Shri Atmananda's teachings - 7. The background

December 7, 2003

Dear Ananda,

Your discussion of Sri Atmananda's Background sounds just like what I

have read in Ramana and Nisargadatta. Evidently the three of them

are all reading from the same script, or else they have independently

had the same experience. I have faith that it is the latter.

If this 'background' is simply 'consciousness' (cit), which is the

same as 'existence' (sat), then this idea of a background simply says

that there is but one reality or existence, which is consciousness.

Notice that the word 'background' is not precisely correct, in that

it suggests some slight distinction between background and objects,

just as between the canvas and the paints covering the canvas. I am

sure you would agree that in our case, the background becomes the

sole reality, and not merely 'what is behind'.

Another subtlety has to do with the notion that the objects seems

like 'pictures'. There are two levels to the picture. One is the

picture in our mind, which is what I call 'perception'. (There are

also 'thoughts', but let us stick with perceptions for the moment.)

A perception is clearly nothing but consciousness. But in our normal

dualistic frame of mind, this picture in our mind seems to refer to

another picture 'out there', outside of our consciousness, that is,

to the 'material form' which is taken to be the true reality of which

our perception is only a 'photograph'.

Hence, I think it is important, if we are to avoid confusion, to

begin by realizing that there is no basis whatsoever for the material

form outside of consciousness, since this supposed 'outside' is

utterly inaccessible and unverifiable. And at a more subtle level

the material entity is quite meaningless, being nothing but a

hypothetical extrapolation from our perceptual consciousness, such

that its very definition and content are in terms of those very

perceptions. For example, when we try to imagine the space in which

these objects supposedly reside, we can do so only in terms of space

as revealed to visual perception. I could say much more...

Once the material objects are banished, we can then concentrate on

the pictures in our mind, namely, the perceptions themselves. It is

but a small step to realize that they are nothing but the background,

consciousness. Wherever there is a perception, there is

consciousness, and I can detect no difference between the

consciousness and the perception, when I silently introspect upon any

perception.

Indeed, that is how I answer the question, 'How can perceptions and

consciousness be identified, since the perceptions are many and

changing and the consciousness is one and unchanging?' I simply

realize that wherever there is a perception, there is consciousness,

and this consciousness at any given moment is a homogeneous,

undivided entity. That is, all the perceptions in my mind at any

given moment are but one consciousness. This may seem paradoxical

when put into words, but it is the simple result of silent

introspection.

I think the next step would be to realize that the succeeding moments

of time are also all part of one consciousness, but I am not there

yet.

All this can be arrived at through dry, academic philosophy. What is

really new and interesting in Advaita and related paths is the

spiritual implication. Who would have guessed that realizing the

unity of the background would have anything whatsoever to do with

happiness? Now *that* is counterintuitive. But it is what the

masters say, and I am quite willing to take it as a working

hypothesis from credible people with good reputations. This is how

we must live most of our lives, or else climb into a hole.

Hari Om!

Benjamin

December 10, 2003

Hello Benjamin, Ananda and everyone,

Benjamin, as I read the reply you posted to Ananda's presentation of

Sri Atmananda's "Background" Sat-Cit-Ananda, I got interested in perhaps adding

one or two considerations that reflect my opinion and also perhaps link

correctly the notion of the background Consciousness as being the only existent

thing with the notion of a reality which is non-structural, except in our own

twisted interpretations of it.

You wrote:

If this 'background' is simply 'consciousness' (cit), which is the

same as 'existence' (sat), then this idea of a background simply says

that there is but one reality or existence, which is consciousness.

Notice that the word 'background' is not precisely correct, in that

it suggests some slight distinction between background and objects,

just as between the canvas and the paints covering the canvas. I am

sure you would agree that in our case, the background becomes the

sole reality, and not merely 'what is behind'.

As Consciousness is the only existent thing, all perceptions and

even notions that there is in fact some sort of "object" which is not the same

as the perception of it, even the triple "knower-knowledge-knowing" vanish and

Consciousness alone remains as the only existent thing. This would in turn imply

that the only really existent thing is this Consciousness and all seemingly

external reality is then a projection of it. Note that, as the seemingly outside

reality is seen as a projection of Consciousness, it is then no longer different

from Consciousness itself, and then everything is seen as byproducts of

Consciousness, having a relation to it like the waves to the ocean. The waves

and the ocean are not two. As Consciousness is seen as the principal and sole

factor, the understanding of the process of rebirth becomes easy, and in fact

plausible, since Consciousness is the sole reality, and that the subject that

perceives the world and the world are one and the same thing. The concept of

karma and rebirth cannot be reasonably accepted unless one sees that

Consciousness is the supreme factor, and not inert so-called "matter". As matter

appears inside Consciousness, or as it is simply a byproduct of Consciousness,

rebirth is then understood as just another change in this Consciousness.