dwai

http://medhajournal.com/resident-philosoph...c-analysis.html In light of so much confusion about what Consciousness is and whether it is a phenomenon or not, here's a masterful article written by a prof of Philosophy and of Physics. A brief intro:

Very true! Because sense is in the realm of categorical frameworks. Dont take the analogy literally. Exactly! If you read the article in the OP, you will see he is saying the same thing.

Another common misunderstanding about what Atman means. Atman is not a Soul that transfers from body to body (this misunderstanding is a result of projection of Abrahamic religions onto Dharmic traditions) . Atman IS Brahman -- a non-dual Pure Consciousness.

Meditate on the gap between thoughts. No fancy techniques are needed...just some good Yoga/pranayama and lie in shavasana till it happens. It will happen and will happen in sudden jumps and each jump takes you deeper into the gap. All this Alaya etc is simply a bunch of words being retrofitted to explain something that is inexplicable. Shankaracharya's critique on Alaya Vijnana is a very useful read. He showed that Alaya Vijnana is simply an elaborate effort to try and prove the concept of Anatta, while in reality there is an Atta (or Atman). This elaborate construct of what is beyond Consciousness etc is simply more categorical framework, albeit under the false assumption that it is a "dissolver of all frameworks".

Because there is a false identification with the objects, while forgetting about the light. The light can stand on it's own without any objects. Why? Because it is so. Objects are objects only because they are in the light. Otherwise they don't exist. I understand your line of questioning, but I think they are based on the mistaken premise that the Light and Objects don't have value without each other. The objects don't have value without the light, but the light being self-existent and self-conscious (I'm not literally talking about Light here but consciousness), is perfectly happy to be it self (this is called Sat Chit Ananda of Existent Consciousness Bliss) I know what your next question might be (potentially), as in, if Consciousness is self-existent and self-conscious, then why the need for this "ignorance"? Why are the objects needed at all? Advaita's answer is that since Consciousness (Pure) cannot be categorized into a name of form, it cannot be objectively analyzed to find out the "Why". When one is stable in Objectless Consciousness, then neither the questions matter, nor any answers. Drew, please read this article, written by another experienced scholar: The Four Mahavakyas (Great Statements)

there is no discarding of the "non-Self", there is only realization of the distinction between not-self and self by stripping away all those false identifications. Even to contemplate I, first the Not-I needs to be identified, because such identification is natural in all human beings.

Thoughts are objects in consciousness. Think of Light and how it illuminates objects. Pure consciousness is like the Light and thoughts are like those objects, illuminated by consciousness. Like the article mentions, objects can be in both space and time or only time. Thoughts are objects/phenomena in time.

Pure Consciousness is in the gap between thoughts. Consciousness and Awareness are not the same thing. Awareness is of objects/phenomena, and a result of consciousness with objects.

Consciousness has no boundaries (ie cannot be bound by any categorical framework, so cannot be measured or studied phenomenologically), so what is to say it is Universal or Local? It is Universal in the sense that everything is a result of superimposition on it...which is the manifest realm.

What I am suggesting (as have all Advaitins) that Awareness is not Consciousness. Awareness is a result of Consciousness, when presented with an object. Consciousness is happy to be just itself without any object. If you have read the article by Dr Puligandla I'd posted in the other thread, you'll realize that he's also saying the same thing as Randall. The point be made is that it is futile to pursue an intellectual pursuit of consciousness...because consciousness is already there. Ultimately all props, all syntax, all language, Perceptions and conceptions need to be dropped to realize this. Indeed, by introduction of a categorical framework is what results in subject/object split. That is why Advaitins say that everything is Brahman, through superimposition. Brahman is not a thing...nor is it nothing. It is a not-thing...it is beyond percepts and concepts, beyond duality. Any attempt to categorize it as this or that will fail for that reason.

That is incorrect. The sound is valid only because there is a listener. Without a Consciousness, what is the point of any of the objects? Consciousness and Object/Awareness of it is not the same or not dependently originated. Consciousness exists as is, by itself.

Ramana Maharishi taught using the process of "Neti-Neti" or "Not-this, Not-this" to arrive at what this "I" is. That is a standard Advaita Vedantic practice. It applies logic to strip away all that is "Not" I...it doesn't do anything with the "I" itself. In other words, it strips away the predicates till pure subject remains. That is also the purpose of Yoga...where Chitta Vritti (or Modifications in the field of Consciousness or Mind) is stopped so that Pure Subject remains (Turiya).

I-thought as a limiting adjunct (or a result of it) is obvious. That is called Anatta by the Buddhists and Jiva by Advaitins. Since Consciousness is non-phenomenon, any speculation wrt why things are the way they are is futile, because it cannot be made subject to any categorical framework. Logic therefore won't work either. We can observe the "I-thought" but it cannot be said that it's source is Consciousness, because Consciousness cannot be studied or made subject to rules of inquiry. Logic being a ruleset (be it western or eastern) would also fail to analyze consciousness, because it is valid only on phenomena.

Atman There is the fallacy of Anatta. It cannot be proven that that "ultimate object" doesn't exist. As it (the Ultimate Object) is very clearly reachable with Meditation. Isness is I am ness. Except that this I AM is not the limited I but everythingness. The "I AM" that you think it is not the "I AM" that I am referring to. And again syntax gets in the way...anyway those who had to get it, got it. Those who have to get it will get and those who dont wont. I like the line of thinking...albeit I think ascribing Name-Form to it (for eg, where you equated it with spacetime) is useless. Consciousness is "Non-phenomenon" and therefore cannot be made subject to any categorical framework should suffice. Therefore it is beyond logic and the rules of any categorical framework, be it science or religion.

The condition of our material existence cannot be wished away. It is a reality. But by realizing that there is Consciousness that exists without objects is valuable, given that each of us are seeking a "meaning" to our existence. Now the meaning might not be a logically deconstruct-able thing, but non-dual intuition (or prajna) will result in realizations that satisfy that quest. And a lot of things that seem impassable and insurmountable in our day to day lives become really insignificant in that light. And this is a state in which service (sharing of the joy) becomes a natural thing. That said, the truth of the matter is the truth of the matter. The proof is in the eating...not talking about it. Go meditate now...we've wasted too much energy already. There's really nothing mystical about it. Mysticism is just another label ascribed to what is really just another perspective into how a life can be led.

If you meditate correctly, you will realize that Consciousness exists without phenomena or objects.

What part of the article claims that Brahman is a God? Read it before you diss it man! And can you challenge and disprove the author's thesis? He clearly throws a challenge out...if you can show that Consciousness is an object then he will withdraw his thesis. I would like to see some of our Buddha-bums try.

Likewise and I don't get offended very easily...I can sense the intent behind comments posted and also the energy (in many cases). For eg: when someone is angry/irritated their energy carries through even in forum posts. I know you haven't been that way in any of our interactions. Best, Dwai

That's all I've been trying to convey all the while. Incidentally, if you replace Brahman with "Void" or "Shunyata", that too make sense

since you bring up sound and its role in awareness...here's a brilliant article on it: http://www.medhajournal.com/indic-classics...case-study.html

I was having a very interesting discussion on The Medha Journal about differences between Dualistic Vedanta (Eg: Gaudiya Vaishnavism and Advaita Vedanta). The Rift Between Vaishnavism and Advaita Vedanta where in the question of free will, good and evil etc came up in course of the discussion. Here's my take on it from the Non-dualist viewpoint: In other words, free will is a necessary condition for causality, without this causality is pointless. In fact the whole thing about Anatta is a completely misunderstood and abused subject. Anatta refers only to the Antahkarana complex and it's tendency to identify with the predicates instead of Pure Subject.

what you are parroting is an oft repeated party-line used by people who try and appropriate important discoveries and personalities from India. Nothing surprising...

No you are mistaken. I don't blame you...there's a lot of vested interest in promoting all Yoga as somehow non-Hindu, so people of other faiths can feel less hypocritical about practicing... I give you the Uttarpara Speech of Sri Aurobindo in which he talks about Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma and Nationalism). It is a good idea to not keep a limited view of Aurobindo, because he was a lot more than the founder of Integral Yoga. First and foremost, he was a stalwart who revitalized Hinduism and The Modern Indian Nation, acting as the muse and guiding light for India's Freedom Movement.

Hi MH, Nice to interact with you as well. I have a problem with "divorcing" manifested Yo from Wu because even the fullness needs some emptiness to contain it. One cannot fit Full within Full...Full always has to fit into Emptiness. I think Taoism and Buddhism are not at all in contradiction. They both seem to indicate the same thing. Emptiness is needed in order to fill up.

Fullness is contained within Emptiness as a potentiality. I concur with Drew, albeit not necessarily agreeing entirely with his conflation of physics and Consciousness, NO ONE is LISTENING!