PDA

View Full Version : The apparent difference between Consciousness and the conscious subject is due to the



atanu
03 November 2007, 03:10 AM
The apparent difference between Consciousness and the conscious subject is due to the unreal ahamkāra

To me the above is the most important, most controversial, and most difficult to comprehend, tenet of Advaita. May I request Sarabhanga Ji and Yajvan Ji to explain this to us?

Om

yajvan
03 November 2007, 08:32 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

The apparent difference between Consciousness and the conscious subject is due to the unreal ahamkâra

To me the above is the most important, most controversial, and most difficult to comprehend, tenet of Advaita. May I request Sarabhanga Ji and Yajvan Ji to explain this to us? Om

Namaste Atanu,
Let me suggest we get our terms in order so one does not go chasing a rabbit that is not there.

When we talk of Consciousness here (due to its being capatalized) we are talking Supreme Consciounsess, not mixed or co-mingled, is this correct?

Next and most important - the conscious subject. We can view this two ways, hense my intent for asking, please advise accordingly.

'conscious subject' can interpreted as what one is viewing i.e. the subject of perception e.g. as in what subject do you wish to discuss, or that is an intersting subject of conversation, or that statue would make an intersting subject to paint;
-OR-
'subject' can be viewed in terms of the mechanics of perception - that of object being viewed , the method of viewing the object ( perception) and the subject ( the one perceiving, the owner of perception, the jiva or Consciousness).

Last and I think straight forward is ahamkâra from 'aham' or I + kr or action. This is the I-maker or that of ego. In this case we are not looking at suddha or pure SELF, pure I, yet the ego-self that gives the impression of 'me' that is localized, seemly bound, in duality.


Please advise...and if sarabhanga wishes to poke around a bit more or puruse the conversation, we can insure that the terminlogy is perpared and minimize any thrashing over words.


pranams,

atanu
03 November 2007, 10:29 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste Atanu,
---
When we talk of Consciousness here (due to its being capatalized) we are talking Supreme Consciounsess, not mixed or co-mingled, is this correct?

Next and most important - the conscious subject. We can view this two ways, hense my intent for asking, please advise accordingly.
------
pranams,

Namaste Yajvan,

Pure Consciousness is that which is present in all states of existence, namely waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. The Turya.

The conscious subject is one who knows this awareness. One who says, "I am this body" or "I am Brahman".

This is advaitic terms of reference.
Om

sarabhanga
04 November 2007, 01:48 AM
Namaste Atanu and Yajvan,

mahat (the conception of multitude) is the infinite cause of nArAyaNa; and ahaMkAra (the conception of individuality) arises from nArAyaNa as the finite cause of nAra.

avyakta mahat = brahman
vyakta mahat & ahaMkAra = mAyA

sarabhanga
04 November 2007, 01:31 AM
Consciousness = avyakta = turya
Knower = ahaMkAra = prAjña
Knowing = indriya = taijasa
Known = bhUta = vaishvAnara

The turya alone is unborn and eternal; and the apparent difference between turya and prAjña is only due to the mAyA of ahaMkAra.

atanu
04 November 2007, 03:35 AM
Consciousness = avyakta = turya
Knower = ahaMkAra = prAjńa
Knowing = indriya = taijasa
Known = bhUta = vaishvAnara

The turya alone is unborn and eternal; and the apparent difference between turya and prAjńa is only due to the mAyA of ahaMkAra.

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

Yes I understand this. Not comprehending Vedas and Upanishads from these four views gives rise to all confusion.

Thank You. Regards.

Om