existence of objects

[Guest guest]

friends,

 

mr benjamin said

 

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).

firstly i do not agree with the english meanings of

words being quoted to as proof of any thing including

objects/conciousness/god etc. these are supposed to be

experienced by the individual and not quoted or

explained by words. that does't mean they are false or

can't be proved.

if you see what shri narayana bhattathri saw in broad

daylight in front of lord guruvayoorappan,can it be

called illusion no. it was the actual thing he saw in

front of his eyes that is why he could compose it into

a song,so that we all can believe it.when he said

"agree pasyami" i am seeing it in front of me. you

cant call it illusion. for that matter when arjuna

said "pasyami devan" can you call it illusion.no. the

objects exist for material world for those beyond only

god exists and he cant be brought in to the gambit of

scientific objects.we cant even compare the vision of

god into dream or awakening from dream etc.no one

dreams of god, he actually sees him.

 

pranams

cdr bvn

 

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

Greg said:

 

You ask why your experiences aren't mine and vice versa. The very

foundations of this question are based on the subject/object scheme.

Also based upon the notion that that awareness is limited to a

person/viewpoint/locale/dream body. If you didn't conceive of

subjecthood as limited to a particular locale or dream body, then the

question would never arise.

 

Even if you stick to your model and examine what is given in "Ben's

experience," you say no subject/object dichotomy is apparent. So

where's the evidence for even *one* stream of consciousness, much

less a multiplicity of them?

 

 

My Reply:

 

This is not an empty theoretical exercise for me. I will try to

pursue this, since it holds the promise of a great breakthrough. So

if I seem a bit insistent or repetitive, it is only because I take it

very seriously.

 

Regarding the subject/object dichotomy, I did say in my previous

message that I have managed to eliminate this dichotomy within what I

am pleased to call 'my immediate awareness'. That is, I now realize

that 'subject' and 'object' are merely labels which both refer to

this same awareness or 'stream of consciousness', and any distinction

between subject and object in this stream is unfounded. (My reasons

are much like Hume's, so it's not just my own half-baked notion.)

This much is very clear to me; so to this extent at least I have made

some kind of significant progress towards 'nonduality'. The question

remains how to unite what seems to be the various streams of

consciousness into one grand Consciousness.

 

Now you may say that by calling it 'my' stream of consciousness, I am

still somehow stuck in the subject/object duality. But the point is

that within this stream of consciousness, I no longer distinguish

between the 'subject' and 'object', precisely because they have the

same 'taste' (to use a Wilberism). In other words, it is a direct,

vivid and almost 'empirical' discovery, hence 'scientific'. I turn

off my conceptual mind and ask, 'What is the immediately present

reality?' It is this immediate awareness, which I can immediately

taste. What is 'subject'? A mere label referring to this taste.

What is 'object'? A mere label referring to this taste. So there is

no metaphysical or verbal hocus-pocus or gobbledygook. I am talking

about a certain and undeniable reality, my immediate awareness. To

this extent, nondualism is 'scientific', as far as I am concerned.

This taste is the 'evidence' that you request. It is because of this

evidence that I believe what I just said.

 

But what I cannot do is taste YOUR immediate experience. Now I have

no doubt that it exists. Please let us ignore what I consider as the

irrelevant criticism of solipsism. This may concern others but not

me. I have no doubt that you taste your own awareness, and that the

you, the taste and the awareness are all one reality, with absolutely

no distinction between them. But it is not THIS stream of

consciousness, which may be labelled 'Benjamin' (for lack of a better

name).

 

I guess I am repeating myself. I have my primordial intuition of

what clearly seems real to me. And you evidently have yours. And I

can make mistakes. I once thought that 'Benjamin' was different from

the so-called objects of his experience, until Hume and others jogged

his mind and made him examine the immediate reality without

preconceptions. But this examination was 'empirical' and hence

verifiable, as just discussed. (Note that it is interesting that I

would be using an agnostic like Hume for a 'spiritual' discussion.)

 

Can you pull a Hume on me and find the right words to jog my mental

patterns? Maybe the right poetry will do it. Are you a poet?

 

Regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

Dennis said:

 

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...).

 

 

 

My reply:

 

Much of the following is clarification of my position. I may agree

with much of what you said, which was a bit less clear than usual

from you.

 

The message just posted to Greg shows how I am able to believe in a

'limited dualism' within the 'stream of consciousness' conventionally

called 'Benjamin'. Within that stream, 'subject' and 'object' are

identical, because they are nothing other than that stream. They are

just labels, both referring to the same vivid 'taste', namely, the

immediate pre-conceptual awareness that is evident when I calmly and

silently introspect. Thus, I cast my argument in an empirical and

hence 'scientific' light. As a computer scientist, you also seem to

have a rather scientific temperament, as do Ananda Wood and

Sadananda. Many of us Advaitins are technical to some degree, and we

are attracted to Advaita for its rational and philosophical flavor,

since we can no longer simply swallow myths and other pretty stories.

 

My point about space and time is that they are definitely not 'out

there' but are merely aspects of this immediate awareness or

consciousness. They are as much part of the dream as anything else.

I hope you didn't misunderstand me, perhaps through my own lack of

clarity.

 

Thoughts, feelings and perceptions only seem like 'objects' when we

falsely think of them as objects. What is an object? It is

something other than consciousness, 'outside' of consciousness. It

is a 'that' when we point. Perceptions are normally taken to refer

to an external material reality, so it is easy to understand what

object means in this case. It may seem a bit stranger to refer to

thoughts and feelings as 'objects', since they are clearly 'in'

consciousness. Yet, when we say, 'I see a red patch', the very words

imply some kind of distinction between the 'I' and the 'red patch'.

And indeed we do think that way to some extent, however false the

notion. Our language forces it on us, and language is a

manifestation of the mind. So the mind is powerfully addicted to

objectification.

 

The point of denying objects is not to say that thoughts, feelings

and perceptions do not exist. They DO exist, as phenomena or

appearances within consciousness, just as the dream objects exist in

the dream. They seemed like real, independently existing entities in

the dream, but upon awakening we see that they were all in our

consciousness. However, they did exist as mere appearances in the

dream. It is their objective status as independent entities which is

being denied.

 

So we must be careful to understand in what sense 'objects' are being

denied. They are not being denied as appearances, which would be

nonsensical. What is being denied is the false interpretation of

these appearances as belonging to discrete entities, existing

independently of consciousness. This is called 'objectification'.

 

But denial of objects outside of consciousness does not mean that we

have to deny everything, including 'Consciousness is all there is' or

'I am Brahman' etc. As long as we don't ascribe any objective status

to these notions, what is the problem? It seems to me that you go

perhaps a bit to far in denying all 'concepts' in such a categorical

way. I think the issue is one of objectivity, i.e. a supposed

reality outside of consciousness, which does not exist. It is true

that most of the concepts of the mind are bound up in objectivity,

but not all of them. The statement 'Consciousness exists' seems

perfectly legitimate to me. In fact, any attempt to deny it

immediately verifies it, as Sadananda has often said.

 

The reason I do not reject others as objects is because their streams

of consciousness do not appear in my consciousness in any way at all.

The issue of objectivity only arises where there are appearances

which arise in my consciousness, which my mind then falsely

interprets as existing 'outside' of that consciousness. But the

consciousness of others does not manifest in my own consciousness in

any way whatsoever, so the issue of objectivity does not arise.

Their consciousness is every bit as valid as mine. I am not such an

egomaniac!

 

Nevertheless, it still seems rather clear to me that these other

streams of consciousness are distinct from my own, notwithstanding

their lack of objective status. Please forgive my stubbornness. I

have to call the shots as I see them. Most philosophical discussions

are merely clarifications of views that rarely change. I have never

seen a single person on any philosophical or spiritual list admit to

changing his views, even in the details.

 

Regards

Benjamin