The Third Factor

Dear James,
            Your explanation to the very first question I sent you regarding Experience introduced in “The Essence of Existence” has helped me move on in “Inquiry into Existence.”  On page 4 of IIE, Experience was defined as a “relational status of consciousness” , and “contact with objects is called experience”.  It’s also “another name of consciousness”.
            Although “another name of consciousness” is included, I tended to quickly buy into and fixate on the relational definition and hold it to that narrow meaning.  As I moved on further in IIE to page 6, to “Non-Existence, the Void”, I encountered another apparent contradiction to the meaning of “experience”.  In that passage I felt the relational status of experience in regards to contact with objects had been violated.  It seemed some different definition of experience had been introduced unexpectedly (although it was said to be another name for consciousness).  It seemed an absence of objects was the same as contact with objects and that the experience was absolute and not relational. At this point a narrow-minded reader, as I appear to be, loses track of the flow of dialog in order to reconcile what appears to be contrary definitions.  A smarter person could get it and simply move on, or if listening to you in class, could simply raise a hand for clarification.
            ” Chapter 7 says that both The Creation and Existence/Consciousness are eternal.  If the Existence/Consciousness is eternal then Ignorance of it is also eternal.  So experience is eternal Existence/Consciousness or Awareness if you prefer.  However it is not AN experience.  It is “existence experience,” which is to say being.  You can’t say that you don’t exist.  Nor can you say that you are not conscious.  These are self-evident facts.  If Existence/Awareness is eternal then Experience is eternal.  Discrete experiences are not eternal because they come and go.  But in so far as a discrete experience is non-different from experience itself it is also eternal.  Knowing this without a doubt is called liberation (moksa) assuming that it is accompanied with a steady current of bliss.  Existence (sat) and Consciousness (chit) is also Ananda.  So Bliss Experience is the nature of all beings, whether they know it or not. “
            The understanding I get from your explanation is that the word experience has two aspects: Absolute and Relational.  It is relational when “relating” to an object, and absolute as its self-nature.  Absolute Experience is like absolute existence and cannot be a separate “thing”.
            My interpretation of your meaning and how this translates the statement at the top of page 7, “You experience two things: the absence of objects and the fullness of yourself” is it could mean either that the absence of object IS an Object (the relational aspect), or that there is only the fullness of yourself (the absolute meaning).
            For a guy like me, the reading comes to a full stop, (like a student who raises his hand to clear up a doubt), before I feel I can move on.  In this case I believe I have come to the correct understanding, but if wrong, would like to be corrected.
            My sense is that should you ever feel the need to edit or revise the current edition of IIE, it may be beneficial to elaborate on the definitions of experience given on page 2 in order assuage the anal-retentive readers such as myself.  But, that’s just my take.

            James:  You’re definitely on the Vedanta bus, Tom.  You are not narrow minded.  Even geniuses have a very difficult time with Maya, which is the key to moksa.  As Krishna says, “About this topic even sages are perplexed.” 
            All our thinking is duality from day one.  So we think that a thing and its opposite can’t exist together.  If it’s day, it’s not night.  If it’s good it’s not bad.  If I’m sick I’m not healthy.  I call it either/or thinking.  It’s the intellect’s default.  But owing to Maya, experience, which is reality, is a both/and.
            Maya means mithya, apparent.  When you are being eaten by a tiger in your dream you are sleeping securely in your bed.  There is no contradiction.  It is a ‘both/and.”  A discrete experience may cancel another discrete experience—day isn’t night—but discrete experiences don’t cancel experience itself, what you call absolute experience.  Twilight is both day and night and neither day or night. 
            Non-dual thinking is including the third factor in every discrete experience.  In duality there is a conscious subject and an inert subtle or gross object AND the witness both.  Inquiry is keeping the third factor in mind as you go about the day.  It’s hard work at first owing to the dualistic orientation.  I know that the English drive on the left but when I cross a street in London I nearly get hit by a bus the first few times until my orientation shifts.  In common parlance narrow minded doesn’t refer to dualistic thinking but, come to think about it, it’s a pretty good word for ignorance.

Love,

James