Shri Atmananda's teachings - 3. "I am consciousness."

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda,

 

Thank you for your lengthy and careful answer to my question, 'How

can consciousness be contentless?' I echo Dennis' opinion that you

answered about as clearly as is possible. Perhaps I should say

nothing, but since the list has gotten a bit off-subject lately, I

will post some comments, simply for your possible interest. I expect

no answer.

 

 

>These physical and sensual and mental contents are

>seen indirectly, when consciousness looks through

>faculties of mind and body that are different from

>itself.

 

In my simple (simplistic?) version of 'idealism', it never makes

sense to speak of mind and body as being in any way different from

consciousness. Body and mind are identical to perceptions and

thoughts, respectively, which are all clearly 'in consciousness', as

far as I am concerned. This is simply something that appears

'immediately true' to me upon quiet introspection, and I assure you

that I am in no way enlightened. Rather, I arrived at this position,

with the help of Berkeley and Hume, by realizing that we blindly use

a word such as 'object', which we *think* corresponds to something

'outside' of consciousness but which does not, since it only

corresponds to perception, as I just said. The very idea of an

'outside' to consciousness is based on our notion of space, which is

but an aspect of perceptual consciousness and therefore not outside

of it. Hence, the very concept of an 'outside' to consciousness is

illegitimate.

 

This is my idealism in a nutshell. To me, it seems quite close to

Advaita, so that combined with my admiration for the clarity and

authentic experience of Ramana and Nisargadatta, not to mention the

eloquent primeval insights of the Upanishads, I feel entitled to

consider myself some kind of Advaitin and to pursue the study of it.

 

At any rate, I just want to make the point that at no time do I

consider body and mind as different from consciousness, in contrast

to your words. I am aware of the Advaitin distinction between the

relative (vyavaharika) and absolute (paramarthika) levels of

consciousness, but as a philosopher I know where I stand, despite not

being enlightened. In other words, I believe that I can somewhat

understand the paramarthika from the perspective of the vyavaharika,

and my first paragraph was an attempt to summarize this view.

 

 

>But since you recognize that physical and sensual

>and mental activities are only appearances that

>come and go in consciousness, what could remain

>when all appearances have gone? When body, sense

>and mind and all their perceptions disappear, into

>what do these appearances dissolve?

 

Very well said. Much to ponder here.

 

Part of the problem may be that I simply do not *remember* deep sleep

or other such experiences. I feel that I cannot talk about an

experience that is not either in immediate awareness or in memory.

My immediate awareness contains thoughts, feelings and perceptions,

and my memory also contains these, though some of them may be in

dreams. I have no memory of deep sleep, so I am simply stuck. (Yes,

Greg, I must speak of 'my' memory, since I am an honest witness.)

 

But to get to your point, what *would* remain if body, sense and mind

were to disappear? That is a good question. Based on my limited

perspective, I would say that although perceptions come and go,

thought and feeling never entirely disappear, as long as there is any

kind of consciousness. Of course, I may be wrong, due to my lack of

experience. But when I read about the 'samadhi' of some sage, I

imagine it to consist of *some* kind of thought and feeling. There

is bliss, so is that not a feeling? And is deep sleep not described

as bliss? Also, there is some feeling of 'space' or 'presence', even

if there are no perceptions. Is that not a kind of 'thought'?

Perhaps even a very subtle 'perception', if I may be so daring?

 

Please do not get annoyed at my stubbornness. I am simply relating

the reaction of my mind to this discussion, for whatever it may be

worth. You may analyze this as a lepidopterist does a butterfly.

(Yes, that is a real word!) Or you may ignore it.

 

I think part of the problem is that when Advaitins speak of

perceptual or mental manifestations, they are implicitly thinking of

ordinary, gross manifestations. I fully understand that in samadhi,

the ordinary colors, sounds, tastes, thoughts, etc. may be replaced

by something far more subtle. But I wonder if even the famous

Advaitin experience of 'I am' is not just a very subtle awareness of

some kind of 'space', though devoid of perceptions or at least of

ordinary gross perceptions. Maybe this is partly semantics, but if

there is a feeling of 'presence', can this presence not be considered

some very subtle form of 'space'? The gross perceptions themselves

are mere colored shadows which sometimes dance across this 'space'

which is awareness.

 

Again, this may be semantics, but my point is that, to my mind, the

experience of 'I am' suggests 'presence', which suggests some kind of

'space', even if devoid of ordinary thoughts and perceptions. This

space is most certainly not external to consciousness in any sense

but is really just another word for consciousness or sentience.

Since we are using words outside of their ordinary contexts, we

should expect much confusion.

 

>Do they dissolve into a negative nothing or blankness

>or absence, which after all requires the presence of

>body or senses or mind to perceive it? Or would there

>be just consciousness, present by itself, as its own

>content, when body, sense and mind have disappeared?

>Why shouldn't consciousness itself remain, present to

>itself, when its passing contents disappear?

 

Again, it would be most revealing to me to experience these 'pure

consciousness' states. I can assure you that there is much

discussion of them in the literature, including by non-Advaitins.

For example, there is a Western scholar named Robert Forman who has

studied such matters. An interesting article (with some unfortunate

vulgar language) can be found at

 

http://www.johnhorgan.org/work3.htm

 

A longer, scholarly article, without the modern American (and now

global) vulgarity can be found at

 

http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Forman.html

 

(Sorry for my sanctimony, but I really don't like vulgarity.)

 

From my perspective, I can only repeat that as I try to imagine

stripping all the usual thoughts and perceptions away from my

consciousness, I seem to be left with some feeling of 'presence'

which seems the same as 'space' in some sense, though I fully realize

that this space is not outside of consciousness, as nothing is

according to my introductory statements. I guess you are tired of

hearing this by now.

 

>So consciousness cannot appear or disappear. Its

>appearance would require a previous experience where

>consciousness was absent. Similarly, its disappearance

>would require a subsequent experience without consciousness.

 

Now I completely agree with this! This is utterly consistent with my

first paragraphs above. I guess the only suggestion I might leave

you with, which might be of interest to you, is my idea that one can

directly realize that 'everything is consciousness'. Calm silent

introspection devoid of verbalizations is all that is required. I

still wonder, why bother to introduce the perplexing topic of deep

sleep, since we cannot even remember it? Perhaps it is of benefit to

those who do not agree with me that it is possible to have a direct

realization that 'all is consciousness', without even being

enlightened in any sense.

 

>That is a classical advaita position, which is

>unequivocally taken by modern interpreters like

>Ramana Maharshi and Shri Atmananda.

 

I do not doubt this. I have read them extensively and found their

words quite illuminating and inspiring. It seems that I agree with

them and you to a very considerable extent, e.g. on the falseness of

the subject-object distinction and that 'all is consciousness'. Now

I must make this intellectual understanding an actual realization in

the deepest sense of the word. I hope that my eventual enlightenment

does not hinge on completely agreeing with you on this vexed topic of

contentless consciousness! Then again, I may one day suddenly 'see

the light', which is no light! :-)

 

Perhaps I need to meditate and/or inquire more seriously. Or perhaps

I am trying too hard! :-)

 

Than you again for a most stimulating discussion.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

The very idea of an

> 'outside' to consciousness is based on our notion of space, which is

> but an aspect of perceptual consciousness and therefore not outside

> of it. Hence, the very concept of an 'outside' to consciousness is

> illegitimate.

 

Benjamin - it is not idealism - it is the position of advaita vedanta

too. Only difference is your last word. Within the consciousness the

inside - outside and/or subject-object are apparently legitimate and not

illegitimate. Apparently legitimate is neither ligitimate or

illegitimate. That is what is called MAYA - sadasat vilakshanam.

 

>

> This is my idealism in a nutshell. To me, it seems quite close to

> Advaita, so that combined with my admiration for the clarity and

> authentic experience of Ramana and Nisargadatta, not to mention the

> eloquent primeval insights of the Upanishads, I feel entitled to

> consider myself some kind of Advaitin and to pursue the study of it.

 

There is no absolutely no problme as long as you recognize the apparent

problems in the semantics. The problem becomes a real problem if one

takes the apparent problem as real! And that seems to the problem here.

>

> At any rate, I just want to make the point that at no time do I

> consider body and mind as different from consciousness, in contrast

> to your words. I am aware of the Advaitin distinction between the

> relative (vyavaharika) and absolute (paramarthika) levels of

> consciousness, but as a philosopher I know where I stand, despite not

> being enlightened.

 

Everything is O.K. except the last sentence! Are you apparently not

being enlightened or really not enlightened or just consciousness that

is not enlightened! - I see contradictions in the theory and in the last

statement. - That my friend is the distinction of what is vyavahaara and

what is paaramaarthika.

 

In other words, I believe that I can somewhat

> understand the paramarthika from the perspective of the vyavaharika,

> and my first paragraph was an attempt to summarize this view.

>

 

Benjamin - if you really exmaine your statements very closely you are

already away from your ideality! Advaita Vedanta is fully aware of your

problem!

> Part of the problem may be that I simply do not *remember* deep sleep

> or other such experiences. I feel that I cannot talk about an

> experience that is not either in immediate awareness or in memory.

> My immediate awareness contains thoughts, feelings and perceptions,

> and my memory also contains these, though some of them may be in

> dreams. I have no memory of deep sleep, so I am simply stuck. (Yes,

> Greg, I must speak of 'my' memory, since I am an honest witness.)

>

 

Benjamin from the so called idealism point - none of the above

statements - I, idealism, remember, sleep, deep or otherwise,

experience, memory or lack of it, thoughts, feelings, perceptions,

getting stuck, and even our friend Greg - have any relavence. If they do

welcome back to vyavahaara.

 

> But to get to your point, what *would* remain if body, sense and mind

> were to disappear? That is a good question. Based on my limited

> perspective, I would say that although perceptions come and go,

> thought and feeling never entirely disappear, as long as there is any

> kind of consciousness.

 

Benjamin - if you look clasely you are contradicting from idealism

point.

The rest I find the same contradciton.

 

Remember the contradictions are only in dvaita or in vyavahaara.

We need to watch out - sometime we fall into our own traps without even

realizing it.

 

I know you are going justify the traps but that very justification

confirms your backing adviata vedanta's vyavahaara-paaramaarthika

levels.

 

Hari OM!

 

Sadananda

 

 

 

Of course, I may be wrong, due to my lack of

> experience. But when I read about the 'samadhi' of some sage, I

> imagine it to consist of *some* kind of thought and feeling. There

> is bliss, so is that not a feeling? And is deep sleep not described

> as bliss? Also, there is some feeling of 'space' or 'presence', even

> if there are no perceptions. Is that not a kind of 'thought'?

> Perhaps even a very subtle 'perception', if I may be so daring?

>

> Please do not get annoyed at my stubbornness. .

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

http://antispam./whatsnewfree

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadananda,

>> But to get to your point, what *would* remain if body,

>> sense and mind were to disappear? That is a good question.

>> Based on my limited perspective, I would say that although

>> perceptions come and go, thought and feeling never entirely

>> disappear, as long as there is any kind of consciousness.

> Benjamin - if you look closely you are contradicting from

> idealism point. The rest I find the same contradiction.

 

 

Thank you for your comments. It appears that we do agree on the

essentials, and that semantics do account for some of the apparent

contradictions. What you say here is interesting, and I would like

to clarify what I was trying to say.

 

I do agree that body and mind do not exist as entities *distinct*

from consciousness. It is quite clear that ordinary common sense

considers the body to exist as something 'material' distinct from our

perception of it. To me, the body is no more than this perception,

which is clearly part of consciousness. (This time I avoided using a

spatial preposition!) As for mind, I cannot imagine that as distinct

from consciousness in the first place. That is, I cannot distinguish

between a thought or feeling and their manifestation in consciousness.

 

So for me, the body and mind are no more than their manifestation in

consciousness. For the body, this takes the form of perceptions, and

for mind, it is thoughts and feelings. This is the famous PFT of our

Swami Chinmayananda.

 

Now the error, according to Swami Chinmayananda, is to take the PFT

as 'objects', i.e. as something other than Self or Consciousness. I

wholeheartedly agree. A further error is to then identify with any

of these supposed objects (which is rather paradoxical if you think

about it).

 

However, regarding my discussion with Ananda, I took him to say that

'pure consciousness' or 'contentless consciousness' is what arises

when the PFT are eliminated or erased from consciousness altogether.

That is, they no longer appear even as mere manifestations or

appearances, let alone as objects distinct from consciousness. And

my point was that when even these illusions or manifestations are

erased, I am not sure what remains. It seems to me that

consciousness stripped of all PFT is simply unimagineable, except

perhaps as some kind of vague 'space', as I was discussing earlier.

But I also accepted that many people far wiser than I am speak of

such pure consciousness, so I patiently await the experience.

 

Notice that stripping consciousness of even the manifestation of PFT

is different from correctly interpreting them from the Advaitic

perspective. That is, it seems to me that Swami Chinmayananda and

other Advaitins are simply asking us not to see the PFT as objects or

as something *other* than consciousness. We are simply to realize

that they are appearances in consciousness and not the objects they

seem to be; the dream analogy is relevant here. This is different

from trying to imagine consciousness stripped of even the appearance

of PFT.

 

Anyhow, as I said, wiser people than I do indeed seem to testify to

the experience of consciousness without any trace of even the mere

appearance or manifestation of PFT.

 

Earlier I cited Professor Robert Forman, whose long and scholarly

article can be found at

 

http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Forman.html

 

Another interesting and contemporary example is a Christian female

mystic or 'contemplative' named Bernadette Roberts, who sounds as

though she got her ideas from Eastern religions, even though she

insists they are only her personal experiences. She phrases her

experience in terms of the absence of self, but at times it sounds

quite a bit like Ananda's contentless consciousness. For example,

consider this:

 

"We think of ourselves as originally emerging from the unknown, from

darkness, nothingness or non-existence into the light of

consciousness. But as consciousness develops we discover the

increasing ability to see in the dark, see into the nothingness or

mystery within ourselves and eventually realize that this darkness and

nothingness is the divine from which we emerged and with which we are

one. Thus we discover that our original darkness IS true light."

 

Actually, Ananda's deep sleep is probably even 'darker' than this,

but there is some similarity. Also, this sounds of course like the

Buddhist emptiness, though she claims no similarity. She also says

many things I have heard Advaitins here say, such as

 

"Where there is no personal self, there is no personal God."

 

"God is all that exists... God is all that is."

 

"The individuality of the object observed is overshadowed by that into

which it blends and ultimately disappears."

 

"What IS is that which can neither be subject or object."

 

"It is the one existent that is Pure Subjectivity."

 

"There is no multiplicity of existences; only what IS has existence

that can expand itself into an infinite variety of forms..."

 

We have also heard the medieval Christian mystic Meister Eckhart and

many others from all religions speak like this. Anyhow, Bernadette

Roberts is an interesting case study. Some webpages on her are

 

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/bernadette_roberts.htm

 

http://www.geocities.com/brianperkins77/178bernadetteroberts.htm

 

http://www.innerexplorations.com/ewtext/br.htm

 

http://www.nonduality.com/berna.htm

 

http://www.firedocs.com/carey/roberts.html

 

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

 

> Anyhow, as I said, wiser people than I do indeed seem to testify to

> the experience of consciousness without any trace of even the mere

> appearance or manifestation of PFT.

 

Benjamin - there is contradiction in terms if can notice.

 

Jiivanmukata does not mean he will not have vyavahaara. Take Bhagavaan

Ramana Maharshi's life itself.

 

Realization is not the absence of plurality. Realization is seeing

oneness in plurality.

 

If Aatmanandaji wrote books after realization, implication is clear.

 

If he has written books before realization about the state of

realization, the implication is also clear.

 

Illustion is not the problem - taking the illusion as real is delusion

and that is the problem. Rope distict from seer is still there after

knowing that it is not a snake but a rope.

 

Anyway Advaita vedanta empahizes the distinction between vyavahaara and

paaramaarthika - and there lies the beauty of the creation too. I wanted

to make sure one recognizes that the non-dualty verses non-duality

inspite of duality.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

http://antispam./whatsnewfree

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sadanandaji said:

>Benjamin - there is contradiction in terms if can notice.

>Jiivanmukata does not mean he will not have vyavahaara.

>Take Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi's life itself.

>Realization is not the absence of plurality.

>Realization is seeing oneness in plurality.

>If Aatmanandaji wrote books after realization,

>implication is clear.

>If he has written books before realization about

>the state of realization, the implication is also clear.

>Illusion is not the problem - taking the illusion as

>real is delusion and that is the problem. Rope distict

>from seer is still there after knowing that it is not

>a snake but a rope.

>Anyway Advaita vedanta empahizes the distinction between

>vyavahaara and paaramaarthika - and there lies the beauty

>of the creation too. I wanted to make sure one recognizes

>that the non-dualty verses non-duality inspite of duality.

 

 

Sadanandaji,

 

I agree completely with every word you say here. Surely PFT

(Perception, Thought and Feeling) remain for the jnana; only he sees

them as illusion and as nothing but consciousness, as you say. My

opinion exactly, as I have also been saying.

 

The issue is that we were discussing deep sleep with Anandaji, who

speaks in terms of 'contentless consciousness', which surely means

devoid of PFT. I have trouble understanding consciousness without

'contents', though I can accept that there might be no PFT, as long

as these are replaced by some other kind of 'content'. Perhaps some

exotic samadhi state. The closest I can imagine is 'bliss',

'presence', 'space devoid of perceptions', etc.

 

Anyhow, I do recognize that serious spiritual practitioners and

scholars do speak of 'pure consciousness' or 'consciousness devoid of

contents'. Earlier, I provided a long but scholarly article by an

American professor, who also claims to be a 'neo-Advaitin'. I do

recommend taking a look at it, as it contains interesting examples

from a variety of spiritual traditions. It is at

 

http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Forman.html

 

My basic response to such discussions is that I must wait for this

experience, and once I have it, then I will know what the 'contents'

are. These contents are simply the experience itself, whatever it

is. Such is my simple-minded thinking...

 

Also, I do not think we need deep sleep to prove that 'consciousness

is everything', though it may help.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Note from List Moderators:

May we request you to address directly any questions or insigts that are

addressed by Sri Ananda Wood instead of reposting materials from your website.

There are tons of materials available in websites focusing on various issues.

What you have provided here in your post are very general and you are not

directly addressing what is being posted by Sri Ananda.

 

Thanks in advance of your cooperation and understanding.

========================================

 

 

What is consciousness? Here are a few excerpts from my eBook:

 

Whitehead: Our own self-consciousness is a good example of an actual occasion

as it is direct evidence of the connectedness of [my] immediate present

occasion of experience with [my] immediately past occasions. The connectedness

of

these present and past occasions of my own self-consciousness leads us to

suggest “the connectedness of all occasions in nature.â€

 

KierkeGard: With the passage of time, the dialectic process begins to work

in the consciousness of the ethical man – he begins to realize that he is

involved in something more profound than an inadequate knowledge of the moral

law

or insufficient strength of will

 

Bhagavad Gita:

- The secret of religious consciousness is that the existing individual

cannot pursue God in an “objective way or bring God to light objectivelyâ€

but only

subjectively.

- Action has three components – thought, word and deed. It is performed at

various levels of ones consciousness or on different planes of the inner self.

Deep in each one of us are the roots of real action and no matter what form

they take (gross, subtle or causal form), they are actions that move the wheel

of

Karma

- Wisdom is the realization that the self is the witness-consciousness that

watches this world-process and the associated activities – the wise person

therefore, does not interfere with the course of nature. Instead of withdrawal

that would confuse other people, he/she engages in his/her own duty with the

inward spirit of non-attachment

- He who practices buddhi yoga with the feeling that one cosmic consciousness

pervades all and that in this consciousness he is one with all – he is freed

instantly from ignorance and from all Karma which give rise to birth and death

- Being good and doing good in that order are the right actions and persons

aware of this knowledge are closer to cosmic consciousness – their actions are

without cause, without goal, without dependency, and without the ego’s “I do

thisâ€

- In the highest stages of yoga, a person is completely quiescent, at rest in

the self and one with the cosmic consciousness – a stage comes in the life of

every person when external and later internal actions are not needed any

more, he is at peace with self and begins to witness the passing phenomena

- The intense practice of yoga gives a yogi control over “prana,†the life

force that is spread throughout the body to activate its many functions. By a

process of regulated breathing, the yogi fuses the positive (prana) and

negative (apana) forces to awaken dormant psychic power or the “kundalini

saktiâ€

that leads him by stages from one center of consciousness to the next along the

innermost core of the spinal cord, and eventually to the “ajna cakra†–

the

center between the eyebrows, at which point the whole “prana†is withdrawn

to

merge in God-consciousness and thus is liberated

 

For more on all types of Consciousness (Religious, Cosmic, Self, God,

Witness, and other consciounesses), please visit my eBook site at:

 

http://www.PeopleSuperHighway.com

 

 

All the best,

 

Dave Anand

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Benjamin:

 

dnyaaneshvara maharaj in the concluding remarks of dnyaaneshvarii's

pasaayadaana he coined a phrase "draShTadruShTavijay" that is

wonderful that can help us understand this concept of realization and

reality.

 

Which means to realize what you see is not the illusion like an image

in the mirror. To realize what you see is the image is the reality.

 

As far as seeing one in plurality he says.....

 

he vishvaci maazhe ghara

aisi mati jayaaci sthira

kibahunaa caraacara

aapaNaci jaahala.

 

Meaning - The whole universe is to be witnessed (experinced) as own

home. All the individuals (caraacara) is he himself, this thought is

fixed onto one's mind and thus he becomes the one with everything.

 

Just some thoughts in passing.

 

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Sadanandaji said:

>

> >Benjamin - there is contradiction in terms if can notice.

>

> >Jiivanmukata does not mean he will not have vyavahaara.

> >Take Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi's life itself.

>

> >Realization is not the absence of plurality.

> >Realization is seeing oneness in plurality.

>

> >If Aatmanandaji wrote books after realization,

> >implication is clear.

>

> >If he has written books before realization about

> >the state of realization, the implication is also clear.

>

> >Illusion is not the problem - taking the illusion as

> >real is delusion and that is the problem. Rope distict

> >from seer is still there after knowing that it is not

> >a snake but a rope.

>

> >Anyway Advaita vedanta empahizes the distinction between

> >vyavahaara and paaramaarthika - and there lies the beauty

> >of the creation too. I wanted to make sure one recognizes

> >that the non-dualty verses non-duality inspite of duality.

>

>

> Sadanandaji,

>

> I agree completely with every word you say here. Surely PFT

> (Perception, Thought and Feeling) remain for the jnana; only he

sees

> them as illusion and as nothing but consciousness, as you say. My

> opinion exactly, as I have also been saying.

>

> The issue is that we were discussing deep sleep with Anandaji, who

> speaks in terms of 'contentless consciousness', which surely means

> devoid of PFT. I have trouble understanding consciousness without

> 'contents', though I can accept that there might be no PFT, as long

> as these are replaced by some other kind of 'content'. Perhaps

some

> exotic samadhi state. The closest I can imagine is 'bliss',

> 'presence', 'space devoid of perceptions', etc.

>

> Anyhow, I do recognize that serious spiritual practitioners and

> scholars do speak of 'pure consciousness' or 'consciousness devoid

of

> contents'. Earlier, I provided a long but scholarly article by an

> American professor, who also claims to be a 'neo-Advaitin'. I do

> recommend taking a look at it, as it contains interesting examples

> from a variety of spiritual traditions. It is at

>

> http://www.zynet.co.uk/imprint/Forman.html

>

> My basic response to such discussions is that I must wait for this

> experience, and once I have it, then I will know what

the 'contents'

> are. These contents are simply the experience itself, whatever it

> is. Such is my simple-minded thinking...

>

> Also, I do not think we need deep sleep to prove

that 'consciousness

> is everything', though it may help.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin,

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> My basic response to such discussions is that I must wait for this

> experience, and once I have it, then I will know what

the 'contents'

> are. These contents are simply the experience itself, whatever it

> is. Such is my simple-minded thinking...

>

 

I admire your persistence on the topic. Your honest simple-minded

thinking is exactly right here - "get there, experience it and

describe it!" until then it is all only hear say. We like to call it

shraddha - a firm belief in the scriptures. It is one of the 4-fold

qualifications. Even for a non-believer, you could think of it like

a postulate, without which you wouldn't know how to corroborate your

experience to what you are looking for. Surely, you could use this

as a possible pointer, atleast till then(?)

> Also, I do not think we need deep sleep to prove

that 'consciousness

> is everything', though it may help.

>

 

Yes, you are correct, avasthAtraya is a prakriya - only a model or

an example that helps us understand reality. pancakosha is another

prakriya/model that helps us understand reality.

 

One significance of the 3 state model is its universal

applicability - all living things, whether they want it or not, have

been ordained to go through these 3 states ad infinitum. Surely, it

seems logical that we examine/analyze our experiences carefully as

we understand our interaction in these states. It is a shift in

perspective from a world-centric view to a subject-centric view,

where all emperical experiences are bundled up and viewed through

the 3 windows. The subject is no more a limited entity that exists

in an objective world, but the very creator who lends existence to

his or her worlds at will and withdraws them into himself/herself

periodically. This also jives well with the macrocosmic shrishti-

sthiti-pralaya model.

 

Regards,

Savithri

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> The issue is that we were discussing deep sleep with Anandaji, who

> speaks in terms of 'contentless consciousness', which surely means

> devoid of PFT.

 

PFT is a mental notion and absence of mind in deep sleep implies absence

of PFT.

 

I have trouble understanding consciousness without

> 'contents', though I can accept that there might be no PFT, as long

> as these are replaced by some other kind of 'content'.

 

 

Yes Benjamin, you are absolutely right from my understanding. In the

deep sleep one cannot say anything about it since that mind that says

anything about it is not there. Hence it is better to leave it as

anirvachaniiyma or inexplicable.

 

But if one wants to say something about it by the waking mind that was

absent at that time it can only say - the contents of the deep sleep is

nothing but the absence of everything - everything - or 'any thing' -

presence of the absence of everything itself is contents of ignorance of

everything that includes space-time. PFT is not there but one can

'there is' absence of everything as the contents of the deep sleep since

a walking mind can only say "I don’t know anything at that time" -

 

But one can get into a tricky situation is the absence of something a

positive knowledge - Advaita Vedanta considers as that separate pramaaNa

- just a "I see no pot on the floor'. What are the contents of the

consciousness - absence of pot -and that is the contents?

 

Perhaps some

> exotic samadhi state. The closest I can imagine is 'bliss',

> 'presence', 'space devoid of perceptions', etc.

 

There is no samaa-dhi - either in the sense there is no buddhi, which is

again related to thoughts.

 

Samaadhi in the waking state is different - it is positive knowledge of

the absence of everything in spite of the presence of everything. Here

the mind is dissolved into oneself - hence knowledge of oneself remains

even when comes out of samadhi. In the deep Sleep State it is not

dissolution of the mind but annihilation of the mind. The ignorant

restless mind now is ignorant restful mind. Ignorance remains during

the sleep. Hence the contents of the sleep is ignorance itself - not

bliss - Ignorance is bliss is like - One does not either see rope or

snake to be concerned about.

 

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

http://antispam./whatsnewfree