"Hello Freddie, your article is intriguing! It's a perspective quite close to non-duality, in that Consciousness is fundamental and ever-present.
But then, you speak of "things/people" that would be conscious due to this pre-existing "material." In fact - as Rupert Spira says, for example - only Consciousness can be conscious.
Things/people are merely "viewpoints" of this Source upon Itself."
Hi Chris. I didn't say what you think I did so I'll just make a comment about Spira's teaching. The instruction "be aware of awareness" is ambiguous because most people interpret it to mean a mental state which they think is awareness but isn't. If people want to realize the Self, they need to know something more. They need to know that they must recognize awareness itself, by itself, apart from mental activity. And they need to become absorbed in it. There are dualists who agree with this, not just nondualists. This is probably why when Ramana Maharshi was asked if he was an Advaitin he replied, "Other people say so." Thanks for writing.
Please explain to me what I didn't understand, otherwise it looks rather like an evasion! Rupert is a teacher of the present and Ramana is a bit like Jesus: It's others who speak for him... Thank you
Hi Chris. The problem is that I didn't say most of the things you said I said. Those things aren't in the article.
Let's start with your statement that I said consciousness is fundamental. The only place "fundamental" appears in the article is in the paragraph that begins, "I'm not saying consciousness is fundamental." That one's easy because by coincidence, I addressed it explicitly in advance.
"Conscious things" isn't there. "Material" isn't there. "Non-duality" is a misrepresentation of what I said because there are both nondualist and dualist interpretations of Vedanta and the article doesn't take sides.
You got "pre-existing" right.
Unfortunately you got "conscious people" right. I say "unfortunately" because it's right only because I got sloppy and wrote "we're conscious of..." several times without meaning to. When I write that, "we" is like "it" in the sentence "it's raining" -- I don't intend to give the impression that I'm asserting the existence of "we" or "it". Sometimes when I write these articles I try to avoid that construction but English is built that way and it's awkward to do. (For the same reason, in this very reply, "I" keep writing "I say").
We (there I go again! It's raining!) have no documents written by Jesus but we have many that Ramana wrote (or revised and edited) including Nan Ar, Upadesa Undiyar, and Ulladu Narpadu. He thought Nan Ar said everything necessary for people who want to realize the Self. It's short because he thought very little needed to be said. You can find English translations here: https://realization.org/p/ix/ix.ramana-writings.html
Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail, Freddie. My apologies for the contentious points and thank you again for the links related to Ramana's writings. Best regards
You're welcome Chris and thanks again for writing. I don't think you were contentious. I thought you were seeing correctly that the article *is consistent with* ideas associated with Vedanta. You obviously admire those ideas -- nothing contentious about that.
"Hello Freddie, your article is intriguing! It's a perspective quite close to non-duality, in that Consciousness is fundamental and ever-present.
But then, you speak of "things/people" that would be conscious due to this pre-existing "material." In fact - as Rupert Spira says, for example - only Consciousness can be conscious.
Things/people are merely "viewpoints" of this Source upon Itself."
Hi Chris. I didn't say what you think I did so I'll just make a comment about Spira's teaching. The instruction "be aware of awareness" is ambiguous because most people interpret it to mean a mental state which they think is awareness but isn't. If people want to realize the Self, they need to know something more. They need to know that they must recognize awareness itself, by itself, apart from mental activity. And they need to become absorbed in it. There are dualists who agree with this, not just nondualists. This is probably why when Ramana Maharshi was asked if he was an Advaitin he replied, "Other people say so." Thanks for writing.
Please explain to me what I didn't understand, otherwise it looks rather like an evasion! Rupert is a teacher of the present and Ramana is a bit like Jesus: It's others who speak for him... Thank you
Hi Chris. The problem is that I didn't say most of the things you said I said. Those things aren't in the article.
Let's start with your statement that I said consciousness is fundamental. The only place "fundamental" appears in the article is in the paragraph that begins, "I'm not saying consciousness is fundamental." That one's easy because by coincidence, I addressed it explicitly in advance.
"Conscious things" isn't there. "Material" isn't there. "Non-duality" is a misrepresentation of what I said because there are both nondualist and dualist interpretations of Vedanta and the article doesn't take sides.
You got "pre-existing" right.
Unfortunately you got "conscious people" right. I say "unfortunately" because it's right only because I got sloppy and wrote "we're conscious of..." several times without meaning to. When I write that, "we" is like "it" in the sentence "it's raining" -- I don't intend to give the impression that I'm asserting the existence of "we" or "it". Sometimes when I write these articles I try to avoid that construction but English is built that way and it's awkward to do. (For the same reason, in this very reply, "I" keep writing "I say").
We (there I go again! It's raining!) have no documents written by Jesus but we have many that Ramana wrote (or revised and edited) including Nan Ar, Upadesa Undiyar, and Ulladu Narpadu. He thought Nan Ar said everything necessary for people who want to realize the Self. It's short because he thought very little needed to be said. You can find English translations here: https://realization.org/p/ix/ix.ramana-writings.html
Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail, Freddie. My apologies for the contentious points and thank you again for the links related to Ramana's writings. Best regards
You're welcome Chris and thanks again for writing. I don't think you were contentious. I thought you were seeing correctly that the article *is consistent with* ideas associated with Vedanta. You obviously admire those ideas -- nothing contentious about that.