We are speaking of consciousness, which has many forms, one of which is the human form. Within the human form we have ego consciousness. This is the everyday, everyman form of consciousness. We also have the human form of consciousness that is not separated from its environment. This form is contained in the human form and its related environment. The root consciousness of man has always existed and will continue to exist outside of time. You are viewing time from the position of a human being on Earth, which appears to flow in a linear fashion. But time is relative, as the great man said. We construct linear time and label the past, present, and future. If I may sound religious; God, everything, everybody, and every time exist now. You are mistaking the human brain for consciousness. IMO.
I don't think human consciousness exists prior to or outside of the human form. The eternal consciousness is not human consciousness. By the 'root consciousness' I assume you mean something like the atman - but the atman is not the individual human consciousness, and it is unborn. The actual form, the individuality, is part of the prakriti or nature. This exists totally independently of human beings. Consciousness itself has no forms at all(or no forms here in the material world). It is that which knows form, or indeed, formlessness. This is explained in the Bhagavad Gita, where we have the teaching of purusha (the knower) and prakriti (nature - that which is known). Mind, ego, body are all part of prakriti. . I don't think the individual human being exists in all times. God exists both inside and outside of time. He is the source of time and all creation. The soul which uses this present body may well be eternal, but not the form it uses. Time has to flow in a linear way in the universe, or we'd simply have chaos. Part of that includes the gradual evolution of life and the human form within time and within the cosmos. I'd say you are mistaking the human consciousness for the divine consciousness of which it is only a miniscule fragment.
Hey Bill, Thanks for continuing to reply to my ramblings! I was referring to the fact that human consciousness is a continuum of consciousness in general which begins in its Ultimate form and moves to involution, when it submerges in material substance, and then through evolution to the human form where it can become self aware. Human consciousness is one aspect of the eternal consciousness. It is the part of eternal consciousness that has the capacity to become aware of itself. Actually I was thinking more of Brahman. Prakriti,in my understanding, is that which gives form to all individuals, while purusha is the inner witness to that form. So while we could say that prakriti exists independently it must connect at some point when the human form develops. By root consciousness I was referring more to Brahman or purusha. The point I am making is that the concept of time, past, present, and future is just that; a concept. Time flows in certain directions and at certain rates depending on different factors, according to quantum and relativity theory. Sorry, I am not expressing my ideas very well. But, I am saying that they are the same. There is no fragmentation, only the illusion of fragmentation. Dude, Can awareness be aware of awareness? I guess so. But it would have to be an enlightened individual that was aware.
That's good: that's good. But is the holism of time essentially already there in the finitism of Life? Or is the continuum of Consciousness, as it were (woo..ooh) moving to Involution, the ground to the Hole, positively free vis. a vis the Creative Consciousness (evolution is the foundation of Freedom)? Multiplication of holes in Time are at filling the whole sequence of Evolution, or is the evolution a posited sequencing of involuting Holisms of essentially created Time? I believe that Hinduism is rather Neo-platonist.
It's an interesting discussion - I'm happy to continue to posit my own ramblings in contrast to your own... Brahman and Atman are the same thing considered from different angles. No doubt human consciousness is an aspect of the divine consciousness, but only an aspect. To become aware of the divine consciousness would take one beyond the merely human. . Sorry, I've lost the thread here. I can say that the philosophy of purusha/prakriti is part of a system known as sankhya, which says they are a permanant duality. The Gita rejects this ultimate duality, and says that prakriti has emerged from purusha, although the point of their seeming separation is impossible to pin down. It's more complex than that though, because Krishna mentions 2 prakritis - the lower prakriti, mula prakriti, which really comprises everything we percieve here, body, life, mind, and the higher prakriti, para-prakriti, which is a higher nature of which only the seer has any inkling. It probabaly represents a higher mode of being, superior to our being here in the physical world. The 3 dualities of purusha/prakriti, brahman/maya, and ishwara/shakti are really the same thing, again seem from slightly different angles. It is more than a concept I would say, because even during the period prior to the appearance of human beings with conceptual minds, time must still have flowed in exactly the same way otherwise other non-rational creatures could not have lived. Without time, there could be no concepts. A very persistent illusion though! . I think we're all aware that we are aware. And certainly, I think that we can come to realize a higher consciousness.
Ok, so if awareness can simply be aware of itself, then there is no subject/object duality, just realization of itself, so why can't consciousness be the ultimate reality?
God can do every thing without being that (God is beyond the worldly logic). (God being the source of all items and their properties of the creation, God can do every thing without being that. Items have specific properties by His order only. God is beyond the worldly logic). The creation contains various items. Each item is having certain prescribed qualities. All the items and their qualities are generated from God only. By the will of God only, a quality exists in a particular item. No item has any inherent quality by itself. It is by the order of God only that an item has a particular quality. If God wishes the qualities may change. By the will of God fire may become cold and water may become hot. In the world you are recognizing the item by its quality thinking as if that quality is inherent of that item only. The worldly logic is not standard because it is based on the will of God only. This worldly logic cannot be applied to the case of God, who is omnipotent to change the quality of any item. God being the source of all the qualities, God can posses any quality and due to that God need not be that item possessing the quality as seen in this world. Without being awareness, God can wish. Without being fire, God can burn anything. Hence, you should not apply the logic of identifying items by their qualities to God as in the case of this world. A quality indicates the potential work of the item. Burning is the quality and also is the potential work of the item. Therefore, God can have any quality and is potent to do any work.
Veda says that God can run without legs and can catch without hands (Veda says that God can have the quality to do the potential work without being the corresponding item). Veda says that God can run without legs and can catch without hands (Apaani Paado….). According to the worldly logic, the item that runs must have legs and the item that catches must have hands. But God runs without legs and catches without hands. This means that God is beyond the worldly logic and hence is unimaginable.
God is not awareness (When God is said to have will, the medium is awareness. This does not mean that God is awareness. If that is so, God is said to be burner of all the creation in the end. This does not mean that God is fire). In Veda it is said that God wished to create this world (Sa ekshata..). People thought that God must be awareness due to the will, because awareness alone can wish. It is also said that God burns all the creation in the end as per Brahma Sutra (Attaa charaachara….). This does not mean that God is the inert fire.
I am sorry. I did not read the thread so if this has been said, stone me. How come it says God vs. Awareness.........isn't the ultimate definition of God, Awareness....or least it is to me.
So what? The Satchidananda Brahman is obviously beyond the reach of mere logic......however, that doesn't mean that because God is 'un-imaginable' He is not consciousness. Pure consciousness is 'un-imaginable'. All you seem to be doing here is re-stating over and again that logic is inadequate to know God. But nothing at all which gives credence to the idea that God is unconscious.
This doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. How can you limit what God is and isn't ? Brahman is everything and nothing at all. It is existence, knowledge, bliss...pure consciousness.... as soon as you limit it...it is ignorance... correct me if I'm wrong everyone... but to give Brahman attributes (saguna) is because we are limited beings due to ignorance and it helps us to finally begin to grasp Ultimate Reality, if through a characteristic of the Divine such as my beautiful Lord Krishna... ...but there is nowhere where God is not...even the name God is a limitation... SatChitAnanda, Cosmic Consciousness (as Yoganandaji would say), Ultimate Reality... and even so those are limiting...how can you ever describe a vastness soo vast that even the sages of the Upanishads had to use negatives to say what it was *not* because they couldn't describe what exactly it *is*
Yep. Only thing I'd say is that it isn't that the saguna brahman exists because we project qualities onto God - saguna brahman and nirguna brahman are two aspects - both exist wholly indepentently of human thought or existence. At least, that's my view of it. Others, whom I believe take too much of a 'psychological' position, would no doubt differ. If we say for instance 'God is Love', that isn't to limit God - because the Love of God is in every way as inconcievable as God Himeslf. We can come to feel it, we can know it in a spiritual experience beyond the intellectual mind, but never to analyse it so that it is known by the rational side of our being. The Rishis gave various descriptions - some are negative some positive. Later on Avatars, who are no doubt greater than the greatest of Rishis, came here as God's self-revelation. Not that I am decrying the Rishis - they paved the way for everything IMO. Since you mention Krishna, I'd better add that IMO the concept of the Purushotama, the Supreme Divine Person, is higher and more complete than the Nirguna Brahman.
From the Bhagavad Gita - Ch. 15. 16. There are two Purushas (spiritual beings) in this world, the immutable (and impersonal) and the mutable (and personal); the mutable is all these existences, the Kutastha (the high-seated consciousness of the Brahmic status) is called the immutable. 17. But other than these two is that highest spirit called the supreme Self, who enters the three worlds and upbears them, the imperishable Lord. 18. Since I am beyond the mutable and am greater and higher even than the immutable, in the world and the Veda I am proclaimed as the Purushottama (the supreme Self). 19. He who undeluded thus has knowledge of Me as the Purushottama, adores Me (has bhakti for Me) with all-knowledge and in every way of his natural being. 20. Thus by Me the most secret shastra (the supreme teaching and science) has been told, O sinless one. Absolutely to know it is to be perfected in understanding and successful in the supreme sense, O Bharata. as translated by Sri Aurobindo (my italics)
