Neti neti

[Aupmanyav]

So what IS the "straightforward" definition of consciousness in the East?
Or are we really talking about different ways of knowing? "Consciousness" is a can of worms!

conscious: Day-to-day awareness.
Conscious: Awareness that there is more to it when you make a deep search.
IMHO, it is quite simple, no can of worms. The process also is quite simple. Abandon what you don't find supported by evidence.

I wonder then if Affirmation is the I Am, or the purest form.

Both are considered thruths in Advaita, but at different levels. 'I am' at the worldly level, 'I AM' at the absolute level, because there is no other.

 

[Martin]

I told you to study something of Ramana Maharshi, the Master of Advaitha, to understand this concept.

Why you don't do that?

I get the feeling you are not really interested. If someone gives me 5such a clear hint, I take it serious and at least I would take the trouble to google a little; especially when I am eager to know.

And your reply gives me the feeling you don't take me serious

I will check out Maharshi (among other gurus) but I'm puzzled by your inability to answer straightforward questions here.

You talked about a "straightforward" definition of consciousness in the East, I am just asking what that is.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sohum is the affirmation
Neti is the negation

Both can lead you to the goal

I see that is correct.

Regards Tony

 

[Martin]

conscious: Day-to-day awarenes.

As opposed to what? A deeper knowing?

If you read the thread, you'll see my question was about Eastern v. Western views of consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not that well-read. I do not know how West understands consciousness. I know (and write) only how East understands it. I do not know anything about Aquinas, Descartes or Kant other than their names.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Both are considered thruths in Advaita, but at different levels.

Thank you, the reply is appreciated.

The more I know of the Eastern thought, the more I see how the Western thought aligns to the same concepts, but with a different language and a different frame of reference. Of course there are lots of tangents with that comment.

I see Negation and Affirmation are strong concepts, that I have come to appreciate as well.

I must say What a day it will be when we break the barriers we have raised between faiths and we explore all that is.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

If there are faiths, there will be barriers. If you want to break the barriers, abandon faith, accept evidence only. :straight face:

No one should play words with me, I am quite adapt at it to turn it to my side. And the simple reason is that I stick to truth.
They said: "Satyameva jayate, nanritam" (Truth Alone wins, not untruth); 'Satyameva Ishware loke ..' (Truth is the God in the world - Ramayana).
* Note: It does not say "God is the truth". It is the other way round. That is what my scriptures tell me.

 

[stvdv]

I will check out Maharshi (among other gurus) but I'm puzzled by your inability to answer straightforward questions here.

You talked about a "straightforward" definition of consciousness in the East, I am just asking what that is.

I have been clear, you just missed it

 

[Martin]

I am not that well-read. I do not know how West understands consciousness. I know (and write) only how East understands it. I do not know anything about Aquinas, Descartes or Kant other than their names.

Your view of consciousness as day-to-day awareness sounds very much like the western view to me. But we have people here saying that Eastern and Western views of consciousness are quite different, and I assume you wouldn't agree with that?
Leaving aside the question of how useful or valid it is to stereotype views in this crude way. And the difficulties around a common understanding of "consciousness".

 

[Martin]

I have been clear, you just missed it

Yes, I did, possibly I was confused by your jargony use of language. So please humour me, and just give a straightforward definition of the "Eastern" view of consciousness, according to your understanding.
And how that is essentially different from the "Western" view of consciousness.
Just a couple of lines to clearly summarise your view would be appreciated.

My impression is that "Eastern" thought doesn't deny sense-consciousness, but instead places it in a larger context. There is the possibility of a deeper knowing, beneath or beyond that of everyday awareness.

 

[stvdv]

please humour me,

When you tell someone humor me what you want the person to do is to agree with what you are saying or what you may be saying, but you want the person to agree with you just to keep you happy. • The husband thought it best though to humour his wife.

I don't play that kind of game

 

[Martin]

I don't play that kind of game

I didn't mean it that way, and now you're just being evasive.

In my experience people who thoroughly understand something are able to answer straightforward questions in a straightforward way.

So, how about it?

 

[stvdv]

I didn't mean it that way, and now you're just being evasive.

In my experience people who thoroughly understand something are able to answer straightforward questions in a straightforward way.

So, how about it?

I don't play that game either

 

[crossfire]

I'm not sure what you mean by "gaps in consciousness" here. I think what we actually notice is the object of consciousness continually changing, related to where our attention is placed at any one time.
And I don't think a process model solves the paradox that I identified, ie "How can consciousness be conscious of itself?" or "How can consciousness look at itself to know whether it is impermanent or continuous?".

Have you ever been unconscious? How about under anesthesia? Did you go **poof** out of existence when you lost consciousness?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But we have people here saying that Eastern and Western views of consciousness are quite different, and I assume you wouldn't agree with that?

The Western way is useful in everyday life. The Eastern way is useful in its own way, understanding our position in the universe. Many say it is as useless as 'pure sciences'. Even Lord Buddha said that. But we persist.

 

[Martin]

I don't play that game either

It's not a game, I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you.
It's a discussion forum, we're just exchanging ideas.

 

[Martin]

Have you ever been unconscious? How about under anesthesia? Did you go **poof** out of existence when you lost consciousness?

Sure. And yet consciousness returns after a general anaesthetic, so it's like sedatives and anaesthetics suppress
consciousness temporarily, rather than stopping it.
And while asleep you can be woken up by a loud noise or touch, so here it seems like consciousness is in "standby mode".
This experience of continuity is contradicted (I suspect intentionally) by the model of consciousness in the Buddhist suttas, where consciousness is described as a transient event which arises moment by moment, in dependence on sense-base and sense-object.

Some argue that consciousness is fundamental and permanent, some argue that it is conditional and transitory.
I'm not sure which is correct, but my experience tells me that it is continuous at some level.

 

[atanu]

...

Some argue that consciousness is fundamental and permanent, some argue that it is conditional and transitory.
I'm not sure which is correct, but my experience tells me that it is continuous at some level.

I will repeat that vijnana is an aggregate aspect that is transient and is contingent upon other factors for its rise and fall. Prajnana, OTOH, is anadimat -- without beginning. Even in Buddhism, consciousness (citta) is an ultimate reality.

 

[Martin]

I will repeat that vijnana is an aggregate aspect that is transient and is contingent upon other factors for its rise and fall. Prajnana, OTOH, is anadimat -- without beginning. Even in Buddhism, consciousness (citta) is an ultimate reality.

Which schools of Buddhism say that citta (mind/heart) is an ultimate reality?

And how does this relate to your earlier comments about Brahman being "pure consciousness"?

Do you understand that Buddhism is as diverse and pluralistic as Hinduism, and that these generalisations are pretty meaningless?

Do you understand that discussions forums are for the purpose of discussion, and not merely to regurtitate jargon and dogma?

 

[Martin]

Anyway. This thread has drifted far away from the original topic, and I'd be happy for it to be closed.
What I've learned is that "consciousness" is a horrible can of worms, and that "ways of knowing" is a much more productive expression.