Formula to Negate False Illusion of Separation, Atman & Brahman Difference (11)

Summary:

Session 11 shares formula (A = B = C = A) to negate false sense of separation or space between You (Conscious Subject) and OBJECT.

And SECOND is importance of total surrender to Īśvara by help of Karma Yoga attitude.

Finally we briefly compare how Karma Yogi, Jñāna Yogi and Bhakti Yogi deals with life of seeming duality.

TOPICS COVERED:

  1. All you see is Mind. Not “world out there”.

    When I ask, “How do you know what is happening here?”, the simple answer is “Because I see/hear it with my eyes and ears.”

    But is it so simple? Can your eyes see by themselves and ears hear by themselves? No.

    Suppose you are sitting in a room, completely engrossed by a fascinating book. Then someone calls your name from the doorway, but you don’t hear him/her. Why? Because your mind is elsewhere, immersed in the book. Unless your mind is available, you cannot hear the sounds falling upon your physical ears. Meaning seeing, smelling, tasting or touching is impossible with presence of the mind.

    You perceive everything through your mind, since external data comes into the mind first. And that's what is perceived (the data in the mind). 

    Mind images and sounds are not physical; they are perceptions, thoughts produced by help of the 5 senses.

    It is as if your mind is a screen upon which your eyes project whatever they see, your ears project whatever they hear, and so on. 

    So the room/environment experienced, is actually located in the mind.

    I am not suggesting that the room or object does not physically exist.  Rather, you (consciousness) illumine the images/sights/sounds located on the screen of the mind. It can also include emotions, memories – that too is on the screen of the mind, which is then illumined by you, the Self. 

  2. Self (ātman) shines on the Mind (subtle body) as awareness. Owning to inability to discriminate unchanging Self from the changing Mind, one then says “I AM going through this emotion/experience”.

    How is it known what takes place on the screen of your mind? Because you (consciousness) are pervading the mind. 

    You (consciousness) take the role of the witness, in the presence of whom, flow of perceptions, thoughts and feelings on the screen of the mind, become known.

    Ultimately, whatever is experienced, is an object of your awareness. You are the awareful witness, the consciousness by which all objects (in the mind) are known. 

    Ātma (self) is present in all changing experiences, as self-evident “I am”. Whatever the thought is, “I am” there. 

    All experiences belong to the mind, and are completely unrelated to the ONE light which shines on them all. And what role does this one light take? As the unchanging “I am”, present in and through all changing experiences.

  3. Removing dualistic notion that “things are out there”, using (A = B = C) formula.

    Step 1:

    Choose an object (A) in your environment. EG: A tree.

    Step 2:

    Where is the object from Step 1 located? 

    Answer: Naturally we say  “It's over there”.  But where is it really? On the screen of the mind (B).  Physical eyes perceive the object, data is sent to the brain, and physical brain communicates it to mind (subtle body).

    Step 3:

    How far away are you (C, the conscious being) from your mind (B)? Is there any space? Do you somehow experience yourself distanced from the images/sounds of the mind? Absolutely not. It's one total thing.

    So what you are perceiving right now is tree-consciousness. Table-consciousness. Wall-consciousness. Doubt-about-something-consciousness. Emotion-consciousness. Thought-consciousness. Etc.

    Yes, in real life we say “I perceive the table”. But the formula is asking you, WHY is the table perceived? Because there is table-consciousness (or consciousness of the table). 

    Suppose you throw an objection: “Yes there is a distance, because my body is here, and tree is over there”.  I'll counter with, “And how far away are you (C) from that objection that just occurred in your mind (B)?” Once again, no distance. 

  4. Purpose of rituals (spiritual practices)

    1st meaning of “Ritual”: According to Bhagavad Gīta 2.44

    What is purpose of rituals? The practice of rituals (karma-kānda) makes the mind single-pointed. Such a prepared mind alone is fit for liberation. 

    Rituals includes, (1) rites and ceremonies performed by the physical body; (2) prayers or devotion practiced by the mind; and (3) subtle discrimination, contemplation and meditation undertaken by the intellect.

  5. Introduction to 3 Gunas.

    Reason for Arjuna‘s distress on Kurukṣetra was because of excess Rajas (emotional attachment leading to non-clarity of what is to be done).

    TAMAS:

    When Jiva is dominated with excess Tamas, Jīva is lethargic, heavy, lazy, sad, dull and AVOIDING (fear). Tamasic jiva tends to gain joy through SENSE PLEASURE. Any drug/sex addiction is due to excess Tamas. EG: Tamas is most present at night, which is why in nightclubs, it's somewhat populated by horny, passionate, sense-pleasure seeking  jivas. It's a generalization of course.

    RAJAS:

    When Jiva is dominated by excess Rajas, then Jiva is active, passionate, energetic, erratic, quick, calculating. And seeks pleasure in fulfilling Desires. Always MOVING, on the go.

    SATTVA:

    Sattva (goodness, constructive, harmonious), Rajas (passion, active, confused), and Tamas (darkness, destructive, chaotic).

    How to cultivate SATTVA Guna? By adjusting lifestyle in accordance with that which promotes a quiet peaceful, calm mind. Through Karma Yoga.

    Ask: Is what I'm about to do, likely to result in a noisy mind, or tranquil mind? Then act accordingly.


    Summary: Sattva (goodness, constructive, harmonious, clarity), Rajas (passion, active, confused), and Tamas (darkness, destructive, chaotic).

  6. What does it mean to surrender to Ishvara (God), and why?

    Because you are NOT the author of the results of your actions. Else, you’d be getting what you wanted 24/7, and wouldn’t be still seeking truth (mokṣa) as would've attained it a long time ago. You’d also be totally satisfied by now, if you were the author.

    WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF CREATION? Ishvara, whose intelligence and material manifests as this physical universe, and the laws which govern interactions of objects.

    How do we know all comes from one Ishvara? Because everything in creation depends on everything else. EG: Sun on hydrogen/helium. Plant on sun. Animal on plant. Digestion enzymes on plant. Etc. Thus whatever created the sun, has to also know about the digestion.

    So any obsession to CONTROL or modify the environment (according to one's wants or desires), is indirectly revealing lack of knowledge of a larger grand order. God isn't in business of pleasing you. Its function is to facilitate the needs of all living beings — including ants, trees, humans, dogs, snakes, etc.   

    For example if God wants a mosquito to live, that mosquito will BITE a human, who may get malaria. Whether person is a saint or a sinner. In one sense, you and I are no more important than a mosquito in the big picture. 

    Summary: Īśvara is impersonal. It's function is to run the universe, rather then to please just you. Īśvara function is to maintain harmony of the TOTAL.


    QUESTION: What does it mean to say “Surrender to Ishvara“?
    ANSWER: Trusting that this order is always delivering you exactly what you deserve, whether you like it or not. Because there's always a cause-effect relationship. One may not remember having hurt someone in school and gotten away with it. But according to the order, for every cause, a corresponding effect eventually fructifies. Thus to surrender to Ishvara, is to acknowledge the presence of this ineffable intelligent cause-effect order. Doing so, it produces a degree of mental composure, maturity and endurance when difficult times come.

  7. What Ishvara (God) IS – in 3 descriptions from Upanishad text.

    1) Jagat Karanam – Creator, sustainer and destroyer of universe (time-space and elements0.

    2) Karma Phala Data – Giver of fruits of action. IE: For every cause, an effect will eventually return back to the original doer of the action.

    3) Dharma Raja (King of Dharma) – sets the rules/laws for sake of survival of species, and universe operating within a certain order.

  8. Karma vs Jñāna vs Bhakti Yoga.

Download visual mind map of this session.

10 July 2018

 

18 Comments

  1. Hi Andre,
    I have been watching these classes and I’m learning so much. Thank you for posting them. I wish I could attend in person but I’m in the US. I am a little stuck on something. Let’s say a child is abused. That abuse causes a lot of negative vasanas and the child grows up revictimizing himself and also judging himself over and over again. If Ishvara gives the outcomes, this child may well grow up feeling very distrustful of Ishvara, perhaps even angry since the child got the opposite outcome from the one they desired. What would you say to this person? That they got what they deserved due to their own actions in a past life? If the atman is pure divinity, and the old Jīva’s body and mind are not here in this life, then why did the giver give such horrible results. A child’s free will is limited by so many things, the family they are born into, the society, proximity to abusive people, knowledge of the world, etc. Surely the child, new Jīva and the divine atman, don’t deserve to be abused. Please advise.
    Thank you,
    Jo

  2. “then why did the giver give such horrible results”

    A child gets raped. Who is the perpetrator? The child or the rapist? 10/10 we say “rapist”. Wrong. Both are. The raped child (jīvātma), was a rapist him/herself in past life OR did something to someone which had detrimental personality consequences onto the “victim”. Thus in this life, the child is simply “paying” for the actions done in past life.

    EG 2: Suppose murderer shoots J.F. Kennedy. And perpetrator dies without being discovered. Where is that pāpa karma (bad karma) going to go? And to whom? It has to go somewhere. Thus next life, the newborn child will sooner or later encounter in his/her new life, a situation of being hurt or shot at.

    IF one doesn’t know about jīvātma (transmigrating jīva from one life to the next owning to one’s ignorance) going through endless lives, then one is going to cheat, lie, rape and steal… without any guilt/shame. You see this in West often. Thinking “after I die, that’s the end of it!”. When in fact… the next birth is simply a continuation of this ignorant jīvātma.

    Thus nobody is ever a victim. This will be answered different ways in following videos.

    1. Thanks for your response, Andre. So, the age old question of “why do bad things happen to good people”…the answer is they don’t? That’s a hard pill to swallow. I have so many questions. If the raped child has no knowledge of the bad deed (committed by a different body), then how can he learn from the punishment? Why are we veiled in ignorance if knowledge of jivatma would go far to prevent bad deeds? Guilt and shame seem innate to me. Nobody ever taught me how to feel guilty. I can’t imagine a person knowingly committing bad deeds with out guilt, even if they weigh the benefits as being worth the guilt and shame that will follow. If everything is Brahman, why aren’t all people compassionate (no bad deeds)? Andre, I’m sure I’m just jumping ahead of myself. I’m looking forward to learning more as I continue watching your classes and I’m sure my questions will be answered sometime in the next 55 videos. Thank you again for sharing your teaching on the internet!
      Jo

  3. “That’s a hard pill to swallow.” -> Correct. And it’s not a belief. But past life is supported by logic. Show me one thing in this universe, which has an EFFECT (eg: being bullied in school), without a CAUSE (eg: overpowering wife in previous life).

    ” then how can he learn from the punishment? ” -> It’s not black/white. Sometimes an injured child will, instead of forming resentment, will express forgiveness to the perpetrator. Thus the child had to be injured in order to learn or develop forgiveness for mankind. EG: I remember my high-school years of being randomly punched by undisciplined boys, and every time I retaliated, I felt guilty. This taught me to NOT injure, even if being injured.

    “Nobody ever taught me how to feel guilty.” -> Correct. This belongs to vyavaharika (transactional) order of reality. Nothing to do with Brahman. EG: Guilt is available. How much I feel it, depends on my free will of actions which either put me in situations which instigate tons of guilt, little guilt or no guilt. Thus guilt is available as value neutral. It is only persons own actions which add more value to a “value neutral” thing, according to one’s likes/dislikes.

    “If everything is Brahman, why aren’t all people compassionate (no bad deeds)? ” -> Because you’re yet to understand the difference between Satya/Mithya which is explained much more in videos. Compassion/violence/etc is a dream. You believe this dream to be real. Thus asking questions about an unreal dream. What’s more, for one person it is compassion, for another it is violence. So who is right! Nobody. Inside the dream, everything is relative. From one angle, it’s number 6. From another, it’s number 9. Whose right? Nobody.

    While you’re dreaming at night, person believes it to be real, and asks questions about the dream. Upon waking, one recognizes how useless all questions were and are. 🙂 But until then, continue asking questions and are encouraged to do so.

    All questions are stemming from assumption that this world is real. That’s the cause of these questions. Thus by me answering them, I’m only reinforcing the false notion that the dream is real. Advaita Vedanta’s job is to help you see things AS THEY ARE, without labeling them as compassion, violence, bad, good, etc.

    IT IS AS IT IS. Keep watching, contemplating, thinking about it and slowly all will make sense.

  4. Hi Andre.
    Loved the bucket analogy and your demonstration of A=B=C=A.
    Have realised that my philosophical training has formed a Vasana where I look for Vasana’s ?
    Anyway, I have to ask.
    If object is A
    Mind is B
    There is no separation.
    A occurs in B
    But.
    We have scientific laws that consistently predict the behaviour of objects and validate things like time and space.
    By inference, this shows that the object exists in a place other than my mind.
    It is perceived in my mind, but is objective to it.
    Again, by these laws I can know that the light from many of the stars in the night sky arrive on the screen of my mind long after they have ceased to exist.
    Does this mean the stars exist or not?
    How can they be said to exist in my mind if they no longer exist?
    This seems to demonstrate the independent reality of a world ‘out there’ that exists independent of my awareness.
    It is there even if I don’t know about it.
    Does this imply that my ‘ omniscient ‘ awareness is also subject to illusion?
    Am I somehow confusing Isvara One and Ishvare Two here?
    I feel I am missing something important here.
    Further:
    You state that when Brahma is reflected In Atma it is because the mind is purified enough to reflect that ultimate reality.
    Atma is the same as Brahma, ( as in the sunlight in the bucket) but it is not Brahma.
    But.
    The experience of this still takes place in the mind.
    Doesn’t this bring us back to square one?
    I have to say here, that I don’t even believe my own argument as I intuitively responded to your brilliant’ sunlight in a bucket’ analogy.
    I just can’t yet see the flaw in my logic.
    Would really appreciate some help with this as I found talk number eleven quite inspiring.
    Thank you.

  5. Hi Andre.
    So many questions.
    Towards the end of the talk you say that “ there is no choice of results because you are not the author of results “.
    This goes to the heart of free will and responsibility to me.
    It feels like a fatalistic ‘ get out of jail free’ pass.
    I know this must be a mistaken concept because the teaching is far too sophisticated and subtle for that.
    Also, many traditions seem to directly refute this statement. ( again, I accept in advance that this is probably due to my ignorance of true understanding).
    As an example, all magical traditions involve international mental states, visualisation, vibration and ceremonial ritual aimed at manipulating reality so that you ‘ become the author of results’.
    For instance, Kabbalistic magic would have you go through certain purifying rituals, invoke a Hod Form appropriate to the level you are working at, vibrate a word of power and hold a clear intention with one pointed concentration.
    Having completed the magical invocation, you then release all attachment to the intended outcome as though it has already happened.
    Many healing modalities work the same way and other traditions tell us to pray to God and express gratitude as if your prayers have already been answered.
    The claim is that under spiritual law the intention must then manifest.
    I have been doing the meditation practices of Dr Joe Dispenza for about 18 months now.
    He often refers to the unified field and I wonder if this is the same field that you sometimes refer to?
    He says the unified field is outside space and time and that all possibilities are contained within it and exist always as now.
    Is this Ishwara 2?
    He says “ anything that is emotionally felt and clearly experienced beyond space and time must find you and manifest in this space and time. It’s the Law”.
    This is being the author of results.
    This is obviously designed to appeal to and manipulate another order of reality to control this one.
    The crux of the matter is:
    1. Does this refute the statement that we are not the author of results?
    2. Should I stop working with these meditations if I want to pursue Vedanta?
    Yogananda’s guru, Swami Yukteswar, in Autobiography Of A Yogi, distinguishes between the laws of science governing the physical plane and the subtler laws which govern the spiritual planes.
    He tells how his guru, Lahiri Mayasaya demonstrated this to him and proved that we can bring about physical manifestation as long as ‘ we realise our unity with God’.
    There are innumerable other examples, as I am sure you know better than me.
    It seems (apparently) that Vedanta takes a passive, fatalistic approach, as against the more active intentional approach of yoga and the magical traditions.
    I know I must have a basic misunderstanding, a mind distortion, but I just cannot see what it is.
    Your help to provide clarity would be much appreciated.
    Thank you.

    1. ================
      Towards the end of the talk you say that “ there is no choice of results because you are not the author of results “.
      This goes to the heart of free will and responsibility to me.
      ================

      Is it in our hands that our body grows older by the day? No.

      Did we select our parents? No. Given to us.

      Do we choose what happens to food once it’s digested? No. Body intelligence takes care of that.

      In above examples = zero control.

      Where is our control (free will)? In how we respond to what happens. Simple as that.

      For example, I may be walking and sprain my ankle. From that moment, I can either:

      (a) complain how life is unfair, which then further creates thread of negative thoughts, which will affect my future actions.

      (b) realize I was walking mechanically because mind was elsewhere thinking about latest iPhone. I use this to help me see how world-objects are distracting the mind. Meaning next time I’m less inclined to think about world-objects.

      ================
      As an example, all magical traditions involve international mental states, visualization, vibration and ceremonial ritual aimed at manipulating reality so that you ‘ become the author of results’.
      ================

      In other words, it’s about “becoming someone”.

      And what is definition of saṃsāra (that which causes rebirth)? Becoming. 🙂

      What is mokṣa? Freedom from becoming.

      Thus every time one pursues the “law of attraction” possibility, it silently reinforces “I am this limited body-mind”, since it’s meant to improve the status of either (a) intellect (b) emotions (c) physical body.

      We’re not saying it shouldn’t be pursued. Because everyone helplessly desires a successful life. Problem is when whole life goes into attracting/becoming.

      ================
      Many healing modalities work the same way and other traditions tell us to pray to God and express gratitude as if your prayers have already been answered.
      The claim is that under spiritual law the intention must then manifest.
      ================

      Again, nothing wrong. Problem becomes when we take the MEANS as the FINAL END.

      This is the basic human confusion. Person takes every situation, every modality to be the final END.

      Āsana = final end.
      Psychedelics = final end.
      Tao Te Ching wisdom (living in harmony with everything) = final end.
      Marriage/kids = final end.
      Cake = final end.
      Netflix = final end.
      Charity = final end.

      Unlimited final-ends keeps the person busy for unlimited lifetimes… experiencing and becoming. This is saṃsāra.

      They must be understood to be a MEANS only.

      There is only one final end: mokṣa.

      And only way to mokṣa is by removing ignorance through knowledge.

      Since “I” doesn’t know the nature of self, the only solution is knowledge of self, IE: self-knowledge.

      For example, to remove ignorance of playing guitar, we don’t get knowledge on piano playing. Rather we SPECIFICALLY gain guitar-playing knowledge.

      ================
      He says the unified field is outside space and time and that all possibilities are contained within it and exist always as now.
      Is this Ishwara 2?
      ================

      Yes, the “unified field” term is referring to: Īśvara 2.

      Actually, just Īśvara (all knowledge, all power).

      The 1/2 was used initially in course to help distinguish (Brahman: Īśvara 1) and (Brahman conditioned by māyā: Īśvara 2).

      Also Īśvara is so much more then just the limited description of “unified field” as portrayed by John Hagelin, also known as “String Theory”. That’s why Īśvara will be defined in almost every session.

      Speaking of physics…

      Per John Hagelin (from whom Joe Dispenza has borrowed), evolution of physics: Classical (Newtonian) > Quantum Mechanics > Quantum Field Theory (Einstein) > Unified Quantum Field Theory (strings)

      John Hagelin then goes one step further, and says after “unified field” (Īśvara 2) there is Consciousness (Īśvara 1).

      However, topic of “consciousness” was turned into an intellectual object of discussion/analysis, something to experience in samādhi. Something which can be measured through brain waves. So consciousness was turned into another object.

      This is why Upaniṣads are needed. As your statement said earlier “The true Tao can’t be spoken”.

      While it can’t be spoken of, it can be directly revealed, through implied statements, negatives, metaphors… all which the course employs.

      ================
      1. Does this refute the statement that we are not the author of results?
      ================

      You’re not author of results of what is happening right NOW.

      For example, if you release an arrow towards target, and realize it’s not an animal, but a human… can you stop it? No way!

      Hence you will be punished accordingly.

      But where is our point of freedom? In how we interpret what has happened. And what we do thereafter. Some choose to wallow in misery for the misfortune, some use jail time as opportunity to think about purpose of living (self-inquiry).

      So direct answer is: We don’t have control (what already happened), and we DO have control (what we do about what has happened).

      ================
      2. Should I stop working with these meditations if I want to pursue Vedanta?
      ================

      Meditation’s only purpose is to purify the mind.

      Meditation is not the final END, as portrayed in yoga world.

      It’s meant to maintain a sattvic predisposition of mind. A decently quiet mind.

      Point is: If you’ve meditated for years, I bet 99% of cases, one’s mind is ready for self-knowledge. In which case, meditation should either be (a) dropped (b) reduced.

      One needs to move forward.

      ================
      Yogananda’s guru, Swami Yukteswar, in Autobiography Of A Yogi, distinguishes between the laws of science governing the physical plane and the subtler laws which govern the spiritual planes.
      He tells how his guru, Lahiri Mayasaya demonstrated this to him and proved that we can bring about physical manifestation as long as ‘ we realise our unity with God’.
      There are innumerable other examples, as I am sure you know better than me.
      ================

      Yes, I remember in decent detail the Yogananda book and Holy Science by Yukteswar.

      “laws of science governing the physical plane and the subtler laws which govern the spiritual planes.” > This is easy. Will learn about sthula and sūkṣma śarīra in course in detail.

      ” we can bring about physical manifestation as long as ‘ we realize our unity with God’.” > What’s the point of physical manifestation when it’s time-bound. Comes and goes. Fleeting. What’s more, one’s desires are constantly changing. Today they want X. Tomorrow X is boring. Constant struggle trying to manifest and maintain physical objects in life.

      ================
      It seems (apparently) that Vedanta takes a passive, fatalistic approach, as against the more active intentional approach of yoga and the magical traditions.
      I know I must have a basic misunderstanding, a mind distortion, but I just cannot see what it is.
      ================

      Vedanta is not passive: It requires contemplation in light of what’s been heard.

      At the same time, there is level of passivity. Because the truth is, you (not body-mind) are already limitless, full and complete.

      So the logic is: How can any action add/subtract from THAT which is ALREADY full, whole and complete? Impossible!

      That’s why it’s not about gaining something. But undoing the false notions we have carried for lifetimes about this “I”.

      Also Vedanta is certainly not “fatalistic”. We have partially explained above the definition of “free will”.

      1. Hi, Around the 32 min mark referring to the sunlight and the bucket. Are the bucket reflecting the light and the light itself subject to environmental influence? For instance the sunlight gives warmth/heat but the reflected light doesn’t have this attribute.
        Thankyou

        1. Kathleen, I think your mind is taking the metaphor literally. Because it’s adding “warmth/heat” which wasn’t in original explanation.

          Sunlight = Self. The one Self who is right now giving consciousness to Kathleen’s mind, Andre’s mind, and 8 billion more human minds (compared to buckets), including minds of insects and animals.

          Depending on contents of the mind, is what is reflected back to Self.

          That’s why every person says, I (Self) am experiencing ___. (Pain / sorrow / joy / etc.).

          The pain/sorrow/joy are contents of the mind (bucket).

          The one because of whom the contents are known is Self.

  6. Again, thank you for your time and effort to help me become clearer.
    I will take your advice re meditation and use the extra time to study Vedanta.

  7. Crux of A=B=C is anything that is capable of being perceived is consciousness – i.e sarvam brahma, Posted what I learnt and understood.

  8. Hi Andre, I have a question about the A = B = C = A argument and what it means for physical objects.

    Step 1 of the argument says that an object exists in the world, and my SENSES then pick up the object and send it to the screen of the mind. So for example, we could say a mind-independent object exists, like a remote, and my eyes pick up the light reflected off of the remote, and my mind receives the actual image. I understand how all objects in my mind are not really in space, because they’re all on the same mind-screen.

    But if all the objects in my perception are only known via the mind, and not in themselves, wouldn’t this mean that the senses themselves, like the eyes, are also an object on the screen, and therefore I’d be explaining the existence of one object on the screen (remote) by other objects on the screen (eyes and reflected light)? If the senses are just as objectifiable as the objects sensed, does this mean that the senses really don’t pick up anything at all, and that no physical objects exist outside of consciousness?

    If my senses did pick up an object existing OUTSIDE of consciousness, that seems to mean that there’s one place consciousness doesn’t pervade, which are the objects before they’re picked up by the senses.

    The only way I can think of resolving this is by thinking of a dream. In a dream, I see objects, hear sounds, etc. But I don’t have any actual sense-organs in the dream. The objects, and sense-organs, exist in my mind alone.

    My main question is then: Are sense organs and mind-independent objects (before they’re picked up by the senses) a fiction in the waking world? Do sense organs really DO anything at all, or are they just a gross manifestation of the subtle body (like you said the brain is)?

    I hope this question makes sense. Thank you for these wonderful videos.

    1. Hi Nick. I’ve just refined the A/B/C formula on this page as wasn’t happy what was written when I began teaching. May want to read it again.

      Meanwhile here’s the order…

      Close eyes and there’s no more shape/color/form. So yes, there is a physical world, but it depends on sense organs to be perceived.

      However sense organs depend on the mind, because their data needs to be assimilated into one central place.

      And mind depends on consciousness, or I.

      How far away are you (the conscious one) from the screen of the mind (on which are presented objects of the physical world)? No distance.

      And yes, the mind, including the sense organs are also “the world”, as they are objects also.

      So world/mind/sense-organs are all objects known to you (the conscious one).

      1. Thank you Andre,

        I understand how the mind, sense organs, etc. are also “the world.”

        When you say that “sense organs depend on the mind,” is this the same as saying that sense organs are nothing but mind, and mind is nothing but Atman? Advaita would seem to be subjective idealism (Yogacara Buddhism) BUT with the addition that the mind itself is a mode of Infinite Atma (I may be wrong about this, hence the question).

        My second question is: Do objects exist if no Consciousness is beholding them? The answer would seem to be no, as Consciousness is what gives existence to objects (as you taught in another video, all objects are endowed with the “is-ness” that can come only from Consciousness). This again would seem to be subjective idealism, except that the mind is ALSO an appearance. I guess another way of asking the same question is: Do objects exist apart from the screen of mind?

        I’m not trying to fit Advaita into other philosophical categories (like subjective idealism), but I have been researching it for over a month and am having trouble telling the difference. Everywhere I read however, it says that Advaita is NOT subjective idealism. Shankaracharya’s refutation of the Yogacara is one such case.

        Thank you.

        1. =============
          mind itself is a mode of Infinite Atma
          =============

          This is correct. However we need to honor the order of teaching as it helps us grasp the knowledge better…

          STEP 1: We make it clear there is a difference between mind and Atman. This is basically discerning the changing (mind) from the unchanging (the ever present awareness available throughout every experience).

          STEP 2: This comes later in the program. We reconcile that even objects (including the world, senses, mind)… has it’s reality not apart from Atma.

          This is why trust is needed in teaching/teacher. Our ingenious minds find shortcuts to skip parts which on surface seem contradictory, yet are crucial to understand the next step.

          ============
          Do objects exist if no Consciousness is beholding them? The answer would seem to be no, as Consciousness is what gives existence to objects.
          ============

          Consciousness does not “behold” anything. It’s the content of all things. Just as water is the content of the entire Ocean (totality of all names-forms), and the individual waves (metaphor for your mind/senses/individuality).

          Instead of “behold”, it’s more accurate to say “Do objects exist if there is no Consciousness?”. Answer is no. Because objects have no reality apart from Consciousness. Just as ocean/wave has no reality apart from the One Water. IE: The One water is the truth of all changing objects in the Ocean, and the Ocean itself.

  9. Bonjour !
    Tout d’abord, un grand merci pour vos exposés qui sont très intéressants; toutefois, afin d’écarter tout malentendu concernant l’interprétation que je pourrai faire involontairement de certains termes auxquels vous faites référence dans vos exposés, il en est un de toute première importance me semble t il, relatif à notre perception du monde environnant, c’est celui d’ “esprit”… Vous faites remarquer que nous percevons tout à travers notre esprit, que nous expérimentons directement, uniquement le contenu de notre esprit. Pourriez vous donc préciser à quoi se rapporte, en terme de fonction, ce terme d’esprit, par rapport à la Conscience ( avec un grand C ), mais également à la conscience individualisée, ainsi qu’au mental incluant son ou ses contenu(s) ? Car il est vrai qu’à travers l’abondante littérature relative à l’enseignement de l’Advaita Vedanta, dont certaines sources sont sérieuses, la diversité des termes relatifs à la richesse spirituelle de notre vraie Nature ainsi qu’aux divers obstacles et conditionnements recouvrant Celle ci d’un voile d’opacité peuvent parfois sinon se contredire selon les auteurs, ou sans aller jusque là, induire un doute sur le sens que nous devons leur prêter. Voilà, par avance, je vous remercie de la clarification que vous voudrez bien apporter à ma question et vous prie de croire à mes très cordiales salutations.

    1. ====================
      1) Definition of “Mind”: What does the term “mind” refer to in your presentations in terms of its function and relation to consciousness?
      ====================

      Mind is all the thoughts that have come and gone since the morning, all the way until deep sleep. Yes, mind is also active when dreaming. Thus you’re able to remember the dream upon waking. Meaning the memory system during dream-time is the exact same memory system during your waking hours.

      Mind is only inactive during deep sleep; that’s why there is no experience during deep sleep.

      Mind also includes all the emotions, concerns, joys, hopefulness, anxiety, fear and attraction for objects.

      Mind also includes desires. And imagination.

      ====================
      2) Relation to Consciousness: How does “mind” relate to Consciousness (with a capital C) and individualized consciousness?
      ====================

      In the presence of Consciousness, the mind contents (all the things I’ve described above), are revealed.

      To whom are the contents of Patrick’s mind revealed? Answer in first-person. To me. That “me” is Consciousness. It’s the same “Me” that is available during the dream, watching unusual things unfold during the dream.

      It’s the same Me, that is available in nirviklapa-samadhi of a yogi (when world, body, mind, time, and space disappears), and I alone am.

      That “I” is always evident to you as the one in whose presence your mind is revealed.

      Furthermore, there is no “individualized consciousness”. Consciousness from your standpoint, is the EXACT SAME consciousness from my standpoint.

      The only way you can say that your consciousness is DIFFERENT from my consciousness is if you give your consciousness an attribute, such as “intelligent”. But “intelligence” is in reference to the mind, not in reference to consciousness.

      Because tomorrow, the intelligent man can get Amnesia, brain damage, or dementia and forget all his knowledge, or become handicapped from an unfortunate accident. Yet he still knows “I am”. So he knew “I am” while the brain was working, and still effortlessly knows “I am” while the brain is damaged.

      SUMMARY: To say my consciousness is different from your consciousness, you have to give my consciousness an attribute, in which case consciousness becomes another object in time-space which you can explain. But to explain anything, you’re never talking about consciousness, but an attribute observed by your eyes, inference, logic… which belongs to the mind, behavior or body.

      Lastly, Vedanta’s definition of Consciousness is different from science definition. Science is unqualified to speak about consciousness, as they localize consciousness to merely the processes of the brain. Hoping to discover consciousness one fine day in some part of the brain. That will never happen, as consciousness is NOT an object. It cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, nor smelled.

      ====================
      3) Mind and Its Contents: Can you explain the relationship between the mind and its contents?
      ====================

      Same answer as above.

      In presence of unchanging Consciousness, the changing mind is revealed. To whom is the changing mind revealed? Answer in first person. To me. Thus the “me” can’t the changing mind. Because you can only identify change in reference to a non-changing. Meaning something about Me has to be non-changing, in order to identify the changing me. What is it? Consciousness.

Leave a Reply

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