Inmost Core and Ultimate Ground

Art48

This is from the YouTube clip at the bottom, at about 0:30.
“I suddenly perceive in the core of my being this immortal light. Why is it called uncreated light? This [pointing to a ceiling light] is created light. Even the sunlight is created light.” [clip ends abruptly]

I understand “core of my being” as consciousness and “immortal light” as the ultimate ground of existence. In an analogy, the universe is like a movie, and the universe’s ultimate ground is God, an impersonal, immanent God. Brahman, if you like. Or energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. In meditation of the type that stills thoughts, emotions and physical sensations, we enter into our core, i.e., consciousness. It’s our core because it’s central to all the thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations we experience. Consciousness is like the backbone of the human body, or the trunk of a tree. It’s core.

So, seeing the eternal ultimate ground shining in the core of my being, is equivalent experiencing God there. It’s self-realization because my inner core, my self, is realized as being the same as the universe’s ultimate ground. Atman is Brahman.

Here's a quote from St. Augustine.
. . . I entered even into my inward self . . . and beheld with the eye of my soul . . . above my mind, the Light Unchangeable. Not this ordinary light, which all flesh may look upon, nor as it were a greater of the same kind . . . It made me; and . . . I was made by It. He that knows the Truth, knows what that Light is; and he that knows It, knows eternity. . . . Thou art my God . . .

One reason I like the above line of thought is that I find it so much more satisfying, intellectually and philosophically, than, to be blank, religion’s fairy tales. And I think it may even be a true and accurate picture of reality.

The YouTube video:
Anahata (Heart Centre) Experience Sarvapriyananda #shorts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM3_lPPYbnw&list=LL&index=3

Wayfarer

One reason I like the above line of thought is that I find it so much more satisfying, intellectually and philosophically, than, to be blank, religion’s fairy tales. And I think it may even be a true and accurate picture of reality. — Art48

You will find nearly all these accounts presented in the context of religious cultures. There is a tradition of 'the uncreated light' in Eastern Orthodoxy also, and even in Buddhism there is a reference to the 'luminous mind'. There's an SEP entry on 'divine illumination' referring back to Augustine. So the degree you can disentangle it from 'religious fairy tales' and still keep the gist of it is dubious. Within those traditions, those who seek to encounter the source of the 'uncreated light' are generally ascetics, renunciates and contemplatives. The 'fairy tales' you refer to are mythological and symbolic means to convey religious maxims to a general audience, the vast majority of whom won't be monks or mystics.

(The comparison with 'energy' is misplaced, because, unless it is directed, energy always flows in the direction indicated by the second law of thermodynamics, i.e. to greater and greater disorder. It possesses no intrinsic intelligence.)

plaque flag

One reason I like the above line of thought is that I find it so much more satisfying, intellectually and philosophically, than, to be blank, religion’s fairy tales. And I think it may even be a true and accurate picture of reality. — Art48

As I see it, there's a continuum that runs from what are nakedly fairy tails to an anemic or white mythology with a minimum of images. We never transcend the trading of hieroglyphs. For instance:

. . . I entered even into my inward self . . . and beheld with the eye of my soul . . . above my mind, the Light Unchangeable. — Art48

We have the eye, light, and the 'dry' notion of the unchanging, basically a negation of time. I'm not complaining. This is about as good and subtle as it gets. In my view, the most aggressively critical philosophy can't escape a residue or secret foundation of metaphor.

It’s our core because it’s central to all the thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations we experience. Consciousness is like the backbone of the human body, or the trunk of a tree. It’s core. — Art48

I think this idea is also explored in Husserl as something like the eternal shape of a luminously present plenitude. The picture varies, the screen itself is always there. God is the screen (or the projector) ? I think you've whizzed like an arrow here to the bullseye, to the beating heart of metaphysics.

Some critics though would say that 'Consciousness' takes too much for granted. It's already an interpretation of being there.

Something always is. Is this 'is' 'deeper' than 'consciousness' ?

180 Proof

The YouTube video:
Anahata (Heart Centre) Experience Sarvapriyananda #shorts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM3_lPPYbnw&list=LL&index=3 — Art48

Consider this interview with philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel ...

... about the unreliability of introspection (like a brain trying to perceive (e.g. feel) itself or an eye seeing itself. :eyes:) esp. @ 25:00, 31:00 & 48:30

:chin:

Has a person who is completely blind from birth ever reported "seeing the uncreated light"? If not, and if such a phenomenon is reported by others, then why hasn't anyone born blind ever "seen the inner light"?

unenlightened

It's a metaphor, Jim, but not as we know it. Even the blind are aware of the business of day, and the quiet of night. Looking inward, one sees nothing; one sees the shallowness of self and personality, and at the centre a void, or sometimes the metaphor is a mirror. The mirror reflects everything and is nothing, awareness like the mirror cannot reflect itself but always what is outside and beyond – the world.

If I was the blind leading the blind, i would speak of the un-touched toucher, or the unfelt feeling, the still small voice, the inner warmth, the beating heart, or some other relation, that we might share in our solitary awarenesses.

plaque flag

If I was the blind leading the blind, i would speak of the un-touched toucher, or the unfelt feeling, the still small voice, the inner warmth, the beating heart, or some other relation, that we might share in our solitary awarenesses. — unenlightened

:up:

Art48

You will find nearly all these accounts presented in the context of religious cultures. There is a tradition of 'the uncreated light' in Eastern Orthodoxy also, and even in Buddhism there is a reference to the 'luminous mind'. There's an SEP entry on 'divine illumination' referring back to Augustine. So the degree you can disentangle it from 'religious fairy tales' and still keep the gist of it is dubious. — Wayfarer

Ultimate ground of existence is a purely secular/philosophical idea as is the idea it can be directly experienced as uncreated light. That the idea occurs in different religions is further proof it is not tied to any one religion (in contrast, say, to the idea of the Trinity). That the basic idea is not tied to any one religion also indicates it is independent of religion.

Within those traditions, those who seek to encounter the source of the 'uncreated light' are generally ascetics, renunciates and contemplatives. — Wayfarer

True. The general populace often isn't terribly interested in the truth, much less a direct encounter with it. Many scientists, however, are deeply interested in the truth.

The 'fairy tales' you refer to are mythological and symbolic means to convey religious maxims to a general audience, the vast majority of whom won't be monks or mystics. — Wayfarer

Sometimes the stories are just nonsensical. For instance, in the story of the Passover, the OT God repeatedly tampers with the Pharaoh's free will (i.e., "hardens the Pharaoh's heart) and then repeatedly punishes the entire Egyptian nation. It's a sickening the story of the OT God toying with the Egyptian nation like a sick little boy tortures a helpless little animal. And then there's the story of Jesus cursing a fig tree for not having figs when it was not the season for fig trees to be bearing figs. Or the following: This is what the LORD of Hosts says: ‘I witnessed what the Amalekites did to the Israelites when they ambushed them on their way up from Egypt. 3Now go and attack the Amalekites and devote to destructiona all that belongs to them. Do not spare them, but put to death men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ” Of course, that's not to say clever preachers can't invent and superimpose some plausible religious meaning.

Something always is. Is this 'is' 'deeper' than 'consciousness' ? — plaque flag

Consciousness seems to be the part of us closest to the ultimate ground of existence, if not actually identical with it.

180 Proof

Consciousness seems to be the part of us closest to the ultimate ground of existence, if not actually identical with it. — Art48

If so, then how is it that a property as fundamental as "consciousness" is so easily and frequently lost (e.g. sleep, head trauma, coma, blackout, etc) as well as altered by commonplace stressors (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sugar, emotions, violence, sex, illness, video games, porn, gambling, social media, etc) if "consciousness is closest to the ultimate ground of existence"? :chin:

Tzeentch

If you're interested in this kind of thing - human peak experiences and how they relate to reality, metaphysics, etc., I would highly suggest getting into Plato and the Neoplatonists.

They essentially sought to explore and understand the peak experience without the religious hooey.

Art48

If so, then how is it that a property as fundamental as "consciousness" is so easily and frequently lost (e.g. sleep, head trauma, coma, blackout, etc) as well as altered by commonplace stressors (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sugar, emotions, violence, sex, illness, video games, porn, gambling, social media, etc) if "consciousness is closest to the ultimate ground of existence"? :chin: — 180 Proof

Excellent questions. The answer is to think of consciousness as the subject, entirely independent of objects of consciousness. Consciousness is like a mirror which reflects physical, emotional, and mental sensations but is not changed by them. In this view, consciousness doesn't cease in deep sleep but memory does, so on awakening there is no memory of being in deep sleep. Vedanta has this view of consciousness. Here's a reference.
> Consciousness beautifully explained in 200 sec
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n6NvDpcwLM

If you're interested in this kind of thing - human peak experiences and how they relate to reality, metaphysics, etc., I would highly suggest getting into Plato and the Neoplatonists. — Tzeentch

Good point. It worth noting the debt that Christianity owes to Neoplatonism. Neoplatonic ideas were smuggled into Christianity thanks to the the writings of Dionysius the Aeropagite (also called Pseudo-Dionysius). In brief, the story is as follows. St. Paul converted a man named Dionysious who was a member of a ruling counsel of Athens called the Areopagus. About four centuries later, an unknown monk wrote "On the Divine Names" and "Mystical Theology," which were Neoplatonism with a thin veneer of Christianity. The monk used the name Dionysius the Aeropagite, so his writings were credited by later Christians as having an authority just a bit below St. Paul's. For instance, Aquinas repeatedly quotes Pseudo-Dionysius as an authority.

One reference is chapter 6 of Rufus Jones' Studies in Mystical Religion which is about Dionysius.
> https://archive.org/details/studiesinmystica00joneuoft

Wayfarer

Ultimate ground of existence is a purely secular/philosophical idea as is the idea it can be directly experienced as uncreated light. — Art48

I would question that. I think the attempt to distill this kind of understanding outside the philosophical-religious frameworks in which it was articulated often amounts to an act of cultural appropriation. It is too easily corrupted into a search for thrills or some form of vicarious self-fulfilment. The milieux in which these understandings are handed down - such as Advaita Vedanta, which your video was from - are highly regulated. Certainly in the 20th C and especially since the 1960's there have been those claiming to bring enlightenment back from the East and produce a domesticated versions of it, but I question how many of them are authentic. There are some, but the better ones have maintained a relationship with their source.

You know what the etymology of 'Upaniṣad' is (the source texts of Vedanta)? It means 'sitting closely', indicating an understanding that was developed between guru and chela, often over many years of discipleship. It's true the Advaita often expresses a kind of dismissiveness of orthodox religion and rule-following - but then, so did Jesus. Vedanta is nevertheless pretty strict in terms of ethics, generally stressing vegetarianism, celibacy and abstentation.

The general populace often isn't terribly interested in the truth, much less a direct encounter with it. Many scientists, however, are deeply interested in the truth. — Art48

I would think very few are interested in Capital-T Truth, of the form described in terms of the Sanskrit Satya. Science has exploded into such vast domains of specialised knowledge that arriving at a synoptic vision of the Cosmos as a unified whole seems a distant hope. Most scientists are more interested in getting published (same as, most preachers are interested in getting more congregants.)

plaque flag

↪Art48

If so, then how is it that a property as fundamental as "consciousness" is so easily and frequently lost (e.g. sleep, head trauma, coma, blackout, etc) as well as altered by commonplace stressors (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sugar, emotions, violence, sex, illness, video games, porn, gambling, social media, etc) if "consciousness is closest to the ultimate ground of existence"? — 180 Proof

:up:

This is why 'consciousness' doesn't quite work. Maybe even 'being' doesn't 'work,' doesn't say anything more than cat's meow.

You will recognize the source, but for others it's Wittgenstein.

Here it can be seen that solipsism, when its implications are followed out strictly, coincides with pure realism. The self of solipsism shrinks to a point without extension, and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.
...

But it is nonsense to say that I wonder at the existence of the world, because I cannot imagine it not existing. I could of course wonder at the world round me being as it is. If for instance I had this experience while looking into the blue sky, I could wonder at the sky being blue as opposed to the case when it's clouded. But that's not what I mean. I am wondering at the sky being whatever it is. One might be tempted to say that what I am wondering at is a tautology, namely at the sky being blue or not blue. But then it's just nonsense to say that one is wondering at a tautology.

Art48

I would question that. I think the attempt to distill this kind of understanding outside the philosophical-religious frameworks in which it was articulated often amounts to an act of cultural appropriation. — Wayfarer

Cultural appropriation is a concept for which I have no sympathy. If China uses quantum mechanics, is that cultural appropriation? If someone in India wears Levis and uses an iPhone, is that cultural appropriation? If so, I don’t care.

Science takes the truth wherever it finds it. Religion would be better off if it did the same.

Wayfarer

If so, I don’t care. — Art48

Plainly.

Art48

Without cultural appropriation, Western science would still be using Roman numerals!

Wayfarer

↪Art48

It's more that, the approach of saying there is some vital truth presented in something like Advaita Vedanta - let's take that as scientific fact, leaving behind the religious faity tales. But what if that vital truth is inextricably connected to the religious element in the tradition? I mean, Hinduism has plenty of tales - it is after polytheistic, with a plethora of divas and a grand tradition of religious drama. Wanting to extract 'the good bits' from that, and leave behind the cultural accretions, may distort the understanding of what actually is at issue.

Metaphysician Undercover

One reason I like the above line of thought is that I find it so much more satisfying, intellectually and philosophically, than, to be blank, religion’s fairy tales. And I think it may even be a true and accurate picture of reality. — Art48

Augustine is Neo-Platonist, and "the Light" referred to by him is "the good" of Plato's "Republic". "The good" Plato says is what makes intelligible objects intelligible, just like the sun makes visible objects visible. In the cave allegory, the philosopher escapes the traps of realism, to see that the sensible objects which we perceive as being all around us are really just shadows, silhouettes, or reflections of the Forms which are the cause of their existence, through the projection of the good. Apprehending "the good" in this way became known as "seeing the light".

Art48

Art48
It's more that, the approach of saying there is some vital truth presented in something like Advaita Vedanta - let's take that as scientific fact, leaving behind the religious fairy tales. But what if that vital truth is inextricably connected to the religious element in the tradition? — Wayfarer

OK, but I don't believe the idea is that consciousness is like a mirror which reflects physical, emotional, and mental sensations but is unaffected by them is inextricably connected to anything. The idea happens to occur in Vedanta but it's an idea that anyone, East or West, might believe or, at least, find interesting.

Wanting to extract 'the good bits' from that, and leave behind the cultural accretions, may distort the understanding of what actually is at issue. — Wayfarer

I believe it's a clear and distinct idea which should stand or fall on its own merits. Vedanta doesn't own it.

Augustine is Neo-Platonist, and "the Light" referred to by him is "the good" of Plato's "Republic". — Metaphysician Undercover

He may have described or thought of his experience in Neo-Platonic terms, but the actual raw experience is arguably the same for anyone. A person in India might have the same experience of uncreated light and equate it with an experience of Krishna. And then there's the Buddhist Clear Light of the Void. Descriptions differ but experiences may be similar or identical.

180 Proof

Descriptions differ but experiences may be similar or identical. — Art48

It seems to me more likely than not that these "experiences" are "similar or identical" cognitive illusions.

Art48

It seems to me more likely than not that these "experiences" are "similar or identical" cognitive illusions. — 180 Proof

Quite possibly. W. T. Stace in his Mysticism and Philosophy points out in chapter 3 "The Problem of Objective Reference" that severe alcoholics commonly see snakes and spiders that aren't real. On the other hand, as Stace notes, there are multiple reasons for accepting the reality of some visions as experiences of an objective reality. Much depends on one's ontology. If it doesn't include God, then obviously experience of God is impossible. If it includes an ultimate ground of existence, then how can we not experience "it", if that is what we are, if we are literally its image?

180 Proof

Much depends on one's ontology. If it doesn't include God, then obviously experience of God is impossible. If it includes an ultimate ground of existence, then how can we not experience "it", if that is what we are, if we are literally its image? — Art48

'Believing is seeing' is known as projection or confirmation bias. "How can" folks who believe that there are angels, unicorns & abducting UFOs "not experience" them? :roll:

Art48

I already acknowledged that experience of uncreated light may be illusory when I wrote "Quite possibly."
Are you now arguing that it is illusory?

IP060903

I would be honest, this is borderline mysticism in the deepest heart of philosophy. This is not a negative comment by any means. But I must make a comment on religion. Religion is simply a fuller expression of a particular philosophical understanding combined with experiences based on that philosophy. As a Catholic who enjoys philosophy, I acknowledge that we make a severe philosophical distinction between God and Man. Yet to the mystic and to the philosopher, there shall be an acknowledgement that everything is simply a manifestation or projection of Reality. The core of every reality is, Reality.

plaque flag

this is borderline mysticism in the deepest heart of philosophy — IP060903

:up:

Wayfarer

OK, but I don't believe the idea is that consciousness is like a mirror which reflects physical, emotional, and mental sensations but is unaffected by them is inextricably connected to anything. The idea happens to occur in Vedanta but it's an idea that anyone, East or West, might believe or, at least, find interesting. — Art48

I do find it compelling. I first came across Vedanta when I was about 20, a share house I was in had a pamphlet on the teaching of Ramana Maharishi, who is as well-known Advaitin as you're ever likely to read about. Leafing through that little book, I thought 'wow this is fantastic. Why isn't everyone taught this at school?' It seemed so simple - meditation on the question 'who am I?' leads to a realisation of your real nature as being beyond time, space and suffering. I still think Ramana's teaching ought to be better known in the West. (But I was soon to learn, there was a lot more to it than simply closing your eyes and meditating 'who am I?')

Banno

When the retina is deprived of oxygen, it fails to send a signal to the brain, which is interpreted as white light.

Hypoxia mistaken for ontology.

plaque flag

Yet to the mystic and to the philosopher, there shall be an acknowledgement that everything is simply a manifestation or projection of Reality. The core of every reality is, Reality. — IP060903

This is the night in which all cows are black.

Wondering at a tautology might be an expression of love for life, for just being here.

plaque flag

When the retina is deprived of oxygen, it fails to send a signal to the brain, which is interpreted as white light.

Hypoxia mistaken for ontology. — Banno

Anemic mythology, the fascination of negation. As poetry, as celebration, it's fine. Lou Reed had a nice song about White light.

As the labor of the concept ? Maybe not.

Art48

When the retina is deprived of oxygen, it fails to send a signal to the brain, which is interpreted as white light.
Hypoxia mistaken for ontology. — Banno

The Cleveland Clinic page on Hypoxia doesn't mention the experience of white light.
> https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23063-hypoxia
Can you provide a source for your assertion?
Also, can a retina be deprived of oxygen without the entire body being deprived of oxygen?

Wayfarer

↪Art48

The majority will never accept that there is the kind of state of self-realisation or higher knowledge that the Advaitins are speaking of, as it has no reference points in modern philosophy or Western culture generally. Explore it by all means but don't waste your time trying to convince anyone else that it's real.

Banno

↪Art48

https://www.livescience.com/11010-death-experiences-linked-oxygen-deprivation.html
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-lack-of-oxygen-cause-me-to-see-stars-in-my-eyes-even-when-theyre-openhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/10/what-s-the-deal-with-the-bright-light-you-see-before-dying.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-near-death-experiences-reveal-about-the-brain/
https://www.salon.com/2017/02/04/a-new-study-explores-some-of-the-most-common-myths-about-this-uncommon-experience_partner/

And so on.

Inmost Core and Ultimate Ground

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions