You want we should sit through over an hour of that? Trouble is, one would already have to be a devotee...

I would have thought that in philosophy, one ought to understand what is to be refuted. I can perfectly understand your lack of interest in the subject, but then there are plenty of other threads.

besides, one doesn't have to sit through the whole thing to get the flavour of the presentation. Since this thread opened, I've listened to a little of Swami-ji's talks, he's a good speaker, and quite a versatile thinker. Profile here.

The problem is, so far as science knows, awareness is dependent on the body. If the body dies it looses awareness of all kinds — Wayfarer

In the above lecture, this objection is answered at 38:00 (with explicit reference to 'the hard problem of consciousness').

The lecturer I had in Indian Philosophy used to say that in the West, when someone dies, we say 'he's given up the ghost'. In the East, when someone dies, they say 'he's given up the body'.

Or you could present the relevant arguments. Even a time would be of help. Depends on your purpose.

It’s hard to impart the flavour of it by trying to summarise it. I did take the time to watch that lecture, and I feel it was worth it, as he conveys the sense of what the OP is getting at.

To which end, hereunder a recent lecture by Swami Sarvapriyananda, who is the current director of the Vedanta Society, mentioned in the OP. I find him a very charming lecturer, and he seems knowledgeable of philosophy both Eastern and Western (notice he quotes David Hume in the first couple of minutes of this lecture.) — Wayfarer

Thanks for sharing that. :smile:
I’m still absorbing the first 20 minutes… don’t want to go too fast and get mental indigestion. :yum:

It follows that your emotions, thoughts, and inner world are not you.
— creativesoul
Good point. The only candidate for our permanent, enduring self is our awareness. — Art48

Awareness without emotions, thoughts, or inner world?

Awareness without emotions, thoughts, or inner world? — creativesoul

… adheres to the notions of Moksha/Nirvana (in the sense of parinirvana, or nirvana without remainder).

The issue that I find is, according to such doctrines, to my understanding there is no I-ness (ego in this sense) involved in this state of pure, cosmic or else boundless, etc., awareness; I-ness requires a duality between awareness and that which it is aware of—such that this duality defines the “I”—and this duality is absent in the soteriological state of being just specified. As far as I can best currently discern, Hinduism considers this pure awareness the “true self” whereas Buddhism considers it “non-self” (which I find relative to how the term “self” gets understood) but both these expressions seem to me to address the same notion of a pure awareness devoid of I-ness in which samsura is done away with in full. Which, until the time Moksha/Nirvana (without remainder) is attained, remains a bounded subject of awareness, bounded to the objects of its awareness it is perpetually dualistically defined by as an “I”/ego/consciousness.

The main point being, even though it is deemed quintessential to the occurrence of I-ness/ego/consciousness (none can occur in the complete absence of awareness, of which pure awareness consists), the state of pure awareness that is deemed the highest goal does not define any one I/ego or any set of these (again, it is perfectly nonegoic and hence devoid of any I-ness).

Hence, statements such as that of “I am pure awareness” are—given the aforementioned interpretations—false by default: an “I” can only be an awareness bounded in a dynamic duality to objects of awareness that are “not-I” and, hence, cannot ever be pure awareness (that is thereby devoid of motivating emotions, thoughts to contemplate, or else inner worlds which would otherwise pertain to it—as well as help define the egoic self in total).

Or, in Kantian terms, the awareness of which any “I” is in part constituted can be aligned to the Kantian transcendental ego, whereas the I-ness which knows itself via its objects of awareness would be the empirical ego. Terms such as "ego" can be applied differently and so hold slightly different meanings. Still, the occurrence of the transcendental ego in the absence of empirical ego can be argued to transcend any sense of egoic being whatsoever—while yet here being hypothesized to be.

With a nod to @Art48 I get how slippery language can sometime be. I so far would find it preferable to state something along the lines of "my true self is awareness itself, or pure awareness" such that this true self pertains to the I which I am as the core aspect of my being, without which I can in no way be. However, while I might aspire to become my true self (or, else, "to stay true/aligned to my fundamental self"), the I which I am does not, and can never, equate to the true self of pure awareness on which its being as an ego is contingent. For the true self here addressed is egoless and, hence, devoid of I-ness. Well, all this being an interpretation from what I deem to be a Hindu-like perspective regarding the matter.

As far as I can best currently discern, Hinduism considers this pure awareness the “true self” whereas Buddhism considers it “non-self” (which I find relative to how the term “self” gets understood) but both these expressions seem to me to address the same notion of a pure awareness devoid of I-ness in which samsura is done away with in full. — javra

I think if these principles are reduced to words, then there's a risk of them loosing their meaning. Indian philosophies are sādhanā, spiritual disciplines, ways of being. There are parallels to that in the recent re-discovery of the practice of stocism and Pierre Hadot's 'philosophy as a way of life'. I don't want to come across all holier-than-thou, I have mainly failed to bring any form of sādhanā to fruition, although at least I learned from the effort that there is more to it than words.

I think if these principles are reduced to words, then there's a risk of them loosing their meaning. Indian philosophies are sādhanā, spiritual disciplines, ways of being. There are parallels to that in the recent re-discovery of the practice of stocism and Pierre Hadot's 'philosophy as a way of life'. I don't want to come across all holier-than-thou, I have mainly failed to bring any form of sādhanā to fruition, although at least I learned from the effort that there is more to it than words. — Wayfarer

Not to be rude, but I’m not yet clear on what you intended to convey through your post.

Are you, for example, suggesting that I’ve reduced these philosophical principles to words by talking about them on a philosophy forum, thereby depriving them of meaning? Or that one should not converse about Indian principles in general? If all those who hold respect for these and similar principles were to cease talking about them, would this then not mainly leave these principles open to ridicule by those who hold no respect for them, thereby steadily eradicating the “ways of life/being” they however imperfectly or indirectly establish? All the same, I might cease all talk of these principles on this forum if that's what's being requested.

If however you feel my statements, including that quoted, are erroneous in so far as not being in keeping with these principles, I for one would like to better understand why - for I so far would not find agreement in this view.

Are you, for example, suggesting that I’ve reduced these philosophical principles to words by talking about them on a philosophy forum, thereby depriving them of meaning? — javra

No, not you, just a general observation. Your statements are not at all erroneous, they're very accurate. I'm commenting on general tendency to try and understand these kinds of philosophies through verbal abstractions, that's all.

I mean, if you say as a philosophical proposition, that the self doesn't exist, it will often generate a hostile reaction, on the one hand (what nonsense, I'm completely aware of my own existence) or nihilism ("oh, you mean nothing is real?"). There's a very succinct illustration of this very tendency in one of the early Buddhist texts, wherein the 'wanderer Vachagotta' approaches the Buddha and asks whether the self is real. The entire dialogue is as below:

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" — Ananda Sutta

Vachagotta is a character who appears in several of the Buddhist texts and who asks philosophical questions - whether the soul and body are one, whether the world began to exist, whether the Buddha continues to exist after death. Such questions are generally classed as unanswerable or inadmissible (this is where the 'no metaphysics' reputation of the Buddha comes from.) Vaccha represents philosophical perplexity. In the end, though, as described in another of the dialogues, his doubts are overcome and he takes refuge in the Sangha.

I interpret the refusal to answer the question with a straight-out yes or no as a recognition that there is something that Vacchagotta has to understand or gain insight into, that he doesn't yet see, such that either answer will be misleading to him. (This brief verse, by the way, is said by many to be the origin of the Madhyamaka philosophy of Buddhism.)

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. :pray:

I'm commenting on general tendency to try and understand these kinds of philosophies through verbal abstractions, that's all. — Wayfarer

I interpret the refusal to answer the question with a straight-out yes or no as a recognition that there is something that Vacchagotta has to understand or gain insight into, that he doesn't yet see, such that either answer will be misleading to him. — Wayfarer

To second you're later affirmation, to me it’s not so much the verbal abstractions which words conjure but the absence of adequate, preestablished meanings/abstractions in the languages of western cultures required to gain an accurate understanding of what these Indian philosophies in large part consist of. As I’m sure you’re aware of, the Indian notion of sunyata doesn’t translate very well: that everything is nothingness/emptiness makes no sense to the typical western ear. As those English speakers who now understand what the word “zeitgeist” signifies may comprehend, mere word usage is often not sufficient to get the point across, often requiring a gestalt shift in perspectives before certain words can be accurately understood. But then, we’re more or less stuck with the use of words already commonly understood to convey meaning … which, coming full circle, and as you state, explains why the Buddha answered via silence rather than via use of “yes”/“no”. :smile:

To second you're later affirmation, to me it’s not so much the verbal abstractions which words conjure but the absence of adequate, preestablished meanings/abstractions in the languages of western cultures required to gain an accurate understanding of what these Indian philosophies in large part consist of. — javra

:100: That's all I was getting at. Sorry if I came off as self-righteous.