Re:Shri Atmananda's teachings - 2. The three states

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

You said:

 

"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."

 

 

Lord have mercy on me! I just have to say something ... briefly ...

and without reference to Buddhism.

 

I totally agree that there can be consciousness without form. As I

said before, just closing my eyes is proof of this (provided I don't

start dreaming or hallucinating).

 

Also, I agree that consciousness or awareness is like a kind of

screen which is always there, across which dance the illusory

perceptions, thoughts, feelings etc. They are 'illusory' in that

they have no other reality than the consciousness itself, like the

objects in a dream. The only danger with this analogy is that we

might be tempted to think of an *objective* screen, like the

television screen which we can reach out and touch. This screen of

consciousness is identical to consciousness itself, i.e. the witness.

 

My only complaint is that it seems we are saying that we can have a

state of consciousness in which there is ... absolutely nothing! Am

I taking the word 'nothing' too seriously? I certainly realize that

there is never any object, in the sense of something different from

consciousness (i.e. matter and so forth). But pure absolute

nothing?!!!

 

Well, I don't want to beat this to death. All I ask of Advaitins is

this: Please examine your hearts and make sure you are not just

playing with words. If your heart is at peace, then I will

graciously accept that, even though I remain a bit confused.

Fortunately, Ananda's new topic is for intuitively-challenged

intellectuals, as he says himself, though not in these exact words.

 

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> I totally agree that there can be consciousness without form. As I

> said before, just closing my eyes is proof of this (provided I don't

> start dreaming or hallucinating).

 

 

This would not actually be a formless consciousness. It is not even a

consciousness without visual consciousness - it is just a deep

blackness. A consciousness that didn't have visual consciousness as a

*part* of its experience would be one in which vision, itself, had no

relevance and one in which the notion of "vision" wouldn't occur.

Think about a person born blind. It is possible to become so absorbed

in one aspect of the mind that others cease to have any relevance

(such as sight) - I can attest to this, though I haven't known a state

that lacked everything.

 

> My only complaint is that it seems we are saying that we can have a

> state of consciousness in which there is ... absolutely nothing! Am

> I taking the word 'nothing' too seriously? I certainly realize that

> there is never any object, in the sense of something different from

> consciousness (i.e. matter and so forth). But pure absolute

> nothing?!!!

>

 

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "concordance909"

<concordance909> wrote:

> advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

> wrote:

> >

> > I totally agree that there can be consciousness without form. >

>

> This would not actually be a formless consciousness. It is not

even a

> consciousness without visual consciousness - it is just a deep

> blackness. A consciousness that didn't have visual consciousness

as a

> *part* of its experience would be one in which vision, itself, had

no

> relevance and one in which the notion of "vision" wouldn't occur.

> Think about a person born blind. It is possible to become so

absorbed

> in one aspect of the mind that others cease to have any relevance

> (such as sight) - I can attest to this, though I haven't known a

state

> that lacked everything.

 

Namaste

 

Regarding 'contentless consciousness', there is a beautiful analogy

provided by M.K. Venkatraman in his book on advaita. I have quoted

this in our discussions on 'Sada's advaita' long ago. This may be

seen in

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m10386.html

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk