Consciousness

[crossfire]

Well, nothing really can be said about it until afterwards. (That pesky illusory time thing again!)




Like I said, "mu."

Oh, you mean when consciousness returns to its conditioned state of Time, Space, and Causation, and hence of Identification, the fiction it thinks is reality. Ah, so easy to fall into maya; so warm; so comfy....sooooo sleepy. yawn.

I said "nothing can be said about it until afterwards." If you can say anything about it while in/being the void, then your mind is moving. (Unless you have found a workaround for this. Please let me know if you have. Thank you.)

 

[crossfire]

IMO, this is all that is required.

There is in upanishads a teaching: Purusha in the eye is same as the purusha in the sun. Many will literally translate 'Purusha' as 'Person' and miss the point.

Purusha is the reality and space-time is the after-effect.

Purusha is trapped/captivated by Prakriti, no?

 

[atanu]

Purusha is trapped/captivated by Prakriti, no?

No. Will you say that Buddha nature is ever trapped?

Purusha means that which is pre-Usha.

 

[atanu]

In my opinion, Purusha is same, notwithstanding differences in semantics and in mental notions. How else we reconcile the striking similarity of experiences as shown below?


Katha Upanishad Verse 2.2.15
na tatra sūryo bhāti na candratārakaṃ nemā vidyuto bhānti kuto'yamagniḥ |
tameva bhāntamanubhāti sarvaṃ tasya bhāsā sarvamidaṃ vibhāti || 15 ||

15. The sun does not shine there; nor do the moon and the stars, nor do these lightnings shine. How could this fire? Him shining, all shine after. All this shines by his light.

Bahiya Sutta
Where neither water nor yet earth Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this For himself through his own wisdom, Then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain.

 

[crossfire]

No. Will you say that Buddha nature is ever trapped?

Purusha means that which is pre-Usha.

Happy Birthday!

 

[crossfire]

No. Will you say that Buddha nature is ever trapped?

I wouldn't say Buddha Nature is a thing or substance. It is sentience--having a subjective mind that is vulnerable to delusion and capable of awakening.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The 'states' that you are talking of is of Consciousness, which is the power of discernment in variety of ways -- not only in human way. States are not the consciousness itself.

If you want an analogy, the three states of water is a good one. Water itself assumes three forms. Consciousness assumes three forms: waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. The states are not consciousness in itself.

Further, the following will show how petty many of our notions of consciousness are. Consciousness and its manifestation -- discernment, is not limited to brain.

Plant Intelligence: An Overview | BioScience | Oxford Academic
The secrets of intelligence lie within a single cell
Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia
Scientists Discover That Slime Mold Is Capable of Learning
A single-celled organism capable of learning

Further, if you knew Quantum Mechanics, you would know that paired photons when separated many miles know the state of each other instantaneously. So, human type of discernment is not the only type of discernment in the universe.



On the contrary, a body-brain is never known in absence of a discerning consciousness. Whereas a dead body or a dead brain does not exhibit consciousness. Consciousness is not the fundamental property of brain or body. What makes bodies conscious is beyond our mind.

As shown above from scientific papers, consciousness is exhibited by brain-less organisms too.



Yes. This is the question that I will ask. What is absent from a dead body that the brain therein loses its so called consciousness creating power?



No. Some people say that there is no consciousness when we are in deep sleep. Then how do we know that we slept? How does a person 'xyz' come back as 'xyz'? There is surely a connecting consciousness that manifests in three different states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping.

The point is: consciousness is not same as the manifest conscious mind, which is a manifestation.



Okay. I see that you call yourself 'Truly Enlightened'. But if your intelligence is a created artefact of a mechanistic process, how will your intelligence be free to determine the truth value of a proposition? As, its results are already 'pre-determined' by the mechanistic process, how does it have any freedom to discern the truth of any proposition? Your intelligence is just an appearance.

Intelligence is a subjective label used from an objective perspective, to describe some intrinsic or extrinsic level of complexity that is expressed or inferred by an organism. It is this inferred quality that we call intelligence. Again, the term is relative and irrelevant. Ask Bob the builder if a roach or a blood cell is intelligent. Do you think he will give the same answer as an roach entomologist or a hematologist? Intelligence, like beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Please describe how you know that you are intelligent(not complex)? You can't because it is not a subjective perspective. But ask someone else, and you'll get an answer. Are you now trying to equivocate consciousness with intelligence? Intelligence is and intrinsic value that others see in you(objective perspective). Consciousness is an intrinsic state of mind, that only you see within yourself(subjective perspective). They may not be mutually exclusive since both can be objectively inferred. Do you think that single celled organisms are consciously aware of itself, or it intelligence?

For those of us who do know about quantum entanglement, and quantum non-locality between space and polarized photons, they would also know that experiments suggest another unknown theory at work. We are simply looking at the results, not the cause. Maybe you can explain the cause of this "spooky action at a distance". I didn't think so.

It is difficult for me to address your truth claims, when you shroud them in your own fallacy-riddled logic, but I'll try. I'd like to think of myself as logical and simple. When I hear such obtuse and convoluted logic.

It is the mind(a process of the brain) that has 3 states of awareness(not discernment). Only 10% of the mind is devoted to being consciously aware of logic, reason, the environment, self-awareness, and the position of the body in space-time. Up to 60% of the mind is devoted to the sub-conscious task of communicating with the conscious mind. Rote knowledge, language, facts, routines, and all compartmentalized stored data(like RAM), are totally accessible to the conscious mind. Up to 40% of the mind is devoted to the unconscious state. This includes control of our internal metabolism, vegetative functions, our deepest and innermost emotions and feelings(basically the hard drive's data base). This is the level that defines self, and is controlled and expressed by our genes. My belief is that we were never meant to gain access to our unconscious mind because of the natural law of compensation(using more of one will lessen the other). If a reason did exist for direct control of our unconscious mind, it would evolve naturally.

My tag is "truly enlightened". It is just a tag.This doesn't mean that I am. So spare me your straw man, or an excuse to posit your unscientific pseudo-sophistry. I have seen many unusual tags, but it would be immature of me to make any silly correlations. What is missing from a dead body, is life. Anything else is just your vivid imagination. When we are unconscious, we are not aware that we are. Were you asleep or unconscious in 4 billion BC? Maybe it is just a logical deduction that we were asleep before we awake. Going through the different states of the mind, is not as yet fully understood. Since all states of the mind depend on an organic brain, the controls must also be organic. Don

 

[atanu]

I wouldn't say Buddha Nature is a thing or substance. It is sentience--having a subjective mind that is vulnerable to delusion and capable of awakening.

There we always seem to differ—our interpretations that is.

If mind is able to capable of awakening, what that means? Does gold change if it is beaten to any shape.

 

[crossfire]

There we always seem to differ—our interpretations that is.

If mind is able to capable of awakening, what that means? Does gold change if it is beaten to any shape.

Like I said, mind or Buddha Nature is not a substance. Emptiness/sunyata is not a substance, but rather "empty of substance." Anatta is "not based on a substance." Buddhism rejects onotological substance theory. (Wiki link for Substance theory)

 

[godnotgod]

"no space-time" is also a concept, as well as "here & now." As I said, it is relativistic--measurements taken relative to itself.

Right. So if space-time and no-space-time are conceptual overlays, then they don't actually exist in nature. And if they don't actually exist in nature, then change cannot actually occur, since change requires time and space. And according to science, space-time did not come into existence until the moment of inception of the Big Bang. IOW, the BB occurred in no-space-time. It occurred in consciousness, which does not exist in space or time, and is uncaused. The BB was an event in consciousness. And what is consciousness? Brahman; the ground of all Being; The Unified Field; Pure Abstract Intelligence; The Absolute; etc, etc.....

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass* of Time, Space, and Causation"

"Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.... If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

*'glass': ie: 'the conditioned mind'

 

[crossfire]

Right. So if space-time and no-space-time are conceptual overlays, then they don't actually exist in nature.

Unless, of course, nature IS the concept/process. Nothing to overlay, because there is no substance.

And if they don't actually exist in nature, then change cannot actually occur, since change requires time and space. And according to science, space-time did not come into existence until the moment of inception of the Big Bang. IOW, the BB occurred in no-space-time. It occurred in consciousness, which does not exist in space or time, and is uncaused. The BB was an event in consciousness. And what is consciousness? Brahman; the ground of all Being; The Unified Field; Pure Abstract Intelligence; The Absolute; etc, etc.....

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass* of Time, Space, and Causation"

"Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because division and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.... If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

*'glass': ie: 'the conditioned mind'

Ahh, but can consciousness exist without space-time? (Time to tell me your work around regarding the void!)

I said "nothing can be said about it until afterwards." If you can say anything about it while in/being the void, then your mind is moving. (Unless you have found a workaround for this. Please let me know if you have. Thank you.)

Take your time.

 

[godnotgod]

Unless, of course, nature IS the concept/process. Nothing to overlay, because there is no substance.

Where do you see concept in nature ?

No substance, but the overlay is onto the manifestation; the appearance, of 'something'.

Ahh, but can consciousness exist without space-time?

When you are in the state of meditation, and there is no thought, but only consciousness that sees, do you see space-time? If you do, then moving mind has come into play.

(Time to tell me your work around regarding the void!)
Take your time.

Mu

 

[crossfire]

Where do you see concept in nature ?

If you are going to call space-time a concept then all of the other natural force would be as well? The conceptual part comes in when we understand them. We use conceptual thinking when we try to understand them.

No substance, but the overlay is onto the manifestation; the appearance, of 'something'.

I would have to disagree there.

When you are in the state of meditation, and there is no thought, but only consciousness that sees, do you see space-time? If you do, then moving mind has come into play.

When it comes to the void, I tend to lose consciousness after a brief experience of extreme of "multitasking." I can experience no thought in other forms of meditation and remain conscious, however.

Mu

Okie-dokie.

 

[godnotgod]

If you are going to call space-time a concept then all of the other natural force would be as well? The conceptual part comes in when we understand them. We use conceptual thinking when we try to understand them.

Yes, but it is an intellectual, usually a mathematical, 'understanding' in the form of a model; we don't actually know what magnetism, gravity, light, space, etc actually ARE. Time is the most obvious example when looked at a bit closer; we then see that what we call 'time' is a superimposition of a measurement grid over nature, but not of nature itself, but only over that which is testable via perception. It is for this reason that science doesn't quite know what to do about consciousness, and why it is called 'the hard problem'. So some scientists 'solve' the problem by simply asserting that consciousness is nothing more than a set of electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Because no one can 'get behind' consciousness, as Planck has said, the standard observer/observed methodology doesn't work. Consciousness cannot be made an object of itself.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi used to sum up the problem of conceptual 'understanding' by saying that 'the description is not the described'. Or, the shortened Zen version would be:

'First there is a mountain,
then there is no mountain,
then there is.'

 

[crossfire]

Yes, but it is an intellectual, usually a mathematical, 'understanding' in the form of a model; we don't actually know what magnetism, gravity, light, space, etc actually ARE. Time is the most obvious example when looked at a bit closer; we then see that what we call 'time' is a superimposition of a measurement grid over nature, but not of nature itself, but only over that which is testable via perception. It is for this reason that science doesn't quite know what to do about consciousness, and why it is called 'the hard problem'. So some scientists 'solve' the problem by simply asserting that consciousness is nothing more than a set of electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Because no one can 'get behind' consciousness, as Planck has said, the standard observer/observed methodology doesn't work. Consciousness cannot be made an object of itself.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi used to sum up the problem of conceptual 'understanding' by saying that 'the description is not the described'. Or, the shortened Zen version would be:

'First there is a mountain,
then there is no mountain,
then there is.'

I find it quite interesting that consciousness is associated with space in the Tibetan system. In order to discern the "emptiness" of the mountain, one must "make space" or "separate" the different components and causal reasons for the mountain having come to be a mountain.

 

[atanu]

Like I said, mind or Buddha Nature is not a substance. Emptiness/sunyata is not a substance, but rather "empty of substance." Anatta is "not based on a substance." Buddhism rejects onotological substance theory. (Wiki link for Substance theory)

Gold is not a substance, btw. I think you miss the point. Please read again the two verses from Katha Upanishad and Bahiya sutta.

Confusions happen when we presume substance to be true and argue mentally based on that presumption.

 

[crossfire]

Gold is not a substance, btw. I think you miss the point. Please read again the two verses from Katha Upanishad and Bahiya sutta.

Confusions happen when we presume substance to be true and argue mentally based on that presumption.

OK, so is gold being used metaphorically as "not subject to change," as gold does not rust? (That wouldn't make sense with your saying gold being hammered into different shapes, as the text says it is beyond form or formless.

 

[atanu]

OK, so is gold being used metaphorically as "not subject to change," as gold does not rust? (That wouldn't make sense with your saying gold being hammered into different shapes, as the text says it is beyond form or formless.

No. The point is that in whatever shape, gold remains gold.

I agreed to your point about space-time. I am inclined not to get into further semantics. Let us agree to disagree on all other points .. since those are inexplicable and as such not within the scope of mind-word.

 

[godnotgod]

OK, so is gold being used metaphorically as "not subject to change," as gold does not rust? (That wouldn't make sense with your saying gold being hammered into different shapes, as the text says it is beyond form or formless.

Here is an expanded discussion on gold as a metaphor for Brahman.

http://www.discovervedanta.com/downloads/articles/brahman-and-maya.pdf

 

[atanu]

Here is an expanded discussion on gold as a metaphor for Brahman.

http://www.discovervedanta.com/downloads/articles/brahman-and-maya.pdf

Not a very clear discussion, though.