RE: consciousness, objects and SOCs

[Guest guest]

Since I made my offer to summarise the brief exchange between Benjamin and

Greg for the 'key issues' at my website, this discussion (which began as

'Vishishtadvaita Ontology') seems to have got out of hand, with many others

chipping in and the subject heading metamorphosing. My extraction of the

relevant bits now runs to 58 pages in MS Word! I now have serious doubts

about fulfilling my offer.

 

Benjamin's post of Monday (ok, I am a bit behind as usual!) said:

 

"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."

 

And:

 

"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."

 

I don't think most Advaitins would have too much of a problem with any of

that, though I am not too keen on the phrase 'consciousness and its

contents' - it sounds too much like a bucket of things. Pedantically

speaking, there is only consciousness.

 

But, to drag the conversation back to its original problem point, Benjamin,

you say specifically, "What disappears is the apparent distinction between

seer and seen". Once you believe that, I still do not understand how a

supposed separate 'SOC' can be treated in any way differently. It is

something that is perceived/conceived initially as something separate.

Whether or not it has its own stuff going on inside it must be irrelevant -

from the point of view of you, the perceiver of 'it', any such ideas are

pure conjecture on your part, i.e. concepts, subtle objects in your mind.

You have already further conceded that "there is the subtle objectivity

where even the perceptions in consciousness seem distinct from the seer.

Both are dualistic illusions".

 

Given that you are already saying these things yourself, why should the idea

of separate SOCs still pose a problem?

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hi Dennis,

 

I read what you said about the SOC (Stream of Consciousness)

discussion getting out of hand. You are probably right. You may

post any part or no part of what I said on your site, as you see fit.

I don't consider that you made any kind of promise to me.

 

I had hoped that thread would cease with my last message to Greg

requesting such a termination. You probably didn't get a chance to

read that far yet, so you didn't know.

 

Anyhow, you just said:

>But, to drag the conversation back to its original

>problem point, Benjamin, you say specifically, "What

>disappears is the apparent distinction between seer

>and seen". Once you believe that, I still do not

>understand how a supposed separate 'SOC' can be treated

>in any way differently.

 

That whole discussion got way too tedious, as usual. Really, I was

only pursuing it to try to understand what Greg was saying and to see

if he really has a clear idea in his mind. It still seems to me that

he does not. Now I must defend my own consistency instead! Such is

the nature of philosophical discourse.

 

The issue is very simple to me. I agree that there is no difference

between seer and seen, as far as my own PFT (Perceptions, Feelings

and Thoughts) are concerned. Those are the PFT of which I am aware,

the ones present right now as I type these words. Language forces me

to say 'I am aware of them', as though there were a distinction

between the I who is aware and the PFT of which I am aware. I agree

that that distinction is false.

 

However, I also believe that simultaneously there are other PFT

manifesting to other seers, such as you and Greg. These others seers

are not located in the illusory space which is within my own PFT.

Therefore, they are in no way objects to me, not even illusory

objects. I don't know 'where' you are located or if it even makes

sense to speak of anybody's awareness as having a 'location'. I

suspect not.

 

But what I am sure of is that those other PFT are not within my

awareness. Therefore they manifest to a different seer in some

sense. And the apparent distinction between seer and seen is as

illusory for him as mine is for me. This leads me to use the

expression 'stream of consciousness' for this isolated but nondual

awareness, for lack of a better expression.

 

Furthermore, I don't accept that either your consciousness or PFT (or

Greg's) are objects *to me* in this sense. This seems to be the

argument that you and Greg are trying to use. You are both hoping

that by treating other SOCs as apparent objects similar to my own

PFT, you can use a similar argument to negate any distinction between

your consciousness and mine. This would help explain how we can all

be the same Consciousness or Brahman.

 

Unfortunately, I do not accept any such argument. Your PFT are

illusory objects TO YOU, and Greg's TO HIM. They are 'illusory

objects' because there seems to be a distinction between seer and

seen, as far as you and your PFT are concerned. I agree that that is

an illusion, so in THAT sense ONLY objects do not exist. To be quite

precise, YOUR apparent objects are not truly distinct from the seer

called Dennis.

 

But this has NOTHING to do with either your consciousness or your

objects being objects to me in a similar illusory sense. This is a

misuse of the word 'object', as I see it. So the arguments used to

reduce your objects to your consciousness CANNOT also be used to

reduce the SOC called Dennis to MY consciousness in any way

whatsoever.

 

The reason that you and Greg are confused, as I see it, is that you

don't recognize a crucial difference between my PFT and other SOCs.

My PFT are within (or rather identical to) my awareness but other

SOCs are not. I have the option of seeing my PFT as objects (i.e as

other than my consciousness) or as identical to my consciousness.

The common dualistic illusion may make me think that they are

distinct from my consciousness, even though I see them. Intuitive

reflection shows me that they cannot be distinct, precisely because I

see them. The apparent distinction is only an illusion. However,

for this illusion to arise, I must FIRST be AWARE of them. I am in

no way aware of your SOC nor Greg's, so the issue is utterly

different as far as SOCs are concerned.

 

Sorry for my usual wordiness, but I am struggling to be clear.

 

All this is something that seems self-evident to me at some

elementary level. Yet it seems irreconcilable with the unity of

Brahman or Consciousness. Hence my perplexity. I won't pursue this

further; I just wanted to be polite to you and make sure you

understood me.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

My apologies - I did not see your post wishing to end this discussion until

I had sent my last response. Thanks for replying anyway - though you did go

on to repeat your position after I had already said that I understood what

you were saying!

 

I will now also make my final post on the subject. (If I am to make a

webpage out of all this, I need to tidy it up somehow with a conclusion!)

 

You do not know that I exist. (In fact I do not!) All that happens is that,

periodically, you perceive images of letters on the screen of your VDU.

These appear to make sense (perhaps) in your mind as concepts. The idea that

these concepts originate from another SOC fit in with your view of the

world. But everything that you know about 'me' is nothing more than

impressions in your mind, which you have already decided are in fact

non-separate from your own consciousness. You attribute a separate SOC to

your imagined other person (Dennis) since you did not write these words

yourself and probably do not agree with them. But your only contact with

Dennis is through these arisings in your own consciousness. These arisings

are essentially no different from the arisings due to a chair or a sensation

of pain. How could they be since any knowledge of anything 'outside' can

only come through your senses or through your thoughts or feelings?

 

You have already denied the existence of separate objects, admitting that

they are only perceptions in your mind and that these are actually only

'your' consciousness. If you met 'me' in person, I would only be such an

object, except that, unlike a chair, I might make (hopefully intelligible)

sounds as well. The sight of me and the hearing of my words would only also

be perceptions in your mind, no different in essence from the chair

perception.

 

I don't believe that either Greg or myself ever suggested that 'our PFTs

could be objects to you'. What is being suggested is that we *as SOCs* can

only ever be objects to you. It is only your inference that there is

something going on inside 'us' that is similar to what you perceive as PFTs

going on inside yourself.

 

It is not something that can be argued through simply to an inescapable

logical conclusion (obviously, otherwise you would be convinced by now!). It

is more of an intuitive understanding that, in the final analysis, all of

this 'appearance of PFTs' is happening within consciousness but that this

consciousness is non-dual and, ultimately, the PFTs themselves are not other

than the consciousness itself. In the end, there is only consciousness. At

least that's as far as the mind can take it!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis