>After all, what happened to Osho and the like, or are you a fan of

>his?

 

No I'm no fan of OSHO's but do respect his philosophical studies and gift of the

gab. But that's it.

 

For experiences. There are kundalini yoga teachers, but I don't know too much

about them. If you are interested in Buddhism, there are tantric schools that I

can get you info on. But it's a lot of work and commitment.

 

For Western schools, there are three good ones that come to mind:

 

One of the most respectable is the Monroe Institute, specializing in OBE's and

non-physical consciousness:

http://www.thegatewayexperience.com/

 

I looked into these things many years ago. I wanted experiences. I was going

about it in a kind of egocentric way. I was disappointed to find out that most

of the verifiable, teachable experiences are had by those in the healing paths!

Of course this makes perfect sense. One is only able to open one's rigid

assumptions when the heart is open. And that happens best when one truly

desires to help other people. So along these lines,

 

The Silva Method is something I have tried. It works, and fast! And I was able

to "see" personal characteristics and mental/physical problems over a distance

of thousands of miles. This was in order to be able to do remote healing. Here

are some pages:

 

http://64.71.179.145/index.jsp (official site)

http://www.silvaultramindsystem.com/ (another)

http://www.silvacases.com/ (concentrates on healing cases)

 

 

There is also Barbara Brennan's School of Healing. She has a very holistic

system, and has diagrams about how the subtle bodies behave. There are books by

her too, and they are quite good. Her seeing into the subtle planes is very

much like what the Rosicrucians, Theosophists and Anthroposophists used to write

about, but with a modern, scientific, medical grounding.

http://www.barbarabrennan.com/

 

Good hunting!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI DENNIS WAITE (15975):

>I don't think you are right here. Ego refers not to a subset of thoughts,

>nor even to the complete set but to the presumed observer who has the

>thoughts. To clarify, Ramana Maharshi says:

>

>"Actually, the idea of the Self being the witness is only in the mind; it is

>not the absolute truth of the Self. Witnessing is relative to objects

>witnessed. Both the witness and his object are mental creations."

 

Sometimes it seems to me that we are really saying the same thing.

It is mystifying to me why these disagreements then arise, but

that's fine, nothing to get upset about...

 

My previous post to you (15957) made the points:

>But if we wish to attach the label 'ego' to the totality of

>consciousness, then that is fine. It becomes the same as 'Self'. It

>is only when we draw distinctions within consciousness that we get

>into trouble. Above all, we should not draw the distinction between

>subject and object, since this is the root of all other distinctions.

>As I have said many times, these two words refer to the same

>immediate awareness.

 

It seems to me that both Ramana and I accept the nondual hypothesis,

and that even the word 'Witness' (which I call 'subject') implies

some duality.

 

The difference between Ramana and myself is that he actually

experienced nonduality, whereas I am still a seeker. I have become

convinced that materialism is a big delusion and there is a spiritual

purpose to life, namely, our spiritual education. Also, I accept,

based on the corroborating testimony of seers and mystics everywhere

and in all times, that the ultimate destination for consciousness is

something called 'nonduality', in which all seeking and yearning are

forever satisfied. However, I am still at the point of trying to

UNDERSTAND it as best as I can, even though I fully realize that

understanding is only a pole-vault.

 

By the way, not a subtlety in the use of the word 'mind'. A person

in a dualistic mode of consciousness is said to be under the

influence of his 'discriminating mind'. However, even a realized,

non-dualistic Jnana can have thoughts (and can even do math). But he

somehow does all this without discriminating between subject and

object. So he too can be said to have a 'mind', albeit a

non-dualistic one.

 

(Swamiji says that a non-dualistic intellectual will actually perform

BETTER, since his mind is not cluttered with the detritus of the ego

and his power of mental focus is considerably enhanced.)

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI GREG GOODE (15979):

>No, it's not a word mistakenly applied to two similar yet distinct realities.

>If a consciousness is something that can be seen, then how can it see, know?

>As mentioned by others, what you are calling consciousness is referred to by

>advaita as the suksma sarira or waking state or subtle body - something, but

>not consciousness. Consciousness, according to Advaita, is that which sees.

>How can it itself be seen?

 

Nonduality says that subject and object are the same. The object is

present to consciousness but is not PERCEIVED as object. The nondual

consciousness is not blind; there are colors, forms, etc. The

difference is that the nondual consciousness does not SUPERPOSE (like

snake on rope) the MENTAL DISTINCTION of subject and object upon this

immediate experience. It does not see the object as OTHER than

itself.

 

So consciousness is something that BOTH sees and can be seen, but the

mental distinction between the two is not superposed upon the

immediate awareness. Both 'see' and 'be seen' mean the same thing.

Only the deceptive power of words and concepts leads us to suppose

that there is any difference. Nobody is studying Advaita to become

blind.

 

The waking state is one 'mode' of consciousness and is not different

from it. I realize that the word 'mode' can cause confusion. It

simply refers to the fact that there are different states of

consciousness. But no distinction is being drawn between the waking

state and consciousness. Nonduality never allows any distinctions.

These are all a product of the mind, which SUPERPOSES the distinction

upon the immediate awareness.

 

And as I said in my reply to Sri Ram, I am not a Visishtadvaita, much

less a Dvaita. I am merely trying to be completely honest about

Advaita, by which I mean rendering everything INTUITIVELY (and not

just logically) evident. As I have said, I think the problem may be

that it cannot all become immediately and intuitively evident until I

am realized. That may be the ultimate answer to my original

question, in which case all of this discussion is pointless (but

stimulating nevertheless).

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Benjamin.

 

Having talked this much in so many words, I have just realized

something: I don't understand your question or doubt. That is a big

realization and a big confession too!

 

So, I will just lay down arms and sit on the ringside to watch your

quixotic fights. If you happen to get answers to your doubts, please

let me know so that I can understand where I failed to understand

your question.

 

So long then, friend.

 

Ramji, I would have liked to reproduce only relevant parts of Shri

Benjamin's post in order to save disk sapce. However, in the

circumstances, I am not quite sure what is relevant and what is not.

Hence, please bear with me if I have quoted longer than actually

required.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> REPLY TO SRI MADATHIL RAJENDRAN NAIR (15941):

> 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!

> 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!!

[Guest guest]

At 11:27 AM 3/11/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

>Nonduality says that subject and object are the same. The object is

>present to consciousness but is not PERCEIVED as object. The nondual

>consciousness is not blind; there are colors, forms, etc. The

>difference is that the nondual consciousness does not SUPERPOSE (like

>snake on rope) the MENTAL DISTINCTION of subject and object upon this

>immediate experience. It does not see the object as OTHER than

>itself.

 

 

This is the unimportant part. Philosophical talk. It's fun and entertaining.

But to what point?

 

>As I have said, I think the problem may be

>that it cannot all become immediately and intuitively evident until I

>am realized. That may be the ultimate answer to my original

>question, in which case all of this discussion is pointless (but

>stimulating nevertheless).

 

This is the important part. Even by your participation on this list, you have

demonstrated one of Shankara's classic "prerequisites" for the study of advaita

vedanta - the burning desire for liberation.

 

OM!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI MADATHIL RAJENDRAN NAIR (15982):

 

Sri Madathil,

 

There is no contest and no need to 'lay down arms'. I was only ever

trying to acquire a vivid, intuitive understanding of a certain an

aspect of Advaita. To 'win' the debate and fail to acquire this

vivid, intuitive understanding would be useless. To 'lose' the

debate and yet succeed in acquiring this vivid, intuitive

understanding would be most beneficial. There is no winning or

losing; there is only the acquisition or non-acquisition of

realization.

 

I'm sorry if my original question is not clear to you. My problem is

that it is all too clear to me.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI GREG GOODE (15983):

>>Nonduality says that subject and object are the same. The object is

>>present to consciousness but is not PERCEIVED as object. The nondual

>>consciousness is not blind; there are colors, forms, etc. The

>>difference is that the nondual consciousness does not SUPERPOSE (like

>>snake on rope) the MENTAL DISTINCTION of subject and object upon this

>>immediate experience. It does not see the object as OTHER than

>>itself.

>

>This is the unimportant part. Philosophical talk. It's fun and

>entertaining. >But to what point?

 

This is the essential part that is crucial to the seeker on the Jnana

path. My quote above is the crux of the problem and provides (or at

least implies) the prescription for undoing the knots of the

discriminating mind. However, once the bonds of the discriminating

mind have been weakened, further realization arises spontaneously

through purified intuition. But the medicine must be taken first.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

 

I should not be entering into this discussion since I did not follow

the discussions from the beginning -And with the number of mails

getting piled-up after returning from my travel- it is almost impossible

to read through all the mails and participate meaningfully. It looks

like Benjamin suddenly found lot of time to hunt for consciounesses!

 

But the question - is consciousness single or plural - is a

philosophical question that has been raised by all aachaarya-s and each

one came up with their own conclusions that support their theory.

 

First let us resolve that one cannot establish either by pratyaksha

(perception) or by anumaana (logical inference) wither consciousness

single or plural.

 

Consciousness cannot be objectified - but expresses as life itself

which itself cannot be objectified other than its expressions or

manifestation.

 

Bhagavaan Ramanuja, Maadhva and others used experience as the basis to

establish that consciousness is plural and they further supported their

statements from scriptures - for examples - B.G -II-12. natve vaaham

.....

there was never a time I was not there, nor you Arjuna, nor all these

kings in front, and there will not be a time when they will be absent in

future - endorsing by implication that each jiiva (chaitanya vastu-

conscious entity) is eternal on its own right. But past-present and

future are all buried in the time concept itself, which itself is

questionable from absolute sense.

 

In contrast to the scriptural statement existence alone was there in the

beginning and that is of the nature of consciousness - ascertains that

plurality is questionable. But added to this is the fact that "aham

brahmaasmi' - 'I am that infiniteness' - excludes all possibilities for

division or plurality of consciousness(es). Besides scripture also

confirms that it is indivisible (akhanDam) since even the divisions or

dividers are within the consciousness like the space.

 

Since space is single and time is single and the one which is subtler

than both cannot be multiple since then one consciousness becomes object

of another consciousness.

 

The experiences as the basis for distinction will have lot of problems

too - since they are within the realm of mind/intellect equipment. -

without the two present - the problem of experience even analysis of the

deep sleep experience gets somewhat muddled since record of experience

is only done by the mind which is absent during deep sleep state.

 

There was some discussion of ego - ego is also a thought or notions in

the mind that I am separate from the rest by identification of

consciousness with the equipments - it involves I am 'this' -here a

combination of "I am " and "this" involved - which is unholy combination

of that which cannot be combined - matter and consciousness. Hence it is

only a notional and not real. All experiences belong to the ego and

hence they are ontologically in the same status as ego. Hence Shankara

declares ' akarthaaham abhooktaham ' - I am neither a doer nor an

enjoyer or experiencer.

 

Sans experience/thoughts there is no way one can establish the plurality

of the consciousness(es). Hence scripture alone become a means of

knowledge - or pramaaNa.

 

There are lot of problems in taking multiple jiiva-s or consciousness

entities particularly in moksha. liberation is freedom from limitations

and existence of more than one limits each one by definition. Existence

of more than one contributes to fear due to insecurity - says the

scriptures (TU).

 

Finally, the only litmus test is find out for 'oneself' if there is

otherself other than oneself. All my best wishes.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Web Hosting - establish your business online

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

At 11:56 AM 3/11/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

>>>Nonduality says that subject and object are the same. The object is

>>>present to consciousness but is not PERCEIVED as object. The nondual

>>>consciousness is not blind; there are colors, forms, etc. The

>>>difference is that the nondual consciousness does not SUPERPOSE (like

>>>snake on rope) the MENTAL DISTINCTION of subject and object upon this

>>>immediate experience. It does not see the object as OTHER than

>>>itself.

>>

>>This is the unimportant part. Philosophical talk. It's fun and

>>entertaining. >But to what point?

>

>This is the essential part that is crucial to the seeker on the Jnana

>path. My quote above is the crux of the problem and provides (or at

>least implies) the prescription for undoing the knots of the

>discriminating mind. However, once the bonds of the discriminating

>mind have been weakened, further realization arises spontaneously

>through purified intuition. But the medicine must be taken first.

 

 

Your quote above. In jnana, in consciousness, in sahaja samadhi there are no

more subject/object.

 

There are other, graduated teachings that mention consciousness and objects of

consciousness as being a definitive description. But these are a provisional

teachings only. The most well known one in nondualism is called the witness

model. It is designed to sublate the idea of physical or subtle objects that

are external to consciousness. That is all. It must go too at some point.

This model isn't to be relied on too seriously on its own.

 

If the witness model is stuck to, the result would be a perpetual witness state

touted as "the highest." I know advaita teachers who teach this way. One of

their former students is now a friend of mine. He was stuck in a

witness-teaching-model for about a year. He also had great fears of being

trapped in a solipsistic state. This is partly due to over-reliance on the

witness model. If consciousness really has an object present but not perceived

as an object, then one might as well say it has angels, archetypes and apples

present to consciousness but not perceived as such. One great jnana technique

is to look into one's own models! If the subject/object witness model is

*really* looked into, then it will self-destruct, as all models must. It

contains the seeds of its own destruction.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Nice to hear from you, Sadananda-ji!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

>>>>Nonduality says that subject and object are the same. The object is

>>>>present to consciousness but is not PERCEIVED as object. The nondual

>>>>consciousness is not blind; there are colors, forms, etc. The

>>>>difference is that the nondual consciousness does not SUPERPOSE (like

>>>>snake on rope) the MENTAL DISTINCTION of subject and object upon this

>>>>immediate experience. It does not see the object as OTHER than

>>>>itself.

>>>

>>>This is the unimportant part. Philosophical talk. It's fun and

>>>entertaining. But to what point?

>>

>>This is the essential part that is crucial to the seeker on the Jnana

>>path. My quote above is the crux of the problem and provides (or at

>>least implies) the prescription for undoing the knots of the

>>discriminating mind. However, once the bonds of the discriminating

>>mind have been weakened, further realization arises spontaneously

>>through purified intuition. But the medicine must be taken first.

 

>Your quote above. In jnana, in consciousness, in sahaja samadhi

>there are no >more subject/object.

>

>There are other, graduated teachings that mention consciousness and objects of

>consciousness as being a definitive description. But these are a provisional

>teachings only. The most well known one in nondualism is called the witness

>model. It is designed to sublate the idea of physical or subtle objects that

>are external to consciousness. That is all. It must go too at some

>point. >This model isn't to be relied on too seriously on its own.

>

>If the witness model is stuck to, the result would be a perpetual

>witness state

>touted as "the highest." I know advaita teachers who teach this way. One of

>their former students is now a friend of mine. He was stuck in a

>witness-teaching-model for about a year. He also had great fears of being

>trapped in a solipsistic state. This is partly due to over-reliance on the

>witness model. If consciousness really has an object present but

>not perceived

>as an object, then one might as well say it has angels, archetypes and apples

>present to consciousness but not perceived as such. One great

>jnana technique

>is to look into one's own models! If the subject/object witness model is

>*really* looked into, then it will self-destruct, as all models

>must. It >contains the seeds of its own destruction.

 

 

My impression is that you misinterpret what I am saying. You seem to

think that I still adhere to a subject/object distinction simply

because the words 'subject' and 'object' appear in a sentence such as

'Nonduality says that subject and object are the same.' It may seem

that I am saying that Nonduality is saying that FIRST there are

subject and object as separate entities and THEN Nonduality brings

them together into some kind of marriage.

 

But if you read my entire text, as well as my many previous messages,

you will see that I am not saying this at all. Again and again, I

have said that 'subject' and 'object' are different WORDS that refer

to the same reality, namely, the direct immediate awareness. But the

mind is fooled by words into thinking that they are different things.

This conceptual misunderstanding is then SUPERPOSED on the direct

immediate awareness.

 

So I have made it quite clear that subject (or witness) is not an

ultimate reality but only appears so to the dualistic mind due to the

power of erroneous mental constructs. However, as Ramana says,

dwelling in (what seems to be) the witness can indeed be a first step

towards inner withdrawal of the mind from discriminative thinking (in

which subject and object are discriminated). Eventually, even the

witness is abandoned, as a stick used to stir the fire is finally

burned up by the fire (Ramana's analogy).

 

As I have repeatedly said, language forces us to use phrases such as

'present to consciousness' as though there were something other than

consciousness that is present to consciousness. The whole point that

I am trying to make is that the bewitching power of words must be

overcome by direct, pure introspection upon immediate awareness.

(This direct, pure introspection also suggests to me that my

consciousness is different from yours, but I should really be able to

assume that that is understood by now, even if you don't agree with

it.)

 

I enjoy these stimulating discussions, but please read everything I

write carefully before jumping to conclusions about my meaning. I

think you will find that makes the whole debating process rather more

efficient.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 01:30 PM 3/11/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

>I enjoy these stimulating discussions, but please read everything I

>write carefully before jumping to conclusions about my meaning. I

>think you will find that makes the whole debating process rather more

>efficient.

 

I agree about this. Which is also why I don't write about a person and their

progress. Rather about ideas and concepts and practices and assumptions. I

don't say that Benjamin has taken the witness assumption to heart. I don't know

him well enough. But in general, if one does take it personally, it has certain

consequences.

 

You also say this,

>As I have repeatedly said, language forces us to use phrases such as

>'present to consciousness' as though there were something other than

>consciousness that is present to consciousness. The whole point that

>I am trying to make is that the bewitching power of words must be

>overcome by direct, pure introspection upon immediate awareness.

>(This direct, pure introspection also suggests to me that my

>consciousness is different from yours, but I should really be able to

>assume that that is understood by now, even if you don't agree with

>it.)

 

 

It is the linguistic tools that bewitch the thought process into thinking it is

personal. It is the subject/object structure of English that suggests that

there is even one personal thought process. Then there is inference that

suggests, "Hey, there must be others too!" This is hardly pure introspection.

How about Husserl? That comes closer to pure introspection. The same kinds of

arguments that you have used to deconstruct the notion of external physical

objects will also help examining your core premise about other consciousnesses.

The same moves, as they say in philosophy.

 

You have read George Berkeley, no? He made irritatingly un-answerable arguments

that physical subject cannot exist. But he depended on the notion of mental

substance to do it. Ideas come from God to minds. There's my mind, yours and

the next person's. Now I've never read it, but I heard that Berkeley, later in

his life, in a very obscure work, also repudiated the notion of mental substance

and individual souls. But he was a bishop in the Church of England and couldn't

say such things openly. The point is, that he know the moves, the arguments.

Substance is substance, so the same kinds of arguments, with a little tweaking,

could establish the nonsensicality of both.

 

I like Berkeley very much, studied him a lot in grad school. I'd like to find

that work, wonder if he came close to a nondual conclusion!

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI KUNTIMADDI SADANANDA (15986):

 

>But the question - is consciousness single or plural - is a

>philosophical question that has been raised by all aachaarya-s and each

>one came up with their own conclusions that support their theory.

 

I am glad that seekers and jnanas far more spiritually advanced than

I can disagree. This gives me hope that I am not being too stupid.

 

 

>First let us resolve that one cannot establish either by pratyaksha

>(perception) or by anumaana (logical inference) wither consciousness

>single or plural.

 

Actually my point was that perception strongly suggests to me that my

consciousness is different from yours, but logical inference suggests

that all of our consciousnesses are ultimately the same.

 

For when I introspect upon my immediate awareness (which may be

called 'perception' in this context), I do not see any of your

awareness (any of your thoughts, feeling or perceptions) present in

my awareness. (This would be true whether I am in a dualistic or

non-dualistic state of mind, unless there is something like telepathy

going on. Swami Chinmayananda did not tune into your thoughts or

read your mind, did he? At least not on a regular basis.)

 

But I also conceded that the Supreme Infinite Consciousness which is

the Source of All Being is the substratum of our respective

consciousnesses. And since I take it for granted that this supreme

consciousness is a unity within itself, as is any consciousness, then

I must infer that we are in some sense all 'the same'.

 

So the logical argument says we are all the same, but it is

counterintuitive, which means that I cannot perceive it in any way

when I introspect. This paradox was the crux of my initial question.

 

And as I explained, this paradox was made all the more poignant by

the fact that another 'mystery' of Advaita, namely the identity of

subject and object within my own private consciousness, can indeed be

explained in a way that is intuitively satisfying to me. For

example, the ordinary distinction we make between our 'inner'

consciousness and the 'external' material world can clearly be seen

to be invalid. All that we see of the so-called external world are

perceptions within our own consciousness, upon which we superpose the

thought-construct 'There is an external material world out there

which produces these perceptions in my consciousness'. But the world

is no more than these perceptions, and all objections to this point

of view were persuasively answered in my previous posts (or so I

claim).

 

So the distinction between inner consciousness and outer material

world was collapsed into one single reality, AS FAR AS ONE PERSON IS

CONCERNED (e.g. you or me). And by 'one person', I meant a separate

'stream of consciousness', since indeed it does appear to me that

your stream of consciousness is quite distinct from mine, since I do

not feel your pleasure or pain nor you mine. I then wanted to

proceed and find an equally intuitive way to collapse your

consciousness and mine into one single consciousness and thus

complete the Advaita program in a way that convinces me 'in my gut'

rather than in a merely dry and formal way.

 

 

>There was some discussion of ego - ego is also a thought or notions in

>the mind that I am separate from the rest by identification of

>consciousness with the equipments - it involves I am 'this' - here a

>combination of "I am " and "this" involved - which is unholy combination

>of that which cannot be combined - matter and consciousness. Hence it is

>only a notional and not real. All experiences belong to the ego and

>hence they are ontologically in the same status as ego. Hence Shankara

>declares ' akarthaaham abhooktaham ' - I am neither a doer nor an

>enjoyer or experiencer.

 

In may previous posts, I explained ego as that which arises after the

subject-object distinction is falsely superposed by the

discriminative mind upon the immediate awareness. It goes like

this. First there is the immediate awareness. Then the

discriminative mind fools itself into thinking that the mere words

'subject' and 'object refer to different things or realities, when in

fact they both refer to the same immediate awareness. Then the body

(a bundle of perceptions in consciousness) is perceived as an object.

Then the discriminative mind identifies with that falsely perceived

body. Then the sense of ego arises. Then the problems start.

 

So it is not that we falsely identify with 'equipments' that in

themselves really exist. It is that the very idea of equipments

(thoughts, feelings, body) as distinct from consciousness is falsely

superposed (as a mere mental construct) upon the immediate awareness,

like the snake on the rope. Only then, after this illusory mental

distinction is superposed upon the one single unitary immediate

experience does it make sense to speak of the subject falsely

identifying with the equipments. In other words, this is adding an

error on top of an error, and two wrongs do not make a right!

 

Pranmans

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI GREG GOODE (15990):

>It is the linguistic tools that bewitch the thought process into

>thinking it is

>is personal. It is the subject/object structure of English that

>suggests that >there is even one personal thought process. Then

>there is inference that >suggests, "Hey, there must be others too!"

>This is hardly pure introspection. >How about Husserl? That comes

>closer to pure introspection. The same kinds of >arguments that you

>have used to deconstruct the notion of external physical >objects

>will also help examining your core premise about other

>consciousnesses. >The same moves, as they say in philosophy.

 

All I can say, at the risk of sounding obtuse, is that my direct

introspection upon my immediate awareness, in which nothing of your

awareness is apparent, convinces me that we are two distinct streams

of consciousness, and that this introspection proceeds without any

kind of 'words' or 'ideas' going on in my mind to fool me. It is a

clear silent immediate realization as I gaze upon my immediate

awareness.

 

Contrast this with the introspection that convinces me that 'subject'

and 'object' are simply different words that refer to the same

immediate awareness. All I need is the contents of my own awareness

for this realization. There is no problem related with the absence

of the contents of your awareness, as there was in the previous

paragraph. So I am not being asked to fantasize about something that

is clearly not present. I am not being asked to brainwash myself,

but rather I am simply undoing some brainwashing that was imposed on

the pure, naked simplicity of my immediate awareness (namely the

false distinction of subject and object superposed by my

discriminating mind on that immediate awareness).

 

I have not read Husserl but have tried to read Heidegger. I detected

some flashes on Zen-like insight in the latter, but I consider his

language to be grossly inflated and pretentious and wooly and am

quite willing to believe that he had some kind of monstrous Germanic

ego in addition to whatever insights he may have had. The Asian guys

are good enough for me. I'd rather read Lao Tse, if I get tired of

Indians.

 

I agree very much with some of Berkeley but not all. But it has been

a while since I studied him carefully. He was more like a

springboard to help understanding the Eastern stuff.

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjaminji,

 

 

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> REPLY TO SRI TKB:

>

> ANSWER: undetermined. I do not know so precisely

> how much I know

> about my mind.

 

If this is so how are you able say something like

 

"my consciousness is different from yours"

 

about something you do not know precisely?

 

You need not, answer me on this.

Just think about it.

 

Regards

TKB

 

 

 

Web Hosting - establish your business online

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

Benjamin - here is my understanding for whatever it is worth.

 

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

> Actually my point was that perception strongly suggests to me that my

> consciousness is different from yours, but logical inference suggests

> that all of our consciousnesses are ultimately the same.

 

Benjamin - There is an extensive analysis of the perception in advaita -

it is an epistemological issue that was discussed extensively -

Classical work in this area is - Vedanta Paribhaashha by Dharmaraja

Advariidra of 15-or 16th century. Translations as well as commentaries

of this book are available. The first commentary was written by his own

son. There is an extensive commentary on it - Paribhaashha prakaashika

by Anantakrishna Shaastri - this is a more recent work. There is an

excellent analysis of these works by Professor Bina Gupta "perceiving in

advaita Vedanta". She is currently a professor at University of

Missouri, Columbia and editor of the journal of South Aea in Review.

Here she presents why substratum of both the subject and object is

nothing but consciouness and the reson why perception is direct means of

knowledge (aparoksha j~naana) rather than indirect (paroksha) as in

logic or inference. The analysis is based on the Vedanta paribhaasha of

Dharmaraja.

 

Second, logic or inference or anumaana itslef is not that independent -

since proof of it is again based on Pratyaksha or perceptual knowlege -

Hence it is not that independent - this are discussed in the Navya naaya

- developed by Gangeya.

 

The bottom line is any arguments based on perception - and logic cannot

establish the nature of reality - however logical it may sound. I

discussed some of this aspect in my second chapter pertaining in the

Brahmasuutra commentaries - stored in a file.

 

 

> For when I introspect upon my immediate awareness (which may be

> called 'perception' in this context), I do not see any of your

> awareness (any of your thoughts, feeling or perceptions) present in

> my awareness.

 

> And as I explained, this paradox was made all the more poignant by

> the fact that another 'mystery' of Advaita, namely the identity of

> subject and object within my own private consciousness, can indeed be

> explained in a way that is intuitively satisfying to me.

 

These aspects are the one that were exhaustively discussed in the

Vedanta paribhaasha - I recommend studying the book by Professor Bina

Gupta.

 

> So the distinction between inner consciousness and outer material

> world was collapsed into one single reality, AS FAR AS ONE PERSON IS

> CONCERNED (e.g. you or me).

 

The confusion is between the consciosness versus the mind and intellect

- and senses - that operate in the perception process. Logic as I said

is based on the perceptual confirmation.

 

I do not wish to go into details of the analysis here - for one thing it

gets so involved and second to do a good job - it would take

considerable effort and third it has been done extensively before. (I

have prepared some preliminary notes as a rough draft when I was in

India as I was trying to study Shreemaan S.M.S. Chari's book on Vedaanta

Deshika's work on tatvamuula kalaapa- this is the work on

VishishhTaadvaiata - if you want I can send it privately since it is too

rough and incomplete - since my vacation in India ended and back to busy

for nothing!).

> And by 'one person', I meant a separate

> 'stream of consciousness', since indeed it does appear to me that

> your stream of consciousness is quite distinct from mine, since I do

> not feel your pleasure or pain nor you mine. I then wanted to

> proceed and find an equally intuitive way to collapse your

> consciousness and mine into one single consciousness and thus

> complete the Advaita program in a way that convinces me 'in my gut'

> rather than in a merely dry and formal way.

 

Benjamin - the ego has been analysed extensively say in VivekachuuDamni

- as part of anthakaraNa - or inner instrument.

>

> In may previous posts, I explained ego as that which arises after the

> subject-object distinction is falsely superposed by the

> discriminative mind upon the immediate awareness. It goes like

> this. First there is the immediate awareness. Then the

> discriminative mind fools itself into thinking that the mere words

> 'subject' and 'object refer to different things or realities, when in

> fact they both refer to the same immediate awareness. Then the body

> (a bundle of perceptions in consciousness) is perceived as an object.

> Then the discriminative mind identifies with that falsely perceived

> body. Then the sense of ego arises. Then the problems start.

>

 

The superimposition or adhyaasa aspect is discussed by Shankara in his

introduction to Brahmasuutra. This was discussed extensively in my

notes on the suutras. What you wrote may be not differ from what was

anlyzed in the notes.

 

> So it is not that we falsely identify with 'equipments' that in

> themselves really exist. It is that the very idea of equipments

> (thoughts, feelings, body) as distinct from consciousness is falsely

> superposed (as a mere mental construct) upon the immediate awareness,

> like the snake on the rope. Only then, after this illusory mental

> distinction is superposed upon the one single unitary immediate

> experience does it make sense to speak of the subject falsely

> identifying with the equipments. In other words, this is adding an

> error on top of an error, and two wrongs do not make a right!

>

> Pranmans

> Benjamin

 

Since there is not much I can add to the discussion and also I am not

sure exactly where there is a problem (since I did not read all the

posts), I will stop with this unless you want specific issue to be

discussed.

 

Hari OM!

sadananda

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Web Hosting - establish your business online

http://webhosting.

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI KUNTIMADDI SADANANDA (15993):

 

Thank you for the scholarly references. I hope to have time to take

a look at them soon. I would indeed appreciate your notes, and you

know my email address.

 

This discussion was started, not to be contentious, but in response

to a kind request by Ram Chandran, who is in the Falls Church Gita

Group with me. I had originally posted my 'question-within-an-essay'

to the Falls Church Gita Group, and Sri Ram then suggested I take it

to the Advaitin List. It did produce some stimulating debate. As I

told Ram, I'll continue it as long as he sees fit, though perhaps in

a more relaxed way than before, with fewer messages. Let's let this

thing 'exponentially decay'.

 

This little exercise was beneficial for me in that it helped me to

sharpen my thoughts and writing style. Furthermore, it is

interesting to see how others can interpret (misinterpret?) what

seemed like clear language to me. Very revealing. However, I did

not get the Cosmic Illumination I was hoping for. I'm still keeping

my fingers crossed.

 

I still have a 'sneaking suspicion' that the 'nondualism' of Advaita

may pertain to each of us separately, i.e. the subject-object

dichotomy must be overcome within each of us separately in order for

realization to be achieved. Certainly this much is necessary. But

is it absolutely necessary to then go on to demonstrate one grand

synthesis of everybody's consciousness into one vast unity of some

kind? What would this mean, exactly?

 

Well, as I said, if Brahman is the 'substratum' of each of us, and

if Brahman is 'one', then the logical implication would certainly

seem to be that we are all 'one' in a rigorous (not just

metaphorical) sense. But you just said that logic 'cannot establish

the nature of reality'. So maybe I'd better just meditate,

meditate, meditate, and meditate some more... (And keep my fingers

crossed.)

 

It is good to study all the scholarly material you sent me. But I

think it is also good to try to boil things down to plain English.

That is what I was trying to do. I'm sorry that you were not able to

participate in the previous discussion, but I am sure that your

recent scholarly research is far more valuable.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI TKB (15996):

 

>> ANSWER: undetermined. I do not know so precisely

>> how much I know about my mind.

>If this is so how are you able say something like

>"my consciousness is different from yours"

>about something you do not know precisely?

>

>You need not, answer me on this.

>Just think about it.

 

 

Dear Sri TKB,

 

I will provide a brief response. I fully accept that there are great

mysteries involving consciousness. It is like peering into a dark,

bottomless ocean. The mystery is awesome.

 

But we can still try to patch together an argument that sheds some

more light, even if it does not explain everything. That is all I

was trying to do, with the help from others. I certainly hope I

never gave the impression of some kind of omniscience ... heaven

forbid! But I was being a bit firm and stubborn about certain

limited statements that seemed pretty 'self-evident' to me, and then

I was trying to go further. But then, didn't it once seem

'self-evident' that the earth is flat?

 

Warm regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

You said in your last response to Sadananda:

 

“Then the body (a bundle of perceptions in consciousness) is perceived as an

object.

Then the discriminative mind identifies with that falsely perceived body.

Then the sense of ego arises. Then the problems start.”

 

This is not the correct sequence. The Sanskrit equivalent of ego is ahaMkAra

and this means “making (kAra) the utterance I am (aham)”. It is the very

arising of the thought ‘I’ that is the origin of the idea that we are a

separate entity (ego). As you then go on to say, the subsequent

identifications with body or mind are simply compounding of the mistake

through superimposition.

 

I wonder though: If you accept that 'I am a body' is a case of adhyAsa. why

is 'I am a separate consciousness' not?

 

It is the mind that is causing all of these problems. Here a few quotations

that might help:

 

The mind is but a collection of states, each of them transitory. How can a

succession of transitory states be considered real?

Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

The mind is like the moon, deriving its light of consciousness from the

Self, which thus resembles the Sun. Hence when the Self begins to shine, the

mind, like the moon, becomes useless.

Ramana Maharshi

 

Life of man is what is. That which is, is. All the trouble arises by having

a conception of it. Mind comes in. It has a conception. All trouble follows.

If you are as you are, without a mind and its conceptions about various

things, all will be well with you. If you seek the source of the mind, then

all questions will be solved.

Ramana Maharshi

 

Incidentally, I don't think that you ever commented on my reference to the

analogy with dreaming. You, as the waker, do not think it strange that, when

dreaming, character A was not able to read the thoughts of character B in

your dream, though both were products of your own mind. You acknowledge that

it is possible to 'become enlightened' i.e. into a new 'state (?) beyond the

waking one (where there is known to be no duality). Yet you find it strange

that character A (you) in your present waking dream do not know what

character B (me) is thinking. What is the difference?

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI CARLO FRUA (15999) and SRI RAM CHANDRAN (16002):

 

I do fully agree that we must remain humble about experiences beyond

what we have yet realized. That was my point about the blind man who

had not yet seen a color. How could he know what it is?

 

Yet I think that we are allowed to cautiously try to explain, as

best we can, the glimpses of truth provided by the advanced seers of

humanity. That is all I am trying to do. We should not eliminate

the possibility of some kind of 'reasonable' explanation for these

'nondual' experiences until we have at least tried.

 

For example, you say that 'manas' (or the discriminative mind)

cannot, by its very nature, perceive non-duality. At best it might

perceive 'oneness', which, in a subtle way, is the stage immediately

preceding the leap to non-duality.

 

This may well be true. But then perhaps manas can be explained in

terms of ideas I have presented before. It's at least worth a try.

I have talked repeatedly and ad nauseum about how the discriminating

mind imposes the arbitrary distinction between subject and object

upon the 'immediate awareness'. According to this explanation,

'subject' and 'object' are just words that both refer to the

immediate awareness. But the discriminating mind is fooled by words

into thinking that these are two different things.

 

So if we just silence the words in our discriminating mind (as did

Ramana) and remain calmly, silently and even reverently aware of our

'immediate experience', then do we not have at least a taste of the

non-dual experience. Is this wonderful non-dual experience so very

remote from what we can access even now as mere seekers? Perhaps the

difference between us and the jnana is that he (or she), after

silencing the noisy, talkative, and discriminative mind, remains in a

state of pure, silent awareness and introspection and then plunges

deeper and deeper as into a cool, refreshing ocean. That is, my own

silent introspection, in which I can at least get a glimpse of the

identity of subject and object, is like sticking by big toe in the

ocean. I can go only this far, but with practice I could plunge much

deeper. But at least this initial taste gives some idea, and the

non-dual experience is then not so very remote and inaccessible and

incomprehensible.

 

Let me share a comment of a more personal nature. I certainly have

had no experiences of a truly mystical nature. The whole idea of a

'mystical state of consciousness' is rather like the North Pole star

that is guiding my ship. However, I can say that when I abide

silently in calm awareness, I start to realize how wonderful and

miraculous is consciousness. The very consciousness before us that

we usually take for granted is then, upon silent and receptive

introspection, seen to be of an inherently divine nature. Really.

Just think of it. Is not consciousness self-evidently divine in some

sense? I believe that the ancient rishis had this realization and

then plunged deeper and deeper into it as they sat in the forest.

 

As for Ram's comment on the danger of the senses and of pleasure,

this is a difficult topic. Should we become ascetics? Buddha

rejected this option, and he became more enlightened than many

gnarled old ascetics who starved their bodies but never developed

compassion. Personally, I think that one of the main dangers of the

senses is that their very vividness easily plunges us into the

dualistic delusion of subject and object. As you remember, I have

extensively discussed how we mistakenly think that our perceptions

refer to a material world, which seems to contain an independently

existing material body, with which we identify, and which produces

the sense of ego. This all seems to happen because the senses are so

very vivid.

 

Of course pleasure has more mundane dangers, such as the tendency to

make us do things that hurt either ourselves or others.

 

I certainly don't know the answer to even a fraction of the truth.

We are all seekers.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

SECOND REPLY TO SRI TKB (15996):

>> ANSWER: undetermined. I do not know so precisely

>> how much I know about my mind.

>If this is so how are you able say something like

>"my consciousness is different from yours"

>about something you do not know precisely?

>

>You need not, answer me on this.

>Just think about it.

 

Dear TKBji,

 

I should have taken your advice and pondered your words for longer

before replying the first time. I now realize that they have much

deeper implications than I at first realized. Why do you hide behind

the mysterious initials TKB? All I can tell about you on the

Advaitin List is that you are from Kerala. I know some nice people

from Kerala who are now U.S. citizens. Shankara was from Kerala,

wasn't he? Maybe there is something about Kerala. I know that it is

a very green and beautiful place.

 

Anyhow, I now realize that my 'humble' admission that I do not know

the whole of my mind has very profound implications. It may vitiate

my whole argument against matter, which seemed to me like such a

promising first step towards understanding Advaita. For in my

argument against matter, I took the scientists at their word, who say

that we should only believe what we experience. (For example, many

hard-headed scientists would say that we do not experience 'God', so

we should not believe in God, at least not as scientists.) Well,

this same skepticism can be used against matter. We have never

experienced so-called 'matter' but only the perceptions that we

falsely assume are produced by matter. So, on the basis of Ockham's

razor, I eliminated matter and explained the 'world' as a sequences

of perceptions in our respective streams of consciousness that are

'miraculously' coordinated by the laws of physics (which are

ultimately the laws of God). (By the way, 'Ockham's razor' is a

famous principle of Western philosophy that says, roughly, that the

simplest and most streamlined theory that explains the facts is the

one we should use. Since the hypothesis of matter is unnecessary and

unverifiable, it should therefore be eliminated.)

 

Well, then, by this principle, am I not forced to admit that whatever

is present to my immediate awareness at this very moment is in fact

all I know or can know about my mind at this immediate moment? This

would seem foolish and presumptuous. I would much prefer to believe

that what I am aware of now in my consciousness barely scratches the

surface of an 'ocean of infinity and divinity'. But then, am I not

unjustifiably postulating something of which I am unaware, just as we

normally do for matter?

 

One answer would be that the deeper divine nature of our

consciousness is not present at this moment in 'actuality' but only

in 'potentiality'. At this very moment, my consciousness is only

what I am aware of and no more. But I have faith that it is

developing towards higher and higher states of consciousness. But

until these higher states are actually realized, I should not say

that they are 'there' in any sense. To say that they are there

'potentially' means that they are not in fact there but will be one

day in the future.

 

But then how does this square with my belief that 'God' or the Pure

Infinite Consciousness who is the Necessary and Ultimate Source of

Being is the 'substratum' of my present consciousness? Am I not

denying this?

 

I could go on and on but I won't. Let me just reiterate an idea I

presented before. It may be that as we rise to higher and higher

levels of consciousness, our consciousness 'expands' in many ways.

One of these ways is that we become more sensitive of other

consciousnesses, and at some point I in fact believe that phenomena

such as telepathy arise. There is evidence for this. What is

obscuring our consciousness now is undoubtedly 'ignorance'.

 

Now one may ask, Does this ignorance hide something that is there but

that cannot be seen, just as darkness hides something that is

'there' and could be seen if only light were shining on it? Or does

ignorance mean the complete absence from consciousness of that of

which we are ignorant? (As a footnote, let me point out that there

are two kinds of ignorance. On the one hand, there is the ignorance

that superposes error upon what is before us, like the snake on the

rope. And on the other hand, there is ignorance that sees something

that is not there in any sense, not even as a rope. I am talking of

the latter. Or am I?)

 

Well, I'll stop here. The whole question of ignorance in Advaita is

very thorny. After all, how can God be ignorant, and we are

ignorant, aren't we?

 

Still, I think that my basic principle of refusing to postulate an

entity that is not immediately present in consciousness is highly

reasonable, elegant, justified and altogether persuasive. I see no

reason to give it up yet. But this very principle raised my original

question about how your consciousness and mine can be equated. For

the contents of your consciousness are not present in my immediate

awareness. And now we are going around in circles... But our verbal

skills are being improved.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI DENNIS WAITE (16000):

 

Sri Dennis, you are so lucky! You have message number 16000. I am

superstitious about things like that, as when the odometer in my car

rolls over to 10,000 or 100,000. I always gaze at it while that is

happening, even if it makes my driving temporarily more dangerous.

 

Anyhow, you raise some interesting points:

>This is not the correct sequence. The Sanskrit equivalent of ego is ahaMkAra

>and this means "making (kAra) the utterance I am (aham)". It is the very

>arising of the thought 'I' that is the origin of the idea that we are a

>separate entity (ego). As you then go on to say, the subsequent

>identifications with body or mind are simply compounding of the mistake

>through superimposition.

 

How can the thought 'I' arise, unless the discriminating mind first

distinguishes (falsely) between 'subject' and 'object'? (To repeat,

'subject' and 'object' are mere words applied to the same immediate

awareness, but we are fooled into thinking that they refer to

different entities.) And what can the 'object' be, other than

thoughts, feelings or perceptions? And body is surely a typical and

prime example of the perceptions. There is no sense of 'I' in a

vacuum, as it were, is there? So if it is not always awareness of an

apparently distinct BODY that produces the sense of 'I', then it is

at least EITHER body, OR thoughts OR feelings, or so it seems to me.

 

 

I do appreciate your quotes. The main reason I am interested in

Advaita is that I am deeply impressed with the vision, intelligence

and lucidity in the writings of Ramana and Nigarsaddata. Anyhow who

says that Eastern religion or mysticism is 'irrational' and even

'primitive' nonsense should be given copies of their works. At least

they will develop an appreciation for the depth and intelligence of

these two Jnanas.

 

>Incidentally, I don't think that you ever commented on my reference to the

>analogy with dreaming. You, as the waker, do not think it strange that, when

>dreaming, character A was not able to read the thoughts of character B in

>your dream, though both were products of your own mind.

 

Actually, that's rather thought provoking. I have tried very hard to

answer everyone, as a look at the Advaitin List demonstrates. I

can't keep it up and will soon reduce my contribution to this thread,

so I don't lose my job.

 

As for what you just said, I would have to make remarks along the

lines of what I just said to Sri TKB (16005). I am inclined to think

that my consciousness is just whatever it is at this present moment.

So in the dream, the scriptwriter is not in fact there 'behind the

scenes' as it were. I realize that this raises a lot of problems,

and I cannot continue now. Perhaps rereading (16005) will help.

 

For instance, you may ask, 'When I forget something and then remember

it again, was the forgotten knowledge not somehow there all the time

but hidden somewhere in my mind?' I would say that my mind, or

rather consciousness, is only what it is at any given moment. The

knowledge disappeared completely out of 'existence' and then

reappeared, just as the moon is indeed not there when no one is

looking. There is nothing particularly incredible about this. It is

just as 'incredible' for the moon to appear, disappear and reappear,

as it was for it to have ever appeared in the first place. God is

working the miracle of Being at all times, not just a long time ago

during 'creation', as the Christians believe. This is one reason I

believe in 'him', namely, his miraculous sustaining power is required

everywhere at all times. At all times, our being hangs by a thread.

We are always teetering on the verge of non-existence, and would

vanish if God's sustaining power were ever withdrawn.

 

Pranams

Benjamin