Meaning of 'Consciousness is One'

March 11, 2003

REPLY TO SRI DENNIS WAITE (15973):

>Apologies if I am being thick here but in what way are you aware of 'other

>people with separate consciousnesses' other than through your immediate

>awareness? How can you be aware of anything at all other than as a percept,

>feeling or concept? (Apart from the immediate knowledge 'I am', of course!)

>I appreciate that we think of 'people with consciousness' in a quite

>different way from which we think of objects but surely we are still

>thinking, aren't we? How could we be aware of these so-called 'other people'

>if we had no senses or mind?

I have a perception that I call a 'body'. I do not associate that

perception with any kind of material body 'outside' of my

consciousness. I DO associate a consciousness much like my own with

that body. I consider that consciousness to exist just as mine does,

but it is not my own, since I am not aware of it.

I agree that it is a mistake to think of that consciousness as 'out

there' in any spatial sense, since space and time are within

consciousness. (As I have said, we all have our own private replica

of space and time within our consciousness; there is not one single

space and time in which we are contained.) So I regard your

consciousness as 'different' from mine, but I do not juxtapose our

consciousnesses in any kind of a spatial sense. I can say this much,

but I don't claim to completely understand these cosmic matters in

every last detail.

Now as I said, there is a logical possibility called 'solipsism',

which says that perhaps my consciousness is the only one and all the

apparent bodies that I see are merely figments of my imagination,

none of which correspond to any other consciousnesses. Those who try

to defeat 'idealism' (the belief that only consciousness exists and

not matter) through the solipsistic argument say, 'How can you be

absolutely, absolutely, absolutely sure that you are not the only

consciousness? Is it not a logical possibility?'

Well, I suppose it is a logical possibility in some sense, but as I

said, I consider it so improbable that it is not worth worrying

about, any more that the sun falling out of the sky. (Asteroids are

another matter.) I simply can't believe that I am the only one. I

am not THAT egoistic.

March 14, 2003

Hello Carlo,

You wrote:

"At this point, we should clarify that: for Advaita the term non-real is

not intended in the absolute sense of non-existent. For example, when

we say that the objective world is unreal this does not mean that the

world is non-existent like «the horns of a hare» (as Sankara comments),

but that it is not real when compared to the absolute Reality. The

objective world is, therefore, a relative effect-phenomenon that is

born, grows and dies."

That's fine by me but the absolute non-reality of the world as proposed by

Gaudapada seems to be a significantly different position. It verges more

on illusionism to the extent where dream and waking reality seem to be

conflated.

" 5. Because of the identity of perception, recognized by inference, the

wise say that the states of dreaming and waking are of the same nature."

This would be very different from the position of Sankara " It has been said

by those who deny the existence of external things that perceptions of

things like a pillar etc. in the waking state occur even the absence of

external things, just as they do in a dream; for as perceptions, they are

similar. That has to be refuted. With regard to this we say, the

perceptions of the waking state cannot be classed with those in a

dream."(B.S.B.II.ii.29)

Best wishes, Michael.

_______________

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

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

March 14, 2003

Namaste Ramji.

Congratulations! I wish you had been so categorical a little earlier.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

________________

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

wrote:

> 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).

March 15, 2003

Dear Benjamin,

> First of all, my profound sympathy on the Mumbai bomb blasts

> ... right there in your very own neighborhood!

Indeed it is very painful. All the more when you see that it is so

needless.

> Fourthly, I'm glad to see that an Advaitin can have a sense

> of humor, about Ash and other topics.

Possibly because I was introduced to P.G. Wodehouse even before I

took to advaita.

> For one thing, the consciousness of BFB and BFT simply do no

> exist in any way whatsoever in your dream. There is only your

> consciousness, but you are imagining something that might happen if

> you were awake. If you were awake, then your perception of BFB and

> BFT would indeed correspond to OTHER actual consciousness, as in my

> previous elephant discussion.

If the non-existence of the consciousness of BFB and BFT does not

come in the way of their having different perceptions, feelings and

thoughts in Venkat's dream, why is it necessary to postulate separate

streams of conciousness for Benjamin and TKB in waking reality to

justify differences in their perceptions, feelings and thoughts

(PFTs)? Just as there is only Venkat's consciousness in his dream and

all the events of his dream take place in it, so also there need be

just Consciousness (by whatever name we call it - God, Sub-stratum

etc.)in waking reality too for the the events of the world to take

place.

> >2. Equally obviously, in the very same dream, the content of BFB's

> >stream of consciousness is different from that of BFT's stream.

>

> is quite incorrect, in that is refers to entities that in no way

> exist. Hence, in my opinion, this does not, unfortunately, solve

the

> contradiction.

The difference in BFB's and BFT's streams of consciousness in

Venkat's dream is only apparent; ultimately they are both made of the

same stuff - DVC (Dreaming Venkat's consciousness)

> You must not then start to treat the appearances of 'people' within

> your dream the same way you would treat the appearances

of 'people'

> when awake, that is, by ascribing separate consciousnesses to them.

My argument is the seeming differences in people and their

consciousness in waking reality is as much an appearance as they are

in a dream.

> And it was fun to consider your example, even if I disagree

> with it. Philosophy is also about such sport and entertainment.

>

For me too.

Pranams

Venkat

March 15, 2003

Dear Venkat and Eknath2k:

REPLY TO SRI VENKAT (16030):

So you like P.G. Wodehouse! He was very popular in America when my

Mother was growing up (1920's and 1930's) but has been nearly

forgotten over here. However, some years back they showed the

'Jeeves and Wooster' series produced by the BBC on the television

over here. I liked it ... a gentle kind of humor with no

maliciousness. By the way, my Swamiji over here has a great sense of

humor. There's a popular misconception that the more holy you are

the less humor you have.

Now, as for your new counterargument. I find it quite interesting,

not because you have convinced me, but because it seems we have

reached a kind of impasse. What makes it interesting is that I am

quite sure that you are a rational, intelligent and perceptive

person. And yet, what seems like a plain and uncontroversial

possibility to you (that the consciousnesses of other waking people

might be 'within' my waking consciousness in the same way that the

consciousnesses of other dream people are within my dreaming

consciousness) seems plainly impossible to me!

I don't want to be contentious, but I have to 'call a spade a spade',

as we say over here. I think that the best thing for me to do would

be, not to argue further, but to contemplate your intriguing vision

for a while, and see if I 'see the light' after a while. After all,

your explanation could go a long way towards explaining how our

consciousnesses are within the Consciousness of God! (But let me be

clear: I presently believe quite strongly that your point of view is

invalid. But I am more interested at the moment in having an 'open

mind' than in arguing further about what seems like a fundamental

self-evident truth.)

This reminds me of what Sri Svahauk said in message (16027). He

completely rejected my denial of the external, material world, and

his reason was that his belief in the reality of the external world

was 'a basic given which is foundational'. Now I can quite

understand how the vividness of perception fools us into believing in

this external world, as I have tried to explain. Indeed, for me this

is perhaps the most important aspect of Maya, and I do believe with

all due respect that Sri Svahauk is still under the influence of this

Maya in precisely this sense! Also, I believe that a careful review

of my arguments shows that my point is really quite simple and

irrefutable. To me it is like saying '2+2=4'. But I won't insist

anymore. I have made my case.

And I do fully accept Sri Ram's postulates, not because I was born a

Hindu or Brahman or whatever and am 'supposed' to accept them. I am

obviously not from this background, but nevertheless I do accept them

for a variety of reasons, as explained here and on my webpage. I was

only trying to understand them better and to reconcile them with

other philosophical beliefs (and with each other).

Sri Ram seemed to be warning us against superposing our own personal

views upon the ancient truths revealed by rishis far more spiritually

advanced than we are. I do believe in the great importance of

humility and an open mind prepared at any time to abandon cherished

preconceptions. But I also believe that, if we are truly honest,

then we must diligently pursue the truth for ourselves with the

guidance of the great mystics for inspiration. Their transcendental

experience will not be real FOR US unless we are first fully

convinced of its reasonableness (even if this conviction is only a

polevault to a higher level). At the same time, I fully accept the

primal importance of intuition in addition to mere reason, as I have

said. Also, I accept that faith alone can work for many (really

most) people. The Hindu tradition contains both the most heartfelt

faith and devotion and the most breathtaking and cosmic speculation

and inquiry. Both can be paths to the Truth.

REPLY TO SRI EKNATH2K (16031):

Briefly, Sri Eknath2k is quite right. I accept the basic postulates,

and I accept that the ultimate identity of our respective

consciousnesses follows LOGICALLY from these postulates. My problem,

as I have always clearly stated, was that this logical deduction

seemed to conflict with intuition, which is another pillar in my

search for the truth.

Now you may argue that my intuition is flawed. Here I must

distinguish between an intuition that is under the spell of words and

concepts and an intuition that is 'pure' in some sense.

An example of the former would be one that I have repeatedly

discussed, namely, the invalid distinction between subject and object

within my own consciousness (i.e. the very awareness immediately

present to me). It seems quite clear to me, when I keep my mind

silent and simply gaze at this awareness, that the words 'subject'

and 'object' refer to the same reality, that is, the same immediate

awareness. This is really quite significant, as it clearly

demonstrates 'nondualism' in a way that does not require dubious

mental contortions. How many people really believe that subject and

object are the same in any sense? I believe that my arguments showed

this to be quite reasonable for each of us taken separately.

When the words 'subject' and 'object' fool us into thinking that they

refer to something different within our immediate awareness, then

this is an example of intuition fooled by the mind. But when clear

non-verbal introspection reveals the distinction to be baseless, then

this is an example of 'pure' intuition. I then wanted to extend this

pure intuition to understand the identity of your consciousness and

mine but could not.

And yet, there is still this clash with the logic implied by the

postulates which I do accept!

Fortunately, I think that the insight that I have already acquired,

namely, the identity of subject and object within my own present

awareness, is sufficient for me to make spiritual progress at my

present level. I believe that deeply contemplating this identity,

not just intellectually but in the depths of my intuition, will help

to dissolve the bonds of ego and raise my consciousness to a higher

level. Indeed, I think this is already happening slowly. So I have

enough wisdom for my present purposes, even if I do not have the

answer to everything.

I'll finish by telling you what I think the ultimate answer might be.

I think that as long as we are in a state of ignorance, it is correct

to distinguish between your consciousness and mine and call them

distinct. As this ignorance is dispelled, the boundaries between

our consciousnesses will dissolve, and phenomena such as telepathy

will arise, in which the contents of your consciousness will be

immediately present to mine.

The real mystery is why this ignorance ever arises if we are truly

God. I do not think that even Shankara has given a fully satisfying

explanation, based on what I have read so far. But we don't need the

answer to everything to progress spiritually. I believe that there

are enough good reasons to believe that God exists and is somehow at

the foundation of our consciousness, even if partly hidden. We

cannot know the answer to everything, or we would be Jivanmuktis,

wouldn't we?

Hari Om!

Benjamin

March 15, 2003

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

wrote:

> 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.

----------------------------

Namaste

Ram Chandranji. I would slightly modify your enunciation of

axioms and state that the four mahAvAkyas (Grand Pronouncements)

1. prajnAnaM brahma 2. aham brahma asmi 3. tat tvam asi and 4.

ayam AtmA brahma - are themselves the fundamental axioms and

from these everything else follows. Of course you have yourself

quoted these four and implied that these are your reasons for

your further inferences.

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

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

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

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

Web Hosting - establish your business online

http://webhosting.

March 18, 2003

Namaste and thanks for a wonderful discussion.

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> I'll finish by telling you what I think the ultimate answer might

>be.

> I think that as long as we are in a state of ignorance, it is

correct

> to distinguish between your consciousness and mine and call them

> distinct.

This is a wonderful statement indeed, although in one's careful

scrutiny like separating a needle from a hay-stock , one may have to

allow for a possibility in the semantics of 'consciousness' in the

above statement to mean something within the purvue of maya and not

really 'prajnA'.

>As this ignorance is dispelled, the boundaries between

> our consciousnesses will dissolve, and phenomena such as telepathy

> will arise, in which the contents of your consciousness will be

> immediately present to mine.

>

Here again, Consciousness may have been mistaken for something else,

just allow room for such a possibility in the scrutiny.

With Love,

Raghava

March 21, 2003

On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Ram Chandran wrote:

> 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