He sets the stage with an ancient
dialogue in the Upanishads. Our consciousness is the 'light' of
knowledge of both the outer (gross, waking) and inner (subtle,
dreaming) worlds. There is also a third state, that of dreamless
sleep. Consciousness remains yet without any objects, inner or outer.
It is a restful and peaceful state. And yet there is a fourth, not
technically a state, just pure (causal) awareness that sees through
and underlies all the other states.
The sacred syllable OM (AUM) represents
and enacts the three states above via its intonation. The silence
before and after the intonation, and/or the integration of all the
syllables, is the fourth, “the nondual source of the phenomenal
universe that's also identical to the transcendent self” (11). This
is consciousness per se in kennilingus, the Self as pure awareness
and cause of all phenomenon. In the continuing Upanishad tale
mentioned above, this consciousness goes on after physical death and
is reborn anew, until such time as we give up all desire and rebirth
to dwell as one “with the infinite ground of all being” (13).
With the stage set in this mythic tale,
apparently the first known map of consciousness, Thompson now
proceeds to dive deeper. He starts by defining consciousness as “that
which is luminous and has the capacity of knowing” (13). I.e., its
luminosity reveals or makes manifest that which appears to
perception, while its knowing means the ability to apprehend what
appears. These qualities of consciousness express through all the
states mentioned above, as well as meditative states. To explain how
this is so he distinguishes three aspects of consciousness:
awareness, its contents and how this relates to a self.
But wait, there is another quality to
consciousness: reflexiveness. In the process of lighting and
apprehending objects it reflexively lights itself. And yet it is
pre-reflective, before reflection or introspection. Which reminds me
of this
statement from the Thompson thread:
"But whereas the Advaitin takes
this minimal selfhood to be a transcendental witness consciousness, I
think itʼs open to us to maintain that it is my embodied self or
bodily subjectivity, or what phenomenologists would call my
pre-personal lived body. In this way, I think we can remove the
Advaita conception of dreamless sleep from its native metaphysical
framework and graft it onto a naturalist conception of the embodied
mind."
So it remains to see how he'll apply
what other paradigms reveal about this apparently transcendent and
metaphysical consciousness that is source for all phenomenon as a
more naturalist conception. Especially so in light of a comment in
prologue on taking phenomenal experience of said consciousness
by adepts steeped in such metaphysical traditions as evidence in
itself. In that regard it would be enlightening (excuse the pun) to
read kela's
thread on mystical empiricism.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.