The Perennial Philosophy

[bernee51]

In this discussion Micatala listed some of the reasons he thought were the basis for a belief in god and religion.

Aldous Huxley, in The Perennial Philosophy wrote:
" Philosophia Perennis-- the phrase was coined by Leibniz; but the thing -- the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being -- the thing is immemorial and universal. Rudiments of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditionary lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions."

Because we are conscious, sentient beings we have an awareness of our own consciousness. This consciousness, as Schoedinger noted, is singular, a plural is unknown. This consciousness is also unsullied by the imperfections we observe in the phenomenal world. We see the imperfections and attribute them to 'man' and his 'fall'. The individualised ego provides us with our view of the world. However, we are also aware, at a fundamental level, of the 'divinity' of our pure consciousness, and because it does not fit within what we see, we call it 'god'. A separate reality.

This observation is summed up succinctly in the Sanskrit formula tat twam asi - That art thou. Our Self, our pure consciousness, is but one. The search for 'god' outside is futile and ultimately doomed to failure. What we seek is our own pure consciousness - and that is within - and is is common to us all.

Shroedinger:
"Is it not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather, this knowledge, feeling and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all people, nay in all sensitive beings."

Is the why of religion - the fact that we are aware?

[bernee51]

"All life is suffering"? Why do we 'suffer'? Why the 'imperfection'?

That's a good point. But I think it's possible to ask why something in nature happens and come up with a religious answer before selfishly asking why there are personal tribulations.

Perhaps...the earliest forms of religion/spirituality are animistic, river gods, tree gods etc. Ritual built up around having these elements either act kindly of at least not harshly. My perceptioon is that all religion is anthropocentric in origin.

But besides that, what appears to have eluded Shroedinger (in that quote -- I'm not familiar with the guy) is that awareness need not be a binary operator (snap on, snap off)-- it is most likely a continuum, as evidenced by, among other things, Piaget's stages of human development.

Piagets stages are developmental levels of 'consciousness'. I don't believe that each level is a different cosnciousness.

For all intents and purposes, doesn't the awareness of self = consciousness? There is a defined stage where babies recognize themselves in a mirror, for example. But the example was intended to show that biological development mirrors the process of becoming aware.[/quote]

awareness of self = consciousness?

I dont' believe so. In the case of the baby - surely there has to be consciousness before the recognition can take place. There is a clear 'evolution' of consciousness from archaic to magical to mythical, rational, transrational and so on. Interestingly these mirror stages in spiritual evolution. And, for that matter, the Great Chain of Being.

Vedanta would hold that self awareness can only come about because of consciousness. From a unity viewpoint the self that we are aware of is an object in our consciousness and therefore not the Self. The self that we ar aware of changes over time but that which is aware of it does not change.

That's a hard one to swallow. Jungian Ur theory, to me, seems to suffer from experimenter bias. Why are there common visions among peyote users? Answer A is that peyote unlocks the door between common consciousness and individual consciousness; answer B is that peyote acts on the same areas of the brain in all users, which is scientifically verifiable. I don't necessarily discount the idea of common consciousness out of hand, but there's really no need for it to explain how the mind works.

I have never swallowed peyote so I'll take your word for it.

In the cxase of peyote hallucinations...I agree with your explanation. These are not common consciousness. I think too that the term 'common consciusness' (a la Jung) is misunderstood in the West as compared to a Vedantic understanding.

Your perception, awareness, experience of who ST88 is is totally different to my perception of who Bernee is (and for that matter my perception of ST88). But that which is doing the perceiving in both of us is the same. That does not mean to say that therein lies an ability for me to per eive your perceptions.

You are probably right about experimenter bias (to some exetent). Eastern philosophy would hold that the only way to a understand what Tibetan Buddhists call One Taste is through meditation.

Unity scholars like Ramana Mahashi teach that it is found in the answer to the question "Who am I?"

Does the mind have a 'biology'?

Absolutely. We can prove this by performing and examining brain lesion studies. There are defined and repeatable observations of specific sequelae that lead to specific neurological conditions, which are expressed as alterations of mind-states.

I don't know enough on this subject to comment. Although I am aware, for example, of behavioural changes that occur with frontal injuries etc. Do these interfer with the 'mind' or the person ability for expression?

[ST88]

awareness of self = consciousness?

I dont' believe so. In the case of the baby - surely there has to be consciousness before the recognition can take place.

Aye, but there's the rub. The baby has at least some self awareness at the point of consciousness (if you will) because it recognizes when it is uncomfortable in some way -- crying because hungry, crying because too cold, etc. I.e., it recognizes at least a rudimentary state of what should be and is, currently, not. We know from experience that this baby will become self-aware an adult human (though maybe not as actualized as you, bernee), so where is the line between awareness and consciousness? Thus my argument for a continuum of awareness.

Now, what's the difference between the baby's awareness of its discomfort and that of a dog's whining because it's hungry?

In my opinion, religion requires a higher level of personal philosophy than awareness. You have to realize that not only do things happen, that things happen to me, but also that things happen to me for a reason. In other words, you need more than awareness.

Vedanta would hold that self awareness can only come about because of consciousness. From a unity viewpoint the self that we are aware of is an object in our consciousness and therefore not the Self. The self that we ar aware of changes over time but that which is aware of it does not change.

May I just say, respectfully, Mr. Vedanta, I disagree. I'll grant you, one of the great mysteries of science (as explained in a recent issue of Science magazine describing the greatest mysteries in Science -- maybe Jose remembers this as well) is the problem of awareness and consciousness. But a separate and common "seer" within all of us? That strikes me as pure mysticism -- i.e., speculation based on what you may already believe is true. Again, brain lesion studies can debunk this idea of an unchanging awareness bot inside our minds. In patients with short-term memory loss, the supposed mutable self is the one that does not change. The person is not able to make memories beyond a certain point in time -- usually the brain injury event, and so lives in the eternal present.

Awareness of self also can change, as people with certain body image disorders will attest. Due to certain brain injuries, some people will assume that certain parts of their body are not theirs. This is all pretty well documented in Oliver Sacks' The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat among other places. There are also other ways to alter the awareness bot permanently -- Alzheimer's for example, where the sufferer is essentially two (or more) people encased within the same mind (one with no memory and one with memory), and various aphasias including Wernicke's aphasia, where the speaker thinks he's speaking perfect sentences, but is actually speaking proto-gibberish. It is my feeling that these various neurological conditions which are produced by specific injuries to specific parts of the brain indicate that a mind is an individual, self-contained, exclusively maintained system with absolutely no connection to anything that is not a part of the body that holds it. Further, studies of these conditions tend to show that most if not all religious & spiritual ideas of how the mind works are at best mistaken & misguided.

[bernee51]

awareness of self = consciousness?

I dont' believe so. In the case of the baby - surely there has to be consciousness before the recognition can take place.

Aye, but there's the rub. The baby has at least some self awareness at the point of consciousness (if you will) because it recognizes when it is uncomfortable in some way -- crying because hungry, crying because too cold, etc. I.e., it recognizes at least a rudimentary state of what should be and is, currently, not. We know from experience that this baby will become self-aware an adult human (though maybe not as actualized as you, bernee), so where is the line between awareness and consciousness? Thus my argument for a continuum of awareness.

(Ah - self actualization - ever since I first read Maslow in the 70's, that and peak experiences have fascinated me. Experience has shown that they are more often than not 'peek' experiences)

ST88 I have no argument with the continuum of awareness idea. Awareness is developmental. As I suggested, as young children our awareness of the world is magical, it then becomes mythical, moving onto rational and so on. The question I am asking is - are awareness and consciousness identical? Or does there have to be consciousness in order to start on the path of awareness. Our awareness changes over time, our level of consciousness changes over time, but does the basic fact that we are conscious? Is there any difference (other than level) between my consciousness and yours?

Now, what's the difference between the baby's awareness of its discomfort and that of a dog's whining because it's hungry?

Perhaps none - they are basic physical responses. Do we know that the baby is 'aware' of its discomfort - or instictually 'feels' the discomfort and responds accordingly? A baby's level of awareness, as I understand it, is totally turned inward. It's whole universe is itself.

In my opinion, religion requires a higher level of personal philosophy than awareness. You have to realize that not only do things happen, that things happen to me, but also that things happen to me for a reason. In other words, you need more than awareness.

'Things happen to me for a reason" That is the key isn't it. Religion arises when we start looking for the 'reason' outside of ourselves. Is there any indication (other than direct cause and effect - I hit my hand with a hammer and it hurts) that things happen for a reason? Is there a reason - other than tectonic - that an earthquake kills many thousands and turns the lives of millions to misery? We would like to think so - ergo Allah. The question is where does this (almost) universal wish to have a reason come from?

Vedanta would hold that self awareness can only come about because of consciousness. From a unity viewpoint the self that we are aware of is an object in our consciousness and therefore not the Self. The self that we ar aware of changes over time but that which is aware of it does not change.

May I just say, respectfully, Mr. Vedanta, I disagree. I'll grant you, one of the great mysteries of science (as explained in a recent issue of Science magazine describing the greatest mysteries in Science -- maybe Jose remembers this as well) is the problem of awareness and consciousness. But a separate and common "seer" within all of us? That strikes me as pure mysticism -- i.e., speculation based on what you may already believe is true.

I agree totally - it is mysticism. Althugh I'm not sure I would agree with your defintition of mysticism. (An aside: It is an interesting observation that many of the great pioneers of modern physics - men like Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg et al - were spirtiual mysics of some sort or another)

If meditate and I have the same (or similar experience) as meditators havereported for thousands of years it may very well occur because of my expectations. Or it may occur and go some way to meeting expectations. However if this meditation brings about certain benefits, who am I to worry about the aetiology?

If I self enquire and that enquiry leads me towards a feeling of Oneness and that feeling, in turn, leads me towards feelings of mercy and compassion on behalf of all sentient beings, does it matter if the m.o. is totally subjective - yet available to all.

This, I would hold, is the ultimate 'goal' of the Perennnial Philosophy. It is a goal 'mouthed' by the world's religions.

Again, brain lesion studies can debunk this idea of an unchanging awareness bot inside our minds.

As stated above - awareness is not unchanging - the fact that we are coscious does not.

It is my feeling that these various neurological conditions which are produced by specific injuries to specific parts of the brain indicate that a mind is an individual, self-contained, exclusively maintained system with absolutely no connection to anything that is not a part of the body that holds it.

With this I agree entirely. The mind is bounded by the physical system.

Further, studies of these conditions tend to show that most if not all religious & spiritual ideas of how the mind works are at best mistaken & misguided.

Again I agree - that is exactly what a 'flatland', singulary objective, assessment would make of it.

A question: any thoughts on what happens to 'consciousness' when we are in deep sleep?

[ST88]

The question I am asking is - are awareness and consciousness identical? Or does there have to be consciousness in order to start on the path of awareness. Our awareness changes over time, our level of consciousness changes over time, but does the basic fact that we are conscious? Is there any difference (other than level) between my consciousness and yours?

The basic fact that we are conscious can change depending on the substance involved and/or the accident that put us in a coma. With the effects of certain drugs, the mind can be aware without being what we might call conscious. Also, consider that there is a medical procedure for people who suffer from a certain type of congenital blindness (I wish I could remember enough about it to look it up) -- after the operation, the person's brain does not know exactly what to do with the new visual information, and so the person will report having understood what he/she has seen sometimes only days later. Aware, but unable to process that form of awareness. Multiple personality sufferers often describe their awareness as being limited to being an observer of another conscious self within their mind.

I would say there is no biological difference between my consciousness and yours. We are of the same species, and since consciousness is one of the characteristics of the species, bob's your uncle.

You're being much too agreeable.