[Advaita-l] The nature of spiritual realisation -2
vaidix at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 3 08:47:32 CDT 2003
>If an objection is made by saying that consciousness is neither an
>essential nor an inherent attribute of >the body, but relational in the
>sense that it arises from interaction between matter and matter,
>then the reply is that it is not so, for such a thing is not supported by
>perception. In other words, this view is being rejected in the same way as
>a rationalist would reject the existence of ghosts. The difference is that
>the rejection in this case has a much more stronger basis, as interactions
>between matter are completely within the range of perception, thereby
>validating the objection, while in the case of the rationalist, the alleged
>ghosts are not within the range of perception.
I would not comment on your reply portion, but I will present some
Consciousness, whatever its level including various samadhis, involves being
conscious of something. There is a seer and there is a thing that is seen as
in the sentence "I see a tree", and it is another form of duality! The
object being seen is a different thing because I can't see myself. (One can
not know the knower... Br.U).
Now, ideally there can be nothing external. So there must be something
fundamentally wrong with our "seeing". How can we see when everything is
internal? The fact that we see objects is a proof that there is an error in
our perception. Now this can lead to a trivail situation where we
ridiculously reject whatever we see as false, and consequently reject all
forms of consciousness, though that is what advaita claims will happen
ultimately. How to get out of this logical mess?
The only way out is to reverse the statement : "The fact that we see objects
is a proof that there is an error in our perception". Let us refrase it as :
"The fact that there is an error in our perception results in our seeing
This means that we see objects only when we meet with a failure in our
thought process. As long as thought process is unbroken, one does not see
objects. This is very much verifiable! If you are an expert driver, even
while thinking of something else you can reach home safely (not advisible
though). The body and mind become one (advaita!) while driving and you do
not observe any objects on the street.
That is why mANDUkya upanishat said "It is neither consciousness, etc".
So where are we?
In the Brahman there is no consciousness.
We don't know if there is consciousness between two different pieces of
matter (e.g., acid + alkali = salt + water), also we are neither one of the
pieces of matter. As for dead bodies, the life processes continue long after
the organism dies. The Shruti said mountains are meditating, but does shruti
have to be specific and say "The dead bodies are mediating as it were"?
Commenting on the lack of consciousness of dead bodies is like pot calling
kettle black. So in the absence of evidence we have to assume that lifeless
objects are potentially capable of having consciousness.
Inthe final analysis, consciousness is experienced when we see objects. So
consciousness is neither an attribute of objects nor of the self, but it is
an attribute of an interaction between the self concept (aham) and objects.
That means to the extent we are conscious, we are all the time in touch with
some objects or other. So if the objects show any symptoms of our
realization we would know instantly! So our realization is immediately
verifiable from our own state of consciousness, and the objects we see.
But then, as perception of objects is an indication of an error in thought
process, and such error can not exist in realization because realization
must be perfect, proof of realization lies in non-perception of objects or
lack of any consciousness. It leads to a kind of Hysenberg principle. To
measure or not to measure, IMO.
High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local
service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list