|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2015 9:20:47 GMT -5
Nisargadatta says it here too. "All exists in awareness, and awareness neither dies nor is reborn. It is changeless reality itself." Yes. Awareness cannot die or be reborn. There is no form to it, only forms die. Awareness is an attribute of the experiencer, it comes and goes.. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 20, 2015 9:26:24 GMT -5
Yes. Awareness cannot die or be reborn. There is no form to it, only forms die. Awareness is an attribute of the experiencer, it comes and goes.. And what about consciousness? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 20, 2015 9:43:33 GMT -5
Awareness is an attribute of the experiencer, it comes and goes.. Awareness is an attribute of consciousness. So you consider consciousness prior to awareness? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2015 9:51:47 GMT -5
Awareness is an attribute of the experiencer, it comes and goes.. And what about consciousness? I don't know.. 'consciousness' has different meanings to different people.. my understanding, is that consciousness emerges from chaos as the principle of self-organization and the ability to recognize patterns, from which all else evolves.. in 'my' experience consciousness is continually present, but the awareness of it comes and goes.. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 20, 2015 9:56:15 GMT -5
So you consider consciousness prior to awareness? Yes. Try to be aware when you are unconscious. I'm just asking cuz folks use the two terms in sometimes opposing ways. Either consciousness comes and goes within the unchanging field of awareness or awareness comes and goes within the unchanging field of consciousness. It's semantics, but good to be clear on what meaning is used before a needles kerfuffle happens (which happens alot). Some folks claim to be stabilized in awareness constantly, such that all three states of consciousness are witnessed as coming and going -- waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep (deep sleep). This could easily be transmogrified to being stabilized in pure consciousness, where the three states come and go. I don't care. But if awareness is an attribute of consciousness, sometimes present and sometimes not, wouldn't that be a certain kind of birth and death? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 20, 2015 10:02:02 GMT -5
And what about consciousness? I don't know.. 'consciousness' has different meanings to different people.. my understanding, is that consciousness emerges from chaos as the principle of self-organization and the ability to recognize patterns, from which all else evolves.. in 'my' experience consciousness is continually present, but the awareness of it comes and goes.. Is your understanding about consciousness being an organizing principle, emerging from chaos, primarily based on direct experience or theorizing (which is fine, by the way)? If experiential, please explain. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2015 10:06:06 GMT -5
I don't know.. 'consciousness' has different meanings to different people.. my understanding, is that consciousness emerges from chaos as the principle of self-organization and the ability to recognize patterns, from which all else evolves.. in 'my' experience consciousness is continually present, but the awareness of it comes and goes.. Well... if this is what you see, then this is what is true - for you. It is my experience, and is only 'true' in the instant of its happening.. getting attached to 'true/false' ideals interrupts that experiencer's interaction with the flow of the happening.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 20, 2015 10:08:37 GMT -5
I don't know.. 'consciousness' has different meanings to different people.. my understanding, is that consciousness emerges from chaos as the principle of self-organization and the ability to recognize patterns, from which all else evolves.. in 'my' experience consciousness is continually present, but the awareness of it comes and goes.. Is your understanding about consciousness being an organizing principle, emerging from chaos, primarily based on direct experience or theorizing (which is fine, by the way)? If experiential, please explain. Experiential: observing what is described as the principle of 'self-organization', then later reading about it and noticing the consistency of the description with my observations.. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 20, 2015 10:24:07 GMT -5
Yes. Try to be aware when you are unconscious. I'm just asking cuz folks use the two terms in sometimes opposing ways. Either consciousness comes and goes within the unchanging field of awareness or awareness comes and goes within the unchanging field of consciousness. It's semantics, but good to be clear on what meaning is used before a needles kerfuffle happens (which happens alot). Some folks claim to be stabilized in awareness constantly, such that all three states of consciousness are witnessed as coming and going -- waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep (deep sleep). This could easily be transmogrified to being stabilized in pure consciousness, where the three states come and go. I don't care. But if awareness is an attribute of consciousness, sometimes present and sometimes not, wouldn't that be a certain kind of birth and death? Max. Try this on for size and see how it fits with you. Niz: "It is easy to make use of consciousness, but it is difficult to get established as consciousness. The body identity remains in the background. You see with your eyes, but do not see the eyes. While making use of consciousness, you should also be aware of consciousness. The use of consciousness does not give you peace and tranquillity. That is possible only by establishing as awareness of consciousness." |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 20, 2015 11:00:36 GMT -5
I'm just asking cuz folks use the two terms in sometimes opposing ways. Either consciousness comes and goes within the unchanging field of awareness or awareness comes and goes within the unchanging field of consciousness. It's semantics, but good to be clear on what meaning is used before a needles kerfuffle happens (which happens alot). Some folks claim to be stabilized in awareness constantly, such that all three states of consciousness are witnessed as coming and going -- waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep (deep sleep). This could easily be transmogrified to being stabilized in pure consciousness, where the three states come and go. I don't care. But if awareness is an attribute of consciousness, sometimes present and sometimes not, wouldn't that be a certain kind of birth and death? Max. Try this on for size and see how it fits with you. Niz: "It is easy to make use of consciousness, but it is difficult to get established as consciousness. The body identity remains in the background. You see with your eyes, but do not see the eyes. While making use of consciousness, you should also be aware of consciousness. The use of consciousness does not give you peace and tranquillity. That is possible only by establishing as awareness of consciousness." Ironically, this is easy to 'see' at night, eyes closed. It's pretty much all mind, tripping over things past and worries future, but it can easily be noticed and allowed, no involvement. Like the stillness when running through an airport. There's the dreaming and the awareness of it. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 12:40:24 GMT -5
I'm just asking cuz folks use the two terms in sometimes opposing ways. Either consciousness comes and goes within the unchanging field of awareness or awareness comes and goes within the unchanging field of consciousness. It's semantics, but good to be clear on what meaning is used before a needles kerfuffle happens (which happens alot). Some folks claim to be stabilized in awareness constantly, such that all three states of consciousness are witnessed as coming and going -- waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep (deep sleep). This could easily be transmogrified to being stabilized in pure consciousness, where the three states come and go. I don't care. Simplify.
Consciousness is a state of being conscious, a state of continuously perceiving the world around us on many different levels. If people choose to believe some otherwordly explanations, it's their choice to be led down the garden path. Humanity has succefully done it for generations, a collective myth. There is no explanation of HOW it arises, though. Maybe never will be, because the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts. I'm guessing then you don't rez with Jed McKenna's take on Consciousness then, as expressed in Theory of Everything? He seems to be making the point there that consciousness, as "the divine ground of all being" is what gives rise to all, including " states of being". Jed McKenna - Theory of Everything |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 15:56:51 GMT -5
It is a different way of saying the same thing. ...You stated that consciousness is a 'state of being', In Jed's case, he is quite implicitly making the point that it is not a state of being, rather it is that which gives rise to being itself. You acknowledged a difference between the two terms yourself in response to Max, and even cited the other explanation as indication one has chosen to be "led down the garden path." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=4#ixzz3s498nknaRead more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=4#ixzz3s48wguIs yes, you've described the two ways the word consciousness gets used in these conversations that Max was alluding to, that resulted in you telling him to 'simplify.' But in terms of consciousness 'not' pertaining to personality or mundane perception, If Jed is correct and consciousness is the very ground of being, then consciousness is also the very ground of all that appears...."personality and mundane perception" included. I myself have no problem with using the term either way, But when Jed says what he says below, he is very much making the distinction that consciousness cannot be both that which gives rise to being and a particular state itself. Indeed he'd say it is consciousness that gives rise to the state of being consciously aware, but it is not THAT specifically. To know consciousness as a state arising in experience, would be his equivalent of "knowing consciousness as an object of experience"...or knowing it an "an effect". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 20, 2015 17:07:05 GMT -5
It is a different way of saying the same thing....You stated that consciousness is a 'state of being', In Jed's case, he is quite implicitly making the point that it is not a state of being, rather it is that which gives rise to being itself. You acknowledged a difference between the two terms yourself in response to Max, and even cited the other explanation as indication one has chosen to be "led down the garden path." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=4#ixzz3s498nknaRead more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=4#ixzz3s48wguIs yes, you've described the two ways the word consciousness gets used in these conversations that Max was alluding to, that resulted in you telling him to 'simplify.' But in terms of consciousness 'not' pertaining to personality or mundane perception, If Jed is correct and consciousness is the very ground of being, then consciousness is also the very ground of all that appears...."personality and mundane perception" included. I myself have no problem with using the term either way, But when Jed says what he says below, he is very much making the distinction that consciousness cannot be both that which gives rise to being and a particular state itself. Indeed he'd say it is consciousness that gives rise to the state of being consciously aware, but it is not THAT specifically. To know consciousness as a state arising in experience, would be his equivalent of "knowing consciousness as an object of experience"...or knowing it an "an effect". It's been a while since I read J's-TOE but I don't remember anything particularly objectionable (to me) popping out. Unless you can give a direct quote, figgles, there isn't any contradiction between consciousness being the ground of being, that (Consciousness) which gives rise (same Consciousness) to being (meaning different levels of being, the being of a mineral, the being of a plant, the being of an animal, the being of a human) and consciousness as a state of being, IOW, why can't it be both? (Consciousness doesn't "give rise" to itself, Consciousness is Being ).
Here's my view, originally (if even that makes sense....but let's say, originally meaning before there were stars and planets and animals and people), there was Consciousness (which I call SOCI, for clarity, but Consciousness really says enough). So it is both the ground of being and Being itself. For whatever reason or whatever purpose, we exist here now in a suit of flesh, thinking, feeling-emoting and doing. Now, warm-blooded animals, mammals, think in the sense that they process information, they feel-emote and do, and so in a very real sense they are aware, if they were not aware of their environment, they would die pretty quickly as they couldn't find food or water.
So what distinguishes animals from human beings? It's the capacity for the possibility of having consciousness. For me, consciousness of the Whole is Consciousness (with a capital C). But humans can have consciousness, as a particular state, a state of being, but not the same state of Being as Consciousness (big C). So I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.
Again, what's the difference between animals and humans? Animals are aware, humans have the possibility of being aware that they are aware, aka self-aware, aka self-conscious. (And everyone has to find this difference, in themselves). We can have functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions) without consciousness and we can have consciousness without functions. Some people, maybe most people, maybe the majority of people, are just aware, you can get along quite well in the world with just being aware.
It takes consciousness to make consciousness. (IOW, for me, IMvhO, it's self-evident that Consciousness is first and consciousness does not arise from some combination of the elements slapped together, alone).
|
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 18:09:08 GMT -5
...You stated that consciousness is a 'state of being', In Jed's case, he is quite implicitly making the point that it is not a state of being, rather it is that which gives rise to being itself. You acknowledged a difference between the two terms yourself in response to Max, and even cited the other explanation as indication one has chosen to be "led down the garden path." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=4#ixzz3s498nknaRead more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=4#ixzz3s48wguIs yes, you've described the two ways the word consciousness gets used in these conversations that Max was alluding to, that resulted in you telling him to 'simplify.' But in terms of consciousness 'not' pertaining to personality or mundane perception, If Jed is correct and consciousness is the very ground of being, then consciousness is also the very ground of all that appears...."personality and mundane perception" included. I myself have no problem with using the term either way, But when Jed says what he says below, he is very much making the distinction that consciousness cannot be both that which gives rise to being and a particular state itself. Indeed he'd say it is consciousness that gives rise to the state of being consciously aware, but it is not THAT specifically. To know consciousness as a state arising in experience, would be his equivalent of "knowing consciousness as an object of experience"...or knowing it an "an effect".
Here's my view, originally (if even that makes sense....but let's say, originally meaning before there were stars and planets and animals and people), there was Consciousness (which I call SOCI, for clarity, but Consciousness really says enough). So it is both the ground of being and Being itself. For whatever reason or whatever purpose, we exist here now in a suit of flesh, thinking, feeling-emoting and doing. Now, warm-blooded animals, mammals, think in the sense that they process information, they feel-emote and do, and so in a very real sense they are aware, if they were not aware of their environment, they would die pretty quickly as they couldn't find food or water.
So what distinguishes animals from human beings? It's the capacity for the possibility of having consciousness. For me, consciousness of the Whole is Consciousness (with a capital C). But humans can have consciousness, as a particular state, a state of being, but not the same state of Being as Consciousness (big C). So I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.
Again, what's the difference between animals and humans? Animals are aware, humans have the possibility of being aware that they are aware, aka self-aware, aka self-conscious. (And everyone has to find this difference, in themselves). We can have functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions) without consciousness and we can have consciousness without functions. Some people, maybe most people, maybe the majority of people, are just aware, you can get along quite well in the world with just being aware.
It takes consciousness to make consciousness. (IOW, for me, IMvhO, it's self-evident that Consciousness is first and consciousness does not arise from some combination of the elements slapped together, alone).
My point was not that I found something objectionable in TOE, but rather that Jed does not equate Consciousness with 'a state of being conscious" ...it is he who seems to take issue with using the term Consciousness to describe a state of being. Unlike Jed, I have no issue myself with using the term 'consciousness' either way; ie; referring to a state of being consciously aware vs. referring to that which is the basis of reality. I do though, see the difference between the way the two terms are used. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 19:41:54 GMT -5
...You stated that consciousness is a 'state of being', In Jed's case, he is quite implicitly making the point that it is not a state of being, rather it is that which gives rise to being itself. You acknowledged a difference between the two terms yourself in response to Max, and even cited the other explanation as indication one has chosen to be "led down the garden path." Tano: Consciousness is a state of being conscious, a state of continuously perceiving the world around us on many different levels. yes, you've described the two ways the word consciousness gets used in these conversations that Max was alluding to, that resulted in you telling him to 'simplify.' But in terms of consciousness 'not' pertaining to personality or mundane perception, If Jed is correct and consciousness is the very ground of being, then consciousness is also the very ground of all that appears...."personality and mundane perception" included. I myself have no problem with using the term either way, But when Jed says what he says below, he is very much making the distinction that consciousness cannot be both that which gives rise to being and a particular state itself. Indeed he'd say it is consciousness that gives rise to the state of being consciously aware, but it is not THAT specifically. To know consciousness as a state arising in experience, would be his equivalent of "knowing consciousness as an object of experience"...or knowing it an "an effect". None of it can be logically 'thought', only 'seen'. You are too lost in your head. So you disagree that in in TOE Jed draws a distinction between 'a state of being conscious' and the "Consciousness" that is fundamental to all appearances, all experience? |
|
...You stated that consciousness is a 'state of being', In Jed's case, he is quite implicitly making the point that it is not a state of being, rather it is that which gives rise to being itself.
