Reality: What is it?

[godnotgod]

I realised that when we talk of 'consciousness with which we perceive', most people immediately assume that we are talking of electro chemical reactions taking place in brain, since that is the default thought: electro chemical reactions taking place in brain is consciousness through which we perceive things, including the self.

For me consciousness is that which enables knowledge of all things that are directly perceived or known through reports. 'Self' and electrochemical reactions in brain are such known things.

So consciousness is an emergent property of brain function? How do we get from electro chemical reactions of a material nature to non-material consciousness?

So the brain creates a 'self' via electro chemical reactions, which in turn knows that it has created such a self? Is there now another self which sees this process occurring?

 

[Willamena]

Well, perception occurs within consciousness. Is consciousness reality?

I don't accept that perception occurs within consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

Reality is the world. Perception is an illusion of a non-dual ontological image of the world. Perception is not a necessity. The non-dual image is not a necessity.

To be clear, you are saying that the reality of the world exists apart from the observer? That the perception of the observer is unnecessary to the separate reality of the world?

 

[godnotgod]

I don't accept that perception occurs within consciousness.

Then were does it occur if not in consciousness? There must be the awareness of the perception for perception to be known as perception.

 

[Willamena]

To be clear, you are saying that the reality of the world exists apart from the observer? That the perception of the observer is unnecessary to the separate reality of the world?

No, I am saying that where a perceiver or observer is introduced into the narrative, reality is [made to be] one step beyond.

But it's not necessary to introduce a perceiver or observer.

 

[Willamena]

Then were does it occur if not in consciousness? There must be the awareness of the perception for perception to be known as perception.

It doesn't necessarily "occur."

We make lots of things into verbs that aren't necessarily actions.

 

[godnotgod]

It doesn't necessarily "occur."

We make lots of things into verbs that aren't necessarily actions.

Well, if I hear a sound, or taste an orange, are these not occurrences in perception?

 

[godnotgod]

No, I am saying that where a perceiver or observer is introduced into the narrative, reality is [made to be] one step beyond.

But it's not necessary to introduce a perceiver or observer.

Not necessary to the existence of reality?

Still not getting your meaning about a perceiver introduced into the narrative. What's that about?

 

[atanu]

So consciousness is an emergent property of brain function? How do we get from electro chemical reactions of a material nature to non-material consciousness?

So the brain creates a 'self' via electro chemical reactions, which in turn knows that it has created such a self? Is there now another self which sees this process occurring?

Well. That is not my understanding but the default which some assume, unthinkingly. You did a fine job of analysing the implication of such assumption. Additionally, I hold that if mechanics were the source of consciousness, then what probability such a created consciousness has of unraveling the truth of the mechanism?

In my understanding consciousness cannot see consciousness, because it is subject and it’s locus.

 

[Willamena]

Well, if I hear a sound, or taste an orange, are these not occurrences in perception?

They are occurrences in narrative.

 

[Willamena]

Not necessary to the existence of reality?

Still not getting your meaning about a perceiver introduced into the narrative. What's that about?

Not necessary to the narrative.

The narrative is the story about "how" or "why."

 

[Willamena]

I was reading, this morning, Thich Nhat Hanh who pointed out that the narrative for analysis in traditional Eastern cultures is essentially different than in the West. In the West we recognize a thing and its parts; in Eastern Buddhism, they recognize a thing as its parts. In the West, we have an ear made of skin and cartilage and a drum; in the East an ear is its skin and cartilage and drum. In the West we acknowledge one more thing in the world than they do. By giving "ear" identity-in-itself, we literally have a world that is larger by one more thing. (To the Buddhist it lacks identity-in-itself, which is its emptiness.)

The difference is analysis and narrative.

 

[George-ananda]

Is what we call 'reality' the world as we perceive it, or the consciousness with which we perceive it?

I'll go with 'the consciousness with which we perceive it'.

Consciousness = God = Brahman the only Real

The world is Maya (illusion) a prop for the play/drama of God/Brahman.

 

[godnotgod]

They are occurrences in narrative.

But isn't narrative an occurrence in consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

I'll go with 'the consciousness with which we perceive it'.

Consciousness = God = Brahman the only Real

The world is Maya (illusion) a prop for the play/drama of God/Brahman.

OK, but is the world apart from Brahman, or is the world none other than Brahman, playing itself as 'the world' via lila and maya?

 

[godnotgod]

I was reading, this morning, Thich Nhat Hanh who pointed out that the narrative for analysis in traditional Eastern cultures is essentially different than in the West. In the West we recognize a thing and its parts; in Eastern Buddhism, they recognize a thing as its parts. In the West, we have an ear made of skin and cartilage and a drum; in the East an ear is its skin and cartilage and drum. In the West we acknowledge one more thing in the world than they do. By giving "ear" identity-in-itself, we literally have a world that is larger by one more thing. (To the Buddhist it lacks identity-in-itself, which is its emptiness.)

The difference is analysis and narrative.

I'm so glad you discovered that, something many overlook, or cannot see because they have been so conditioned with that something 'extra' added in. No, a tree is not made of wood; it IS wood. No, there is no such 'It' that is raining; no 'whirler' of the whirling water of a whirlpool, etc.

 

[godnotgod]

Not necessary to the narrative.

The narrative is the story about "how" or "why."

OK, in other words, there is no 'perceiver of the perception'; no 'experiencer of the experience'; no 'narrator' of the narrative. As Deepak Chopra stated:

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality"

 

[godnotgod]

Well. That is not my understanding but the default which some assume, unthinkingly. You did a fine job of analysing the implication of such assumption. Additionally, I hold that if mechanics were the source of consciousness, then what probability such a created consciousness has of unraveling the truth of the mechanism?

In my understanding consciousness cannot see consciousness, because it is subject and it’s locus.

But the question must be asked: Who, or what, is it that knows that consciousness cannot see consciousness?

 

[Willamena]

But isn't narrative an occurrence in consciousness?

So you're asking what consciousness is. "Consciousness" is a narrative that depicts a "state" of awareness or being aware. Without an "external" object, there can be no awareness.

It's an added peg in the story of 'me.'

Edit: An 'extra' peg.

 

[Willamena]

OK, in other words, there is no 'perceiver of the perception'; no 'experiencer of the experience'; no 'narrator' of the narrative. As Deepak Chopra stated:

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality"

That depends on one's narrative.

It's not necessary to the narrative.