Shri Atmananda's teachings - 4. Witness of thoughts

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda,

 

Oh Lord! I was going to write a careful and lengthy answer to your

question to me, but I see that the discussion is gathering steam, so

I'd better send something in quickly!

 

>Concerning the witness prakriya, the new subtopic in

>Shri Atmananda's teachings, I have a question for you.

 

First, let me thank you for even asking a question. Too often, we

care only about expressing our own views. True dialogue involves a

sincere interest in our adversary's views.

 

>You report your position that "Everything is consciousness."

>

>You are able to reduce all physical and mental objects to

>perceptions, thoughts and feelings; and in turn, you are

>able to reduce all perceptions, thoughts and feelings to

>something which you call 'consciousness'.

>

>But can it be right to identify consciousness like this?

>Can consciousness be rightly identified as a physical or

>a mental activity of any kind?

>

>In the witness prakriya, these questions are answered in

>the negative. The knowing self is carefully distinguished

>from body and from mind. It is an undistracted and

>impartial consciousness that witnesses the distracted and

>partial activities of body, sense and mind. Thus

>consciousness is carefully distinguished as unchanging

>and unlimited, quite distinct from perceptions, thoughts

>and feelings that are each changing and limited.

>

>Here, in the witness prakriya, consciousness is

>approached as the silent knowing of detached illumination.

>It is utterly detached from the noisy perceptions,

>thoughts and feelings that distract the mind's attention

>as they come and go. It is detached from them, though

>they cannot exist even for a moment when detached from it.

>Each one of them completely disappears, the very moment

>that it parts with illuminating consciousness. That's why

>they appear and disappear -- while consciousness remains,

>as their one reality.

 

This shows a fascinating gulf between our thinking. To me it is so

clear: Consciousness is simply whatever I am aware of. There is no

difference between the consciousness and the awareness. There is

nothing I know or can know unless I am aware of it. The knowing and

the awareness are the same. And there is no difference between the

awareness and the 'it' of which I am aware. That is how it seems to

me when I silently and non-verbally introspect upon my 'immediate

awareness', which is also my 'world'. It is not a mystical state but

a simple realization of what is actually present, before words and

concepts interfere with their hypothetical constructs. And it does

not produce enlightenment in the sense of arousing bliss and

relieving pain, etc. Such is my testimony. It simply arises from

seeing through the confusion of words like 'object', etc.

 

I think the problem may be that there are different levels of

'objectivity' falsely superposed by the mind upon immediate

awareness. For a long time, I was concerned with the 'gross'

objectivity which projects upon the perceptions a world of material

objects 'external' to those perceptions. But a more subtle form of

objectivity is to mistakenly see the perceptions (and thoughts and

feelings) or PFT themselves as objects in some sense. This arises

from the sense of personal self, which always mentally distinguishes

between itself (or what it takes to be itself) and *whatever* it is

contemplating, even if these are its internal contents, namely the

PFT. However, to me, there is just the awareness or stream of

consciousness, which manifests as thoughts, feelings and perceptions

(and perhaps one day some exotic samadhi states).

 

Upon examining your words, it is clear that a key reason you feel the

need to distinguish between consciousness and body/mind is that the

former is 'unchanging and unlimited' and the latter is 'changing and

limited'. This is classic Advaita, to be sure. Furthermore, the

consciousness is a 'silent knowing' while the PFT are 'noisy and

distracted'. Yet, the latter cannot exist without the illumination

of the former. How paradoxical!

 

All I can do is try to put myself in your mind, or what your words

suggest is your thinking. It seems to me that to see PFT in this way

subconsciously *presupposes* the subtle objectivizing that I was just

discussing. A distinction is clearly being drawn between

consciousness and the PFT, which you take to be self-evident but

which seems like a mental construct to me. It is true that the

consciousness is 'unchanging' in that awareness is always present.

And it is true that consciousness is 'unlimited' in that it is not

exhausted by or reduced to any *particular* PFT, which simply appear

and disappear in bewildering variety. But at all times, I must

simply insist that there is no distinction between the PFT and the

very awareness of them. Even though PFT come and go, their very

'substance' is awareness; they cannot be distinguished from this

awareness or consciousness, as you later say. I think that all the

confusion arises if we *think* of them as objects in some sense, that

is, as discrete entities existing independently of the witness. Only

then does there seem to be a logical inconsistency between the unity

of the witness and the multiplicity of the supposed 'objects'. If we

do not think this way, then we simply observe that there is a steady

awareness which manifests in a variety of PFT. This explanation may

be exceedingly inadequate, but it is the best I can provide.

 

Perhaps some insight might be gained by examining your choice of

words 'noisy and distracted' to describe the PFT. It seems to me

that this only happens when the consciousness (through vasanas) gets

'stuck' on particular PFT. But since the consciousness and the PFT

are not different, this simply means that consciousness itself is

getting stuck and losing its freedom, i.e. its pure and unlimited

nature. The noise and distraction describe tendencies of the

consciousness itself and not something that is being done to the

consciousness. Conversely, when, through meditation or inquiry, the

consciousness regains its freedom and flexibility, this freely

flowing consciousness itself seems like the 'silent illumination'.

In other words, certain latent mental tendencies can cause

consciousness to repeat certain patterns of manifestation, often

accompanied by strong emotion, which we call 'attachment'. It then

becomes 'delusion' if we *identify* with it, that is, if we take

those recurring PFT to be our 'true self' or even the totality of

consciousness.

 

Already this is a bit long, and I do not feel I am explaining myself

very well. But it does seem that the rest of your message agrees

with much of this.

 

I would only finish by saying why I think it is possible for me to

realize all this without being enlightened. It is because one can

have a superficial vs. a deep awareness of the reality that 'all is

consciousness'. If we simply realize that words such as 'object' (or

PFT for that matter) do not and cannot refer to anything distinct

from our awareness of the object or PFT, then it is easy to realize

at a theoretical level that all is consciousness. But the mental

tendencies or vasanas still remain. We continue to allow our stream

of consciousness to get stuck in certain patterns and to identify

with those patterns. It takes a long practice of sadhana to

eliminate these deep tendencies.

 

I hope this helped a bit.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda,

 

>Thanks for your reply to the question of whether

>consciousness is a physical or mental activity. I'm

>still confused by your answer, so I'll persist with

>the question, if I may. Many people get annoyed by

>such persistence, but you seem open to it. If you

>find the question inappropriate or irrelevant, of

>course I wouldn't want to trouble you with it, so

>please don't feel obliged to reply again.

 

I consider it a rare privilege to continue this discussion with you.

I worry only that it may be taking up too much of your time, since

you have been quite generous in trying to answer everybody. I

hesitated to answer for a couple of days, since I wanted to write my

words very carefully. But with me, this approach always leads to

writer's block, so my best strategy is to just take my chances and

answer spontaneously.

 

 

>In short, you are saying here that perceptions,

>thoughts and feelings are differing appearances of

>consciousness. They seem to be different things, but

>what they show is in truth the same. They differ only

>in appearance, not in reality. Each seemingly

>different appearance shows the same reality. And that

>reality is called 'consciousness'.

>As you say, the mistake we make is to objectify

>perceptions, thoughts and feelings. When a perception

>or a thought or a feeling appears, it is not really

>different from consciousness; but we make the mistake

>of falsely perceiving or thinking or feeling that it

>is different. What's present is in truth identical to

>consciousness, but we mistake that consciousness to

>be something else.

 

So far, it seems we agree, but let me clarify my intention a bit. I

certainly have no insights comparable to an enlightened person. When

I say that PFT (thoughts, feelings and perceptions) are clearly

nothing but consciousness, I do so not from the standpoint of a

Ramana or an Atmananda, for whom this is a vivid and blissful

realization, but merely from the standpoint of an armchair

philosopher. To me, it is only a matter of calmly beholding my

ordinary everyday experience and realizing the simple truth.

Whatever I am aware of is simply 'consciousness', according to my

simple way of thinking, since to be aware is to be conscious. And I

cannot know anything of which I am not aware, nor does it make sense

to me to speak of any entities of which I am not at least potentially

aware. To me, it is almost like a tautology, like saying that

'2+2=4'.

 

Again, to drive home the point, here is what I mean by

'consciousness'. It can be explained by a simple experiment that any

reader can perform. Sit still and simply be aware, without thinking

or reacting mentally to any of the awareness. This 'immediate

awareness', as I call it, is what I mean by consciousness. It is

simply what manifests right now at the present moment, but it is

*essential* to avoid any thinking whatsoever. Thinking leads to

notions of subject and object, which are superposed on the immediate

awareness, and which falsely split this awareness into the illusion

of a duality where there is in fact none. This notion does not arise

if we do not think but simply allow awareness to calmly manifest

exactly as it is. The only other prerequisite is not to allow any

drowsiness or dullness but to maintain a calm and lucid alertness

undisturbed by any thoughts.

 

The beauty of this simple observation or apprehension is that it

leads to a remarkable truth: All of reality is reduced to

consciousness. This contradicts common sense, with its belief in

'objects' distinct from consciousness. And this remarkable

conclusion seems quite similar to the basic principle of Advaita,

which is how I became interested in the subject. Above all, it helps

to make Advaita *plausible*. As a graduate of a world-famous

university, you must realize how silly (if not insane) it must seem

to most of the people there to proclaim that only consciousness

exists and there are no objects. My simple philosophical insights,

inspired by Berkeley and Hume, help to make Advaita reasonable and

plausible to a skeptical audience educated in the currently

fashionable Western mode of thinking, with its materialism and

hostility to spirituality, and which now includes most Indian

academics, according to what I have read. Thus, my simple, empirical

armchair philosophy allows an educated person to pursue Advaita

without embarrassment or guilt. :-)

 

 

>I would say that in particular, whenever we take

>consciousness to be a physical or mental activity, we

>are making this mistake. It is the mistake of

>personal 'ego'. It falsely identifies the knowing

>self as body and mind; and thus it falsely identifies

>the ever-present consciousness of self, as a passing

>parade of different physical and mental activities

>that come and go.

 

Now you are losing me a bit. You just agreed with me that the PFT

are 'differing appearances of consciousness'. So if A=B, then is not

B=A? That is, if the PFT are consciousness, then why cannot

consciousness be PFT? Of course, it is a mistake to limit

consciousness to the present PFT, or to any past or future PFT, or

even to PFT (since there may be some exotic modes of consciousness

other than PFT such as higher samadhi states). Hence, it is more

accurate to say that consciousness can manifest as PFT, as far as we

know, though it is not exhausted by any *particular* PFT.

 

But this is not what you say, so I must try harder to understand you.

Perhaps your exact choice of words, namely 'appearances of

consciousness', holds a clue. Do you think that the word

'appearance' implies some kind of distinction from consciousness

itself? Is there a difference between consciousness and an

'appearance of consciousness'? I can see none. On the contrary, it

is precisely the property of being a mere 'appearance' that reduces

the PFT to consciousness. To 'appear' and to be 'in my awareness'

mean the same to me. It is like the standard Advaitin analogy of the

dream. In the dream, the people and objects seem to be 'real', that

is, they seem to be distinct entities separate from the beholding

consciousness. But upon awakening, they are all seen to have been

mere *appearances* in consciousness. It is precisely the fact that

they were nothing more than appearances which reduces them to

consciousness, just as the mirage is reduced to consciousness once we

understand what it is.

 

So I can draw no distinction between 'appearance' and consciousness,

if appearance is taken to be synonymous with 'immediate awareness',

which seems like the correct definition to me. However, it is true

that appearance is often taken to mean more than this. It may also

be taken to refer to the false objectivity superposed by the mind

upon the PFT, as when we say 'the dream appears to be real'. In this

case, the appearance in question is not just the shapes and colors in

awareness but the *mixture* of these shapes and colors with the

mental judgement that they refer to some entity distinct from

consciousness, i.e. to an 'object'. I think that you must mean

appearance in this sense, though your use of this connotation may be

partly subconscious, as is often the case with the language we use.

 

In other words, it is my impression that you are thinking of PFT

*after* the mind has, perhaps unconsciously, superposed some of the

false notion of subject and object mentioned above. To repeat, it is

*essential* to realize that I mean the PFT as they manifest to

immediate awareness, before any kind of thinking or conceptualization

occurs, no matter how subliminal. We must suppress any and all of

our habitual mental reactions, prejudices and predispositions when

calmly apprehending the immediate awareness. We must simply be aware

of what is actually present, the actual sentience, the actual color,

taste, feeling or whatever. This immediate awareness can even be

applied to a thought, when we are simply aware of the actual thought

while suspending any consideration of whether it is 'true' or not.

 

The false conceptual superpositions, such and 'subject' and 'object',

generally arise from a fundamental source, namely, our powerful sense

of ego, as both Vedantins and Buddhists realize. But this ego sense

is not necessarily present. We can be calmly aware of our immediate

experience without feeling any sense of self or identity. Indeed,

this is a common kind of mediation, and it can also be described as a

kind of innocence and purity. Often we are briefly in this state

when we wake up in the morning. For a brief moment, there is simply

a refreshing awareness of our immediate surroundings, the light

reflecting on a window pane, a bird chirping, or whatever. We may

not even realize that there is a 'window pane' or 'bird'; we simply

see the shapes and colors in all their pristine purity. Then the 'I

am' or 'I am so and so' notion pops back into our head, and this

triggers our everyday mental habits, which come rushing back in like

a waterfall and resurrect the everyday world of ego and objects. Yet

for a brief moment, we were bathed in a refreshing purity of

consciousness, in which ego and objects were absent.

 

So to repeat, I believe that your statement above, that it is false

to 'take consciousness to be a physical or mental activity', which

you also call 'the mistake of the personal ego', applies only *after*

the sense of ego is aroused. It *presupposes* the powerful ego

sense, which discriminates the immediate awareness into subject and

objects. These objects need not be the supposed material objects

'outside' of consciousness to which the perceptions seem to refer.

As I argued last time, even the PFT themselves can be objectified to

some degree, in a quite subtle way. This does not happen when

awareness is calm and lucid, as described above. But normally our

usual mental predispositions impose a kind of blindness upon our

everyday thinking, which causes us to see even the PFT as other than

they really are. To understand this better, let us examine how this

happens.

 

First there is the immediate awareness, as discussed above. This

awareness contains PFT, but these are not *identified* as such, or at

least the identification is as gentle as possible. Then the ego

sense or sense of self is aroused, due to latent mental tendencies.

This produces the impression of a discrete and distinct entity,

namely, 'myself'. Before there was just vast, undivided, homogeneous

consciousness or awareness. Now a distinct entity has been posited,

though the actual contents of this entity are at first quite vague,

in my opinion; there is really little more than the feeling of being

a distinct 'person'. Some kind of boundary seems to exist between

the 'self' and the 'other'. This sense of a discrete entity is then

reflected in the PFT.

 

In particular it latches on to shape or form; shape presents a kind

of false unity which attracts the sense of entity like a magnet.

That is, there is really only a vast continuum of perception, but the

shapes in perception present the appearance of a local simplicity or

unity to which the sense of self or entity adheres. This is the

genesis of the 'object' notion. At first, the perceptions themselves

seem to be objects, but this illusion is so powerful that the mind

the extrapolates the object notion to a supposed world of material

objects 'external' to consciousness. Now, not only are the

perceptions themselves objectified, but in turn they are taken to

refer to material objects 'outside' of consciousness, which are taken

to the 'real' objects. This is an illusion compounded upon an

illusion.

 

So much for the perceptions. Something similar also happens to

thought and feeling, though due to the lack of vivid visual shapes,

the thoughts and feelings are not extrapolated to a hypothetical

world outside of consciousness. Rather, they are bundled into the

sense of ego or personal self. But note that they first had to be

discriminated as objects in some sense, which implies at least a

trace of objectivity. Hence a profound paradox. The thoughts and

feelings must first be objectified to some degree, before the ego can

then reach out and grab them and claim 'This is me!'. Without this

illusory objectification, what is there to reach out and grab and

identify with? Hence, even the thoughts and feelings are subject to

a subtle objectification, which enables the mind to think of them as

discrete entities, with which in turn the ego may identify.

Identification with the body is a much grosser version of this

process, since the body is taken to be a material entity, which

suffers from the double illusion just mentioned. And all of this was

initially triggered by a vague ego notion, a creation of the mind,

which was arbitrarily imposed upon the original, undivided unity of

consciousness.

 

We can see this more clearly by reconsidering those first few moments

of refreshing purity upon awakening. During this brief interval,

there is no awareness of 'body' and 'mind', much less of 'my body'

and 'my mind', just as a baby does not discriminate his immediate

ocean of awareness into discrete entities. But then the mind draws

fictitious boundaries around various aspects of immediate awareness

and stamps the label 'object' upon them. This notion of object then

implies something discrete and self-contained, an 'entity', a

'thing', a separate self-sustaining existence of some kind, and in

particular something that *appears* to be different from the seer.

The concept of object makes no sense except in contrast to the

subject, and vice versa. This fictitious pair arises and fall

together. But no sooner have the false objects of body and mind been

conjured than the ego immediately grabs at the illusion and says,

'This is me'. To repeat, the illusion is not certain PFT themselves

but rather the *belief* that they are discrete objects, with the

distinction from the seer that that implies. In order to identify

with body and mind, we must first imagine them as distinct objects,

however paradoxical this may seem. It is like someone being vain

about his reflection in the mirror.

 

So I hope I have clarified how I interpret what you say above. I

agree with you that it is a mistake to take body and mind as

consciousness, but this is not even *possible* unless we first

interpret body and mind as objects. Only then can the process of

identification make sense and happen. By now, it should be clear

that this false objectification is NOT what I mean when I speak of

calmly reflecting upon immediate experience and realizing that the

PFT are nothing but consciousness. For that, we must suspend all

thought and try to approximate the state of purity of the first

waking moments, before our usual mental habits kick in. If we can do

that for even a few brief moments, then it becomes almost a

self-evident tautology that all is consciousness, including PFT, and

there is nothing to reach out and identify with, since there is

nothing distinct from consciousness. To even 'reach out', there must

be an 'out there' to reach out to. There is no 'out there'. There

is no object. There is nothing other than consciousness.

 

Really we agree, only there was a wee bit of misunderstanding, in my

opinion. I could stop here, since I think I have adequately

addressed your points. However, I will briefly run through the rest

of your message to see if there is something else than must be

discussed.

 

 

>In each person's experience, as perceptions, thoughts

>and feelings come and go, they seem to be differing

>activities of body and of mind. In this appearance,

>they are mistaken to be different from each other and

>from the consciousness that knows them. Please

>correct me if I am wrong, but I think you might agree

>that this appearance of differing activities should

>not be taken at face value.

 

The PFT can only be seen as 'different from each other' if they are

first posited as objects, as described above. To be an object is to

be a discrete entity, and vice versa. The notion of 'difference'

implies the notion of 'object', and vice versa. Likewise, these

supposed objects are by definition considered distinct from subject

or consciousness, which as we have see is an illusion. Indeed, even

the notion of 'subject' is an illusion, which arises in tandem with

'object'. So your words clearly show that you are speaking from the

standpoint of the false objectification which we both reject.

 

 

>If perceptions, thoughts and feelings are truly

>different from each other, then they cannot all be

>identical with consciousness. As mind and body act in

>changing ways, so as to perceive and think and feel,

>it seems that perceptions, thoughts and feelings are

>changing and different -- quite unlike the

>consciousness that witnesses their comings and their

>goings. Would you agree that this appearance, of

>differing activities, is a mistake?

 

This is quite correct, but to even see PFT as 'truly different from

each other' presupposes the objectification we have been talking

about. This is a fiction of the mind superposed upon the immediate

consciousness. The fiction is not real, so that PFT are not truly

different from each other. It is the objectifying illusion which you

wish to eliminate, but your words sound as though you are taking the

illusion for a fact, which would then imply a distinction between PFT

and consciousness, as you say. Eliminate the objectifying illusion

and the problem does not even arise. It is like cutting the Gordian

knot. The 'problem' instantly becomes a non-issue.

 

I might add that the 'consciousness which witnesses their comings and

going' also presupposes this objectification, or there would be

nothing to witness. Witnessing itself implies that the object is

first there to witness, so that the very witness is also part of the

dualistic illusion. Subject and object arise and fall in tandem.

 

Yet the witness prakriya is indeed useful. It is like using a thorn

to get rid of a thorn. The detachment of the witness is a first step

towards dissolving the objects, at which point even the witness is

dissolved as the stick used to stir the fire is consumed by the fire,

to use Ramana's analogy. In other words, if we start from the

standpoint of a mind convinced of the reality of the object, then the

witness prakriya is a useful first step towards calming the

objectifying tendencies of the mind. The PFT may still appear as

objects to some extent, but there is already a letting go and a

suspension of judgement, as the apparent objects are merely

witnessed, without arousing further mental reactions and involvement.

This calm witnessing encourages a gradual dissolution of the

ego-induced objectifying tendencies of the mind, even though the

appearance of objectivity persists for a while in the PFT until it

gradually fades away.

 

 

>And if you do agree, I would ask the same question as

>before. Is consciousness itself an activity of body

>or of mind? Or, to put it slightly differently: Is

>knowing a physical or mental act, which is carried

>out through the perceptions, thoughts and feelings of

>body or mind?

 

Well, I think by now you understand my position, even if you don't

agree with all of it! :-)

 

>To me, this is a central question where you might

>differ from advaita. I'm genuinely interested to know

>what you think of the question and how (or whether)

>you would answer it. There is of course no hurry to

>reply, if you should be inclined to do so at all.

 

I do hope that I have at least made myself clear. I can honestly

assure you that I have no desire to win an argument. I've been on

these lists long enough that the novelty has worn off; also I realize

that it is almost impossible to change anybody's mind. However, I

would at least like to make myself clear. I hope I have done so,

just as you have made a remarkable effort to clarify your views.

This is the real purpose of debate ... not to win but to make our

views clear to our debating partner (NOT adversary). And sometimes

one or the other does change his mind! Or else they see that there

was never any real disagreement, only misunderstanding.

 

It has been a great privilege to discuss this with you, and if you

see anything wrong in my views, or if you feel that I have not fully

understood yours, then I would love to be corrected, though I realize

that I have already far exceeded my fair quota of your precious time.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Re: Shri Atmananda's teachings - 4. Witness of thoughts

 

Dear Benjamin,

 

I've been thinking about your 23 Nov reply, for which thank you kindly.

It makes your position clear and asks some sharp and helpful questions,

which I should try to answer. But first, it might help to examine a

difference of approach that may still cause misunderstanding.

 

As you describe it, your approach is centred on a meditative practice,

which leads you to a particular experience of consciousness. Thus you

describe the practice:

 

"... here is what I mean by 'consciousness'. It can be explained by a

simple experiment that any reader can perform. Sit still and simply be

aware, without thinking or reacting mentally to any of the awareness.

This 'immediate awareness', as I call it, is what I mean by

consciousness. It is simply what manifests right now at the present

moment, but it is *essential* to avoid any thinking whatsoever ...

simply allow awareness to calmly manifest exactly as it is. The only

other prerequisite is not to allow any drowsiness or dullness but to

maintain a calm and lucid alertness undisturbed by any thoughts."

 

And you describe the result of your experiment through analytic

reasoning:

 

"Thinking leads to notions of subject and object, which are superposed

on the immediate awareness, and which falsely split this awareness into

the illusion of a duality where there is in fact none. This notion does

not arise if we do not think ... The beauty of this simple observation

or apprehension is that it leads to a remarkable truth: All of reality

is reduced to consciousness. This contradicts common sense, with its

belief in 'objects' distinct from consciousness."

 

As I see it, your use of reason is here clearly shown. You are using

reason to describe and to explain an experience that has been attained

through a meditative practice, which you follow and prescribe. Please

correct me if you think I've got it wrong.

 

In Shri Atmananda's approach, of 'vicara' or 'enquiry', the use of

reason is quite different. The basic use of reason is for questioning,

not for description or explanation. Descriptive and explanatory reason

is the 'lower reason' -- which is merely auxiliary, entirely

subservient to the 'higher reason' called 'vicara' or 'vidya-vritti'.

 

In the questioning reason of vicara, its reasoned questions are

themselves the practical experiments. No further practice is prescribed

to look for truth. The reasoned questioning is itself the experiment

that puts ideas and theory into practice. Reason is here used to turn

all questions back upon their own assumptions.

 

When a question is turned genuinely back, upon a seeker's own confused

and contradictory beliefs, the seeker is then thrown into a further

state, where a fresh understanding is attained. That is the

experiment -- to find fresh understanding through the test of enquiry,

and to keep on testing further, until there's no confusion left to

compromise what's understood.

 

This process of enquiry proceeds through different levels. The

questioning begins at a level where confusing contradictions are found

mixed, through assumption and belief, into some picture of the world.

By admitting to the contradictions, they are brought into the open and

there seen as a mistake. The admission leads to a fresh understanding,

which gives rise to a subtler picture at some deeper level.

 

As further examination shows remaining obscurities and conflicts, their

admission leads more subtly down, to deeper levels. The process cannot

rightly end so long as any picturing is left -- to give the impression

of a pictured covering, upon a background underneath. The only end can

be the background in itself, where no covering remains of any levels or

the slightest picturing. It's only there that obscurities and conflicts

end.

 

In short, the reasoning of enquiry is a process that starts with an

admission of conflicting confusion; and it proceeds by repeating the

admission through a series of subtler levels -- until the conflicts and

confusions are completely dissolved, along with all the levels and the

questioning.

 

Each advaita prakriya goes through this reflective and dissolving

process, including the witness and the consciousness prakriyas that we

have been discussing. You rightly describe the witness prakriya as

"using a thorn to get rid of a thorn". The 'witness' concept is like a

big thorn, used to remove the little thorn of petty ego. The big thorn

must come out as well, to achieve its purpose.

 

But the same applies to the concept of 'consciousness' and to any other

idea. 'Consciousness' is also a big thorn, even bigger than the

'witness'. It is not just the witness concept that must get utterly

dissolved, in order to reach truth. So must the idea of

consciousness -- appearing in any form, signified by any name, intuited

through any quality. In truth itself, not the slightest trace of

ideation can remain.

 

To be more specific, I'll try to address your questions in particular.

 

As you say, we do indeed agree "that the PFT [perceptions, feelings,

thoughts] are 'differing appearances of consciousness'". And you go on

to ask: "So if A=B, then is not B=A? That is, if the PFT are

consciousness, then why cannot consciousness be PFT?"

 

I would answer this by looking at the consciousness prakriya,

considered at its different levels.

 

At the starting level -- of body in an outside world -- perceptions,

thoughts and feelings are physical interactions, between physical

objects and a physical body (with its physical brain and senses and

other bodily systems). Such objective interactions are clearly

different from subjective consciousness. Here, A is different from B

and B from A.

 

At the intermediate level -- of conceiving mind -- perceptions,

thoughts and feelings are mental appearances, which come and go in a

passing stream. These mental appearances have two conflicting aspects.

 

On the one hand, when seen at the surface of the mind, they are

changing acts of the mind that conceives them. As such, they are

different from the consciousness that carries on beneath them, as it

knows all their comings and goings. In this superficial sense, they are

not equal to consciousness. Thus, A is not equal to B.

 

On the other hand, when they are more deeply considered, it is realized

that each one of them is an expression of their underlying

consciousness. Each is an appearance of that one same consciousness,

which is their sole reality. In this deeper sense, each one of them is

nothing else but consciousness. It's what they really are -- each

individually and all together. Thus, it turns out that A=B, even though

B (consciousness) was previously distinguished as different from A

(perceptions, thoughts and feelings).

 

These conflicting aspects are inherent in the way that the mind thinks

of itself -- which shows that there is something truly and essentially

quite wrong with its self-conception. When that is fully admitted, the

mind surrenders all its self-imagined ideation, and it dissolves

completely in its underlying consciousness.

 

That surrender leads at last to unconflicted truth. It's only there

that consciousness is truly known as identical with its appearances.

Its only there that A=B and B=A, unreservedly. But there all

perceptions, thoughts and feelings are known utterly dissolved. They do

not there exist in any way that can be seen or thought or felt at all

by mind.

 

Just what that means can only be found out by going there oneself. It

can't be found by looking on from any armchair, but only by a merciless

questioning of one's own assumptions -- until all trace of compromise

is given up, to a complete and utter dissolution in one's own reality.

 

You go on to ask:

 

"Do you think that the word 'appearance' implies some kind of

distinction from consciousness itself? Is there a difference between

consciousness and an 'appearance of consciousness'?"

 

Again, the answer depends on the level at which it is answered. At the

level of surface mind, I would answer yes, a distinction is implied and

there is a difference. And the difference needs to be discerned, to

clarify the mind's inherent confusion of consciousness with appearances

that this very mind imagines to be different from consciousness.

 

The mind is self-deceived and thus self-contradicting in its

confusions. Only a clear discernment can sort out the mess. By

discerning a persisting consciousness, which underlies the passing of

appearances, a sadhaka is able to reflect more deeply back into the

depth of mind, right to that consciousness which stays quite unaffected

at the final background.

 

But there, all appearances are taken into consciousness, where all

their seeming differences are utterly dissolved. So, at that final

background, no, there is no implication, no distinction and no

difference. But there is no appearance either.

 

The question that was asked is thus shown up to be misconceived, based

on absurd assumptions. And it's by looking hard at them and seeing

their absurdity that consciousness may be correctly understood. Such

questions help a sadhaka by turning back upon themselves and thus

surrendering themselves to truth.

 

Of course, in answering your questions thus, I'm speaking from a

special point of view, in the context of an approach that is somewhat

different from yours. That's why I took some time, earlier in this

message, trying to spell out the difference of approach.

 

As you kindly say, "the real purpose of debate" is "not to win but to

make our views clear". Thanks for helping out with that.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda,

 

This is in response to your message of 29 November. Your dedication

is remarkable. You still wish to wrap up some loose ends of a

message I wrote a week ago, at which time I felt that we had come to

some common agreement. I will do my best to comment on your points

without raising any further questions, as I think that I have made

you work too much already! But I do enjoy this...

 

>As I see it, your use of reason is here clearly shown...

 

Without recapitulating the discussion, my point was that dualism and

the false notion of subject and object arise *after* thought

commences. My little 'meditative exercise', in which one realizes

directly that 'all is consciousness', was intended as the *goal*, not

as a prelude to rational inquiry. On the contrary, I was trying to

say that the illusory discrimination of subject and object arises

when one disturbs this quiet meditative exercise with some noisy

thinking!

 

In brief, my point was that we should *not* think during the

meditation but should simply be calmly aware. That which manifests

during the calm and thoughtless awareness is what I call

'consciousness', and it includes 'everything', such as perceptions,

feelings and thoughts (PFT). Likewise, I can see no difference

between the PFT and consciousness *unless* we make the mistake of

thinking, at which point dualism again springs into being like a

mirage. This can happen quite spontaneously and unintentionally.

 

So maybe we do agree. I hope so. I would just like to add one

point. The suppression of thought does NOT mean that we become like

vegetables. We can still engage in life. We then use thoughts in an

'unconscious' way, much like driving a car. The thoughts arise as

appropriate, but we do not *believe* in them. THAT is what matters

.... believing in them, which we must avoid if we are to reach a

nondual state of consciousness. We must simply use the mind as the

instrument it was intended to be, just as the body was intended to be

a mere instrument.

 

I fully agree with Sri Atmananda that 'descriptive reasoning' is the

lower reasoning. In fact, in my website (now out of order), I long

ago expressed the idea that science has made a fundamental mistake.

It failed to realize that its domain was merely descriptive thinking,

which ultimately says NOTHING about the origin and nature of the

universe. It is merely an accounting of passing images and no more.

So science is unqualified to either accept or reject spiritual

themes, but unfortunately, in its arrogance, it often forgets this.

 

Your 'vicara' sounds a bit like the Zen koan. This consists of a

question like 'What is the sound of one hand clapping?' or 'What was

my face before I was born?' The student is supposed to wrestle with

this unanswerable question until the bonds of reason are snapped and

enlightenment results.

 

The 'confused and contradictory beliefs', which vicara is supposed to

expose and eradicate, are precisely such conceptual constructions as

subject and object, which I also reject. I reject them because the

*immediate awareness* in my little exercise contains no such

distinction, so this distinction is a false and arbitrary

superposition of the mind, just like the snake on the rope. I really

do think this is 'Advaita'. I hope so!

 

And I would certainly describe my meditative exercise as 'fresh

understanding' to use your words. Freshness is essential. All

mental patterns and predispositions must be abandoned, just as you

say. They must be 'dissolved', to use another of your words.

 

Then you touch on a most subtle and crucial point when you say that

even the concept of 'consciousness' must go. I agree with this in

practice, that is, in daily life. However, I must still use this

term in discussions. All discussion entails some degree of untruth

in order to be possible. But as soon as we invoke a label such as

'consciousness' for the immediate awareness, that very awareness

becomes a stale image, a dead illusion, just as you say. And by the

way, this sounds very Buddhist to me! (Very Mahayana, to be precise)

 

Your 'starting level' of 'body in an outside world' *presupposes* the

conceptual superposition of subject and object. In daily life, this

is almost hard-wired into our brains, and we must work diligently to

eradicate this hidden and tenacious assumption. So when you say that

'here A (consciousness) is different from B (body)', I can only agree

to the extent that you are describing the powerful illusion. It is

certainly not true as an absolute statement. It is a description of

the illusion.

 

Similarly for mind, though this case is more subtle, depending on the

degree of residual objectivity in the internal introspection, as you

recognize. It all depends on whether the mind is projecting an

illusion of objectivity, of something other than consciousness. At

all times, there is only the 'awareness', a single, unified,

homogeneous entity, and any notion of division is a projected

hallucination. Your term 'self-imagined ideation' is quite

appropriate.

 

And when all trace of objectivity is dissolved, and the mind is

completely silenced, then there are indeed no more perceptions,

feelings and thoughts, as you say. This is also what the Mahayana

Heart Sutra clearly says, but I won't dwell on that, although it is

reassuring to know that spiritual practitioners of other traditions

have reached the same truth.

 

At this point you may feel that I am just saying a lot of words.

Have I really had the experience, or am I just regurgitating what I

read in books? I would say that I have some faint flashes of

insight, especially when I practice that meditative exercise, but

there is a lot of work remaining to go from a very shallow

realization to a very deep one. It is no trivial matter. I am

painfully aware of that.

 

I will finish by being so bold as to suppose that I do have a flash

of insight into all this, and we basically agree. But the difference

between this flash and true realization is like the difference

between a firefly and the sun. Actually, the light of a firefly is

blazing compared to the faintness of my insight. But enough of the

truth is evident to me that I no longer feel hopelessly confused, as

I used to. Please don't tell me I'm wrong, even if you must resort

to a compassionate 'white lie'!!!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

In reply to your 1 Dec message, it takes no white lie to say that of

course I think you have come to some genuine insight. And one

impression I receive from you is a sense of dogged honesty that shows a

genuine interest in truth. That's what makes me continue our

discussion.

 

But, having said this, I must hastily underline again that what I say

should be treated with suspicion. I'm just a fellow sadhaka, with an

ego that is only too liable to compromise my judgement. All I can do is

to report intellectually on teachings that I've heard -- so as to

compare notes with fellow sadhakas, in a fallible and compromised way.

Where I give an impression of doing any more than that, there it is ego

speaking, for which I must apologize.

 

When I said that truth can't be reached by looking on from an armchair,

I was referring to the sense of feeble passiveness that armchair

looking implies, and I was giving vent to a feeling that the search for

truth requires a relentless and exacting rigour. You had used the term

'armchair philosophy' to describe your own reasoning, and I was

saddened that you should disparage reason in this way. I was actually

trying to suggest that you need not thus give up on your reasoning, but

could try following it through more positively and more fully.

 

Of course we have much to agree upon in common. For one thing,

meditative states and vicara go together, as different aspects of the

same search for truth. Meditative states encourage the enquiry of

vicara, and vicara leads to states of contemplation that are akin to

those reached by meditative practice.

 

I think you neatly sum up your approach when you say that its

meditative exercise is targeted at a direct realization 'all is

consciousness', which is "intended as the *goal*, not as a prelude to

rational inquiry". There is indeed a contrast here with the vicara

approach which uses a reflectively reasoned enquiry to aim at the

direct realization 'I am consciousness' (or just plain 'I', shorn of

all physical and mental superimposition).

 

I was just trying to point out that vicara is a multilevel approach,

starting with an admission of suspect and confusing belief in duality

and going on through different levels of questioning that belief, until

its confusion is clarified.

 

It strikes me that by contrast, your approach has a tendency to be

single level. You tend to insist that true reasoning should properly

restrict itself to the state 'All is consciousness', which has been

realized through meditative practice. You take that state as your

starting point, following upon its meditative realization. Assuming

that prior state, you point out that "that dualism and the false notion

of subject and object arise *after* thought commences". Thus you are

disinclined to be dragged back to more futile reasoning from our

habitual illusions of duality.

 

Here's where I suggest we may have reached a common agreement (though

of course I'm open to correction on this). You use meditative practice

to keep returning to a realization that you are convinced is non-dual,

beneath all illusions of duality. I use reflective reason for the same

purpose.

 

For each of us, there results a hard question. In your case, the

question is how to deepen a realization that you honestly admit to be

still not fully adequate. In my case, the question is how a reasoning

that starts in mind can go beyond. And to be honest, I must admit that

all the show of reason I present in this forum is no more than

descriptive. It is just intellectual reporting. In any true vicara, my

mind must expose its own idiocy to itself, so severely that it gets

dissolved completely back from where it keeps on rising.

 

Ananda