Comment on Ananda's Background Knowledge

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ananda,

 

 

To Michael you said:

 

"Yes, in the sense that we use the word 'knowing' in two different

ways. On the one hand, by this word 'knowing' we refer to the

changing and limited activity of perceiving, thinking and feeling,

which creates appearances of objects in experience. On the other

hand, we use this same word describe a 'knowledge' which continues in

the background, so as to co-ordinate the perceptions, thoughts,

feelings and appearances that come and go at the apparent surface of

experience."

 

 

And to Greg, you quoted some words from Sri Atmananda

 

"It is experience that must prove the existence of anything. An

object as such is never experienced. It is the knowledge of it that

may be said to have been experienced. Even this is not strictly

correct. If an object is not experienced, it must be held to be

non-existent. How can there be knowledge of a non-existent thing?

Therefore it is not even the knowledge of an object that is

experienced but knowledge itself. Thus experience proves that the

entire objective world is knowledge and knowledge alone. That is

consciousness and that is ATMA."

 

 

 

I would like to just comment that the quote from Atmananda seems very

close to the 'subjective idealism' espoused by myself and, I believe,

Greg. Atmananda's words are very clear and convincing to me and seem

to echo just what I think.

 

However, your argument about 'background knowledge' seems a bit more

circuitous and obscure to me. I hope I do not offend; I am just

being candid. I prefer Atmananda's direct and streamlined view of

things. Perhaps there is some subtlety in your view that I fail to

grasp.

 

I will say one thing about your background knowledge, which 'compares

and coordinates' the surface appearances. As I argued a long time

ago on my website, for example at

 

http://www.benjaminroot.com/Philosophy/mindbrain.html

 

there is a curious 'unity' to consciousness which is often

unappreciated by standard empirical philosophers.

 

Let me explain. One approach to 'idealism' or the view that objects

are unreal and only perceptions in consciousness exist, is to simply

notice, as Berkeley did, that we are only presented with the

perceptions, and we never perceive the objects. Hence, according to

empirical principles, which say that only observed entities can be

held to exist, we should relinquish all notion of an object outside

of experience (i.e. observation or consciousness). This is

essentially what Atmananda says as well.

 

However, there is more to be said about this consciousness. It is

not enough to simply view perception as a cluster of smaller

perceptions, as Hume does for example. As I say in the article

above, 'Why does perception not disintegrate into a swarm of 'pixels'

of perception?' Instead, consciousness has a remarkable unity, which

'takes it all in at once' as a SINGLE unitary experience or

'snapshot'.

 

This is most remarkable. I believe this is closely related to the

nondual and unitary nature of the Self. Empiricism a la Berkeley can

take us part way towards the Advaitic view of consciousness as the

sole reality, but the fundamental and mysterious unity of

consciousness requires something of a more reflective nature.

 

I believe that your 'background knowledge' is also somewhat along

these lines...

 

Respectfully

Benjamin