Existence of Objects

[Guest guest]

Tony said:

>Yes the world still exists whilst one is in deep sleep. In the

>same way that another person's dream exists when we awake from

>our dream sleep. The dream will always seem to exist while there

>are dreamers.

 

I agree with this. This is the right way to say it.

 

 

 

Sri Ram said:

>Before I conclude, let me add a little note to my dear friend,

>Sri Benjamin. First, I am going to treat his idea of closing

>the discussion on October topic and move on to the November

>topics as a 'Joke!'

 

Of course it was a joke. How could it be otherwise? But my point

was that the Mahavakyas of the Upanishads clearly imply a certain

logic about the unreality of material objects (since everything is

Consciousness), which many Advaitins do not seem to take seriously.

Perhaps they are afraid of being ridiculed for saying that 'nothing

exists', which is NOT what idealism says, since consciousness itself

surely exists. Or perhaps they are afraid of being compared to

certain Buddhists, as Shankara was by Dvaitins. From my perspective

as a Westerner, the fear of being compared to another tradition seems

really silly. I would delight in seeing my beloved ideas reappear

spontaneously in spiritual traditions around the world. In my

opinion, this increases their universality and hence truth.

 

Regarding your question, 'Is light an object?', I believe that the

answer is that it can *appear* as an object if the mind is so

predisposed. But in reality, there are no objects in the sense of

something 'other' than consciousness. But the mind can create or

superimpose this illusion, just as it does in the dream.

 

 

 

Greg said:

>But idealism can run into problems. It treats tables and

>chairs one way, and treats observers another way. It is

>more lenient in allowing other observers than it is allowing

>tables and chairs. This is because idealism carries the

>residues of the classic cartesian dualism and also wants to

>avoid solipsism. That is, in a vague and oft-unexamined way,

>idealism locates consciousness inside the observer (this makes

>no sense, for how can something immaterial be inside anything?

>And just what kind of thing is it inside?).

>So idealism allows there to be Smith's consciousness as well

>as Jones' consciousness. Smith, even though he is an idealist,

>allows Jones existence by granting validity to Jones'

>observations equal to the validity of his own. If Smith

>applied the very same criteria to Jones as to the table,

>Smith would worry about solipsism. So to avoid this, he

>sneakily allows Jones to exist, but not the table.

>This is an inconsistency which advaita never has, since

>consciousness is not divided, and there aren't more than one.

>Any observer is inside consciousness, not the other way around.

 

I both agree and disagree with you. This is a very subtle area,

which I am still puzzling over.

 

One the one hand, it is not fair to say that idealism is being

'sneaky' in blithely accepting other observers while denying objects.

They are not equivalent. I am aware of my own consciousness, so that

certainly exists. Now it seems perfectly reasonable to me to suppose

that I could not possibly be the only one.

 

There are two ways to argue this: with and without God.

 

One can appeal to God as the necessary uncaused source of reality,

whose intrinsic nature must be 'infinite consciousness' in some sense

(another topic), and why would he just 'create' (or manifest as)

little old me? Surely he has more imagination than that!

 

Or else, one can simply appeal to the extreme improbability that my

consciousness should be the only one. That seems quite reasonable to

me, if not to others. It seems extremely unreasonable and improbable

to me that I should be the only one. There is so much that is

contingent and arbitrary about my manifestation as consciousness.

Why should this particular manifestation be the only one? It just

makes no sense.

 

So that is my first point, that observers ARE different from objects,

and idealism is not being sneaky or one-sided in that sense.

 

However, on the other hand, I do agree with you that there are

serious problems with imagining a multiplicity of consciousnesses,

like stars in some kind of enveloping space. That is because I have

already decided that space (and time) are WITHIN my consciousness,

and not the other way around. (Even the word 'within' is incorrect,

as I soon explain.) The same principles that lead me to reject

matter 'outside' of consciousness also lead me to reject any notion

of space and time 'outside' of consciousness; space and time are

merely aspects of my perceptual consciousness, like matter itself.

Thus the very notion of an 'outside' to consciousness is invalid.

Likewise, the notion of an 'inside' to consciousness is equally

invalid, as you say. I do not express my idealism in that way. I

simply say that space and time are 'aspects' of the manifestation of

consciousness. So there is no 'enveloping space' in which a

multiplicity of consciousnesses may reside. Hence, their distinction

becomes quite problematic.

 

This is one reason that I tend to agree with Advaita that there can

really only be one Consciousness. But I still have a serious problem

with the fact that your pleasure, pain and other experiences are not

mine. I can't pretend that this problem doesn't exist. Still, I

think you will agree that some of what I said about the non-existence

of space and time outside of consciousness is in line with what you

believe.

 

It is an extremely subtle issue. How do you HONESTLY reconcile our

different experiences with the notion of One Consciousness?

 

You comment that any observer is 'inside' consciousness can also be

challenged. This again assumes a kind of Newtonian reality to

consciousness, giving it some real spatial attributes which I find

questionable.

 

Sorry about so many words. And I am not saying that my understanding

is better than yours. To repeat, this is at the frontier of my

thinking. There are some philosophical areas where I am stubborn,

such as the unreality of matter per se. But the ultimate Unity of

Consciousness is the great mystery and challenge for me. Do you

really, really, really get it? Please forgive my doubt.

 

Regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin:

 

The one and only way to get the insight that "consciousness surely

exists" is through the recognition of the 'non-existing objects.'

The appearance of the existence of 'objects' is quite essential for

the comprehension of consciousness or Brahman. This may explain why

the human beings limited by 'nada, bindu and kala' apply the

principle of neti-neti to discard the objects one by one! Even in

mathematics, the method of reductio ad absurdom (Disproof of a

proposition by showing the absurdity of its inevitable conclusion)is

being applied! All that I can see is that Advaitins do take seriously

on the existence of Consciouness along with the appearance of the

existence of objects.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

> ..... But my point

> was that the Mahavakyas of the Upanishads clearly imply a certain

> logic about the unreality of material objects (since everything is

> Consciousness), which many Advaitins do not seem to take seriously.

> Perhaps they are afraid of being ridiculed for saying that 'nothing

> exists', which is NOT what idealism says, since consciousness

itself

> surely exists.

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

Appreciate your interest on this topic. Actually, if it weren't for all the

energy you put into this topic a few months ago, we might not have thought of

the topic-of-the-month idea in the first place!

 

You write:

>One the one hand, it is not fair to say that idealism is being

>'sneaky' in blithely accepting other observers while denying objects.

>They are not equivalent. I am aware of my own consciousness, so that

>certainly exists. Now it seems perfectly reasonable to me to suppose

>that I could not possibly be the only one.

 

But whether it's only you is just the question at issue. To rephrase the

question:

 

"Whatever it is that's doing the looking - is there more than one of them?"

 

It's even a huge assumption to call it "my own consciousness." What is the

"you" to which this consciousness belongs? What makes it "yours"?

 

>So that is my first point, that observers ARE different from objects,

>and idealism is not being sneaky or one-sided in that sense.

 

============Yes, idealists would say some objects are conscious, and those are

the observers. Or they might posit only the mind as the observer. But the only

way to individuate minds is through bodies. See the writings of Bernard

Williams on this.

 

>Thus the very notion of an 'outside' to consciousness is invalid.

>Likewise, the notion of an 'inside' to consciousness is equally

>invalid, as you say. I do not express my idealism in that way. I

>simply say that space and time are 'aspects' of the manifestation of

>consciousness. So there is no 'enveloping space' in which a

>multiplicity of consciousnesses may reside.

 

===========I like *this* side of your 2-way thinking on the issue. You state it

without saying that the consciousness is yours.

 

>This is one reason that I tend to agree with Advaita that there can

>really only be one Consciousness. But I still have a serious problem

>with the fact that your pleasure, pain and other experiences are not

>mine. I can't pretend that this problem doesn't exist.

 

==========This is because you are thinking that there is a non-conventional

entity to which the pain and pleasure belong. It's the old (largely Western

also) problem of subject/object, substance/attribute, scheme/content. One way

to break down the force of this model is to try to focus on just what one thinks

the substance is. Just what is it that these attributes apply to? Describe it.

(OK, lists of characteristics are made.) Then you see, hmm, those are

themselves attributes. Then you realize that you just cannot find a personal,

distinct subject! All its defining characteristics are actually attributes!

With no subject, the force of this hoary old Western model dissolves.

 

> Still, I think you will agree that some of what I said about the

non-existence

>of space and time outside of consciousness is in line with what you

>believe.

 

 

==========I agree - I have no belief that that they exist outside consciousness!

 

>It is an extremely subtle issue. How do you HONESTLY reconcile our

>different experiences with the notion of One Consciousness?

>

>You comment that any observer is 'inside' consciousness can also be

>challenged. This again assumes a kind of Newtonian reality to

>consciousness, giving it some real spatial attributes which I find

>questionable.

 

 

 

============Yes, the non-spatial does not embrace spatiality; hence, no

prepositions! No positions or directions to consciousness. In advaita, there

is no true seeing being done by individuals. The only "seer" is consciousness.

One way to look at it is that the supposed individual event of seeing is not

really happening. The seeing itself, along with the supposed seer, are both

appearances in the single, unbroken, non-personal consciousness.

 

>Sorry about so many words. And I am not saying that my understanding

>is better than yours.

 

I know, we're just talking.... Ooops, at work, gotta go, more later!

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sri Ram said:

>The one and only way to get the insight that "consciousness

>surely exists" is through the recognition of the 'non-existing

>objects.' The appearance of the existence of 'objects' is quite

>essential for the comprehension of consciousness or Brahman.

 

We seem to agree. You first say that the objects are 'non-existing'.

That is the key point. I'm glad to hear you say this.

 

Then you say that the 'appearance' of the existence of objects is

necessary. This is a good choice of words. By calling it an

'appearance' you affirm their dreamlike illusory status, which is

another way of saying that they don't exist as real objects

independent of consciousness. This is just like the dream. When

dreaming, we are fooled by the mind into believing that all the dream

objects are real entities, existing independently of consciousness

and of each other. But upon awakening, we realize that there was

only our consciousness, and the dream objects were only illusions

within our consciousness. The same is true of the waking state, from

which we must also 'awake' (paradoxical as that may seem).

 

But then you say that the objects are essential for the recognition

of consciousness. This suggest that the illusion of objects provides

some kind of contrast to the reality of consciousness, which enables

us to become fully aware of the nature of consciousness. This would

certainly explain why we had to spend our time in this dreamlike

world of pain and pleasure. It was a necessary educational

experience! By confronting what we are not, we discover what we are.

 

But once we learn our lessons, can we 'graduate' to Moksha and remain

liberated 'forever'? I hope so. When all is said and done, I must

confess that I really hate suffering. I never claimed to be brave.

(I must put forever in quotes, because clever Advaitins will surely

remind me that time is as illusory as the objects.)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

GREG:

Appreciate your interest on this topic. Actually, if it weren't for

all the energy you put into this topic a few months ago, we might not

have thought of the topic-of-the-month idea in the first place!

 

MY REPLY:

Thanks. Since this is a topic which fascinates me, I intend to

participate quite a bit during the early part of the month, but then

I will try to taper off so as to avoid verbal gluttony (as well as

mental exhaustion and irritation).

 

 

 

BENJAMIN:

One the one hand, it is not fair to say that idealism is being

'sneaky' in blithely accepting other observers while denying objects.

They are not equivalent. I am aware of my own consciousness, so that

certainly exists. Now it seems perfectly reasonable to me to suppose

that I could not possibly be the only one.

 

GREG:

But whether it's only you is just the question at issue. To rephrase

the question:

 

"Whatever it is that's doing the looking - is there more than one of them?"

 

It's even a huge assumption to call it "my own consciousness." What

is the "you" to which this consciousness belongs? What makes it

"yours"?

 

MY REPLY:

Yes, the words 'my own consciousness' are loaded and problematic.

But to get back to my key question, how do you account for the fact

that your experiences are not mine, and vice versa? This clearly

seems to be the case. If you burn your finger, I do not cry with

pain. So does this not imply distinct streams of consciousness? I

just don't see how to get around this.

 

The whole point of my interest in idealism is that it seems to

explain so much concerning Advaita. It seems clear and logical to

me. Then I hit this brick wall of multiple streams of consciousness

(or so it seems). Quite distressing!

 

 

 

BENJAMIN:

So that is my first point, that observers ARE different from objects,

and idealism is not being sneaky or one-sided in that sense.

 

GREG:

============Yes, idealists would say some objects are conscious, and

those are the observers. Or they might posit only the mind as the

observer. But the only way to individuate minds is through bodies.

See the writings of Bernard Williams on this.

 

MY REPLY:

As an idealist, I would not say that some objects are conscious. My

understanding of idealism is to eliminate objects, hence there are no

objects to be conscious. Of course, I mean 'material objects', i.e.

the inert, unconscious 'stuff' which we falsely suppose exists

'outside' of our consciousness (and which includes both matter and

energy from the physics standpoint).

 

Now if you want to get tricky, you could call the other streams of

consciousness as 'objects'. This definition of 'object' would be

'anything that is not my consciousness', which could only be other

streams of consciousness, since material objects have been

eliminated. However, I do not use 'object' in this sense.

 

I don't agree that the only way to individuate minds is through

bodies, if you mean perceptual bodies. I can imagine a 'community'

of mere dreamers, though I suppose that their dream bodies would then

seem like 'real' (i.e. perceptual) bodies to them.

 

Anyhow, the fact that different streams of consciousness are

different streams of consciousness has nothing to do with the

qualitative contents of the respective streams of consciousness. It

has to do with the fact that one stream says 'I see A,B,C' and the

other says 'I see X,Y,Z', regardless of what the A,B,C and X,Y,Z are.

In fact, even if the second stream also says 'I see A,B,C', it would

still be a *different* A,B,C.

 

To repeat, I have absolutely no idea what is passing across the

screen of your consciousness as I write these words. That is

difference enough for me. And even if I were clairvoyant, I would

still think that my 'perception' of your mind is a reproduction, just

as the picture on a television screen is a reproduction.

 

 

 

BENJAMIN:

Thus the very notion of an 'outside' to consciousness is invalid.

Likewise, the notion of an 'inside' to consciousness is equally

invalid, as you say. I do not express my idealism in that way. I

simply say that space and time are 'aspects' of the manifestation of

consciousness. So there is no 'enveloping space' in which a

multiplicity of consciousnesses may reside.

 

GREG:

===========I like *this* side of your 2-way thinking on the issue.

You state it without saying that the consciousness is yours.

 

MY REPLY:

'Mine' and 'yours' are only labels to identify streams of

consciousness. I can think of no reason for saying that the streams

are the same, for the reasons given. Nor has anybody every provided

a good reason to me.

 

 

 

BENJAMIN:

This is one reason that I tend to agree with Advaita that there can

really only be one Consciousness. But I still have a serious problem

with the fact that your pleasure, pain and other experiences are not

mine. I can't pretend that this problem doesn't exist.

 

GREG:

==========This is because you are thinking that there is a

non-conventional entity to which the pain and pleasure belong. It's

the old (largely Western also) problem of subject/object,

substance/attribute, scheme/content. One way to break down the force

of this model is to try to focus on just what one thinks the

substance is. Just what is it that these attributes apply to?

Describe it. (OK, lists of characteristics are made.) Then you see,

hmm, those are themselves attributes. Then you realize that you just

cannot find a personal, distinct subject! All its defining

characteristics are actually attributes! With no subject, the force

of this hoary old Western model dissolves.

 

MY REPLY:

I fully deny the concepts called 'subject' and 'object', as well as

'substance' and 'attribute'. When I introspect upon my immediate

awareness, I can see no difference between 'subject' and 'object'.

They are both labels pointing to the same awareness, just as Hume

said. Likewise, I can see no difference between 'substance' and

'attribute'. They both refer to the 'immediate awareness' of some

particular stream of consciousness. I only differentiate between

different streams of consciousness.

 

 

 

BENJAMIN:

Still, I think you will agree that some of what I said about the

non-existence of space and time outside of consciousness is in line

with what you believe.

 

GREG:

==========I agree - I have no belief that that they exist outside

consciousness!

 

MY REPLY:

Good. Half the battle is won. Let's finish the job.

 

 

 

BENJAMIN:

It is an extremely subtle issue. How do you HONESTLY reconcile our

different experiences with the notion of One Consciousness?You

comment that any observer is 'inside' consciousness can also be

challenged. This again assumes a kind of Newtonian reality to

consciousness, giving it some real spatial attributes which I find

questionable.

 

 

GREG:

============Yes, the non-spatial does not embrace spatiality; hence,

no prepositions! No positions or directions to consciousness. In

advaita, there is no true seeing being done by individuals. The only

"seer" is consciousness. One way to look at it is that the supposed

individual event of seeing is not really happening. The seeing

itself, along with the supposed seer, are both appearances in the

single, unbroken, non-personal consciousness.

 

MY REPLY:

What I mean is that space does not exist as it appears to, i.e.

'outside' of consciousness. However, the illusion of space is very

vivid and is therefore real in that sense. If I fell from a plane

without a parachute (or even with one), I would have quite a vivid

experience. But it would not be essentially different from a

nightmare. That is the point.

 

So yes, there is no 'seeing' in the usual sense, as when we

dualistically say 'I see a tree', falsely supposing that the tree is

somehow different from the seeing. This I do reject. But that is

all within one particular stream of consciousness. Nothing has been

said to dispel the notion that there are nevertheless different

streams of consciousness, each projecting an imaginary 'outside

world' of trees, etc.

 

Yet I repeat that I do feel that there is something wrong with this

belief in multiple streams of consciousness. I do appeal to 'God' or

'Brahman' as the Necessary Uncaused Source of Reality. This must be

a single infinite consciousness, which sustains our respective

streams and is their essential reality. (Why? That's another

discussion.) Hence, from this point of view, there is indeed only

Brahman. But the phenomenological appearance of distinct streams of

consciousness still remains. This phenomenology disagrees with my

other more metaphysical conclusions. It is like the disagreement

between quantum mechanics and general relativity. It cannot go on.

Some conceptual revolution is required. But it has to be one that I

can see, appreciate and understand. If I am to stupid for this, then

that is my tough luck. but I won't ever say that understand

something when I do not.

 

Regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

You seem happy to accept that physical objects do not exist outside of

'Consciousness' but then go on to mention concepts such as space and time,

'notions' and so on. I feel that we might as well embark straight away on a

consideration of these rather than wait until later because they are not

going to go away (assuming that they are there to begin with, of course)! It

seems inevitable that we have to accept all thoughts, perceptions, feelings

as simply varieties of 'object' of varying degrees of subtlety and not

necessarily amenable to verification by 'others'. I am prepared for you to

reject this, of course - if you cannot see that other people have to be seen

as objects in the same way that tables are (i.e. irrespective of any

consideration of their being conscious), then I suppose you will not accept

thoughts as objects either. Nevertheless, it seems unarguable. This being

the case, we seem to be led irrevocably to the understanding that they do

not really exist either (as entities separate from the Self). The problem is

that this process must proceed inexorably to the denial of all concepts,

including ones such as 'All there is, is Consciousness; Consciousness is all

there is' or 'I am Brahman' etc.

 

(Actually, perhaps you are happy with this since it looks on the face of it

that it is indistinguishable from the shunyata of Buddhism, but then I am

straying into territory that I know nothing about...).

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

At 11:55 AM 10/2/2003 +0100, Dennis Waite wrote:

It seems inevitable that we have to accept all

thoughts, perceptions, feelings as simply varieties

of 'object' of varying degrees of subtlety and not

necessarily amenable to verification by 'others'.

 

 

=======Hi Dennis,

 

This is pretty much what I wrote to him yesterday as well, mentioning the

panchakosha model. Objects of consciousness can be subtle as well as what's

conventionally called "physical." I didn't provide a link to material on the

koshas. But here's a pretty simple one the koshas and a bit on the Taittiriya

Upanishad.

 

http://www.bindu.freeserve.co.uk/yoga/upanishad/upan2.htm#Tait

 

Om!

 

--Greg