How to reconcile Eastern and Western concepts of consciousness

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimhaji,

 

A while ago, there was a discussion on koshas, chakras and sariras. Although it

was useful, I feel it didnt really get to the crux of the matter. I have for a

while been pondering how to pose the question in the correct way in order to

elicit, from you or anyone else, the level of answers that I would like to see.

I'll make an attempt now, I would ask only that you read the whole post..

 

First, contrary to what most people on this group probably believe, I feel it is

best to start, in intellectual discussion at least, with the western concept of

consciousness. The reason is that western-style inquiry/explanations always

originate from sensory observables - which are of *common experience to all*,

whereas eastern-style inquiry/explanations may originate from sometimes

non-sensory observables, which lead to many misconceptions/subjective

interpretations. So if we are to reach an understanding that is to some degree

objective, it is best to start from some common ground.

 

For this purpose, I'll take Carl Jung's definitions as a starting point. What is

ego? From his point of view, ego is one's everyday field of consciousness. What

is one conscious of? Things reported by the senses - the material universe. But

also feelings and memories, which have no material representation - they are not

" gathered " by the senses as the material world is. What is the feeling of " I " ?

It is the center of the ego, that gives the ego a feeling of oneness. However,

this ego is not a solid circle i.e if the inside of the circle is the contents

of the consciousness, it is not as if the center is a content of consciousness

too! The ego is more like a doughnut, with the empty central part being what

Jung calls, naturally, the unconscious. We all feel whole i.e. my hand is mine,

my leg is mine, the memory of savoring a mango last night is also mine, but am I

the hand - no; am I the leg - no; am I the memory - no; I'll still be I without

them, though maybe not a happy I. So all this is consistent with the doughnut

model - an invisible I in the center, conscious of the edible part of the

doughnut.

 

At this point, even the least spiritual of people would be hard pressed to

disagree with me. So from my point of view, this is good and common ground i.e.

a good point from where to start investigating vedic definitions.

 

So at this point, I'll pose my first set of questions - Where does this doughnut

fit vis-a-vis the antahakarana? Is the doughnut inside the manas with the

ahamkara at the invisible center? Or is the doughnut in the physical body with

the entire antahakarana at the invisible center? Either way, when you raise

kundalini/attempt spiritual awakening, you are pushing the inside of the

doughnut toward the center, right?

 

I can get to more questions as and when you reply..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundeep, Western philosophers are good and smart people, but their understanding of the Absolute (Brahman) and its Manifestation (Duality) is nowhere near that of Rishis in my view. I do not see a need to reconcile things. If you are interested in the findings of rishis, study eastern philosophy without carrying the *baggage* of western philosophy. * * * Before taking an issue with this approach, let me answer your specific question. Ahamkara is not the hole in the doughnut. Ahamkara is the "space" that fills the entire doughnut, including the hole in the center and the outside. Manas (sensory mind), its organs of perception and organs of action, buddhi (logical mind) and part of chitta (memory) that is akin to a cache

in computer memory is part of the outside of doughnut. Part of chitta (memory) that is uncached (stored from *forgotten* existences) is in the hole in the middle. * * * > The reason is that western-style inquiry/explanations always> originate from sensory observables - which are of *common> experience to all*, whereas eastern-style inquiry/explanations> may originate from sometimes non-sensory observables, which> lead to many misconceptions/subjective interpretations. There are a lot of blind people in the world. Sensory experiences related to vision are unknown to them. Can they dismiss explanations originating from vision as "misconceptions/subjective interpretations"? Why should it be common experience to "all"? If some virus invades the world and takes away vision from 99.9999%

population of the world, will observations made based on vision by the 0.0001% people still having vision be a valid basis for objective inquiry/explanations? * * * Not all non-sensory observations are subjective. There is some uniformity in non-sensory observations too. Just as two people watching a cloth with their eyes may independently say it is "red" in color, similarly two people observing something using non-sensory observation may say the same thing about it. As a simple example, I know someone who internally "heard" a specific beejaakshara when his Kundalini rose to a specific chakra for the first time. At that time, he did not know much about Kundalini and chakras. Some months later, he bought some books and read them. He was surprised to learn that that beejaakshara was indeed associated with that chakra in tantra

literature. As he did not know all this before the internal experience, it was not a case of pre-conditioned imagination causing an experience/hallucination. Without being influenced by any tantra texts, he experienced something specific that was well-captured by pre-existing tantra texts. I know several such cases. From my own experience and experience of people I trust, I know for sure that truths captured by sUpanishads and tantra texts were *independently* experienced by several people. I also know that people can experience and realize those truths even now, even without reading the books and being conditioned by them. * * * From my point of view, there is nothing pristine about observations made with sensory perception. Just as some non-sensory perception can be hallucination, similarly some *sensory* perception can also be

hallucination! More importantly, the truth that can be captured by sensory perception is quite limited. From my experience, I am convinced that the Absolute, a glimpse of which can liberate one from the cycle of happiness and sadness, is beyond sensory perception, as declared by rishis in the past. I humbly, and yet firmly, suggest to seekers that a fresh study of eastern philosophy without carrying the *baggage* of western philosophy will be more productive. More importantly, a direct individual experience is the only way to understand things correctly and theoretical studies can only go so far. Study if you must, but do some sadhana and try to overcome the shadripus. That will help far more than studying volumes. Best regards,Narasimha- Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,"Do It Yourself" ritual

manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org Spirituality: Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings- --- In , "vedicastrostudent" <vedicastrostudent wrote:> Dear Narasimhaji,> > A while ago, there was a discussion on koshas, chakras and sariras. Although it was useful, I feel it didnt really get to the crux of the matter. I have for a while been pondering how to pose the question in the correct way in order to elicit, from you or anyone else, the level of answers that I would like to see. I'll

make an attempt now, I would ask only that you read the whole post..> > First, contrary to what most people on this group probably believe, I feel it is best to start, in intellectual discussion at least, with the western concept of consciousness. The reason is that western-style inquiry/explanations always originate from sensory observables - which are of *common experience to all*, whereas eastern-style inquiry/explanations may originate from sometimes non-sensory observables, which lead to many misconceptions/subjective interpretations. So if we are to reach an understanding that is to some degree objective, it is best to start from some common ground.> > For this purpose, I'll take Carl Jung's definitions as a starting point. What is ego? From his point of view, ego is one's everyday field of consciousness. What is one conscious of? Things reported by the senses - the material universe. But also feelings and memories,

which have no material representation - they are not "gathered" by the senses as the material world is. What is the feeling of "I"? It is the center of the ego, that gives the ego a feeling of oneness. However, this ego is not a solid circle i.e if the inside of the circle is the contents of the consciousness, it is not as if the center is a content of consciousness too! The ego is more like a doughnut, with the empty central part being what Jung calls, naturally, the unconscious. We all feel whole i.e. my hand is mine, my leg is mine, the memory of savoring a mango last night is also mine, but am I the hand - no; am I the leg - no; am I the memory - no; I'll still be I without them, though maybe not a happy I. So all this is consistent with the doughnut model - an invisible I in the center, conscious of the edible part of the doughnut.> > At this point, even the least spiritual of people would be hard pressed to disagree with me. So from

my point of view, this is good and common ground i.e. a good point from where to start investigating vedic definitions. > > So at this point, I'll pose my first set of questions - Where does this doughnut fit vis-a-vis the antahakarana? Is the doughnut inside the manas with the ahamkara at the invisible center? Or is the doughnut in the physical body with the entire antahakarana at the invisible center? Either way, when you raise kundalini/attempt spiritual awakening, you are pushing the inside of the doughnut toward the center, right? > > I can get to more questions as and when you reply..> > Regards,> > Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Dear Narasimhaji,

 

I think you have misunderstood what I said. Your tone seems to imply that I

somehow put down Eastern philosophy? I simply made a point about which path of

inquiry to *start* from. Please read my inlined replies.

 

, " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr108 wrote:

>

> Namaste Sundeep,

>  

> Western philosophers are good and smart people, but their understanding of the

Absolute (Brahman) and its Manifestation (Duality) is nowhere near that of

Rishis in my view. I do not see a need to reconcile things. If you are

interested in the findings of rishis, study eastern philosophy without carrying

the *baggage* of western philosophy.

>  

> *        *        *

 

Very loosely speaking - just in order to convey my point - Western philosophy is

better at painstakingly enumerating and explaining things in the sensory domain,

Eastern is better in the non-sensory domain. The " reconcile " I am talking about

is a wrong choice of word, I apologize. It seems to imply that they both have

explanations for the same thing and that they need to be reconciled. What I

really meant is more like unify and bridge in order to build a complete and

unambiguous view, that smoothly takes one from the sensory to the non-sensory.

The reason to " unify and bridge " is to clear misunderstandings. Jumping straight

to the non-sensory creates a lot of misconceptions due to subjectivity. Doesnt

mean that Eastern non-sensory observations are wrong, simply that they are

easily misinterpreted.

 

The only baggage that comes with Western philosophy, in my humble experience, is

a tendency to dismiss the non-sensory. Not all Western philosophers do that -

although the overall trend in modern times (e.g. existentialism) is to do so. I

let go of that baggage in 2002, personally speaking. So I do not have that

specific bias anymore. Is there anything else that you have in mind?

 

 

>  

> Before taking an issue with this approach, let me answer your specific

question.

>  

> Ahamkara is not the hole in the doughnut. Ahamkara is the " space " that fills

the entire doughnut, including the hole in the center and the outside. Manas

(sensory mind), its organs of perception and organs of action, buddhi (logical

mind) and part of chitta (memory) that is akin to a cache in computer memory is

part of the outside of doughnut. Part of chitta (memory) that is uncached

(stored from *forgotten* existences) is in the hole in the middle.

 

Thank you for the specific answer. Now I have 2 specific questions, and these

are really the questions for which I did all the context buildup, and are as yet

unanswered:

1) If you say that Ahamkara pervades the entire edible part of the doughnut,

then, since the edible part of the doughnut represents *what one is conscious

of*, then you are saying that one is fully conscious of Ahamkara, right? This to

me is not accurate. Let's not talk theoretical concepts and terms here, but

experience, and then try to correlate it to known concepts. Please specifically

correct me where you think I'm wrong. When I close my eyes in a peaceful

undisturbed environment, and the thought of any object comes up, then in my mind

there is the object and there is me observing it. The object is clearly in the

edible part of the doughnut, but the " me " isnt. It is the subject, the observer,

and is unobservable by itself - although it is always present as the observer.

Since it is not observable, it is not in the edible part of the doughnut. I say

this for the average everyday human being like myself. It seems to me that the

term Ahamkara refers to something in this unobservable observer. The observer is

conscious of its own existence, but cant actually turn it's attention to itself.

Simply because everything in the edible part of the doughnut is observed by this

observer (which is the fact you use to conclude that that Ahamkara pervades the

entire doughnut), doesnt mean the observer can be the object of it's own

attention. For this reason, I take the Ahamkara to be in center of the doughnut,

along with what you have said are the forgotten memories of past lives. Is that

entire unobservable thing the Ahamkara, or is only the centering " force " in that

the Ahamkara? Clearly Ahamkara and ego are two different things - Ahamkara is

that unobservable quantity that gives this indivisible feeling of I. Ego is the

field of consciousness of the average human being (the doughnut as described

earlier).

 

b) Now, and this is the main East vs West thing I would like to highlight, I

find no term in Eastern thinking that is the equivalent of the ego as defined

above (field of consciousness of the average human being - current sense

experience + current " cache " if you will). Manas, sensory organs are simply the

instruments that construct this field of consciousness, they are not the

contents of the field of consciousness. You will say - why define this

unimportant term, how is it important? It is important because this is the only

thing (i.e. the ego doughnut is the only thing) an average person knows and

experiences their entire life. When you are asking them to be spiritual by, for

example, meditating on the sense of I, what exactly are you saying? You are

asking that Ahamkara-containing unobservable observer to ditch the ego (i.e. not

focus on the senses + current cache) and turn it's attention (what exactly is

the term for " attention of the Ahamkara-containing unobservable observer " ) onto

itself. See how I'm stumbling around creating terms and names as I go? This is

because I dont find exact descriptions of an approach starting from the

ego-doughnut, which is the only thing that I, an average human being, knows. I

could go on - going further - the chitta - memory-store - is clearly

compartmentalized, right? Since the sookshma sarira is eternal, how come people

dont have continuous memory? What happens to the ego doughnut upon death -

bewilderment of the unobservable observer? But the memory must be getting

compartmentalized at this point because on rebirth, those sections of memory

clearly have a barrier put up in front of them (since no average person has any

pre-birth memories). Also, what is Kundalini awakening in this terminology - the

doughnut suddenly expanding inward?

 

It is these things that I seek to understand starting from the consistent common

place that I, as an average human being, knows. That consistent common place is

the ego doughnut.

 

I will stop here, awaiting your reply..

 

Regards,

 

Sundeep

 

>  

> *        *        *

>  

> > The reason is that western-style inquiry/explanations always

> > originate from sensory observables - which are of *common

> > experience to all*, whereas eastern-style inquiry/explanations

> > may originate from sometimes non-sensory observables, which

> > lead to many misconceptions/subjective interpretations.

>  

> There are a lot of blind people in the world. Sensory experiences related to

vision are unknown to them. Can they dismiss explanations originating from

vision as " misconceptions/subjective interpretations " ?

>  

> Why should it be common experience to " all " ? If some virus invades the world

and takes away vision from 99.9999% population of the world, will observations

made based on vision by the 0.0001% people still having vision be a valid basis

for objective inquiry/explanations?

>  

> *        *        *

>  

> Not all non-sensory observations are subjective. There is some uniformity in

non-sensory observations too. Just as two people watching a cloth with their

eyes may independently say it is " red " in color, similarly two people observing

something using non-sensory observation may say the same thing about it.

>  

> As a simple example, I know someone who internally " heard " a specific

beejaakshara when his Kundalini rose to a specific chakra for the first time. At

that time, he did not know much about Kundalini and chakras. Some months later,

he bought some books and read them. He was surprised to learn that that

beejaakshara was indeed associated with that chakra in tantra literature. As he

did not know all this before the internal experience, it was not a case of

pre-conditioned imagination causing an experience/hallucination. Without being

influenced by any tantra texts, he experienced something specific that was

well-captured by pre-existing tantra texts. I know several such cases.

>  

> From my own experience and experience of people I trust, I know for sure that

truths captured by sUpanishads and tantra texts were *independently* experienced

by several people. I also know that people can experience and realize those

truths even now, even without reading the books and being conditioned by them.

>  

> *        *        *

>  

> From my point of view, there is nothing pristine about observations made with

sensory perception. Just as some non-sensory perception can be hallucination,

similarly some *sensory* perception can also be hallucination!

>  

> More importantly, the truth that can be captured by sensory perception is

quite limited. From my experience, I am convinced that the Absolute, a glimpse

of which can liberate one from the cycle of happiness and sadness, is beyond

sensory perception, as declared by rishis in the past.

>  

> I humbly, and yet firmly, suggest to seekers that a fresh study of eastern

philosophy without carrying the *baggage* of western philosophy will be more

productive. More importantly, a direct individual experience is the only way to

understand things correctly and theoretical studies can only go so far. Study if

you must, but do some sadhana and try to overcome the shadripus. That will help

far more than studying volumes.

>  

> Best regards,

> Narasimha

> -

>   Free Jyotish Software, Free Jyotish Lessons, Jyotish Writings,

> " Do It Yourself " ritual manuals for short Homam and Pitri Tarpana:

>                   http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

>      Films that make a difference: http://SaraswatiFilms.org

>      Spirituality:

>   Jyotish writings: JyotishWritings

> -

>  

> , " vedicastrostudent " <vedicastrostudent@>

wrote:

> > Dear Narasimhaji,

> >

> > A while ago, there was a discussion on koshas, chakras and sariras. Although

it was useful, I feel it didnt really get to the crux of the matter. I have for

a while been pondering how to pose the question in the correct way in order to

elicit, from you or anyone else, the level of answers that I would like to see.

I'll make an attempt now, I would ask only that you read the whole post..

> >

> > First, contrary to what most people on this group probably believe, I feel

it is best to start, in intellectual discussion at least, with the western

concept of consciousness. The reason is that western-style inquiry/explanations

always originate from sensory observables - which are of *common experience to

all*, whereas eastern-style inquiry/explanations may originate from sometimes

non-sensory observables, which lead to many misconceptions/subjective

interpretations. So if we are to reach an understanding that is to some degree

objective, it is best to start from some common ground.

> >

> > For this purpose, I'll take Carl Jung's definitions as a starting point.

What is ego? From his point of view, ego is one's everyday field of

consciousness. What is one conscious of? Things reported by the senses - the

material universe. But also feelings and memories, which have no material

representation - they are not " gathered " by the senses as the material world is.

What is the feeling of " I " ? It is the center of the ego, that gives the ego a

feeling of oneness. However, this ego is not a solid circle i.e if the inside of

the circle is the contents of the consciousness, it is not as if the center is a

content of consciousness too! The ego is more like a doughnut, with the empty

central part being what Jung calls, naturally, the unconscious. We all feel

whole i.e. my hand is mine, my leg is mine, the memory of savoring a mango last

night is also mine, but am I the hand - no; am I the leg - no; am I the memory -

no; I'll still be I without them,

> though maybe not a happy I. So all this is consistent with the doughnut model

- an invisible I in the center, conscious of the edible part of the doughnut.

> >

> > At this point, even the least spiritual of people would be hard pressed to

disagree with me. So from my point of view, this is good and common ground i.e.

a good point from where to start investigating vedic definitions.

> >

> > So at this point, I'll pose my first set of questions - Where does this

doughnut fit vis-a-vis the antahakarana? Is the doughnut inside the manas with

the ahamkara at the invisible center? Or is the doughnut in the physical body

with the entire antahakarana at the invisible center? Either way, when you raise

kundalini/attempt spiritual awakening, you are pushing the inside of the

doughnut toward the center, right?

> >

> > I can get to more questions as and when you reply..

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Sundeep

>