Friday, 19 December 2014

Does the world exist independent of our experience of it?

A friend wrote to me a few months ago quoting a passage from section 616 of Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (2006 edition, p. 598) in which Sri Ramana says: ‘ahankara (ego) shoots up like a rocket and instantaneously spreads out as the Universe’ (which paraphrases the teaching that he gave still more clearly and emphatically in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu: ‘அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். […]’ (ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām), which means ‘If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence. If the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. The ego itself is everything. […]’). It seems my friend has difficulty accepting this teaching, because after quoting this passage from Talks he wrote:
What is he talking about??? ... Is all the hard won knowledge of physics and the evolution of the universe so much nonsense?

This is consistent, certainly, if you believe everything is a dream and you’ve just woken up from a good sleep and created the universe.

I am afraid such mysticism is beyond me...and I mean no disrespect to Bhagavan Ramana.
The following is adapted from the reply I wrote to him:

What you call ‘the hard won knowledge of physics and the evolution of the universe’ consists of observations and theories (beliefs) developed by the human mind in order to explain those observations in terms of other currently held theories or beliefs. In other words, it is a collection of beliefs that are based upon a certain interpretation of what has been observed.

However, as philosophers of science have long recognised, the same observations can be interpreted in different way, so a number of quite different theories can explain the same phenomena (observations) equally well. Therefore the theories that are currently accepted by the scientific community are arbitrary, and could (at least in theory) be replaced by an entirely different set of theories that would explain the same phenomena equally well.

Moreover, theories that were accepted by the entire scientific community in the past were later discredited by new observations, and hence they have been replaced by newer theories that for the time being seem to be more satisfactory. This is what philosophers of science call ‘the problem of theory change’. Since past theories have now been replaced by newer ones, we can be reasonably sure that current theories will sooner or later be replaced by other ones. This is the uncertain nature of science, and should prompt us to be wary of the term ‘scientific knowledge’ (and of any claim that something has been ‘proved by science’). What is called ‘scientific knowledge’ is in constant flux and is never certain.

Still more importantly, all objective sciences are based upon a metaphysical assumption that they have no means of either verifying or falsifying, namely the assumption that some things that are experienced exist independent of the experiencer. We perceive what seems to be an external world, and we assume that that world exists independent of our perception of it (just as in dream we perceive what seems to be an external world, which at that time we assume exists independent of our perception of it), but what we are actually perceiving is not an external world as such but just a series of perceptual images that have been formed in our own mind.

For example, when we see a tree, what we are actually seeing is a mental image of a tree. Whether or not (and if so, to what extent) that mental image of a tree is caused in any way by something that exists outside our mind is something that our mind has no means of knowing. However, in spite of this fundamental uncertainty about all that we seem to experience, science is based on the arbitrary assumption that our perceptual experiences are in some way caused by things that exist independent of our experience of them.

Not only have the people you call ‘mystics’ repudiated the idea that a mind-independent world exists, but philosophers have long been troubled with the problem of finding some way to prove the existence of such a world. Reacting to the external world scepticism expressed by Hume and others, Kant famously wrote (in a footnote to his preface to the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason) that it is ‘a scandal to philosophy and to human reason in general that the existence of things outside us […] must be accepted merely on faith, and that if anyone thinks good to doubt their existence , we are unable to counter his doubts by any satisfactory proof’, and in spite of the efforts of many philosophers, none of them has ever managed to find any conclusive proof or evidence that anything does exist outside our mind. As Hume wrote (in the final chapter of his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding):
By what argument can it be proved, that the perceptions of the mind must be caused by external objects, entirely different from them, though resembling them (if that be possible) and could not arise either from the energy of the mind itself, or from the suggestion of some invisible and unknown spirit, or from some other cause still more unknown to us? It is acknowledged, that, in fact, many of these perceptions arise not from anything external, as in dreams, madness, and other diseases. And nothing can be more inexplicable than the manner, in which body should so operate upon mind as ever to convey an image of itself to a substance, supposed of so different, and even contrary a nature.

It is a question of fact, whether the perceptions of the senses be produced by external objects, resembling them: how shall this question be determined? By experience surely; as all other questions of a like nature. But here experience is, and must be entirely silent. The mind has never anything present to it but the perceptions, and cannot possibly reach any experience of their connexion with objects. The supposition of such a connexion is, therefore, without any foundation in reasoning.
Hume was no mystic, but on the basis of simple and straightforward reasoning he was able to recognise what should be a very obvious fact, namely that we have no adequate evidence that any external objects actually exist, nor can we logically deduce their existence from our experience. Therefore we have very good reason to be sceptical about the putative existence of an external world, and if we are wise and cautious in what we choose to believe, we should not base our metaphysical beliefs on the dubious assumption that such a world does actually exist. Or even if we do choose to believe in the existence of an external world, we should hold that belief only in a very tentative manner, and should recognise that it could well be wrong.

In spite of the lack of any actual evidence to support the common supposition that there is an external world that causes our perceptions, science supposes that such a world does exist, and all its theories are based on the belief that this supposition is true. However, as Hume rightly points out, this supposition had no basis either in our experience or in reasoning. It is a mere supposition, and a very uncertain one, yet it is the foundation on which the entire edifice of science is built.

Therefore, since science is based on blind belief in a dubious metaphysical assumption, we should not rely upon it when considering metaphysical questions. Over-reliance on science, and particularly reliance on it in domains over which it has no legitimate jurisdiction (such as metaphysics and epistemology), is what is what is called in modern philosophy by the derogatory name ‘scientism’. Science is very useful in its own sphere, but it cannot answer ultimate questions about what is reality and what is mere appearance, what is true knowledge and what is mere belief, and most importantly of all, what am I.

Science is self-avowedly objective, so it limits the scope of its research to objective phenomena, and hence it is essentially an investigation of appearances (which is what the word ‘phenomena’ actually means), and cannot say with any adequate degree of certainty whether any of the appearances it investigates are real or just illusory. What experiences all objective phenomena is only ‘I’, but since ‘I’ is not objective, science will not and cannot investigate it.

Whereas science investigates only phenomena that are experienced by ‘I’, Sri Ramana investigated ‘I’ itself, and from his investigation he discovered how ‘I’ comes to experience phenomena. That is, he discovered that ‘I’ creates within itself all the phenomena that it experiences in the waking state, as it does in the case of all the phenomena that it experiences in a dream, and that it simultaneously experiences itself as if it were one of those phenomena, namely a body.

The investigation done by Sri Ramana was more rational and truly scientific than any investigation done by science, because investigation done by science is based on the assumption that phenomena are real (or at least not entirely illusory), whereas Sri Ramana did not assume that any phenomena are real, and he even doubted the reality of the ‘I’ that experiences all phenomena. That is, when he undertook his self-investigation after being overwhelmed by an intense fear of death, what he sought to discover was whether ‘I’ would remain when the body dies, and what he discovered as a result of his investigation was that what ‘I’ actually is is only the one eternal and infinite reality, which transcends and is untouched by the appearance of any duality, multiplicity or otherness.

However, though Sri Ramana did indicate by words what he discovered from his self-investigation, he made it clear that it is not sufficient that we just believe him, because any belief is just a fragile, insubstantial and unreliable mental phenomena, so he insisted that we should each investigate ‘I’ and discover for ourself what he had discovered.

Since metaphysical questions such as ‘what is real?’, ‘what is appearance?’ or ‘what am I?’ cannot be answered conclusively either by science or by philosophy, the only hope we have of finding any conclusive answer to them is to investigate the ‘I’ that experiences everything else.

Does this world exist when we do not perceive it, or does it seem to exist only because I create a perceptual experience of it in my mind? At present we do not know for certain the correct answers to such questions, and we have no hope of knowing them so long as we do not even know correctly what I myself am. Therefore, before concerning ourself with any other question, we should first investigate ourself in order to find for ourself from our own experience a conclusive answer to the question ‘who (or what) am I?’

18 comments:

Anugraha said...

Many thanks Sir Michael James for your uplifting article.
Yes, we should take a leaf out of Sri Ramana's book. He insisted that we should each investigate 'I' and discover for ourself what he had discovered.
We should try it even if we probably do not have the same prequalification ! Let us have the cheeky bravery and boldness !
Otherwise we will drown in the vast ocean of uncertainty.
As Michael James says let us find for ourself from our own experience a conclusive answer to all metaphysical questions.
So we may find that we are the infinite reality, which is untouched by the appearance of any duality, multiplicity or otherness.

Gaurishankar said...

The example of seeing only a mental image of a tree does not cover the whole range of perceptual sense impressions.
If ten people take a close look at the same tree and all ten observers feel the trunk, the bark, the branches of the same tree and all hear the chirping of the birds, the rustle of the leaves, smell the scent of the blossoms,eat the fruits of the same tree, saw up some branches of the same tree, climb the same tree, if some car drivers ram the same tree on the verge of the street, ten photographers take a photograph of the same tree, ten cameramen make a film about filmactors sitting on the same tree, the lightning has struck the same tree, the woodpecker knocks at the same tree,the gardener transplants the same tree transporting it with a truck, and so on... we need not doubt if the tree is part of an external world. To say that we have no adequate evidence that the mentioned tree actually exists we may calmly leave to the sceptical dreams of philosophers. If Hume cannot see any basis either in our experience or in reasoning for the common supposition that there is an external world that causes our perceptions (here the perception for instance of a tree)let him think so and be satisfied with his thoughts.
But as you say Michael,we should take that dispute as an opportunity to investigate ourself in order to find for ourself a conclusive answer to the question 'who or what am I ?

Michael James said...

Gaurishankar, Bhagavan often used the verb ‘see’ metaphorically to mean ‘perceive’ through any of our five senses. As you say, we can see, touch, taste, smell and hear a tree, and all the combined sensations we have of a tree form a mental image or impression of an object we call a ‘tree’. However, none of these sensations nor the combined impression that they give us of a tree prove that a tree actually exists independent of those sensations or that impression, because we can experience exactly the same sensations and impression in a dream, and though at that time we believe that we are perceiving a tree that exists independent of our perception of it, when we wake up we recognise that it was merely a creation of our own mind.

All the evidence you describe in your comment could be experienced by you in a dream, but you would not now argue that that evidence proves that the world you experienced in your dream existed independent of your experience of it. Why then should you assume that the same type of evidence that you experience in this waking state proves that the world you now perceive exists independent of your perception of it?

If you ask anyone in your dream whether they perceive the same world as you do, they will probably testify that they do perceive it, and that they perceived it even while you were asleep, but after you wake up from that dream you would not give any weight to their testimony, because you would then recognise that they were all just a creation of your own mind. Why then should you give weight to the testimony of other people that they too perceive this world and that they perceived it even while you were asleep?

Bhagavan used to say that relying on the testimony of other people as evidence that your body and this world existed when you were asleep is like relying on the testimony of a thief as evidence that he is not guilty of a crime. The other people who tell you that the world existed when you were asleep are part of the world whose existence is in doubt, so how can their testimony provide sufficient evidence to prove that it did exist when you were not perceiving it?

Their testimony would be admissible only on the basis of an assumption that they existed when you were asleep, so accepting their testimony would be begging the question — that is, it would be assuming the conclusion and using it as a premise to try to prove itself. In other words, it would entail circular reasoning, because their testimony would be valid only if they existed when you were asleep, so if the world did not exist then their testimony would be invalid.

When we do not even know what we ourself are, how can we know the truth about this world, which we experience only when we experience ourself as a body and mind? If we were really this body and mind, we should always experience ourself as such, even during dream and sleep, but in dream we experience ourself as some other (mind-created) body, and in sleep we experience ourself without experiencing either a body or a mind. Therefore we cannot be this body and mind, so our current experience of ourself is confused and mistaken. Hence, since we are not what we now seem to be, how can we be sure that the world is what it now seems to be? Why should we assume that it is anything but another mental creation, like any world that we experience in a dream?

The reason I cited Hume was merely to show that not only do so-called ‘mystics’ such as Bhagavan tell us on the basis of their own transcendent experience that this world is just a mental creation, but even ordinary philosophers are able to understand on the basis of simple analytical reasoning that we have no reason to assume that the world exists independent of our perception of it.

Narada said...

Michael,
I do easily comprehend the difficulty which your friend had accepting or understanding the quoted passage from section 616 of Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi:
"anankara shoots up like a rocket and instantaneously spreads out as the Universe".
Did Ramana ever explain that hair-raising assertion ?
With the greatest respect for Sri Ramana :
how should the ego be able to create the universe ? In which way could that work ?
Has Ramana ever seen a rocket ?
Where should be the missile launching site ?
Or did he speak of the word with the same spelling but botanic meaning of the word rocket ?
But the viewpoint of a jnani of the highest order maybe completely different from all our common world view or world order.
However, we ajnanis have experiences based only on our five senses.
But in the face of Maya's gigantic power of veiling reality I would not put anything past ego !
It would be nice if we could get some detailed clarification and expounded insights into the reasons about the claim:
"If the ego comes into existence,
everything comes into existence.
If the ego does not exist,
everything does not exist.
The ego itself is everything."

Durvasa said...

Because we have not the power to avoid the experience of the world so the fact that we experience the (waking) world in the waking state has sufficient evidence.
Our mind is not able to answer the mentioned question.
Even in waking state we don't have any certain knowledge if anything - including ourself - really do exist at all.
Not at all do we know anything for sure in the dream state and deep sleep.
But there is no need of an answer to the academic question.
We have no reason to doubt if the world does not exist in all three states. To ask the next - door neighbour and his confirmation of our speculation of an existing world during our sleeping time maybe make no scientific proof. Because we find essentially the same world at waking as we went to sleep is practical evidence enough.
That we have no certainty about that conclusion does not matter. To make further inquiries about it does not help us further.
Let the world be what it wants to seem to be.

Nevertheless let us investigate 'I' and as Sri Ramana insisted try to discover for ourself what he had discovered.

Incidentally the question "How can anything exist" would be interesting.

Michael James said...

Narada and Durvasa, I have replied to both your comments in a new article that I have justed posted, Why is it necessary to consider the world unreal?.

Martin Potter said...

Hi Michael,

I have begun reading your book 'Happiness and the Art of Being' as an introduction to Sri Ramana's teachings, and I would like to challenge your supposition that the physical world doesn't exist independent of our perception of it. As a disclaimer, I do not have any experience of enlightenment, and so the following is theoretical.

I will preface this by suggesting that if the Self is ultimate, it is not dependent on any extreme philosophical position... in fact it is not dependent on any philosophical position at all. Surely it's the experience that matters, and not how we interpret it. This is supported by the fact that many sages have talked about the Self but they have different ways of explaining its 'relationship' to the world.

I would like to suggest drawing a distinction between the conceptual world and the physical world. Each of us have a concept of the world based on our ideas and beliefs, and I suggest it is that world which arises based on the ego. There are billions of humans/egos, and billions of different conceptual worlds. However, I suggest there is only one physical world (even if everything we *think* or *know* about the world is a thought or image, an imagination created by the mind, resulting in us experiencing the physical world in a filtered way).

I don't believe this is inconsistent with our true nature being consciousness, because even if the physical body exists in sleep it is merely inconscient matter. What we are must be something we are conscious of, and what we experience ourself as existing as. What we really are must also be something we always are.

The conceptual world is a projection of the mind. The mind-projected world 'out there' involves duality, but does that necessarily mean there is duality in the physical world? Does an enlightened being not experience only the Self, whilst operating in the physical world without any duality? The terms 'only the Self' and 'the physical world' appear to be a contradiction or duality, but isn't the duality only in an individual mind that projects a separate *conceptualised* external world?

In regards the body, is it not the *concept* of the body that is the issue - rather than the physical body - because the concept is created by the mind, and it is the mind that creates duality?

On page 98 of your book 'Happiness and the Art of Being' (Kindle version), you say "All we know of our body and this world is only the thoughts or mental images of them which we have formed in our mind by our power of imagination", and on p. 101 you say "Sri Ramana affirms emphatically that waking and dream are both a ‘mere whirling of thoughts’". I agree with this, but if Sri Ramana suggested that the world does not exist at all, is it not plausible that the import of this statement is because the mind can't help but translate inconscient matter into a conceptual world which involves duality - and therefore, for someone engaging in Self-investigation, seeing the unreality of the world that we experience would be a useful tool to withdraw from that conceptual world which arises based on the ego - rather than because inconscient matter doesn't exist at all?


To illustrate why I think the physical world exists, I will give the following examples:

Would it not be absurd to suggest to doctors and nurses working long shifts in the hospital that they should not give unconscious patients their blood transfusions or medicine, because the patients are unconscious at this time and therefore their bodies 'don't really exist'?

What if there is a leak in the roof of a person's home and water is coming through. Would they just sit in the living room saying 'it is just an illusion'? Or do they need to establish the cause and cover the crack in the roof? A physical cause necessitates a physical solution. This suggests the physical world exists in some way, and operates according to some physical laws.

(continued in next comment)

Martin Potter said...

(continued from previous comment)

What if someone goes to the doctor for a colonoscopy and they find a 95% pre-cancerous polyp which the doctor removes? If they hadn't gone for the colonoscopy, it would have developed or not according to the natural laws, *regardless of whether they knew about it or not* - a patient who had not gone for a colonoscopy may only have become aware of it later once the cancer had spread. This suggests the world exists in its own way and operates according to certain natural laws.

Regarding whether the physical body exists in sleep: it is quite common for people to go to the toilet before going to bed. When they wake up in the morning, they need to urinate. Why is this? It's because the body continued to produce urine while they were sleeping, which filled the bladder.

We can infer from paleontology - with its study of the fossil records - that this planet existed long before the human species and human minds, and will presumably exist long after humans are wiped out.

Regarding the common question 'if a tree falls in the woods and noone is around to hear it, does it make a sound?': even though sound is when the vibrations in the air are detected by our ear, even with noone around the vibrations which we call 'sound waves' still occur, and this can be measured by various instruments.

Regarding differences in sense perceptions between different species, or general suggestions that what we experience is just a representation of the world in our brain: even though human senses see a wall completely differently to how a fly perceives it, if either of them walk towards the wall they will bump into it. This is because there is something physical there that we call a 'wall', regardless of differences in sensory apparatuses and perceptions between species.


I understand you question the assumptions we make about the information we receive through the senses, but to say the world doesn't exist at all without human minds is to ignore the vast majority of the evidence that we learn about the world.

I prefaced this by suggesting that the experience of the Self would not be dependent on any particular philosophical position or interpretation... but if we are going to have an explanation of the world as well, why not have one that incorporates and explains both the Self and the physical realities? Otherwise it will repeatedly conflict with the facts and practicalities of our day-to-day life (for example: needing to fix a leak in the roof).

If instead we recognise that the *concept* of the world we *imagine* based on the information received by the senses is always a projection of the mind no more real than a dream - because of the way the mind works whereby it always forms a conceptualisation based on the ego, and perceives and operates based on that, where our whole concept of the world is nothing more than that dualistic interpretation formed from the ideas and beliefs of the mind - can we not withdraw from the conceptual world and abide in the Self, without having to ignore or create a conflict with the practical realities and natural laws?

To suggest there is a physical world or that there are practical realities and natural laws may in itself automatically cause the reaffirmation of the mind's conceptual world and dualities that it perceives to be real... but this is the fault of the mind and the way that it operates, and not of inconscient matter!

Thanks
Martin Potter

Salazar said...

Okay I bite :-)

Michael said in the article above and I quote, "[...] However, though Sri Ramana did indicate by words what he discovered from his self-investigation, he made it clear that it is not sufficient that we just believe him, because any belief is just a fragile, insubstantial and unreliable mental phenomena, so he insisted that we should each investigate ‘I’ and discover for ourself what he had discovered.

Since metaphysical questions such as ‘what is real?’, ‘what is appearance?’ or ‘what am I?’ cannot be answered conclusively either by science or by philosophy, the only hope we have of finding any conclusive answer to them is to investigate the ‘I’ that experiences everything else.[...]"


That says it all, to argue about the reality of the world is ignorance according to GVK. I also would like to refer to the verse in GVK which talks about "eka-jiva".

As devotees of Bhagavan we believe in Bhagavan's teachings in good faith, well knowing that Bhagavan doesn't want us merely believing him but test his assertions in investigating the "I".

Now if one disagrees with Bhagavan's teaching, what is perfectly fine by the way, then it doesn't makes sense to argue about that disagreement with his devotees. A true devotee is loyal to his sat-guru and their can only be one guru and one teaching for that devotee. That doesn't mean that the teachings of other sat-gurus are invalid, but they are specifically for the devotees of these gurus.

To attempt to assert that there must be a truth which is unison for all gurus must fail within the conceptual way of understanding and can only be found with Jnana. Thus investigating the "I" is imperative.

There is nothing else to say about that particular topic.


anadi-ananta said...

Because some or even many readers of this blog would/could have similar thoughts/doubts as described by Martin Popper I hope Michael would find time to write a short reply to this challenging comment and by it at least succintly going into some considerable points.

Martin Potter said...

I would just add I heard recently a suggestion by the teacher Rupert Spira that the laws of physics should be 'upgraded' to being the laws of Consciousness.

I take this to mean that everything we conceive as having independent physical existence is made of that infinite substance sometimes called Consciousness... and so we are all living in God's dream.


It would be good to have an explanation of the Self that incorporates the natural laws, otherwise it creates doubts... but I understand this is a big ask.

Thanks
Martin Potter

anadi-ananta said...

Sorry, correction, it should be "succinctly", not succintly.

R Viswanathan said...

"To illustrate why I think the physical world exists, .........."

Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
17th January, 1937
Talk 328. A European gentleman began in measured tones and spoke clearly and slowly: “Why should individuals remain caught up in the affairs of this world and reap troubles as a result? Should they not be free? If they are in the spiritual world they will have greater freedom.”
M.: The world is only spiritual. Since you are identifying yourself with the physical body you speak of this world as being physical and the other world as spiritual. Whereas, that which is, is only spiritual.

D.: Do the disembodied souls, i.e., the spirits, have a deeper insight and enjoy greater freedom?
M.: Because you identify yourself with this body, you speak of the disembodied souls as being spirits. From these limitations you talk of their limitations and seek to know their capacities. Even the disembodied souls have subtle bodies, otherwise, you would not say “disembodied souls”. Disembodiment means “divested of this gross body”. Inasmuch as you endow them with individuality they are centred in their subtle bodies. Their limitations will be according to their own state. Just as you feel the burden of your limitations they also feel the burden of their limitations. What I meant by spirit and spiritual world is the absolute spirit and not relative. If you realise yourself as the spirit you will see that this world is only spiritual and not physical.

R Viswanathan said...

"..but to say the world doesn't exist at all without human minds is to ignore the vast majority of the evidence that we learn about the world."

Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
Talk 322. A cultured lady, daughter of a well-known solicitor of Madras asked: What should one do in order to remain free from thoughts as advised by you? Is it only the enquiry “Who am I?”
M.: Only to remain still. Do it and see.
D.: It is impossible.
M.: Exactly. For the same reason the enquiry “Who am I?” is advised.
D.: Raising the question, no response comes from within.
M.: What kind of response do you expect? Are you not there? What more?
D.: Thoughts rise up more and more.
M.: Then and there raise the same question, “Who am I?”
D.: Should I do so as each thought arises? Well. Is the world our thought only?
M.: Leave this question to the world. Let it ask, “How did I come into being?”
D.: Do you mean that it is not related to me?
M.: Nothing is perceived in deep sleep; all these are seen only after waking; only after thoughts arise the world comes into being; what can it be but thought?


R Viswanathan said...

"...can we not withdraw from the conceptual world and abide in the Self, without having to ignore or create a conflict with the practical realities and natural laws?"

I genuinely feel that repeated contemplation on Ulladu Narpadu verses (and of course by Bhagavan's grace) will lead one to be free from usual questions or doubts that surface every now and then.

https://realization.org/down/ramana.butler.ulladu-narpadu.pdf

Verse 3 especially is specially pertinent for the discussion. I reproduce the translation taken from the above link.

"the world is real, the world is false appearance, the world is consciousness, no it is not;
the world is happiness, no, it is not;
why do these arguments persist?;
the egoless state beyond both duality and non-duality, in which one has abandoned the world and come to know oneself through investigation, is the fitting state for all."

. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Salazar said...

Martin Potter sounds a lot like old pal Roger Isaacs. Also I really do not care about "teacher" Rupert Spira.

"The laws of consciousness" are not better than "the laws of physics". It's just another concept or phrase, one seemingly "bad" concept replaced by a "better" one. It's irrelevant for a devotee of Bhagavan.

If one follows Bhagavan's teachings, why even look at others? That just contaminates ones mind with diluted and confused teachings.