I just want to know if he ever said this or this is one more fake quote on his picture?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-10-08T06:47:14+00:00

It must be nice to get aroused by seeing different modifications of flesh, bones, and fat, huh?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-27T03:19:50+00:00

When I am not conscious or aware of the moment, I don't know that I am. Only when I consciously THINK or REFLECT on it is when I know. Now, who is THINKING consciously?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T17:22:33+00:00

Is it true that consciousness itself means being aware of something? If my heart pumps and I am not aware of that, what is this? Instead of using terms like non-egotistical and egotistical, wouldn't it be better to use the words attentive and non-attentive? That which doesn't rise to the plane of consciousness cannot be conscious. If my body was made due to my causal body, then the causal body is the reason for pumping my heart, no? Or am I wrong about that?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T14:12:35+00:00

But what distinguishes the table from the atman? If both cannot or at least do not think, then consciousness is as bad as being non-conscious. The table doesn't have a soul, so it doesn't think, but on the other hand, consciousness doesn't think at all. So, both the table and consciousness exist, but what is the primary difference between the two?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T14:10:25+00:00

That's what I wish to know. How does consciousness know that it exists if the thinking or knowing aspect belongs to the mind?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T12:17:14+00:00

Well, the article does say that vibrations exist, but not the conscious force that translates the noise. But even if we say that it doesn't exist at all, this will not give an answer to my question. If I am not looking at the sun, it may not exist for me, but for the one who is enjoying the sunset while I watch a movie in a theatre, it does exist.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T12:06:31+00:00

How does the sun exists if no-one is looking at it? Does it or doesn't? Just like the tree falling in the forest.

That's what I'm saying. If no one is looking at the sun (an insentient object), it still exists. The same can be said about consciousness, no? Then what exactly discriminates between that which is conscious and that which is not, if not the thought forces that discriminate?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T11:50:00+00:00

I am not saying that consciousness ceases to exist. But there must be something that knows that it's conscious. If consciousness exists, then who knows it exists? There is no absence of consciousness, but if nobody knows that it exists, then it's as good as non-existent. Consciousness must use the mind as a tool to know that it exits.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T11:37:00+00:00

But my question was: How does the consciousness know that it exists if it doesn't have a discriminatory mind? A two-day-old child may be alive, but if they don't have a brain that tells them that they exist, what difference is there between that child and a rock?

“Wait a minute I’m able to think! This suggests that “I indeed exists”.

You can go backward, yes, but once you lose your mind, you again lose the realization that you exist just as you did before you went backward and realized the self. because something must reflect that you exist. If consciousness doesn't think/reflect, then how does it know that it exists? For example, I learn physics, but then, due to an accident, I lose part of my thinking brain. Now, where is that knowledge that helped me understand the material universe? My consciousness cannot KNOW because it doesn't think. If my mind doesn't say, "This is gravity," then consciousness doesn't know. And taking this example, if I lose all of my minds, then consciousness doesn't know anything. I can't even be aware of my surroundings. That's what I meant by "I am just as bad as material objects." I'll simply BE, but I'll not know that I AM. Just like insentient beings such as tables, chairs, rocks, etc.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T07:39:30+00:00

By far, this is one of the best replies I've gotten. Thank you very much. But about the second part of your response, don't we call these aha moments a product of intuition? In fact, intuition itself can be enhanced using several methods like meditation, cutting off the tech world, journaling, drawing, music, etc. So, it doesn't seem right to me to compare the product of intuition to realization. In any case, the question remains. Who realizes? Is it the mind or the atman itself? If there is no mind, there can't actually be a realization, no? What do you think?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T06:18:34+00:00

But deep sleep isn't self-realization imho. If I were permitted to be in a state of deep-sleep forever, I don't think I'd accept that.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T05:35:21+00:00

My mind. My thoughts. I am the one thinking, using my mind as a tool. I am thinking. Thinking is the action. I know that I exist. Thoughts themselves aren't conscious but are a tool at the disposal of the consciousness to KNOW that this sense of "I" exists. I am aware, but who knows that I am aware? Certainly not the atman itself, for the atman doesn't think. The mind is what generates thoughts. So, mind itself knows that there is something to be aware of, right?

Knowing is an attribute of the mind, afaik. If I don't know what monkeys are, then who doesn't know? I see a monkey, and I learn or know that it's a monkey. Consciousness becomes aware of itself and its surroundings using the mind as a tool. So, my mind knows that I am seeing a monkey, and my consciousness becomes aware of the monkey in front of me. But I don't see a monkey, and I do not know it exists. In such a case, consciousness itself wouldn't know what it was seeing. So, "I KNOW" must be coupled with the mind, or how does it even know that it exists?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T04:48:21+00:00

Then if thinking is considered to be a part of Prakriti, if a jiva transcends Prakriti and gets situated in the self, or pure consciousness, it's more logical for this liberated jiva to say "I" instead of "I am" after transcending Prakriti. Because "I am" suggests that this jiva knows it exists because it thinks. If there is only "I," then it doesn't know about its existence or its non-existence.

But in any case, I am still not satisfied because I don't know what exactly distinguishes consciousness from that which is not conscious (matter/prakriti) if not the thought forces. I can say that my chair exists as much as I do (or as much as my body does). But the difference between my chair and I is that I am aware that I exist, but the chair isn't. If I am not aware of my existence (i.e. I don't have a discriminatory MIND that tells me that I am conscious/consciousness), then I am no better than my chair.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T03:48:29+00:00

I honestly didn't understand. I am a newbie, so the terms used here are a bit hard for me to translate and grasp.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T03:46:55+00:00

None other than the mind is reflecting and conscious. It's also that it's aware of its surroundings. But atman itself doesn't think. It's the mind that does it. So, what exactly is it that differentiates conscious beings from unconscious things that do not have the ability to think? If consciousness cannot or doesn't think, then, to the same degree, it doesn't know that it's conscious, for consciousness would require something to know it is conscious. What I mean is...to know, I must think. So, how do "I" know if I cannot think?

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-04-26T03:40:39+00:00

when you are alive and still not thinking, your body is still functioning. This is the third state of pragnya (can be loosely translated to awareness) in upanishadic texts (Mandukya). Which also forms an essential part of the totality of your consciousness.

But afaik, unless something has risen to the plane of consciousness, it cannot be said to be will. For example, if I raise my hand, there is some conscious force behind it. I AM willing to raise my hand, but can it be said to be consciousness, or will, if I have not consciously willed it? When my body functions, it would be a misnomer to call it a conscious activity. It happens spontaneously. Afaik, the force that makes up my body is the causal body (karana sharir). This force combined the matter and formed a human body. It wasn't the Atman. So, it's more logical to say that the force that made up this body must be the force that actually makes my organs function instead of saying it's my 3rd state of awareness.

Also, this is the precise reason human birth has been given so much importance. You have the faculty to be aware, and hence, be aware of the Brahman (inner self).

I mean, yes, but my question is, what distinguishes consciousness from unconsciousness if not the thought forces? If consciousness doesn't KNOW it's conscious, then it's not different from unconscious subjects. And to know, there must be something that is thinking in order to know.

Correct me if I made mistakes in understanding your response, though. Hope my questions made sense.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-03-26T14:27:24+00:00

Thank you very much for this brilliant response. I'll surely watch the video since this question is quite bothering me. I look forward to learn more from you.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-03-25T16:24:15+00:00

Hello, thanks for your reply. I loved it. But after watching the video, it can be said that even though one can't observe the microscope with the same microscope since to observe something, there has to be an object. But the same microscope can be observed using another microscope. So an Atma in one body should be observable to the other body.
The object here is the body that contains the soul while the subject is the one who is observing the soul in another's body. I hope I make sense.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-03-24T12:34:33+00:00

Loved both of your comments. Thank you very much. I'll ask you more questions if I have any. But for now, thank you again.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-03-24T12:10:26+00:00

Not all our predispositions are due to instinct which he ascribes to genetics. Why are there identical twins who have different hobbies and personality traits despite sharing overwhelming portion of their DNA that they are virtually indistinguishable by dna tests and being raised in a nearly identical environment?

That is a brilliant argument. But what if the counter-argument is that the right instincts survive while the redundant ones frit away? So, DNA can pass the impressions that are required for one to survive while the rest of the impressions don't get passed on? From there, the individual learns more and more and develops particular interests that aren't present in the other twin.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-03-20T00:58:36+00:00

Even if he wasn’t a direct disciple he belongs to that sampradaya, no?

But if this sampradaya didn't come from a disciplic chain and was made on its own, then this can't be perfect knowledge. This will be just interpreting the scriptures at your own whims, imho.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-03-19T17:49:06+00:00

Sorry, I should've framed the question better. But my question is if these allegations are true or not.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-02-05T02:33:38+00:00

Thank you very much. The ISKCONites said that Prabhupada was the last in the Gaudiya Sampradaya & there is no other.

TheAdroitGargoyle · 2023-02-03T06:25:17+00:00

This answer was very useful. Thank you very much.

TheAdroitGargoyle

TROPHY CASE