Not islands in the stream

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

> Well, one last word. Notwithstanding what you just said, I

> am quite convinced that you do exist in SOME sense. The real

> question, as I see it, is in WHAT sense. Again, just my opinion...

> And I do agree that the only 'Dennis' in my actual awareness is

> a mere image. Still, I'm glad the real Dennis-consciousness

> exists in some sense.

 

 

 

CONTEMPLATIONS ON STREAMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

---------

- An Idealist Viewpoint

-----------------------

 

All the presentations of the world are only ideas and impressions in

my stream of consciousness. They are the luminosity of consciousness

appearing as the multifarious things of the world. Objects cannot

possibly exist because the notion of object or matter is a mere

impression and has no ground except for these impressions in

consciousness. But a stream of consciousness is different - it is

logically possible for another stream of consciousness to exist

unlike matter which is a misguided concept and cannot exist as a

thing apart from the impressions of consciousness. This leads me to

the question of solipsism. Multiple streams of consciousness may be

possible, but how can I know that they actually exist? It appears to

me that there is no way to determine the actual existence of another

stream of consciousness from within the confines of my own stream of

consciousness. But I am convinced SOMEHOW that they MUST exist, and

that Ben and Greg and Dennis that are impressions in my own stream of

consciousness are individual multiple streams of consciousness. I

commit myself to this belief and open myself to its ramifications.

 

By making this commitment, I have not merely affirmed multiple

streams of consciousness, but I have also associated these multiple

streams with impressions in my own stream of consciousness - to the

impressions of Ben and Greg and Dennis. I see myself and I see

others: I see impressions that I am forced by language to say

that "it is me" (the impressions of my PFT) and to say that "it is

others like Ben and Greg and Dennis" (the impressions of their

presence i.e., their bodies or messages on the screen). Others are

presented in my stream of consciousness as standing in relation to me

in space and time, and by acknowledging the streams of cosnciousness

associated with the impressions of Ben and Greg and Dennis, I

acknowledge that there are impressions in their respective streams of

consciousness wherein I stand in reciprocal relationship to them in

space and time. This acknowledgement is in my own stream of

consciousness, it is true, but in so far as I acknowledge the streams

of consciousness associated with the impressions of Ben and Greg and

Dennis, this reciprocal relationship to them in time and space is

acknowledged through an impression of a social web of relationships

which presents itself in my own stream of consciousness as

impressions of reciprocal relationships as existing in their

respective streams of consciousness. All this results from preserving

the coherence of my own commitment to other streams of consciousness

associated with the impressions that appear in my own stream of

consciousness.

 

When it appears in my stream of consciousness that Ben and I are

looking at the same tree, then my commitment to the existence of

Ben's stream of consciousness commits me to acknowledging that there

is the impression of the tree in Ben's stream of consciousness as

there is in mine. If this were not so, then the association of

streams of consciousness to impressions of Ben and Greg and Dennis

would have no significance and I might as well be speaking of streams

of consciousness that are completely disjunct realities leading to a

kind of solipsistic closure of my stream of consciousness. But by

associating streams of consciousness to impressions of Ben and Greg

and Dennis, I commit myself to there being like impressions in their

streams of consciousness. This leads me in an interesting

direction.

 

The impressions of objects and the world do not appear in my stream

of consciounsess as being determined my me. These impressions are not

impressions arising out of my volition. Moreover, I acknowledge that

like impressions must arise in the streams of consciousness of Ben

and Greg and Dennis. Thus, these impressions somehow express an

independence over which I have no control. This independence is

enigmatic and is to be investigated.

 

The independence with which impressions are determined to arise in

different streams of consciousness would be explicable if objects

were themselves independent. But this is a position that we, as

idealists, may reject because there cannot possibly be objects. Then

how is the independence in the determinations of like impressions in

multiple streams of consciousness possible? If we turn our attention

to the distinctions in the stream of consciousness, we may discern

that the Stream AND the Consciousness of the stream are not the same

in a certain sense. The stream is made of impressions, and

consciousness is pure luminosity. Consciousness does not admit of

attributes or differences of impressions. What has no attribute or

difference cannot be differentiated one from the other. Thus, it

would be reasonable to say that undifferentiated consciousness is One

in various streams, and that the variety of streams is the

multiplicity of streams of impressions centering around an impression

of a thread of continuing identity. The determinations of impressions

come from the One Consciousness, and the streams are overlays over

this consciousness. The determinations of impressions in various

streams is controlled from the underlay of consciousness, and what we

call streams of consciousness are overlays made up of the stream of

impressions. Thus, the independence of impressions in

various "streams of consciousness" is explicable as arising out of

the one underlay that provides the synchronicity and harmonious

orchestration of impressions in various streams. This would also

explain the phenomenal truth whereby propositions are said to be

governed by their correspondence to the world. If the impressions

that arise in various streams are thus orchestrated by one

controllership, then it makes sense to talk of the truth of phenomena

as it is nothing but the correspondence to the determinations by the

one controllership of the underlay of consciousness. It is notable

that the Sanskrit word for controllership is aishwarya. The One that

has aishwarya is called Ishwara.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan