Existence Means Consciousness

Sri Ramana Maharshi

Continued from here

Q: Of course I say it but I say it of the world.

M: Well then, that world, which you say is real, is really mocking at you for seeking to prove its reality while of your own Reality you are ignorant.

You want somehow or other to maintain that the world is real. What is the standard of Reality? That alone is Real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging.

Does the world exist by itself? Was it ever seen without the aid of the mind? In sleep there is neither mind nor world. When awake there is the mind and there is the world. What does this invariable concomitance mean? You are familiar with the principles of inductive logic, which are considered the very basis of scientific investigation. Why do you not decide this question of the reality of the world in the light of those accepted principles of logic?

Of yourself you can say 'I exist'. That is, yours is not mere existence, it is Existence of which you are conscious. Really, it is Existence identical with Consciousness.

Q: The world may not be conscious of itself, yet it exists.

Consciousness is always Self-consciousness. If you are conscious of anything you are essentially conscious of yourself. Unselfconscious existence is a contradiction in terms. It is no existence at all. It is merely attributed existence, whereas true Existence, the sat, is not an attribute, it is the Substance itself. It is the vastu. Reality is therefore known as sat-chit, Being-Consciousness, and never merely the one to the exclusion of the other. The world neither exists of itself, nor is it conscious of its existence. How can you say that such a world is real? And what is the nature of the world? It is perpetual change, a continuous, interminable flux. A dependent, unselfconscious, ever-changing world cannot be real.

Q: Not only does Western empirical science consider the world real, but, the Vedas etc., give elaborate cosmological  description of the world and its origin. Why should they do so if the world is unreal?

The essential purpose of the Vedas etc., is to teach you the nature of the imperishable Atman, and to declare with authority "Thou art That".

Q: I accept. But why should they give cosmological descriptions spun out at great length, unless they consider the world real?

Adopt in practice what you accept in theory, and leave the rest. The sastras have to guide every type of seeker of Truth, and all are not of the same mental make-up. What you cannot accept treat as artha vada or auxiliary argument.