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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

I am now trying to embark on some kind of vow of silence, at least

for a while, but your thoughtful and substantial message requires a

response. If nothing else, I want to show you that I read it all and

gave it the same respect I give my own opinions.

>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

 

I do agree with this, and I think that second sentence was beautifully said.

 

>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 ...

 

Oh my goodness! Someone seems to understand me quite well. Will

this message have a happy ending in harmonious agreement? (I am

commenting as I read it.)

 

>This leads me to the question of solipsism. Multiple

>streams of consciousness may be possible, but how can

>I know that they actually exist?

 

Ah! Solipsism! The nemesis of the idealist! Frankly, it just

doesn't bother me. My consciousness is too arbitrary and petty in

its present configuration to be the whole truth and reality. It

would be as though only the number 287735 existed and no others. If

only I were manifestly Godlike and infinite, I might entertain

solipsism. But let us see what you say...

 

>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

 

The operative word here is *associated*. I do not say that others

are *identical* but are merely associated parallel conscious

realities. I think this is where Greg and Dennis went wrong, if I

understood them correctly. If I could truly reduce others to be

identical to my impressions of them, then of course that would entail

solipsism and the nonexistence of others, either as distinct streams

of consciousness or as anything else. But this seems manifestly

absurd to me.

 

>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.

 

So far so good...

 

>The impressions of objects and the world do not appear

>in my stream of consciounsess as being determined my me.

 

Yes, this is an important point. One silly argument against idealism

is that if reality were truly 'subjective' like this I could simply

imagine the world of my desires and be totally satisfied. I don't

need to respond to such a silly argument. That is not what is being

said.

 

>This independence is enigmatic and is to be investigated.

 

Yes, actually it's an argument in favor of 'God' or 'Brahman', though

not the most important one in my opinion.

 

>The independence with which impressions are determined to

>arise in different streams of consciousness would be

>explicable if objects were themselves independent.

 

Yes, this is perhaps the main reason people believe in such an

'objective' world. I think a better reason is that Brahman is the

substratum of all, so that during our waking state, the manifestation

of a common world is a reflection of the underlying unity of Brahman.

(This is different from Berkeley's argument, since he postulates God

to keep the tree existing when no one is looking. I say that the

tree is nothing other than our impressions of it, so there is no need

to keep it existing when no one is looking.)

 

>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

 

Uh oh! Alarms are going off! Red lights are flashing! I detect

some unjustified dualism creeping in. Let us see what you say next.

 

>Consciousness does not admit of attributes or differences of

>impressions. What has no attribute or difference cannot be

>differentiated one from the other

 

I do agree that this is true of the 'seer' in some sense. The very

word 'seer' strongly suggests that it cannot be described, divided,

analyzed or categorized in any way. Think about this.

 

Yet at the same time, and at the risk of sounding a bit dogmatic, I

must also insist that seer and seen are not ultimately distinct.

This may seem counterintuitive, but it is something I realize and

accept from my own direct intuitive experience (and did so even

before discovering Advaita).

 

Hence, we are left with a great mystery, and I think it is a mistake

to jump to the conclusion that an apparent logical contradiction

requires that we distinguish between seer and seen. The immediate

intuitive experience of the identity of seer and seen takes priority

over the formalism of a dubious logic, in my opinion.

 

In other words, it may seem logically inconsistent to equate the

undivided, indescribable and unqualified seer with the multiplicity

of shapes and forms which are seen. Yet I must insist that an

instantaneous flash of self-reflective insight reveals to me that any

such distinction is unjustified. The solution is to transcend the

distinction between seer and seen, as they both dissolve into a state

beyond discursive thought called pure nondual consciousness.

 

In conclusion, I cannot admit that the distinction you seem to be

making between consciousness and impressions is real, in the sense

that both continue to exist side by side, as it were. Rather, it is

the distinction between seer and seen which is ultimately false and

which must be transcended.

 

>Thus, it would be reasonable to say that undifferentiated

>consciousness is One in various streams...

 

This may be true, but I cannot accept that it follows from your

previous arguments, as I understood them. You seemed to be positing

a distinction between seer and seen, or consciousness and

impressions, within one particular stream, which is more dualistic

than what I believe. As I have often said, I am entirely

nondualistic within any given stream. Anyhow, you seem to use this

false distinction within a given stream to then isolate the

consciousness from the streams and provide a rationale for saying

that the same consciousness can underlie the different streams. At

this point I can no longer follow your logic as it seems to break

down here, at least to me.

 

However, please understand that I am not condemning what you say as

completely wrong. This is a very subtle topic, and I do feel that

what you are saying has much truth in it, but you are not saying it

quite right, for the reasons I just gave. This is only my opinion.

For instance when you then say

>The determinations of impressions come from the One Consciousness,

>and the streams are overlays over this consciousness.

 

I must admit that I can neither agree nor disagree. I cannot

disagree, because I do believe that there must be one Source of

Reality, which must be Infinite Consciousness, as I have said many

times. But I cannot agree, because the notion of 'overlays' suggests

some ultimate duality or distinction between the consciousness and

the impressions, which is not even true in my own stream, let alone

as a common factor in all streams. Also, my key perplexity remains:

What does it mean to say that One Consciousness is the seer of all

impressions, if your impressions are not accessible to me? This is

the thorny point I have been making all along.

 

I do agree with something you said next

>Thus, the independence of impressions in various

>"streams of consciousness" is explicable as arising

>out of the one underlay

 

This is similar to what I said above, though I don't like the

dualistic sounding language of 'overlays' and 'underlays', as though

there were some kind of distinction between the consciousness and the

impressions. It sounds as though the impressions are like tiles and

the consciousness is the dirt or sand on which the tiles rest.

Nevertheless, I do agree that the miraculous coordination of our

waking impressions is powerful evidence in FAVOR of the ultimate

unity of existence in Brahman. It strongly suggests that there is

indeed one single Source of Reality, and as an idealist I must admit

that this Source is One Consciousness, in some sense, just as you

say. But perplexities remain, at least for me.

 

My main conclusion, as I have said before, is that some aspects of

Advaita or nonduality must be strictly inexplicable. Perhaps Sadaji

is correct that we must lean to some extent on scriptures, even

though this does not appeal to the rationalist in me. Anyhow, I will

not discuss this further, because I really must get off this train.

I just wanted to respond to your excellent message. It deserved this.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin