Even Conciousness is not the Final Reality ? - Dennis Waite

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I have studied Non-dualistic philosophy for approximately 10 years,

but new to Advaita Vedanta :-$

To deepen my understanding of Advaita Vedanta I am reading Dennis Waite's

excellent book - " Back to THE TRUTH - 5000 years of ADVAITA " .

 

But I am a little puzzled when reading chapter 6 - Who I Really Am, section -

Describing the Self.

In subsection __Even Consciousness is not the Final Reality__

Dennis Waite references Nisargadetta Maharaj and (primary) Robert Powell to

state that Consciousness is __not__ the final Reality.

I know that Self-Atman-brahman is without attributes but it's __nature__ is pure

consciousness - as stated in Upanishads.

I agree with traditional(Adi Shankara) Advaita Vedanta claming this.

 

Am I missing something here?

 

Note.

I have read previous Advaitin threads where Nisargadetta Maharaj description of

Awareness is interpreted as equivalent with Consciousness.

[Guest guest]

Hi Ben (? – you didn’t sign your name),

Advaita is a progressive teaching, gauged (by the teacher) to

the current level of understanding of the student. Many things are taught by

traditional teachers in the early stages that are later supplanted by more

sophisticated explanations, as the seeker’s understanding grows.

Nisargadatta is not a traditional teacher. His style of teaching tends to work by

shaking up and breaking down all of our preconceived notions of the way things

are. Thus it is that he does not go through all of these early stages, trying

instead to go straight to the final truth. Indeed, in his later works, what he

says is often so ‘uncompromising’ that it is difficult to

understand at all unless you have been reading/learning/studying for many

years.

What is said in the section to which you refer is an attempt to

point towards this ‘final truth’. Since reality is non-dual and

there is, from that absolute standpoint, no creation at all, everything has to

go in that final analysis. Most Upanishads are concerned with various aspects

of the earlier stages of teaching and you do not find these ultimately radical

statements in most places. The best known of the sources where you do is the

Gaudapada kArikA, which is a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad and almost

has equivalent status. Here you have statements such as: “There is no

dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of

liberation, none desirous of liberation, and none liberated. This is the

ultimate truth.” (2.32) and “No kind of jIva is ever born nor is

there any cause for any such birth. The ultimate truth is that nothing whatsoever

is born.” (4.71)

The Mandukya Upanishad, in the 7th mantra, itself

come closest to describing the nature of absolute reality:

“chaturthaM manyante nAntaHpraj~naM

– the fourth (chaturtha) is not that which thinks itself to be (manyante)

the internal, subtle world (antaHpraj~na), i.e. not the dreamer, taijasa; na

bahiShpraj~naM – nor the external, gross world of objects (bahis means

‘outside’), i.e. not the waker, vishva; na ubhayataHpraj~naM

– nor both (ubhaya), i.e. not some intermediate state; na praj~nAnaghanaM

– and not that which is a (compact) mass of (ghana) consciousness (i.e.

not the deep-sleep state, in which the mind is resolved and there is

consciousness which is ‘conscious of nothing’); na praj~naM –

neither simply ‘consciousness’, awareness or sentience; na

apraj~naM – nor unconsciousness, unawareness or insentiency.

“adRRiShTam – (it is) unseen (by any of the senses)

[dRRiShTa means, seen, perceived, visible, apparent]; also means

'beyond the five j~nAnendriya-s; avyavahAryam – nothing

to do with ‘worldly’ things [vyavahArya is to do with common

practice, ordinary life, conduct, behaviour etc. i.e. transactions within

vyavahAra]; agrAhyam – beyond understanding [grAhya means to be

perceived, recognized or understood]; also means beyond the five

karmendriya-s - grahaNa literally means to catch, where the organs of action

are involved in catching but is used in the sense of comprehension.] alakShaNam – without any characteristics [lakShaNa is a

mark or sign or, more commonly in advaita, a pointer] also translated as

‘un-inferable’; achintyam – inconceivable, beyond thought;

avyapadeshyam – indefinable; ekAtmapratyayasAraM – its essence

(sAra) is certainly (pratyaya) the same as (eka) Atman; prapa~nchopashamaM

– negation (ama) of the experience (pash) of all plurality of the

universe (prapa~ncha); shAntaM – peace, tranquillity; shivam –

favourable, propitious, auspicious; advaitaM – non-dual; sa AtmA

– that is the Self; savij~neyaH – that is to be understood.”

The upshot of this is that no word can ever describe the nature

of reality and, indeed, anything that we predicate of it cannot be true. Even to

speak of it as ‘consciousness’ or ‘non-dual’ or ‘brahman’

has to be, in the final analysis, merely an attempt to understand it with our

feeble mind.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of bengt.frost

Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:34 PM

advaitin

Even Conciousness is not the Final Reality ? -

Dennis Waite

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<To

deepen my understanding of Advaita Vedanta I am reading Dennis Waite's

excellent book - " Back to THE TRUTH - 5000 years of ADVAITA " .

 

But I am a little puzzled when reading chapter 6 - Who I Really Am, section -

Describing the Self.

In subsection __Even Consciousness is not the Final Reality__

Dennis Waite references Nisargadetta Maharaj and (primary) Robert Powell to state

that Consciousness is __not__ the final Reality.>>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bengt.frost " <bengtfrost wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

> I have studied Non-dualistic philosophy for approximately 10 years,

> but new to Advaita Vedanta :-$

> To deepen my understanding of Advaita Vedanta I am reading Dennis Waite's

excellent book - " Back to THE TRUTH - 5000 years of ADVAITA " .

>

> But I am a little puzzled when reading chapter 6 - Who I Really Am, section -

Describing the Self.

> In subsection __Even Consciousness is not the Final Reality__

> Dennis Waite references Nisargadetta Maharaj and (primary) Robert Powell to

state that Consciousness is __not__ the final Reality.

> I know that Self-Atman-brahman is without attributes but it's __nature__ is

pure consciousness - as stated in Upanishads.

> I agree with traditional(Adi Shankara) Advaita Vedanta claming this.

>

> Am I missing something here?

>

> Note.

> I have read previous Advaitin threads where Nisargadetta Maharaj description

of Awareness is interpreted as equivalent with Consciousness.

 

Namaste,

 

Consciousness belongs to Saguna Brahman or Sakti, and therefore is delusional

and not the final truth which is NirGuna Brahman. Niz had a different decription

of consciousness..that's all.

 

However having said that, the way to NirGuna is through Saguna for one has to

realise the delusion or illusion to realise the truth. Even devotion or bhakti

isn't bhakti until realisation, it is aspiring up till then. Even there one has

to be careful that the devotion to a figure or Ishtadevata doesn't become the

end in itself, and hinder the final leap of non-duality.

 

Realisation of the Suguna results in the simultaneous realisation of NirGuna for

that is the truth.

My entry on wikipedia titled...ajativada goes into this...Cheers Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis Waite,

 

As a novice(though ten years of studying Non-dualistic philosophy)

to Advaita Vedanta I am grateful for your clarifying answer(s).

 

It's also interesting to note __how__ this advaitin discussion thread

- Even Consciousness is not the Final Reality ? - is discussed and

interpreted by other members...

 

Advaita(traditional) Vedanta's approach to Consciousness is very fascinating

and accurate. If we not emphasis this perspective and/or become fuzzy in

explaning Consciousness there is a risk of hindering true knowledge of

our self.

 

Through __progressive__ teaching - including thorough understanding of Advaita

Vedanta's two levels of reality(vyAvahArika satya resp. pAramArthika satya) -

the process of negation(neti, neti) and perhaps in some 'cases' self-inquiry

we can address Consciousness in a deeper and __clearer__ 'way' and ultimately

" To Know Brahman, one has to Be Brahman-Consciousness " .

 

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

-- Bengt Frost

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Ben (? - you didn't sign your name),

>

> Advaita is a progressive teaching, gauged (by the teacher) to the current

> level of understanding of the student. Many things are taught by traditional

> teachers in the early stages that are later supplanted by more sophisticated

> explanations, as the seeker's understanding grows. Nisargadatta is not a

> traditional teacher. His style of teaching tends to work by shaking up and

> breaking down all of our preconceived notions of the way things are. Thus it

> is that he does not go through all of these early stages, trying instead to

> go straight to the final truth. Indeed, in his later works, what he says is

> often so 'uncompromising' that it is difficult to understand at all unless

> you have been reading/learning/studying for many years.

>

> What is said in the section to which you refer is an attempt to point

> towards this 'final truth'. Since reality is non-dual and there is, from

> that absolute standpoint, no creation at all, everything has to go in that

> final analysis. Most Upanishads are concerned with various aspects of the

> earlier stages of teaching and you do not find these ultimately radical

> statements in most places. The best known of the sources where you do is the

> Gaudapada kArikA, which is a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad and almost

> has equivalent status. Here you have statements such as: " There is no

> dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of

> liberation, none desirous of liberation, and none liberated. This is the

> ultimate truth. " (2.32) and " No kind of jIva is ever born nor is there any

> cause for any such birth. The ultimate truth is that nothing whatsoever is

> born. " (4.71)

>

> The Mandukya Upanishad, in the 7th mantra, itself come closest to describing

> the nature of absolute reality:

>

> " chaturthaM manyante nAntaHpraj~naM - the fourth (chaturtha) is not that

> which thinks itself to be (manyante) the internal, subtle world

> (antaHpraj~na), i.e. not the dreamer, taijasa; na bahiShpraj~naM - nor the

> external, gross world of objects (bahis means 'outside'), i.e. not the

> waker, vishva; na ubhayataHpraj~naM - nor both (ubhaya), i.e. not some

> intermediate state; na praj~nAnaghanaM - and not that which is a (compact)

> mass of (ghana) consciousness (i.e. not the deep-sleep state, in which the

> mind is resolved and there is consciousness which is 'conscious of

> nothing'); na praj~naM - neither simply 'consciousness', awareness or

> sentience; na apraj~naM - nor unconsciousness, unawareness or insentiency.

>

> " adRRiShTam - (it is) unseen (by any of the senses) [dRRiShTa means, seen,

> perceived, visible, apparent]; also means 'beyond the five j~nAnendriya-s;

> avyavahAryam - nothing to do with 'worldly' things [vyavahArya is to do with

> common practice, ordinary life, conduct, behaviour etc. i.e. transactions

> within vyavahAra]; agrAhyam - beyond understanding [grAhya means to be

> perceived, recognized or understood]; also means beyond the five

> karmendriya-s - grahaNa literally means to catch, where the organs of action

> are involved in catching but is used in the sense of comprehension.]

> alakShaNam - without any characteristics [lakShaNa is a mark or sign or,

> more commonly in advaita, a pointer] also translated as 'un-inferable';

> achintyam - inconceivable, beyond thought; avyapadeshyam - indefinable;

> ekAtmapratyayasAraM - its essence (sAra) is certainly (pratyaya) the same as

> (eka) Atman; prapa~nchopashamaM - negation (ama) of the experience (pash) of

> all plurality of the universe (prapa~ncha); shAntaM - peace, tranquillity;

> shivam - favourable, propitious, auspicious; advaitaM - non-dual; sa AtmA -

> that is the Self; savij~neyaH - that is to be understood. "

>

> The upshot of this is that no word can ever describe the nature of reality

> and, indeed, anything that we predicate of it cannot be true. Even to speak

> of it as 'consciousness' or 'non-dual' or 'brahman' has to be, in the final

> analysis, merely an attempt to understand it with our feeble mind.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

> Of bengt.frost

> Sunday, March 29, 2009 8:34 PM

> advaitin

> Even Conciousness is not the Final Reality ? - Dennis

> Waite

>

>

>

> <<To deepen my understanding of Advaita Vedanta I am reading Dennis Waite's

> excellent book - " Back to THE TRUTH - 5000 years of ADVAITA " .

>

> But I am a little puzzled when reading chapter 6 - Who I Really Am, section

> - Describing the Self.

> In subsection __Even Consciousness is not the Final Reality__

> Dennis Waite references Nisargadetta Maharaj and (primary) Robert Powell to

> state that Consciousness is __not__ the final Reality.>>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bengt.frost " <bengtfrost wrote:

>

> Dear Dennis Waite,

>

> As a novice(though ten years of studying Non-dualistic philosophy)

> to Advaita Vedanta I am grateful for your clarifying answer(s).

>

> It's also interesting to note __how__ this advaitin discussion thread

> - Even Consciousness is not the Final Reality ? - is discussed and

> interpreted by other members...

>

> Advaita(traditional) Vedanta's approach to Consciousness is very fascinating

> and accurate. If we not emphasis this perspective and/or become fuzzy in

> explaning Consciousness there is a risk of hindering true knowledge of

> our self.

>

> Through __progressive__ teaching - including thorough understanding of Advaita

> Vedanta's two levels of reality(vyAvahArika satya resp. pAramArthika satya) -

> the process of negation(neti, neti) and perhaps in some 'cases' self-inquiry

> we can address Consciousness in a deeper and __clearer__ 'way' and ultimately

> " To Know Brahman, one has to Be Brahman-Consciousness " .

>

>

> Yours in Bhagavan,

> -- Bengt Frost

>

> Namaste,

 

Bengt,

 

You will find different levels of thought on here, starting out at

VisishtAdvaita or partial non duality....this is where the majority really are.

Then we move to those who consider themselves Advaitins but also have some

Bhakti or devotion to a form or other. Then we move to those that believe they

are Brahman...tvat tam asi....which in fact has some dualism as there is a

subject and an object.

There are those that believe they are consciousness...and finally there are

those that believe that isn't the last stop and all is just an illusion that

didn't even happen........Ajativada or the last stage of Above Advaita or

ParaAdvaita. Because to many Advaita means oneness with something when in fact

there is nothing to be oneness with.....NirGuna is only a

negative.............Cheers Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

 

Thanks for your reply.

I have a couple of questions:

You talk about __we__ or is it your 'personal' practice to get

Enlighted?

Could you please further explain: " those that believe they are Brahman " - is it

__tvat tam asi__ ?

And final step(absolute reality). ajAti vAda - no pure consciousness ???

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

-- Bengt Frost

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> advaitin , " bengt.frost " <bengtfrost@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Dennis Waite,

> >

> > As a novice(though ten years of studying Non-dualistic philosophy)

> > to Advaita Vedanta I am grateful for your clarifying answer(s).

> >

> > It's also interesting to note __how__ this advaitin discussion thread

> > - Even Consciousness is not the Final Reality ? - is discussed and

> > interpreted by other members...

> >

> > Advaita(traditional) Vedanta's approach to Consciousness is very fascinating

> > and accurate. If we not emphasis this perspective and/or become fuzzy in

> > explaning Consciousness there is a risk of hindering true knowledge of

> > our self.

> >

> > Through __progressive__ teaching - including thorough understanding of

Advaita

> > Vedanta's two levels of reality(vyAvahArika satya resp. pAramArthika satya)

-

> > the process of negation(neti, neti) and perhaps in some 'cases' self-inquiry

> > we can address Consciousness in a deeper and __clearer__ 'way' and

ultimately

> > " To Know Brahman, one has to Be Brahman-Consciousness " .

> >

> >

> > Yours in Bhagavan,

> > -- Bengt Frost

> >

> > Namaste,

>

> Bengt,

>

> You will find different levels of thought on here, starting out at

VisishtAdvaita or partial non duality....this is where the majority really are.

Then we move to those who consider themselves Advaitins but also have some

Bhakti or devotion to a form or other. Then we move to those that believe they

are Brahman...tvat tam asi....which in fact has some dualism as there is a

subject and an object.

> There are those that believe they are consciousness...and finally there are

those that believe that isn't the last stop and all is just an illusion that

didn't even happen........Ajativada or the last stage of Above Advaita or

ParaAdvaita. Because to many Advaita means oneness with something when in fact

there is nothing to be oneness with.....NirGuna is only a

negative.............Cheers Tony.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bengt.frost " <bengtfrost wrote:

>

> Dear Tony,

>

> Thanks for your reply.

> I have a couple of questions:

> You talk about __we__ or is it your 'personal' practice to get

> Enlighted?

> Could you please further explain: " those that believe they are Brahman " - is

it __tvat tam asi__ ?

> And final step(absolute reality). ajAti vAda - no pure consciousness ???

>

> Yours in Bhagavan,

> -- Bengt Frost

 

Bengt,

 

Your signature at the end 'Yours in Bhagavan' indicates duality does it not?

Believing one is Brahman ---Aham Brahmasmi is also dualistic in expression. 'Who

am I'? is the route of self enquiry as it drives the thought 'I' to its source.

I believe that I am already a Jnani with samskaras in the way, as you are also.

When people believe they are Brahman it is also in delusion as Saguna is

illusion.

 

However having said that..I can quote Jesus when he said the way to the father

was through me. He was talking as the Saguna/Sakti or 'Son'. This is the Self of

Ramana, the Siva of Ramana, but it is not the ultimate Truth. As Pilate asked

Jesus 'What is Truth?'...Jesus gave no answer for there is no answer hence

NirGuna.

 

Ajativada means no creation or manifestation. This is difficult to handle for if

there was even an appearance of creation or illusion, it would need a mind and

some duality in Brahman. That is not possible hence not even the appearance

happened.

WE WERE AND ALWAYS ARE BRAHMAN but that can only be explained in the negative no

modes/NirGuna.

 

Again if people aim to merge with Sakti/Saguna, NirGuna is realised

spontaneously. Unless one has a devotion to form and doesn't want to let

go...then one goes to a state of consciousness/Brahmaloka one step from

realisation, until the mahapralaya.

 

The final question is....In pure meditation beyond sushupti or deep sleep, where

is Saguna or Sakti or anything?....Cheers Tony.

 

If my attempt is too confusing ask me again directly....

[Guest guest]

Tony,

 

Thanks for your answers and emphasis on describing brahman in

saguNa terms.

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

-- Bengt Frost

 

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

>

> advaitin , " bengt.frost " <bengtfrost@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Tony,

> >

> > Thanks for your reply.

> > I have a couple of questions:

> > You talk about __we__ or is it your 'personal' practice to get

> > Enlighted?

> > Could you please further explain: " those that believe they are Brahman " - is

it __tvat tam asi__ ?

> > And final step(absolute reality). ajAti vAda - no pure consciousness ???

> >

> > Yours in Bhagavan,

> > -- Bengt Frost

>

> Bengt,

>

> Your signature at the end 'Yours in Bhagavan' indicates duality does it not?

> Believing one is Brahman ---Aham Brahmasmi is also dualistic in expression.

'Who am I'? is the route of self enquiry as it drives the thought 'I' to its

source.

> I believe that I am already a Jnani with samskaras in the way, as you are

also.

> When people believe they are Brahman it is also in delusion as Saguna is

illusion.

>

> However having said that..I can quote Jesus when he said the way to the father

was through me. He was talking as the Saguna/Sakti or 'Son'. This is the Self of

Ramana, the Siva of Ramana, but it is not the ultimate Truth. As Pilate asked

Jesus 'What is Truth?'...Jesus gave no answer for there is no answer hence

NirGuna.

>

> Ajativada means no creation or manifestation. This is difficult to handle for

if there was even an appearance of creation or illusion, it would need a mind

and some duality in Brahman. That is not possible hence not even the appearance

happened.

> WE WERE AND ALWAYS ARE BRAHMAN but that can only be explained in the negative

no modes/NirGuna.

>

> Again if people aim to merge with Sakti/Saguna, NirGuna is realised

spontaneously. Unless one has a devotion to form and doesn't want to let

go...then one goes to a state of consciousness/Brahmaloka one step from

realisation, until the mahapralaya.

>

> The final question is....In pure meditation beyond sushupti or deep sleep,

where is Saguna or Sakti or anything?....Cheers Tony.

>

> If my attempt is too confusing ask me again directly....

>