Consciousness & Self Vedanta | Sarvapriyananda
Consciousness and Self in Vedanta | Swami Sarvapriyananda @ University of Michigan
 |
|
Sri
Ramakrishna
|
Consciousness and Self in Vedanta | Swami Sarvapriyananda @ University of Michigan
Oh Isetta Mossad gamaya
Thomas OMA Jew tear gamma yah Richard ma am written gamma yah boom
Shanti Shanti Shanti Oh lead us from the Unreal to the real lead us
from darkness unto light lead us from death to immortality Oh peace
peace Namaskar everybody and thank you for organizing this a beautiful event in this beautiful campus and in this beautiful hall
today the subject before us is my host was telling me it's a tough
one today Swamy consciousness and self in Advaita Vedanta so what
we'll do I'll talk about it for a while and then we'll open it up for
question answers we can discuss it more consciousness studies
has become very important these days in the last 20 to 25 years it has really opened up so many people different subjects it's multidisciplinary there are of course brain scientists are interested in it, neuroscientists are interested in consciousness studies but so are psychologists they are philosophers are interested in it philosophers of mind philosophers of language even physicists are interested in computer science people are interested in consciousness studies AI people are interested in consciousness studies there is this book waking dreaming and being Evan Thompson is a professor of the philosophy at the University of British Columbia he writes in the introduction to the book that consciousness studies are actually not new there are these texts called the opening shots more than 5000 years ago they are about this field about consciousness studies in the fact he goes on to quote another philosopher who said that consciousness studies important that we should really date our history from we know before opening shots and after new permission even
I as an exponent of Advaita Vedanta wouldn't be so heavy Dante is a school of philosophy based on the Upanishads not only Andrea Vedanta but all the schools of Indian philosophy were more or less interested in consciousness and self why they are they're interested in consciousness and self, the focus was different from
what modern consciousness studies are about the focus was how do you overcome suffering you know the Buddha's approach is very elegant there is suffering is there a way out of suffering that was his whole approach and in fact, that can be used to describe all of the different multiple schools of Indian philosophy and they were all concerned with how to overcome suffering how to attain lasting profound peace and joy what today we might call
wellness there is a new term but in a most profound sense how do you at attain lasting wellness so that was their quest in Sanskrit authentica Dukan ability para maana and the practice Chur transcendence of sorrow or cessation of sorrow attainment of happiness and bliss all the schools and since they were concerned with the self how to attain and the self is intimately connected with consciousness so that's how the schools of Indian philosophy including Advaita Vedanta they became interested in the self and in
consciousness each of them but before I go into into it any further let me say that it's not a unified view at all just
as today in consciousness studies you have the entire range of views from somebody like say David Chalmers of whom will speak later who speaks about justice is a fundamental reality of the universe across to somebody like Daniel Dennett or Churchland who would go so far as to deny that there is anything
as called con consciousness they actually they do that so there's
a wide array of theories speculation really about what consciousness is and how it arises and functions similarly in ancient Indian philosophy each of the schools they had their own views
about the self and consciousness the Naya and vaisheshika schools they had their own view about consciousness and the self the Sun care school of which will have more to say little later it had its own B of consciousness the yoga school and of course the Advaita Vedanta school which will be concerned with specifically in today's talk the Buddhist schools developed a very sophisticated views and very different views of the self you know the fundamental difference between the Buddhist approach and the Orthodox Hindu approaches was that the Buddhist schools denied the any persisting self at all there is a self but it's not a permanent persisting self
you know something that persists across time they developed very sophisticated models of consciousness there are different schools of Buddhism the China's the giant school developed its own idea of consciousness and and the okay you need to switch that off
I remember when mobile phones first started coming in it was I was in one of the schools in India teaching there and there's little kids they asked Swami why do you say Shante ohh Shante is the word for peace why do you say Shanthi three times
I said there are three kinds of sorrows you try to traditionally speak about in Indian philosophy the panic added a big idiotic three kinds of sorrows three levels of sorrows
so you pray for deliverance from those sorrows and then he said you need to add a fourth shanti mobile Shanthi yeah yeah so the Chinese had their own be of consciousness and
so did the ancient Indian materialists they were a wide range of materials actually the chair workers whose views of consciousness are pretty close to the mainstream view of consciousness today the materialist reductionist view of consciousness
so we had a wide array spectrum of different views of consciousness in those days not just in Indian philosophy today in Western philosophy also I was in Manhattan a few weeks ago and they
I saw this there's a philosophy Cafe it's a very intellectually alive place a lot of things are happening so there's a philosophy cafe where that sub be subject attracted me to five great unsolved problems of philosophy five great unsolved questions of philosophy
I think that's a bit of an oxymoron because all the great questions of philosophy are generally almost by definition unsolved but anyway, it is very interesting
so I decided to go and join the Philosophy cafe it was built and it was very close to where
I live and it was in fact in our building quite like this up a library with 70 people and New York in summer is hot it was not an air-conditioned room 70 people packed into a room half the size of this and an intense discussion you might be interested in knowing
what are the five great unsolved questions in philosophy let me tell you one is do we have free will the old question of free will the second one is can we know anything at all you know skepticism regarding epistemology so knowledge can
has become very important these days in the last 20 to 25 years it has really opened up so many people different subjects it's multidisciplinary there are of course brain scientists are interested in it, neuroscientists are interested in consciousness studies but so are psychologists they are philosophers are interested in it philosophers of mind philosophers of language even physicists are interested in computer science people are interested in consciousness studies AI people are interested in consciousness studies there is this book waking dreaming and being Evan Thompson is a professor of the philosophy at the University of British Columbia he writes in the introduction to the book that consciousness studies are actually not new there are these texts called the opening shots more than 5000 years ago they are about this field about consciousness studies in the fact he goes on to quote another philosopher who said that consciousness studies important that we should really date our history from we know before opening shots and after new permission even
I as an exponent of Advaita Vedanta wouldn't be so heavy Dante is a school of philosophy based on the Upanishads not only Andrea Vedanta but all the schools of Indian philosophy were more or less interested in consciousness and self why they are they're interested in consciousness and self, the focus was different from
what modern consciousness studies are about the focus was how do you overcome suffering you know the Buddha's approach is very elegant there is suffering is there a way out of suffering that was his whole approach and in fact, that can be used to describe all of the different multiple schools of Indian philosophy and they were all concerned with how to overcome suffering how to attain lasting profound peace and joy what today we might call
wellness there is a new term but in a most profound sense how do you at attain lasting wellness so that was their quest in Sanskrit authentica Dukan ability para maana and the practice Chur transcendence of sorrow or cessation of sorrow attainment of happiness and bliss all the schools and since they were concerned with the self how to attain and the self is intimately connected with consciousness so that's how the schools of Indian philosophy including Advaita Vedanta they became interested in the self and in
consciousness each of them but before I go into into it any further let me say that it's not a unified view at all just
as today in consciousness studies you have the entire range of views from somebody like say David Chalmers of whom will speak later who speaks about justice is a fundamental reality of the universe across to somebody like Daniel Dennett or Churchland who would go so far as to deny that there is anything
as called con consciousness they actually they do that so there's
a wide array of theories speculation really about what consciousness is and how it arises and functions similarly in ancient Indian philosophy each of the schools they had their own views
about the self and consciousness the Naya and vaisheshika schools they had their own view about consciousness and the self the Sun care school of which will have more to say little later it had its own B of consciousness the yoga school and of course the Advaita Vedanta school which will be concerned with specifically in today's talk the Buddhist schools developed a very sophisticated views and very different views of the self you know the fundamental difference between the Buddhist approach and the Orthodox Hindu approaches was that the Buddhist schools denied the any persisting self at all there is a self but it's not a permanent persisting self
you know something that persists across time they developed very sophisticated models of consciousness there are different schools of Buddhism the China's the giant school developed its own idea of consciousness and and the okay you need to switch that off
I remember when mobile phones first started coming in it was I was in one of the schools in India teaching there and there's little kids they asked Swami why do you say Shante ohh Shante is the word for peace why do you say Shanthi three times
I said there are three kinds of sorrows you try to traditionally speak about in Indian philosophy the panic added a big idiotic three kinds of sorrows three levels of sorrows
so you pray for deliverance from those sorrows and then he said you need to add a fourth shanti mobile Shanthi yeah yeah so the Chinese had their own be of consciousness and
so did the ancient Indian materialists they were a wide range of materials actually the chair workers whose views of consciousness are pretty close to the mainstream view of consciousness today the materialist reductionist view of consciousness
so we had a wide array spectrum of different views of consciousness in those days not just in Indian philosophy today in Western philosophy also I was in Manhattan a few weeks ago and they
I saw this there's a philosophy Cafe it's a very intellectually alive place a lot of things are happening so there's a philosophy cafe where that sub be subject attracted me to five great unsolved problems of philosophy five great unsolved questions of philosophy
I think that's a bit of an oxymoron because all the great questions of philosophy are generally almost by definition unsolved but anyway, it is very interesting
so I decided to go and join the Philosophy cafe it was built and it was very close to where
I live and it was in fact in our building quite like this up a library with 70 people and New York in summer is hot it was not an air-conditioned room 70 people packed into a room half the size of this and an intense discussion you might be interested in knowing
what are the five great unsolved questions in philosophy let me tell you one is do we have free will the old question of free will the second one is can we know anything at all you know skepticism regarding epistemology so knowledge can
we know anything at all third one is waiting for it Who am
What are we really that is really the fundamental question of Advaita Vedanta Who am I then the fourth one is what is death remember not death as a physical death that's of interest to doctors but death to me as a psychological being as a sentient being
so what is death to me as a sentient being that's a great question a question of death and then the last question was what is justice the way they put it what is global justice
so these and why are these and not anything else the five great unsolved problems because actually oxford university press you can google it oxford university press selected these
I think it's just a way to once in a while to boost the ratings of Plus a few, no but it's very good and the discussion was a pretty high quality there where it was guided by philosophers from CUNY and from Columbia my point in bringing this up am
I immediately noticed and you will notice four of the five great questions are directly connected with consciousness you notice Do we have free will can what can be known Who am I and what is death in different ways all these questions are vitally connected with the question of consciousness very interesting
so whether it is Eastern ancient Eastern philosophy of which today's subject Advaita Vedanta is a part or whether it is modern Western philosophy all of them are vitally connected with the question of consciousness now consciousness studies today what is the really hot question central question today it is something called the hard problem of consciousness
I am bringing this up because this forms a bridge to relate to what a great event is talking about the
so-called hard problem of consciousness is that Professor David Chalmers is now an Australian philosopher who is now in NYU is the head of the mind-brain consciousness unit there he coined the term the hard problem of consciousness now what is this hard problem of consciousness first of all what are easy so-called easy problems of consciousness in modern consciousness studies as far as
I can understand most of the work is being done with very modern new technology they call fMRI scans
so what they basically do is they scan our brains using these very sophisticated devices and map the firings of the neurons in the brain and they correlated to our activities so you're listening to a speech and if a scan was done on your brain clearly some parts of the brain would light up and so now they would say this whole act of listening is because of these neurons in the brain you have a cup of coffee the taste of coffee and there will be some part of the brain that lights up and they will say that maybe that's the coffee tasting and you run or whatever
I don't think they get that specific but anyway, the way David Chalmers puts it is this whole effort which is very good and very productive has given rise to a lot of new understanding about the brain but this is basically a science of correlation it's a science of correlation you're finding some data and you know you are matching it with the subject's activities or reports but in contrast to this there is a huge huge problem which
What are we really that is really the fundamental question of Advaita Vedanta Who am I then the fourth one is what is death remember not death as a physical death that's of interest to doctors but death to me as a psychological being as a sentient being
so what is death to me as a sentient being that's a great question a question of death and then the last question was what is justice the way they put it what is global justice
so these and why are these and not anything else the five great unsolved problems because actually oxford university press you can google it oxford university press selected these
I think it's just a way to once in a while to boost the ratings of Plus a few, no but it's very good and the discussion was a pretty high quality there where it was guided by philosophers from CUNY and from Columbia my point in bringing this up am
I immediately noticed and you will notice four of the five great questions are directly connected with consciousness you notice Do we have free will can what can be known Who am I and what is death in different ways all these questions are vitally connected with the question of consciousness very interesting
so whether it is Eastern ancient Eastern philosophy of which today's subject Advaita Vedanta is a part or whether it is modern Western philosophy all of them are vitally connected with the question of consciousness now consciousness studies today what is the really hot question central question today it is something called the hard problem of consciousness
I am bringing this up because this forms a bridge to relate to what a great event is talking about the
so-called hard problem of consciousness is that Professor David Chalmers is now an Australian philosopher who is now in NYU is the head of the mind-brain consciousness unit there he coined the term the hard problem of consciousness now what is this hard problem of consciousness first of all what are easy so-called easy problems of consciousness in modern consciousness studies as far as
I can understand most of the work is being done with very modern new technology they call fMRI scans
so what they basically do is they scan our brains using these very sophisticated devices and map the firings of the neurons in the brain and they correlated to our activities so you're listening to a speech and if a scan was done on your brain clearly some parts of the brain would light up and so now they would say this whole act of listening is because of these neurons in the brain you have a cup of coffee the taste of coffee and there will be some part of the brain that lights up and they will say that maybe that's the coffee tasting and you run or whatever
I don't think they get that specific but anyway, the way David Chalmers puts it is this whole effort which is very good and very productive has given rise to a lot of new understanding about the brain but this is basically a science of correlation it's a science of correlation you're finding some data and you know you are matching it with the subject's activities or reports but in contrast to this there is a huge huge problem which
you might call an elephant in
the room it is this is the first time David Chalmers pointed out the
problem a problem is this how can a physical system a system as
physical as this podium the super wooden podium a physical system
like the brain and nervous system how can it generate first-person
experiences color the point is when you see something definitely
there are neurons firing in the brain
we are no doubt about that there's no doubt about it the brain and nervous system are working but you're seeing my seeing we are not seeing failing you're seeing the color you're hearing sound when we speak when we think when we remember when we love-hate understand Rim or forget all the conscious activities of our life all the first person experiences how can a physical system generate that why is it
we are no doubt about that there's no doubt about it the brain and nervous system are working but you're seeing my seeing we are not seeing failing you're seeing the color you're hearing sound when we speak when we think when we remember when we love-hate understand Rim or forget all the conscious activities of our life all the first person experiences how can a physical system generate that why is it
so difficult because of every other system in the world every other thing in the world our current
understanding is there's only one way of describing it if you take
this table somebody from biology will give a description of what they
were originally
was as a part of a tree somebody used from chemistry who will give a description of its chemical composition go further down the scale of physics professor will give you the molecular and the atomic and the subatomic down to be maybe a description of what is it at the level of quarks maybe superstrings or whatever and that's the description of this thing nobody ever claims there is something like what it is like to be a table from inside what does the table feel like right now there's no such thing nobody speaks about that except for you except for us
here is a physical system David Sharma point he points out there is a physical system where the description is given by biologists chemists and the physicists and doctors and everybody else they give a description of the physical body the brain the nervous system and an entirely a different experience is there for you the person inhibiting that physical system what is the connection what is the relationship between the physical substrate of our existence and this conscious being we find ourselves to see
I'm using the word consciousness in a very general sense so I will use it alternatively with awareness sentience because the word I will use later on Chaitanya in Vedanta it's not exactly
what consciousness studies talk about as consciousness will explain why so David Chalmers says there is a hard problem here because it's a hard problem of consciousness and this has been this has become very important if you google you will find an enormous amount of discussion going on about it and a whole range of views one side of those who say there's no hard problem at all it's just the physical brain in fact just day for yesterday
I got an invitation from Kevin Michele she's a leading neuroscientist and just leave reading out the blood from the book new leading neuroscientist in Dublin and in Trinity College, he's written a book called innate he's a brain scientist also he's coming to Manhattan is going to be a debate on consciousness at the Rubin Museum I just heard over that yesterday so he's going to take the position that everything that we call consciousness is generated by the brain there is nothing apart from the brain there nothing else that's happening David Chalmers on the contrary claims that it's impossible no matter how far you go all you will understand all any scientific inquiry will reveal is further and further, about the brain itself, you will never make the transition from the brain to consciousness that jump is impossible
I have heard many talks either physically on YouTube or online the mystery of consciousness solved the secret of consciousness and every time you listen to that it's all reducing somehow reducing consciousness to the brain states even to quantum mechanics or to information science all of that and everywhere if you look carefully it's it would be and if it's a good present it would be a well reasoned step-by-step procedure until there's a little jump
I saw a cartoon that expressed this problem very clearly no mystery of consciousness explained and there is this person in a white lab coat obviously a Ph.D. student agri and his guide may be standing there and the student has scribbled on the blackboard step one1,2,3,4,5 steps 1,2,3 are full of mathematical notations detailed step five is again in a lot of mathematical notations step four says in big letters our miracle and his guide is telling him I think you need to work on step 4 basically a doctor a doctor
I think but I shouldn't take the name unless I'm sure I think it was doctor Anil, say it but it could be somebody else who said no
I know who it is who said that we know a lot about wine we know a lot about water but how water changes into wine, we don't know why do I mean if the water is the physical system the
was as a part of a tree somebody used from chemistry who will give a description of its chemical composition go further down the scale of physics professor will give you the molecular and the atomic and the subatomic down to be maybe a description of what is it at the level of quarks maybe superstrings or whatever and that's the description of this thing nobody ever claims there is something like what it is like to be a table from inside what does the table feel like right now there's no such thing nobody speaks about that except for you except for us
here is a physical system David Sharma point he points out there is a physical system where the description is given by biologists chemists and the physicists and doctors and everybody else they give a description of the physical body the brain the nervous system and an entirely a different experience is there for you the person inhibiting that physical system what is the connection what is the relationship between the physical substrate of our existence and this conscious being we find ourselves to see
I'm using the word consciousness in a very general sense so I will use it alternatively with awareness sentience because the word I will use later on Chaitanya in Vedanta it's not exactly
what consciousness studies talk about as consciousness will explain why so David Chalmers says there is a hard problem here because it's a hard problem of consciousness and this has been this has become very important if you google you will find an enormous amount of discussion going on about it and a whole range of views one side of those who say there's no hard problem at all it's just the physical brain in fact just day for yesterday
I got an invitation from Kevin Michele she's a leading neuroscientist and just leave reading out the blood from the book new leading neuroscientist in Dublin and in Trinity College, he's written a book called innate he's a brain scientist also he's coming to Manhattan is going to be a debate on consciousness at the Rubin Museum I just heard over that yesterday so he's going to take the position that everything that we call consciousness is generated by the brain there is nothing apart from the brain there nothing else that's happening David Chalmers on the contrary claims that it's impossible no matter how far you go all you will understand all any scientific inquiry will reveal is further and further, about the brain itself, you will never make the transition from the brain to consciousness that jump is impossible
I have heard many talks either physically on YouTube or online the mystery of consciousness solved the secret of consciousness and every time you listen to that it's all reducing somehow reducing consciousness to the brain states even to quantum mechanics or to information science all of that and everywhere if you look carefully it's it would be and if it's a good present it would be a well reasoned step-by-step procedure until there's a little jump
I saw a cartoon that expressed this problem very clearly no mystery of consciousness explained and there is this person in a white lab coat obviously a Ph.D. student agri and his guide may be standing there and the student has scribbled on the blackboard step one1,2,3,4,5 steps 1,2,3 are full of mathematical notations detailed step five is again in a lot of mathematical notations step four says in big letters our miracle and his guide is telling him I think you need to work on step 4 basically a doctor a doctor
I think but I shouldn't take the name unless I'm sure I think it was doctor Anil, say it but it could be somebody else who said no
I know who it is who said that we know a lot about wine we know a lot about water but how water changes into wine, we don't know why do I mean if the water is the physical system the
 |
|
Sri
Ramakrishna
|
brain and nervous system we
know more and more and more about it and if mine is the experience
that you are
I am now the first person who experience internally first person wise we know a lot about it every one of us experiences consciousness but how the two are related is the hard problem of consciousness at least David Chalmers and here those who have recognized it and more and more important people ended up,
I am now the first person who experience internally first person wise we know a lot about it every one of us experiences consciousness but how the two are related is the hard problem of consciousness at least David Chalmers and here those who have recognized it and more and more important people ended up,
for example,
the philosophy of mind another conference attended recently was in
NYU on the philosophy of mind and some of the top people were there
worldwide and you know
what the subject was there was behaviorism and psychologism in the philosophy of mind in the arm and they're saying that his whole approach that we have taken in the study of psychology and philosophy of mind till now and all of the 20th-century starting from Prager who talked about removing psychologism in mathematics down to behaviorism skinner and all of that till today it has now become a big stumbling block in our search for consciousness the point was made science is about objectivity and that works absolutely fine when you're studying objects but when you are going to study
the subject itself your whole training is to turn the thing into an object and study it now if it is a subject that cannot be turned into an object,
I will show we'll see how then you're going to miss by a white mark you're going to come up with desperate attempts you can see why some scientists would say there is no such thing as consciousness and very smart people it's saying that there's no such thing as consciousness so David Chalmers what is the solution according to David Chalmers,
I promise this is leading somewhere what is the solution David Chalmers says he advocates now something called Panpsychism it's been early around but it's now getting a new lease on life
I remember there was a debate in Brooklyn, I think it's called the open house or something between David Chalmers on one hand and Edward he's the lead scientist for the Paul Allen Brain Institute so he takes the reductionist approach and David Chalmers took the other approach and it ended with one of them pouring water on the head of the other person I don't know it all in fun come so what's the solution what would be the solution according to David Chalmers for the hard problem of consciousness he advocated something called Panpsychism where he says we may though it sounds crazy we may have to ultimately accept consciousness as the fundamental reality of this universe what do you mean by fundamental reality no need to reduce it even to make the attempt of reducing it to a brain rather just like matter and energy and time and space
are fundamental factors in studying the universe consciousness may have to be included as a fundamental reality of the universe because it is fundamentally reducible to other things in principle it is irreducible which means consciousness must be ubiquitous it must be everywhere and fundamental independent reality by itself and it interacts with the physical world through nervous systems and brains in something like that he is talking about nowhere is the bridge
I don't know if he is aware but more than 5000 years ago one of the most ancient schools of Indian philosophy the Sankhya said there are two fundamental realities in the universe
one is nature time space matter-energy the term they used was Prakriti and the other one is conscious so consciousness and nature exactly the way you experience the universe you are a sentient being we are sentient beings experiencing the universe
what the subject was there was behaviorism and psychologism in the philosophy of mind in the arm and they're saying that his whole approach that we have taken in the study of psychology and philosophy of mind till now and all of the 20th-century starting from Prager who talked about removing psychologism in mathematics down to behaviorism skinner and all of that till today it has now become a big stumbling block in our search for consciousness the point was made science is about objectivity and that works absolutely fine when you're studying objects but when you are going to study
the subject itself your whole training is to turn the thing into an object and study it now if it is a subject that cannot be turned into an object,
I will show we'll see how then you're going to miss by a white mark you're going to come up with desperate attempts you can see why some scientists would say there is no such thing as consciousness and very smart people it's saying that there's no such thing as consciousness so David Chalmers what is the solution according to David Chalmers,
I promise this is leading somewhere what is the solution David Chalmers says he advocates now something called Panpsychism it's been early around but it's now getting a new lease on life
I remember there was a debate in Brooklyn, I think it's called the open house or something between David Chalmers on one hand and Edward he's the lead scientist for the Paul Allen Brain Institute so he takes the reductionist approach and David Chalmers took the other approach and it ended with one of them pouring water on the head of the other person I don't know it all in fun come so what's the solution what would be the solution according to David Chalmers for the hard problem of consciousness he advocated something called Panpsychism where he says we may though it sounds crazy we may have to ultimately accept consciousness as the fundamental reality of this universe what do you mean by fundamental reality no need to reduce it even to make the attempt of reducing it to a brain rather just like matter and energy and time and space
are fundamental factors in studying the universe consciousness may have to be included as a fundamental reality of the universe because it is fundamentally reducible to other things in principle it is irreducible which means consciousness must be ubiquitous it must be everywhere and fundamental independent reality by itself and it interacts with the physical world through nervous systems and brains in something like that he is talking about nowhere is the bridge
I don't know if he is aware but more than 5000 years ago one of the most ancient schools of Indian philosophy the Sankhya said there are two fundamental realities in the universe
one is nature time space matter-energy the term they used was Prakriti and the other one is conscious so consciousness and nature exactly the way you experience the universe you are a sentient being we are sentient beings experiencing the universe
so the entirety of the universe is
nature our bodies are also nature and brains' nervous systems and mind the mind is also nature thoughts emotions whatever comes as the mind that also nature that
which experiences the external world and the internal world of the mind that which experiences that is consciousness and that's what we are that was the song Qian idea this ancient school of Sankhya philosophy the great philosopher Coppola whom Swami Vivekananda calls may be the first philosopher of the human race this was the insight recently
I had a dialogue with Deepak Chopra who some of you may have heard of so before the dialogue, he said the hard problem of consciousness but Swami in ancient Indian philosophy, there is no hard problem right it is solved in one sense I said you are right in one sense but that's not helpful if you put it that way now ancient Indian philosophy and the modern field of consciousness studies the hard problem of consciousness, by the way, this is only
one view if you actually look at the literature on the hard problem of consciousness, there are many many who oppose this whole idea and ubiquitous consciousness but
I think it's mostly the opposite because they have an idea of a biological consciousness that depends upon a physical body to be generated to work but there are many who oppose it in fact
which experiences the external world and the internal world of the mind that which experiences that is consciousness and that's what we are that was the song Qian idea this ancient school of Sankhya philosophy the great philosopher Coppola whom Swami Vivekananda calls may be the first philosopher of the human race this was the insight recently
I had a dialogue with Deepak Chopra who some of you may have heard of so before the dialogue, he said the hard problem of consciousness but Swami in ancient Indian philosophy, there is no hard problem right it is solved in one sense I said you are right in one sense but that's not helpful if you put it that way now ancient Indian philosophy and the modern field of consciousness studies the hard problem of consciousness, by the way, this is only
one view if you actually look at the literature on the hard problem of consciousness, there are many many who oppose this whole idea and ubiquitous consciousness but
I think it's mostly the opposite because they have an idea of a biological consciousness that depends upon a physical body to be generated to work but there are many who oppose it in fact
in the philosophy cafe where
we had this discussion the philosopher I won't take the name he was
discussing it
I said what about the hard problem of consciousness that consciousness could be a fundamental reality of the universe he's completely against it he says that he's also he's a biologist and a philosopher so that explains it she says that consciousness is a product of the brain gives us the time we'll explain it we can't explain it yet but we will explain it in time I said what about David Chalmers panpsychism all-pervasive consciousness and
he said oh he and they are their friends but also rivals are it him he gets one idea after the other each worse than the earlier hunt but I said what is wrong with that idea why would you would not even consider it the answer is very instructive
he said if we even take it seriously then we would have to end to completely change our worldview our a worldview which is now the materialist reductionist worldview this would have to be changed completely at least we would have to have a very different look at our whole science and
I could see other people in the room they were up nearly 70 people there more than that many of them were going yeah so you change your worldview that's where we are at David Chalmers in an interview she says if you think long and long enough about consciousness you either become a pen cyclist or you go into administration what is the Advaita Vedanta view of consciousness the central teaching of Advaita Vedanta is this it can be easily stated that to UM
I see that thou art the fundamental reality in this world is something which is called Brahman, not Brahman the caste it's Brahman literally meaning etymological it means the vast or the limitless God is a very limited way of describing that but
I sometimes use the word and sometimes get scolded by philosophers because it is that's not exactly the word for Brahman but will do existence consciousness bliss and look at the word consciousness the Sanskrit word for that is chit Chaitanya and that is the fundamental reality of the universe what we consider to be the reality this is an appearance of that underlying reality what about us you are that and underlying reality not you as the body, not you as the mind not even you as the person you think yourself to be but as an underlying consciousness which shies through functions through express itself through this body-mind complex that thou art taught to um I see before we go a little deeper into this let me dwell a little while this it's one of my what do you call them hobby horses so something some of a favorite idea which
I play around with a little bit that thou art that is the ultimate reality the bow is you or
I the individual being if we knew ourselves as we really are
Swami Vivekananda when he came to this country more than 100-125 years ago now this year would say if only you knew yourselves as you truly are not as a body bound to die age and decay and did not even as a mind a changing little limited personality but as an unlimited consciousness expressing itself through a mind and a body if only you knew yourself as you were as you are that thou art now technically in Vedanta the word that curiously in Sanskrit the word is almost exactly the same English word tucked in English you'd write it as t-80 that technically it stands for the Vedantic the equivalent of God saguna brahman thou used individually being stands for the Jeeva the individual sentient being us now literally the sentient being you are
I we are not God clearly it softened the dualistic religions both non-Hindu and Hindu the Duellists attack the non-dualistic fall on this is blasphemous you're claiming to be God that's not exactly what we are claiming when you transcend the limited personality there is the divinity within each other it's in the fact it's an intuition that mystics in every religion have had through the centuries every religion Meister Eckhart is one of the most non very non-dualist middle medieval Christian mystics
he writes the ground of God and the ground of my own being is the same one and the same ground of God and the ground of your own soul are one and the same which means there is an underlying reality that we do not know about ourselves and there is an underlying reality to God also which is one and the same now what's this idea
I want to put before you, it's an interesting idea, not mine originally it was an advisor teacher in the Himalayas from whom I heard it first he says all human spiritual endeavors all seeking all of us most of us
I'm sure we are spiritual seekers that's why we are coming for a talk like this all of us and all the great religions of the world can be put in these two categories that and thou that category is religions and spiritual seeking which are God-oriented
I have asked me was teaching in a monastery in India for eight or nine years I asked the young men who are coming to become monks
I asked them why do you want to become a monk and neatly they would fall into two groups one group would say we are searching for God we are searching for God bat for Ian's to other group would say well that is fine but who am I what am I the third question of the five great questions or questions what am
I am searching for the mystery about my own existence the Rauh if you look at the great religions of the world you will find some of them are that oriented God-oriented so the great Abrahamic traditions Judaism Christianity Islam they are all God-oriented religions That's why this country sometimes people find it difficult to accept something like Buddhism as a religion because it's not about God and yet it is a religion but not so in India because in India we have had both kinds of religion for a very long time Buddhism itself is twenty-five centuries or two thousand five hundred years Jainism is even older than that so that's a god centered approach and there is a Dao that is self-inquiry based approach an approach based on Who am
I or what am I so a cell the inquiry-based approach I don't want to use the word self-centered approach so self-inquiry based approach allows a centered approach to religion and at that centered approach to religion and each has its interesting strengths and weaknesses but that centered religion would be about God would be centered around temples or churches or mosques would generally have a mode of devotion what
we might call bhakti and would have a ritual mode of rituals and in general, I'm making a general statement the problem with that centered religion God-centered religion is this God is difficult to prove if you don't know what
I mean look up Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens isn't acting so God is difficult to prove in all that centered God-centered religions of the world you will find strong theological traditions of trying to argue for the existence of God
I can see some of you nodding your heads those were from well-studied religion or philosophy you know there are Thomas Aquinas for an example in Hinduism then acharya the great logician who lived more than a thousand years ago so they develop these arguments to prove the existence of God why because the existence of God is based on faith, there's always a possibility that God does not exist it's always open to attack always there have been skeptics so that central religion the process does God exist at all if God exists perfect God is all-powerful omniscient omnipresent or all of that great only if he exists if he/she it exists, on the other hand, the vow centered self inquiry-based religions by which I mean Buddhism I mean Jainism or in the Hindu traditions
I mean Sankhya or even the Patanjali yoga system notice I am NOT including Advaita these traditions don't have this problem because they are not about God per se they are about inquiry based on oneself and we exist nobody seriously has tried to prove the existence of oneself nobody even the Buddhists who denies but this denies a specific view of the self but that in some sense you exist nobody denies it's obvious nobody has long convoluted arguments nobody has if you look up debates on the existence of God online you will find
so many debates about my existence nothing almost nothing so we all know that we exist there is no problem there the subject matter of the vows entered the in self-inquiry based religion
I me myself that's there even Descartes who started out doubting everything his great project he could not doubt his own existence another famous Kochi tourism that I think therefore
I exist I saw this cartoon I think it was in this philosophy magazine the mind it had a whole issue on humor so this cartoon Descartes is sitting in a Parisian cafe and the waitress asks the card one more copy Monsieur and the card says
I think not and immediately disappears you know I I think therefore I exist so that is not a problem with the self-enquiry based religions our own existence but what is the problem our own existence is fine we are BR we do exist but that itself is the problem it's a miserable existence
I have suffering I have sorrow I'm surrounded by so much misery death and loss and desire and frustration all of that is the problem and on the other hand God whose existence is a question mark but if God exists God has none of these problems because God is omnipotent omniscient omnipresent so you have a perfect but doubtful existence you are here you have a certain but very imperfect existence now the beauty of Advaita is what it does is it combines the two get the advantages of both and removes the disadvantage of each what Advaita does is when it tells you that thou art you come to a certain perfect an existence that is
what awaits calls pure consciousness our Chaitanya pure consciousness is the term I'm using because it's current
I said what about the hard problem of consciousness that consciousness could be a fundamental reality of the universe he's completely against it he says that he's also he's a biologist and a philosopher so that explains it she says that consciousness is a product of the brain gives us the time we'll explain it we can't explain it yet but we will explain it in time I said what about David Chalmers panpsychism all-pervasive consciousness and
he said oh he and they are their friends but also rivals are it him he gets one idea after the other each worse than the earlier hunt but I said what is wrong with that idea why would you would not even consider it the answer is very instructive
he said if we even take it seriously then we would have to end to completely change our worldview our a worldview which is now the materialist reductionist worldview this would have to be changed completely at least we would have to have a very different look at our whole science and
I could see other people in the room they were up nearly 70 people there more than that many of them were going yeah so you change your worldview that's where we are at David Chalmers in an interview she says if you think long and long enough about consciousness you either become a pen cyclist or you go into administration what is the Advaita Vedanta view of consciousness the central teaching of Advaita Vedanta is this it can be easily stated that to UM
I see that thou art the fundamental reality in this world is something which is called Brahman, not Brahman the caste it's Brahman literally meaning etymological it means the vast or the limitless God is a very limited way of describing that but
I sometimes use the word and sometimes get scolded by philosophers because it is that's not exactly the word for Brahman but will do existence consciousness bliss and look at the word consciousness the Sanskrit word for that is chit Chaitanya and that is the fundamental reality of the universe what we consider to be the reality this is an appearance of that underlying reality what about us you are that and underlying reality not you as the body, not you as the mind not even you as the person you think yourself to be but as an underlying consciousness which shies through functions through express itself through this body-mind complex that thou art taught to um I see before we go a little deeper into this let me dwell a little while this it's one of my what do you call them hobby horses so something some of a favorite idea which
I play around with a little bit that thou art that is the ultimate reality the bow is you or
I the individual being if we knew ourselves as we really are
Swami Vivekananda when he came to this country more than 100-125 years ago now this year would say if only you knew yourselves as you truly are not as a body bound to die age and decay and did not even as a mind a changing little limited personality but as an unlimited consciousness expressing itself through a mind and a body if only you knew yourself as you were as you are that thou art now technically in Vedanta the word that curiously in Sanskrit the word is almost exactly the same English word tucked in English you'd write it as t-80 that technically it stands for the Vedantic the equivalent of God saguna brahman thou used individually being stands for the Jeeva the individual sentient being us now literally the sentient being you are
I we are not God clearly it softened the dualistic religions both non-Hindu and Hindu the Duellists attack the non-dualistic fall on this is blasphemous you're claiming to be God that's not exactly what we are claiming when you transcend the limited personality there is the divinity within each other it's in the fact it's an intuition that mystics in every religion have had through the centuries every religion Meister Eckhart is one of the most non very non-dualist middle medieval Christian mystics
he writes the ground of God and the ground of my own being is the same one and the same ground of God and the ground of your own soul are one and the same which means there is an underlying reality that we do not know about ourselves and there is an underlying reality to God also which is one and the same now what's this idea
I want to put before you, it's an interesting idea, not mine originally it was an advisor teacher in the Himalayas from whom I heard it first he says all human spiritual endeavors all seeking all of us most of us
I'm sure we are spiritual seekers that's why we are coming for a talk like this all of us and all the great religions of the world can be put in these two categories that and thou that category is religions and spiritual seeking which are God-oriented
I have asked me was teaching in a monastery in India for eight or nine years I asked the young men who are coming to become monks
I asked them why do you want to become a monk and neatly they would fall into two groups one group would say we are searching for God we are searching for God bat for Ian's to other group would say well that is fine but who am I what am I the third question of the five great questions or questions what am
I am searching for the mystery about my own existence the Rauh if you look at the great religions of the world you will find some of them are that oriented God-oriented so the great Abrahamic traditions Judaism Christianity Islam they are all God-oriented religions That's why this country sometimes people find it difficult to accept something like Buddhism as a religion because it's not about God and yet it is a religion but not so in India because in India we have had both kinds of religion for a very long time Buddhism itself is twenty-five centuries or two thousand five hundred years Jainism is even older than that so that's a god centered approach and there is a Dao that is self-inquiry based approach an approach based on Who am
I or what am I so a cell the inquiry-based approach I don't want to use the word self-centered approach so self-inquiry based approach allows a centered approach to religion and at that centered approach to religion and each has its interesting strengths and weaknesses but that centered religion would be about God would be centered around temples or churches or mosques would generally have a mode of devotion what
we might call bhakti and would have a ritual mode of rituals and in general, I'm making a general statement the problem with that centered religion God-centered religion is this God is difficult to prove if you don't know what
I mean look up Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens isn't acting so God is difficult to prove in all that centered God-centered religions of the world you will find strong theological traditions of trying to argue for the existence of God
I can see some of you nodding your heads those were from well-studied religion or philosophy you know there are Thomas Aquinas for an example in Hinduism then acharya the great logician who lived more than a thousand years ago so they develop these arguments to prove the existence of God why because the existence of God is based on faith, there's always a possibility that God does not exist it's always open to attack always there have been skeptics so that central religion the process does God exist at all if God exists perfect God is all-powerful omniscient omnipresent or all of that great only if he exists if he/she it exists, on the other hand, the vow centered self inquiry-based religions by which I mean Buddhism I mean Jainism or in the Hindu traditions
I mean Sankhya or even the Patanjali yoga system notice I am NOT including Advaita these traditions don't have this problem because they are not about God per se they are about inquiry based on oneself and we exist nobody seriously has tried to prove the existence of oneself nobody even the Buddhists who denies but this denies a specific view of the self but that in some sense you exist nobody denies it's obvious nobody has long convoluted arguments nobody has if you look up debates on the existence of God online you will find
so many debates about my existence nothing almost nothing so we all know that we exist there is no problem there the subject matter of the vows entered the in self-inquiry based religion
I me myself that's there even Descartes who started out doubting everything his great project he could not doubt his own existence another famous Kochi tourism that I think therefore
I exist I saw this cartoon I think it was in this philosophy magazine the mind it had a whole issue on humor so this cartoon Descartes is sitting in a Parisian cafe and the waitress asks the card one more copy Monsieur and the card says
I think not and immediately disappears you know I I think therefore I exist so that is not a problem with the self-enquiry based religions our own existence but what is the problem our own existence is fine we are BR we do exist but that itself is the problem it's a miserable existence
I have suffering I have sorrow I'm surrounded by so much misery death and loss and desire and frustration all of that is the problem and on the other hand God whose existence is a question mark but if God exists God has none of these problems because God is omnipotent omniscient omnipresent so you have a perfect but doubtful existence you are here you have a certain but very imperfect existence now the beauty of Advaita is what it does is it combines the two get the advantages of both and removes the disadvantage of each what Advaita does is when it tells you that thou art you come to a certain perfect an existence that is
what awaits calls pure consciousness our Chaitanya pure consciousness is the term I'm using because it's current
 |
|
Sri
Ramakrishna
|
Chaitanya chit by the way
none of this is actually theoretical or speculative just a claim as
we shall see we'll end this talk with the actual exercise to indicate
point out what advaitha means by conscious pure consciousness so the
beauty of this approach Advaitic approaches it talks about a
perfection within an immortal beyond depth beyond suffering
the unchanging reality which affirms the fundamental reality of the the entire universe and which you are already only you have to take cognizance of that realize it and express it in life as wave a Candace said each soul is potentially divine the goal is to manifest this divinity within and all of the religion he considers as a process of manifesting this divinity within so that's the claim of a great of a Dante a perfect certain existence which is you yourself now that's a a really big claim can you watch the word put what is my video your mouth is your money where your mouth is what's
the phrase yes let's see where how it works in actually how to do you prove that how do you show that in fact in one of the ashrams in the Himalayas in Haridwar there's this interesting incident a monk asked a teacher of Vedanta
theater give us an Indian debatable irrefutable proof of the existence of God look at the question and irrefutable proof of the existence of God no person who's asking he knows all of the theological arguments for
the existence of God by the way if those who are not trained in philosophy are elegy if you're in case you're curious we are actually proofs of the existence of God,
I didn't know that don't be too excited if you are you are already convinced about the existence of God you will just find them nice the proofs if you're not convinced by the existence of about the existence of God these proofs will distinctly underwhelmed
if you so these are all very nice efforts many many books have been written about them but this monk asks the teacher give me an irrefutable proof of the existence of God and the Advaita the non-dual his teacher says your own existence he sure cast it to Amir Katya Brahman DJ give me an irrefutable proof as to the existence of God and the the monk replied upcast it to your own existence and that makes sense only in the Advaita Vedanta paradigm because of your own existence
the the reality about ourselves is actually the reality of God even as Meister Eckhart intuited before we go into the actual teaching is
there anything more yes just one more thing and this is something that David Chalmers himself has pointed out a number of talks consciousness is a little different from all the other major scientific endeavors here we're talking about black holes or quantum mechanics or string theory this is not something that we normally experience it's not the data is not normally available to
the the ordinary person it's not something that we normally come across in day-to-day life directly but consciousness is something that every one of us has access to all of us we think we remember we desire we see hear smell taste touch in fact if you think about it what we call life our lives is just a series of conscious experiences experiences in consciousness, everything is experienced in consciousness consciousness is the fundamental datum of life why wouldn't we be interested in consciousness that's very interesting
why I was just thinking today why did consciousness studies start so late it should have started it should have been
the first thing to be studied and inside in fact in human history probably it was the first thing to be studied in the opening shots when you go back so it is
the fundamental datum of our life we should all be interested and excited about it whatever position you take because it is what we are so no no no I am this body I am NOT this strange thing you're talking about you know the hard problem of consciousness or pedant or whatever I am the body
well I am the body only because I am aware of the body I am playing that
I am the body only because I have a conscious mind capable of noticing the body and claiming that
I am the body everything that we know what we fight about what we agree and disagree upon everything is in consciousness all the science that we do the religion that we do the theists and atheists the art and literature everything that we have done in human life till today is in consciousness,
it is the single most important thing for us so all right so Advaita Vedanta claims that consciousness is consciousness is the fundamental reality of the universe everything in the universe is a manifestation of consciousness and we are that consciousness
the word it uses is chit or Chaitanya one more point and just pushing up the main thing but I want to do today one more point what is the relationship between consciousness and its objects consciousness and its objects I'm going to give you four
theories again none of them are mine it's so nicely a teacher of Vedanta put it in one of the classes in Haridwar four approaches and you'll see how modern it is how very very much applicable to our modern understanding of
the world there are four possible approaches which we can speak up relating awareness to the world including your body own body and mind relationship between consciousness and its objects
the first one is the prevailing worldview today in science is that consciousness originates from the object is the primary matter is primary and from that consciousness is an epiphenomenon you know the general worldview matter is in planets and stars and
then somehow in life originates and somehow living matter evolves into more sophisticated forms evolving brains and nervous systems and in those brains and nervous systems somehow again miracle consciousness appears so that's the reductive approach conscious is nothing but a by-product and the physical body-mind is
the main thing that's the main thing so object is primary consciousness is a product of the object that's one world view and it's the modern materialistic world view scientific world view the second possible world view is
the opposite object matter universe all of that is a product of consciousness and this is the world view of all religions the theistic religions God created the universe why am I said why am I saying consciousness instead of God because if you asked all
the religions of the world is your God a conscious God and unconscious guard a conscious guard an unconscious guard so somehow a conscious being created the universe of space-time matter-energy that's the traditional theistic religious worldview that's another option the third option is neither created the other there are fundamental realities and they interact with each other if you think this is what David Chalmers is saying you'd be right this is what he's proposing and yet exactly this is what
the ancients Anka and yoga philosophies proposed consciousness and its objects are independent realities but they interact with each other in Sankhya purusa prakruti consciousness and it's the object they interact when doing they interact the interaction is what you call yourself you are what are the interaction of consciousness and the world the universe of matter and energy that's the third worldview why am I saying all this my point is
the fourth one which I'm coming to the Advaita worldview you Advaita Vedanta worldview, not that object produces consciousness not that consciousness produces an object not that there are two fundamental realities interacting with each other but
the radical the claim of Advaita Vedanta is there is one non-dual reality non-dual means not to that's the meaning of Advaita not to and that non-dual reality is consciousness why do you call it non-dual because of it appears to be two consciousness and a world out there Advaita says consciousness alone appears as its object a good example would be what the mind does in dreams it's the mind alone which appears as you the dreamer in your dreams and the world of your dreams people thinks events all of it is the mind much in the same way consciousness appears as this entire universe as the world out there as
the bodies even as the mind remember for those who have a philosophical training Advaita Vedanta is not Berkeley and subjective idealism it is not subjective idealism it's not saying that you are imagining
the world out there rather consciousness is appearing as you and the world as Vivekananda put it one alone exists it appears as nature soul alright enough beating about the bush all of this was beating about
the bush now in the time remaining to me let me point out what Advaita means let's do this together Advaita Vedanta claims that this consciousness it talks about this nondual reality Brahman Atman pure consciousness whatever you call it it's available here and now and it's you and it can indeed be experienced within quotes experienced remember
the journey in AD right of a Dante is not a journey in space we are not talking about going to a place called heaven in some other place no it's here it's not a journey in time you're not talking about something that will happen you know after the next carnation or after
the coming of the Christ or after the apocalypse or after death the word after is a time word before and after or even after enlightenment not even after enlightenment it's now it's here and now and it's you it's not a journey in space it's not a journey in time prince2 knowing how do you do this how do you do this they have methodologies protocols you might call them they're
called prot Kriya Prac RIA means particular methodologies given Advaita Vedanta, for example, there is something called the trick drishya Vivica there is some something called the Ava's Tatra Wrigley Chevy Baker means an inquiry into the seer and the see our star tray of Achara and inquiry into the three states of waking dreaming and deep sleep the book I referred
the unchanging reality which affirms the fundamental reality of the the entire universe and which you are already only you have to take cognizance of that realize it and express it in life as wave a Candace said each soul is potentially divine the goal is to manifest this divinity within and all of the religion he considers as a process of manifesting this divinity within so that's the claim of a great of a Dante a perfect certain existence which is you yourself now that's a a really big claim can you watch the word put what is my video your mouth is your money where your mouth is what's
the phrase yes let's see where how it works in actually how to do you prove that how do you show that in fact in one of the ashrams in the Himalayas in Haridwar there's this interesting incident a monk asked a teacher of Vedanta
theater give us an Indian debatable irrefutable proof of the existence of God look at the question and irrefutable proof of the existence of God no person who's asking he knows all of the theological arguments for
the existence of God by the way if those who are not trained in philosophy are elegy if you're in case you're curious we are actually proofs of the existence of God,
I didn't know that don't be too excited if you are you are already convinced about the existence of God you will just find them nice the proofs if you're not convinced by the existence of about the existence of God these proofs will distinctly underwhelmed
if you so these are all very nice efforts many many books have been written about them but this monk asks the teacher give me an irrefutable proof of the existence of God and the Advaita the non-dual his teacher says your own existence he sure cast it to Amir Katya Brahman DJ give me an irrefutable proof as to the existence of God and the the monk replied upcast it to your own existence and that makes sense only in the Advaita Vedanta paradigm because of your own existence
the the reality about ourselves is actually the reality of God even as Meister Eckhart intuited before we go into the actual teaching is
there anything more yes just one more thing and this is something that David Chalmers himself has pointed out a number of talks consciousness is a little different from all the other major scientific endeavors here we're talking about black holes or quantum mechanics or string theory this is not something that we normally experience it's not the data is not normally available to
the the ordinary person it's not something that we normally come across in day-to-day life directly but consciousness is something that every one of us has access to all of us we think we remember we desire we see hear smell taste touch in fact if you think about it what we call life our lives is just a series of conscious experiences experiences in consciousness, everything is experienced in consciousness consciousness is the fundamental datum of life why wouldn't we be interested in consciousness that's very interesting
why I was just thinking today why did consciousness studies start so late it should have started it should have been
the first thing to be studied and inside in fact in human history probably it was the first thing to be studied in the opening shots when you go back so it is
the fundamental datum of our life we should all be interested and excited about it whatever position you take because it is what we are so no no no I am this body I am NOT this strange thing you're talking about you know the hard problem of consciousness or pedant or whatever I am the body
well I am the body only because I am aware of the body I am playing that
I am the body only because I have a conscious mind capable of noticing the body and claiming that
I am the body everything that we know what we fight about what we agree and disagree upon everything is in consciousness all the science that we do the religion that we do the theists and atheists the art and literature everything that we have done in human life till today is in consciousness,
it is the single most important thing for us so all right so Advaita Vedanta claims that consciousness is consciousness is the fundamental reality of the universe everything in the universe is a manifestation of consciousness and we are that consciousness
the word it uses is chit or Chaitanya one more point and just pushing up the main thing but I want to do today one more point what is the relationship between consciousness and its objects consciousness and its objects I'm going to give you four
theories again none of them are mine it's so nicely a teacher of Vedanta put it in one of the classes in Haridwar four approaches and you'll see how modern it is how very very much applicable to our modern understanding of
the world there are four possible approaches which we can speak up relating awareness to the world including your body own body and mind relationship between consciousness and its objects
the first one is the prevailing worldview today in science is that consciousness originates from the object is the primary matter is primary and from that consciousness is an epiphenomenon you know the general worldview matter is in planets and stars and
then somehow in life originates and somehow living matter evolves into more sophisticated forms evolving brains and nervous systems and in those brains and nervous systems somehow again miracle consciousness appears so that's the reductive approach conscious is nothing but a by-product and the physical body-mind is
the main thing that's the main thing so object is primary consciousness is a product of the object that's one world view and it's the modern materialistic world view scientific world view the second possible world view is
the opposite object matter universe all of that is a product of consciousness and this is the world view of all religions the theistic religions God created the universe why am I said why am I saying consciousness instead of God because if you asked all
the religions of the world is your God a conscious God and unconscious guard a conscious guard an unconscious guard so somehow a conscious being created the universe of space-time matter-energy that's the traditional theistic religious worldview that's another option the third option is neither created the other there are fundamental realities and they interact with each other if you think this is what David Chalmers is saying you'd be right this is what he's proposing and yet exactly this is what
the ancients Anka and yoga philosophies proposed consciousness and its objects are independent realities but they interact with each other in Sankhya purusa prakruti consciousness and it's the object they interact when doing they interact the interaction is what you call yourself you are what are the interaction of consciousness and the world the universe of matter and energy that's the third worldview why am I saying all this my point is
the fourth one which I'm coming to the Advaita worldview you Advaita Vedanta worldview, not that object produces consciousness not that consciousness produces an object not that there are two fundamental realities interacting with each other but
the radical the claim of Advaita Vedanta is there is one non-dual reality non-dual means not to that's the meaning of Advaita not to and that non-dual reality is consciousness why do you call it non-dual because of it appears to be two consciousness and a world out there Advaita says consciousness alone appears as its object a good example would be what the mind does in dreams it's the mind alone which appears as you the dreamer in your dreams and the world of your dreams people thinks events all of it is the mind much in the same way consciousness appears as this entire universe as the world out there as
the bodies even as the mind remember for those who have a philosophical training Advaita Vedanta is not Berkeley and subjective idealism it is not subjective idealism it's not saying that you are imagining
the world out there rather consciousness is appearing as you and the world as Vivekananda put it one alone exists it appears as nature soul alright enough beating about the bush all of this was beating about
the bush now in the time remaining to me let me point out what Advaita means let's do this together Advaita Vedanta claims that this consciousness it talks about this nondual reality Brahman Atman pure consciousness whatever you call it it's available here and now and it's you and it can indeed be experienced within quotes experienced remember
the journey in AD right of a Dante is not a journey in space we are not talking about going to a place called heaven in some other place no it's here it's not a journey in time you're not talking about something that will happen you know after the next carnation or after
the coming of the Christ or after the apocalypse or after death the word after is a time word before and after or even after enlightenment not even after enlightenment it's now it's here and now and it's you it's not a journey in space it's not a journey in time prince2 knowing how do you do this how do you do this they have methodologies protocols you might call them they're
called prot Kriya Prac RIA means particular methodologies given Advaita Vedanta, for example, there is something called the trick drishya Vivica there is some something called the Ava's Tatra Wrigley Chevy Baker means an inquiry into the seer and the see our star tray of Achara and inquiry into the three states of waking dreaming and deep sleep the book I referred
to at the beginning Evan
Thompson waking to dream and being so and inquire into that or punch
a course of each other and enquired into
the five layers of the human personality so these are different techniques which take a step by step in our understanding and point of the point out it points out that the reality which Advaita claims we are and we'll do one of them today just to give an idea of what we are talking about here the process of doing this is first you listen to me in the sense how to do you listen I like this teaching of a Tibetan lama Tibetan lama who said they undergo rigorous training in the Tibetan monasteries so he said before we start our course of studies the instructor tells us how to listen so how do you listen not like it gives an example of three parts upside down part dirty part leaky part don't listen like an upside-down pot upside down part is when you pour water on an upside down part nothing is retained it just flows up so don't listen like that you know after the howl of what was it about
I don't know some the curious guy in orange and said some strange things upside down part no, you should be able to say this is what the guy said by the way there are oranges it gets interesting reactions just now we were walking down here and somebody was showing me oddity was showing me around and this guy walks past and says nice dress two or three weeks ago
I was in Sedona it's a beautiful place high desert in Arizona and we were climbing these rocks and another group of visitors young boys and girls and
I could hear them talking they don't know that voice carries a lot in the desert air one of them are saying oh look
the Dalai Lama, not even the Dalai Lama yes so don't listen like an upside-down part retain what you have listened at least to the the extent of being able to say this is what the guy said then second is dirty pot so dirty part is I come with a clear intention that what this guy is going to say is wrong it's good to be skeptical it's good to have a questioning attitude you must Vedanta is
the path of knowledge it's not based on faith that's why
I have a problem when in this country religions are called faith umbrella term faiths but Advaita Vedanta is not faith it's based on understanding it's like if you go to a professor's class and hear math or something and the professor says do you get it and you say oh no sir but I believe you you are great
I believe you you have the professor tearing out if you don't
I want you to get it that's what Advaita Vedanta is so dirty part is I come with a skeptical attitude I made up my mind
the professor is wrong the textbooks are lying everything is you know everything is fake news so so I don't if you come with that attitude again we don't learn anything that's a dirty part and the third one is the leaky pot you know what it means I hear I get it right
I lose it very soon by the time I'm gone it's again empty so you don't listen like an upside-down pot little dirty partly teapot so that's the first thing listen the second process is question listening has come to an end when you can say this is what the teacher said then the next question is I have heard what you said but
I have all these questions so that is the second phase reasoning and the third phase is once you have heard what the teaching is once you have asked the questions and you've got clarity about the teaching then immerse yourself in the teaching marinating the teaching till it becomes alive for you the Sanskrit terms for these are shravana monana needed
the asana literally hearing reasoning and meditating okay three processes now we are going to do it I'll take up the most direct of the approaches, what is the point where I just made a claim Advaita Vedanta made a claim you are not the body and mind you are an unchanging witness consciousness a pure consciousness we are trying to see that because if it's here right now
I should be able to grasp again within quotes the method is this I borrowed this from a book written about 700 years ago by a medieval philosopher in Karnataka and not Karnataka South Andhra Pradesh in India BDR India probably
he was the author Rick drew Chevy Vega short text the first the verse is self-first verse gives us the method what is the method let
I chant the verse and I'll we will walk through the method roopam regime Lochan America that drishyam dictum on a song Richard he with Taya Sakshi drag a van to Bocchetti four steps we have to go through what are the four steps let's see the first one we have to have an operating principle here principle is the seer and
the seen are two different entities the eyes see this body clearly the bottle is something different and the eyes are different physically different entities the experiencer and experience are physically different entities, in fact,
the limit of the vision of the eyes is not distance you can take a banner pillar or telescope and even the furred the celestial body will be available for seeing it does not even size the microscope will reveal two tiny things to your eyes it's actually this is
the five layers of the human personality so these are different techniques which take a step by step in our understanding and point of the point out it points out that the reality which Advaita claims we are and we'll do one of them today just to give an idea of what we are talking about here the process of doing this is first you listen to me in the sense how to do you listen I like this teaching of a Tibetan lama Tibetan lama who said they undergo rigorous training in the Tibetan monasteries so he said before we start our course of studies the instructor tells us how to listen so how do you listen not like it gives an example of three parts upside down part dirty part leaky part don't listen like an upside-down pot upside down part is when you pour water on an upside down part nothing is retained it just flows up so don't listen like that you know after the howl of what was it about
I don't know some the curious guy in orange and said some strange things upside down part no, you should be able to say this is what the guy said by the way there are oranges it gets interesting reactions just now we were walking down here and somebody was showing me oddity was showing me around and this guy walks past and says nice dress two or three weeks ago
I was in Sedona it's a beautiful place high desert in Arizona and we were climbing these rocks and another group of visitors young boys and girls and
I could hear them talking they don't know that voice carries a lot in the desert air one of them are saying oh look
the Dalai Lama, not even the Dalai Lama yes so don't listen like an upside-down part retain what you have listened at least to the the extent of being able to say this is what the guy said then second is dirty pot so dirty part is I come with a clear intention that what this guy is going to say is wrong it's good to be skeptical it's good to have a questioning attitude you must Vedanta is
the path of knowledge it's not based on faith that's why
I have a problem when in this country religions are called faith umbrella term faiths but Advaita Vedanta is not faith it's based on understanding it's like if you go to a professor's class and hear math or something and the professor says do you get it and you say oh no sir but I believe you you are great
I believe you you have the professor tearing out if you don't
I want you to get it that's what Advaita Vedanta is so dirty part is I come with a skeptical attitude I made up my mind
the professor is wrong the textbooks are lying everything is you know everything is fake news so so I don't if you come with that attitude again we don't learn anything that's a dirty part and the third one is the leaky pot you know what it means I hear I get it right
I lose it very soon by the time I'm gone it's again empty so you don't listen like an upside-down pot little dirty partly teapot so that's the first thing listen the second process is question listening has come to an end when you can say this is what the teacher said then the next question is I have heard what you said but
I have all these questions so that is the second phase reasoning and the third phase is once you have heard what the teaching is once you have asked the questions and you've got clarity about the teaching then immerse yourself in the teaching marinating the teaching till it becomes alive for you the Sanskrit terms for these are shravana monana needed
the asana literally hearing reasoning and meditating okay three processes now we are going to do it I'll take up the most direct of the approaches, what is the point where I just made a claim Advaita Vedanta made a claim you are not the body and mind you are an unchanging witness consciousness a pure consciousness we are trying to see that because if it's here right now
I should be able to grasp again within quotes the method is this I borrowed this from a book written about 700 years ago by a medieval philosopher in Karnataka and not Karnataka South Andhra Pradesh in India BDR India probably
he was the author Rick drew Chevy Vega short text the first the verse is self-first verse gives us the method what is the method let
I chant the verse and I'll we will walk through the method roopam regime Lochan America that drishyam dictum on a song Richard he with Taya Sakshi drag a van to Bocchetti four steps we have to go through what are the four steps let's see the first one we have to have an operating principle here principle is the seer and
the seen are two different entities the eyes see this body clearly the bottle is something different and the eyes are different physically different entities the experiencer and experience are physically different entities, in fact,
the limit of the vision of the eyes is not distance you can take a banner pillar or telescope and even the furred the celestial body will be available for seeing it does not even size the microscope will reveal two tiny things to your eyes it's actually this is
 |
|
Sri
Ramakrishna
|
the limit of your vision the
eyes cannot see themselves and no a selfie is not seeing your own
eyes it's a picture of your eyes nor is the reflection in
the mirror are you seeing your own eyes you're seeing a reflection of your eyes not the eyes themselves directly the way they see other things so the eyes and the same things
they see are different they're different entities first quarter the first step says the eyes are the seer and the forms are seen rupam drishyam prompts are seen eyes are the seer note that they are different whatever you see is different from the eyes what's
the point of this you'll see very soon note also you see many things with the same pair of eyes the scene are many the seer is the same pair of eyes note also whatever you see keeps changing you saw something outside using something now very soon you see something else outside the seeing
the object you experience keeps changing
the experiencing an instrument is more
or less the same three points seer and the seen are different the seer is one and the seen are many seers is unchanging relatively and the seen are changing the first step you are like yeah
I get it just get on with it second we go deeper now the eyes themselves become seen in the sense that I'm aware my eyes are open I'm aware
I can't keep my eyes closed because this guy is boring me so much I'm aware of what my eyes are
I need glasses my eyes are very good I don't need glasses all these things about my own eyes my the mind is aware of it the intellect is aware of it so the mind is the seer and the eyes are the scenes in the sense of known within coats what about the world still known through the eyes what about the eyes known now through the mind minds here
I seem not only the eyes ears now skin tongue, in fact, the whole body is experienced isn't it it's an object of experience so the mind is the seer and the body eyes and the rest of the body is a scene clearly the mind is different from the body in whatever since nobody says the mind is exactly the same as the body even the materialist reductionist will say the mind is a kind of a by-product of the physical body all right
so the far mind is different from the body-mind remaining more or less the same it experiences different states of the body in the sense organs the mind is the remaining more or less
the same unchanging the body is changing continuously you see that deeper and now the magic starts third step the mind itself this Rashaad here with Taya the modifications of the mind itself are experienced and you are the experiencer what do I mean by that when I'm happy I feel it I know I'm happy
when I feel the pain I'm unhappy miserable depressed I know I am miserably depressed I experience it
would be so strange to say I am really really miserable but luckily I don't feel anybody any of it that sounds so silly I am delighted but I don't feel it it's so strange to say that we actually feel it we experience it the states of the mind are experienced if you look into your cell
there's a word for that introspection our own thoughts a psychoanalyst makes his living out of it now you have to tell him of your dreams your thoughts and all of that so our mind is also experienced if the mind is experienced then there must be an experiencer of the mind something experiencing
the mind and the experiencer of the mind must be different from the mind this is because the principle we adopted seer and seen are different so that which experiences the mind the word used is witness why because it witnesses the mind Sakshi and it is consciousness why is it consciousness because it is aware clearly you're aware of
the mind what about the body still the scene what about the world still, the scene world is seen through the body and his eyes the body and the eyes have seen through the mind the mind itself is seen by the Sakshi by the
the mind you experience the mind and already it's a very interesting territory there's a classic story about how this works you can easily apply to your life
there's this person in here at least not here you're in a much more sane place in Manhattan people rush to their therapists in India you would say who's your guru in Manhattan who's your therapist so people rush to the therapist
I am a miserable soup India go people go to the Swami and say Swami I'm miserable this a person goes to the Himalayas to a monk and says I am miserable I'm unhappy please help me and the monk said are you aware of your unhappiness do you feel it you know where this is going so this man says yes, of course,
I feel it that's why I've come to you I'm miserable I'm unhappy then he says the monk says to him if you feel your unhappiness if you feel your misery then it's an object
the mirror are you seeing your own eyes you're seeing a reflection of your eyes not the eyes themselves directly the way they see other things so the eyes and the same things
they see are different they're different entities first quarter the first step says the eyes are the seer and the forms are seen rupam drishyam prompts are seen eyes are the seer note that they are different whatever you see is different from the eyes what's
the point of this you'll see very soon note also you see many things with the same pair of eyes the scene are many the seer is the same pair of eyes note also whatever you see keeps changing you saw something outside using something now very soon you see something else outside the seeing
the object you experience keeps changing
the experiencing an instrument is more
or less the same three points seer and the seen are different the seer is one and the seen are many seers is unchanging relatively and the seen are changing the first step you are like yeah
I get it just get on with it second we go deeper now the eyes themselves become seen in the sense that I'm aware my eyes are open I'm aware
I can't keep my eyes closed because this guy is boring me so much I'm aware of what my eyes are
I need glasses my eyes are very good I don't need glasses all these things about my own eyes my the mind is aware of it the intellect is aware of it so the mind is the seer and the eyes are the scenes in the sense of known within coats what about the world still known through the eyes what about the eyes known now through the mind minds here
I seem not only the eyes ears now skin tongue, in fact, the whole body is experienced isn't it it's an object of experience so the mind is the seer and the body eyes and the rest of the body is a scene clearly the mind is different from the body in whatever since nobody says the mind is exactly the same as the body even the materialist reductionist will say the mind is a kind of a by-product of the physical body all right
so the far mind is different from the body-mind remaining more or less the same it experiences different states of the body in the sense organs the mind is the remaining more or less
the same unchanging the body is changing continuously you see that deeper and now the magic starts third step the mind itself this Rashaad here with Taya the modifications of the mind itself are experienced and you are the experiencer what do I mean by that when I'm happy I feel it I know I'm happy
when I feel the pain I'm unhappy miserable depressed I know I am miserably depressed I experience it
would be so strange to say I am really really miserable but luckily I don't feel anybody any of it that sounds so silly I am delighted but I don't feel it it's so strange to say that we actually feel it we experience it the states of the mind are experienced if you look into your cell
there's a word for that introspection our own thoughts a psychoanalyst makes his living out of it now you have to tell him of your dreams your thoughts and all of that so our mind is also experienced if the mind is experienced then there must be an experiencer of the mind something experiencing
the mind and the experiencer of the mind must be different from the mind this is because the principle we adopted seer and seen are different so that which experiences the mind the word used is witness why because it witnesses the mind Sakshi and it is consciousness why is it consciousness because it is aware clearly you're aware of
the mind what about the body still the scene what about the world still, the scene world is seen through the body and his eyes the body and the eyes have seen through the mind the mind itself is seen by the Sakshi by the
- witness consciousness don't say my
- witness consciousness you are the
- witness consciousness you watch
the mind you experience the mind and already it's a very interesting territory there's a classic story about how this works you can easily apply to your life
there's this person in here at least not here you're in a much more sane place in Manhattan people rush to their therapists in India you would say who's your guru in Manhattan who's your therapist so people rush to the therapist
I am a miserable soup India go people go to the Swami and say Swami I'm miserable this a person goes to the Himalayas to a monk and says I am miserable I'm unhappy please help me and the monk said are you aware of your unhappiness do you feel it you know where this is going so this man says yes, of course,
I feel it that's why I've come to you I'm miserable I'm unhappy then he says the monk says to him if you feel your unhappiness if you feel your misery then it's an object
it's something in the mind
that you're feeling just as you would feel see that shirt which
you're wearing or a little oil on your hand that would be an object in the same way unhappiness in the mind which you feel is an
object if it is an object if you feel it you are the knower it is the
known and the nor and the known are different therefore if you feel
unhappiness in the mind you are not unhappy
you are the knower of the unhappiness in the mind and this verse is thought about it and you know actually to do this immediately what happens is a kind of psychological space opens up between you and your thoughts feelings emotions desires prejudice whatever a little space opens up a very luminous space opens up between you and the mind and the mind comes down that's the magic of it
the mind actually relaxes and this person comes back to the teacher and said oh you're right and the nor and the misery was something known in the mind I am so peaceful now and the teacher immediately scolds him no you are not peaceful you are
the knower of the peace in your mind that is important to know because that's the trap the mind lulls us into what would have happened without that and the knower of the misery in
the mind calms down oh now I'm so peaceful it's the mind which is peaceful
the moment he comes down from the Himalayas and drives to Delhi and gets caught in the traffic jam it gets caught in a traffic jam he will immediately lose the Peace of the minded thing
I was so peaceful in the Himalayas I was reading recently there's some kind of the tension between India and China and the some Chinese newspaper threatened that don't the Indians know that
the Chinese army can be in New Delhi within 24 hours and somebody clipped back in the Indian newspaper saying that that's impossible Delhi is heavily defended on all sides by traffic jams nobody can be in Delhi in 24 hours he would lose your peace of the mind anything that
I was peaceful there and I'm disturbed again but you are the undisturbed witness of the peace of the mind of the disturbance of the mind all of that and that the witness is never disturbed that is permanently at peace the Mundaka Upanishad says that witness is Sakshi
the name of that work is it sanctum you're not peaceful you are peace itself that is the witness consciousness which is greater speaks about now immediately our tendency is that's great how can I know it the last quarter of
the verse is a big downer it says drag a van to Trisha there you can't know it but wait a minute what it means is not that it is unknowable it is more than knowable that alone shining everything else is known you see there's a beautiful mantra in the Upanishads
Tom a vivant a minute sarvam the satyagraha sarvam idam devotee that shining everything else shouts by its light everything is aluminum what it means is you shining everything else in your world shines by your light everything in your world is revealed good and bad you have to switch it up sir everything in your world is revealed by you
the light no don't say my consciousness or my witness
I the consciousness I the witness consciousness it can never be objectified it can never be objectified you cannot know it as an object of
the instruments of knowledge can never be an object of epistemology why usually what we cannot objectify in our knowledge we say such a the thing does not exist because we don't know it
we can't know it but here it is that which makes all knowledge possible our eyes can see the experience of seeing is because of that witness consciousness that light within the experience of hearing is because of that light within
the light and using metaphorically experience of the taste of thinking of remembering of questioning of understanding of forgetting of not understanding all
these first-person experiences and because of that light
the very nature of that light
the term used in Vedanta is swap Prakash self-luminous lot of literature on this very sophisticated thinking on this is basically a great as an answer to the hard the problem of consciousness that there is a fundamental reality which reveals itself and everything else in
the universe which gives us this first-person experiences technical term for that in nowadays is qualia first-person experiences it's possible because of this
the consciousness which we our bodies change barn change age and die consciousness
I'm changing it is immortal and undying minds are subject to ups and downs misery depression elation waking dreaming sleep all mine consciousness release miserable mine happy mine and so on and so forth so consciousness is unchanging misery is in
the body mind level at the level of consciousness that misery does not exist if you know why can't that consciousness be unhappy if it is unhappy I would say does it feel unhappy then said unhappiness is an object which it reveals it is not unhappy yeah should
I go on I think I have made the point the real point I wanted to make just one more point I just add one thing and then we'll go into the Q&A and we have also nicely arranged it, yeah it's exactly one hour how acceptable is this I'll give you one example one of
the bitterest critics of religion today is sam harris if you google him you'll find out a lot about him, a bitter critic of religion and he wrote a book waking up in which he says that there are these two traditions at least Advaita Vedanta which we are talking about here and zouk Chen Buddhism
the Dalai lama so Chengdu this yeah that the Tibetan that's the core philosophy of Tibetan Buddhism the most advanced form of Tibetan Buddhism Advaita vedantins option Buddhism where he says there is a the core of truth in these traditions which
I cannot deny and he says us must investigate this for that lot of atheists that upset with him Richard Dawkins was upset with him so that's one another one just recently Robert Wright who is evolutionist neo-Darwinism he lives in Princeton, he has written books like
the moral animal the evolution of God, his latest book is why Buddhism is true completely from an evolutionary psychology perspective
he says the insights of the Buddha, they are valid we see now not only are they valid so all right so they are valid now we have come to it by modern psychology and evolutionary theory so it's all
you are the knower of the unhappiness in the mind and this verse is thought about it and you know actually to do this immediately what happens is a kind of psychological space opens up between you and your thoughts feelings emotions desires prejudice whatever a little space opens up a very luminous space opens up between you and the mind and the mind comes down that's the magic of it
the mind actually relaxes and this person comes back to the teacher and said oh you're right and the nor and the misery was something known in the mind I am so peaceful now and the teacher immediately scolds him no you are not peaceful you are
the knower of the peace in your mind that is important to know because that's the trap the mind lulls us into what would have happened without that and the knower of the misery in
the mind calms down oh now I'm so peaceful it's the mind which is peaceful
the moment he comes down from the Himalayas and drives to Delhi and gets caught in the traffic jam it gets caught in a traffic jam he will immediately lose the Peace of the minded thing
I was so peaceful in the Himalayas I was reading recently there's some kind of the tension between India and China and the some Chinese newspaper threatened that don't the Indians know that
the Chinese army can be in New Delhi within 24 hours and somebody clipped back in the Indian newspaper saying that that's impossible Delhi is heavily defended on all sides by traffic jams nobody can be in Delhi in 24 hours he would lose your peace of the mind anything that
I was peaceful there and I'm disturbed again but you are the undisturbed witness of the peace of the mind of the disturbance of the mind all of that and that the witness is never disturbed that is permanently at peace the Mundaka Upanishad says that witness is Sakshi
the name of that work is it sanctum you're not peaceful you are peace itself that is the witness consciousness which is greater speaks about now immediately our tendency is that's great how can I know it the last quarter of
the verse is a big downer it says drag a van to Trisha there you can't know it but wait a minute what it means is not that it is unknowable it is more than knowable that alone shining everything else is known you see there's a beautiful mantra in the Upanishads
Tom a vivant a minute sarvam the satyagraha sarvam idam devotee that shining everything else shouts by its light everything is aluminum what it means is you shining everything else in your world shines by your light everything in your world is revealed good and bad you have to switch it up sir everything in your world is revealed by you
the light no don't say my consciousness or my witness
I the consciousness I the witness consciousness it can never be objectified it can never be objectified you cannot know it as an object of
the instruments of knowledge can never be an object of epistemology why usually what we cannot objectify in our knowledge we say such a the thing does not exist because we don't know it
we can't know it but here it is that which makes all knowledge possible our eyes can see the experience of seeing is because of that witness consciousness that light within the experience of hearing is because of that light within
the light and using metaphorically experience of the taste of thinking of remembering of questioning of understanding of forgetting of not understanding all
these first-person experiences and because of that light
the very nature of that light
the term used in Vedanta is swap Prakash self-luminous lot of literature on this very sophisticated thinking on this is basically a great as an answer to the hard the problem of consciousness that there is a fundamental reality which reveals itself and everything else in
the universe which gives us this first-person experiences technical term for that in nowadays is qualia first-person experiences it's possible because of this
the consciousness which we our bodies change barn change age and die consciousness
I'm changing it is immortal and undying minds are subject to ups and downs misery depression elation waking dreaming sleep all mine consciousness release miserable mine happy mine and so on and so forth so consciousness is unchanging misery is in
the body mind level at the level of consciousness that misery does not exist if you know why can't that consciousness be unhappy if it is unhappy I would say does it feel unhappy then said unhappiness is an object which it reveals it is not unhappy yeah should
I go on I think I have made the point the real point I wanted to make just one more point I just add one thing and then we'll go into the Q&A and we have also nicely arranged it, yeah it's exactly one hour how acceptable is this I'll give you one example one of
the bitterest critics of religion today is sam harris if you google him you'll find out a lot about him, a bitter critic of religion and he wrote a book waking up in which he says that there are these two traditions at least Advaita Vedanta which we are talking about here and zouk Chen Buddhism
the Dalai lama so Chengdu this yeah that the Tibetan that's the core philosophy of Tibetan Buddhism the most advanced form of Tibetan Buddhism Advaita vedantins option Buddhism where he says there is a the core of truth in these traditions which
I cannot deny and he says us must investigate this for that lot of atheists that upset with him Richard Dawkins was upset with him so that's one another one just recently Robert Wright who is evolutionist neo-Darwinism he lives in Princeton, he has written books like
the moral animal the evolution of God, his latest book is why Buddhism is true completely from an evolutionary psychology perspective
he says the insights of the Buddha, they are valid we see now not only are they valid so all right so they are valid now we have come to it by modern psychology and evolutionary theory so it's all
No comments