Nature of Consciousness

[Parisi & Watson]

-----Original Message-----
From: Vaidya Sundaram <Vaidya_Sundaram at I2.COM>
To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
<ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Saturday, July 24, 1999 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Nature of Consciousness


<snip>

>Now, however, as much as I hate to say this, the discussion has begun to
digress
>      from the subject. Fundamentally, I am not in any way qualified to
make
>      judgements on the correctness of your interpretation of your
experiences
>      and the reasons you attribute to them. At the same time, without
having a
>      full knowledge of the Vedas, it is impossible for any one else make a
>      statement that the Vedas cannot be the sum of knowledge.  I quote
below
>      from the Introduction of the vivekachUdAmani:


My point, on the contrary, was that it is impossible for anyone to justify a
claim that the Vedas or any scripture or doctrine are the sum of knowledge.
That they are true, yes. Even that they are flawless and without error. But
to say that they constitute the sum of all possible wisdom is like saying
that everything possible has now been invented, and we can stop here.

<snip>
>2) I am not against the concept of a revelation that points me the right
>      direction to find "that by which every thing else is known" for the
>      finding is still mine.


Neither am I, as long as it's just a pointer and stops short of claims of
absolute, total, and unquestionable truth.

> Besides, I am still not clear of one thing. I hope you (or other members)
could
>      sort this for me please ... you are taking observations made by the
>      senses, in the material realm and using reasoning learned by using
the
>      same senses. Can you realistically expect to use **only** these
>      observations and using **only** these reasonings to make predictions
of
>      some thing which by default is outside the system. Its like saying
the
>      three dimensional world is a three dimensional shadow of a four
>      dimensional world because the three dimensional world ... blah blah
...
>      you can only go so far. I think the same holds true of the arguments
of
>      trying to explain "consciousness" using our observations we make now
...
>      you can only go so far.


We start with what we know, and extrapolate from there. But the original
point concerned whether or not any state of consciousness can legitimately
serve as a medium for knowledge beyond the material realm. If all states of
consciousness, including sense data, are produced by the nervous system,
then trying to find ultimate truth by introspection, purification of
awareness, asking Who am I?, and so on is totally futile and misguided.

Robert.