Notes on consciousness

  1. If there are three observers at 0 c, 0.5 c and 0.9999 c, their observations of the universe would be different. This is relativity. If observers see the same universe differently, then how can the universe be said to have a single nature?
  2. If a universe cannot have a single nature that it can present consistently to all observers, then there can be no unified theory of everything. If there is nothing fixed to refer to, then there is no standing ground for a theory. To arrive at the theory of everything, experience of constant existence at all frame of reference would be necessary. Interpretation of an observer at 0 c of the experience at 0.5 c, may not necessarily be true for the observer at 0.5 c.
  3. Thought experiment: Can relativity be applied on to quantum fields? If the large hadron collider is moving is at 0.9999 c with respect to the observer, would the experimental results still be valid?
  4. There are two different states of unconsciousness:
    • Death state of unconsciousness: Atman/Soul has left the body and reengagement with mind/body is not expected. Person is truly dead and appears so.
    • Pre-death state of unconsciousness: Atma/Soul has not left the body and reengagement with mind/body is possible. Person appears dead or in a coma to the world but is not truly dead.
  5. In between the two states of unconsciousness, pre-death and death, exists the clue to understand the bare essential functioning of the soul/atman. In this free state, the soul remains closer to its pure form, without having the need to engage the constructs of mind or the sense organs or the world outside or the need to look for a different body to live-in next.
  6. Like a person is standing at the door step of the house from where he can go inwards or outwards, the soul is free to engage the mind in the subtle body and go inwards into a given body and its experience or abandon the current body and seek another body more suited to the current evolved needs of the subtle body. If the current needs are zero, there should be no need for another body.
  7. When the soul decides to “go inside the house” by engaging the mind and the current body, the rules for extent of such engagement must be set. The sages (gyani) who study the soul (not so much the world) say that this engagement must be limited for it doesn’t matter how big the house and how deep one goes into it, the exit must happen. The scientists (vigyani) who study the world (not so much the soul) say this engagement must be maximum, for this one freak opportunity to learn the world should not be wasted. The sage says do not engage, for engagement creates karma and births. The scientist says engage with all your might or else your only go at life would be wasted.
  8. The scientists says, the universe is eternal but consciousness comes and goes. The sage says, consciousness is eternal and the universe comes and goes.

So, what are you? Are you a blip of consciousness that will be forever extinguished at death? Or are you eternal consciousness that will repeatedly come and go into the playground of universe till you learn to destroy your ego and burn your karma?

What is your world view? A fixed universe with random meaningless blips of consciousness and life forms? Or an eternal consciousness soul that craves for varying experiences in a semi-real universe?

2 thoughts on “Notes on consciousness”

  1. I found your site when I googled the three relationships (samanadhikarana, etc.) after listening to Swami Sarvapriyananda’s talk, where he really did as he warned and hurried through it due to time constraints, leaving me fumbling for clarification.
    I found all your pieces of great interest, especially the tempting links and disparity between science and advaita philosophy.
    My concern is, assuming that advaita is truth, what is the original reason for the jiva getting mired in illusion when the atman continues pristine, and couldn’t this recur?!

  2. Advaita, or any other teaching for that matter, will not clarify everything.
    If something taught all that was to be known, then nothing else would need to be studied.
    Not a billion websites and infrastructure of artifical intelligence can point you to the truth.

    What must be learned in absence of knowledge, cannot be learned in the presence of it.

    The answer to your question, as far as I have read, is the single word “leela” – divine play.

    If Brahman alone exists, then a logician could argue that surely the Jiva doesn’t.
    But dont we know all know that jiva exists? Does that mean Brahman and Jiva are two different things.

    Kabir sums it up beautifully. एक कहूँ तो है नहीं, दो कहूँ तो गारी

    This “bhedadhibhedam” – diversity caused by diversity – makes it hard to understand that everything emerges from one.

    Shaivaite traditions address to some extent – how the one Shiva becomes this limitless universe.
    Is that going to be easy to understand? No.

    That Single Cause (Brahman, Shiva, Whatever name), becomes this splendid display of multiverses.
    But why, how, where, when…?

    Last verse of Nasidiya Suktam emphatically states that the origin of creation may be known only to the creator and if not known to him then be known to nobody else.

    If the Creator created the jiva, He also created the malas, He also created the experiences and the rules of the universe.
    Who, dependant of oxygen and of a limited life, dare say why?
    So we, the non-knowers, should call this creation to be a play.
    We see it happen, we dont know why. But we know there to a root cause, even though we know nothing of it.
    The simplest explanation to this entire existence is as the leela, a play, of an all powerful God.
    If the game changes, the universes change and this could very well recur.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.