Experiencing the root of consciousness

[Exciplex]

Human consciousness evolved so as to be able to distinguish between two of the same thing - today versus yesterday, this meal versus the other meal, this child of mine versus the other, etc.

Thus, human ("evolved") consciousness is a combination of splits. The present splits into past or future. Awe splits into hope or fear. Universal soul splits into other or self. Sometimes splits into never or always. Just try meditating about yesterday and tomorrow at the same time. Ordinary thinking just cannot do it.

However! There is a reverse process that reverses the splitting, going back to the root of one's very consciousness. The process is convergence into non-duality. Absolutely everything you know converges with its opposite - as fire and water as neither fire nor water.

This reverse process is so extreme that one might not even be able to tell between two identical bars of soap. This can be a consequence of going back to the source. It happens when one feels a need to deal with ordinary thinking. The best thing to do when this happens is to remember that decision-making is unimportant and that whatever one decides is ultimately okay.

Objectivity says that there are always multiple perceptions that necessarily give different results because they're from different vantage points. Subjectivity says that all perceptions are all equally valid. However, results are subjective and validity is objective. Such is the key to non-dual thinking. Total objectivity combined with total subjectivity happens.

So here are the realizations back to original (source) consciousness:
0) What is my answer????
1) My hopes and fears have the same common origin!
2) I have no predetermined past, no future of any kind!
3) I see my reflection everywhere, especially the sky!
4) Altogether everything is my very soul!

Comments are welcome.

[Sapius]

Human consciousness evolved so as to be able to distinguish between two of the same thing - today versus yesterday, this meal versus the other meal, this child of mine versus the other, etc.

What do you think about a cat consciousness? Or do you not consider it conscious (aware to say the least)? Do you think any thing could exist without even the feeling of the spit, and yet operate coherently?

[bert]

I would rather generalize that our consciousness helps forming ability to cope with events as it creates memory and fore-knowledge,.., preceptiveness and intuition from sensational experience recoverable from memory, which create that main function - ability to cope with events, the experiencing, questioning and reifying factors of future individualistic Ego.

[Exciplex]

Sapius: It is a wonder that you ask that about cats. They are excellent specimens. Although they are superstitious and quasi-mystical, they are conscious. Their brains are less differentiated so their experiences are synesthetic (senses blended together). Synesthesia is a form of non-split consciousness. About their consciousness -

Cats have objective and subjective experiences. More about that later, but first - About those two qualities - objectivity says that different vantage points necessary result in different results. Subjectivity, on the other hand, says that all perspectives are equally valid. However, validity is objective and results are subjective. In other words, there is objectivity within subjectivity and subjectivity objectivity. Such objectivity and subjectivity are thus non-dualistically integrated. That is in fact the only way that conscious coherence manifests without splitting.

With that being said, cats experience objective and subjective experiences as the same. A cat may have the henid, "Laying down is pleasant." Laying down is objective. Pleasantness is subjective. Thus, the cat's (non-split) consciousness coheres objective and subjective experiences together - non-dualistically. This is coherence - coming together, meaning the same thing.

Footnote: Mystical experiences are the realization - not just conceptualization - of non-duality. In order for that to happen, the border between concept and the thing which it represents must become seen as being, again, the same thing.


bert: I really don't know what to say to your post. Apologies.

[Sapius]

About those two qualities - objectivity says that different vantage points necessary result in different results. Subjectivity, on the other hand, says that all perspectives are equally valid. However, validity is objective and results are subjective. In other words, there is objectivity within subjectivity and subjectivity objectivity. Such objectivity and subjectivity are thus non-dualistically integrated. That is in fact the only way that conscious coherence manifests without splitting.

My objectivity may seem subjective to another, and vice versa, but anybody’s point of view is necessarily objective, however subjective (or relative) his experiences may be.

There is not doubt that they are within each other, but they are not the one and the same thing either, hence the “split” I’m talking about is the boundary that lies in between their nature, by definition, and by experience. Unless there is a differentiation between the two, I can’t be said to be conscious.

The integration part is but a causal connectivity of any two things, so in a sense you are calling that causal process ‘non-dualistic’, which I can’t see why.

Objectivity and subjectivity are actually interdependent in my opinion; for example; I am;
“I” is the subjectivity of a thing, since that cannot be experienced unless there is something other than it, and “am” is the objectivity of that subjectivity, without which, it cannot operate. "I am" not only because "I think I am"; a cat also "knows", I am.

This has nothing to do with Synesthesia, which is a totally different matter.

With that being said, cats experience objective and subjective experiences as the same.

Well, me too, so good for us both ;D

Footnote: Mystical experiences are the realization - not just conceptualization - of non-duality. In order for that to happen, the border between concept and the thing which it represents must become seen as being, again, the same thing.

One needs a conceptual idea of non-duality to begin with; and I am not talking of the border between the concept and the thing that it represents, but the border between any thing and the self itself, without which, consciousness can’t be.

BTW, the thread topic reads - Experiencing the root of consciousness;

One cannot experience the root of consciousness, just like you cannot justify logic using logic, for whatever one thinks one is experiencing, will never be anything other than consciousness itself.

[sagerage]

Pure evil. the faces. smiling, back at me. wtf???

[Exciplex]

All that makes me wonder whether subjectivity is valid and objectivity is identical. That would allow duality and/or non-duality.

I thought that reality transcends duality, but it seems now that reality also may be transcended.


sagerage: How did you know I've been wondering whether people on TV see me smiling? Pure evil? I hope not. Tell me how/why if you will.

[Sapius]

All that makes me wonder whether subjectivity is valid and objectivity is identical. That would allow duality and/or non-duality.

Well, I’m afraid you will have to work that out on your own.

I thought that reality transcends duality, but it seems now that reality also may be transcended.

Of course it can! I did it! Once I knocked myself out-cold :D

I suggest, first think over your definition of "reality", or question those that have introduced you to that word; in a profound context.

[Exciplex]

Sapius:

Good advice. I've been clear to myself about what "reality" means - that which does not change, or that which is eternal.

Even objective realities change when one shifts from being oblivious to them to being aware of them.

Ultimately, its change itself that does not change. Hence, the basis of reality is the basis of change. I recently figured that swapping is the basis of that. Swapping seems to be both the quantum and the operation of change, the very allowing of change.

I know the Taoist masters supposedly have said that the way that may be named is not the eternal way. I wonder whether they were just being poetic or didn't know how to express it.

[Sapius]

Exciplex;

I've been clear to myself about what "reality" means - that which does not change, or that which is eternal.

Ultimately, its change itself that does not change.

Exactly, but I wouldn't call that REALITY, but plain and simple, existence, and other than change itself being eternal, of hand I can thing of couple others if existence (reality) is to work. For example, other than existence (reality) being eternal, objectivity and subjectivity is eternal, thing-ness is eternal, awareness (from the minimal involving [seemingly] mechanistic causality, to cognizant intellectual causality like our ‘consciousness’) is eternal, the thing to a thing inter-dependency is eternal, the thing to a thing interconnectivity is eternal, causality is eternal (which you already mentioned), and last but not the least, things do transform through causality, but things are necessary for causality, (change), itself to be. Things and change have to necessarily be interdependant.

Now it is your choice to pick any one of those as ONE, and consider it as some Absolute Reality, that can be reached through transcending consciousness, or whatever one thinks can be transcended.

Hence, the basis of reality is the basis of change.

Now I wouldn’t say that; the fundamental nature or “reality” is change it self, and it is all around you. Nothing needs to be “transcended”; just open your eyes and see.

I recently figured that swapping is the basis of that. Swapping seems to be both the quantum and the operation of change, the very allowing of change.

Good for you, but philosophically speaking, I see it as the ‘will to be’, that is ingrained in each and every thing, that drives existence at its core.

I know the Taoist masters supposedly have said that the way that may be named is not the eternal way. I wonder whether they were just being poetic or didn't know how to express it.

Well, they expressed whatever they felt needed to be expressed, and quite a few things very well in my opinion, and what that simply meant to me is that conceptual grasping will always end up where one started from, so conceptualization in itself cannot grasp what I’m trying to tell you; so basically you don’t know what I feel. So, it is essentially an emotional, or as you say, a poetic expression of how one feels, and I don't have anything against that, but O Zen master, please don't tell me that the Tao that you have however named, is profoundly not a something that can be named, becasue you alreasy conceptualize the idea "IT", and that that "IT" cannot be named.

Now get out of this one: The Allah (God) of Islam says; Anything you can think or imagine, I’m not that!.

What difference do you see between this – and - the Tao that can be named is not the Tao. ??? I find the Muslim version in fact more refined.

Or say the ancient Jews or Sumerians saying – The ONE who has no name! (Referring to God)

This salve mentality that keeps persisting seems to be going on since the dawn of light; with only the concept behind the Absolute or the Eternal that keeps changing, but this concept of THE ONE (God, or whatever that one says points to it), doesn’t seem will let us alone any time soon. All I can say is… get over it already!

[Perishable]

I see my reflection everywhere, especially the sky!

I just wanted to state that your 3rd realization gave me something to think about considering your thread & thoughts to non-dual thinking. Thanks.