Tag Archives: consciousness

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 33

Posted on by
Reply

Part 32

Chapter 6 JnAna and moksha
6-9 Tattiriya Upanishad- BrahmAnanda Valli
6-9-4 AnuvAka 7 (Pt 2) The universe is made of matter and is essentially inert. But living and non-living beings are found in the universe. It means that there is an outside source of sentiency. This source is Brahman. Consciousness is the nature of Brahman. The consciousness is reflected in the subtle body of a jiva and the latter becomes sentient. Brahman is also the source of happiness. When consciousness is reflected in a calm mind, happiness is felt. Vedanta claims that there is not an iota of happiness in worldly objects. If happiness is the essential nature of an object, it should give happiness to everybody all the time. But it is not so. An object liked by a person may not be liked by another person. And an object liked by a person now may not be liked later.

Continue reading →

Quantum Mechanics

Posted on by
3

Q (Quora): How does the theory of quantum mechanics affect our picture of consciousness?

A (Martin): The two notions (QM and consciousness) are incommensurable in all respects, which should be obvious:
a) QM is a theory referable to reality or an aspect of reality (the microcosm); consciousness, on the other hand, is a known reality, not a theory – not only a fact but that which is behind, the substratum of, all facts and movements of the mind.
b) The reality that is consciousness does not need to be proven for it is immediate, direct, unstultifiable or unsublatable. Everything else – objects or phenomena, thought-constructions, etc. – are stultifiable.

That means that there is not even an approximation between the theory of QM and reality per se. It would be a category mistake to relate one to the other unless using such exercise as analogy or suggestion. In this sense, there are two or three things that can be said:
1) Reality/consciousness is limitless, like the referent (or an aspect thereof) of QM, but the former is un-measurable, unlike QM which is amenable to measurement/quantification and statistical verification
2) Reality is non-local (Bell’s theorem), like QM.
3) Consciousness/reality does not depend on anything, while QM is theory-dependent.

Brain and Mind

Posted on by
8

Q (Quora): How does the brain understand philosophy?

A (Martin): The brain… understanding philosophy? My reply to this is similar to the one I gave recently to another question, which was based on Socrates’ answer to an observation that someone was making. The man saw a pool of water being stirred by a stick held by a man and said that the stick was stirring the water. To which Socrates replied: ‘Is it the stick, or the man moving the stick?’ (Which one is the real agent – the material, or the instrumental cause, in Aristotelian terms?).

Equally, is it the brain, or the mind that which ‘moves’ the brain which moves the stick, which stirs the water?

Is it the brain, or the mind that which (using the brain as an instrument) understands philosophy?

Rather, it is consciousness (as a substrate) using the mind using the brain… Consciousness itself does not do anything

Waking Up (Conclusion)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 4 (conclusion) of the review of Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris

Read Part 3 / Go to Part 1

Drugs

Many pages are devoted to a discussion of Near Death Experiences, although the reason for this is unclear – it is quite disproportionate, given the supposed topic of the book. He rightly condemns them as having nothing to do with spirituality, since they are merely the result of a cocktail of naturally produced chemicals in the brain. But then, inexplicably, he lauds hallucinogens as a mechanism for artificially inducing spiritual experiences, when all that they do is introduce a cocktail of man-made chemicals into the brain! You know full well (afterwards) that any experience you might have had was chemically created and therefore unreal. How can it possibly teach you anything useful? This is the height of irresponsibility and should have been rejected by the publisher.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 25

Posted on by
Reply

Part 24

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha

6-6 Kena Upanishad

6-6-1 Kena 1.1 The student is an informed student. He experiences the phenomenal world by his senses and knows that they are made of matter and are inert. They have five features: material (inert), objects of experience, changing, with attributes, and temporary (available in the waking state). There should be an outside source imparting sentiency to the sense organs. The student is curious to know the source and asks a pointed question to that effect. He wants to know the divine source which impels eyes to see, ears to hear, speech to happen, mind to go to objects and vital forces to function. The teacher replies.

Continue reading →

Waking Up (Part 3)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 3 of the review of Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris

Read Part 2

Other Religions and Non-duality

It is not at all obvious why ‘religion’ should be so disparaged. He recognizes “the needless confusion and harm that inevitably arise from the doctrines of faith-based religions”. The literal meaning of ‘religion’ is ‘joining back’, from the Latin ‘re ligare’. Its essential aim (and, I suggest, one rather more worthy) has nothing to do with psychology or personal happiness but with the nature of reality itself. It is difficult to understand how someone could place more value on a drug-induced experience than upon use of reason applied to scriptural revelation.

Continue reading →

Waking Up (Part 2)

Posted on by
2

Part 2 of the review of Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris

Read Part 1

Science

Another problem which adds to the book’s confusion is the attempt to utilize science, supposedly to improve upon or correct the ancient (and therefore bound to be mistaken) views of the original philosophies (be these Advaita or Buddhism). Harris explains that “Throughout this book, I discuss certain classical spiritual phenomena, concepts, and practices in the context of our modern understanding of the human mind.” Why would one want to do this? It is missing the point completely. The truth cannot be found in the mind; rather the mind is a tool with which we may discover the truth.

I explain in my article ‘Science and Consciousness’ that science can never explain the nature of ‘I’ because I am the subject, doing the investigating. The subject can never objectify himself. It is true that I can investigate both the body and the mind because I am neither of these. But this also means that understanding the human mind is not going to help in an ‘investigation’ of spirituality; it is simply not relevant to ‘who I really am’. Furthermore, if Harris is ‘talking about the nature of experience itself’, he is not talking about ‘I’, since I am the experiencer. Finding out about household electric light circuits and how they work tells me nothing at all about the one who operates the light switch.

Continue reading →

Waking Up

Posted on by
1

Here is another old book review, this one from just over 10 years ago. It is for the book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris.
It is an even longer review than the last, so will require at least 3 parts. Here is Part 1.

The Meaning of the Word ‘Spiritual’

Regardless of how well a book is written, and how interesting its content, if it is non-fiction it seems that its value should be judged upon how successfully it achieves its stated objective. As far as potential readers are concerned, the objective is traditionally determined from a book’s title. And, in this case, it appears that the intended purpose of this book is to teach us about ‘Spirituality’ whilst avoiding any ‘religious’ overtones.

This tells us that the author acknowledges that ‘spirituality’ is usually associated with religion. It suggests that, not only does he believe that it need not be so associated, but also he thinks that he can teach us about spirituality without needing to say anything at all about religion. Before starting to read the book, therefore, it would be useful to know exactly what is meant by the term ‘spirituality’.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 22

Posted on by
Reply

 

Part 21

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha

6-5 Katha Upanishad

6-5-25 Katha 2.1.12 to 2.1.15 JivAtamA, i.e., embodied Self is as though situated in the heart of the body. It is Consciousness that illumines thoughtful and thoughtless states of the mind. The heart is of the size of the fist and the mind is imagined of the size of the thumb. The non-dual Self is the Lord of the past, present and the future. Although it appears to be limited in size, it is the limitless, all-pervading and is non-dual. The space within the pot is viewed as limited space. Upon inquiry, we understand that the expression limited space is a delusion. The space is neither inside nor outside the pot, but all pots are within the space. In the same way, Consciousness is neither within nor without the heart; everything is within consciousness. After knowing that I am the limitless consciousness, I never feel insecure. It is this Consciousness that Nachiketa has sought to know in the third boon.

Continue reading →

Eight Upanishads (Topic-wise) Part 21

Posted on by
Reply

Part 20

Chapter 6 JnAna and Moksha
6-5 Katha Upanishad
6-5-23 Katha 2.1.5 to 2.1.10 Some technical terms used by the Upanishad need explanation. Brahman is all-pervading Original Consciousness (OC). It is AtmA at the individual level. The OC manifests through matter, the Reflecting Medium (RM). It is Reflected Consciousness (RC). OC is only one, but RCs are as many as RMs. The quality of RC depends upon RM. The OC remains unaffected. The material universe is divided into three pairs: three belonging to the microcosm and three belonging to macrocosm. Consciousness reflects in any of the six mediums. There are 6 mediums RM1 to RM6 and six reflected consciousness RC1 to RC6. At the individual level, there are three mediums: RM1 (physical -gross), RM2 (mental-subtle) and RM3 -causal.

Continue reading →