Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Namaste, First of all, what Ananda says about Sri Atmananda, "We did not have to take what he said on authority, for he came across in a perfectly modern way -- as speaking on a level with us, about our everyday experience." is exactly how I feel about Ramana and Nisargadatta: modern, rational, clear, persuasive, non-dogmatic, humanistic, etc., etc. Even physicists can appreciate all three of these gentlemen! Now, as for the vexed topic of deep sleep, I echo Venkat-M's ruminations, which have often occurred to me too. It really doesn't seem useful to me to talk so much about deep sleep, since we remember nothing. Greg's message didn't help me. All my experience of time is solely within the waking or dream state. During these states, a succession of appearances is manifested, and this succession is what we call time. With no manifestations, it makes no sense to talk of time. Also, a gap of 'zero duration' is no gap at all. Zero of anything is not anything. And hypothetical zero gaps between the 'interstices' of other memories not surrounding deep sleep are equally meaningless. Also, I am not helped by Greg's echo of the common Advaitin feeling that upon remembering deep sleep, we have the feeling that we existed, even if we don't remember anything. I have no trouble saying that I 'ceased during the gap and then reappeared upon awakening'. It is simply meaningless to say anything whatsoever about a non-experience. And most importantly, we do not need contrived talk of deep sleep to believe in the fundamental tenets of Advaita. If one fundamental tenet is that 'only consciousness exists', then this is easy to understand, once we realize the illusory nature of objects. This can be realized without recourse to deep sleep, by arguments we have discussed many time already, e.g. the analogy of dreaming, etc. I realize that Advaitins are concerned with establishing the reality of a Conscious Self which endures despite the transitory, ephemeral experiences. The way to do this, in my opinion, is to realize that the experiences have no reality other than manifestations in consciousness. They have as much reality as any other illusions. Why complicate this simple, elegant and self-evident explanation with a contrived appeal to something we cannot remember and for all practical purposes never existed? Perhaps Anandaji would have the compassion to muster his utmost powers of explanation on what must surely be one of the most controversial and ambiguous topics in Advaita (the other being how Brahman can allow himself or itself to be the victim of delusion). Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Hello Benjamin, Yes, all of the comments you make have occurred over the years to me as well. But to say that advaita can do without the teachings on deep sleep is pretty much to say that other people should travel the same road you yourself have travelled. You have an individual approach I've never seen anyone else make! If you say you have no problem saying that you disappeared during a gap, and then reappeared, then there's an issue for you: --Given this, then you could be disappearing between every thought. How do you know that the same "you" re-appears? This is based upon some assumption of continuity. If you disappear, then what provides this assumed continuity, so that the same you reappears? For all you know, it could be a *new* "you." One thing about the advaita teachings is that they try to show the identity between "consciousness" and "I". In your suggested approach, this link is missing. Specifically, where you suggest that all people have to realize is that experiences have no reality other than manifestations in consciousness where does the "I" come in? What is the relation between consciousness and "I"? Enjoying this conversation, --Greg At 10:43 AM 11/4/2003 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: >Namaste, > >First of all, what Ananda says about Sri Atmananda, > >"We did not have to take what he said on authority, for he came >across in a perfectly modern way -- as speaking on a level with us, >about our everyday experience." > >is exactly how I feel about Ramana and Nisargadatta: modern, >rational, clear, persuasive, non-dogmatic, humanistic, etc., etc. >Even physicists can appreciate all three of these gentlemen! > > >Now, as for the vexed topic of deep sleep, I echo Venkat-M's >ruminations, which have often occurred to me too. It really doesn't >seem useful to me to talk so much about deep sleep, since we remember >nothing. > >Greg's message didn't help me. All my experience of time is solely >within the waking or dream state. During these states, a succession >of appearances is manifested, and this succession is what we call >time. With no manifestations, it makes no sense to talk of time. >Also, a gap of 'zero duration' is no gap at all. Zero of anything is >not anything. And hypothetical zero gaps between the 'interstices' >of other memories not surrounding deep sleep are equally meaningless. > >Also, I am not helped by Greg's echo of the common Advaitin feeling >that upon remembering deep sleep, we have the feeling that we >existed, even if we don't remember anything. I have no trouble >saying that I 'ceased during the gap and then reappeared upon >awakening'. It is simply meaningless to say anything whatsoever >about a non-experience. > >And most importantly, we do not need contrived talk of deep sleep to >believe in the fundamental tenets of Advaita. If one fundamental >tenet is that 'only consciousness exists', then this is easy to >understand, once we realize the illusory nature of objects. This can >be realized without recourse to deep sleep, by arguments we have >discussed many time already, e.g. the analogy of dreaming, etc. > >I realize that Advaitins are concerned with establishing the reality >of a Conscious Self which endures despite the transitory, ephemeral >experiences. The way to do this, in my opinion, is to realize that >the experiences have no reality other than manifestations in >consciousness. They have as much reality as any other illusions. Why >complicate this simple, elegant and self-evident explanation with a >contrived appeal to something we cannot remember and for all >practical purposes never existed? > >Perhaps Anandaji would have the compassion to muster his utmost >powers of explanation on what must surely be one of the most >controversial and ambiguous topics in Advaita (the other being how >Brahman can allow himself or itself to be the victim of delusion). > >Hari Om! >Benjamin > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 dear greg ji, disappearing between thoughts? to where? those with certain siddhies have performed " para kaaya pravesam" [ entering a body other than one's own]. in deep sleep, one returns to one's own body. sorry if i am interrupting. regards. a.v.krshnan. --- Greg Goode <goode wrote: > Hello Benjamin, > > Yes, all of the comments you make have occurred over > the years to me as well. But to say that advaita > can do without the teachings on deep sleep is pretty > much to say that other people should travel the same > road you yourself have travelled. You have an > individual approach I've never seen anyone else > make! > > If you say you have no problem saying that you > disappeared during a gap, and then reappeared, then > there's an issue for you: > > --Given this, then you could be disappearing between > every thought. How do you know that the same "you" > re-appears? This is based upon some assumption of > continuity. If you disappear, then what provides > this assumed continuity, so that the same you > reappears? For all you know, it could be a *new* > "you." > > One thing about the advaita teachings is that they > try to show the identity between "consciousness" and > "I". In your suggested approach, this link is > missing. Specifically, where you suggest that all > people have to realize is that > > experiences have no reality other than > manifestations in consciousness > > where does the "I" come in? What is the relation > between consciousness and "I"? > > Enjoying this conversation, > > --Greg > > > At 10:43 AM 11/4/2003 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: > > >Namaste, > > > >First of all, what Ananda says about Sri Atmananda, > > > >"We did not have to take what he said on authority, > for he came > >across in a perfectly modern way -- as speaking on > a level with us, > >about our everyday experience." > > > >is exactly how I feel about Ramana and > Nisargadatta: modern, > >rational, clear, persuasive, non-dogmatic, > humanistic, etc., etc. > >Even physicists can appreciate all three of these > gentlemen! > > > > > >Now, as for the vexed topic of deep sleep, I echo > Venkat-M's > >ruminations, which have often occurred to me too. > It really doesn't > >seem useful to me to talk so much about deep sleep, > since we remember > >nothing. > > > >Greg's message didn't help me. All my experience > of time is solely > >within the waking or dream state. During these > states, a succession > >of appearances is manifested, and this succession > is what we call > >time. With no manifestations, it makes no sense to > talk of time. > >Also, a gap of 'zero duration' is no gap at all. > Zero of anything is > >not anything. And hypothetical zero gaps between > the 'interstices' > >of other memories not surrounding deep sleep are > equally meaningless. > > > >Also, I am not helped by Greg's echo of the common > Advaitin feeling > >that upon remembering deep sleep, we have the > feeling that we > >existed, even if we don't remember anything. I > have no trouble > >saying that I 'ceased during the gap and then > reappeared upon > >awakening'. It is simply meaningless to say > anything whatsoever > >about a non-experience. > > > >And most importantly, we do not need contrived talk > of deep sleep to > >believe in the fundamental tenets of Advaita. If > one fundamental > >tenet is that 'only consciousness exists', then > this is easy to > >understand, once we realize the illusory nature of > objects. This can > >be realized without recourse to deep sleep, by > arguments we have > >discussed many time already, e.g. the analogy of > dreaming, etc. > > > >I realize that Advaitins are concerned with > establishing the reality > >of a Conscious Self which endures despite the > transitory, ephemeral > >experiences. The way to do this, in my opinion, is > to realize that > >the experiences have no reality other than > manifestations in > >consciousness. They have as much reality as any > other illusions. Why > >complicate this simple, elegant and self-evident > explanation with a > >contrived appeal to something we cannot remember > and for all > >practical purposes never existed? > > > >Perhaps Anandaji would have the compassion to > muster his utmost > >powers of explanation on what must surely be one of > the most > >controversial and ambiguous topics in Advaita (the > other being how > >Brahman can allow himself or itself to be the > victim of delusion). > > > >Hari Om! > >Benjamin > > > > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > >Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > >To Post a message send an email to : > advaitin > >Messages Archived at: > advaitin/messages > > > > > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 > > Also, I am not helped by Greg's echo of the common Advaitin feeling > that upon remembering deep sleep, we have the feeling that we > existed, even if we don't remember anything. I have no trouble > saying that I 'ceased during the gap and then reappeared upon > awakening'. It is simply meaningless to say anything whatsoever > about a non-experience. > Just to narrate a small parable in this regard: The scene is in a full courtroom. The witness tells the prosecution: 'There was no one at the scene of the crime'. The prosecution interjects and asks the witness: 'Will you be willing to write down and sign what you just said?' The witness says: 'No problem'. He is given a piece of paper and he writes the statement and he signs it. The prosecution: 'Could you please read it for me?'. The witness: 'There was no one there at the scene of the crime'. The prosecution: 'This statement is literally wrong'. The witness is scared: 'Why?' The prosecution: 'You are trying to convey something me to in this statement. What you are trying to convey can be conveyed only if the statement is taken to be literally wrong to begin with. YOU WERE THERE to even say that "No one was there." If you were to take your statement to be literally correct, then you need a checkup.' Benji, to even recall that 'you' ceased during the gap, there has to be another presence to validate that absence of 'you' and the reappearing of 'you'. The fact is that total lack of objects makes us believe that 'I was absent' primarily because of my identification with those objects. The mind is denying my real presence. Secondly, to say that there was nothing in the gap seems to be a precarious intellectual position, isn't it? What then is the guarantee in nature that the same 'you' wakes up and this 'you' is able to recall that the same 'you' was there before going to sleep? regards, --Satyan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Namaste Greg, I think I'll leave the 'ji' out when addressing another American. >Yes, all of the comments you make have occurred over the years >to me as well. But to say that advaita can do without the >teachings on deep sleep is pretty much to say that other >people should travel the same road you yourself have travelled. >You have an individual approach I've never seen anyone else make! Some people have accused me of dogmatism. It is simply my nature to say what I think in the plainest words possible. All of my ideas can be taken as suggestions. I may be a bit strong-headed, but at least I'm doing real inquiry, instead of singing from the choir-book. (Fortunately, a glance at a later message of Dennis indicates a bit of sympathy for my view, so I feel better already!) I certainly do not want others to travel the same road. I think that my liberal views on the validity of Advaita, Buddhism, Taoism, and even nondualistic Christians like Meister Eckhart are sufficient evidence of my open-mindedness. This is not intended to sound defensive but to agree wholeheartedly with your implication that different people have different paths, depending on their mental conditioning. However, the one theme I adhere to is 'nonduality' in general terms, since those 'mystics' who seem most credible and interesting to me speak in these terms. Where there's smoke, there's fire! And it's an intrinsically fascinating topic. Now as for the *substance* of my previous claim that Advaita *may* not need the deep sleep arguments, which you did not address, it is basically this. I take the core theme of Advaita to be that 'All is Consciousness' in some sense. This contradicts the usual notion that consciousness is distinct from its objects. A key Advaitin counter-argument is the dream analogy, which compares the objects to dream-objects, which seemed so real while we were dreaming and then are seen to be nothing but consciousness upon awakening. This argument is simple, elegant, brilliant and irrefutable, in my opinion. It also seems sufficient. (I guess that follows from irrefutable.) Contrast that with the obscure (at least to me) talk about deep sleep. Even the Advaitin advocates of this topic admit that we cannot remember deep sleep. So how can we talk about it? At least when discussing dreams, there is an experience we can discuss. Sorry if I sound a bit empiricist. Maybe it's the English portion of my blood. Now the Advaitin will counter by saying something like, 'I know that I slept well.' Supposedly, this proves that there was an 'I' during the deep sleep. But to me that only indicates that something about his body or nervous system feels good during the waking state immediately following the sleep. >If you say you have no problem saying that you disappeared >during a gap, and then reappeared, then there's an issue for you: > >--Given this, then you could be disappearing between every >thought. How do you know that the same "you" re-appears? >This is based upon some assumption of continuity. If you >disappear, then what provides this assumed continuity, so >that the same you reappears? For all you know, it could >be a *new* "you." Actually, I do agree with you to a considerable extent on this. I used to be ultra-empiricist and say that only the present immediate experience is certainly real. Even my 'memories' may possibly have been planted, by some demon perhaps. But I DO INDEED feel that I am the same 'me' that had certain experiences 5, 10, 20 years ago. That is precisely why I started off in this list with my talk about different 'streams of consciousness', which I had trouble uniting into a single undivided Consciousness. The individual streams do seem real and continuous. However, I also recognize that this feeling of continuity is not dependent on the contents of the passing stream of consciousness. That is, I realize that my images of myself as human, male, philosopher, whatever, have no permanence whatsoever and are just psychological 'clothes' that I put on and take off. This is fortunate, or spiritual progress would be impossible. (By the way, I believe that this finite, transitory self is the self that the Buddha was arguing against, not the Advaitin Self.) So in what does the 'continuity' consist if the contents are transitory? This is actually a rather fascinating question, and I hope you appreciate that I appreciate it. I can only agree that there is some permanent unchanging entity called 'consciousness', like a screen across which the transitory images pass. But at the same time, I insist that there is no real difference between the images and the screen, contrary to what some people say. This may sound paradoxical, but that is how I see it. Yet what does this have to do with deep sleep? The talk about 'temporal gaps' needing to be filled does not convince me, precisely because I agree that time, like everything else, is only within consciousness. If there is no 'consciousness' during deep sleep, then the issue of time becomes illegitimate, in my opinion. Space and time presuppose consciousness of some kind. But if you say that there WAS consciousness during deep sleep but can remember nothing of it, then I would ask you how you can know this. One solution to the problem: Find an Advaitin who DOES remember something from deep sleep, and I will be happy. Of course, one could always start doubting any memory as possibly spurious, but this reminds me of the solipsistic arguments against subjective idealism, which never bothered me that much. I think a clear mind might be able to tell if a memory of deep sleep is real. I have no doubt what I dreamed last night (provided I can remember it). >One thing about the advaita teachings is that they try >to show the identity between "consciousness" and "I". >In your suggested approach this link is missing. >Specifically, where you suggest that all people have >to realize is that > > experiences have no reality other than > manifestations in consciousness > >where does the "I" come in? What is the relation >between >consciousness and "I"? In conclusion, I am not denying a continuity to my consciousness, which may be called 'I' in a deeper sense than the ordinary phenomenal ego. I am only saying that this 'I' is identical to the consciousness, which sounds like Advaita, so far as I can tell. So if there is indeed no consciousness during deep sleep, then there is no 'I'. And if there is consciousness but no 'experience', not even some nebulous sense of space or light or joyous feeling or whatever, then I don't know what you are talking about. And if there IS some kind of experience, but nobody can remember it, then I ask how you know this. And if there is an experience and somebody can remember it, then please describe it for us as best you can, because I am quite interested! >Enjoying this conversation, > >--Greg Thank goodness!!! What a relief! Yes, I am too. Also, I apologize for the length. Naturally, I said what I felt had to be said. I hope that my writing is sufficiently clear that the length doesn't matter, like Ananda's. Now maybe I should have read what Dennis said before writing this, but the length would have been even longer. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Namaste, Sri Satya Chidambaran said: "Benji, to even recall that 'you' ceased during the gap, there has to be another presence to validate that absence of 'you' and the reappearing of 'you'. The fact is that total lack of objects makes us believe that 'I was absent' primarily because of my identification with those objects. The mind is denying my real presence." Even though I just posted a long message, I feel I should say something regarding this 'classic' and respectable Advaitin argument. Basically, I don't accept the logic. Earlier in your message, you used the example of the witness who tells the prosecution that there was no one at the scene of the crime. The prosecution then asserts that the witness must have been there to say that no one was there. A curious argument! At a purely practical level, one can imagine a scenario such as this, just for the fun of it. The witness looks through the door of a room with no other doors or windows and sees that it is empty. Then he sees the victim go into the room but nobody else. Then he hears screams. Then he rushes to the door and sees the victim lying dead but no one else. The police then come and check for hidden trap doors in the room and find none. The witness is then reasonably entitled to say that there was no one at the scene of the crime, other than the victim of course. (How did he die? Perhaps someone gave him poison a few minutes before he entered the room.) So at this pedestrian, factual level, here is a scenario in which the witness can reasonably say that no one was at the scene of the crime. But who cares about this pedestrian stuff? We are philosophers! At a philosophical level, I would say that ANY reality, including crime-scenes, are only 'movies' being played out on the screen of consciousness. There is not an 'external' crime-scene (i.e. external to consciousness), in which various conscious people may or may not be present, as common sense would assume. There are only similar parallel movies (maybe called 'films' in India) of the crime which are playing in the consciousness of any witnesses, if there are any. If no such movie is playing in any consciousness, other than that of the victim, then indeed 'no one was there'. That is all there is to it, as far as I can tell. (Actually, except for the replacement of the external objective world by a set of parallel movies in consciousness, this is pretty much common sense.) I do agree that the transitory and apparent 'objects' of perception, or even of the mind, are not our true nature, as I explained in my last message. I agree that we should not identify with the illusory body and mind. These are only colored shadows passing across the screen of consciousness, though there is no ultimate difference between the screen and the shadows, paradoxical as this may seem! Anyhow, I don't want to sound argumentative. I'm just reporting my viewpoint, for whatever it may be worth. I know some nice people named Chidambaran here in the USA who are from Kerala. If you are even remotely related, then I certainly don't want to argue with you about anything! :-) Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Shri Benjamin wrote: -------------- " But who cares about this pedestrian stuff? We are philosophers! At a philosophical level, I would say that ANY reality, including crime-scenes, are only 'movies' being played out on the screen of consciousness. There is not an 'external' crime-scene (i.e. external to consciousness), in which various conscious people may or may not be present, as common sense would assume. There are only similar parallel movies (maybe called 'films' in India) of the crime which are playing in the consciousness of any witnesses, if there are any. If no such movie is playing in any consciousness, other than that of the victim, then indeed 'no one was there'. That is all there is to it, as far as I can tell. (Actually, except for the replacement of the external objective world by a set of parallel movies in consciousness, this is pretty much common sense.)" ---------------- Benji, aren't you trying to apply the parable (which was simply a pointer to the fallacy in the vyavaharika level) verbatim at the paramarthika level? Anyway, just to sing in the same tune, the only movie that is playing that you can be certain of is the movie in 'your' consciousness. The movie in other conscious beings (that appear in your movie) in just a hypothesis that can never be validated. If the movie in your head had the crime scene, the witness of the movie, which was your consciousness, was very much there! The movie shows a blank for the period of time when there is sleep. The witness of the movie, which is your consciousness, which is you, is very much there then too. > Anyhow, I don't want to sound argumentative. I'm just reporting > my viewpoint, for whatever it may be worth. I know some nice > people named Chidambaran here in the USA who are from Kerala. > If you are even remotely related, then I certainly don't want to > argue with you about anything! :-) > Thanks regards, --Satyan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2003 Report Share Posted November 8, 2003 Dear Ananda, Oh no! Here I go breaking my promise already! I said I would remain a silent spectator for a while, to lessen your burden a bit. However, when I reread your message, I got to your reply to Dennis, in which you again referred to something I said: "As Benjamin point out (in the second quote from him above), this goes against our habitual view of consciousness, as needing at least "some nebulous sense of space or light or joyous feeling or whatever" to make it real. However, if such a view is accepted, it must mean that nebulous perceptions, thoughts and feelings are more real than consciousness. In short that subtle ideas are more real than plain consciousness, unmixed with any trace of such ideas. Or at least that consciousness cannot be realized independent of such ideas. I am genuinely puzzled here. Is this what Benjamin means? Is this a misunderstanding of his position? Must be, I suspect, to some extent at least." Please let me just say for the record that you did not misunderstand me, and this is one of the more perplexing aspects of Advaita for me. You don't need to respond to this, but I just want to make my view clear. Basically, I cannot (yet) understand the notion of a consciousness so pure that it is divorced from ANY kind of manifestation whatsoever. This manifestation need not have form and color, but it must have SOME content, as I see it. It may be some kind of thought or feeling. Or it may even be something I cannot imagine, due to lack of experience, just as a blind man cannot imagine color. But to speak of utter nothing, blacker than the blackest depths of space, does leave me puzzled. I am rather more sympathetic to those who proclaim 'nonduality' in WHATEVER manifests in consciousness. I understand nonduality as a new way of perceiving everything and anything, in which the usual distinction between subject and object dissolves. In this sense, it is a 'non-perception', i.e. a non-perception of something other. For example, I liken nondual consciousness, insofar as I understand it, to the feeling of awe and infinity when gazing at the heavens on a clear night. We lose our sense of self and are swallowed up in the vastness of it all. This analogy may be too picturesque to be taken seriously by respectable Advaitins, but it meaning for me. At the same time, I meant what I said earlier about the 'dazzling darkness' or 'perceiving without perceiving'. But this only expresses the dissolution of the subject-object distinction, not the dissolution of phenomenality altogether, as far as I can tell. The experience is so pure and different from ordinary consciousness that in some sense the 'universe does disappear', but only in the sense that it is no longer something other than ourselves. Let me emphasize that my use of 'phenomenality' is not limited to the senses. There need not be any shape and color at all in our experience. Closing our eyes confirms this. But thoughts and feelings still remain, at least for me. In my most detached meditation, there is at least a sense of vast space and of peaceful bliss. There is not an utter zero. In summary, I feel, based on my reading, that nonduality is to be experienced in ALL phenomena, in the most general sense of that word; it is not the elimination of phenomena but their reinterpretation as consciousness, which is not distinct from our self. Is this not the meaning of 'Atman (consciousness) is Brahman (universe or vast reality)'? Or the Mahayana 'Samsara is Nirvana'? Consciousness utterly without content does leave me puzzled. But the dissolution of subject and object does not. Sorry to beat this to death, but I think this is a crucial issue. Please only address it when it is convenient for you and the spirit moves you. Thank you Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 8, 2003 Report Share Posted November 8, 2003 advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> wrote: > > "As Benjamin point out (in the second quote from him above), this > goes against our habitual view of consciousness, as needing at least > "some nebulous sense of space or light or joyous feeling or whatever" > to make it real. However, if such a view is accepted, it must mean > that nebulous perceptions, thoughts and feelings are more real than > consciousness. In short that subtle ideas are more real than plain > consciousness, unmixed with any trace of such ideas. Or at least that > consciousness cannot be realized independent of such ideas. I am > genuinely puzzled here. Is this what Benjamin means? Is this a > misunderstanding of his position? Must be, I suspect, to some extent > at least." > > Basically, I cannot (yet) understand the notion of a consciousness so > pure that it is divorced from ANY kind of manifestation whatsoever. > This manifestation need not have form and color, but it must have > SOME content, as I see it. It may be some kind of thought or > feeling. Or it may even be something I cannot imagine, due to lack > of experience, just as a blind man cannot imagine color. But to > speak of utter nothing, blacker than the blackest depths of space, > does leave me puzzled. > Sorry to interrupt this conversation. I have stopped myself on previous occasions mainly because I have limited time, I am not up to debates, etc. But couldn't help it. You are "Consciousness"! You are reducing Consciousness to an object when you say you need to feel IT as atleast a nebulous feeling, a lightness, a joy, color, content, etc. These are felt through a feeler, an experiencer. Pure Consciousness cannot be concieved of as an object, though in referring to it, our understanding treats it as such. You are trying to ascertain the existence of Consciousness during sleep through a medium - what tells you that you are awake? Consciousness makes all experiences possible. It is the substratum of all life. Dream and waking are dynamic modes of Consciousness, where it manifests as the self and the non-self. Sleep is Pure Consciousness free from all Objectification, and free from all ignorance, the intellect and the mind are non-functioning. It is the persistence of this Consciousness through out the 3-states that makes intuition of them in waking possible. Being the eternal witness, its absence is inconceivable. Instead of Conciousness being reduced to a non-entity during sleep it is the world that is reduced to a null due to lack of objects. > I am rather more sympathetic to those who proclaim 'nonduality' in > WHATEVER manifests in consciousness. I understand nonduality as a > new way of perceiving everything and anything, in which the usual > distinction between subject and object dissolves. In this sense, it > is a 'non-perception', i.e. a non-perception of something other. > > For example, I liken nondual consciousness, insofar as I understand > it, to the feeling of awe and infinity when gazing at the heavens on > a clear night. We lose our sense of self and are swallowed up in the > vastness of it all. This analogy may be too picturesque to be taken > seriously by respectable Advaitins, but it meaning for me. This is a very limited use of the word consciousness. Here you are totally engrossed by the object and you are unconscious to others around you, or to the concept of time, etc. The Pure Consciousness - the witnessing principle is the substantival consciousness, this is the REAL of the REALS. You are talking of consciousness, as an attribute of the ego, an adjectival consciousness. This has to be understood very clearly, otherwise leads to all kinds of confusion!! > > At the same time, I meant what I said earlier about the 'dazzling > darkness' or 'perceiving without perceiving'. But this only > expresses the dissolution of the subject-object distinction, not the > dissolution of phenomenality altogether, as far as I can tell. The > experience is so pure and different from ordinary consciousness that > in some sense the 'universe does disappear', but only in the sense > that it is no longer something other than ourselves. > This is all very transitive - all in the vyavahArika plane only! > In summary, I feel, based on my reading, that nonduality is to be > experienced in ALL phenomena, in the most general sense of that word; > it is not the elimination of phenomena but their reinterpretation as > consciousness, which is not distinct from our self. > Duality is absolutely unavoidable in the vyavahArika plane - you can't expect to experience nonduality in all your transactions - transactions have no meaning in non-duality. It is on a different plane that non-duality is possible - It is who you think you are. Truth or Reality has to be intuited, cannot be experimentally proved. Vedantic truth is not like ordinary deductions that can emanate from subtle perceptions of great intellects. Intellect has limited utility in these endevours, and can often be mis-guided. Guru guidance and intuition are most important. > Is this not the meaning of 'Atman (consciousness) is Brahman > (universe or vast reality)'? Or the Mahayana 'Samsara is Nirvana'? > > Consciousness utterly without content does leave me puzzled. But the > dissolution of subject and object does not. It can mean that, but I think this is again a very limited interpretation. I didn't mean to preach, but that is what it looks like when I read that I have written, sorry. Hope you take it in the right light. Savithri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 Many tousand Pranams to all. Benjamin you wrote ( within quotes) "Basically, I cannot (yet) understand the notion of a consciousness so pure that it is divorced from ANY kind of manifestation whatsoever. This manifestation need not have form and color, but it must have SOME content, as I see it. It may be some kind of thought or feeling. Or it may even be something I cannot imagine, due to lack of experience, just as a blind man cannot imagine color. But to speak of utter nothing, blacker than the blackest depths of space, does leave me puzzled" My thought: Could it be that consciousness , by virtue of being Purna ( the whole ) which has everything is attributeless, formless and without properties- beyond them and the very abode of them. A quote from Ramakrishna Paramahamsa: ---- "Much is said about the personal God and the impersonal absolute God with attributes and without attributes. It is only when all the colours in the light mix together that we get the colourless rays of the sun. Similarly by the very virtue of being the abode of attributes, God becomes Nirguna, attribute-less" ---- So on your bother with Consciousness having to have some content- It has all known contents and 10 cubits more? Hope this does not break your self imposed Vow of silence! If it does it should not matter. We do not want to be prisoners of our own words! Many pranams once again and Vachaka Doshaha Kshandavyaha> Sridhar advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> wrote: > > > Dear Ananda, > > Oh no! Here I go breaking my promise already! I said I would remain > a silent spectator for a while, to lessen your burden a bit. > However, when I reread your message, I got to your reply to Dennis, > in which you again referred to something I said: > > "As Benjamin point out (in the second quote from him above), this > goes against our habitual view of consciousness, as needing at least > "some nebulous sense of space or light or joyous feeling or whatever" > to make it real. However, if such a view is accepted, it must mean > that nebulous perceptions, thoughts and feelings are more real than > consciousness. In short that subtle ideas are more real than plain > consciousness, unmixed with any trace of such ideas. Or at least that > consciousness cannot be realized independent of such ideas. I am > genuinely puzzled here. Is this what Benjamin means? Is this a > misunderstanding of his position? Must be, I suspect, to some extent > at least." > > > Please let me just say for the record that you did not misunderstand > me, and this is one of the more perplexing aspects of Advaita for me. > You don't need to respond to this, but I just want to make my view > clear. > > Basically, I cannot (yet) understand the notion of a consciousness so > pure that it is divorced from ANY kind of manifestation whatsoever. > This manifestation need not have form and color, but it must have > SOME content, as I see it. It may be some kind of thought or > feeling. Or it may even be something I cannot imagine, due to lack > of experience, just as a blind man cannot imagine color. But to > speak of utter nothing, blacker than the blackest depths of space, > does leave me puzzled. > > I am rather more sympathetic to those who proclaim 'nonduality' in > WHATEVER manifests in consciousness. I understand nonduality as a > new way of perceiving everything and anything, in which the usual > distinction between subject and object dissolves. In this sense, it > is a 'non-perception', i.e. a non-perception of something other. > > For example, I liken nondual consciousness, insofar as I understand > it, to the feeling of awe and infinity when gazing at the heavens on > a clear night. We lose our sense of self and are swallowed up in the > vastness of it all. This analogy may be too picturesque to be taken > seriously by respectable Advaitins, but it meaning for me. > > At the same time, I meant what I said earlier about the 'dazzling > darkness' or 'perceiving without perceiving'. But this only > expresses the dissolution of the subject-object distinction, not the > dissolution of phenomenality altogether, as far as I can tell. The > experience is so pure and different from ordinary consciousness that > in some sense the 'universe does disappear', but only in the sense > that it is no longer something other than ourselves. > > Let me emphasize that my use of 'phenomenality' is not limited to the > senses. There need not be any shape and color at all in our > experience. Closing our eyes confirms this. But thoughts and > feelings still remain, at least for me. In my most detached > meditation, there is at least a sense of vast space and of peaceful > bliss. There is not an utter zero. > > In summary, I feel, based on my reading, that nonduality is to be > experienced in ALL phenomena, in the most general sense of that word; > it is not the elimination of phenomena but their reinterpretation as > consciousness, which is not distinct from our self. > > Is this not the meaning of 'Atman (consciousness) is Brahman > (universe or vast reality)'? Or the Mahayana 'Samsara is Nirvana'? > > Consciousness utterly without content does leave me puzzled. But the > dissolution of subject and object does not. > > Sorry to beat this to death, but I think this is a crucial issue. > Please only address it when it is convenient for you and the spirit > moves you. > > Thank you > Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 Namaste Savithri, >I didn't mean to preach, but that is what it looks like >when I read that I have written, sorry. Hope you take it >in the right light. Savithri, I just want to say that your message is a very lucid and intelligent rendition of a certain kind of classic Advaita, perhaps the best kind! I assure you that I read it all carefully and agree with most of it. Still, in all honesty, being a mere rational seeker with only occasional faint flashes of something I am pleased to call intuition but which may indeed be much less, I am puzzled by talk of consciousness utterly devoid of content. I am quite prepared to be told that the highest samadhi has wonderful, blissful experiences that my ignorant mind cannot conceive of, which have nothing to do with perception, thought or feeling as I know them. Perhaps some utterly new and exotic manifestation of consciousness, utterly unified and homogeneous and without multiplicity. Pure Oneness. But pure Nothing?!!! With such words, my mind hits a brick wall, as perhaps it should. I find this discussion highly ironical. I have been scolded before for mixing Buddhism with Advaita on this list (or at least my distorted understanding of Buddhism with my distorted understanding of Advaita). However, even the Buddhist 'emptiness' is not so forbiddingly abstract as this Advaitin Nirvikalpa Samandhi of deep sleep. At least the Buddhists assure us that emptiness and samsara are ultimately the same to the enlightened. This is an expression of nonduality, and an expression that does not require the utter disappearance of everything whatsoever. To which I breathe a sigh of relief. In this sense, Nirvikalpa Samadhi seems like a kind of 'super-emptiness'. Clearly, I am still a seeker... But I do appreciate your thoughtful and helpful effort. If later messages also reply to me, please be assured that I read them carefully, even if I refrain from answering so as not to clog up the list. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2003 Report Share Posted November 9, 2003 Hi Benjamin, The perplexity is about consciousness totally devoid of content? This *is* an idea relevant to Buddhism, since Buddhism eschews the contentless consciousness notion. This is the "emptiness is form" line from the Heart Sutra. But in advaita vedanta, consciousness is the background to form, and is present whether form is on the scene or not. It must be, according to advaita, since what else would take note of the coming and going of objects? As Atmananda says, consciousness is present within, between and beyond "objects." The oddity arises only when one asks, "but what is contentless consciousness like?" To ask this is to attempt to create an object for what was objectless. And of course this teaching point has its purpose, it too is a prakriya. When hearing about consciousness, the student probably begins by believing that he (whatever he takes himself to be at that point) is separated from consciousness by the mask or occlusion of an object. Encountering these "gaps" such as deep sleep, or less often, nirvikalpa samadhi, the student can see that at least "sometimes" he was not separated at all. He is given a taste, a "free sample." One of the things that I like most about Atmananda's teaching is that his dialectics are quite rational. They they proceed, thru the deconstruction of objects, to show how consciousness is *always* objectless. Even now. This teaching skillfully and soundly prevents the seeker from trying to achieve a no-mind state in their attempts to bring about a supposed objectlessness. On achieving "mindlessness" -- I actually knew one student of a neo-advaita path who was taught to "kill the mind." One time he was able to achieve what he took to be this state - for 30 days!! Then of course he "fell back" and took this as a failure, vowing to keep it up longer next time. --Greg At 06:46 PM 11/9/2003 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote: >Still, in all honesty, being a mere rational seeker with only >occasional faint flashes of something I am pleased to call intuition >but which may indeed be much less, I am puzzled by talk of >consciousness utterly devoid of content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2003 Report Share Posted November 10, 2003 Hi Concordance, Glad to have you back here. I see you are determined to make me work overtime here as well as on my list. Actually, that would be double-overtime, wouldn't it? Well, I don't want to clog up this list with our own discussions, especially since I know that you will always come back with an intelligent and erudite response which I cannot agree with, and the wheel will spin forever. So I'll just make some brief remarks on what you just said to me today, so you don't feel I am ignoring you. >This would not actually be a formless consciousness. >It is not even a consciousness without visual consciousness - >it is just a deep blackness. Then just remove the blackness. My point was simply that I am not so dense as to believe that this or that kind of consciousness (such as vision) must be present for there to be consciousness. Clearly different types of consciousness come and go. My only point is that a consciousness with no content whatsoever seems self-refuting to me, at least from a mere logical point of view. (But why should we high-flying Advaitins care about anything so pedestrian as logic?) >If the infinite potentiality of consciousness can have >"somethings", it can having nothing too. Or is infinite, >absolute consciousness imprisoned by its own requirement >of some kind of manifestation? Maybe it is. Ditto, regarding the first sentence. >But aside from experience, what about philosophically? >Suppose creation was linear - what was prior to creation? >Did it have being? And if it is not linear, what about >how existence exists now? There are things which are unseen, >but which see - or are unheard, yet hear. Are these things >total nothings during the lack of activity, or do they retain >a subtle form of being? I have often said that space and time are aspects of consciousness; consciousness is not contained within something external called space and time. Space, time, matter, energy, etc. are all aspects of perceptual consciousness. Therefore it is meaningless to ask what there was before the spectacle called the universe manifested itself. You might say that my own consciousness is a 'thing which is unseen but which sees'. I believe this is a misuse of language. The very word 'thing' strongly suggests 'something out there', like a material object, which persists even when not perceived. As people here well know, I deny any such objects external to consciousness. Therefore, we must in no sense think of our consciousness as such a thing, which persists even when unmanifested. The very being of our consciousness is part and parcel of its 'immediate manifestation', though I strongly insist that this manifestation need not be visual or any particular mode of consciousness. I simply use 'manifestation' for the content of consciousness, whatever that might be ... perception, thought, feeling or some new mode I have not yet experienced. Anything but pure absolute self-refuting nothing. >The potential for an act (such as the arising of phenomena) >must pre-exist the act to allow it to occur, but what is the >nature of this potential divorced from the act itself - if it >can be said to have any "nature"? All one question. 'Potential' is another of those empty philosophical words, like 'thing', 'matter', 'substance', 'cause', etc. (Cf. Berkeley and Hume.) Any reference to something that is not an aspect of consciousness is meaningless, in my opinion. Again, this aspect need not be visual, sensual or any other *particular* mode of consciousness. As I said, I will try not to respond to your inevitable response, since I already know what a huge though interesting mass of verbiage that could result in. I'd like to believe that I have risen above the stage of egoistically needing to defend my views and the public perception of my intelligence. Lately, though, I have become talkative again on this list, because Ananda presents such a rare and valuable opportunity. You do too, but I think that by now I can anticipate what you will say! :-) Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.