My most fundamental thoughts on existence and consciousness

[Steve Hulowski]

The following is my theory on what my existence is and what it means:

 

There are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities. Each universe is a closed system, and it's virtually impossible to move from one to another. It may be impossible to even detect the existence of other universes, because they exist in a world with different laws than ours and in a place that can't even be quantified. There is no "distance" between universes, because there isn't a medium or dimensional fabric between them.

 

Our Universe, like all universes, is fundamentally nothing. Matter balances with anti-matter; electrons balance with protons; even good seems to balance with evil. The principle that energy cannot be created nor destroyed is never violated, because nothing has really existed to begin with. If a person magically creates mater, it's permissible by the laws of the universe provided that an equal amount of anti-mater is produced.

 

I believe that the smallest particles that we know of may contain universes within them. Perhaps particles have a charge due to the properties or laws these universes exhibit. I also believe that our universe is a small particle in a larger universe. The big idea is that everything is infinite.

 

I don't believe in god, but believe that my consciousness and sense of self-awareness will continue even after I die. If who I am is due to the electrical activity in my brain, then I just see it being that this pattern must exist at some point again in some universe. Afterall, infinity is impossible to imagine. It represents endless quantities of everything and surmises every possible state or condition as being a certainty.

 

I view consciousness as a continuum and as a very property of the universe. It's the one thing that all sentient beings have in common. Even though my thoughts and experiences make up the person I am, my sense of awareness is not unique to me. My consciousness faded into existence when I was born and will fade out of existence when I die. After death, I believe that this same self-awareness will fade into existence as something else; the cycle will then continue indefinitely.

 

For every person or living thing that has ever been and ever will be, this single consciousness has transferred through them. In a sense, I see self-awareness and consciousness as a single manifestation that travels through all life-forms—simultaneously, continually, forever. I am just part of this continuum. The illusion will be that after I die, I will gradually wake up as something else, in some other place. To contrast with reincarnation, there are no individual souls moving from one life to the next, nor will life-experiences and memories transfer from one life to the next. There is one soul, and we all share it. We've all been everybody. This soul has been Hitler; it's been a mouse in an underground burrow; it's been me. This single soul will experience every life. We—you and I—will live through every life.

 

If this is the way of the universe, as my theory suggests, then it's prudent to show empathy and compassion for all living things—because this "universal soul" will suffer through the tortures and pleasures of all lives. When a person causes pain to another, the inflictor will and already has experienced the life of the inflected. It's wonderfully liberating to believe I'll live forever and experience the best the universe has to offer, but it's equally terrifying to know I must also share the worst it has to offer.

 

This is still my life, because the wiring in my brain is unique to me and constitutes who I am. It gives rise to my perception of reality. My thoughts, experiences, memories, feelings, desires, and personality are all mine alone, and are a product of the waves of electricity flowing through the billions of synapses/neurons in my brain.

 

When I die, the only thing left of me will be the impact I've had on the world--including the people I've touched and influenced, the ideas I've passed along, and the memories I'm part of. Everything that made me who I am will be otherwise lost. I will not continue in some afterlife with the same psyche, mind, and memories of who I was in tow. The single soul that is this "perception of existence" will just continue to experience every life. It's the only part of me – of us all - that will continue. This single soul of the universe will propagate throw infinitum, through the continuum that is consciousness. Just as the universe is infinite, so it must be that consciousness is too.

 

 

So that's what I think. I emphasize the word "think" because, just like everyone else in this world, I don't know the answers. No one can know "the answers". I'm agnostic in that I see knowing the true answer to questions like "what happens after you die" as being unanswerable.

 

 

What are your deepest notions about our existence, consciousness, and what happens after death?

[tar]

Steve,

 

Well, thanks for writing that. It bears many close relationships to thoughts I have entertained.

 

Not so sure about a few thing you mention. Things I have entertained and reasoned away. Little inconsistencies where personally I have felt the need to come down, one way or the other, for the notion to actually make sense as a description of the "way things are."

 

For instance, the many universe thing. If there is one consciousness in this universe, would that mean that there is a different consciousness in a neighboring one? The "infinite regress" thought leaves a lot of room for different answers to this. And as we shift grain size, which apparently we can do with ease, we can imagine all the answers being true.

Except we, in our imaginations are not required to, or do not have the ability, to work through all the implications accurately to see if the thought would really work. That is, would it "fit" with reality?

 

I have thus "decided" that there is a difference between imagination and reality. They are not without their intertwineness, but what is "possible" in one, is not nescessarily possible in the other.

 

Let me illustrate this by having us all put ourselves in the shoes of someone who has meditated his/her way to nirvana. All the world is one thing, and this person is aware of it all. He or she is standing on the mountaintop completely understanding it all and is "one" with it. Along comes Jack the wandering vendor, who is not aware of this fact, who asks us if we would like to have one of the sandwiches and a bottle of water from his knapsack . We realize we are quite hungry and thirsty, having taken 4 days to reach nirvana, but had not thought to bring any money with us. Although we are one with reality, we have nothing to trade with Jack for the sandwich and drink. Back to reality.

 

Or take John Lennon's "Imagine". Put everyone in a field celebrating their "oneness" and lack of division from each other. What if the food truck doesn't come along? And what do you do when night falls and it gets rather chilly? And what do you do the next day? Or if a hungry grizzly bear comes along? Or a lightning storm? Or one of us has a deadly communicable disease? Our imagined oneness may well fracture. Running up against reality.

 

So with this in mind, I ask, what is "really" there, when you imagine "another" universe. As soon as you "actually" find any evidence of its existance, it instantly becomes a characteristic/component/member of THIS one.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Appolinaria]

My thoughts are pretty similar... however, I don't believe we are one entity in purest form. Animals, I think are, but not humans. I think we have some individuality.

[tar]

Appolinaria,

 

Seems to me, that the same qualities and attributes that separate us from the universe are the one's that allow us to be conscious of it, from this particular place and time that "we" (each as a particular body/brain/heart group) are at.

I would totally agree that we are individuals, with definite individuality. But I am not so sure this is not found as well in animals. After all we are animals. And as an adult has a good deal more of many attributes than a fetus, a human has a good deal more of many attributes than an ancestor life form. But as in the fetus/adult relationship, where many systems and facilities were there, but not developed, the rudimentary systems and functions that developed into human forms, must have existed in our ancestors in some way. And other animals are not without similarities to humans.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Perhaps it is important to many religions, that man is a different kind of thing than an animal.

It is not important to "my" religion (whatever that is). In my religion, recognition of our close relationship to other mammals brings me "closer" to the spirit of the universe.

[PeterJ]

I think that the person who reaches Nirvana does not become aware that the universe is 'one thing', or not if we speak rigorously. It would not be 'One' and nor would it be a 'thing'.

 

The sages commonly warn us against supposing the world is One, or that God is One, since this is monism, and as such is just a disguised form of dualism (One must be opposed to 'two', or 'me' etc.)

 

What they discover, so it is said, is that the world is a unity. Here 'unity' would not mean 'One'. The phrase 'not two' is used in advaita vedanta, a phrase that denies plurality but which, we are constantly warned, does not mean 'One'. In Islam, likewise, we are warned against supposing that 'Al-Lah' is 'One'. 'Unity' often does mean 'One' when we use it, but not in mysticism. Thus 'Tao' is a reconciliation or transcendence of 'One' and 'Many', not one or the other. It would lie beyond such distinctions.

 

It's subtle issue, but if we believe that mysticism claims the world is one then philosophically we miss the entire message of it. We fall back into a metaphysical muddle due to the logical indefensibility of monism. For nondualism both monism and dualism would be false, just as logic and reason suggest.

 

There would be an original phenomenon, and as Kant speculates, and the OP, we would all have an immediate connection with it. Plotinus speaks of a hypersphere, where all points on the surface are connected immediately with the focal point. But this phenomenon would not be consciousness. It would be (as Kant again speculates) what is prior to consciousness. Perhaps 'pristine' or 'non-conceptual' awareness' would be something like it. Our common connection would be possible because we would not really be distinct entitites. Nothing would really exist apart from what we have in common, which would be the only non-contingent phenomenon. In mysticism, in Bradley's essay 'Appearance and Reality' for example, this phenomenon would be 'Reality'. All else would have only a dependent existence or would be 'epiphenomenal', existing as appearances but having no intrinsic existence. No little irreducible billiard balls at the heart of matter etc.. It may best be seen as theory of information.

 

But generally the OP would be right acccording to this view. It would be what we have in common that is real and unchanging and not our differences, which would be contingent and temporary. Death would be the end of me, but then I was never really here in the first place. Shaman of the Pueblo Indians say that we have two staes of consciousness available to us, which in translation are 'Believing We Exist' and 'Awakened Awareness'. This says it all.

[tar]

Shaman of the Pueblo Indians say that we have two staes of consciousness available to us, which in translation are 'Believing We Exist' and 'Awakened Awareness'. This says it all.

 

PeterJ,

 

Provided you know what it means. In which case you wouldn't need it to be said. Now would you?

 

I don't "disagree" with Eastern philosophy. It makes some sense. But where it fails me, is in its attitude. That the Shaman knows, and I don't.

 

I have a personal rule. No one holds a special key to reality. We all have equal access.

 

Regards, TAR2

[PeterJ]

Provided you know what it means. In which case you wouldn't need it to be said. Now would you?

Erm. Don't know what you mean by this. Am I not allowed to make statements unless I don't know what they mean?

 

I don't "disagree" with Eastern philosophy. It makes some sense. But where it fails me, is in its attitude. That the Shaman knows, and I don't.

Do you believe that everyone who knows something you don't has got a bad attitude? How odd. Surely that can't be what you mean. The idea is that anybody can know this stuff about awareness and existence, and that includes you. That is is whole idea. I don't know where you get the idea it's priveledged knowledge. Nobody claims that. Or do you mean that this is an issue on which you would disagree with the 'eastern' view, and would argue that it is priveledged?

 

I have a personal rule. No one holds a special key to reality. We all have equal access.

Yes, that is a central claim of mysticism. It is one of the most public claims it makes. I don't know how you've missed it. The Buddha spent a lifetime making it. This objection to mysticism is a complete misunderstanding.

[immortal]

Erm. Don't know what you mean by this. Am I not allowed to make statements unless I don't know what they mean?

 

 

Wittgenstein said 'whereof we can not speak thereof we should remain silent'.

 

We can not understand the 'ONE' with reason, rationalism or with speech and discussion. It has to be known only through experience. Its similar to tasting a sugar and saying it was sweet but when asked about what is sweetness, the mind goes ??????.

 

Saint Augustine had the same view, from his excerpt City of God.

 

 

10. Of the simple and unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, in whom substance and quality are identical.

 

There is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, and therefore alone unchangeable, and this is God. By this Good have all others been created, but not simple, and therefore not unchangeable. "Created," I say,--that is, made, not begotten. For that which is begotten of the simple Good is simple as itself, and the same as itself. These two we call the Father and the Son; and both together with the Holy Spirit are one God; and to this Spirit the epithet Holy is in Scripture, as it were, appropriated. And He is another than the Father and the Son, for He is neither the Father nor the Son. I say "another," not "another thing," because He is equally with them the simple Good, unchangeable and co-eternal. And this Trinity is one God; and none the less simple because a Trinity. For we do not say that the nature of the good is simple, because the Father alone possesses it, or the Son alone, or the Holy Ghost alone; nor do we say, with the Sabellian heretics, that it is only nominally a Trinity, and has no real distinction of persons; but we say it is simple, because it is what it has, with the exception of the relation of the persons to one another. For, in regard to this relation, it is true that the Father has a Son, and yet is not Himself the Son; and the Son has a Father, and is not Himself the Father. But, as regards Himself, irrespective of relation to the other, each is what He has; thus, He is in Himself living, for He has life, and is Himself the Life which He has.

 

It is for this reason, then, that the nature of the Trinity is called simple, because it has not anything which it can lose, and because it is not one thing and its contents another, as a cup and the liquor, or a body and its colour, or the air and the light or heat of it, or a mind and its wisdom. For none of these is what it has: the cup is not liquor, nor the body colour, nor the air light and heat, nor the mind wisdom. And hence they can be deprived of what they have, and can be turned or changed into other qualities and states, so that the cup may be emptied of the liquid of which it is full, the body be discoloured, the air darken, the mind grow silly. The incorruptible body which is promised to the saints in the resurrection cannot, indeed, lose its quality of incorruption, but the bodily substance and the quality of incorruption are not the same thing. For the quality of incorruption resides entire in each several part, not greater in one and less in another; for no part is more incorruptible than another. The body, indeed, is itself greater in whole than in part; and one part of it is larger, another smaller, yet is not the larger more incorruptible than the smaller. The body, then, which is not in each of its parts a whole body, is one thing; incorruptibility, which is throughout complete, is another thing;--for every part of the incorruptible body, however unequal to the rest otherwise, is equally incorrupt. For the hand, e.g., is not more incorrupt than the finger because it is larger than the finger; so, though finger and hand are unequal, their incorruptibility is equal. Thus, although incorruptibility is inseparable from an incorruptible body, yet the substance of the body is one thing, the quality of incorruption another. And therefore the body is not what it has. The soul itself, too, though it be always wise (as it will be eternally when it is redeemed), will be so by participating in the unchangeable wisdom, which it is not; for though the air be never robbed of the light that is shed abroad in it, it is not on that account the same thing as the light. I do not mean that the soul is air, as has been supposed by some who could not conceive a spiritual nature; but, with much dissimilarity, the two things have a kind of likeness, which makes it suitable to say that the immaterial soul is illumined with the immaterial light of the simple wisdom of God, as the material air is irradiated with material light, and that, as the air, when deprived of this light, grows dark, (for material darkness is nothing more than air wanting light,) so the soul, deprived of the light of wisdom, grows dark.

 

According to this, then, those things which are essentially and truly divine are called simple, because in them quality and substance are identical, and because they are divine, or wise, or blessed in themselves, and without extraneous supplement. In Holy Scripture, it is true, the Spirit of wisdom is called "manifold" because it contains many things in it; but what it contains it also is, and it being one is all these things. For neither are there many wisdoms, but one, in which are untold and infinite treasures of things intellectual, wherein are all invisible and unchangeable reasons of things visible and changeable which were created by it. For God made nothing unwittingly; not even a human workman can be said to do so. But if He knew all that He made, He made only those things which He had known. Whence flows a very striking but true conclusion, that this world could not be known to us unless it existed, but could not have existed unless it had been known to God.

 

 

[PeterJ]

We can not understand the 'ONE' with reason, rationalism or with speech and discussion. It has to be known only through experience. Its similar to tasting a sugar and saying it was sweet but when asked about what is sweetness, the mind goes ??????.

Yes, I agree. Not sure about the relevance to my comments however. I did not suggest otherwise.

 

Saint Augustine had the same view, from his excerpt City of God.

Nice excerpt. I'm a fan, although I cannot always agree with him.

 

As for Wittgenstein's comment, it never needed saying. Besides, Lao-tsu said it better.

[immortal]

Yes, I agree. Not sure about the relevance to my comments however. I did not suggest otherwise.

 

If you agree then you shouldn't make a speculation about the nature of the 'one' as you have done in the OP. I would never do that. The sages never discussed or argued about it instead they used to share their experiences with each other and based on those experiences they would come to a conclusion and that's how they validated the experiences by carefully examining the experience of the experiencer. So a discussion without actually experiencing it will lead you no where and any conclusion you make about the nature of the 'one' will be baseless and hence one should never try to describe it.

 

I mean to conclude just monism is right or dualism is right or saying ''here unity would not mean one'' has no credibility.

[PeterJ]

Immortal - You misunderstand me. I was merely repeating what the sages say, not claiming omniscience. They regularly speak about these things, as you know. To speak apophatically about the nature of reality is not to avoid speaking about it entirely. As Lao tsu points out, we must speak about it even if speaking is inadequate.

 

Besides, it would be self-defeating to argue that we cannot speak about something and then speak about it as you do here. In order to explain why we cannot speak about it we would have to speak about it. As it is, I can explain why we cannot speak about this unity, and a person could grasp the explanation without any need for special knowledge. It's just metaphysics. But this would not be at all the same thing as explaining what it actually is, which would, as you say, be impossible. After all, we talk about pain all the time.

 

When I say that this term 'unity' in mysticism would not mean 'One', I am stating a plain and simple fact, one that can be established quite easily. The literature is there for anyone to read.

 

As for the falsity of dualism and monism, you'll see that I was laying out what mysticism claims, not what I myself would claim. It so happens that I do believe both these metaphysical ideas are false, but I did not state that they are false. I try to write with rigour. Whether they are false would be an empirical matter. These ideas can be refuted in logic, however, and I'd be happy to state categorically that both of them are demonstrably absurd. Until we can decide their falsity empirically then we might as well use our reason to guide our theories, and we might as well discuss our calculations with each other.

 

If all you are saying is that philosophising in the way that I was doing is ultimately a waste of time, since no real understanding can come from it, then of course, yes, I would agree completely. But we could hardly have a discussion of existence and consciousness and not talk about mysticism, which claims to explain both, or not unless we think it's all utter nonsense.

 

Anyway, I think there is no need for us to argue. I'm well aware of the limits of language. It is perfectly possible to speak about the unity spoken of in mysticism without being a great sage. My comments are philosophical and can be backed up with philosophical argument, and not appeals to experience or faith, which would be out of order here.

 

I brief, I only half agree with you.

[immortal]

May be I might have misunderstood you, there's not much to argue against.

 

Am I not allowed to make statements unless I don't know what they mean?

 

I didn't get you here, need some clarification.

[PeterJ]

Okay. I quoted the Shaman's view regarding the two forms of consiousness, and said of the way they were named, 'This says it all.' You replied that I could not say this unless I knew exactly what the Shaman meant by these names, which would require having the same knowledge as him.

 

I see why you objected. You assumed that I was claiming to know what he knows. But I wouldn't do this whether I do or not. I should be more clear, and will try to be from now on. I should have added 'about this worldview'.

 

What I meant was that the use of these two names, 'Believing We Exist' and 'Awakened Awareness', neatly captures or summarises the view that I was describing. These names suggest unusually clearly that for the mystics many of the OPs ideas would have some truth in them. I speculate that they would be interchangable with 'Samsara and 'Nirvana'.

 

I suppose I'm trying to suggest that he does not need to reinvent the wheel.

Edited November 20, 2011 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Okay. I quoted the Shaman's view regarding the two forms of consiousness, and said of the way they were named, 'This says it all.' You replied that I could not say this unless I knew exactly what the Shaman meant by these names, which would require having the same knowledge as him.

 

I see why you objected. You assumed that I was claiming to know what he knows. But I wouldn't do this whether I do or not. I should be more clear, and will try to be from now on. I should have added 'about this worldview'.

 

What I meant was that the use of these two names, 'Believing We Exist' and 'Awakened Awareness', neatly captures or summarises the view that I was describing. These names suggest unusually clearly that for the mystics many of the OPs ideas would have some truth in them. I speculate that they would be interchangable with 'Samsara and 'Nirvana'.

 

I suppose I'm trying to suggest that he does not need to reinvent the wheel.

 

Yes, I thought that you said it in a context where you believed that having just theoretical knowledge was sufficient enough to understand what the mystics meant and claimed that you could make those statements. There is a difference between what we know and what the Shaman knows and I have been thinking on the same lines and after reading many books I have realized that reading about them with out any revealation is like reading in a dark room with all lights switched off, it will take you no where and I have stopped reading books about them. They all say it is this or it is that but neither the author nor the one who is reading it really knows what it is. For example when he says that we were never really here in the first place doesn't deny the fact that I'm struggling to survive each day subjected to the constraints of space and time and taking the pleasures and pains of life. I don't get this.

 

The body is a machine it can survive on its own it doesn't require any awareness as an add on property to carry on its workings and so it begs the question why do we have to be aware of all this, persons who are liberated will not have any awareness about their bodies, infact they don't even remember their names or the address of where they live, its only when they interact with the phenomenal world they have to worry about all that. It is only when you get liberated you know whether you had those characteristics priorly in you or will you transform into something different which is not you, as you can see one can not make a consenus on whether monism is right or dualism.

Edited November 20, 2011 by immortal

[PeterJ]

I can agree with all of your first para. I happen to think you are wrong to assume that the authors of the books you are reading never know what they are talking about, but on the rest we can agree. Hooray.

 

To understand this idea of being here and not here at the same time, that we both exist and do not exist as Heraclitus puts it, or 'do not really exist' as a Buddhist might put it, which is possible to some extent by analysis without inner revelations, I would recommend reading about Nagarjuna's doctrine of Two Worlds or Truths, the philosophical foundation for 'Middle Way' Buddhism.

 

The second para I find unnecessarily pessimistic and not so correct. Are you sure your body can operate without the presence of awareness? How would you prove it? Then, the idea that liberated people have no awareness of their bodies does not fly. They wouldn't be able to get through the day. They must struggle for survival along with the rest of us.

 

One important factual point. There is a very clear concensus on the falsity of monism and dualism. Unless both of the ideas are false then Buddhism and the entire wisdom tradition is a pack of lies. This is not a matter of what we can and cannot know, but of what the doctrine claims. Nondualism, as is implied by its name, states that dualism is false, and monism would be just another form of dualism. On this issue the literature of mysticism is crystal clear.

 

In the end all distinctions would be false, and this would be why we must be said to both exist and not-exist. When we do not actually experience this truth in our lives then we are 'Believing We Exist. When we do see it, at all times, then this would the shaman's 'Awakened Awarenesss', a state which is not called 'Believing We Don't Exist' as we might expect, but refers to our awakeness to the fact that there is a sense in which we do not exist.

 

Thus when the Buddha is stopped while walking down the road by someone struck by his appearance, who asks him for an explanation of it, and asks what is so special about him, he answers by saying only that he is awake.

Edited November 21, 2011 by PeterJ

[tar]

PeterJ and Immortal,

 

This "no distinction" stuff.

 

Means nothing to me. It is a thought had by a mortal, who by definition is distinquished from the rest of reality.

I find it an impossible thing, to have a thought, which is not yours. Not that others could not give you the idea, and not that others could not have the idea, or not that the idea might come to you as a very clear and full understanding of yourself and your relationship to the universe.

 

But if "you" have a thought, then it is "you" having the thought.

 

Please explain to me how "you" can have a thought, if there is no "you".

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

I can agree with all of your first para. I happen to think you are wrong to assume that the authors of the books you are reading never know what they are talking about, but on the rest we can agree. Hooray.

 

Oh!! Yeah there are experienced authors in those subjects whose books are worth reading. I was talking about the other ones's.

 

To understand this idea of being here and not here at the same time, that we both exist and do not exist as Heraclitus puts it, or 'do not really exist' as a Buddhist might put it, which is possible to some extent by analysis without inner revelations, I would recommend reading about Nagarjuna's doctrine of Two Worlds or Truths, the philosophical foundation for 'Middle Way' Buddhism.

 

Certainly, I will consider reading it, though I was not influenced by Buddhism.

 

The second para I find unnecessarily pessimistic and not so correct. Are you sure your body can operate without the presence of awareness? How would you prove it? Then, the idea that liberated people have no awareness of their bodies does not fly. They wouldn't be able to get through the day. They must struggle for survival along with the rest of us.

 

Yes it is well documented in the literature, we call those persons as 'Sarvagna' means one who knows everything, since you have asked for a proof, I have to give a modern example for it so Check this out. I don't completely understand what he is saying since he doesn't talk in technical terms but we do have a fair knowledge what's going on him from the similar behaviour of mystic people recorded in the past history.

 

The brain has pre-programmed instincts which will help it to survive on its own and react to dangers, so the brain will fire a neuron when he sees a tree falling on you and move your body from there, one doesn't have to be aware of it, there is no need for it. Its also interesting how the senses work as described by that man, there is nothing in the brain or in the senses which helps us to identify the things which are surrounding us, it just K+ and Na+ potential differences, signals thats all, its the mind which connects the knowledge of the brain into the sense perception of the eye and help us to recognize the things and therefore a liberated man who is disassociated from the brain and the sense organs doesn't remember the connection of things in the phenomenal world, he sees something else and doesn't have any interests to know what it is. It is a normal phenomena and it is well documented in literatures.

 

U.G.: It was finished. And then the strangest thing from then on was the senses took over. And then, I discovered the real way the senses operate. There was no transmitter who was saying, "that is a bright sun" or "it is dark" or "this is hard, this is soft". I was looking at the cow there in field, and I asked Valentine, who was sitting next to me on the bench, "What is that?". She said, "A cow". And after another five minutes, again, like a child, I asked her, "What is that, Valentine?" She was so disgusted. "How many times do I have to tell you that that is a cow? Don't you know that?" You see, in the beginning it intrigued me. I didn't even know what that was. Now, I'm in the same situation and I never know what I'm looking at. If you ask me the question, "What is that?", I would say "It is a cow".

 

 

U.G.- So, what I am stressing all the time is how the body, freed from this strangled hold of culture, functions. That's all that I am describing. And there is no way you can control the functioning of this body. Nothing you can do, you see. The body doesn't actually need all that we feed it. It is a pleasure movement. We eat for our pleasure. That's a fact.

 

For the scientists it is the food which reduces entropy but for a mystic what keep it working is something else.

 

U.G.- Automatically, it has tremendous intelligence to protect itself. It knows how to protect itself and how to survive. So, you have no part to play in the functioning of this body. And then, you see, the intelligence that is there takes over and takes care of itself.

 

One important factual point. There is a very clear concensus on the falsity of monism and dualism. Unless both of the ideas are false then Buddhism and the entire wisdom tradition is a pack of lies. This is not a matter of what we can and cannot know, but of what the doctrine claims. Nondualism, as is implied by its name, states that dualism is false, and monism would be just another form of dualism. On this issue the literature of mysticism is crystal clear.

 

There are monists, dualists and non-dualists and we have a whole detail of literature about them but what do we believe in, to believe in only one doctrine we have to disprove the others or falsify it but to do it you have to experience itself, there is no other way out, this is the point I was making.

 

In the end all distinctions would be false, and this would be why we must be said to both exist and not-exist. When we do not actually experience this truth in our lives then we are 'Believing We Exist. When we do see it, at all times, then this would the shaman's 'Awakened Awarenesss', a state which is not called 'Believing We Don't Exist' as we might expect, but refers to our awakeness to the fact that there is a sense in which we do not exist.

 

Thus when the Buddha is stopped while walking down the road by someone struck by his appearance, who asks him for an explanation of it, and asks what is so special about him, he answers by saying only that he is awake.

 

Interesting perspective but I doesn't like to go in depth about this, it sounds great when it comes from the mouth of Shaman or Buddha, we can only make an analysis of it which can not touch the heart of the matter that exists.

[PeterJ]

PeterJ and Immortal,

 

This "no distinction" stuff.

 

Means nothing to me. It is a thought had by a mortal, who by definition is distinquished from the rest of reality.

I find it an impossible thing, to have a thought, which is not yours. Not that others could not give you the idea, and not that others could not have the idea, or not that the idea might come to you as a very clear and full understanding of yourself and your relationship to the universe.

 

But if "you" have a thought, then it is "you" having the thought.

 

Please explain to me how "you" can have a thought, if there is no "you".

 

Regards, TAR2

One cannot have a thought that is not ones own, that much is pretty clear. The idea would be not that we do not exist, but that we do not exist in the way we usually think we do. It's rather like the view physicists have of physical objects. Heisenberg points out that we can say equally 'here is a table' and 'here is not a table', in such a way that QM would require a modification of Aristotle's tertium non datur rule. Same principle almost, or a useful analogy. It's not that tables do not exist, but that they do not exist in the way we generally think they do.

 

The distinction thing would be crucial. It is the basis of the philosophical scheme (and, of course, also an empirical result). For this view no distinction should be reified. Thus the distinctions which create the dilemmas of metaphysics disappear along with the dilemmas. Nearly all philosophers discover that metaphysics does not endorse a positive or partial metaphysical theory, and here would be the 'esoteric' explanation for why this is so. They would all be false. You could say that mysticism predicts the failure of metaphysics to reach a positive result. We are in the realms of ordinary philosophy here, and there is even some relevance to physics. For instance, physics cannot prove that anything really exists, and Buddhism would give the reason why. or, at least, it proposes a solution that works, whether or not it is correct.

 

At any rate, this view entails that there is not really a 'you' that is distinct from 'me', or only if we are not aware of who we really are. This provides a basis for ethics, as is well explained by Schopenhauer. (I've got a quote from him on this I'll try to find).

 

I'm wary about saying more here since it does not seem to be the place. For a fuller (and less hasty) explanation I could refer you elsewhere by PM if you want me to.

 

Immortal is quite right, of course, to say that by analysis we cannot fully understand this solution, but we can understand it well enough to make a well-informed judgement as to whether it would work or not. If we are practicing Zen then all this would be useless waffle when it comes to the practice, but for most forms of Buddhism analysis is a vital part of meditation and it would not be right to dismiss it as a waste of time. If we do not know whether Buddhism, more generally mysticism, stands up to philosophical analysis, then metaphysics allows us to test the doctrine against logic and reason and make an intial judgement, since here the issues are fairly clear-cut.

 

Sorry, this is rather muddled. Note to myself- must do better.

 

It might help to refer outside this disussion. Here are three extracts that seem relevant and helpful. The first clarifies Kant's position and says something about the 'unreality' of phenomena. The second shows the Buddha paying a lot of attention to an anlysis of the evidence of his senses, and dismissing the idea that consciousness can survive apart from a body, and the third says something about distinctions, unity and knowledge.

 

 

 

"The history of Western philosophy is filled with discussion, in one guise or another, of what is often called the 'transcendental' subject and object. The terms invoke the idea of a hidden self behind the phenomenal self and a hidden object behind the phenomenal object. Although Kant positioned the transcendental 'things-in-themselves' as methodological concepts rather than as metaphysical entities, the tendency since Kant has often been to reify them and then debate their objective existence. Idealists have typically wanted to exclude the transcendental object from philosophical discussion on the grounds of its alleged non-existence, while materialists have generally wanted to exclude the transcendental subject on the same grounds.

 

The idea behind modern phenomenalism would be that neither the transcendental object or subject exists in any concrete sense. Instead, one would postulate various possible combinations of phenomenal objects, the most coherent, complex and structured of which could be viewable as constituting emergent conceptual minds such as our own. In this case, the universe could be seen as fundamentally rooted in phenomena or mind.

 

As a result, there would be a tendency to reify mental phenomena, as in Berkeleian objective substance monism. However, I would argue that to do so would be as much of a mistake as to reify physical entities, since even the most basic mental properties can be shown to have a conceptual, and hence relative, non-objective aspect. In this idea's original context, mainstream Buddhist philosophy, one would say that the reason to avoid endowing anything, including a qualitative state or a self, with the property of intrinsic, independent reality is that no object can be logically established without implicit or explicit reference to the causes and conditions which enable it to exist - including its parts and attributes and the very fact that a consciousness is required to mentally designate it a distinct entity in the first place. This principle is known as 'dependent origination' or 'the interdependent nature of reality'. " (Edward Barkin, 'Relative Phenomenalism', Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol 10 No. 8 (2003))

 

//

 

 

"With his heart thus serene, made pure, translucent, cultured, devoid of evil, supple, ready to act, firm and impeturbable, he applies and bends down his mind to the insight that comes from knowledge. He grasps the fact: "This body of mine has form, it is built up of the four elements, it springs from father and mother, it is continually renewed by so much boiled rice and juicy foods, its very nature is impermanence, it is subject to erasion, abrasion, dissolution, and disintegration; so also consciousness is bound up with it and depends on it." (The Buddha. Samanna-phala Sutta. Trans. Trevor Ling)

 

//

 

" After death there is no consciousness: this is what I say.' Thus spake Yahñavalka.

 

But Maitreyi said: 'In this, good sir, you have thrown me into confusion in that you say that after death there is no consciousness.'

 

And Yajnavalka said: 'There is nothing confusing in what I say. This is surely as much as you can understand now.'

 

For where there is any semblence of duality, then does one smell another, then does one speak to another, then does one think of another, then does one understand another. But when all has become one's very Self, then with what should one hear whom? With what should one see whom? With what should one hear whom? With what should one speak to whom? With what should one think of whom? With what should one understand whom? With what should one understand Him by whom one understands this whole universe? With what indeed should one understand the Understander?" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad)

Edited November 21, 2011 by PeterJ

[immortal]

It might help to refer outside this disussion. Here are three extracts that seem relevant and helpful. The first clarifies Kant's position and says something about the 'unreality' of phenomena. The second shows the Buddha paying a lot of attention to an anlysis of the evidence of his senses, and dismissing the idea that consciousness can survive apart from a body, and the third says something about distinctions, unity and knowledge.

 

" After death there is no consciousness: this is what I say.' Thus spake Yahñavalka.

 

But Maitreyi said: 'In this, good sir, you have thrown me into confusion in that you say that after death there is no consciousness.'

 

And Yajnavalka said: 'There is nothing confusing in what I say. This is surely as much as you can understand now.'

 

For where there is any semblence of duality, then does one smell another, then does one speak to another, then does one think of another, then does one understand another. But when all has become one's very Self, then with what should one hear whom? With what should one see whom? With what should one hear whom? With what should one speak to whom? With what should one think of whom? With what should one understand whom? With what should one understand Him by whom one understands this whole universe? With what indeed should one understand the Understander?" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad)

 

Wow, I just can not believe you quoted Yajnavalkya here in this science forum, I'm very excited, I really appreciate it. Yajnavalkya Mahirshi is a person for whom I hold some great respect. It was by his means the world got to know about the Ishavashya Upanishad, one day his master asked him to give back all the knowledge that was taught to him due to some misunderstandings that arose between each other (which was a play of the gods) and by giving all his learned knowledge back to his master, he sat and worshipped the sun god and went on to write a new veda of his own with the grace of sun god, which is called as the krishna yajurveda. The Ishavashya Upanishad is a small upanishad consisting of only a 17 or odd sutras. Yajnavalkya was a true Sarvajna, it is thought that he got to know about the nature of the elements that is the thing-in-itself in just 15 days which is thought to require almost a year of practice and sacrifice. He wrote the Yajnavalkya Smriti which teaches about the conduct of human beings. I wish I knew atleast a tiny drop of knowledge from what he knew. Here is the full conversation between them it will help us to understand it better. Conversation of Yajnvalkya and Maithreyi on the Absolute Self (I have linked to the last conversations which is very much relevant here)

 

I think the credit should go to Peter for pointing out us here. I somehow understand it better now. I had read about the biography of Yajnvalkya, it is a book called 'Mahadarshana' by Devudu Narasimha Shastry, there were many secrets of the upanishads and as well a narration of the story of Yajnavalkya, but unfortunately it is not available in the english version yet.

[PeterJ]

Thanks for the thumbs up. Appreciated. Yes, it's a science forum, but it is worth noting that Erwin Schroedinger argued for forty years that the writers of the Upanishads had got it right, and never found any difficulty reconciling their description of the world with what he knew of physics and biology. He is well worth reading on these topics. If I have time I'll dig something out and post it.

[immortal]

Even I wish I was free, I have to prepare for my exams and will not be able to participate with much intensity.

 

I found a few statements of Erwin Schrodinger which are worth mentioning,

 

What is this "I"?.... You will, on close intospection, find that what you really mean by "I" is the ground-stuff upon which[experience and memories] are collected.

 

Our perceiving self is nowhere to be found within the world-picture, because it itself is the world-picture.

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterJ]

"The reason why our sentient, percipient, and thinking ego is met nowhere within our scientific world picture can be easily indicated in seven words: because it is itself that world picture. It is identical with the whole and therefore cannot be contained in it as part of it. But of course, here we knock against the arithmetical paradox; there appears to be a great multitude of these conscious egos, the world, however, is only one. This comes from the fashion in which the world-concept produces itself. The several domains of "private" consciousness overlap. The region common to us all where they all overlap is the construct of the "real world around us." With all that an uncomfortable feeling remains, prompting such questions as; is my world really the same as yours? Is there one real world to be distinguished from its pictures introjected by way of perception into every one of us? And if so, are these pictures like unto the real world or is the latter, the world "in itself," perhaps very different from the one we perceive?

 

Such questions are ingenious, but, in my opinion, very apt to confuse the issue. They have no adequate answers. They are all, or lead to, antimonies springing from the one source, which I called the arithmetical paradox; the many conscious egos from whose mental experiences the one world is concocted.

 

… There are two way out of the the number paradox, both appearing rather lunatic from the point of view of present scientific thought (based on ancient Greek thought and thus thoroughly "Western"). One way out is the multiplication of the world in Leibnitz's fearful doctrine of monads: every monad to be a world by itself, no communication between them; the monad "has no windows," it is "incommunicado." That they all agree with each other is called "pre-established harmony".

 

… There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not only the Upanishads. The mystically experienced union with God regularly entails this attitude unless it is opposed by strong existing prejudices;…"

 

 

 

Erwin Schrödinger

The Oneness of Mind

Edited November 28, 2011 by PeterJ

[StarStuff]

My thoughts are pretty similar... however, I don't believe we are one entity in purest form. Animals, I think are, but not humans. I think we have some individuality.

 

 

 

I don't understand why some people tend to forget we're animals too. We all just have different degrees of consciousness, but we're not the only ones with a sense of self... now it's been shown that other animals, such as dolphins do too. Maybe I misunderstood what you said?