Thanks for taking the time to type that out.
Presumably the "awareness teachings" are based in large part on empirical investigation also. And of course Buddhism has roots in some of those other teachings. I think that one difference is that the expectation in relation to what will be reached after the onion is pealed away is different. Also people are differently predisposed for other reasons.
I have to agree that I don't think that awareness is a fundamental reality. Not that this is something that I'm absolutely confident of. I also don't agree that permanence or impermanence characterize how 'real' something is. Impermanent things are real also, though of course speaking of things as 'things' is an approximation.
I have two opposing thoughts about the Buddhist idea, as you describe it. One is that this is what happens if your philosophy gets too far disconnected from your science. Another is that the idea of emptiness really isn't so unreasonable, there just isn't a very good word for it. Buddhism is of course a very complex religion, with a lot of objectively ridiculous stuff in it that doesn't necessarily invalidate other aspects of it.
It seems to me that some of the distinction between 'emptiness' and 'core of awareness' amounts to the limitations of language. Apparently the 'emptiness' has a property, so to speak, that permits awareness of the 'rest of the universe'. A person might try to call that consciousness, even while distinguishing it from something like conscious identity.
According to the Theosophists H. W. Percival, if you are conscious of consciousness you are automatically conscious of the whole universe, because consciousness is through everything. In his scheme of things, the collective, universal conscious self was a much lesser reality. He said that his teaching came from his being conscious of consciousness. But there were a lot of details of his teaching that I'm certain are just plain wrong, so I don't know how that would work if it is what he says it is. He believed that his intuitions were infallible if he held is attention on a subject with sufficient steadiness.
It seems kind of amazing to me that a person with limited awareness could believe their awareness to be unlimited. I guess that wherever they're unaware of something they tell themselves that this is only because they're choosing not to look at it, not because they can't have complete knowledge if they want to.
Percival's approach to knowledge seems to me to be quite similar to the one in Secret of Golden Flower, the Chinese quasi-Buddhist text, and also to the third section of Patanjali's sutras where a person attains knowledge of any subject by meditating on it. I guess that I accept that in principle a mind can have knowledge of anything by meditating on it. I don't think this can be possible for a human mind though, not without extending the world 'meditate' so much that it loses most of its original meaning. There would be a huge amount of creation in such 'meditation'. Even if the knowledge exists somewhere to be discovered, it still has to be brought into relation with the present context, which involves creation.
It seems to me that if a person intends to meditate to obtain knowledge, of nature, or even knowledge of any philosophical subject, in practice what they wind up with is an awareness of simple things like objects, and ideas that other people are already aware of. And those are limited to relatively simple ideas, even if they may also be quite abstract or subtle. If their method of thinking really worked for obtaining any knowledge, there wouldn't be so many holes in their theologies. What they wind up with is gurus who have incredible depth and insight in certain narrow areas, while possessing childlike ignorance in other areas, and ignorant of their own ignorance.
Though he wasn't a guru, one example of this sort of thing was P. D. Ouspensky. In his "A New Model of the Universe", he pontificated with authority on details of Einstein's theories. His paragraphs are all very well ordered and his grammar is clear, so a non-scientist might read it and think it quite plausible sounding. But if you try to understand what he's saying at a detailed level, there's nothing there, its complete nonsense. Its almost as if someone took a scientific paper and randomly replaced all the buzzwords and catch phrases with other buzzwords and catch phrases, so that it still looks good to someone who is unaware that there should be another level of meaning beyond language and how the words feel.
To some extent a kind of anthropic principle accounts for this problem: only people with such a blindness would attempt to create a New Model of the Universe based on meditative insight. But I also blame meditative techniques that distort a person's mind. Even if they don't cause the problem, they preclude discovering how to fix it. This seems to me to be the most critical problem in esoteric religious teachings, because its what prevents them from correcting all the other issues.
Maybe you didn't want to hear all that. I'll stop there. Thanks again.
|
|
Bookmarks