From: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 27 Sep 1992 00:38:12 -0700
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

In <19rn5rINNd5j@sandman.caltech.edu> MORIARTY@vm1.nodak.edu writes:

>D. Karma asks, What is the source of consciousness?  The source of
>consciousness is ignorance, the origin of all suffering.
>D. karma also maintains there is a distinction between the
>observer and the observed.  At a low level of awareness, that is
>factual.  At a higher level of consciousness, it seems that the
>observer and the observed and united in the net of illusions.  At
>the absolute level of awareness and enlightenment, form is emptiness
>and emptiness is form.

Well, if we take a look at everything you just said, we will see that
ignorance cannot be the source of consciousness. First of all, ignornace
presupposes consciousnesss. Therefore ignorance is a state of consciousness,
and cannot be its source. Also, you mention many other states of
consciousness, including enlightenment, awareness, absolute awareness, and
illusion. So according to your own statements, we see that consciousness is
absolute, distinct, and individual, but that it can exist in different states
ranging from illusion and ignorance to complete awareness. You also mention
suffering. That implies the existence of happiness, or pleasure as a postive
state. Indeed, the term suffering can only have meaning in opposition to such
a positive state. So the real question is not the "origin" of the conscious
individual entity, but of the state of illusion and ignorance and suffering in
which it now finds itself. To get out of that requires not the elimination of
consciousness but its purification. 

The distinction between observer and observed never disappears, as is apparent
from your very statement. You say that it "seems" that the distinction
disappears, but if it is "seeming" that the difference disappears, that
indicates that you once more have an observer that is making an observation of
a state or condition. So the statement is meaningless. It refers to an
imaginary nonexistent. 

You always have the distinction between the observer and the observed at every
state of consciousness, high or low.



The same is true of emptiness. There is no emptiness, anywhere at any time. If
you have a thought, that is something, not nothing. Again, the reference is to
an imaginary nonexistent. If you try to hold on to the idea of that imaginary
nonexistent, what to speak of talk to me or anybody else about it, it is not
emptiness. Even the idea of emptiness is something. Something, somebody has to
have the idea of it, even though it is an imaginary nonexistent. 

So there are as you say, higher and lower levels of consciousness. At the low
end there is ignorance, suffering, etc., which come from misidentification
with the temporary material mind and body. Even this suffering is of the
nature of an illusion, just as we may become afraid when seeing a tiger in a
dream. I am real, the fear is really experienced, but only because of falsely
identifying with the imagined tiger. At the higher end of consciousness, there
is liberation from false identification with the material mind and body, and
situation in the natural condition of consciousness--sat, cid,
ananda--eternality, knowledge, and ever-expanding transcendental pleasure. 

Druta Karma
----
ProLine:  dkarma@pro-nbs
Internet: dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org