Is it mentation of brain or beyond brain?
Is it a single unified entity or a collection of distinct entities?
Is consciousness of ?A? different than ?B??
Can consciousness be expanded?the vibration of soundless sound of [B][COLOR=“Black”][B]. . .[/B][/COLOR][/B]
prasad,
Whatever “consciousness” is, however you define it - it is basically a limiting quality. It has to be, otherwise you would not even be able to speak about it. And that which is the source of one’s being is simply empty of all limiting qualities, identities, and forms. There are some fanatics who have been declaring that that which is eternal is of the nature of pure consciousness, not realizing that the moment you have called it anything, you have imposed a limitation upon it.
Truth is not something that is to be included as part of one’s knowledge, the moment it has entered as part of one’s knowledge, you have thrown all kinds of restrictions on it. That is the nature of the mind - it can only project itself onto existence, creating everything in it’s own image. To say that everything is of the nature of consciousness is just another projection of the mind. And out of this - all of the different religions, belief systems, and philosophies have been born - whether it is materialism, idealism, existentialism, dualism, non-dualism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, atheism - these are all just reflections of your own mind. Desiring to see one’s own reflection, one leaps into the water. Lao Tzu has made a statement of enormous value. He has said that the Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao. If you raise even a single thought about it - you immediately fall into error. None of our words or concepts are applicable here.
But - if you really come to know of what “consciousness” is, what is it’s energy - then it is not different than having seen into the whole existence itself, because everything else is of the same energy. Perhaps this energy has manifested as “consciousness”, that is a different matter. And for those who have been clinging to the idea that everything is pure consciousness - this was their basic misunderstanding.
@amir,
‘Whatever “consciousness” is, however you define it - it is basically a limiting quality. It has to be, otherwise you would not even be able to speak about it. And that which is the source of one’s being is simply empty of all limiting qualities, identities, and forms.’
What i understand from the above, amir, is that awareness and the source of ones being are two different things. One is limiting and the other is simply empty of all limiting. Fine enough!!
.
’ And out of this - all of the different religions, belief systems, and philosophies have been born - whether it is materialism, idealism, existentialism, dualism, non-dualism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, atheism - these are all just reflections of your own mind. Desiring to see one’s own reflection, ’
Lets not talk about any religion or philosophy especially Hinduism… i wonder if we understand it enough to criticise.
‘Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao. If you raise even a single thought about it - you immediately fall into error. None of our words or concepts are applicable here.’
Without name and form, our brain-mind construct cant even visualise nothingness, void,… sunayata. If we don?t know what to achieve, how will we even begin.
‘But - if you really come to know of what “consciousness” is, what is it’s energy - then it is not different than having seen into the whole existence itself, because everything else is of the same energy’
You mean ones source being and consciousness are the same energy.
But I thought we started with the premise that they are different…
correction
’source of being’ and not ‘source being’
If we don’t know what to achieve, how will we even begin
If one is groping in the darkness of ones ignorance, one will have to come to terms with the situation. Rather than pretending that one has eyes, one should simply recognize that one is without eyes, that one is in a deep sleep. This attitude is far more authentic and sincere - you are not pretending to know, neither are you assuming anything which has yet to enter into ones direct experience. From there - one can proceed. Having come to a recognition of ones ignorance, one should then, rather than trying to discover what to do or what to achieve, try and come to an understanding of the root causes of ones ignorance. And that is not something that can be understood through merely thinking about the matter - one will have to enter deep into ones being and confront these aspects of your consciousness directly. And like this - with a systematic and scientific approach, the cloud disappears, and the Way eventually reveals itself. So most of what we are calling the path is not about finding out where to go or what to do, but simply in dissolving psychological hindrances which are preventing ones liberation. But right from the beginning - if you are just taking it for granted that what another says is true or not true, then you have already formed your prejudices, you have already come to a conclusion. This is not the attitude of a sincere seeker of Truth. And the danger is that the mind is in such a way - that it will see whatever it wants to see. Depending on your identifications, the mind will create everything in its own image. That is why - entering deep into ones meditation - a Hindu may perhaps have a vision of Shiva, a Buddhist may see Buddha, a Christian may see Christ. But the Buddhist will never see Shiva, or Christ, or Zeus - he has no space within himself to invent such a thing. Even this thing which one is calling Atman, one should not take it for granted that there is such a thing. And if you already accept that there is such an Atman, then you have your own relative ideas as to what that word means. And like man has created God in his own image, one will be creating ones own true nature in one`s own image. In this way - one can become entangled in an endless series of delusions.
While there are many different approaches towards awakening - if one is interested in a scientific method, then one will have to approach the matter in a scientific way. And the whole problem is that the yogic sciences is not like modern science - where you can have tangible evidence on paper as a written thesis, that is not how it works. Modern science wants to observe objects in the world - but the observer himself has been left entirely out of the situation, the inner dimension has been completely neglected. If what various masters have realized through the yogic sciences could be demonstrated in the same way - by now those methods would have been accepted as a means towards enlightenment amongst the modern scientists. They have not. That is because the evidence for its claims are not in a tangible form. If one wants to verify such things - there is no other way except to enter into ones own being and come to know oneself.
That is the whole problem. So amongst this vast ocean of knowledge which in India has been developed over more than nine thousand years, there are so many different belief systems, different interpretations, different philosophies - many of them saying things which are entirely opposite to one another, that when somebody declares that there is Atman (self) or that there is Anatman (no-self) - how do you know ? The problem is for too long man has accepted too many things without question, which has only destroyed his intelligence.
So rather than trying to discover where to go or what to do - it may be far more useful to simply try and understand the obstacles in the present which are preventing oneself from coming to more awareness.
You mean ones source being and consciousness are the same energy. But I thought we started with the premise that they are different..
They are the same, and yet different. That they are both the same and different may appear as a contradiction to the intellect. They are the same in the sense that the same energy may manifest as water, water may become ice, ice may become gas - but they are also different in the sense that water is water, ice is ice, and gas is gas. While it is the same energy, this one same energy manifests in many different forms.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;62301]You mean ones source being and consciousness are the same energy. But I thought we started with the premise that they are different..
They are the same, and yet different. That they are both the same and different may appear as a contradiction to the intellect. They are the same in the sense that the same energy may manifest as water, water may become ice, ice may become gas - but they are also different in the sense that water is water, ice is ice, and gas is gas. While it is the same energy, this one same energy manifests in many different forms.[/QUOTE]
Water, ice or steam dont remain in defferent state at the same time. Unlike the energy you talk is limting and empty of limiting at the same time.
Amir,
’ the big river of letters…’
I thought we were discussing awareness, !!!
And clearification of my serious doubts and not 5 minutes of youtube tamasha.
please if you can clear my doubts or post elsewhere.,
I thought we were discussing awareness, !!!!
We are.
Unlike the energy you talk is limting and empty of limiting at the same time.
I dont think you have understood.
In the world of time and space - where there are so called limited objects, things are different. At the level of the so called Absolute, which is not of time and space, all these limitations merge into one vast emptiness. So the difference is that outwardly - things may appear to be different, but if you investigate deeper into it - for example, you take an atom, and break down the atom into electrons, and break down those electrons into smaller particles - and try to find out what the atom is made of - you will eventually find that it is made of no-thingness. That is it`s original nature, everything is of the same energy of this no-thingness.
The same is the case with awareness. Awareness, like everything else, is just made of the same nature of no-thingness, but in a different form. These two dimensions - the relative and the absolute, the form and the formless, are not separate, they are just aspects of the same reality. That is why it has been said, not just aham brahmasi (I am Brahman), but also sarvam brahmasi (everything is Brahman). In Tantra, it has been said Samsara is Nirvana, Nirvana is Samsara. What these expressions are telling you is, that the ordinary world and that which is beyond the ordinary are not separate, it is one and the same energy.
amir,
’ take an atom, and break down the atom into electrons, and break down those electrons into smaller particles - and try to find out what the atom is made of - you will eventually find that it is made of no-thingness. That is it`s original nature, everything is of the same energy of this no-thingness.’
I thought at CERN,out side Geneva they are still smashing atoms to find the god particle, not heard of nothingness being mentioned by them, though.
‘The same is the case with awareness. Awareness, like everything else, is just made of the same nature of no-thingness, but in a different form. These two dimensions - the relative and the absolute, the form and the formless, are not separate, they are just aspects of the same reality. That is why it has been said, not just aham brahmasi (I am Brahman), but also sarvam brahmasi (everything is Brahman).’
You are equating awareness with Brahm and the being. Awareness is not even energy, its the property of mind- ego construct. Let me define awareness again—,Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns
Consider conscious thought, unconscious thought and superconsciousness:
Conscious thought; reason, think, judge?limited
Unconscious thought; instinct, reflex?limited
Superconsciousness; beyond instinct or reason, perfect concentration?unlimited
Of course it takes practice with enormous effort to function on this level where all energy becomes one thought, idea, vibration?Amir can write all the eloquent and accurate explanations he can dream up from his consciousness yet his mind like all human minds is a limited instrument, unable to convey or express what only direct experience of consciousness can bring, exactly what I find beneficial with Amir?s writings, reading his no nonsense straight forward consistent words one begins to concentrate more clearly, grasping profound considerations which tends to encourage deeper practice where the trial and error continues.
prasad,
not heard of nothingness being mentioned by them, though.
Amongst the scientists, it has been referred to as a vacuum state of energy, or the zero-point field. But even the scientists have come to the same understanding as the East, that this nothingness is not something that is to be understood as a mere void. To call it a void is another limiting quality. The problem is that it is impossible to express something which is not of the mind through the mind, and at the most we are only capable of our own relative ideas and concepts about it. To try and transmit the Truth through our words is just like trying to swallow the whole ocean in a single gulp, or walking from the Earth to the moon. What has been spoken of as nothingness in the East simply refers to that which is empty of all limiting qualities. If you are to understand this - then you will have to move beyond all of your ordinary dualistic ways of thinking - which creates opposites out of everything. Neither of being or non-being, existence or non-existence, darkness or light, - it is simply beyond all of our mental categories. But if we are to point towards this - then we have to say something about it. Nothingness is just a substitute word for this inexpressible reality. To make it clearer, it may be far better to understand it as no-thingness, with a hyphen. That which is not limited to any particular thing, and hence pervades all things. Vast and beyond measurement, it remains inescapable like space.
If you interpret this nothingness as a mere void, then one is mistaken. That is another idea that is to be emptied out.