Continuity of Consciousness

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

Your responses were well understood; it was just to state that finally it is the source that starts the play and ends in itself there has never been any separate perceiver and so is the maya as the perceiver itself is part of that grand maya.

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Friend atanu,

Your responses were well understood; it was just to state that finally it is the source that starts the play and ends in itself there has never been any separate perceiver and so is the maya as the perceiver itself is part of that grand maya.

Love & rgds

Agree. When what you say is internalised without a tinge of doubt, there remains no mAyA.

...

 

[Kriya Yogi]

For clarification, would you say that you adhere to advaita philosophy?

You could say that. Basically Sanatana Dharma, but I really only follow everything that my Guru teaches which is basically what Sanatana Dharma teaches. To tell you the truth I don't know the differences between Advaita and any other branch of hinduism. I just know that my Guru knows God and truth so I go by his words.

 

[Madhuri]

You could say that. Basically Sanatana Dharma, but I really only follow everything that my Guru teaches which is basically what Sanatana Dharma teaches. To tell you the truth I don't know the differences between Advaita and any other branch of hinduism. I just know that my Guru knows God and truth so I go by his words.

To answer, yes Kriya follows a more Advaita perspective.

 

[Penumbra]

stem cells in coccyx couldn't be destroyed.

Sure they can. Cells are easily destroyed, including stem cells.

Stem cells are useful because they can renew themselves, but they can still be permanently destroyed.

I don't really see how stem cells in the coccyx are all that relevant anyway. The coccyx is just our tail bone. In fact, due to some conditions, some people have their coccyx surgically removed.

Are their bodies missing the key element to having an afterlife after such a surgery? Is their consciousness no longer continuous in such a case?

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Are their bodies missing the key element to having an afterlife after such a surgery? Is their consciousness no longer continuous in such a case?

Consciousness exists without the body and when we leave the body no matter what is wrong with the body or what is missing we are automatically drawn to afterlife. There are some exceptions. They are what we refer to as ghosts. My guru says those souls are so attached and tied to their former life and find it so hard to move on that they roam around in their astral bodies.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't understand. Is this a "physical" afterlife?

Are we talking consciousness without a brain?
or a copy of the brain as it was when the person died.

Either/or. Some people believe in an afterlife with a physical body while others believe it to be a consciousness that is not based on matter, while others have completely different views.

Our cells die and copy/regenerate all the time, no?

Are any of us our original anything really?,
even right here on this earth?

As we make connections in life,
we connect neurons, right?
Our brains are everchanging even in that regard.

I think we are ever only very similar successive,
unfolding "copies" of our previous Self
as we live out each successive moment.

Well, I posted a link somewhere earlier in this thread showing that yes, some cells do last our entire lifetime. Some of our cerebral cortex cells last with us from early childhood to death, according to some sources I've read (in addition to some cells in other places that aren't really important for consciousness at all). I don't know whether that's biologically important at all, but it's worth mentioning.

Secondly, although we renew most of our cells, it happens in relatively small quantities at a time. Our DNA stays the same, and each part is only replaced a little bit at a time.

I mean, cloning is possible nowadays. It's been done on mammals. If a human were cloned, it's not like consciousness would be continuous in that clone. The original would have it's consciousness and the clone would conceivably have its own, separate consciousness. Without human experimentation, it's impossible to know for sure, but I don't see why anything other than that would be the case.

And then sometimes really big things happen,

from a brain injury to a major paradigm shift.
Changing the experience and understanding of "I"
quite drastically, in just an instant.

This changes the understanding of "I" but doesn't necessarily break the continuity of consciousness.

 

[Mystical Sadhu]

Yes indeed, Kriya Yogi ji, such beings can be called "devayonis", as all disembodied beings without relinquishment of their affinities would be called, with these specific individuations for those who suffer as you describe:

Seven Kinds of Luminous Bodies (Devayonis)

Yaks'as Suppose there is a very elevated person who often ideates on the Supreme Consciousness, but who has some greed for wealth. He or she does not, however, express it openly to the Supreme, nor does he or she even think of it directly. He or she thinks indirectly, "Oh, since I am a devotee of the Supreme Consciousness, He will certainly give me enormous wealth and make me immensely rich." Those who harbour this sort of covert desire are reborn as yaks'as. Thus sometimes we refer to "the wealth of the yaks'as".

Vidya'dhara Those who have vanity of knowledge, although they do not expressly beseech this from the Supreme, but rather think inwardly that the Supreme should bestow an enormous wealth of knowledge upon them -- this type of person is reborn as vidya'dhara. Vidya'dhara is also a luminous body.

Gandharva Those who have a great talent for higher music and mentally think, "Oh, Parama Purus'a, I want knowledge of the science of music, not You" -- they are reborn as gandharvas. (In Sanskrit the science of music is called ga'ndharva vidya'.) They are also luminous bodies; they are not ghosts at all. They are also not visible in daylight, just as other luminous bodies are invisible.

Kinnara Those who are vain about their physical beauty, or those who pray to the Supreme to give them more and more physical charm, are reborn as kinnaras. They are also luminous bodies.

Prakrtiliina Those who wrongly worship Parama Purus'a in the form of clay, iron or other material substances, are ultimately transformed into Prakrtiliina.

Videhaliina Those who run after occult powers and think, "I will attain such great occult power that with it, I will move from place to place."

Siddha. Those human beings who are doing sa'dhana' [Intuitional science], who have great love for Parama Purus'a [Original source of the Universe], but in their heart of hearts are proud of their occult powers or pray to Parama Purus'a to grant them still more occult powers -- these people after death are reborn as siddhas. Of all the categories of luminous bodies, the siddhas are the most elevated. They often help sa'dhakas in their sa'dhana'.

These are all luminous bodies; they are not ghosts, nor are they positive or negative hallucinations.

(c) Satyananda​

Some siddha devayonis are khamu'rtti, which may often seem as shadow figures to humans, some times communicating directly with humans by motions or subtle thought.

At the shallowest end of disembodied beings are the yaks'in'ii darshana, which can be summoned or even created through focused mind and projection of ectoplasm.

Typically devayonis have three of the five states of matter: ether, air and luminesences, missing water and solid. Without the density of these two as instruments of action, they continue between incarnations without capacity to fulfill their desires, whereas the most sublime desire of siddhas is to facilitate others in attaining liberation, which can be done whether incarnate or not.

Consciousness exists without the body and when we leave the body no matter what is wrong with the body or what is missing we are automatically drawn to afterlife. There are some exceptions. They are what we refer to as ghosts. My guru says those souls are so attached and tied to their former life and find it so hard to move on that they roam around in their astral bodies.

 

[Kriya Yogi]

Mystical Sadhu, aren't most if not all of those categories automatically drawn to the astral realm? Of the ones that don't automatically progress towards the luminous realm what keeps them from going?

Also I was only saying the term ghost for everyone to understand. I guess they always have a choice at any given moment to return to the astral luminous realm. It's something I don't even come close to fully understanding.

 

[Mystical Sadhu]

Some times, what seems different is actually our restrictive perimeters of term usage and/or understanding of a concept. For example, many people equate sadhana, in Sanskrit, with "meditation", in English. The spectrum of the term "meditation" is far more inclusive of mental activity, including negative/regressive mental/emotional engagements, whereas sadhana is solely a progressively evolving quantum endeavor into subtler realms with attaining mukti [liberation] or moksa [salvation] in this lifetime.

Similar incongruities occur with terms within the same language used differently, either by context or are defined differently in different cultures using the same language. In Indian English, for example, "physique" means all around health, whereas in North American English, "physique" typically refers to the silhouette of one's body figure. Similarly, in North American English "ghost" is more inclusive than in Indian English in which "ghost" refers more specifically to purposefully scary endeavors attempted through ectoplasmic projections, in contrast to our North American rendering of including disembodied souls. Some such conceptual incongruities may also be applied to "astral plane", of which devayonis would be included within if I were to use the term "astral plane".

Mystical Sadhu, aren't most if not all of those categories automatically drawn to the astral realm? Of the ones that don't automatically progress towards the luminous realm what keeps them from going?

Also I was only saying the term ghost for everyone to understand. I guess they always have a choice at any given moment to return to the astral luminous realm. It's something I don't even come close to fully understanding.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, every soul is said to be unique in some way, even while existing in a neutral state of consciousness.
And they also develop uniquely due to the different experiences and journey.

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

I do not know how to answer the question about time. I know very little about time, scientifically speaking. I do know what it is like to have no concept of time, but that is not the same thing of course.

Can you explain what you mean when you say that you do know what it is like to have no concept of time?

From what I can gather, the Spiritual reality is not bound by time or space. At least not in the way that we understand time and space. But I can only conceptualise this. I don't understand the 'science' of it.

I can tell you this: Time is considered to be part of the illusory world. This might be a good article to read on the subject:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_time.asp

The first 3 paragraphs are relevant, and the if you scroll down there is the title: Is Time Real or Illusory? This is very relevant. I'd copy/paste but it doesn't let me.

Thanks for the article.

You mention that you have little scientific understand of time, so maybe you won't have explanations for these objections, but I'll post them anyway and if you feel you want to respond to them, please do so.

1. The article mentions that in God's consciousness there is only the present moment. The issue I have with this is that consciousness doesn't even seem applicable without time. For example, when a human mentions something like "experiencing the present moment", what they mean is that they are experiencing fairly short periods of time, right now. In order to realize an experience, at least some time has to progress. If it were one instantaneously short moment, it would be like a "freeze" that can experience nothing. Can you describe how you felt during the passage of a nanosecond? You felt nothing during such a timeframe because it's not long enough for even a basic thought or experience to be realized.

As previously mentioned in this thread, the mind is basically an emergent property of the brain. The brain is like a biological computer, processing information in time. This is how a computer operates- it process calculations over time, and is able to run software. A computer can't possibly exist without time, because it would be "frozen" and no calculations would be running.

The concise way to describe the problem I see is that all human consciousness is based on the passage of time. To say that consciousness can exist without time is not logical according to any practical explanation of what consciousness really is.

2. A problem I see is that the article says that time is a mental concept created by the movement of our senses. This is where science plays a role, because science says this is wrong. Time, an aspect of Spacetime, exists as a dynamic part of the universe rather than a mere human concept. For instance, moving through space changes the speed at which time progresses relative to other frames of reference. At our speeds this is barely noticeable, but at high speeds, this effectively translates into "time travel". Objects that are moving quickly experience a different rate of time progression than comparatively slower moving objects. And, large masses like stars can bend spacetime which results in a slowing of time in a gravity well. These are scientifically measurable and don't require a human to experience it to work.

 

[Madhuri]

Ok, thank you for the clarification.

Can you explain what you mean when you say that you do know what it is like to have no concept of time?

It was a matter of perception. I had a very inspiring experience in meditation where I went into a deep trance. During the time (about 10 minutes) that I spent in the trance my only reality was an image of Radha and Krishna sitting together lovingly. In this experience, I had no concept of Self, no perception of time and no thoughts. It was an experience of just Being, just existing. And it was surprisingly wonderful. This is part of the meditative experience. A person can potentially be in a trance for a minute, an hour, day, a month, a year etc. but not perceive the passage of time. This is a big part of why I can relate to Vedic concepts, because I feel that even though I don't understand it, I have experienced something of it. So I can relate to the idea of time being relative, or even illusory. But I can also admit that I am too ignorant to know the reality.

Thanks for the article.

You mention that you have little scientific understand of time, so maybe you won't have explanations for these objections, but I'll post them anyway and if you feel you want to respond to them, please do so.

1. The article mentions that in God's consciousness there is only the present moment. The issue I have with this is that consciousness doesn't even seem applicable without time. For example, when a human mentions something like "experiencing the present moment", what they mean is that they are experiencing fairly short periods of time, right now. In order to realize an experience, at least some time has to progress. If it were one instantaneously short moment, it would be like a "freeze" that can experience nothing. Can you describe how you felt during the passage of a nanosecond? You felt nothing during such a timeframe because it's not long enough for even a basic thought or experience to be realized.

As previously mentioned in this thread, the mind is basically an emergent property of the brain. The brain is like a biological computer, processing information in time. This is how a computer operates- it process calculations over time, and is able to run software. A computer can't possibly exist without time, because it would be "frozen" and no calculations would be running.

The concise way to describe the problem I see is that all human consciousness is based on the passage of time. To say that consciousness can exist without time is not logical according to any practical explanation of what consciousness really is.

2. A problem I see is that the article says that time is a mental concept created by the movement of our senses. This is where science plays a role, because science says this is wrong. Time, an aspect of Spacetime, exists as a dynamic part of the universe rather than a mere human concept. For instance, moving through space changes the speed at which time progresses relative to other frames of reference. At our speeds this is barely noticeable, but at high speeds, this effectively translates into "time travel". Objects that are moving quickly experience a different rate of time progression than comparatively slower moving objects. And, large masses like stars can bend spacetime which results in a slowing of time in a gravity well. These are scientifically measurable and don't require a human to experience it to work.

My suggestion is that you create a thread in the Dharmic Forum and see if others can explain. They are very good questions, and I'd be very interested in the answers.
If you do create a thread there, let me know!

 

[Twilight Hue]

How long do you suggest that each moment/frame lasts? I asked this to another person in this thread and I'll repeat the question for you since you have the same model:

Suppose that, as put forth in the article, the unit of consciousness is not a container or static or passive thing, but is instead a stream of instants of consciousness. What makes me question that model is the question of how long each "instant" is. Consciousness seems, at least to me, to inherently involve time. It involves perceiving, realizing, being aware, etc. If each moment of consciousness is infinitesimally small, then each moment is basically unable to perceive anything. In order for a moment to be useful, it must have a finite time long enough to allow meaningful awareness. But if that's the case, then how long would it be? It would seem arbitrary if each moment had a certain amount of time associated with it.

I always related to this metaphorically akin to moving picture frames.
A static picture on a film obviously would be enough to process, but nothing becomes of it further. Yet the instantaneous motion created rapidly frame to frame where each individual static frame is individually lost per say, gives way to animation of which that is processed. Each still remains a static picture, yet in rapid succession (related one frame to another) you stay coherent. Consciousness to me, is that rapid succession of stills.

I do agree that a discontinuation of memories may affect the continuity of consciousness. This sort of example that you present here is what makes me think of questions like this thread.

So you feel that the Bobby before and after was not the same continuation of consciousness?

I liken it to editing out parts of a film and spicing in various scenes thereafter. I think consciousness can be effectively be "spiced" at times such as in the case of Bobby because conditions abruptly changed affecting that continuity. The conditions beforehand changed in light of new conditions being present upon awakening.

Do you agree that, if a person were to reincarnate through multiple lifetimes but not remember their past lifetimes, that they should not be considered the same being as those past lifetimes? That it might as well be considered a separate being?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Even though we all are made of the same "stuff" in the universe there is a "recycling" process involving breaking down and reforming.

To make an analogy, the ocean for instance still remains the same ocean, but each individual wave which rises and falls will never to be seen again as that particular wave. When a new one forms it's a unique and separate wave unrelated to the former in manner of its characteristics. In essence, they are intrinsically the same as its still the same ocean, but in way of it's individual attributes and characteristics, they remain separate and unrelated one to another.

Its basically how I view re-birth using a dualistic means of expressing this. Usually it's easier to understand rationally. Best as I can put it here.

 

[Penumbra]

As far as whether bacteria have a soul or not, I'll be honest and say that I really don't know or care too much. It's not actually stated in the scriptures. What is said is that souls start out in the lowest form of life. Due to the fact that bacteria is considered a life form by society, it's perfectly possible that the religious folk have decided that this means bacteria also have souls. Yes they might, but I wouldn't really know.

I don't think that thousands of years ago, anybody knew that the human body (and all complex organisms) are actually made up of smaller organisms.

Without a reading of the specific parts of scripture you reference, I can only speculate, but I suspect that the lowest form of life known during that time period would have been tiny bugs. If it was not understood that complex lifeforms are actually composed of simpler lifeforms, then the concept of each life form having a soul would be relatively "neat and tidy". It's fairly simple to understand that each life form is separate and has a separate soul.

But when it is revealed that complex organisms are actually made up of simpler organisms, it adds complexity and questions to that model. If each of the cells in my body has a soul, why do "I" have soul as well? I am made up of these cells and their souls. I will elaborate on this later in this post with an example.

In fact, the boundary between life and non-life isn't even very clear. Simpler than bacteria are viruses. And simpler than viruses are replicating proteins. Since, really, these things are biological machines of various complexity, it seems to be a fairly arbitrary to assign a certain level and say that anything more complex than this has a soul, and anything less complex does not. Ancient writers would not have had to deal with this problem, but with a revelation of how complex biology is, it becomes something that asks serious questions about a model that states that all life has a soul.

I once brought this question up to a Buddhist and he thought about it and said that no, not every life form has a soul. There's a certain level of complexity where, above that, life has a soul. So bugs have a soul, cats, humans, etc. But not cells. It's interesting to hear the other point of view now, where people are saying that bacteria and cells do have souls.

Yes actually, we do believe that every living thing contains a soul. Space is not really an issue when it comes to Spirit. It is not a physical thing that takes up space.

To be clear, my questioning/objection to the concept of a bacterium or cell having a soul has nothing to with size.

The body is made up of countless things. The soul is not 'made up of' countless souls. And myself, the Soul, does not take up the space of this entire body. It is but a point of consciousness. That within and part of this physical body which I perceive are many other points of consciousness that I am not even aware of is not really an issue.

Penumbra, I have to really emphasise that I am not a scholar, but a student. So I cannot explain things scientifically to you. I don't know enough about biology to understand where the problems lie. Neither am I an expert on Vedic philosophy.
I only know the basics. There will be much better people to ask than myself.

So again, this is my very basic understanding: The physical body is built from all these living organisms (and becomes host to many more). Each body has another 'body' that is attached on a different plane of existence (or dimension, I'm never sure of the accurate word). I am sure you have heard of the chakras. There are seven chakras in the human body. These are instrumental in the process of enlightenment. I hope that I am right by saying that the soul is situated within the heart chakra. This is not a physical place. It is subtle, or astral.

So what you have with every single individual is a physical body, and astral 'layer' and then the soul which is right at the core of the heart chakra (which is why you may come across the saying that God is situated within the heart of every living being).

It may very well be that the astral body is what links the soul to the physical body, and keeps it 'attached'. I am sure this brings up other issues that you will ask me about. I can't promise that I will know how to answer them.

Allow me to use an imperfect example to illustrate my point.

Suppose I am a child with little toy Lego building blocks of various sizes. I am told that each building block has a soul. This is basically how ancients must have thought of creatures- each one is a discrete unit of life and each one is assigned a soul. This is simple enough.

Now suppose that I use my Lego building blocks to build something. So, I put 100 building blocks together in the shape of a little toy house. Now, the same person asks me how many souls are in my house. I remember that they told me that each building block has a soul, so I count up the number of blocks in the house (100 of them), and state that the number of souls in the house must be 100.

But no, I am told. There are 101 souls in the house. There is 1 soul for each building block, and then 1 extra soul assigned to "the house" as whole, even though the house is already composed of building blocks and each block is accounted for.

This sort of problem arises with modern understandings of biology in relation to that sort of metaphysics. It's not so simple as each form of life having a soul, because lifeforms are made of other lifeforms.

I am an organism made of smaller organisms. According to this claim of metaphysics, each of my cells has a soul, and then at least on additional soul is assigned to the whole, which is me. It's a soul built from other souls, just like it's life built from other life.

The example becomes even more unclear when we add other messy details. Like some of my building blocks are broken. Does each half of a building block still have a soul? This would basically be like asking the question of whether a virus has a soul, since it's not really clear what constitutes the smallest building block of life, since "life" is defined in a number of ways by biologists and is somewhat arbitrary.

As a side note, I have to say that I kind of admire you and have a lot of respect for you. You're keeping up with everyone's responses, you are super intelligent and knowledgeable and you are respectful. I enjoy being challenged by people like you and really regret when I can't be more informative.

I appreciate the compliment.

You are also very respectful and I like how you are good at interpreting the question and responding very directly according to what you know. It makes for very concise and useful discussion.

 

[Penumbra]

Hi Penumbra

You have created a nice thread. Let me take a stab. First we must clear a few misunderstandings.

Consciousness that we Vedantists mean is again a label, for want of another word. But we can also use the word TRUTH, which is the basis of awareness, existence, and happiness, in most general way, underlying every aspect of the universe -- whatever one can perceive by direct experience or through report.

Does consciousness know anything? Does consciousness move?

Suppose there is only pure homogeneous consciousness, just as a vast infinite absolutely tranquil sea -- AND SUPPOSE YOU ARE THAT VAST MASS OF HOMOGENEOUS SEA. What would you know? Nothing. You simply ARE, without any particular knowledge.

Suppose due to internal functioning of the ocean some waves come up. Then one wave will know another wave and may be also know the ocean. These are souls (jihvas-tongues) -- mere shapes and names -- impelled by the life force of the ocean, which remains ever the same and is called Atman.

Atman means that from which the Mind (I sense ) rises. Now this I sense is not incorrect.

But there is another 'I sense', which is built on the wrong vision that "I have not risen from the primordial one single unborn consciousness, but I am a discrete thing, the world is another, and other beings are all separate entitities. Each entity has its own intelligence and energy ---". This we call ignorance.

Om

I have been asking this to most Hindus/followers of Sanatana Dharma who have responded to me: Would you say that you adhere to a more advaita or dvaita philosophy? Your use of the ocean example leads me to assume you follow a more advaita understanding since I've seen other advaita Hindus use that example. But it's better if you say than for me to assume.

Penumbra

This thread is about never ending changes and what links those changes. You have asked this question several times in this thread.

If a moment is different from the next moment then what knows this? Can the knower of changes be also changing? Just asking.

Even Buddha spoke of an unborn reality without which our strivings and practices would be meaningless.

Om

The answer to the question of precisely what is the knower is not currently answerable as far as I can tell. Science, although it has made great progress in the area, is not yet able to explain consciousness in a satisfying way. Metaphysical claims also seem fairly unable to elaborate to me exactly what consciousness is in a fully satisfying way.

Based strictly on the concept that the mind (the knower) is an emergent property of the brain, the knower is the sum of calculations and processes of the brain. It is able to perceive moments of finite duration rather than ones that are infinitesimally short.

 

[Madhuri]

I don't think that thousands of years ago, anybody knew that the human body (and all complex organisms) are actually made up of smaller organisms.

That is my thinking as well. Put not note, it is a specific and clear belief that plant life in general are living entities with souls.

Suppose I am a child with little toy Lego building blocks of various sizes. I am told that each building block has a soul. This is basically how ancients must have thought of creatures- each one is a discrete unit of life and each one is assigned a soul. This is simple enough.

Now suppose that I use my Lego building blocks to build something. So, I put 100 building blocks together in the shape of a little toy house. Now, the same person asks me how many souls are in my house. I remember that they told me that each building block has a soul, so I count up the number of blocks in the house (100 of them), and state that the number of souls in the house must be 100.

But no, I am told. There are 101 souls in the house. There is 1 soul for each building block, and then 1 extra soul assigned to "the house" as whole, even though the house is already composed of building blocks and each block is accounted for.

This sort of problem arises with modern understandings of biology in relation to that sort of metaphysics. It's not so simple as each form of life having a soul, because lifeforms are made of other lifeforms.

I am an organism made of smaller organisms. According to this claim of metaphysics, each of my cells has a soul, and then at least on additional soul is assigned to the whole, which is me. It's a soul built from other souls, just like it's life built from other life.

The example becomes even more unclear when we add other messy details. Like some of my building blocks are broken. Does each half of a building block still have a soul? This would basically be like asking the question of whether a virus has a soul, since it's not really clear what constitutes the smallest building block of life, since "life" is defined in a number of ways by biologists and is somewhat arbitrary.

So I won't argue this because I really don't know at what point one organism is considered an individual soul and when it is not. It is considered that everything is ultimately composed of Consciousness-Brahman. So a large amount of these building blocks that make up the physical body are guided by this Consciousness- but that does not mean individual souls.

 

[atanu]

I have been asking this to most Hindus/followers of Sanatana Dharma who have responded to me: Would you say that you adhere to a more advaita or dvaita philosophy? Your use of the ocean example leads me to assume you follow a more advaita understanding since I've seen other advaita Hindus use that example. But it's better if you say than for me to assume.

Thank you Penumbra

I believe in advaita. But the metaphor of sea is from Veda, which advaitins use.

Whether one believes in Dvaita or in Advaita does not make any difference to the truth, which is called Advaita or 'Without a Second' in Veda/Vedanta. The Sea metaphor exists in at least two upanishads.

Moreover, Dvaita philosophy of Hinduism does not teach absolute difference between the ruler Lord and the ruled. Dvaita philosophy posits a knowledge principle (called as witness) as common to both Lord and the phenomenal world, including all ruled beings.

1. The answer to the question of precisely what is the knower is not currently answerable as far as I can tell. Science, although it has made great progress in the area, is not yet able to explain consciousness in a satisfying way. Metaphysical claims also seem fairly unable to elaborate to me exactly what consciousness is in a fully satisfying way.

2. Based strictly on the concept that the mind (the knower) is an emergent property of the brain, the knower is the sum of calculations and processes of the brain. It is able to perceive moments of finite duration rather than ones that are infinitesimally short.

1. The question is who will know the knower?

In Hinduism, the word for consciousness is prajna, which means pra=pre and jna=knowledge or awareness, which is emergent but pragnya is eternal. What is pre-awareness (pragnya) is not knowable separately but one can be it. The example is the situation in deep sleep, when being exists devoid of a reflecting mind due to absence of a Second.

2. We hold that emergent awareness is contingent upon existence of a second. And this existence of a second is like waves on an ocean or like different tongues of fire, or like vessels of many shapes all made of clay. All these metaphors are from Veda, which also teaches that the life force that gives shape to vessels and knows them is inherent in the substratum and is not separate in separate vessels (shapes).
...

 

[Gloone]

Some religions assert that there is an eternal self. Other religions assert that the self is temporary but that something lives on.

My question is, what is it, philosophically speaking, that links one moment of consciousness to another moment of consciousness that allows it to be considered the same being?



Thought Experiment One:


What makes our bodies continuous? I've read that most of our cells are replaced every few years. Some studies have said that there are areas in the brain where the cells last our entire life. If cells are replaced in small amounts over time, and eventually the entirety is replaced (even those brain cells), is consciousness continuous or no? How would we know?

Well I just read an article about something similar to this the other day. Cells rapidly reproduce through a persons life and start to slow down as the person gets older. That is what causes aging. The article I was reading talked about some scientist that just found a way to reverse the aging in rats. So about the cloning, I would think the person getting cloned and scanned would need to not so much meditate but put their mind in a state where they know the current state is a clone and getting cloned. Also hopefully the person getting cloned is in a good mood so they don't wake up having a bad day.

 

[atanu]

What makes our bodies continuous? I've read that most of our cells are replaced every few years. Some studies have said that there are areas in the brain where the cells last our entire life. If cells are replaced in small amounts over time, and eventually the entirety is replaced (even those brain cells), is consciousness continuous or no? How would we know?

Actually, in a life cycle, starting from being a will in a sperm to an absent will in a dead body, the 'will/life force' is the only continuous factor. This will is attentive of the life force (movement) and is forgetfull of its original nature of pure consciousness (unchanging, unmoving) and thus the will migrates to other sperms and other bodies but does not retain the memory of past bodies but retains the effects of good or evil works. So, some are born jolly while others are born sufferers. But, scientifically it is not going to be proven ever. It is impossible, since who will know the knower?

Only on this account, God is rightly known as omniscient. Only by stripping all attributes from this living self, the self can reattain the original state of pure consciousness and since everything proceeds from this pure consciousness, one abiding as pure consciousness is that and omniscient.

...

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Madhuri and Kriya,

The concept of a bacterium having a soul presents some ramifications I'd like to discuss. As you know, the body consists of cells. And these cells are actually more complex than bacteria.

Do the cells of the human body have souls of their own? If so, that would mean that rather than being one soul, my body is host to trillions or more souls. How can the souls be layered like this, with one soul ("me") being made up of countless smaller souls (my cells)?

If each basic unit of life like a bacteria or cell or something like that has a soul, then that means for complex multicellular creatures, their personal soul is not attached to any specific matter, since each cell is already accounted for by a soul.

We not only have our cells but are made up of a bacteria soup that is different from "Our cells" that we need to live. The whole idea of self is somewhat misleading is it not. What am "I". The concept of the Individual is more in the mind then reality.