the 'magical' properties of consciousness

[clyde]

What is it about the simple fact (and it is a simple fact) of consciousness. Do we endow a mirror which reflects all things, but cannot directly reflect itself with ‘magical’ properties? No. Do we endow the eye which sees all things, but cannot directly see itself with ‘magical’ properties? No. Then why should we endow our consciousness which is aware of all things, but cannot directly experience itself with such ‘magical’ properties as “eternal” and “infinite” and “unchanging”, etc?

I think it may be pride.

Do no harm,
clyde

[average]

The properties seem magical at first.

Strictly speaking, the eye has never "seen" anything.
Consciousness is that which "sees".
What it sees is change. Change of content, change of phenomena.

Since it perceives change, then it can not change, because change is an aspect of perceived phenomena.
Similarly it perceives color, thus it can not have a color, because color is an object of perception.
And finally it perceives limits, beginnings and ends, thus it can not have limits, beginnings or ends.

Asking why consciousness has no limits or doesn't change, is like asking why it has no color or shape.

There is nothing magical here, its all very ordinary.

[bert]

Nature permits no transmission that will trigger an answering transmission from a transponder ; our skillfulness in the command of fundamentals deriving from practice and familiarity merely imitate, and only if so appropriate or allowed for.

[average]

Nature permits no transmission that will trigger an answering transmission from a transponder ; our skillfulness in the command of fundamentals deriving from practice and familiarity merely imitate, and only if so appropriate or allowed for.

lol wut you say?

[David Quinn]

Average,

Strictly speaking, the eye has never "seen" anything.
Consciousness is that which "sees".
What it sees is change. Change of content, change of phenomena.

Since it perceives change, then it can not change, because change is an aspect of perceived phenomena.
Similarly it perceives color, thus it can not have a color, because color is an object of perception.
And finally it perceives limits, beginnings and ends, thus it can not have limits, beginnings or ends.

You're the victim of an illusion here. The idea that there is a detached, unchanging consciousness which sees changing phenomena is an illusion created by a combination of memory and inductive inference.

It is only by inductive inference that we can arrive at the idea of consciousness at all. It is purely an abstract entity. And it is our memories which create the illusion that this abstract entity is unchanging through time.

In reality, every part of us is changing all the time, including the neural processes which generate awareness. There is enough stability and regularity in these ever-changing neural processes to allow us to maintain a sense of continuity and identity, just as there is enough stability and regularity in an ever-changing water fountain to generate a steady vertical pole of water.

Asking why consciousness has no limits or doesn't change, is like asking why it has no color or shape.

Consciousness clearly has limits. For example, consciousness can never extend past the limits of what we are conscious of in any particular moment. We can never be conscious of what is beyond the observable universe.

-

[cat10542]

David,
I change to perceive phenomena, because "I" am phenomenal. Yes, there is no true continuity of self and identity over time only the perception of such created by our neural processes. But time is an illusion. Is there not consciousness in every moment? You can only describe the limits of consciousness when describing your own momentary limits. When you are not talking about your own moment of awareness and you think of all awareness, where can the limits be?

Average,
Consciousness, the way you describe it, can't "see" because it is unchangable. To gain sight would cause it to change, so the only way for it to have sight and be unchanging would be if you are describing that which already contains all sight, that which contains all phenomena, that which contains all "I"s simultaneously. In which this Consciousness is not really conscious in that in does not think, and is very conscious in that it contains all thought.

I'd equate the idea of eternal, infinite, unchanging consciousness with Huang Po's description of One Mind.
http://www.yakrider.com/Buddha/Zen/HuangPo.htm

[bert]

I ask, what is conceivable when we can not conceive even what we are conceiving?

[average]

CAT10542 -

Consciousness, the way you describe it, can't "see" because it is unchangable. To gain sight would cause it to change, so the only way for it to have sight and be unchanging would be if you are describing that which already contains all sight, that which contains all phenomena, that which contains all "I"s simultaneously. In which this Consciousness is not really conscious in that in does not think, and is very conscious in that it contains all thought.

Yes, you are very correct in a sense. Consciousness as I refer to it has never had a thought or done an action, but alternatively it perceives them by containing them - all thoughts, actions, "I"s and phenomenas.

[David Quinn]

Cat,

I change to perceive phenomena, because "I" am phenomenal. Yes, there is no true continuity of self and identity over time only the perception of such created by our neural processes. But time is an illusion. Is there not consciousness in every moment?

I'm not sure what you mean. Does a leaf falling down from a tree require consciousness?

You can only describe the limits of consciousness when describing your own momentary limits. When you are not talking about your own moment of awareness and you think of all awareness, where can the limits be?

What about all those billions of years before conscious life evolved? There wasn't any awareness then, was there?

-

[David Quinn]

Average,

Consciousness as I refer to it has never had a thought or done an action, but alternatively it perceives them by containing them - all thoughts, actions, "I"s and phenomenas.

Your notion of consciousness is still very confusing to me. Here you are describing consciousness as though it were like empty space, as a kind of container for things to dwell in. Yet at other times you describe it as a detached observer which is separate from the things it observes. And still more, at other times, you describe it as being everything.

How do you reconcile all these conflicting notions in your mind?

-

[average]

Where is the conflict?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Discussing consciousness is like playing charades. Except that everyone is waving about like a damned fool at once, and nobody ever gets to reveal if someone else guesses right. You win if you can get everyone else to wave about in the same way you are. The fact that your word was 'duck' just doesn't matter. That's right. Consciousness is a duck. A bird that floats on the water and says 'quack'. I think I'll go find a pond and throw bread at the consciousness.

[clyde]

average;

As I understand what you've written (here and elsewhere), you believe you are a disembodied entity which will exist forever and by virtue of your consciousness you are one with the Universal Consciousness. Is this an accurate summation?

clyde

[average]

average;

As I understand what you've written (here and elsewhere), you believe you are a disembodied entity which will exist forever and by virtue of your consciousness you are one with the Universal Consciousness. Is this an accurate summation?

clyde

Ehh, I'm not sure I would use those words, but maybe you mean the same thing I do.

Anything that can be thought of, or seen, or perceived, I am not, how could I be? It is already gone. Yet I am here.

I am that which is aware of the thoughts, sights, perceptions, change, impermanence, limits, colors, smells, emptiness. But such things do not contain me, I contain them.

There is nothing left to seek, no knew knowledge to thirst for, no understanding to hold onto.
That which was sought was the seeker himself, and I am found.

Similarly there is nothing to reject, nothing to not identify with, I am all things, and all things are myself.
Even when I suffer...I do not suffer.

Is this confusing enough? ! ? :]

[clyde]

average;

No, but you have mistaken a ghost for reality.

clyde

[average]

average;

No, but you have mistaken a ghost for reality.

clyde

I like pure blunt statements like this one, with no reasoning behind it, intuitive understanding is the best kind!

[David Quinn]

Average,

A: Consciousness as I refer to it has never had a thought or done an action, but alternatively it perceives them by containing them - all thoughts, actions, "I"s and phenomenas.

DQ: Your notion of consciousness is still very confusing to me. Here you are describing consciousness as though it were like empty space, as a kind of container for things to dwell in. Yet at other times you describe it as a detached observer which is separate from the things it observes. And still more, at other times, you describe it as being everything.

How do you reconcile all these conflicting notions in your mind?

A: Where is the conflict?

Well, take your concept that consciousness is a detached observer that can never be perceived, and try to square it with your other concept that consciousness is everything that we perceive. Given that everything that we perceive can indeed be perceived, how do you reconcile it with the idea that consciousness cannot be perceived?

It seems to me that you're flitting back and forth between two conflicting conceptions of consciousness. And I haven't even touched on the container idea here, which is another conflicting concept.

-

[Jehu]

Perhaps consciousness is not the best word to describe that which is real (absolute) in the phenomenal experience, for consciousness is a function of the sentient mind: that mode of activity whereby it fulfils its purpose; and as such, it is no more real that the other objects of our perception. It would be more precise to say that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, and that it comprise two interdependent and complementary aspects: awareness and knowledge. Awareness, is that which partakes of an necessary (absolute, independent and immutable) existence, while knowledge partakes of only a contingent (relative, dependent and mutable) existence.

[average]

Well, take your concept that consciousness is a detached observer that can never be perceived, and try to square it with your other concept that consciousness is everything that we perceive. Given that everything that we perceive can indeed be perceived, how do you reconcile it with the idea that consciousness cannot be perceived?

Good question, easy answer.

Consciousness is more, is beyond simply that which we perceive, even though it contains all perceptions.

Alternatively, I could say consciousness is neither a perceived thing - nor not a perceived thing.
Thinking of it as either or, is making a category mistake.

[San Bao]

clyde, I think you raise a valid point. There are some basic problems with Idealistic Monism that few Idealistic Monisms ever stop to properly address.

Having said that, I favor the idea of a so-called "neutral" monism (or non-dualism as you prefer). Jehu alludes to this approach. There's a paper floating around somewhere on the internet by Naturyl (aka Unidian) that describes one such Neutral Monism, and how it avoids the pitfalls of Materialistic Monism and Idealistic Monism. In some ways a Neutral Monism is evocative of Mahayana Buddhist ontology, which also conceived of a "neutral monism": Dharmakaya (i.e. "the absolute") gives rise to Nirmanakaya (roughly equivalent to "matter/energy") and Sombhogakaya ("mind" or "consciousness"). Ultimately the later two attributes are reducible to the former, which is neither matter/energy nor consciousness. Dharmakaya is ultimately "formless" or "empty".

[David Quinn]

Jehu,

Perhaps consciousness is not the best word to describe that which is real (absolute) in the phenomenal experience, for consciousness is a function of the sentient mind: that mode of activity whereby it fulfils its purpose; and as such, it is no more real that the other objects of our perception. It would be more precise to say that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, and that it comprise two interdependent and complementary aspects: awareness and knowledge. Awareness, is that which partakes of an necessary (absolute, independent and immutable) existence, while knowledge partakes of only a contingent (relative, dependent and mutable) existence.

Why do you say that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant?

-

[David Quinn]

Average,

Consciousness is more, is beyond simply that which we perceive, even though it contains all perceptions.

What reasons do you have for thinking that consciousness extends beyond what is perceived?

-

[average]

Average,

Consciousness is more, is beyond simply that which we perceive, even though it contains all perceptions.

What reasons do you have for thinking that consciousness extends beyond what is perceived?

-

By the fact that it is limitless.
While that which is perceived is limited.

[David Quinn]

What makes you think it is limitless?

It is no good saying that it isn't a perception, since everything that you have described in relation to consciousness has involved your perception of it.

-

[cat10542]

Cat,

I change to perceive phenomena, because "I" am phenomenal. Yes, there is no true continuity of self and identity over time only the perception of such created by our neural processes. But time is an illusion. Is there not consciousness in every moment?

I'm not sure what you mean. Does a leaf falling down from a tree require consciousness?

You can only describe the limits of consciousness when describing your own momentary limits. When you are not talking about your own moment of awareness and you think of all awareness, where can the limits be?

What about all those billions of years before conscious life evolved? There wasn't any awareness then, was there?

-

Sorry, I think I was unclear; no, that's not what I'm trying to say. I don't think a leaf requires consciousness to fall from a tree. I'm trying to say that consciousness or awareness is a momentary thing, I'm not aware of my whole life at once, I can only be aware a moment at a time. So when I said moments I meant all momentary consciousness. I don't think that consciousness is a constant through time, I don't think consciousness is a temporal thing, it's sporatic, it is in you and me at the same time, and sure there was a time before conscious life evolved when there was no consciousness. But if you see the grand scheme of causation, that there was a billion years ago, there is a 'now', there will be a billion years from 'now', then it seems, since all is caused, and where there is awareness, it perceives what it is caused to percieve, that 'now' makes no difference. Every conscious moment is a 'now' no matter where it occurs along time. Time is an illusion for consciousness because all awareness thinks it is the center or 'now' of time. And as for consciousness not having limits, I was addressing the limits of awareness, as in what can't consciousness perceive? not when can't it appear?

I should note that I'm talking about consciousness more along the lines of awareness rather than just thought.

Granted I don't think that consciousness is the best word for this, it stretches the meaning too far. mind or soul or something along those lines probably fits better.

Hope that clarifies it. Let me know your thoughts.