What is consciousness?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cahoot: Memories are heavily influenced by self-concept. Memories are not a constant and over time the memory of an event will change to maintain the consistency of a self-concept, even if this requires ignoring facts, or altering the memory of facts. Self-concept is influenced by all kinds of things, such as ideology, which leads to all kinds of irrational behaviors and beliefs (common in liberal/progressive ideology). Another example, those with a Horatio Alger self-concept require the memory of suffering to enhance the impressiveness of any subsequent boot-strap lifting that overcame the suffering, though these memories are often softened by a nostalgia that is also shaped by self-concept.
There is a difference between memories that serve to keep the self concept alive and those that serve one's thinking life. The simplest example of this is the coming to this board to post. Without the memory of its existence this would not be possible. A more complex example would be that of a surgeon's memory of a procedure or a lawyer's memory of law.
Cahoot: People even become martyrs to their suffering to preserve a self-concept.
Martyrdom (oh how I suffer and I can't let go of my suffering) and knowledge of the existence of suffering inherent in being born and being conscious of having a will are two different things. To do the right thing (to cause the right effect) requires knowledge of what will harm and what will not harm, as you say below, wisdom married to compassion.
Cahoot: This is why the conscious and deliberate practice to never lie to oneself (or others) is a powerful transformative spiritual practice that permeates perception, and leads to the skillful means (which is the marriage of wisdom and compassion), of memory aligning with the reality of who you are, rather than aligning with a self-concept shaped by attachment to delusion. Everyone has delusions, but seeing them for what they are weakens and eventually eliminates the attachment, which can be a painful and final suffering for strong egos.

Your Memory Isn't What You Think It Is
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am- ... hink-it-is
Define further "the reality of who you are."

Your "alignment" with memory to me is the same thing as attachment to memory - remembering. Which means, that although one can eliminate their attachment to the delusion of an independent self (I suffer vs. suffering exists for everyone) they cannot eliminate their attachment to their memory of things.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Cahoot »

Your "alignment" with memory to me is the same thing as attachment to memory - remembering. Which means, that although one can eliminate their attachment to the delusion of an independent self (I suffer vs. suffering exists for everyone) they cannot eliminate their attachment to their memory of things.
Perhaps not eliminate as a result of intent to eliminate, but attachment to memory does get eliminated when one is so fully immersed in the present that the past has no relation to the present and the present moment occupies all awareness, which results in an inability to speak because speech requires memory, or orient oneself in formerly familiar surroundings because everything is new and orientation requires memory. Even physical movement becomes new and strange and unfamiliar and totally absorbing because everything is happening for the first time. It is immediate and physical rather than abstract mentation.

The point is, while initially debilitating in terms of functioning in relationship (with people, places, things or concepts), experiential understanding of the function and the nature of memory in relation to self-concept, when the mind is sufficiently still and steady enough to effortlessly apprehend the present without wandering off into memory or conceptualization, weakens the attachment of awareness to self-concept, to the extent that integration of awareness unattached to the memory-dependent self-concept becomes possible in daily situations where memory spontaneously facilitates functioning (in accordance with the particulars of any situation) with the simultaneous knowing of the limitations and arbitrary nature of self-concept. It’s the natural movement of bliss from meditative stillness to where the rubber meets the road.
There is a difference between memories that serve to keep the self concept alive and those that serve one's thinking life. The simplest example of this is the coming to this board to post. Without the memory of its existence this would not be possible. A more complex example would be that of a surgeon's memory of a procedure or a lawyer's memory of law.
No difference, other than the memories of a doctor, lawyer, or poster are subordinate to and thus dependent upon self-concept.
Define further "the reality of who you are."
The reality of who you are is for you to realize and define, which in fact is a definition that likely extends no further than the limits of your comprehension. You are not borrowed memories.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cahoot: Perhaps not eliminate as a result of intent to eliminate, but attachment to memory does get eliminated when one is so fully immersed in the present that the past has no relation to the present and the present moment occupies all awareness, which results in an inability to speak because speech requires memory, or orient oneself in formerly familiar surroundings because everything is new and orientation requires memory. Even physical movement becomes new and strange and unfamiliar and totally absorbing because everything is happening for the first time. It is immediate and physical rather than abstract mentation.
The present moment for me includes the past and the future. For example, if right now I decided to make soup, I would remember the soup recipe and possibly project into the future its taste if I added or subtracted some ingredients. During this process of remembering soup and projecting soup so soup can be made only the present is present. How can it be anywhere else?
Cahoot: The point is, while initially debilitating in terms of functioning in relationship (with people, places, things or concepts), experiential understanding of the function and the nature of memory in relation to self-concept, when the mind is sufficiently still and steady enough to effortlessly apprehend the present without wandering off into memory or conceptualization, weakens the attachment of awareness to self-concept, to the extent that integration of awareness unattached to the memory-dependent self-concept becomes possible in daily situations where memory spontaneously facilitates functioning (in accordance with the particulars of any situation) with the simultaneous knowing of the limitations and arbitrary nature of self-concept. It’s the natural movement of bliss from meditative stillness to where the rubber meets the road.
I hope I got the jist of your meaning above when I say that a memory dependent activity such as making soup does not require the concept of self to be present. Neither does taking a bath, cutting one's toenails, choosing a pair of pants, writing poetry or sweeping the floor. What is required to do these things consciously however is the meditative stillness of which you speak, in other words, be still and let causality have its say. To me, the concept of self is the concept of clinging. Remembering is not clinging.
Cahoot: No difference, other than the memories of a doctor, lawyer, or poster are subordinate to and thus dependent upon self-concept.
Do you equate all thinking with self-concept?
Cahoot: The reality of who you are is for you to realize and define, which in fact is a definition that likely extends no further than the limits of your comprehension. You are not borrowed memories.
My memories are not borrowed (how is that even possible?), my memories are an integral part of my conscious, thinking life.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Cahoot »

You can start from any point, but try starting from this point.

Question: Why do people commit suicide?
Answer: All suicide is a reaction to a perceived incompatibility of self-concept with circumstance.

If you come up with any other answer to the question, and then attach a “why” to the end of that answer, and continue this process, you will eventually arrive at the above answer.

Then you can begin to inquire into the nature of self-concept and its relationship to thinking, memory, and life, the cause of self-concept, and so on.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:The present moment for me includes the past and the future. For example, if right now I decided to make soup, I would remember the soup recipe and possibly project into the future its taste if I added or subtracted some ingredients. During this process of remembering soup and projecting soup so soup can be made only the present is present. How can it be anywhere else?
This doesn't seem right. Do you really think about some "here and now" where there's space for a decision, some kind of "will" being exercised "on the spot"? This might appear like that but all the causes leading up to desiring soup, following the recipe, even the future projections appear still firmly as past. Here past would be defined by me as a linear time, a mental existence comprising of everything from a moment ago to the beginning of time - or how far we imagine to remember or know things. This is a creative process (like dreaming) which means that we can imagine variations, correct ourselves and create projections along the same linear timescape. But there's no real difference here from what we generally call "past".

The present, being timeless, can by definition not contain any "processes" to be analyzed or being made aware of. One might say existence revolves around it but the timeless is necessarily "empty". The future however, is forever unmade, we can only conceptualize it using the linear approach of the past and stick it upon something we call future. But we could also say "dream" or "idea" or "story" and just like these they can work out, become powerful, or fade away. What often is being called future could then be something resembling the idea of "meaning giver". In your example the meaning of your soup project is the taste and its relation to its ingredients, their ratio. That's what's the aim, or "vision" perhaps, that's what might provide the needed direction and will. This is why I prefer the notion "Earth" over "future", to allow for the image of a movement from heaven to earth, ignoring the intricates of time.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Leyla Shen »

Awareness in the heart is just awareness in the heart. What more can be said?
Ignorance is just ignorance. What more can be said?
Between Suicides
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Pam Seeback »

movingalways: The present moment for me includes the past and the future. For example, if right now I decided to make soup, I would remember the soup recipe and possibly project into the future its taste if I added or subtracted some ingredients. During this process of remembering soup and projecting soup so soup can be made only the present is present. How can it be anywhere else?
Diebert: This doesn't seem right. Do you really think about some "here and now" where there's space for a decision, some kind of "will" being exercised "on the spot"? This might appear like that but all the causes leading up to desiring soup, following the recipe, even the future projections appear still firmly as past. Here past would be defined by me as a linear time, a mental existence comprising of everything from a moment ago to the beginning of time - or how far we imagine to remember or know things. This is a creative process (like dreaming) which means that we can imagine variations, correct ourselves and create projections along the same linear timescape. But there's no real difference here from what we generally call "past".
Who said anything about an “on the spot” appearance of will? If that is what you took from the above, I failed to communicate my meaning properly. The remembering, projection and making of anything is indeed a creative process, and while I agree with your term “process”, I do not agree with your conclusion that it happens as a part of a linear timescape, what we generally call “past.” I do believe I intuit your vision of time but what it seems to be missing is the concept of wisdom (conscience) as a living, immediate “presence”. While I used the concepts “past/memories” and “future/projections” to address Cahoot’s post, I wasn’t implying a linear relationship. Perhaps new terms are needed to convey my meaning of “a living wisdom”, perhaps “experience and knowledge” could replace “past/memories” and “possibilities” could replace “future/projections.”
The present, being timeless, can by definition not contain any "processes" to be analyzed or being made aware of. One might say existence revolves around it but the timeless is necessarily "empty". The future however, is forever unmade, we can only conceptualize it using the linear approach of the past and stick it upon something we call future. But we could also say "dream" or "idea" or "story" just like these they can work out, become powerful, or fade away. What often is being called future could then be something resembling the idea of "meaning giver". In your example the meaning of your soup project is the taste and its relation to its ingredients, their ratio. That's what's the aim, or "vision" perhaps, that's what might provide the needed direction and will. This is why I prefer the notion "Earth" over "future", to allow for the image of a movement from heaven to earth, ignoring the intricates of time.
We can ignore the intricates of time by using the term wisdom or conscience, can we not? Wisdom or conscience implies a foundation of knowing that transcends human opinion and law, rather, “it” knows what “needs” to be caused in order for the "best" thing or "righteous" thing to happen. Wisdom or conscience, to me is a heavenly conceptual guidance “system” that uses all things of the Earth, (memories, logic, emotions, meditation, etc.). In Genesis 1, it would be the spirit moving across the face of the waters.

Wisdom makes good soup :-)
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cahoot wrote:You can start from any point, but try starting from this point.

Question: Why do people commit suicide?
Answer: All suicide is a reaction to a perceived incompatibility of self-concept with circumstance.

If you come up with any other answer to the question, and then attach a “why” to the end of that answer, and continue this process, you will eventually arrive at the above answer.

Then you can begin to inquire into the nature of self-concept and its relationship to thinking, memory, and life, the cause of self-concept, and so on.
I would not answer a question such as "why do people commit suicide?" but I would answer "why do you want to commit suicide?" if I did want to commit suicide.

Do you really believe you know the reason why people commit suicide? That sounds like the delusionary tight-fisted clinging of a self to "I'm (absolutely) right" to me.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Cahoot »

It's a simple, basic question and neither your sidetracking nor rephrasing of the question alters the truth of the answer and its pertinence. Perhaps you would like to try logic and rationality to address the content ... perhaps even give the suggested inquiry a go, challenge the arbitrary borders of "never."
I would answer "why do you want to commit suicide?" if I did want to commit suicide.
Is this a case of pronoun confusion, like projecting a personal reliance on belief upon another?

Internally responding to one’s own questions with more questions leads to understanding if you eventually come up with an answer that is not another question.

On a side note, another basic question to consider is, "who am I?" ;)
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Cahoot wrote: On a side note, another basic question to consider is, "who am I?" ;)
Answering that question is enlightenment. Correct descriptions should involve language such as perfect, timeless, free, utterly detached from all form, permanent and unchanging, reality, the formless Self.

Self-realisation is rarely only a result of logical deduction but is found "within ones in-most consciousness".
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote: what it seems to be missing is the concept of wisdom (conscience) as a living, immediate “presence”.
That would be an illusion that any sense of immediacy brings. Don't confuse immediacy and directness with absolute reality. The fact that the horizon of time is brought so near by as that it's "all around" doesn't make it different than seeing far away. If anything, I'd call it a typical modern illusion, of the now trying to manifest as reality in our various modes of experiencing: the "real-time". But it's just of one the many modes of experiencing, one that is vivid but just as clear or illusionary as the mind allows it to be.
Wisdom or conscience, to me is a heavenly conceptual guidance “system” that uses all things of the Earth, (memories, logic, emotions, meditation, etc.). In Genesis 1, it would be the spirit moving across the face of the waters.
To me there doesn't appear to be any difference here between "heavenly conceptual guidance system" and the intricate web of memory, logic, emotion, meditation and senses. What else could be that "guidance system" but those very things? It's a thoughtful bible verse though, spirit moving over waters and separating them between heaven and earth, past and future. It's almost a timeless sort of imagery.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Cahoot »

Self-realisation is rarely only a result of logical deduction but is found "within ones in-most consciousness".
The pin that touches the balloon skin, that thinnest border between the inner and the outer, filled and stretched tight with All that was (logic and lassitude, rationality and experience, belief and expectation), cannot be seen or predicted from inside the balloon. Thus the pin is sometimes called, grace.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by divine focus »

movingalways wrote:
divine focus wrote:divine focus: IF you're saying awareness comes about because of suffering, this is not true. There is nothing to reconcile with awareness itself. You always have awareness in the heart, only you may not notice because awareness in the head may be primary. You don't need imagery to be aware of awareness in the heart, although it may be helpful. In my case, there can be subjective imagery--imagery direct from the subject that bleeds through into my awareness.
I know nothing of how awareness comes about, however, I have observed that suffering exists and in order to observe that suffering exists, awareness is necessary.

If by awareness in my heart you are referring to having a conscience, then yes, I have always had a conscience, one that "pricks" me when I act against its wisdom. Along with this "prick" come associated images and feelings. Is your awareness in the heart the same thing as my conscience of doing the right thing?
No, awareness in the heart is like awareness in the head, but in the heart. It's less complex. You are aware of your conscience with your awareness. There are three centers of awareness, where you may observe phenomena. One is in the head, in the same space as the third eye energy center but not that energy center, one in the heart in the same space as the heart energy center, and one in the gut in the same space as the solar plexus energy center. Objectively (physically) you perceive from these three centers of awareness.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by divine focus »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Awareness in the heart is just awareness in the heart. What more can be said?
Ignorance is just ignorance. What more can be said?
:P
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by divine focus »

movingalways wrote:We can ignore the intricates of time by using the term wisdom or conscience, can we not? Wisdom or conscience implies a foundation of knowing that transcends human opinion and law, rather, “it” knows what “needs” to be caused in order for the "best" thing or "righteous" thing to happen. Wisdom or conscience, to me is a heavenly conceptual guidance “system” that uses all things of the Earth, (memories, logic, emotions, meditation, etc.). In Genesis 1, it would be the spirit moving across the face of the waters.

Wisdom makes good soup :-)
The wisdom is actually the subjective self guiding your action when you are trusting enough to be aware of it. I wouldn't use the word "conscience" because that makes it seem that there is an absolutely right or wrong way to do something, or a definitively right or wrong action. There can be actions that are of greater or lesser benefit, but not necessarily right or wrong. When you're all about controlling (yourself, your circumstances, other people) that wisdom may appear to be missing.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Pam Seeback »

divine focus: The wisdom is actually the subjective self guiding your action when you are trusting enough to be aware of it. I wouldn't use the word "conscience" because that makes it seem that there is an absolutely right or wrong way to do something, or a definitively right or wrong action. There can be actions that are of greater or lesser benefit, but not necessarily right or wrong. When you're all about controlling (yourself, your circumstances, other people) that wisdom may appear to be missing.

Wisdom as my conscience tells me it's absolutely wrong to rape a six year old child. What does your subjective self say?
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by divine focus »

movingalways wrote:Wisdom as my conscience tells me it's absolutely wrong to rape a six year old child. What does your subjective self say?
Your subjective self has to agree to anything that happens to you; otherwise, it could never happen. You are that powerful as consciousness. We on earth have been in a powerless/controlling state for such a long time; now we're starting to move into our power and our more truthful status as creators. There is no right or wrong if the divine has a hand in all of it. "Acceptance is the key to be truly free" (Katy Perry). Unconditional acceptance is what releases us from our chains. Not the easiest thing in the world. but we're moving into that expression as a species.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Pam Seeback »

divine focus wrote:
movingalways wrote:Wisdom as my conscience tells me it's absolutely wrong to rape a six year old child. What does your subjective self say?
Your subjective self has to agree to anything that happens to you; otherwise, it could never happen. You are that powerful as consciousness. We on earth have been in a powerless/controlling state for such a long time; now we're starting to move into our power and our more truthful status as creators. There is no right or wrong if the divine has a hand in all of it. "Acceptance is the key to be truly free" (Katy Perry). Unconditional acceptance is what releases us from our chains. Not the easiest thing in the world. but we're moving into that expression as a species.
Why do you believe that once the divine (I'll call it the absolute) completely accepts (thinks of) its divinity (absoluteness) that it stops being aware of right and wrong/good and evil? For me, once I completely accepted my divinity (my Christhood, my Buddha nature) I also completely accepted that I am wholly responsible for causing by way of my conscious thoughts, what is good or what is evil. Is this not what it means to "move into our power and our more truthful status as creators?"

Back to my example of raping a six year old child. I have the understanding that I am the creator (causality) of my conscious thoughts. I see a six year old child. Unconscious lustful thoughts about this six year old child appear in my consciousness. Because I have the understanding of my power as a conscious agent of thought causation, I also understand that I have the power to stop focusing on the thoughts I know will cause suffering (what is evil) and instead focus on the thoughts I know will not cause suffering or that will release suffering (what is good). Therefore I do not act on my unconscious lustful thoughts.

What I see is happening is that through individual or subjective "sparks" or spirits of consciousness, God is gradually becoming conscious of Its unconscious things, God is becoming wise. Therefore to be enlightened is to be conscious of wisdom's unveiling.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by divine focus »

movingalways wrote:
divine focus wrote:Your subjective self has to agree to anything that happens to you; otherwise, it could never happen. You are that powerful as consciousness. We on earth have been in a powerless/controlling state for such a long time; now we're starting to move into our power and our more truthful status as creators. There is no right or wrong if the divine has a hand in all of it. "Acceptance is the key to be truly free" (Katy Perry). Unconditional acceptance is what releases us from our chains. Not the easiest thing in the world. but we're moving into that expression as a species.
Why do you believe that once the divine (I'll call it the absolute) completely accepts (thinks of) its divinity (absoluteness) that it stops being aware of right and wrong/good and evil? For me, once I completely accepted my divinity (my Christhood, my Buddha nature) I also completely accepted that I am wholly responsible for causing by way of my conscious thoughts, what is good or what is evil. Is this not what it means to "move into our power and our more truthful status as creators?"
There is no good and evil. "Evil" is just whatever you fear. "Good" is what you appreciate. What you fear and what you appreciate is different for everybody. There is no good and evil apart from your individual value judgment, so why call it "Good and Evil?"
Back to my example of raping a six year old child. I have the understanding that I am the creator (causality) of my conscious thoughts. I see a six year old child. Unconscious lustful thoughts about this six year old child appear in my consciousness. Because I have the understanding of my power as a conscious agent of thought causation, I also understand that I have the power to stop focusing on the thoughts I know will cause suffering (what is evil) and instead focus on the thoughts I know will not cause suffering or that will release suffering (what is good). Therefore I do not act on my unconscious lustful thoughts.
Once thoughts are in your consciousness, they are no longer unconscious. You would only not rape the child if you preferred not to at the time (for whatever reason). It has nothing to do with what you fear. The lust (like all desire and desire to) is produced by the subjective awareness. The subjective of the child has absolute power over its experience, which is why the subjective of the lustful adolescent or adult may not allow any acting on the desire. The subjective awareness of everyone is one, but paradoxically also individual. It all works together. It all depends on the degree of victimhood (control) the child is experiencing, i.e. his or her degree of trust.
What I see is happening is that through individual or subjective "sparks" or spirits of consciousness, God is gradually becoming conscious of Its unconscious things, God is becoming wise. Therefore to be enlightened is to be conscious of wisdom's unveiling.
Very true, but you will not be God or "All That Is" (the Creating Universal One and Whole). In a way you are, because it is all individuals, but you will not become aware of everything it is aware of at enlightenment. You won't even be aware of everything your subjective is aware of, let alone the One and Whole. You'll just be aware of your experience, very simply. No more unnecessary intellectualizing.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Pam Seeback »

df, since the core difference of why our visions of ultimate reality are different are contained in this one paragraph, I am focusing on its content to reason with you our individual visions of ultimate reality:
You said: Very true, but you will not be God or "All That Is" (the Creating Universal One and Whole). In a way you are, because it is all individuals, but you will not become aware of everything it is aware of at enlightenment. You won't even be aware of everything your subjective is aware of, let alone the One and Whole. You'll just be aware of your experience, very simply. No more unnecessary intellectualizing.

Where you seem to envision an independent “It" that is aware of everything simultaneously (in real time, an all seeing, all knowing "mystic eye") and individual “its" that are not privy to “Its” independent omnipotent wisdom, I envision only It that becomes aware of everything one “thing” at a time via Its individual reasoning, feeling minds. If I use Genesis 1 and 2 as models for my vision, Genesis 1 is the Godhead of unrealized things including the means of their realization: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male [reasoning] and female [feeling] created he them” and Genesis 2 is God’s unrealized rest of Genesis 1 put into motion via individual realization. Which means in my vision God cannot experience God without using Its reasoning, feeling intellect. In other words, without analyzing "why", without seeking, without questioning, God cannot call forth what is hidden in the darkness in seed form into the light of its full blooming.

Can you give me an example of being simply aware of one’s experience minus "unnecessary intellectualizing"? I assume by my quoted words that you are referring to the reasoning, feeling intellect.

* Edited for typo
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by divine focus »

movingalways wrote:
You said: Very true, but you will not be God or "All That Is" (the Creating Universal One and Whole). In a way you are, because it is all individuals, but you will not become aware of everything it is aware of at enlightenment. You won't even be aware of everything your subjective is aware of, let alone the One and Whole. You'll just be aware of your experience, very simply. No more unnecessary intellectualizing.

Where you seem to envision an independent “It" that is aware of everything simultaneously (in real time, an all seeing, all knowing "mystic eye") and individual “its" that are not privy to “Its” independent omnipotent wisdom, I envision only It that becomes aware of everything one “thing” at a time via Its individual reasoning, feeling minds. If I use Genesis 1 and 2 as models for my vision, Genesis 1 is the Godhead of unrealized things including the means of their realization: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male [reasoning] and female [feeling] created he them” and Genesis 2 is God’s unrealized rest of Genesis 1 put into motion via individual realization. Which means in my vision God cannot experience God without using Its reasoning, feeling intellect. In other words, without analyzing "why", without seeking, without questioning, God cannot call forth what is hidden in the darkness in seed form into the light of its full blooming.
The Creating Universal One and Whole is not independent of its individual focuses, but it has a consciousness that is its own. It doesn't become aware of everything one thing at a time. Time only exists in physical reality; non-physically there is no time. It's all simultaneous. It grows by creating, not by discovering. It is the nature of everything to be and have more and more.
Can you give me an example of being simply aware of one’s experience minus "unnecessary intellectualizing"? I assume by my quoted words that you are referring to the reasoning, feeling intellect.
Right now as I type, words are flowing into my awareness. (Effort-fully typed) Now they've stopped. (Free-flowing) While waiting for something else to say, I am not thinking of what to say. There can be intellectualizing, but there's no need to add anything to what I'm saying.

It's not my objective (conscious) choice whether to intellectualize or not. It just happens or it doesn't.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

divine focus wrote:[(Free-flowing) While waiting for something else to say, I am not thinking of what to say. There can be intellectualizing, but there's no need to add anything to what I'm saying.
There's a time for qualitatively thinking ones words through and there's a time for spontaneous expression, for example when fully tuned into the situation and when the skill and experience is present. Better not to get hung up over either mode.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Pam Seeback »

df: The Creating Universal One and Whole is not independent of its individual focuses, but it has a consciousness that is its own. It doesn't become aware of everything one thing at a time. Time only exists in physical reality; non-physically there is no time. It's all simultaneous.
How is the concept of "it has a consciousness that is its own" any different than the concept of "being independent of"? I agree that time does not actually exist, so I will reword how consciousness becomes aware of its things, it does so by - no surprise - seeking. "Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened." Which means the infinite possibilities of answers "behind the door" of seeking/knocking may exist simultaneously, but the actual receiving of the "matching" answer to the seeking does not.
It grows by creating, not by discovering. It is the nature of everything to be and have more and more.
But where does the having more and more come from except from that which "It" has already created? If you reason it through, you'll see that "having more" and "creating something" is a delusion, perhaps the granddaddy of all delusions. There is nothing more to have, but there is always more to discover.
Quote:
movingalways: Can you give me an example of being simply aware of one’s experience minus "unnecessary intellectualizing"? I assume by my quoted words that you are referring to the reasoning, feeling intellect.
df: Right now as I type, words are flowing into my awareness. (Effort-fully typed) Now they've stopped. (Free-flowing) While waiting for something else to say, I am not thinking of what to say. There can be intellectualizing, but there's no need to add anything to what I'm saying.
When you say that there's no need to add anything to what you're saying, are you saying that for the sake of clarity, at no time when you write or speak do you change what you've written or said? I do agree that one doesn't think of what to say in the egoic sense of defending one's views or being a parrot of someone else's philosophy, but always present is the awareness that there is always something "waiting" to said...oops...discovered. :-)
df: It's not my objective (conscious) choice whether to intellectualize or not. It just happens or it doesn't.
You're caught in the dualism of subjectivity and objectivity, your vision of the non-physical and the physical. I have read some material from the website in your signature and believe I understand why, not from speculation, but from experience. I once was absorbed in channeled "non-physical-via-the-physical teachings" (books only, no groups or meetings or spreading of the teachings) particularly those of Seth and ? of The Course in Miracles. What caused me to stop was this question: why am I depending on someone else's wise entity - where, what for the love of god, was my own? In other words, I was ready to jettison second-hand wisdom for first-hand wisdom.

For the sake of clarity, are you Paul or Joanne Helfrich, the owners of the Elias Forum website?
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by Cahoot »

Right now as I type, words are flowing into my awareness. (Effort-fully typed) Now they've stopped. (Free-flowing) While waiting for something else to say, I am not thinking of what to say. There can be intellectualizing, but there's no need to add anything to what I'm saying.

It's not my objective (conscious) choice whether to intellectualize or not. It just happens or it doesn't.
Try exploring this paradox: In order “to be” as a written conceptual thought, and because conceptual thought in fact defines the borders of your existence in this setting, the verb “to be” cannot exist.

Like ego’s relationship with the perceived, the mind creation of “to be” projects itself into reality.

Try eliminating the verb in all its forms from writing and you will become much more conscious of your limitations (in your existent form here as the conceptual written word), and then with the diligence of seeking freedom from this constraint you will transcend the limitations of that boundary, to arrive at choiceless spontaneity of actual being, without “to be.”

Call it a minor metaphor that mirrors the larger conceptual stage.

Most prefer the familiar, well-worn neural pathways, the safe avenues of consciousness, in which "to be" sneaks into the spotlight again, and again, and again.

(Lest anyone lose the point via sidetracking, simply express thought without the verb "to be," gain understanding through experience, then form your own premise for the experience if you must.)
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: What is consciousness?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Cahoot wrote:[

Like ego’s relationship with the perceived, the mind creation of “to be” projects itself into reality.
....
choiceless spontaneity of actual being, without “to be.”
"A phenomenal world which is created by the mere thought of a name"
"You are not a person"
"You do not have a body"

Pop goes the balloon.
Locked