Consciousness and Realism

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In this message, I am also briefly answering some messages in the

thread 'Ramana and the Mind'

 

 

Chittaranjanji said:

>Objective reality doesn't mean that objects are

>existentially separate from the seer

 

Correct in a sense. As I have said several times in the past few

days, there is the gross objectivity of (the belief in) inert and

insentient matter supposedly 'outside' of consciousness, and then

there is the subtle objectivity where even the perceptions in

consciousness seem distinct from the seer. Both are dualistic

illusions.

 

>The delusion is not the object, but the notion of existential

>independence of the object.

 

If the object is not 'existentially independent' from the seer, then

it is not an object, by definition, though it may appear that way.

 

>In the logic of Nyaya and Mimamsa, shapes and colours are objects.

 

I don't know or care what Nyaya and Mimamsa have to say. I am

concerned with the pure nondual vision of Advaita.

 

 

 

Then Bhaskarji said:

>But it has to be noted advaita questioning the very

>existence of seer!!

 

Both seer and seen disappear in the ultimate nondual realization

according to Ramana and my Swamiji. Only the pure 'I' or 'Self'

remains. In other words, one speaks of a 'seer' when there also

seems to be a 'seen' distinct from the seer. If the 'seen'

disappears, as a distinct reality, then so does seer. And as the

earlier quote from Ramana said, the 'seen' is only a distinction

imposed (like the snake) by the mind on the contents of consciousness

(which are the rope). When seer and seen disappear, consciousness

and its contents remain. What disappears is the apparent distinction

between seer and seen. These collapse into a nondual consciousness.

 

 

Then Maniji said:

>We subjectively project goodness and badness on the

>world of objects ...

 

I agree with everything you say, including of course the quote by

Nisargadatta. I would only add that the projection of goodness and

badness is a later stage, after the projection of objective reality.

First one needs to see objects as such before one can project moral

qualities on them.

 

 

 

Then Gregji said:

>Just because Benjamin doesn't believe they exist apart from

>consciousness doesn't mean they have escaped object-hood.

>For Benjamin, they are at least objects of reference.

 

Well, as I said, language forces me to refer to the contents of my

consciousness in a referential way, even after I realize that there

is no distinction between seer and seen in my consciousness. This is

mere trivial semantics.

 

By the way, I see no discussion of my distinction between intuitive

nondual awareness and discriminating conceptual consciousness. So

you are simply repeating your own point of view without engaging in

dialogue.

 

>The multi-observer criterion is a hallmark of realism.

 

Sure, if by 'realism' you mean the apparent existence of other

consciousnesses than my own. However, 'realism' is normally reserved

in philosophy for the view that matter exists distinct from

consciousness, so you are blurring terminology in a way that is

ill-advised and prone to confusion.

 

 

>It seems to me that the stream-of-consciousness model,

>if not sublatable, is not a fruitful avenue for

>investigation into This.

 

It may seem that way to you, but not to me. Mere statement of

opinion isn't going to settle anything.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hey Benjamin,

 

You're getting more concise all the time, now talking to three people in less

space than you used to answer one!

 

Then Gregji said:

>By the way, I see no discussion of my distinction between intuitive

>nondual awareness and discriminating conceptual consciousness. So

>you are simply repeating your own point of view without engaging in

>dialogue.

 

===intuitive nondual awareness and "discriminating conceptual consciousness."

 

===I'll be glad to talk to you about them. Say something about 'em. I can't

see a basis for distinction, if you're speaking from the PFT model. If you

explain all phenomena as PFT, then the phenomena themselves are inert arisings,

and the elements of PFT cannot act upon each other. There can be no logical or

causal relations among them, such as inferences. This is a point of view that I

actually like a lot, in which the relations among the arisings are nothing more

than arisings. If this is so, then a particular arising in consciousness loses

its status as a premise, conclusion, insight, or intuition.

 

>>The multi-observer criterion is a hallmark of realism.

>

>Sure, if by 'realism' you mean the apparent existence of other

>consciousnesses than my own.

 

 

===Yes, that's good enough. You know, nothing in consciousness is bona fide

evidence that consciousness is "yours." Ownership of consciousness (i.e., Ben's

consciousness) is not proved by any PFT. So maybe you infer ownership. Yet,

inferences are inert and are just arisings accompanied by an arising that seems

to say "this came from that." But no arising comes from another arising. So

inference is as real as a Ford Mustang.

 

>However, 'realism' is normally reserved

>in philosophy for the view that matter exists distinct from

>consciousness, so you are blurring terminology in a way that is

>ill-advised and prone to confusion.

 

 

===Definitions, yes, can mention consciousness or observers. And yet they can

also include stuff other than material objects. Here's one from a printed

dictionary of philosophy:

 

"Epistemological Realism seems the most relevant:

 

1. The theory that universals (essences, abstract concepts,

general terms, relations) exist in reality independently of

our consciousness—or of any consciousness. Universals exist

in the external world even when not perceived. Opposite to

NOMINALISM. For most realists, these externally objectively

existing universals have more reality than the concrete,

particular objects in which they are seen, or from which

they are abstracted. 2. The theory that that which is known

about a thing exists (in essential respects the same way)

in the thing known and would exist without the knower."

http://tinyurl.com/2tkj4

 

 

===Universals include "red." So, if you grant or suspect the existence of

anything outside of your stream, then you are a realist in a weaker sense, even

though you know that all streams and contents exist within Brahman.

 

>>It seems to me that the stream-of-consciousness model,

>>if not sublatable, is not a fruitful avenue for

>>investigation into This.

>

>It may seem that way to you, but not to me. Mere statement of

>opinion isn't going to settle anything.

 

I agree with that. I bet that when the stream-idea loses its appeal, so will

the notion of a personalized consciousness. And the main experiential

puzzlement will come to a conclusion! "To whom does the puzzle occur?"

 

Hari Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

> > In the logic of Nyaya and Mimamsa, shapes and colours are

> > objects.

>

> I don't know or care what Nyaya and Mimamsa have to say. I am

> concerned with the pure nondual vision of Advaita.

 

Nyaya is the foundational structure for the judgments of logic.

Mimamsa is the philosophy and hermeneutics of Vedanta. The crowning

glory of Mimamsa is Advaita.

 

For one who's attained the nondual vision of Advaita, Nyaya and

Mimamsa are not required. :-)

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gregji,

>I'll be glad to talk to you about them [intuitive nondual

>awareness vs. discriminating conceptual consciousness].

>Say something about 'em. I can't see a basis for distinction,

>if you're speaking from the PFT model.

 

I did say something about them, at great length, either yesterday or

the day before. I'm not going to repeat the whole thing.

 

Briefly, duality or 'discriminating conceptual consciousness' is when

one has the illusory sense of a distinction between seer and seen,

whether this 'seen' be the gross object of matter or the subtle one

of a perception that appears as distinct from the seer.

 

On the other hand, 'intuitive nondual awareness' is the flash of

insight whereby one is aware of one's consciousness as a whole, and

one immediately realizes that 'seer' and 'seen' are mere words

labelling the same consciousness. Hume had an experience something

like this when he realized that the 'self' was not distinct from the

contents of his consciousness, but he did not develop it into

spiritual realization.

 

All of this takes place within ONE seeker's consciousness and has

nothing to do with the question of other consciousnesses, whether

they be seekers or not. Also, you never answered my point that to

deny the existence of different consciousnesses makes a mockery of

sadhana, for then we would all be as enlightened as Ramana.

 

 

>If you explain all phenomena as PFT, then the phenomena

>themselves are inert arisings, and the elements of PFT

>cannot act upon each other.

 

I reject this view of the PFT model. In no way are the PFT 'inert'.

What do you mean by 'inert'? If you say that the PFT are inert in

the sense of 'immobile' like a lump of clay, then that is clearly

invalid. It is absurd to compare PFT to clay in any way whatsoever.

And if you mean that they are inert in the sense of 'insentient',

then that is equally invalid. The PFT are in consciousness; they are

aspects of consciousness; they are items of sentience; in no way are

they inert or insentient. How could a perception not be sentient?

Since when is a red patch or a burning flame not sentient? They

exist nowhere but in my awareness, therefore they have all the

sentience of my awareness, and are in no way different from my

awareness. Sentience and awareness mean the same thing. I know no

other meaning of 'inert'.

 

The only meaningful issue regarding their 'objectivity' is when they

seem to be the 'seen' as opposed to the 'seer'. As I explained

before, this is an apparent bifurcation within consciousness, which

therefore has nothing to do with insentience. Needless to say,

consciousness cannot really be so bifurcated; it is only an illusion.

Also, there is no question of the PFT 'acting on each other'. They

are not discrete entities which could do this. They are merely

aspect of consciousness, which is without parts, since seer and seen

are identical. It is all an illusion, like the dream.

 

 

>You know, nothing in consciousness is bona

>fide evidence that consciousness is "yours".

 

I have also already explained what is misleading about such a

statement. I am not claiming that there is a 'Ben' over and above

the stream of consciousness which could 'own' it. 'Ben' is simply a

label to designate this stream and not another. A mere label does

not 'own' anything. Nothing is 'owning' anything.

 

Regarding 'realism', you cannot use Berkeleian arguments to deny

other consciousnesses. Those arguments apply only to the appearance

of matter within a given consciousness. This has nothing to do with

the existence of other consciousnesses.

 

So to deny other consciousnesses, you must come up with totally novel

arguments, which you have not. You first tried to argue that another

consciousness is an 'object' in a sense similar to matter, which is

absurd. Then you tried to claim that my intuitive nondual awareness,

in which the apparent distinction between seer and seen (within my

own consciousness) evaporates, still retains some kind of

super-subtle objectivity, without making yourself at all clear.

 

Let me clarify what 'object' means. It means that from the point of

view of a *given* seer, something in awareness is taken to be

(believed to be) other than that seer. It is when there appears to

be a distinction between seer and seen, from the point of view of

some particular seer, and regarding only what is seen by that seer.

This has nothing to do with other streams of consciousness, which are

in no way present to that particular seer, either as illusions or in

any other way. The concept of 'object' is illegitimate when applied

to something that is utterly not within one's field of view. There

is then no issue of something in awareness being taken as other than

awareness, of the seen being taken as other than the seer. Such is

the case with other streams of consciousness.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

I think it is worth pursuing this philosophical exercise a bit more,

since it really does force us to think about what we mean by

'object'. This is central to Advaita and should have some spiritual

benefit to the apprentice jnana...

 

However, in all of your last message, the only part I consider really

germane to the SOC (stream of consciousness) issue is this:

 

>>You first tried to argue that another consciousness is

>>an 'object' in a sense similar to matter, which is absurd.

>Not *similar* to matter. But *entailing* matter. I

>suspect but am not sure, that whatever it is that you

>use to distinguish one s-o-c from another might rely

>on some spatiotemporal criterion. How else would you

>distingish more than one s-o-c?

 

I have said many times that I agree that space and time are within

consciousness. They are inherent in the perceptions themselves.

They describe a 'global' aspect of how the perceptions manifest.

Space and time are within consciousness; consciousness is not within

space and time. By the way, this means that each of us carries our

own copy of space and time. There is no one space and time, only the

many copies in consciousness.

 

Therefore, the different SOCs cannot be distinguished by spatial

separation, since they are not themselves in any kind of 'enveloping

superspace'. I have said this many times, both when I started the

discussion about a year ago and in more recent months. (Not that I

am annoyed that anyone forgot, but I want you to realize that I am

consistent in my views, unless I have a really good reason to change.)

 

What distinguished the SOCs is that the SEER is different in each

one. This explains why I do not see the contents of your

consciousness nor you mine.

 

And this is not inconsistent with what I have also said many times:

that 'seer' and 'seen' are a false distinction within any given SOC.

In other words, given the illusion of seer and seen within any set of

SOCs, the SOCs can be distinguished by the fact that one seer is

associated with one set of seen contents and another seer with

another set. However, within any of these SOCs, the distinction

between seer and see is an illusion, as within a dream. In other

words, there are simply different dreamers.

 

To say that the seer-seen distinction is false does not mean that the

seer and seen do not exist, but that they are not *distinct* within

any SOC. Seer and seen are simply different words for the same

consciousness.

 

But different seer-seen unities, otherwise called SOCs, do exist and

are distinct, though not in any sense of spatial separation. That

would entail a 'super-seer' looking at the SOCs as objects. That is

evidently how you are thinking, or how you think that I think, but it

does not correspond to how I actually think.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

At 07:38 PM 3/15/2004 -0500, Benjamin wrote:

>I think it is worth pursuing this philosophical exercise a bit more,

>since it really does force us to think about what we mean by

>'object'. This is central to Advaita and should have some spiritual

>benefit to the apprentice jnana...

 

 

I'll continue it off-list if you wish. Because like you said, very little new

has been said on it here....

 

Hari Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Namaste Greg,

>I'll continue it off-list if you wish. Because like you said,

>very little new has been said on it here....

 

Thanks Greg. I think that's enough for now ... at least for me. I

don't regret these exercises, because they sharpen wits and language

skills and provide a philosophical workout. And I always learn

something new about how others think.

 

I'm actually trying to take a more 'Olympian' or 'Himalayan' view of

things now. Rather than fighting and sweating it out in the mud and

feeling that I must win, I wish to look down upon all these

discussions as the mere play of the mind, like little currents and

whirlpools of water playing on the surface of a lake. Hypnotizing

but ultimately of little consequence.

 

Mostly I was hoping to be entertained by some mind-boggling

revelation showing how other SOCs could not possible exist. That

would have been fun! Though the resulting solipsism might have been

kind of lonely. Maybe some day...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin