This loop dissolves

[Guest guest]

I wrote:

"In broad general terms Route 1 is via the individuals

consciousness. Everything in that is a presentation

to consciousness and as consciousness cannot be

conceived as bounded it must be one with absolute

consciousness. Quick and slick it seems to be a

solution but is seriously counter-intuitive as it

dissolves the alteriety of the other into the

consciousness of the perceiver.

 

Route 2 is the broad advaitic highway which starts at

the more fundamental characterisation of experience

as having the general structure of Subject and

Object. It then questions how the inert comes to be

conscious. Remember that up to this point we are in

the world of subjects and objects. Whilst still

retaining that structure it answers the question with

the theory of adhyasa, substratum, witness and the

rest as we know, being generally summarized by

'prajanam brahman' and 'aham brahmasmi'.

 

There is no need to go down Route 1 or anywhere near

it. It is a dead end. There is no need to postulate

within it any notion of maya or anirvacanaya for

there is no need to account for how the

subject/object dyad is real in perception i.e. an

actual division, but a unity in the substratum, in

consciousness.

 

To which Greg replied:

 

You present two routes. They are no problem, for with

a little inquiry it can be seen that Route 1 dissolves

into Route 2. Let's look.

 

Route 1 is via the individual's consciousness. Route 2

characterizes experience generally as having the

structure of subject/object.

 

Route 1 is like Route 2 in that it characterizes

experience has structured into subject/object. Yet it

adds the assumption that the consciousness is the

individual's. That assumption I'll call (L), and (L)

is the main difference between Route 1 and Route 2.

Route 2 doesn't claim (L):

 

(L) Consciousness is limited to or belongs to an

individual.

 

Yet when (L) is looked into, it has no support

whatsoever. In fact, any individual or limit or owner

that arises as evidence for (L) always arises on the

object side of the distinction. There is no evidence

that subjecthood itself is individuated.

 

And of course this is just what Route 2 says.

 

So, Route 1 becomes Route 2, because upon examination,

(L) makes no sense .

 

Hello Greg,

 

In the best traditions of tv cuisine 'here's one I

prepared earlier'. I add a forenote to it. Route 1

deals with consciousness in itself, as such, so it is a

more advanced state or more elaborated or less

primitive than Route 2. My point is that inquiring

into consciousness as such or looking into L (L/

Consciousness is limited to or belongs to an

individual) is a more developed state of inquiry than

what I call 'pure presence'.

 

 

What is simple and stupid and readily forgotten is that

we are speaking here of human consciousness. Human

consciousness manifests as consciousness-of something.

After that we can look at consciousness as such. That

consciousness is consciousness-of can be understood by

looking at the story of evolution (Darwinian). All the

forms of awareness that were passed through on the way

towards the human were non-reflexive. Viewed in the

simplest broadest way human consciousness retains that

fundamental nature. The world is present to us. It

might well be said that even to be talking of subject

and object is already to be doing philosophy but it

neverthless is more fundamental than the consideration

of consciousness-as-such which is the starting point of

what I have called Route 1.

 

Is this pure presence the crucible which Madathil

recommended to us? Instead of the concepts which

succeed it the devotee interposes the form of the

divinity and avoids getting involved in the

multitudinous elaborations of the intellect. In that

way the devotee stays 'closer' to the truth of pure

presence.

 

In reply to a question arising from a reading of

Upadesa Manjari 17/12/1935 to Paul Brunton Ramana

replies: (Talks)

"Reality is that which transcends all concepts,

including that of God. Inasmuch as the name of God is

used, it cannot be true. The Hebrew word Jehovah = (I

am) expresses God correctly. Absolute Be-ing is beyond

expression."

 

Pure presence is where the devotee aspires to linger.

The obverse side of that coin is the characterisation

of consciousness as having a subject/object form.

Staying with that Sankara can then bounce back to pure

being to find the unity in the substratum that makes

consciousness-of possible. The devotee dissolves in

the crucible of love.

 

Much more could be said on this. Sankara does of

course treat of consciousness-as-such in relation to

personal identity and immediacy but it would only

confuse to discuss that in tandem with the ontology of

the Preamble (to B.S.B.).

 

Best Wishes, Michael.