Book Of The One (reply to Otnac6ji, Sadanandaji, Durgaji, Padmaji)

[Guest guest]

Sorry to bundle all the replies here, but I thought it would be best

not to mulitply the number of messages too much. Also excuse me if the

messages are a bit brief.

 

Dear Otnac6ji (quite a name!),

 

" If there are two awarenesses, one for one set of objects and

one for another set,then how do those awarenesses " communicate " in

order to say " Ah, this is one set, this is another? "

 

Well one awareness is known from first-person report, the second is

inferred. I don't think we can logically show that there is one

awareness. Logically, multiple awareness is most definitely possible.

Logically it is also not possible to establish the existence of

something like " pure awareness " since a statement like " all awareness

is intentional " can be internally consistent.

 

To establish Vedanta, we don't have to negate every other logical

possibility (this would be impossible).

 

Dear Sadanandaji,

 

Thank you for your detailed reply.

 

" First there cannot be many consciousness (es?) "

 

From the point of view of Shruti I agree. From the point of view of

logic, you cannot disproove multiple consciousness (or awareness, used

synonymously), nor do you need to in order to establish Vedanta. In

any case, from the vyavaharika perspective, there are multiple

subjects (experiencers). From the paramarthika perspective, there are

no subjects . To dismiss the existence of other subjects, but not this

subject is inconsistent, isn't it?

 

Regarding the scriptural argument, I have no doubt that scripture says

there are no multiple awarenesses. I also believe this to be true, I

believe this to be reasonable. I also believe that the process of

establishing that this is true is reasonable. However, knowing that

something is reasonable and having faith in it is different from

knowing that something is true.

 

" Rishiji - I am sorry to disappoint you. No one, not

even BrahmanishhTa can connect you to the

paaramaarthika satyam. You are already that and you

do not need any connection nor can you be connected. "

 

I said paramarthika " perspective " (ie: drishti) and not paramarthika

satyam - it makes all the difference. No one can connect you to the

paramarthika satyam, but the whole point of the tradition is to

connect you to the paramarthika drishti.

 

[Of course, in another sense, the paramarthika satya and the

paramarthika drishti are exactly the same thing, (MK III-33) but this

is a separate matter.]

 

Dear Durgaji,

 

" It seems obvious that 'my' awareness illumines everything

having to do with 'my' upadhi, but how is it that my 'awareness'

is the awareness which illumines the whole jagat and is the

exact same awareness of every other being? "

 

Yes, this is the same question.

 

" Some of the replies which my teacher have given me

that seem to make the most sense, are first of

all, if you can eliminate everything from that

awareness, which you had previously thought that

awareness to be one with, (i.e. the body/mind), then

what limits you? Nothing. "

 

Well in this case " eliminate " could be used in two senses. One is in

the sense of establishing it is mithya. The other is in the sense of

establishing that it is not the Self (as in drg-drshya-viveka).

 

If the second, then the problem with the argument is that the Self is

still limited because it is in a witness-witnessed relationship with a

set of objects. If the establishment is to be sustained, we have to

negate the witnesshood of the Self, but this is done by negating the

reality of the world. So this is elimination in the first sense of the

term.

 

So the argument would reduce to: Awareness is always free from objects

at all times, because objects are superimposed upon awareness and

therefore we can no longer distinguish different awarenesses based on

different upadhis. This makes a lot of sense to me and I find it to be

very reasonable indeed.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot see that the world is mithya, in this sense.

There seems to be two ways of seeing that the world is mithya. One is

like when we say that the car is green. After we say that the car is

green, we can use green as an adjective and talk about the green car.

However, after we say that the world is mithya, we cannot talk about

the " mithya world " or some such entity. After we say that the world is

mithya, there is no more world left to talk about. However, when I

follow the teachings, something always is left over - even if its some

" unreal world appereance " -type entity. Maybe I'm just elaborately

complaining that I am not a brahmanistha...

 

Dear Padmaji,

 

I agree with what you say. One possible a problem is that the word

consciousness or awareness seems to imply knowership. We even use

jnanam and chaitanya as more or less synonyms. However, neither jnanam

nor chaitanya actually knows anything. In this sense, a lot of

confusion might arrise simply because at some point the provisional

meaning of consciousness has to be understood as provisional. I'm not

exactly sure how this works though.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Well one awareness is known from first-person report,

the second is

inferred. I don't think we can logically show that

there is one

awareness. Logically, multiple awareness is most

definitely possible.

 

But when " I'm " aware of multiple awarenesses, mustn't

that which says " There are multilple awarenesses " be

just one awareness?? I think, maybe that logically

all we CAN show is that there is one awareness. Even

if I say " Well there is your awareness and my

awareness " it's still one awareness...I think. That

which sees the " multiple " awareness is one awareness.

It must be one otherwise it couldn't be aware of two

or more awarenesses...this get's totally into the

realm of semantics, sentence structure etc. Sometimes

I wonder how far these words can take us. And then,

here I go, using those words. HA! I do think the

joke's on us and it's far simpler than we can

imagine... and " I " can always be compeltely wrong

about everything " I " think.!!.. " Who thinks? " .,..best

wishes, Steve

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____Get the toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.

http://new.toolbar./toolbar/features/mail/index.php