Vedanta the Solution – Part 23

venugopal_vedanta
VEDĀNTA the solution to our fundamental problem by D. Venugopal

Part 23 begins the chapter on ‘Analysis of the subject in its three states of experience’. This first part looks at the three aspects of the body-mind-sense complex – the causal, subtle and gross bodies.

There is a complete Contents List, to which links are added as each new part appears.

Vedanta the Solution – Part 21

venugopal_vedanta

VEDĀNTA the solution to our fundamental problem by D. Venugopal

Part 21 is a brillantly clear exposition of dRRig-dRRiShya- viveka – the discrimination between subject and object, in order to realize my true nature as Consciousness.

There is a complete Contents List, to which links are added as each new part appears.

Science and Vedanta (Part 2)

P1030150_tonemapped-2Part 2 of a 3-part essay by Dr. K. Sadananda, AchArya at Chinmaya Mission, Washington.

(read part 1)

Analysis of Objective Sciences

 An objective scientist provides a narrow definition for science as that which pertains only to the objectifiable entities using the objective tools. For example, he says that the existence of God cannot be scientifically established as His existence cannot be proved. Obviously the proof that a scientist is looking for is perceptibility, using objective tools of investigation which themselves are limited to only objectifiable entities. He presumes that God is also an object that can be precisely defined in order to differentiate Him from the rest of the objects in the universe, and is therefore quantifiable using perceptual data. If an object cannot be established by using his objective tools, then he asserts that any assumption of its existence becomes blind belief or at the most speculative.

No object can establish its own existence, since it is not a conscious entity. A chair does not say ‘I exist’; a conscious entity has to establish its existence. A scientist, who dismisses the existence of God, since it cannot be proved using his objective tools, takes his own existence for granted without questioning it. He cannot establish his own existence or that he is a conscious entity using the same objective tools that he is using to establish the existence of God. The reason is that he, as a subject knower, cannot be known since he cannot objectify the subject knower. He knows that he exists and that he is conscious entity, without even questioning the validity of his assertions. Continue reading

Witnessing Consciousness – Q.340

Q: What is the difference between the witness, witness consciousness and consciousness? I know myself as the witness or maybe as witness consciousness but I do not know myself as all there is which, I guess, would be knowing myself as consciousness. But how can I ever not see the world of objects? So do I not remain a witness choicelessly?

A (Sitara): Contained in your question are seven questions (which I have passed on to the other bloggers, so some may refer to them):

 1.            What is the difference between the witness, witness consciousness and consciousness?

This will be answered below along with the last question.

 2.            (implied question) Is there a difference between the witness and witness consciousness?

Answer: no, not in the way I use the terms. But there is the possibility of a flawed use of the term ‘witness’. Witness means the ultimate subject that cannot be objectified. If witnessing is attributed to the mind, the so-called witness is nothing but a thought, i.e. it is just another object. And the so-called witnessing is nothing but an experience.

 If, however, witness is used in the sense of ‘ultimate subject’, you can use ‘witness’ and ‘witness consciousness’ interchangeably. I prefer the term ‘witness consciousness’ (or simply ‘witnessing’) because the term ‘witness’ suggest too much of a personality. Continue reading

brahman and AkAsha – Q. 326

Q: My mind has this tendency of creating doubts every once in a while and I was able to find answers for every doubt I’ve had through contemplation, logic and reasoning. But not this one.

Before I begin, please understand that my mind simply will not accept anything that cannot be proven to it through logic and reasoning, which is why ‘Sruti says so’ has not satisfied my mind.

So, my question is, how can we say that Brahman is the cause of Akasha (I’m referring to the Vedic element which is the substratum of everything that exists) and not Akasha itself? How do we know that consciousness itself is simply not the Akasha our bodies are made of which happens to be a conscious entity?

I understand that reality is non-dual, but Akasha being omnipresent (basis of all things), omnipotent (since it is Akasha that takes all forms, it can be said to be the cause of everything), omniscient (if we cannot deduce that Akasha is an unconscious entity, it would become omniscient), infinite, eternal and able to take forms without changing its own nature makes it no different from what is described as Brahman. Continue reading