Thanks for the response, Dr. Sadananda. Please see my comments below. They're in bold, so you can find them easily.
rachMiel
----------------------------------------
Sada:
This topic is infact will be covered in the Kathopanishat class this Sunday – EST 6:30-8:0PM.
rachMiel:
Is this an online class that the public can attend?
----------------------------------------
rachMiel:
In Einstein's relativistic way of looking at the world, all frames of reference are moving (changing), *and* all frames are moving with respect to one another, except for those that are moving at the exact same speed in the exact same direction. I.e. you don't need a motionless frame to support motion in other frames. / Why couldn't ultimate reality work like this: A set of frames, all changing, no ultimate reference point?
Sada:
Not possible. For one thing - Who is the knower of these changes if the changes are occurring?
rachMiel:
1. Why does there need to be a knower of these changes? Because "change" is a concept that presupposes a knower? I.e., without a knower, there is not change, there simply IS?
2. Why can't the knower also be changing?
-----
Sada:
That what scriptures call as consciousness. There has to be substratum where the changes are occurring – that what scriptures call as existence. Existence is conserved in all changes.
rachMiel:
I don't understand this. Could you either explain in more depth or – to save you the time/effort – provide a link to something online that will help me understand?
-----
Sada:
Einstein’s analysis is incomplete. Relative movements have to be measured with respect to a reference which is immovable. The observer- the conscious entity is required to observe the relative movement. Without the conscious entity present – the existence of inert entity is indeterminate. Please think it over.
rachMiel:
I am. :-)
----------------------------------------
rachMiel:
And that's the leap "of faith" that I cannot (yet) make.
Sada:
You existence is not faith but fact. No logic no scripture, no means of knowledge is required for you to know that you exist and you are conscious entity.
rachMiel:
I see it somewhat differently.
The only thing that this mind (that is called rachMiel) can know, with utter certainty, is its sensations, thoughts, feelings, emotions: light/dim/color, happy, sad, etc.
Does this mean something exists? That cannot be known. Does it mean "I" exist? That cannot be known either. All that can be known right now by this mind is letters appearing on a computer screen, keys being pressed, thoughts governing the pressing of this keys, etc.
To say "I exist" is a double abstraction: I (what is that?) and exist (what is that?).
Am I making this clear? It's not nitpicking for me, it's huge. I truly feel that one cannot know, with utter certainty, that "I am." All one can know with utter certainty is: sensations, thoughts, feelings, emotions. Perhaps that is what you are calling "I am" knowledge?
----------------------------------------