PDA

View Full Version : Mind/body duality?



gurio
20 October 2012, 09:56 PM
Namaste friends,

Here are some thoughts I've had on the matter of the mind/body distinction, consciousness as soul, and reincarnation. I submit them for your consideration humbly and not in the attitude that I have arrived at any 'right' answers. I would be interested to hear (read) other people's viewpoints.

The Upanishads teach us that all is one, that all is Brahman, and that our individual consciousnesses are threads in the great tapestry, or sparks in the great fire, or tiny pieces of the great whole, or whatever analogy you'd like to employ. Now, it seems to me that our bodies cannot be separated from our minds, that the two function as one unit, and that the organs of our brains give rise to our consciousnesses, rather than our consciousnesses existing elsewhere and inhabiting our minds.

We can hold this view and still accept reincarnation. However, instead of viewing our consciousnesses (what is usually called soul) as traveling from body to body, we can instead view both our consciousnesses and bodies as being single essences, and the effects of the karma we acquire in this life will of course have their results in the next, but this will occur as this current mind-body essence dissolving as one unit and then rising as one unit again in a different form.

Such a view would appear to have implications for our final release from this cycle (moksha, if I'm not mistaken in the terminology), but in fact it would not. This is because we are already part of the divine fullness, as we and all and all-not must be. Although our mind-body essences may be single units, our union in a purer form would remain unaffected by currently being linked to a body. If all is part of the whole, then whatever form a part of the whole currently takes does not by necessity affect later forms.

I think that it is clear to most here, if not to all, that living properly (whether with the intention of attaining a higher rebirth or not) is the best way to make one's life smoother, happier, and more fulfilled, and so I would submit that even taking the view of singularity suggested here one should keep one's focus on living the best one can here and now, honouring neighbours, the gods, and oneself. Although every cause has its effect and the wheels of karma will always spin, one cannot of course guarantee one's next birth and it would be misguided to attempt to do so.

Many thanks for your kind attention to my ideas. I look forward to what others may have to add, contest, or comment on.

Omkara
20 October 2012, 10:39 PM
Perhaps you should try Buddhism.
Hindus very strongly disagree with such udeas,and have refuted these notions quite comprehensively.
In fact,holding on to such views was the main reasin for Buddhism's ultimate defeat in India.Buddhist scholars repeatedly lost debates century after century to Hindu scholars who pointed out the logical flaws in this position.The soul is independent of the body.

wundermonk
21 October 2012, 03:12 AM
In general, in Hindu philosophies, the mind-body dualism/problem is mostly non-existent. The reason is that the mind itself is considered an object and it is naturalistically made up of various elements of prakriti just as how a stone is likewise composed of different elements of prakriti.

So, the mind itself is an object.

Now, what is it an object of?

All schools of Hinduism believe that the mind is an object of the self. The self is pure undifferentiated consciousness itself (Advaita/Samkya) OR consciousness is an adventitious property of the self (Nyaya/Mimamsa).

This (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=10214) thread may be of relevance.

gurio
21 October 2012, 07:47 PM
Namaste Omkara,

Thank you for your reply. Perhaps you would also be so good as to tell me, preferably in your own words, what the logical flaws involved are?


Perhaps you should try Buddhism.
Hindus very strongly disagree with such udeas,and have refuted these notions quite comprehensively.
In fact,holding on to such views was the main reasin for Buddhism's ultimate defeat in India.Buddhist scholars repeatedly lost debates century after century to Hindu scholars who pointed out the logical flaws in this position.The soul is independent of the body.

gurio
21 October 2012, 07:59 PM
Namaste wundermonk,

Thank you for this and also for the link to your thread on this issue. I found the presentation of Samkhya as a dualistic but not Cartesian-dualistic argument an interesting and enlightening one.

Regarding your post here, seeing the mind itself as a natural object seems to me to be part of the position I outlined in my opening post. I think the important distinction that you are pointing out is that consciousness is, however, not naturally occurring as it is Brahman or the Self or a property of the Self (depending on the school). In such a view consciousness inhabits a body for a period of time and then moves on. (And please correct me if I'm mistaken here.) How then, if all is one - and I think we can agree on that, can we not? - is the link obtained between a specific point of undifferentiated consciousness and a particular physical form?

I'm looking forward to your teaching on this matter.


In general, in Hindu philosophies, the mind-body dualism/problem is mostly non-existent. The reason is that the mind itself is considered an object and it is naturalistically made up of various elements of prakriti just as how a stone is likewise composed of different elements of prakriti.

So, the mind itself is an object.

Now, what is it an object of?

All schools of Hinduism believe that the mind is an object of the self. The self is pure undifferentiated consciousness itself (Advaita/Samkya) OR consciousness is an adventitious property of the self (Nyaya/Mimamsa).

This (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=10214) thread may be of relevance.

Omkara
21 October 2012, 09:52 PM
Any body soul complex would involve bringing in matter as a component of the self.This causes many problems,two of which are outlined below.Consider that the material part of your body soul complex is constanly in a state of flux,and is not composed of the same atoms at any two instants.

If there is indeed no enduring being, if the being who experiences the reaction of karma is, in principle, a different being from the one who caused the initial action thus creating the karma, then is it not the case that an innocent being is suffering for the crimes of another? To hold that a person is nothing more than a successive chain of disparate and temporary entities, randomly brought together and then rent asunder, only to be replaced by a new complex set of elements, all in the blink of any eye, means that a being is not the same volitional entity it was at point b now that it finds itself in point c. Consequently, to state that being c should have to suffer the punishment for crimes performed by being b, even though they are in actuality two separate beings, is the equivalent of saying that I should suffer a punishment for a crime performed by my ancestor.

In memory, there is the presupposition of the continual identity and persistence of the individual doing the remembering. There is only one individual who experiences the events, persons, objects and thoughts of a particular life. We do not remember the memories of some other living being, but our own experiences. Thus there is a continuity of the experiencer. There is only one continuous experiencer, not many extending back in a randomly assembled causal chain.That experiencer is the Self.Thoughts,feelings,emotions are psycho-physical processes that arise out of matter.

Omkara
21 October 2012, 10:43 PM
These might be helpful
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antahkarana#_
http://www.swamij.com/mind-map.htm

wundermonk
22 October 2012, 01:19 AM
In such a view consciousness inhabits a body for a period of time and then moves on. (And please correct me if I'm mistaken here.) How then, if all is one - and I think we can agree on that, can we not? - is the link obtained between a specific point of undifferentiated consciousness and a particular physical form?

I'm looking forward to your teaching on this matter.


Hello gurio,

This is a great question. Please do not elevate me to the position of a teacher! I am only a learner who tries to understand Indian philosophy in my spare time away from caring for my family, dealing with colleagues at work, etc. :) So, what follows is my understanding of the issue.

The difference between Samkhya and Advaita is subtle but their ontological difference is profound.

Both Samkhya and Advaita believe in an actionless, attributeless, homogeneous Purusha or the self. For both Samkhya and Advaita, Purusha is pure undifferentiated consciousness (as opposed to consciousness being an adventitious property/attribute of the self as held by the Nyaya).

As you correctly point out, Samkhya is dualistic. i.e. there is Purusha, the subject. And then there is Prakriti which is the object. The mind, ego, outside world/objects are all Prakriti. Prakriti and Purusha are irreducible to each other. Now, the difference between Samkhya and Advaita. While Samkhya holds that each Purusha is distinct and different from other Purushas, Advaita holds that there is only one universal Purusha.

The reasons advanced by Advaita in support of this position are that pure undifferentiated consciousness is attributeless. i.e. it is not qualified by any object of knowledge/consciousness. It is knowledge itself. So, whether it is gurio or whether it is wundermonk, the "witnessing" aspect of our consciousness is exactly the same. Where gurio and wundermonk differ are in the objects presented to gurio and wundermonk. The objects are Prakriti and considered transcendentally unreal.

Being attributeless, there is no way to differentiate one pure consciousness from another. Without this differentiation, it is superfluous to posit multiple purushas, as based on occam's razor/principle of economy, it is sufficient to postulate one universal consciousness itself.

Does this seem okay?

Also, the role of consciousness is like that of a light. It simply shines. It is the nature of the mind/ego/intellect to abrogate to themselves the belief that it is they who are the doer/actor/enjoyer/sufferer, etc.

As regards to why this universal consciousness gets entangled and individuated to a particular mind-ego (gurio or wundermonk, etc.) there are three typical Advaitic responses.

(1)There is a temporal infinite regress of jiva (universal consciousness individuated to a particular mind-ego) - avidya (maya/delusion) - jiva - avidya - ad infinitum.

(2)Despite this, in its purest essence, the jiva is non-different from Brahman. So, even though it appears as if consciousness is always intentional (of an object), this is a false notion. The jiva, qua Brahman, is forever untouched and untainted. Standard analogies of this are that even though space may be constrained in different pots, all space within and outside the pots are one, eternal and universal. A single sun may be reflected in puddles of water. Some of these puddles clean while the others are not. Despite these puddles of water (limiting adjuncts - technically called upadhis), the sun is single, universal and untainted.

(3)Soteriologically, Advaita also believes that this state of universal consciousness can be reached as a jivanmukta (liberated while alive itself). We have the traditional testimony of many Advaitic teachers who attest to this experience. So, this argument would have to be taken on faith/self-experience.

devotee
22 October 2012, 02:33 AM
Commendable post, WM ! :)

OM

Omkara
22 October 2012, 04:58 AM
All of WM's posts are outstanding! :)

Do keep up your regular posts on the shad darshanas!

Omkara
22 October 2012, 05:12 AM
How then, if all is one - and I think we can agree on that, can we not? - is the link obtained between a specific point of undifferentiated consciousness and a particular physical form?


While WM has offered the traditional advaitic answer,I would also like to put forward the views of sri aurobindo,a famous Indian freedom fighter and philosopher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo

Sri Aurobindo beleives the answer lies in the principle of exclusive concentration. This principle is best explained through the example of our own ability to narrow our conscious awareness on a particular idea or perception, putting behind in the background of our focused awareness the rest of our conscious existence. When an author concentrates in writing a story—developing the characters, the scene, the action—their own personal identity becomes for the moment lost to their conscious awareness. Their consciousness enters into the story and identifies with it. They do not cease to be what he or she is, or lose their knowledge of identity, but practically their awareness is narrowed and identified at a point. This ability to focus awareness and put into the background all else is inherent in consciousness. It is through a similar process that the One and Infinite Being becomes the many, apparently separate, individual beings and things we see manifested in the universe. The separation is in appearance only, for in truth all individuals are constituted by the One, are That in their Reality for there is nothing outside the Absolute.

Omkara
23 October 2012, 08:16 AM
You might also want to look at this
http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/tantra.htm
http://enfolding.org/wikis-4/tantra-wikiwikis-4tantra-wiki/tantra-glossary/tattvas/tantric-tattvas/

gurio
24 October 2012, 01:56 AM
Namaste Omkara and wundermonk (and also devotee),

Many thanks for your wonderful posts. They have been quite helpful to me and are certainly thought-provoking (in addition to being well written!). I apologise for not responding to them more quickly, this week has been particularly busy for me.

I am afraid that despite the excellence of both of your posts I am still unclear on one point. I thoroughly agree with the below, this has been my understanding as well (I should note that I find myself in the Advaitan camp nearly all of the time if not all of the time):


It is through a similar process that the One and Infinite Being becomes the many, apparently separate, individual beings and things we see manifested in the universe. The separation is in appearance only, for in truth all individuals are constituted by the One, are That in their Reality for there is nothing outside the Absolute.


While Samkhya holds that each Purusha is distinct and different from other Purushas, Advaita holds that there is only one universal Purusha.

The reasons advanced by Advaita in support of this position are that pure undifferentiated consciousness is attributeless. i.e. it is not qualified by any object of knowledge/consciousness. It is knowledge itself. So, whether it is gurio or whether it is wundermonk, the "witnessing" aspect of our consciousness is exactly the same. Where gurio and wundermonk differ are in the objects presented to gurio and wundermonk. The objects are Prakriti and considered transcendentally unreal.

Being attributeless, there is no way to differentiate one pure consciousness from another. Without this differentiation, it is superfluous to posit multiple purushas, as based on occam's razor/principle of economy, it is sufficient to postulate one universal consciousness itself.

Now, the dualism of Samkhya is a very intriguing position. The one Self as consciousness housed in naturally arising bodies, the mind also being naturally occurring (as part of the body of course), makes much sense to me. (And please correct me if I've misunderstood the Samkhyan position.) In this sense I can understand and accept a differentiation of consciousness (soul) and body. However, I am still confused as to how, if - again by the Advaitan position - the Self is undifferentiated and attributeless consciousness, that parts of the Self could become associated with a single body.

Omkara's explanation here holds resonance for me and I can follow its logic (though technically the comparison to saying that I should suffer for what an ancestor has done is incorrect as the chain of beings is random and not linear in a familial sense):


To hold that a person is nothing more than a successive chain of disparate and temporary entities, randomly brought together and then rent asunder, only to be replaced by a new complex set of elements, all in the blink of any eye, means that a being is not the same volitional entity it was at point b now that it finds itself in point c. Consequently, to state that being c should have to suffer the punishment for crimes performed by being b, even though they are in actuality two separate beings, is the equivalent of saying that I should suffer a punishment for a crime performed by my ancestor.

To me though, the issue of (a part of) an undivided and pure Self getting stuck, as it were, in a body almost seems like a mistake on the Self's part, which of course is nonsense. How could the Self be in error when it and only it is pure reality? Perhaps it's just that I don't understand this step:


(1)There is a temporal infinite regress of jiva (universal consciousness individuated to a particular mind-ego) - avidya (maya/delusion) - jiva - avidya - ad infinitum.

These two, however, I feel that I do understand and accept:


(2)Despite this, in its purest essence, the jiva is non-different from Brahman. So, even though it appears as if consciousness is always intentional (of an object), this is a false notion. The jiva, qua Brahman, is forever untouched and untainted. Standard analogies of this are that even though space may be constrained in different pots, all space within and outside the pots are one, eternal and universal. A single sun may be reflected in puddles of water. Some of these puddles clean while the others are not. Despite these puddles of water (limiting adjuncts - technically called upadhis), the sun is single, universal and untainted.

(3)Soteriologically, Advaita also believes that this state of universal consciousness can be reached as a jivanmukta (liberated while alive itself). We have the traditional testimony of many Advaitic teachers who attest to this experience. So, this argument would have to be taken on faith/self-experience.

I very much hope that you will continue to have your demonstrated willing nature to instruct me, and I must also thank you for your patience with this long-winded post!

wundermonk
24 October 2012, 03:45 AM
However, I am still confused as to how, if - again by the Advaitan position - the Self is undifferentiated and attributeless consciousness, that parts of the Self could become associated with a single body.

Hi gurio,

So, is your confusion about why the Self, as consciousness, becomes associated (actually becomes can itself be a confusing word to use here because it is not as if there was a point in time when the Self was not associated and then at a later point in time it becomes associated...more on this later in the post) with a single body as opposed to multiple bodies? But why would you consider a single body to be the ultimate indivisible unit against which a consciousness gets attached? For instance, note that even a single body is capable of being associated with multiple objects of perception. For e.g., we use our eyes (instrument of seeing) to look at an apple, we use our nose (instrument of smelling) to smell the same apple, we use our skin (instrument of touch) to touch the apple, etc. It is a single apple and a single body, but yet how an apple gets presented to this single body would vary depending on how many instruments of perception are available. We may as well ask why is it our single body, when fully functional has five senses but not four or six, etc. Consciousness plays a role in illuminating all these sense organs and instruments of sense perception.


To me though, the issue of (a part of) an undivided and pure Self getting stuck, as it were, in a body almost seems like a mistake on the Self's part, which of course is nonsense. How could the Self be in error when it and only it is pure reality? Perhaps it's just that I don't understand this step:

The Hindu belief is that there is beginningless Karma/bondage. Anything that is beginningless is uncreated/uncaused. So, the infinite regress of jiva...avidya... is a perfectly logical position to hold.

Lest it be argued that something that is beginningless is also endless - thereby making liberation impossible, a counterexample can suffice.

Whenever a pot is created, its prior non-existence is beginningless and uncaused. Yet, on creation of a pot, its prior non-existence is brought to an end. Same case with moksha/liberation. Karma/bondage is beginningless but it can be brought to an end. In fact, Adi Shankara held that being blessed with human birth is in itself dangerously (in a pleasant/good way) close to liberation.:)

kallol
26 October 2012, 12:22 PM
Namaste friends,

Here are some thoughts I've had on the matter of the mind/body distinction, consciousness as soul, and reincarnation. I submit them for your consideration humbly and not in the attitude that I have arrived at any 'right' answers. I would be interested to hear (read) other people's viewpoints.

The Upanishads teach us that all is one, that all is Brahman, and that our individual consciousnesses are threads in the great tapestry, or sparks in the great fire, or tiny pieces of the great whole, or whatever analogy you'd like to employ. Now, it seems to me that our bodies cannot be separated from our minds, that the two function as one unit, and that the organs of our brains give rise to our consciousnesses, rather than our consciousnesses existing elsewhere and inhabiting our minds.

We can hold this view and still accept reincarnation. However, instead of viewing our consciousnesses (what is usually called soul) as traveling from body to body, we can instead view both our consciousnesses and bodies as being single essences, and the effects of the karma we acquire in this life will of course have their results in the next, but this will occur as this current mind-body essence dissolving as one unit and then rising as one unit again in a different form.

Such a view would appear to have implications for our final release from this cycle (moksha, if I'm not mistaken in the terminology), but in fact it would not. This is because we are already part of the divine fullness, as we and all and all-not must be. Although our mind-body essences may be single units, our union in a purer form would remain unaffected by currently being linked to a body. If all is part of the whole, then whatever form a part of the whole currently takes does not by necessity affect later forms.

I think that it is clear to most here, if not to all, that living properly (whether with the intention of attaining a higher rebirth or not) is the best way to make one's life smoother, happier, and more fulfilled, and so I would submit that even taking the view of singularity suggested here one should keep one's focus on living the best one can here and now, honouring neighbours, the gods, and oneself. Although every cause has its effect and the wheels of karma will always spin, one cannot of course guarantee one's next birth and it would be misguided to attempt to do so.

Many thanks for your kind attention to my ideas. I look forward to what others may have to add, contest, or comment on.


Already WM has given elaborate answer. I will put the same in a slighly different way.

First : Body as a whole (consisting of millions of cells) does not have life (otherwise death would not have been there). Now what brings in life in the body ?

When we sleep, when we are unconscious or when we are highly distracted, the body becomes senseless and will seem like lifeless. Why ? What brings the body back to sense ?

It is the mind. Till the mind is there in the body, the body will have sense and life.

Body is doing something - talking, acting, breathing - who is noting - the mind.

Similarly the mind is thinking, analysing, hating, loving, etc - who is noting ?

Yes even the mind does not have life of its own. There is the consciousness or I should say a small reflection of the paramatma or consciousness which we call atman - this is what lends the life to the mind and through it the body.

That is why mind is known as the enabler of the body and atman the enabler of the mind.

Body is the gross matter, mind the subtle matter and finally one and only consciousness.

Now if one carefully analyses, then it will be found that all matter (energy to gross matter which includes inert objects to human) consist of these three layers - gross matter, subtle matter and consciousness. In case of inert objects, the minds do not transmit the consciousness.

Now the consciousness is all pervading and is there everywhere. It cannot or need not travel. Body lies listless, lifeless on death. What has seperated ? It is the mind. It is the mind which travels in the consciousness filled environment to the next body, which suits its state of karmaphal.

Now as i said, mind is being observed by consciouness in the form of "I"s in everyone. Only I know when I am hating, loving, being greedy, jealous, etc. No one might know.

Now these thoughts are the vibrations of the mind. These vibrations create the mega vibrations (Shiva's dance), which results in manifestation and unmanifestation of universe.

These vibrations, if need to be observed perfectly then the state of "I" should be vibrationless. Now that is the state of God - vibrationless.

More we can educate or train the mind towards vibrationless - the difference between "I" and mind will become less and less and finally zero. The mind gets submerged unto God. that is mind gets back to consciousness.

devotee
27 October 2012, 12:47 AM
Wonderful post, Kallol ! :)

OM

gurio
28 October 2012, 10:51 PM
Namaste friends,

My thanks once again to wundermonk and now also to kallol for your helpful posts. I have been going over this for a couple of days now, some parts of wundermonk's post especially triggered what may be a beneficial line of thought in me (at least, in helping my own understanding).

Before I get to that though, please allow me a few comments on what the two of you kindly offered:


But why would you consider a single body to be the ultimate indivisible unit against which a consciousness gets attached? For instance, note that even a single body is capable of being associated with multiple objects of perception. For e.g., we use our eyes (instrument of seeing) to look at an apple, we use our nose (instrument of smelling) to smell the same apple, we use our skin (instrument of touch) to touch the apple, etc. It is a single apple and a single body, but yet how an apple gets presented to this single body would vary depending on how many instruments of perception are available. We may as well ask why is it our single body, when fully functional has five senses but not four or six, etc.

I agree with your comments on perception, however my use of consciousness (and forgive me for not being clearer on this) is in the sense of our controlling function of mind, and I will comment on kallol's use of 'mind' below. What is generally taken as being an individual's consciousness is that which is involved with self-identity, enduring physical characteristics (on a macro level, of course, not a cellular one, and also allowing for changes as one ages), and a continuity of memory.

Now, I am of the view that it is erroneous to consider oneself as ending at one's physical boundaries, and I think that based on the truth of all gross matter/subtle matter/consciousness (as kallol helpfully put it) being united in a single Reality, that of the Self, and the illusion that is our natural world (illusory as compared to the transcendentally Real, of course), that we would be better served to see all of humanity and all living, sentient beings as part of that whole as well. In fact, it would probably be healthiest for us as a species to see our entire planetary system as ourselves. We would certainly treat each other and our environment better if we did, anyway.


Consciousness plays a role in illuminating all these sense organs and instruments of sense perception.

Yes, this is what I meant. It is the controlling function of our minds, and remains a major mystery to cognitive scientists, as well as being a favourite topic among certain groups of philosophers. :)

This causes some trouble with the words kallol has chosen, though I agree with the content of his post:


Till the mind is there in the body, the body will have sense and life.

Body is doing something - talking, acting, breathing - who is noting - the mind.

Similarly the mind is thinking, analysing, hating, loving, etc - who is noting ?

Yes even the mind does not have life of its own. There is the consciousness or I should say a small reflection of the paramatma or consciousness which we call atman - this is what lends the life to the mind and through it the body.

That is why mind is known as the enabler of the body and atman the enabler of the mind.

Body is the gross matter, mind the subtle matter and finally one and only consciousness.

How kallol uses 'mind' here appears to be the same way that wundermonk and I have been using 'consciousness'. Perhaps it would be better for all of us to use 'Consciousness' when referring to the Self and 'consciousness' when referring to our individual minds.

Now, here is what really got me turning a few things over:


The Hindu belief is that there is beginningless Karma/bondage. Anything that is beginningless is uncreated/uncaused. So, the infinite regress of jiva...avidya... is a perfectly logical position to hold.

Lest it be argued that something that is beginningless is also endless - thereby making liberation impossible, a counterexample can suffice.

Whenever a pot is created, its prior non-existence is beginningless and uncaused. Yet, on creation of a pot, its prior non-existence is brought to an end. Same case with moksha/liberation. Karma/bondage is beginningless but it can be brought to an end. In fact, Adi Shankara held that being blessed with human birth is in itself dangerously (in a pleasant/good way) close to liberation.

Here are some thoughts, and I hope that they will be taken in the good faith in which they are offered: As each of us arises as a being through the natural processes and begins our karmic journey (whenever that beginning happened to be for the part of us that travels from life to life), I can see how we could take our consciousness from the whole that is Consciousness, the Self that permeates all and is beyond all. This is also what kallol said as Atman (the Self) being the enabler of the mind. However, as we are born as natural creatures and grow up in the world we do not recognise this higher truth and so become stuck in the cycle of karma and bondage to the natural processes that gave rise to our bodies. Yet even as we are in the very midst of this chain of events, the Self that has given us our consciousness - if you will, the Self that is in us that does not recognise itself as being Self - remains pure and untainted from our thoughts and actions that are generating karma.

I think that perhaps my understanding of these matters is becoming clearer, and I again really must thank you fine people for helping me move forwards.

kallol
29 October 2012, 06:01 AM
.....


How kallol uses 'mind' here appears to be the same way that wundermonk and I have been using 'consciousness'. Perhaps it would be better for all of us to use 'Consciousness' when referring to the Self and 'consciousness' when referring to our individual minds.

Now, here is what really got me turning a few things over:



Here are some thoughts, and I hope that they will be taken in the good faith in which they are offered: As each of us arises as a being through the natural processes and begins our karmic journey (whenever that beginning happened to be for the part of us that travels from life to life), I can see how we could take our consciousness from the whole that is Consciousness, the Self that permeates all and is beyond all. This is also what kallol said as Atman (the Self) being the enabler of the mind. However, as we are born as natural creatures and grow up in the world we do not recognise this higher truth and so become stuck in the cycle of karma and bondage to the natural processes that gave rise to our bodies. Yet even as we are in the very midst of this chain of events, the Self that has given us our consciousness - if you will, the Self that is in us that does not recognise itself as being Self - remains pure and untainted from our thoughts and actions that are generating karma.

I think that perhaps my understanding of these matters is becoming clearer, and I again really must thank you fine people for helping me move forwards.


Dear gurio,

Everything is consciousness and there is nothing but consciousness. However for the transaction purpose, we have put names. Generally the term consciousness is used for the pure consciousness.
Mind by itself does not have that consciousness. So mixing both as one entity will definitely lead to fallacy.
In a bulb (which is the body), there is a filament (the mind) and there is electricity (the consciousness). If filament is not there then inspite of the electricity being there the bulb will not glow. Similarly if mind is not there in a body, consciousness being still there will not enliven a body.

The clarity of body, mind and consciousness is very important to understand life and creation.

As "I" is a feeling arising in mind when it is in consciousness, "I" feeling indicates that consciousness is there. This "I" always remain in the mind but remains as an observer of the mind and is apart from the mind. This "I" is unpolluted, untainted.

However with the state of the mind, the "I" perceives a lower "i" which attaches to the mind. It is like a tainted mirror. The light which falls on the mirror is pure. But which reflects from the mirror is tainted. Remove the taint, the reflected light will become pure. Same when mind is attached to body. The "i" goes down still and attaches to body.

gurio
29 October 2012, 11:21 PM
Namaste kallol,

Thank you once again for your post.


Everything is consciousness and there is nothing but consciousness. However for the transaction purpose, we have put names. Generally the term consciousness is used for the pure consciousness.

I understand your point, and I agree that it is less confusing to mark the distinction as being between mind-Consciousness rather than consciousness-Consciousness. (I kept the capital 'c' in the first set in order to have it distinguishable in the second.)

However, I believe that we were both referring to the emergent property associated with our brain organs (the 'i' or sense of personal selfhood) and separate from that which gives us consciousness, which enables our minds, yes? This is very important to me and so I would like to understand it correctly and also to use terms that are accessible to everyone here.

My thanks and warm regards to you,