What does physics tell us about reality? In Section 1.1, we saw that the existence of any external, objective reality is unverifiable by observation. Furthermore, if the existence of an external, objective reality can never be verified by observation, it can have no effect on any observation. In Sections 6.3, 6.4, we saw that our world is made up of a series of observations. We shall see in the next section that it is only because we conceptualize these observations into objects that they appear as objects to us.

In Chapter 6, we saw that our insistence on an external reality forced us into the quandary of choosing the concept of wavefunction collapse, hidden variables, or many worlds. We also saw that all of these interpretations are nonlocal and that there is no physical explanation for such nonlocality. In Section 6.5 we invoked consciousness to collapse the wavefunction, and thus saw that, if consciousness collapses the wavefunction, consciousness must be universal. This means that there are no individual consciousnesses--there is only nonlocal universal consciousness.

In summary, the following is what physics (plus some simple logic) tells us: There are no objects. There is only a series of observations. There is no observer. There is only nonlocal universal consciousness. As we shall see later, these statements are the essence of both Advaita and Buddhism. (In Advaita, nonlocal universal consciousness is called pure Awareness. In Mahayana Buddhism, it is called primordial consciousness, or buddha-nature.) It is remarkable that physics, which is the science of external, objective reality, can tell us so much about subjective reality, and also can be in such agreement with our most profound nondualistic teachings.

In Chapter 7, we saw how Amit Goswami modeled the brain using a quantum part coupled to a classical part. In doing this, he hypothesized the appearance of an objective reality within the context of monistic idealism (an evident self-contradiction). In order to circumvent the nonphysicality of wavefunction collapse in space-time, Goswami's theory assumes that wavefunctions exist in a transcendental realm outside of space-time. But in Section 7.10  we saw that neither wavefunctions nor wavefunction collapse, both being defined in terms of space-time, can exist outside of space-time. Thus, Goswami unintentionally reveals the paradoxical nature of the very transcendental realm that he hypothesized to remove the paradox of wavefunction collapse in space-time!  In addition, no transcendental realm or other form of external reality is verifiable, as we saw in Section 8.4. Nevertheless, the concept of identification, which Goswami attempted to explain, will be essential to our discussion of suffering as we continue in this course.

9.2. What is the perceived?

In the meditation for July 24 in A Net of Jewels (1996), the sage Ramesh Balsekar says,

"The very existence of the manifestation depends on its being perceived.  Space and time do not otherwise exist.  When the sense of presence as consciousness is not there, there is no manifestation.  The only truth is BEINGNESS, here and now."

In the meditation for August 26, he says,

"Whatever is happening is always happening only in the mind that perceives it."

And in the meditation for September 22, he says,

"All human problems arise only because the basic fact of phenomenal manifestation is ignored - that the entire manifestation is merely conceptual. Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed. All questions pertaining to birth, life, death or rebirth are therefore utterly misconceived. WHAT IS is truly simple. We only make it complicated and incomprehensible by thinking and philosophizing about it."

The Buddha taught that Life and movement are the same thing. On p. 26 of What the Buddha Taught (1959), Walpola Rahula says,

"There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found."

We shall talk about two different types of mental processes. Perceiving is the simple appearance of movement in Consciousness. Movement in Consciousness is perceiving itself, and it has no separate parts. On the other hand, conceptualization is the process of separating and naming. This requires intellect (a concept), and consists of mentally separating part of the movement (another concept) from the rest, and giving it a name. All concepts are characterized by name and form, so conceptualization fragments movement into separate concepts. A good rule to remember is this: If it is separate from something else, it is nothing but a concept.

All words are concepts, thus all spoken or written communication is conceptual. This entire course is conceptual but it points to what cannot be conceptualized. As an example, we shall distinguish between Consciousness in motion, or phenomenon, and Consciousness-at-rest, or Noumenon (discussed in the next section). These are not real distinctions because all distinctions are nothing but conceptualizations. Consciousness is always undivided.

As we may say that movement in Consciousness is an appearance in Consciousness, we may also say that the manifest (phenomenon) is an appearance in the Unmanifest (Noumenon).  We can conceptualize further by using the terms, the manifest, the manifestation, phenomenality, and phenomenon almost interchangeably, with slight differences as determined by the context.  

A concept can be "external", detected by one or more of the five "external" senses such as hearing or seeing, or "internal" like a thought, feeling, emotion, or sensation.  In Section 1.1, we made a distinction between the concepts of "objective reality" and "subjective reality".  We said that objective reality is external to, and independent of, the mind and can be observed and agreed upon by myself and at least one external observer. Subjective reality is internal to the mind and can be observed only by myself.  (We also said that certain mental phenomena can be considered to be objective if they can be verified by an external observer.

The concept of objective reality rests on the assumption, introduced in Section 1.1, that there exist observers who are external to me, and who can confirm my own observations. From childhood, we grew up without questioning this concept, so it seems very natural to us. But now we shall see that this so-called "objective reality" is no different in principle from "subjective reality" and is not reality at all, but is nothing but a concept. This may begin to make sense if we stop to consider that, not only is objective reality supposed to be external to, and independent of, my mind, but so also is the "external" observer whom I depend on to confirm my own observations of objective reality. However, the external observer who communicates with me is not in fact independent of my mind at all, but is part of my subjective reality, i.e., is an image in my mind.

Reality is what is, without conceptualization. However, external reality is only a concept and cannot be proved. Even though it is useful for communication, for health, and for survival, it does not represent Reality, and therefore it will bring suffering if it is taken to be real. Suffering comes because external reality seems to be separate from me, which means that I seem to be separate from it. As long as I identify with a separate, objective me, I will be unable to realize my true nature and I will suffer.

Another problem with defining myself as an object is that all objects change in time, i.e., they are all temporal, so they all appear and disappear in time. Am I willing to accept that I am purely temporal? As we stated above, the concept of objective reality has physical survival value. But it has only passing physical survival value, because everything in "objective reality" comes and goes, and nothing in it survives.

We have defined "subjective reality" as that which can be observed only by me, with the intention of including in it all of my subjective experiences, namely, my thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, and perceptions. As discussed above, it is clear that there is no intrinsic difference between this subjective reality and the objective reality that we have previously defined, since all "external" observers are only images in my mind.  "Objective reality" becomes nothing but an appearance or image in my mind just as "subjective reality" is. All mental images come and go, and this is as true of the images of "objective" objects as it is of "subjective" objects.

The world in my mind is the only world that I can perceive directly. All bodies and other objects in this world are nothing but images in my mind. (The concept that there are no other minds than mine is a statement of solipsism, first proposed by the French philosopher, René Descartes, 1596 - 1650, see Section 4.3.) Therefore, if I accept the concept that other minds contain their own individual worlds, there are as many worlds as there are minds. 

On page 96 of The Wisdom of Nisargadatta (1992) by Robert Powell, the sage Nisargadatta Maharaj says, 

"All exists in the mind; even the body is an integration in the mind of a vast number of sensory perceptions, each perception also a mental state ...  Both mind and body are intermittent states.  The sum total of these flashes creates the illusion of existence."

and on p. 201 of I Am That (1984), he says,

"Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion: that is all. Stop attributing names and shapes to the essentially nameless and formless, realize that every mode of perception is subjective, that what is seen or heard, touched or smelt, felt or thought, expected or imagined, is in the mind and not in reality, and you will experience peace and freedom from fear."

9.3. Who is the perceiver?

(In this section we begin the convention of capitalizing all nouns that refer to noumenal or transcendental Reality, while referring to the phenomenal manifestation with lower case nouns, except where grammar requires capitalization.)

In the meditation for September 15 in A Net of Jewels (1996), Ramesh says,

"What you appear to be is the outer body perceiving the outer world, but what you are is that Consciousness in which the body and the world appear."

In the meditation for October 13, he says,

"Other than Consciousness nothing exists.  Whatever you see is your own reflection.  It is only through ignorance of your true nature that the universe appears to exist.  One who understands with conviction that the universe is nothing but an illusion becomes free of it."

In the meditation for October 7, he says,

"You are the primordial state of total freedom, that fullness of pure joy, that concentration of light which is subtler than the subtlest and the witness of everything."

On p. 528 of I Am That (1984), Nisargadatta Maharaj says,

"The person is what I appear to be to other persons. To myself, I am the infinite expanse of consciousness in which innumerable persons emerge and disappear in endless succession."

Now we investigate more carefully what or who the "I" is that is perceiving. It may seem absurd to ask the question, "Who is perceiving this (whatever is being perceived)?", since the answer clearly seems to be, "I am." However, in the light of the previous section, we must be careful. Is the "I" that is perceiving separate from all other perceivers? If it is separate, then it must be nothing but a conceptual object! All separate objects (that is, all objects) are conceptual. Any concept is the result of an intellectual process, and consequently, the separate "I" is only the result of an intellectual process. The most pervasive example of conceptualization is the concept of the individual, because the essential nature of the individual is its separation from everything else (the other).

Without a separate "I", there is no perceiver or perceived, only perceiving; no experiencer or experienced, only experiencing.

Perceiving implies the presence of an Awareness, without which there could be no perception. What is this Awareness?" This is the crucial question that we shall be investigating throughout this entire course. This Awareness is what is sometimes called the Self. However, calling it the Self is misleading, because it is not an object. It is what I really am, my true nature. It is Consciousness-at-rest, Noumenon, the Unmanifest, or pure Subjectivity. This means that it has no qualities or characteristics whatever. It cannot be perceived, conceptualized, objectified, or described. Because it is what I am, I cannot see it or imagine it. Thus, the terms we use are all pointers, not identifiers or descriptors.

We shall make a distinction between the concepts of pure Subjectivity (Noumenon) and pure objectivity (phenomenon), between the concepts of pure Awareness and its contents, and between the concepts of the Unmanifest and the manifest. Because separation is only a concept, the Unmanifest and the manifest are not really separate. Objects are not separate from the awareness of objects. Nevertheless, we will conceptually distinguish beween the Unmanifest, which is unchanging and cannot be conceptualized, and the manifest, which is constantly changing and can be conceptualized. There is no manifest without the Unmanifest, but the Unmanifest "always" is, whether or not the manifest appears. The deep sleep or anesthetized states are examples of the Unmanifest without the manifest. The dreaming and waking states are examples of the Unmanifest with the manifest (see Section 10.4 for more discussion). In later chapters, whenever we use the term Consciousness, we shall mean the Unmanifest and the manifest, or Awareness and the objects of Awareness, together.

The Ashtavakra Gita, an ancient Sanskrit scripture of 298 verses, is said by Ramesh to be the purest form of nondual teaching in Hindu literature. Verse 7.3 says (see http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0004.htm),

"It is in the infinite ocean of myself that the mind-creation called the world takes place. I am supremely peaceful and formless, and I remain as such."

The only thing you know for certain is that you are aware. You, as Awareness, are the only Reality there is. You are not an object. You are pure unmanifest Subjectivity, which is beyond all conceptualization. All else is conceptual and subject to change and loss. Whatever changes cannot be You because You are changeless. You are not in any world; the worlds are all in You. You are not in space and time because they are nothing but concepts, so they are in You. There is nothing outside of Awareness so there is nothing outside of You.

Eventually, You will see that there is no difference between Awareness and the contents of Awareness, between pure Subjectivity and pure objectivity, or between Noumenon and phenomenon. That is why You are everything and everything is You. 

The Awareness of every mind is the same Awareness. If it were not, there could be no communication between minds. The Awareness that You are is the Awareness that the sage is. The world of the sage is as individual as the world of the ordinary person. However, in the sage, Awareness is not identified with the I-concept as it is in the ordinary person (see Sections 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, and 11.3).  

Verse 15.5 of the Ashtavakra Gita (see http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0004.htm) says,

"Desire and anger are objects of the mind, but the mind is not yours, nor ever has been. You are choiceless awareness itself and unchanging -- so live happily."

When Awareness identifies with the "I"-concept, the illusory "me" results. Whenever such a presumed, separate "me" appears, suffering inevitably results. Without this identification, there is no suffering because there is no individual to suffer. That is why suffering can disappear only when identification with the "I"-concept ceases. One example of the kind of suffering that occurs is the desire/fear experienced whenever a presumed, separate "me" clings to, or is attached to, other perceived objects, whether these objects are "external" physical objects, or "internal" thoughts, feelings, emotions, or sensations (see Section 21.3). Another example is the opposite of clinging and attachment, namely resistance or aversion to something, whether it is "internal" or "external".

Disidentification happens when it is clearly seen that there is no individual "me" as thinker or doer. This can follow spiritual practice in one or more of its many forms, or it can be a sudden spontaneous event that occurs without prior practice.

9.4. Many minds, one Awareness

The only world that I can directly perceive is the one in my own mind. We have seen that solipsistic philosophy says that my mind is the only mind there is. We now consider a nonsolipsistic philosophy in which the objects in my mind still do not exist outside of my mind, but which now appear in your mind as well. However, while the world in each mind is necessarily individual, Awareness is universal, and neither You nor I is a mind because We are the Awareness that is aware of all minds. But because Awareness has identified with each mind individually (see Section 7.6), the world in my mind is different from yours.

Within this concept, suffering can occur if "I" perceive anything to be separate from "me" (see Section 9.2). If "I" perceive "my" thoughts, feelings, and body sensations to be separate from "me", "I" can feel either an attachment to them or an aversion to them. If "I" perceive "you" to be separate from "me", "I" can feel that "you" are either an object of attachment to "me" or an object of aversion. In either case, there is suffering. The only way this suffering will diminish is if the sense of separation weakens.

We can never directly experience the world in any mind but our own (see Section 5.5). In this regard, our worlds are uniquely our own (see Section 9.2). The world of space-time is nothing but a concept within each mind (see Section 12.1). Now we ask, if each mind contains its own world, how can these minds communicate with each other? In other words, I see that I can communicate with another person in my mind, but how can I communicate with a person in your mind? The universality of consciousness permits this (see Sections 4.3, 5.2, 12.1, 12.2, Chapter 16).

In Section 5.2 we introduced the concept of nonlocal mind but without relating it to universal Consciousness. In Section 6.5 we saw that the Consciousness of all observers is really universal Consciousness. If it were not universal, in the absence of an external, objective reality, two people could not perceive the same object, and two minds would have no means of communicating with each other. Thus, we see that communication between minds can occur because Consciousness is universal, even though minds are individual. Universal Consciousness connects minds together just as, in classical physics, classical fields connect objects together (see Section 2.6).

We know that individual minds are highly correlated with each other because many of the same objects and events appear in different minds (Section 6.5). Thus, both your body and mine may appear in my mind as well as in yours, but the images in my mind are different from those in yours, so the bodies are different. The way we know they are the same bodies is because of nonlocal communication between us.

Nonlocal communication between minds may be experienced directly as an interpersonal connection which transcends verbal communication (see Sections 5.2, 5.6). This is most clear whenever ego conflicts between minds are not so strong that they obscure the nonlocal connection. Such connections are clearest in many parental and filial relationships, sibling relationships, close personal relationships, support groups, therapy groups, and meditation groups (see Chapter 16).

9.5. Objectification, the body-mind organism, and the primacy of the concept of memory

As we have seen, all objects, including the body-mind organism, stem from concepts. (As we shall see in Section 11.4, objects appear when Awareness identifies with these concepts. We can call this process objectification.) The world in each mind can be conceptualized as simply a collection of thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, and perceptions. In this conceptualization, the body-mind organism consists of thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, and some of the perceptions, while the "external' world consists of the remainder of the perceptions. The focus of this course is to see that all objects, especially the individual "I", are fundamentally conceptual, although some objects appear deceptively persistent and solid.

The concept of memory leads to the persistency of mental images. As we shall see in Section 12.1, memory is the basis for all experience, so memory is primary to all other concepts. (In Goswami's model of the brain, the classical part is responsible for memory; see Section 7.4.) Without the concept of memory, there can be no change, so there can be no other concepts, no experiences, no individual "I", no body-mind organism, and no world. In particular, because we can never directly experience any objective past or future, it is clear that they also can only be concepts. 

On page 71 of The Wisdom of Sri Nisargadatta (1992) by Robert Powell, Nisargadatta says:

"In the great mirror of consciousness, images arise and disappear, and only memory is material--destructible, perishable, transient.  On such flimsy foundations we build a sense of personal existence--vague, intermittent, dreamlike.  This vague persuasion:  "I am so and so" obscures the changeless state of pure awareness and makes us believe that we are born to suffer and to die."

9.6. The "hard problem" in consciousness science

Because most scientists of all types are mentally wedded to a belief in an external reality, they are unable to see an alternative picture. In particular, they are unable to see that Consciousness, rather than external reality, is the fundamental Reality. Thus, they persist in attempting (and in failing) to create an objective theory of Consciousness. When the contents of Awareness try to objectify Awareness, it is like a puppet trying to "puppetize" the puppet master (see Section 13.3), a picture on a movie screen trying to "pictureize" the actors (see Section 13.2), a shadow striving to "shadowize" the object that is casting it (see Section 13.4), or humans trying to "humanize" God.

The problem of trying to create an objective theory of subjective experience has been labeled the "hard problem" of consciousness by David Chalmers (see Scientific American, Dec. 1995, p. 80; and http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html).  (The so-called "easy problem" is to explain the functioning of the brain in terms of objective concepts.) In fact, there is no hard problem for those who are aware that they are aware.

Art by Jolyon, www.jolyon.co.uk

This page last updated March 5, 2008.
Comments? Questions?  Send them to me by clicking here !  Please distinguish from spam in subject line.