Meaning of 'Consciousness is One'

[Guest guest]

The discussions on this thread contained some arguments on whether an

inference is 'logical' or 'from intuition'. Is it possible to spell

out a set of axioms, that cannot be proved by logic, and from which

one has to proceed to understand advaita, so that all subsequent

inferences must be made through logic (of course we are appealing to

a common understanding of what the rules of inferences are).

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Axioms: A set of postulates in simple English from the Vedas

(Sastras):

(1) The Brahman alone exists.

(2) The Brahman is not subject to birth or death. (eternal)

(3) The Brahman is changeless.

(4) The Brahman is omnipresent.

 

Role of faith and conviction: Sastra Pramana - (When I am in doubt, I

take the intuition of the seers as spelled out in the Sastras

(Upanishads, Brahmasuutras and the Bhagavad Gita) as the Truth). I

agree to accept and respect these postulates with faith and

conviction.

 

INFERENCE:

I know that I exist (no proof is necessary for one's own existence

because the very question on my existence is the proof for my

existence!). Now I can logically infer non-duality using the above

axioms: I exist but I accept that Brahman alone exists and

consequently, I have to be the Brahman. My body is not the Brahman

because I could witness my body undergoing the changes. My mind and

intellect also have undergone with changes at every moment of time

and consequently they can't be the Brahman. My perception of

everything around me including that of you, others and everything

around you and others also change. But everything that I perceive is

necessarily an integral part of the Brahman because Brahman is

omnipresent. I could conveniently label my perception as 'mAya'

the integral part of the Brahman.

 

After a moment of contemplation, I could recognize the existence of

something other than my body, mind and intellect within me that is

not subject to any change. I could conveniently call this as the

spirit or the Atman which is necessarily the changeless Brahman and I

am that Atman. This recognition of my true nature is being spelled

out in the Upanishads as the 'mahavakyas - the four great

statements.' Aham Brahmasmi (I am the Brahman). Tat twaqm asi (That

thou art). Ayam Atma Brahman (This is that, Atman is Brahman).

Prajnanam Brahman (Brahman is the highest wisdom).

 

I believe that this simplistic interpretation is a good starting

point for your elegant question. It seems that in many situations, we

don't want to agree with a simple truth and allow the spell of

ignorance to occupy our mind. Our ignorance seems to inject the mind

with the creative power and enable to produce new notions. The

unfulfilled mind increases the rate of production of notions in

geometric progression. With the overflowing thoughts, we get fully

trapped and we make a move to get out of this mess. After a

considerable amount of time, the forgotten wisdom emerges to negate

the notions one by one. Suddenly, we get the wake-up call from the

rising sun with the light of wisdom to dispel our ignorance and to

realize the Truth - "I am the Brahman." In the background we could

hear the whispering voice of Sankara saying, "Stop your search; take

a moment to contemplate that you are what you are!"

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Please note that this is my notion of Advaita and this is not

necessarily the Truth!

 

advaitin, "eknath2k" <eknath@u...> wrote:

> The discussions on this thread contained some arguments on whether

an

> inference is 'logical' or 'from intuition'. Is it possible to spell

> out a set of axioms, that cannot be proved by logic, and from which

> one has to proceed to understand advaita, so that all subsequent

> inferences must be made through logic (of course we are appealing

to

> a common understanding of what the rules of inferences are).