Meaning of 'Consciousness is One'

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI GREG GOODE (15951)

 

>For me, it happened the other way around (and this is in another

>online essay).

>

>1. First, the distinction between various subjects vanished. I no longer

>experienced myself as a separate subject, nor was any other thing experienced

>as a subject. There was subject and stream of arisings, but it

>wasn't mine or >localized in any way. There wasn't felt to be one

>subject per person, but

>rather the Subject or Witness. So this was still a perceivable

>distinction >between the arising objects and the Subject to which

>they arose.

 

This is quite fascinating and thought-provoking, and if it was your

direct experience, then who am I to deny it? Well, if I were to

challenge it, I would proceed as follows. I would say that some kind

of 'symmetry' almost certainly exists between your consciousness and

mine, so that they must resemble each other with respect to broad

features. Then, by reexamining my own consciousness, I would have to

conclude that you are somehow misinterpreting your experience.

 

On the other hand, the case of the blind person teaches us to be

humble. How can someone who has never seem a color understand what a

color is? If you have truly had an experience beyond what I have

had, then more power to you. I would gladly concede defeat of this

discussion in exchange for a 'mind-boggling' new experience that

brings me closer to the higher states of consciousness which must

surely be our evolutionary goal. (But no drugs, please!)

 

Still, I might ask by what right you deny that OTHERS experience

themselves as subject, since their experience is not yours ... but

now we are going around in circles, aren't we?

 

I believe that the 'subject' that the rishis wish us to eliminate,

namely, the ego, is of the following nature. It is what arises when

we distinguish between subject and object within our OWN

consciousness and then identify with the subject.

 

Actually, this is not quite what happens. What happens is this.

First, the mind falsely superposes the distinction of subject and

object upon immediate awareness. There seems to be the subject which

observes and the objects which are observed, and a clear distinction

is falsely believed to exist between the two. Among these objects is

our so-called 'body', which seems to be a material body somehow

'outside' of consciousness. Then, AFTER this external, material body

is falsely posited, our mind falsely identifies with THAT. It is not

that the mind calls the falsely perceived SUBJECT (or observer) the

subject, but that it calls the falsely perceived OBJECT (the body)

the subject. In fact, there is no distinction between subject and

object, both words pointing to the immediate awareness.

 

(Note that when seers speak of the Subject, they mean it in a

non-dual sense, before the distinction between subject and object of

discriminative consciousness. This may seem to be a contradiction in

words. In fact, it is. Really, Subject for the Advaitin is a label

for consciousness itself, before any discriminative distinction

between subject and object is made by the erroneous mind.)

 

Really we agree, at least on this last point. All we are doing is

hammering out our language as carefully as possible. However, I

think a disagreement still remains on the ultimate identity (or lack

thereof) of DIFFERENT consciousnesses (yours and mine), although I

reiterate that I have not DENIED this ultimate identity but have

simply declared it to be disturbingly counter-intuitive.

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI DENNIS WAITE (15954):

>This may be the key to your problem. As Ramana pointed out, the mind and the

>ego are effectively the same thing and are illusory. If we are still using a

>capital C when talking about Consciousness and taking it to refer to the

>non-dual reality, then Consciousness is certainly NOT the mind (alone). If

>it were, what would all of the other 'things' be?

 

I believe that the ego that the rishis wish us to eliminate is

identification with a PARTICULAR subset of the thoughts, feelings and

perceptions within our stream of consciousness. For example, when we

see the perceptions corresponding to our body, we should not identify

with those to the exclusion of all else. Likewise, we should not

identify with our beliefs, which are only transitory thoughts in our

stream of consciousness and which may change as we become wiser.

 

But if we wish to attach the label 'ego' to the totality of

consciousness, then that is fine. It becomes the same as 'Self'. It

is only when we draw distinctions within consciousness that we get

into trouble. Above all, we should not draw the distinction between

subject and object, since this is the root of all other distinctions.

As I have said many times, these two words refer to the same

immediate awareness. Evidently, based on the experience of mystics,

dualistic thinking produces the unenlightened consciousness and

non-dualistic thinking (or rather lack of thinking) produces the

enlightened or mystical state of consciousness. I am quite willing

to accept that this is true and that the higher states of

consciousness are highly desirable, being of the nature of bliss,

love, beauty, and all that is good.

 

Now I do seem to be drawing a distinction between my consciousness

and yours. Is this a kind of 'dualistic thinking' that will plunge

me into the 'unenlightened state'. A naive extension of the

nondualistic paradigm might suggest this. But I am not so sure. I

think that the most important thing is to avoid dualistic

distinctions within our own consciousness. Clearly, this is a

precondition for attaining higher states of consciousness, based on

the historical record.

 

The word 'illusory' has a variety of connotations. Clearly, the

thoughts of our mind are present within our consciousness, as

revealed by introspection. But they may be illusory insofar as they

lead us to have mistaken beliefs. A counterfeit dollar bill exists

as a piece of colored paper, but it does not correspond to a real

monetary value (unless we can succeed in defrauding someone with it).

 

And the ego is illusory in so far as our identification with our body

and beliefs gives us a false impression of a permanent

self-sustaining existence as a distinct object within our awareness.

(That is, the body and beliefs are perceived as permanent and

self-sustaining.) In truth, the perceptions corresponding to body

and the thoughts corresponding to mind are streaming by like a river

(the stream of consciousness) and do not last for even a moment, as

the Buddha pointed out. And we are utterly dependent on the

sustaining Infinite Consciousness which is our substratum, just as

waves are dependent on (indeed identical with) the water.

 

At this point, Hindus and Buddhists diverge. The Hindus say that

there IS something permanent, namely, the SELF which sees the passing

stream of consciousness. The Buddhists say that only the passing

stream of consciousness is there, and there is no eternal Self over

and above the stream of consciousness. The Hindu belief in an

eternal Self distinct from the stream of consciousness does seem to

disagree with the non-dualistic consciousness we are striving for, at

least if taken literally. I have not fully resolved this issue.

Surely the Self does not exist as a permanent object to be observed;

we all agree on this. But is the Seer some kind of eternal entity

that persists while the contents of conscousness stream by? This

would seem to conflict with the non-dualistic paradigm.

 

Uh-oh! Have I opened (or re-opened) another thread of discussion?

No doubt, there are many tangents we could fly off on.

 

Warm Regards

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hi Sri Benjamin,

 

You write,

> How are these thing 'won' anyway? Is is through a war of

>attrition? And are we really always listening to each other? (I

>feel that I am.)

 

Winning!

 

In the best of cases, your questions will peacefully dissolve into an AhHAAA!

Winning and losing themselves dissolve. In other cases, like the sophists of

old, "winning" is by public acclaim or popularity or by the confounding of one

of the two parties. This list is very well-governed though, and we all hope for

the former case!

 

I admire the persistence with which you are dealing with all these messages.

You work, true?

 

Now to one of your replies to me. (separate message)

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI MICHAEL REIDY (15914):

>His chief method of dealing with the idealist position is a reductio ad

>absurdum. If according to their stated position we ought not to be able to

>do what we can do then they must be wrong. His first assertion of their

>error might seem to have a 'you're wrong that's the why ring about it'. Its

>strong point is an assertion of common sense. Ordinary language

>distinctions are useful because they mark real differences. Perception and

>cognition and sense data are different from imagination, fantasy, reverie

>and hallucination. It is even viscerally proved when we eat. The idea

>that he is pointing towards is that there is primative pre-conceptual

>presence in the world of self and others. This is the ground from which we

>elaborate an idealist metaphysics.

 

So you seem to think that Shankara rejects the subjective idealism

that I support? That may well be so; I have also heard that, and I

have heard that Gaudapada was much closer to the Buddhist Vijnanavada

idealist position. I'll have to study the work of Shankara that you

referenced. Thank you.

 

I have already given arguments in favor of subjective idealism (the

doctrine that only the perceptions exist and not the material objects

to which they seem to refer). For one thing, space is within

consciousness and is simply the manifold of the perceptions (the

totality of them if you prefer). Consciousness is not within space.

Also, the notion of an 'external' world is not only unverifiable but

utterly sterile and useless, even more so than your appendix.

 

But to address your paragraph quoted above... The difference between

'perception, cognition and sense data', on the one hand, and

'imagination, fantasy, reverie and hallucination', on the other hand,

is a red herring that I have already addressed. The perceptions that

correspond to what we are pleased to call the 'real world' are simply

those that we have in common and that obey the laws of physics. This

creates the illusion of an 'external' world. Fantasies and

hallucinations are private to a particular person. So it is not

correct to say that the subjective idealist is equating perception to

hallucination and concocting a world out of his feverish imagination.

The act of eating is also a sequence of vivid, tasty perceptions and

no more. In fact, the only part you would care about anyway is the

perceptions ... they provide the taste!!!

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI GREG GOODE (15958):

>I admire the persistence with which you are dealing with all these

>messages. >You work, true?

 

Yes I work. And I'm going to get myself into trouble, especially

since there is now a public record which they can bring to court.

I'll have to lay off of this and stay late. If there are some I've

you I never get around to answering at all, I am sorry. I am sure

you are much to Advaitin to care...

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Reply to Benjamin-ji's reply...

 

At 12:53 PM 3/10/03 -0500, Benjamin Root wrote:

>This is quite fascinating and thought-provoking, and if it was your

>direct experience, then who am I to deny it? Well, if I were to

>challenge it, I would proceed as follows. I would say that some kind

>of 'symmetry' almost certainly exists between your consciousness and

>mine, so that they must resemble each other with respect to broad

>features. Then, by reexamining my own consciousness, I would have to

>conclude that you are somehow misinterpreting your experience.

 

 

Well, I have no criteria or borders to apply that would distinguish or divide

consciousness into X's and Y's. What is consciousness is not personal. And

what is personal is an arising in consciousness. There is nowhere that

consciousness is any different. Indeed, I can find no true "where" in the first

place. Yet there still is the everyday usage, as in "Where did I leave my

keys?" But that is just a manner of speaking.

 

>On the other hand, the case of the blind person teaches us to be

>humble. How can someone who has never seem a color understand what a

>color is? If you have truly had an experience beyond what I have

>had, then more power to you.

 

 

Well it is not "my" experience. It is experience, and it is all just like that.

Whatever one might say about MINE or YOURS is just another seeming arising in

experience.

 

Someone said something a while back in a reply to you, it comes back to me (HA!

to WHOM?!! :-) ).

 

What you are calling "consciousness" sounds very much like what advaita calls

the waking state or Svapna-Sthana or dream state. It corresponds to the "subtle

body" in advaita, called, the Suksma Sarira. In it are the Vital Air Sheath

(Pranamayakosa), the Mental Sheath (Manomayakosa), and the Intellectual Sheath

(Vijnanamayakosa). These indeed are separate, as separate as people are.

 

But in the advaita vedanta teachings, there is no separate person, who, in

realization, simultaneously and personally becomes aware of all sheaths and all

bodies everywhere. There *is* an entity that's taught as the one aware of all

this, which is God/Ishvara.

 

To expect *Benjamin* to be basically omniscient in some exalted state is to

mis-identity Benjamin's Suksma Sarira with THAT which knows all, which is

Brahman. And that is never personal.

 

Consciousness knows. Benjamin is known.

 

Your quest for exalted experiences in the subtle realms is a step in the right

direction. These experiences are given to the seeker for the purpose of

dis-identifying with the separate levels and bodies.

 

For example, in an OBE or NDE. You feel that YOU are still there, but in full

knowledge that YOU are not centered in the body. The lesson, for the advaitin,

is not to have the loftiest experiences, but to come to dis-identify from all

bodies, levels, from all separate experiences.

 

>I would gladly concede defeat of this

>discussion in exchange for a 'mind-boggling' new experience that

>brings me closer to the higher states of consciousness which must

>surely be our evolutionary goal. (But no drugs, please!)

 

 

Good! I can recommend schools in which you can get some of these experiences.

Some are quite respectable. They might accomplish what all amount of chatter

could not! I do recommend that you try some of this.

 

>Still, I might ask by what right you deny that OTHERS experience

>themselves as subject, since their experience is not yours ... but

>now we are going around in circles, aren't we?

 

 

Yes, seems like you want to eat your cake, and have it too. But what you are

pointing to will only happen when the notional one-who-wants-it is seen through

to its dissolution.

 

>I believe that the 'subject' that the rishis wish us to eliminate,

>namely, the ego, is of the following nature. It is what arises when

>we distinguish between subject and object within our OWN

>consciousness and then identify with the subject.

>

>Actually, this is not quite what happens. What happens is this.

>First, the mind falsely superposes the distinction of subject and

>object upon immediate awareness. There seems to be the subject which

>observes and the objects which are observed, and a clear distinction

>is falsely believed to exist between the two. Among these objects is

>our so-called 'body', which seems to be a material body somehow

>'outside' of consciousness. Then, AFTER this external, material body

>is falsely posited, our mind falsely identifies with THAT. It is not

>that the mind calls the falsely perceived SUBJECT (or observer) the

>subject, but that it calls the falsely perceived OBJECT (the body)

>the subject.

 

 

This same dis-identification and re-identification keeps happening, all the way

up. You are stopping a few levels short.... See my comments above about the

subtle body.

>Really we agree, at least on this last point. All we are doing is

>hammering out our language as carefully as possible. However, I

>think a disagreement still remains on the ultimate identity (or lack

>thereof) of DIFFERENT consciousnesses (yours and mine),

 

 

What is consciousness is not different. What is different is not consciousness,

but a subtle object *in* consciousness. A loose spatial analogy would be this.

Consciousness is not in front of you, but behind you....

 

Pranams,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI GREG GOODE (15961):

>Well, I have no criteria or borders to apply that would distinguish or divide

>consciousness into X's and Y's. What is consciousness is not personal. And

>what is personal is an arising in consciousness. There is nowhere that

>consciousness is any different. Indeed, I can find no true "where" in the

>first place. Yet there still is the everyday usage, as in "Where did

>I leave my keys?" But that is just a manner of speaking.

 

The criterion or border would be that I do not feel your pain nor you

mine. Now you are quite free to ecstatically utter that the same

Consciousness (with a capital 'C') is behind both your experience of

pain (or pleasure) and mine, but is this not just a word mistakenly

being applied to two similar yet distinct realities, namely, your

experience and mine? You may argue, By what right do I make a

distinction between these two instances of consciousness? I might

reply, By what right do you equate them?

 

Actually, I am not being sarcastic when I speak of ecstatic

utterances. Whoever said that a true mystic must also be an

analytically precise philosopher? Nobody cares what grades a musical

genius got in music school. They only care how inspired his music is.

 

But there is a subtlety that someone mentioned before in this thread.

If I am right, and it is arbitrary and unjustified to equate your

consciousness and mine, then by what right do I equate my past

memories with my present awareness and speak of a continuous stream

of consciousness? In other words, the sequence of experiences within

a single so-called consciousness may perhaps be arbitrarily united.

Perhaps even a single consciousness disintegrates into a sequence of

instantaneous blips of experiences. Some Buddhists seemed to argue

this, didn't they?

 

And yet I do feel that within my own consciousness, there is some

kind of unity over time. It seems as though it is the same 'me' who

is now remembering something and who once actually experienced what

he now only remembers. In fact, I am quite sure of this but I am not

sure I could 'prove' it, due to the objection just raised.

 

Many people think that philosophy is a trivial and/or nonsensical

subject, but the more one delves into it the more one discovers

paradoxes. But I am quite sure that materialism is much too crude to

capture reality. The argument is between increasingly refined grades

of spiritual consciousness (by which I mean the view that

consciousness is the ultimate ground of reality in some sense or

another).

 

Continuing on with your quote above, please notice that I have

repeatedly agreed that space and time are within consciousness, in

the sense that they are aspects of consciousness and are integral to

consciousness. Space and time are in consciousness, and

consciousness is not in space and time. So laying out two different

consciousness on the table, so to speak, and comparing them is quite

problematic. And yet, from an experiential point of view, I just

don't see how your consciousness and mine can be equated, unless some

kind of telepathy occurs, like the wormholes that may connect

different regions of outer space. Sorry for being so stubborn.

 

Please do share with us any websites that may have techniques for

acquiring spiritual experiences. I like to at least read about that

stuff, and I think that by now I have seen most of those sites.

However, I am reluctant to try any of those techniques, other than

simple meditation. Somehow I feel that Ramana's sober and

streamlined approach of inquiry is the 'truest' and safest approach.

After all, what happened to Osho and the like, or are you a fan of

his?

 

Thanks

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI V. SRINIVASAN (15962):

 

That was quite an interesting article about consciousness in the

foetus. The whole subject of brain and consciousness is immensely

fascinating. This reminds me of one of my favorite arguments for not

being afraid of death.

 

As you know from following this thread, I do not believe that matter

exists separately from consciousness, as it appears to do to most of

us. This hypothetical matter would include the brain. Now

undoubtedly, those perceptions called 'brain' are highly correlated

with personal experiences such as thoughts and feelings. But this

simply means that one part of consciousness (the perceptions called

brain or body) are correlated with another part, the thoughts and

feelings. It is not that there is a material brain 'outside' of

consciousness that is correlated with thoughts and feelings.

 

But many people do identify with their bodies, which they believe to

be other than their consciousness (i.e. the usual dualism). In

particular, they think that their thoughts and feelings are IDENTICAL

with what they believe to be a material brain. They believe that

the material brain is the fundamental reality, and the thoughts and

feelings are no more than the 'ghost in the machine', a kind of

'vapor' (speaking figuratively) or 'epiphenomenon' given off by the

brain.

 

This is particularly alarming, when one considers that one day the

body will die and the brain will disintegrate. It would appear,

then, than we 'disappear' forever. This is one of the depressing

consequences of philosophical materialism (the belief that

unconscious matter is the fundamental reality). This view is very

widespread in the West, if not the East, especially in academic

environments. (These same hard-headed 'realists' would also say that

Advaita and the like are sheer nonsense.)

 

Now as I said, I do not accept philosophical materialism, so this is

a bit of a non-issue for me. But suppose materialism were true.

Fortunately, there would still be, in my opinion, a way to refute the

idea that we disappear upon the death of the body and the decay of

the brain. It is simply that we are contradicting ourselves when we

say that the material brain is the seat of consciousness, or that

consciousness is in some sense identical with the brain. Think of

it. If matter is, by definition, the 'unconscious stuff out there'

(i.e. outside of consciousness), then how could it possibly be

conscious? This is simply a contradiction in terms. So even within

the materialistic framework, we may not equate consciousness with

brain without contradicting ourselves. (This argument may not

guarantee immortality, but it disproves the other claim that we

necessarily disappear upon the disintegration of the brain.)

 

To clarify a bit. The ordinary dualistic and materialistic view of

the world says, 'There are two kinds of entities. There is the

consciousness somewhere within my head, and there is the unconscious

matter out there.' Stones are examples of lumps of unconscious

matter. Who thinks that stones are conscious? But stones are made

of subatomic particles, so they also must be unconscious. And our

brain is made of the same subatomic particles, so it too must be

unconscious. Therefore, even within the materialistic viewpoint, the

consciousness cannot be IDENTIFIED with the brain, although there is

clearly a close correlation. And yet many philosophers, physicists,

neurologists, etc. at our universities still cling to the

materialistic framework. It is simply part of our 'Zeitgeist', at

least among so-called intellectuals.

 

Our brain (falsely viewed as a material object) cannot be conscious

any more than a computer can be truly conscious. A computer can

emulate intelligence, but only a naive person thinks that it has true

thoughts, feelings, etc. If a computer did, then so would any

machine, or any organized material structure, even a crystal, a city,

or Mother Earth herself. (Some people may believe that Gaia is a

conscious spirit but I do not. But then I do not believe that Mother

Earth exists as a material object in the first place.)

 

Some argue that consciousness arises when an information processing

machine gets sophisticated enough. But if the parts of the machine

(that is, ultimately, the atoms) are not individually conscious, then

how could consciousness arise as an 'emergent' property? It makes no

sense to me ... another contradiction in terms.

 

So materialism refutes itself, at least the view that matter is the

ultimate reality to which everything must be reduced, even

consciousness. Rather, matter is an illusion projected onto the

screen of consciousness, as repeatedly discussed in this thread.

This life is just one of a sequence of 'films' until we attain

self-realization.

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI VENKATRAMAN (15943):

>> The perception of Venkat's body in my consciousness is an illusion

>> only in that it does not refer to a material body 'outside' of my

>> consciousness, as is customary believed by the vast majority of

>> humanity. There is only the perception of Venkat's body in my

>> consciousness and not another 'real, material' body 'out there'

>> somewhere. So in this context, the 'unreality' of Venkat's body only

>> means the non-existence of the material counterpart to the perception.

>

>This would then mean that there is absolutely no difference between

>the reality of a ghost and that of Venkat. While from the advaitic

>point of view this is the correct position, it cannot be so from the

>point of view of Benjamin, who thankfully would accord an higher

>order of reality to Venkat's consciousness than he would to a ghost's.

 

Not at all, my dear Venkat! By the way, I see your are in Mumbai.

How is Ramesh Balsekar? He lives there or lived there, and I find

him quite interesting. Did you ever visit him? (I was going to ask

'How's Ash?', but I am afraid you might be a dignified guru,

professor or the like... One must be a bit careful on the net, I

suppose. A nice lady, though, who seems down to earth and not

particularly conceited based on what little I know about her...

Maybe she is realized. Who can say?)

 

Anyhow, to get back to your point. I am only denying the existence

of Venkat as a material body existing in some sense outside of

anybody's consciousness, yours or mine. I am not denying other

consciousnesses corresponding to my perceptions of various bodies

such as Venkat's. That would be solipsism, which I have rejected as

highly improbable and not something to worry about.

 

How do we distinguish a ghost then? After all, it has been said that

drunkards can sometimes see pink elephants (no offense intended to

India's beloved animal). Well, a ghost would be a perception of a

body which does not correspond to someone else's body. I have faith

that all (or most) of the bodies that I see in my waking state and

that follow the laws of physics do in fact correspond to other

consciousnesses. This seems highly probable to me, enough so that I

don't worry about it.

 

Now there may be a few illusions out there. Perhaps visions of

Krishna are perceptions created in people's minds directly by God

that do not correspond to other conscious people in the sense of you

and me (a puppet controlled by God, so to speak, to send us a

message). I do not exclude this possibility, though I would also not

know when to believe individual accounts of such occurrences.

Anyhow, I think that too much concern for 'miracles' leads one astray

from the true spiritual path. Any instance of a 'pedestrian'

consciousness such as yours or mine itself is the ultimate miracle.

 

 

>> Sentences 3 & 4: I agree that consciousness is not made of parts.

>> Parts do seem to arise in my perception, since, e.g., I see a blue

>> patch here and a red patch there. But there is ONE consciousness

>> taking it all in at once and I cannot cut it with a knife, for

>> instance. I have already argued that space is within consciousness

>> and consciousness is not within space. It seems to me that

>> consciousness would have to be within some kind of space in order to

>> be divided into parts and laid out on a table, as it were.

>

>Here you have argued very well for the impossibility of existence of

>Benjamin's consciousness as an entity distinct from Venkat's

>consciousness. So where is the problem?

 

No, I mean that my OWN consciousness seems to be a unity and should

not be viewed as truly consisting of parts, even if it seems to be.

But the unification of different consciousnesses, yours and mine for

example, remains to be demonstrated.

 

 

>If Venkat's consciousness is distinct from Benjamin's consciousness,

>then it has to be ouside Benjamin's consciousness. By definition

>Benjamin can only be aware of the contents of his own consciousness.

>So the very existence of Venkat's consciousness, for Benjamin can

>only be an act of faith. Again nothing wrong with faith except that

>we agreed not to resort to it in these discussions.

 

This is the usual solipsistic argument, which I reject as highly

implausible. Why only me? I'd prefer it were only Ash. (But then

there would be no one to look at her.)

 

 

>If Venkat himself is in Benjamin's consciousness, then how can

>Venkat's consciousness be out of or distinct from Benjamin's

>consciousness. If here we are talking about the consciousness of a

>Venkat outside Benjamin's consciousness then such a Venkat does not

>exist for Benjamin.

 

Venkat is in Benjamin's consciousness only as the perception of his

so-called body, which does not actually exist as a material body.

However, Venkat's consciousness itself exists, as I am sure you will

agree, and I am sure that Venkat's consciousness is quite distinct

from mine. Otherwise, I would be enjoying the samosa you just ate.

 

 

>If as you have agreed, there is a consciousness that is infinite,

>then there can be only that consciousness and nothing else. To say

>otherwise would be argue against its being infinite. I have no issues

>whatsoever if you prefer to call it God's consciousness while my own

>preference would be to call it just consciousness.

 

That's actually a rather intriguing argument that I have heard from

Swamiji himself. Now if you have been following all my posts, then

you know that I do believe that the same God or Infinite

Consciousness must somehow be the substratum of all our seemingly

individual consciousnesses. But it still seems so counter-intuitive

to me, distressingly so. That is the problem. See an earlier post

of mine today to Ram Chandran.

 

And I agree with what you said about the pole-vault and logic. But I

think that some sincere discussion can help along the way...

 

Warm regards and please say hello to Mumbai,

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

REPLY TO SRI CARLO FRUA (15947):

>We can, therefore, see that Vedanta wants to comprehend not only the

>object, not only knowledge in that act of learning, but also the knower,

>the Witness-Subject.

 

I agree that Vedanta has discovered profound truths about 'inner

space', which is far more important than the illusory outer space

that fascinates people so much. (We still have childish minds.)

 

>The West is interested primarily in the first type of experience, and

>still within certain limits. Just today with psychology there is an

>interest in the second. ...

 

I am quite interested in physics and the rest of science, but I do

not consider it nearly as important as knowledge about consciousness

itself. The over-emphasis on objective science by the West is

closely related to its essentially materialistic culture. The West

is much concerned with technology, gadgets and profit. (However, I

do hope that India gives up its internal religious squabbles so it

can concentrate on providing a decent life for all Indians. But

please, no SUVs for all 1 billion Indians!)

 

The spiritual history of India constitutes an immense laboratory of

spiritual exploration. But the methods are different from the usual

science, since results are not easily reproduced and measured by

'unbiased' instruments. I am glad that there is no a Journal of

Consciousness Studies. Western academia is making a bit of progress

on what matters.

 

 

 

>Two are the modalities that lead into and establish integral awareness

>of the ultimate Reality:

>a) Intellective discernment (buddhi), transcendental apperception.

>b) Samadhi, as conscious direct integral 'experience'. It stands above

>perception of any order. Thought ceases to operate.

 

I agree that the spiritual experience of the rishis is the foundation

of our present study. However, I am interested in interpreting that

experience in light of my philosophical beliefs (or preconceptions if

you prefer). I think there may even be some spiritual benefit, if

our ideas are not taken too seriously but are used instead as a

pole-vault, as a number of people have mentioned.

 

To illustrate: I have repeatedly argued against the reality of the

material world. What is the spiritual benefit? I think that this

benefit is quite clear. Belief in the reality of 'matter' leads to

the belief that our so-called body really exists and is the 'real

me'. This is turn leads to ego and dualistic thinking, which are

opposed to enlightenment.

 

At a deeper level, I believe that the perception of matter is closely

related to spiritual ignorance. The jnana sees only shining

consciousness everywhere, which he identifies with God. Matter is an

unreality which can be defined as 'not God' almost by definition.

(God is pure consciousness and matter is the opposite of this.) Our

perception of a material world is an indication of our unenlightened

and dualistic level of consciousness. So any theoretical thinking

that helps dissolve this materialistic viewpoint should be

spiritually beneficial, even if the effects are not immediately

apparent.

 

You may be right that I will only have a convincing answer to my

question after I become enlightened. I'd ask you to pray for me, but

I don't believe in prayers, in saviors, in bribing or placating God,

in cowering before God, in having innocent people crucified for our

sins, or any of that... I only believe in wisdom and correct

intuition.

 

Pranams

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjaminji,

 

I am new here.

Some of the discussions here gave answers to some of

my own questions.

So it has been an great welcome for me.

 

Following your discussion, a question came to my mind.

 

on a scale of 0 to 10

how much does

Benjaminji/Benjaminji's conscience/Benjaminji's mind

know about

Benjaminji/Benjaminji's conscience/Benjaminji's mind ?

 

0 = knows nothing

10 = knows everything

 

TKB

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

http://taxes./

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Greg and Sri Benjamin,

 

Sorry to interpose another view. Perhaps this has something to offer:

 

I understand that Sankara taught that to know something as a

spiritual truth, the approach he recommended was:

 

Does it agree with the old sages?

Does it agree with recent sages teach?

Does it conform to your own highest reasoning?

Is it confirmed by your own meditative experience?

 

So what is there to win? Rather it seems we should look for the Truth

within.

 

We are not two,

Richard

 

advaitin, goode@D... wrote:

> Hi Sri Benjamin,

>

> You write,

>

> > How are these thing 'won' anyway? Is is through a war of

> >attrition? And are we really always listening to each other? (I

> >feel that I am.)

>

> Winning!

>

> In the best of cases, your questions will peacefully dissolve into

an AhHAAA! Winning and losing themselves dissolve. In other cases,

like the sophists of old, "winning" is by public acclaim or

popularity or by the confounding of one of the two parties. This

list is very well-governed though, and we all hope for the former

case!

>

> I admire the persistence with which you are dealing with all these

messages. You work, true?

>

> Now to one of your replies to me. (separate message)

>

> Pranams,

>

> --Greg

[Guest guest]

INTERIM REPLY TO SRI BENJAMIN (16186)

 

Dear Benjamin,

 

I really admire the effort you are putting in to read all our posts

and reply patiently to each one of us. Some one who merely wanted to

score a point over another or win a debate could not have carried on

the way you have done these past few days. I must admit that only up

to a point I could read all your posts; So before I replied to this,

I will atleast read all your posts till now. Mercifully it can be

sometime before I am back. In this interim reply I deal with other

interesting topics you have raised in your last post.

 

> Not at all, my dear Venkat! By the way, I see your are in Mumbai.

> How is Ramesh Balsekar? He lives there or lived there, and I find

> him quite interesting. Did you ever visit him? (I was going to

ask

> 'How's Ash?', but I am afraid you might be a dignified guru,

> professor or the like... One must be a bit careful on the net, I

> suppose.

 

No I am not a Guru or a professor. I am the Controller of Accounts

(it used to be a dignified profession when I took it up) of a

major Automotive Company with headquarters in Bombay. I have attended

many of Ramesh Balsekar's satsangs and have had the privilege of

occupying the 'hot seat' on a few occassions. Sri Balsekar is doing

fine and is still continuing with his daily satsangs from his house

in Bombay. May be next weekend I will attend his Satsang and try to

discuss our consciousness question. I will most happily share his

views with the group.(Post 11626, which is a rather long introduction

of myself when I joined the list, deals also with how I came to meet

Sri Balsekar in my life).

 

About Ash, apparently all is well with her or else the news papers

here would have had lot to say on the subject.

 

Good luck and Pranams,

Venkat

[Guest guest]

Hi Benjamin,

 

You say:

 

“There is a radical difference between 'objects out there' and 'other

people with separate consciousnesses' in the context of my argument.

The 'objects out there' refer to actual perceptions within my

immediate awareness, upon which my mind mistakenly projects the idea

of a material world external to my consciousness. On the other hand,

the 'other people with separate consciousnesses' are NOT present in

my immediate awareness, either as perceptions or as anything else.

So the argument applied to 'objects out there' CANNOT be extended to

'other people with separate consciousnesses', because of this

fundamental difference.”

 

Apologies if I am being thick here but in what way are you aware of 'other

people with separate consciousnesses' other than through your immediate

awareness? How can you be aware of anything at all other than as a percept,

feeling or concept? (Apart from the immediate knowledge ‘I am’, of course!)

I appreciate that we think of ‘people with consciousness’ in a quite

different way from which we think of objects but surely we are still

thinking, aren’t we? How could we be aware of these so-called ‘other people’

if we had no senses or mind?

 

I can anticipate that you might say that, of course, you accept this with

respect to the bodies of other people but not with respect to their

apparently separate consciousness. But, I repeat, how can you posit a

separate consciousness other that as a result of what you perceive, feel or

think? And is not that 'positing' only another concept?

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[shivaramgi 0]

I have read some but not all postings: I do understand some. I have discussed this with myself:Allow me to add a few lines which may help.

Bear in mind that Advaita also states that nothing can be 'defined' expression in human language diminishes as soon as the silence is broken. What this means is 'everything' can be experienced but not explained to another except to one in the same wavelength.

The most that can be said about Consciousness is that 'Consciousness Is" just as Brahman Is, God Is.

To talk or explain one has to come down to the relative from the Absolute.

Then Consciousness manifests at different levels, This is the phenomena of the One becoming (appearing) as many yet remaining as One. The Upanishadic statement is "Ekoham Bahusyam" ( although the word wish is used it is not in the human sense)

If Brahman has to be explained then words such as Sat-Chit-Aanada or Satyam-jnaanam-Anantam Brahma are used - then each of these components are explained although each of these words alone is also Brahman.

A great modern mystic-philosopher-poet expalins:

Pure Consciousness descends (the Infinite becomes finite) although mathematicaly impossible spiritually - Infinite, Eternal, Immortal with those unlimited capabilities can become or appear to become limited, until after several stages (actually infinite) it or part of it becomes the limited intellectual mind - where this discussion forum is now located - but human mind and language does not have the capacity either to comprehend or express - but when it ceases to be - ego is destroyed as in Nirvikalpa state it experiences and it becomes.

So it is said "I am" or = Consciousness Is.not Consciousness is x or y or x +y etc.

Discussion limited by semantics and mind(ego) can go on indefinitely - ego does not want to die.More words tend to raise more questions. Analogies can not be overextended.

 

Although not in a self-righteous sense I wish to say Advaita philosophy has answered all my questions and with the light of Advaita I fully appreciate and adore Bhakti and Karma yoga without having to to dogmatic Bhakti schools.

A great treatise by Gorakhanatha(10-11th.century) explains the interplay of Dwaita in Adwaita and, Adwaita in Dwaita by the same name Dwaitaadwaita Samhita? probably not that well known. Meditate and you will intuitively get the answer.

Gratitude for allowing this post