There is no "consciousness"?

[FmAm]

I have to disagree with (perhaps) all of the Advaita masters and teachings. It can't be stated that there is Consciousness. All there "is" is an infinitesimal infinity. It's a concept that just can't be understood. This infinitesimal infinity "contains everything possible", including our feeling of consciousness, self, ego, etc. (and Consciousness too). But infinitesimal infinity (II) isn't same as Consciousness. Consciousness can't be described and it has no qualities, but still it "isn't same" as II. Consciousness has something to do with pure being, II has nothing to do with pure being (although "sometimes" pure being "manifests").

 

Nothing comes from II and nothing goes back to it. There is no "pool of Consciousness" as a source of "souls". The most important part is that II isn't. It is said that Consciousness is, but II doesn't have to be.

 

I know that this might be just semantics, but I think that "Consciousness" or "God" as a pointing concept is way too much existing, even if someone would say that they can't be understood.

 

What do you think?

 

Edit: There should be capital C in the title.

Edited March 19, 2013 by FmAm

[dwai]

I have to disagree with (perhaps) all of the Advaita masters and teachings. It can't be stated that there is Consciousness. All there "is" is an infinitesimal infinity. It's a concept that just can't be understood. This infinitesimal infinity "contains everything possible", including our feeling of consciousness, self, ego, etc. (and Consciousness too). But infinitesimal infinity (II) isn't same as Consciousness. Consciousness can't be described and it has no qualities, but still it "isn't same" as II. Consciousness has something to do with pure being, II has nothing to do with pure being (although "sometimes" pure being "manifests").

 

Nothing comes from II and nothing goes back to it. There is no "pool of Consciousness" as a source of "souls". The most important part is that II isn't. It is said that Consciousness is, but II doesn't have to be.

 

I know that this might be just semantics, but I think that "Consciousness" or "God" as a pointing concept is way too much existing, even if someone would say that they can't be understood.

 

What do you think?

 

Edit: There should be capital C in the title.

 

Think in terms of substantial / insubstantial instead

[FmAm]

Think in terms of substantial / insubstantial instead

How would it be possible to know if Consciousness was substantial? It might be eternal or temporary (the ultimate Source or created Source - where's the difference?), but it doesn't solve the paradox. "Infinitesimal infinity" can neither be temporary nor eternal, because it just isn't. Yet it produces "pure being" or Consciousness.

Edited March 19, 2013 by FmAm

[3bob]

its all connected together with transformers, including "neti, neti"

 

anything can be stated, harder to walk the talk...more so when it is silence.

[FmAm]

Well, there isn't such talk (including silence) that could be walked.

 

----

 

Let's turn the situation the other way around: what about Advaita vs. Academic scepticism? Is the "existence" of Consciousness (Absolute, Tao, Source, etc.) or even nonduality too much assumed?

Edited March 19, 2013 by FmAm

[Flolfolil]

idk. my personal belief is that anything that can be perceived exists on some level. Can you perceive consciousness?

[3bob]

happy ax grinding FmAm

[3bob]

consciousness knows itself then implodes into itself, then what is it - not form, not time, not space...not mind, "neti, neti"

[dwai]

How would it be possible to know if Consciousness was substantial? It might be eternal or temporary (the ultimate Source or created Source - where's the difference?), but it doesn't solve the paradox. "Infinitesimal infinity" can neither be temporary nor eternal, because it just isn't. Yet it produces "pure being" or Consciousness.

 

I recommend the book titled "jnana yoga -the way of knowledge" to help you explore this further. Once you have read it, most questions will cease.

[Simple_Jack]

I recommend the book titled "jnana yoga -the way of knowledge" to help you explore this further. Once you have read it, most questions will cease.

I recommend he doesn't read syncretic works such as "Jnana Yoga: The Way Of Knowledge."

 

To the OP: Read Buddhist and Hindu philosophical thought separately and on its own terms.

[FmAm]

I have read and read again. No text, no talk nor silence can solve the problem. Talk or thought don't necessarily differ from silence. Even the noblest experiences of no-ego and oneness are experienced as an ego.

 

What if we are distracted by our perception of causation? There doesn't have to be something (e.g. unity of Consciousness) that causes this experience of reality. There doesn't have to be "The Cause" or any kind of "underlying reality". Maybe this "infinitesimal infinity" is just another unnecessary presumption too.

Edited March 21, 2013 by FmAm

[3bob]

Mind can not give you the answer to the "problem" for it doesn't have such a solution.

(its rightful place is servant not master) In the meantime there are unlimited karma yoga possibilities for us.

Edited March 21, 2013 by 3bob

[Boy]

...

Edited March 30, 2013 by Boy

[FmAm]

Mind can not give you the answer to the "problem" for it doesn't have such a solution.

(its rightful place is servant not master) In the meantime there are unlimited karma yoga possibilities for us.

There is no answer, no matter if there's mind or not. And on the other hand, there are at least as many answers as questions.

 

There are unlimited possibilities everywhere (in addition to karma yoga). I'd recommend fishing.

 

Semantics aside, you are completely wrong here. Look and listen and love!

Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.

 

But I'd guess there isn't anything prior to experience of separation. Nothing is this something. Without nothing there would'nt be something, and without something there wouldn't be nothing. Absolute is relative and relative is absolute. Separation is oneness and oneness is separation.There's no difference and there's no hierarchy (and no order either). There's no "because". Why would I chase no-ego? If it happens, it happens (and most probably it will happen when I die).

 

Who knows. This is all there is for me right now.

Edited March 22, 2013 by FmAm

[Boy]

...

Edited March 30, 2013 by Boy

[FmAm]

Stop with the guessing, pal! You have lost yourself in thought. Believe in yourself and you won't have to wait until you die.

I enjoy guessing and fishing (nobody knows what I'll enjoy tomorrow). I have never found myself so how could I have lost myself? I have always been my (continuously changing) thoughts and feelings.

 

I've never been good at believing. And I'm not waiting for anything to happen. What happens, happens - including my thoughts and actions.

Edited March 22, 2013 by FmAm

[Boy]

...

Edited March 30, 2013 by Boy

[3bob]

I can relate to doubt, (and many other types of changing thoughts) it to is an area of mind with related feelings that gets powered up by energy flowing through it and or identified with it. To effectively get closer to what we really are is to know that this energy itself (and not the area it is flowing through) is closer to what we really are, namely unbound spiritual energy. That is a major step towards an innate freedom which then proceeds further to the "answer". No one can give us this "answer" although they can sure help if they have attained it and are deeply trained to help one uncover it. (which I'm not although I will give witness to same)

 

This a Vedanta sub-forum not a Buddhist one. I will venture to say that anyone, especially one who is more or less on their own that mixes Buddhist, Vedanta and other written teachings together can and probably will have their mind blown at some point to some degree which is common with just one teaching and likely will be compounded by adding more; such is not always an un-fortunate thing per-se unless one remains left hanging alone in the wind to get continuously spun about or crashed into the ground in an unresolved state with no answer/anchor, along with powering up 'thoughts' that there is none.

 

Om

Edited March 22, 2013 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

This a Vedanta sub-forum not a Buddhist one. I will venture to say that anyone, especially one who is more or less on their own that mixes Buddhist, Vedanta and other written teachings together can and probably will have their mind blown

 

 

Advaita Vedanta comes about in the middle ages when Gaudapada borrows from Madhyamaka.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=sx12hxoFVqwC&pg=PA88&dq=The+Method+of+Early+Advaita+Ved%C4%81nta+It+is+not+a+matter+for+dispute+whether&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wr8ZUZ7iGceR0QGHuID4Cw&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Method%20of%20Early%20Advaita%20Ved%C4%81nta%20It%20is%20not%20a%20matter%20for%20dispute%20whether&f=false

 

 

 

Even the Upanishads themselves are "strongly influenced" by Buddhism:

 

 

Hajime Nakamura, Trevor Leggett. A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Part 2. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2004 page 284-6

 

"As was pointed out in detail in the section titled Interpretation, many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it."

 

"From the fact that many Buddhist terms are found in its explanation, it is clear that this view was established under the influence of the Mahayana Buddhist concept of Void."

 

"Although Buddhistic influence can be seen in the Maitri-Upanishad, the particular terms and modes of expression of Mahayana Buddhism do not yet appear, whereas the influence of the Mahayana concept of Void can clearly be recognized in the Mandukya-Upanisad."

 

"Although Mahayana Buddhism strongly influenced this Upanisad, neither the mode of exposition of the Madhyamika school nor the characteristic terminology of the Vijnanavada school appears."

Edited March 22, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

These are two VEDANTA books. These are not Buddhism books.

[Boy]

...

Edited March 30, 2013 by Boy

[3bob]

I'd say that it depends on how much a mind needs to be blown (so to speak) of being deeply identified/attached with various things or thought patterns that are unfortunate, which is no easy call or that is uncalled for unless help is asked for. (since everyone has different needs for different situations)

 

Further, if we sometimes come here to bounce stuff off of each other to see what pops out that is part of the forum set-up and has some value imo which I sometimes participate in... but I'm not a qualified or empowered teacher, just some blue collar working stiff and householder living in the world... so I only try to give very basic pointers as related to my experiences and along the lines of preferring to point to well known and well recognized teachings such as the Upanishads.

Edited March 22, 2013 by 3bob

[3bob]

Whatever turns your crank alwayson. But as you've noticed by now I'm not interested in that game so please leave me out of it.

[RongzomFan]

I recommend he doesn't read syncretic works such as "Jnana Yoga: The Way Of Knowledge."

 

To the OP: Read Buddhist and Hindu philosophical thought separately and on its own terms.

 

The philosophies are already mixed from the beginning. But I agree that this particular book is not ideal.....

[Boy]

...

Edited March 30, 2013 by Boy