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

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

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.

 

You wrote (Nov 18):

 

"Even though PFT [perceptions, feelings, thoughts] come and go, their

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

awareness or consciousness.... 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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

Thanks for sticking with this! Ananda's question reminds me of a question I'd

like to ask. And it's based partly on the very same paragraph of yours that

Ananda quotes:

 

>You wrote (Nov 18):

>

>"Even though PFT [perceptions, feelings, thoughts] come and go, their

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

>awareness or consciousness. ... ...There is a steady awareness which

>manifests in a variety of PFT.

 

So this implies that

 

(1) There are no PFT without consciousness.

 

And then there's this - and though I seem to remember you saying something about

this, and I'm sorry I don't have a quote to enhance my question:

 

(2) Consciousness is the case even when PFT are not present.

 

Classical advaita accepts (1) and (2), and I think you have said you don't agree

with (2), or that asserting (2) doesn't make sense.

 

If you don't think (2) makes sense, then I have some questions for you. If (2)

does make sense, then that's pretty classical of you!!

 

(i) Why would you say that it's the same consciousness seeing *this* thought

that saw the *previous* thought? Maybe they are two different consciousnesses.

Maybe, like some Buddhists assert, every arising has its own, separate

consciousness. Without admitting the possibility that consciousness continues

between arisings, there's no justification for insisting on the unity or

continuity of consciousness.

 

(ii) Why refer to consciousness at all? Why not just posit a steady stream of

PFT and stop there? Why do they need to be made out of consciousness? It

doesn't seem to have any function in your explanatory model....

 

Best regards,

 

--Greg