A Course on Consciousness

[Electra]

Part 1: Quantum theory and consciousness

Part 2: The metaphysics of nonduality

Part 3: The end of suffering and the discovery of our true nature

Stanley Sobottka
Emeritus Professor of Physics

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA 22904-4714


Permission is granted to copy and distribute freely. Changes in content are not permitted. Please cite this website. To print the contents of a frame, click it first.



From 1992 through 1995, I taught several seminars on reality and consciousness according to quantum theory for humanities undergraduates at the University of Virginia. These seminars attempted to outline in an understandable way to the nonscientist the reasons why consciousness is a necessary part of the most widely accepted interpretations of quantum theory. For these seminars, I wrote concise but complete notes which I handed out to my students, and which summarized the salient points in order to make as clear as possible the scientific basis for the seminar. A revised and refined version of these notes comprises Part 1 of this work.

In 1995, 1996,1998, 2003, 2004, 2005, again for the undergraduate nonscientist, I taught seminars on nonduality, or Advaita, beginning with the above described scientific information as Part 1, following with several speculative chapters on the metaphysics of nonduality as Part 2, and concluding with the teachings of several contemporary jnanis, or enlightened sages, as Part 3. Sages are not usually interested in teaching the principles of nonduality in such a systematic, logical way since such a conceptual system can be a prison for the mind, leading it to think that it can transcend itself (escape from its self-imposed prison) merely by mastering the system. Nevertheless, for teaching purposes, I wrote a set of notes for these seminars also.

I have continually updated and refined these notes as my experience and insights have evolved. My intent has been to present the teaching of nonduality in a scientifically sound and logically consistent, but still readable, document. While there is little about Part 1 that any scientist would disagree with, given enough time for careful contemplation, there is considerable material in Parts 2 and 3 that is in disagreement with what some sages say. The reason for this difference is that science deals entirely with concepts, which can be seen to be either self-consistent or not, and in agreement with observations or not, while it is impossible for a sage to use concepts to describe Reality, because Reality transcends all concepts. In science, concepts are (or are not) truth, while in spiritual teachings, concepts can only be pointers to Reality. The sage uses concepts as tools to crack open the conceptual prisons in which we live, but then all of those concepts must be thrown away or they become chains in our bondage. Nevertheless, there are many concepts in Parts 2 and 3 that are susceptible to verification by direct observation by those who think they are still in prison, and these impart credence to the rest of the teaching.

home

..

Hi - I have looked at a quite a few of these. This one I came across several months ago and thought it was pretty good. The Chapters are in the side bar and worth a read.

[Refus]

Since the arguments describe reality, they are untrue.

And since i know the world could have come to have existed from nothing, there is no point in believing in this. But i don't know everything.

For instance, that all things are attached, does not change the world in itself. A part of the world can be noticed from another part of the world, since this is by definition what happens in the world. You cannot change the world through beliefs only, merely the belief is the part of the world that you have changed.

[Electra]

Originally Posted by Refus

Since the arguments describe reality, they are untrue.

And since i know the world could have come to have existed from nothing, there is no point in believing in this. But i don't know everything.

For instance, that all things are attached, does not change the world in itself. A part of the world can be noticed from another part of the world, since this is by definition what happens in the world. You cannot change the world through beliefs only, merely the belief is the part of the world that you have changed.

What do you mean by attached?

[Refus]

Connected by force, namely gravity. Well, perhaps attached is the wrong word.

[Electra]

Originally Posted by Refus

Connected by force, namely gravity. Well, perhaps attached is the wrong word.

Ok thanks for clarifying what you meant. Now going back to something else. You said because the arguments describe reality they are untrue, but the author specifically addresses this issue.

I don't mean to misunderstand you so much, but I am having a difficult time discerning where everyone is coming from on this board. I just wonder if you are coming from a materialist perspective in our discussions?

No concept can reflect or describe the intrinsic wholeness of nature... The only way to know Reality is to see that you are Reality...Essential to being what you are is to see what you are not. This means that you must see that you are not a body, not a mind, not a doer, not a thinker, not a decider, not an ego, not a self-image, not anything. In contrast to the impossibility of seeing what you are, it is possible to see what you are not, because anything that you think you are is merely a concept or image, so you can also see that you are not it. The reverse of identification is disidentification, and seeing what you are not is an essential part of disidentification.

One should not assume from the above that concepts are useless or unnecessary...Conceptualizing by itself is not a source of problems--it is identification with concepts that causes all problems. The sage uses concepts as a necessary part of living but does not identify with them (does not live in ignorance). In particular, there is no identification with the "I"-doer concept so there is no sage entity.

[Refus]

They are still untrue. Else everything that describes reality would be true, since it describes itself.

Honestly, you shouldn't read that stuff, it is missleading.

[Electra]

Thanks for your opinion.

Happy holidays to you.

[Refus]

Thank you, and I wish you the best.

PS. You know alot of awesome stuff, it makes me happy. Keep up the good work!

[Electra]

Originally Posted by Refus

Thank you, and I wish you the best.

PS. You know alot of awesome stuff, it makes me happy. Keep up the good work!

You too, Refus!


XX

[Electra]

No need to reply, just putting some links here that are interesting to me...

Ian Goddard’s Philosophy

WT Stace: Mysticism and Language

(cached document)