GENIUS FORUMS

Average,

DQ: And yet you often project limits onto consciousness by distinguishing it from perceived objects and declaring it to be an imperceptible observer.

A: You are still stuck on the idea that being limitless is itself a limit.
When I say consciousness is not like perceived objects, which are limited and finite, that is to say consciousness is not limited and finite. So making the distinction is simply a way to communicate, it does not limit consciousness.
So there is no problem here.

The trouble is, only Nature itself is without limit, as there is nothing else apart from Nature.

To equate consciousness with Nature is misguided because it straight-jackets Nature into a dualistic framework. Nature, being non-dual, is not anything at all, not even consciousness. That is why in Buddhism, for example, Nature is referred to as the "Void" or "Emptiness".

DQ: Given that consciousness cannot occur without the existence of perceived phenomena - that observer and observed are like two sides of the same coin, arising and falling away together - the mirror analogy doesn't really work.

I agree that consciousness is at the heart of everything that we experience and perceive, but to imagine that consciousness can continue on in the absence of perceived phenomena is a delusion. It is like arguing that a triangle can continue existing in the absence of its three sides.

A: Perceived phenomena come and go all the time, yet consciousness still remains, witnessing this change.
The mirror analogy works in the sense that consciousness is within all things and also beyond them, and as the reflections come and go, the mirror remains. In other senses it doesn't work, nothing works, because we are trying to describe a non-dual thing, and language and logic is quite dualistic. So, perhaps I'm pointing to an intuitive understanding here that you are not seeing.

No, the problem I am having is that your pointing is confusing, as you are pointing to a dualistic phenomena (consciousness) and referring to it as non-dual. In doing so, you are pointing infinitely away from the true nature of reality, which is beyond consciousness.

In short, I think your intuitive understanding is still very green and needs a lot more refining.

Consciousness stretches far beyond your conceptual grasp, far beyond whatever you think totality ought to be, whether its a sum or a subtraction or a fraction or multiplication of all existences....

How does consciousness extend beyond the Totality? Everything is included in the Totality, by definition, even consciousness.

DQ: "Objectless awareness" is simply a euphemism for complete unconsciousness. There is no consciousness of anything...in deep sleep, in between the dreaming states, it is shut off. Or at least the higher functioning parts of the brain, the parts which are integral to the generation of consciousness as we know it, are shut down.

A: If ever there was a time you were truly unaware, then you would not be aware of such a time at all, by definition.
Since you are somehow, perhaps intuitively aware of your deep deep dream states, and you are telling me about them, its quite simple to tell, that in fact, you are aware of such states.

One becomes aware of having been in a deep sleep after the fact. One remembers going to bed the night before, entering into a dream state and then re-emerging into the dream state some hours later, before waking up again. One looks back and deduces that some hours were spent in complete unconsciousness.

Thus, what you are referring to is a clear and distinct time you were aware of, but you have forgotten the objects you were aware of, the dreams or images or feelings...it is a matter of memory failing you. Not consciousness. This can happen any time, not only while dreaming. Lack of memories does not imply lack of awareness. So what is left for you to say in this case?

You seem to be confusing deep sleep with dream states. They are two different states. Deep sleep is the time in which there are no dreams at all, where the rapid-eye movement associated with dreaming ceases completely. According to science, eight hours of sleep generally involves entering into deep sleep four times over the course of the night, punctuated each time by a period of dreaming.

-

Jehu,

DQ: The trouble is, we can perceive space with our senses and it does have a form. Indeed, it is the very form of space which allows us to distinguish it from other forms.

J: I’m afraid you are mistaken here, for we cannot perceive empty space with any of our senses; and it is the formlessness (nothingness) of space that distinguishes it from other forms (things).

If our eyes didn't detect the existence of space, our every movement would be like that of a blind man tentatively feeling his way forwards. Luckily, we can physically see if there is empty space before us.

Perhaps consciousness is not the appropriate term, for consciousness is a function of the sentient mind, and like all things, partakes of only a relative existence. I would prefer to say that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, and that it comprises two interdependent and complementary aspects: awareness, which partakes of an absolute and necessary existence, and knowledge, which partakes of a relative and merely contingent existence.

You more or less said the same thing on the "magical properties of consciousness" thread, and I refer you there to my response.

Awareness and knowledge are like a container and its content, however only the container is real, while all its content is mere appearance. So you see, that which we consider to be nothing (empty space), is the true reality, while everything else is little more that an illusion.

What makes you think that the container, or the empty space, isn't an illusion as well? Why do you isolate it from everything else and put it in a different category?

-

David Quinn wrote:Nature, being non-dual, is not anything at all, not even consciousness. That is why in Buddhism, for example, Nature is referred to as the "Void" or "Emptiness".

Small point, but I think in Buddhism suchness (tathata) is closer in meaning to Nature. Emptiness (sunyata) is, if you will, the nature of Nature; i.e., Nature is without independent existence or, as we might say, “there is no there, there.”

clyde

David Quinn wrote: The trouble is, only Nature itself is without limit, as there is nothing else apart from Nature.

To equate consciousness with Nature is misguided because it straight-jackets Nature into a dualistic framework. Nature, being non-dual, is not anything at all, not even consciousness. That is why in Buddhism, for example, Nature is referred to as the "Void" or "Emptiness".

If Nature is not anything at all then don't talk about it. You might as well say Gooberdoober is not anything at all.
Irrelevant really.

Are you trying to use Buddhism as an authority for your argument, since you have no reasons to back up your statements? Interesting.

No, the problem I am having is that your pointing is confusing, as you are pointing to a dualistic phenomena (consciousness) and referring to it as non-dual. In doing so, you are pointing infinitely away from the true nature of reality, which is beyond consciousness.

In short, I think your intuitive understanding is still very green and needs a lot more refining.

My concept of consciousness might appear dualistic, but this is simply because all concepts are linguistically dualistic. That which I am referring to, is not.
But you offer no reason why you even think this appearance is dualistic, so there is no problem here.

How does consciousness extend beyond the Totality? Everything is included in the Totality, by definition, even consciousness.

Your definition is that "Totality is simply the sum of all existences."
Sum is a dualistic concept, it is arbitrary for you to apply it ontologically, and just a mental game.
Much like Division or Subtraction of existences...however that would be done.

Existences are not summed up, anywhere, except in your thoughts. Get it?

Since all phenomena are transient, all existences are limited and finite, and changing, and thus illusory.
Thus what you have is this:
You are using one illusion (That of SUMMING) in relation to other illusions (all things that exist) and you have created a mental construct which is simply the ILLUSION (sum) of all ILLUSIONS (things that exist).

Honestly, your totality is just a figment of your imagination, a thought that rests within Consciousness. The same as how my idea of Consciousness rests within it...which is perfectly fine for me.

Regardless, your idea of Totality is necessarily subordinate to Consciousness since your Totality is limited by being 'the sum of all things that exist', which is a very very tiny category, and very deluded since summing itself is an arbitrary step your mind is imagining....
your totality is nothing, and finite, with respect to the vast reality and infiniteness of Consciousness.

I mean, you can 'add' up all the illusions that exist, and be in awe of this BIG GREAT ILLUSION called Totality...if thats your thing, cool.

One becomes aware of having been in a deep sleep after the fact. One remembers going to bed the night before, entering into a dream state and then re-emerging into the dream state some hours later, before waking up again. One looks back and deduces that some hours were spent in complete unconsciousness.

This would be a false deduction, as I have already stated. The person would be illogical because he is still trying to refute awareness by appealing to lack of memory between events. Different categories altogether. There is no way to prove unawareness in yourself, sorry, it never happens.

You seem to be confusing deep sleep with dream states. They are two different states. Deep sleep is the time in which there are no dreams at all, where the rapid-eye movement associated with dreaming ceases completely. According to science, eight hours of sleep generally involves entering into deep sleep four times over the course of the night, punctuated each time by a period of dreaming.

-

Neat. This has no bearing on anything I said. Science can say all they like, they have yet to even begin constructing a theory or hypothesis about Awareness. Which isn't surprising, since it can't be done, it is not an empirical matter.

David wrote:

If our eyes didn't detect the existence of space, our every movement would be like that of a blind man tentatively feeling his way forwards. Luckily, we can physically see if there is empty space before us.

What we perceive, is the absence of any perceptible thing; and that is quite a different matter than perceiving empty space.

What makes you think that the container, or the empty space, isn't an illusion as well? Why do you isolate it from everything else and put it in a different category?

Space stands apart from every other thing in that it has all of the characteristics of an absolute (necessary) entity, while all things possess the characteristics of the relative (contingent) entity.

Well, modern science has revealed that space is not an immutable entity. It is something which has been generated by causal conditions (i.e. by the Big Bang singularity) and it twists and curves in response to matter and gravity.

-

Average,

DQ: The trouble is, only Nature itself is without limit, as there is nothing else apart from Nature.

To equate consciousness with Nature is misguided because it straight-jackets Nature into a dualistic framework. Nature, being non-dual, is not anything at all, not even consciousness. That is why in Buddhism, for example, Nature is referred to as the "Void" or "Emptiness".

A: If Nature is not anything at all then don't talk about it. You might as well say Gooberdoober is not anything at all.
Irrelevant really.

You're not understanding. The formlessness of Nature is a natural consequence of it constituting the totality of all there is.

Nature is formless precisely because it is the totality of all there is, and being the totality, it cannot have a particular form. It is literally everything, and being everything, it is not one particular thing. That is why I say it is no-thing. It is the no-thing which is everything.

This is the problem with trying to reduce Nature down to the level of consciousness. It is a misguided attempt to squeeze Nature into the form of a "thing".

Consciousness is classed as a "thing" because it can be distinguished from unconsciousness. A rock, for example, is unconscious. It doesn't possess the particular thing that we recognize as "consciousness".

Are you trying to use Buddhism as an authority for your argument, since you have no reasons to back up your statements? Interesting.

I'm always giving supporting reasons for everything I say, so that can't be the reason. I'm just trying to open your mind to a different ways of thinking. There are other points of view out there apart from vague and fluffy Hinduism.

DQ: No, the problem I am having is that your pointing is confusing, as you are pointing to a dualistic phenomena (consciousness) and referring to it as non-dual. In doing so, you are pointing infinitely away from the true nature of reality, which is beyond consciousness.

In short, I think your intuitive understanding is still very green and needs a lot more refining.

A: My concept of consciousness might appear dualistic, but this is simply because all concepts are linguistically dualistic. That which I am referring to, is not.

Then I assume you have no objection to referring to it by some other label - like "unconsciousness", for example.

How about you start referring to it as "unconsciousness" for the next week or so? Would you be able to do it?

DQ: How does consciousness extend beyond the Totality? Everything is included in the Totality, by definition, even consciousness.

A: Your definition is that "Totality is simply the sum of all existences."
Sum is a dualistic concept, it is arbitrary for you to apply it ontologically, and just a mental game.
Much like Division or Subtraction of existences...however that would be done.

Existences are not summed up, anywhere, except in your thoughts. Get it?

Since all phenomena are transient, all existences are limited and finite, and changing, and thus illusory.
Thus what you have is this:
You are using one illusion (That of SUMMING) in relation to other illusions (all things that exist) and you have created a mental construct which is simply the ILLUSION (sum) of all ILLUSIONS (things that exist).

Honestly, your totality is just a figment of your imagination, a thought that rests within Consciousness. The same as how my idea of Consciousness rests within it...which is perfectly fine for me.

Regardless, your idea of Totality is necessarily subordinate to Consciousness since your Totality is limited by being 'the sum of all things that exist', which is a very very tiny category, and very deluded since summing itself is an arbitrary step your mind is imagining....
your totality is nothing, and finite, with respect to the vast reality and infiniteness of Consciousness.

I mean, you can 'add' up all the illusions that exist, and be in awe of this BIG GREAT ILLUSION called Totality...if thats your thing, cool.

You're not understanding. It is meaningless to talk about the Totality as being an illusion, since by definition there isn't anything beyond the Totality which could be thought of as being more real. The Totality is literally all there is, which makes it neither illusory nor real. Since there is nothing else, it is non-dual.

If you think that the Totality is just a tiny thing which exists within the greater vastness of consciousness, then you are not really understanding the Totality at all. Nor consciousness, for that matter.

DQ: One becomes aware of having been in a deep sleep after the fact. One remembers going to bed the night before, entering into a dream state and then re-emerging into the dream state some hours later, before waking up again. One looks back and deduces that some hours were spent in complete unconsciousness.

A: This would be a false deduction, as I have already stated. The person would be illogical because he is still trying to refute awareness by appealing to lack of memory between events. Different categories altogether. There is no way to prove unawareness in yourself, sorry, it never happens.

It is interesting how consciousness and memory are intimately tied together. If a person were to lack memory altogether, then he wouldn't be able to be conscious. His brain would have no means of processing the data that is coming through his senses. There would be no template or benchmark to begin such a process.

Also, memories, by their very nature, are personal things. They are mental records of events that happen to particular entities on a personal level.

So this is another major stumbling block for your conception of consciousness. A cosmic disembodied consciousness which embraces everything wouldn't have the machinery needed for the generation of memories, nor would it have the personal identity needed to make memories meaningful. In effect, a cosmic disembodied consciousness which embraces everything is a memory-less consciousness, which is equivalent to being no consciousness at all.

DQ: You seem to be confusing deep sleep with dream states. They are two different states. Deep sleep is the time in which there are no dreams at all, where the rapid-eye movement associated with dreaming ceases completely. According to science, eight hours of sleep generally involves entering into deep sleep four times over the course of the night, punctuated each time by a period of dreaming.

A: Neat. This has no bearing on anything I said. Science can say all they like, they have yet to even begin constructing a theory or hypothesis about Awareness. Which isn't surprising, since it can't be done, it is not an empirical matter.

Actually, their research into how different parts of the brain affect consciousness is quite advanced. You should read up on it.

-

David wrote:

Well, modern science has revealed that space is not an immutable entity. It is something which has been generated by causal conditions (i.e. by the Big Bang singularity) and it twists and curves in response to matter and gravity.

While it is true that modern science has hypothesized that space is not absolute, they have provided no definitive demonstration as to why this must be so. In truth, space meets all of the criteria of an absolute entity, and until it can be logically demonstrated to be otherwise, one can rightfully assume that is just that. For example, the fact that space continues to exist, even in the absence of any thing, proves that it cannot have a relative existence; and given there are only two ways in which an entity can be constituted (i.e., absolutely or relatively), it follows that it must be absolute.

Jehu wrote:For example, the fact that space continues to exist, even in the absence of any thing, proves that it cannot have a relative existence;[...]

What do you mean space continues to exist even in the absence of eveything? Where?

Consciousness is self-evident, clear, brute fact, it encompasses all things.
So no need to account for it, and its unlimited constant nature. It perceives change, so it can not change. It perceives color it can not have a color. It perceives gender so it has no gender, etc etc. It perceives limits, so it has no limits, yet bang!-it is you. Very good, simple, ordinary and perfect. Done.


Now Totality is a different matter, defining it as the Sum of All Existences is rather absurd and problematic. First of all, where you draw the line between one existence and another is arbitrary. Secondly, why you decided to add up these imaginary and arbitrary "existences" is another joke, but its funny! So no worries.
Have you tried dividing all these imaginary "existences"? The division of all existences is equally absurd as your mental construct the sum of all existences.

Totality is simply another mental construct, like the idea of the Sum of All Triangles, or The Sum of all Colors...whatever the hell that is.

Besides, I can create bigger mental constructs than your Totality, since it only includes simply those things which exist.

You say the Totality = The Sum of All Existent Things.
You say the Totality = neither exists nor does not exist.

So here is the Supreme Totality = The Sum of All Existent things PLUS that which neither exists nor does not exist.

Ultimate Supreme Totality = The Sum of All Existent things, all Non-Existent things (since they have causal properties as well, and are powerful), Plus that which neither exists nor does not exist, plus that which neither exists nor does not nor both at once.

Owned. Owned. Owned.

It perceives change, so it can not change.

Hold it there, cowboy.

What? Could you prove this, please?

So here is the Supreme Totality = The Sum of All Existent things PLUS that which neither exists nor does not exist.

By the way, this is perfectly true. The sum of all existent things cannot be said to exist or not exist, since "to exist" is to be a part of that which exists.

average;

You insist that consciousness cannot be that which it is aware of (e.g. – according to you, consciousness is aware of change, so it cannot change). So then consciousness cannot be aware of itself for if it were aware of itself it could not be that. If consciousness is not aware of itself, and you are that, how are you aware of consciousness?

clyde

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

It perceives change, so it can not change.

Hold it there, cowboy.

What? Could you prove this, please?

Well if Consciousness came and went, from moment to moment, like all phenomena, then you would not be able to perceive change, since there would be nothing for you to compare anything with, because you would be getting a new Awareness every instantaneous moment. But you do perceive change, since you persist from moment to moment. Thus Consciousness itself can not change, but it can witness change in these transient illusions and appearances.

Likewise, it can perceive other properties like colors and limits, and textures. But it itself has no limits, or texture or color. All objects of Awareness can not be awareness. So this is why identifying with anything you perceive, or conceive of, is problematic, since it is illusory and transient. When all identifying stops, you remain in that limitless Awareness which is where you have always been.

average;

Your awareness of change is due to your memory. Your awareness can compare your memory of how it was to how it is.

clyde

clyde wrote:average;

You insist that consciousness cannot be that which it is aware of (e.g. – according to you, consciousness is aware of change, so it cannot change). So then consciousness cannot be aware of itself for if it were aware of itself it could not be that. If consciousness is not aware of itself, and you are that, how are you aware of consciousness?

clyde

By negating everything that it is not, you realize what it is.

If you think you are aware of consciousness, negate that. Do not identify with it, it is an illusion of the mind and no concern of yours.

Although you are awareness...you are not any concept or perception of it, such things are imitations and fabrications...

clyde wrote:average;

Your awareness of change is due to your memory. Your awareness can compare your memory of how it was to how it is.

clyde

The problem is, awareness has to be more constant than even memory to recognize the constant change that even memory is subordinate to, and all the things memory recreates for you.

average wrote:Although you are awareness...you are not any concept or perception of it, such things are imitations and fabrications...

average;

You do not know awareness : (

Re-read the quote I posted in the "'magical' properties of consciousness" thread, especially the second paragraph.

clyde

clyde wrote:

average wrote:Although you are awareness...you are not any concept or perception of it, such things are imitations and fabrications...

average;

You do not know awareness : (

Re-read the quote I posted in the "'magical' properties of consciousness" thread, especially the second paragraph.

clyde

Knowing is grasping at illusions.

Actually it would be quite rude to say you know Awareness.

Don't know awareness, is right mind.

average wrote:Don't know awareness, is right mind.

:-)

clyde wrote:

average wrote:Don't know awareness, is right mind.

:-)

Indeed

Dan Rowden wrote:

Jehu wrote:For example, the fact that space continues to exist, even in the absence of any thing, proves that it cannot have a relative existence;[...]

What do you mean space continues to exist even in the absence of eveything? Where?

I mean that the existence of space is not dependent upon extrinsic causes, but is its own cause. Where does it exist? Why everwhere!

David Quinn wrote:

"It just means giving up all delusion. This is as grand, or as mundane, as you want to make it. "

I don't think it is in ansy sense as simple or even as clear as you imply. It is really pretty hard to define what is a delusion and what is not, and what is a delusion for one is definitely not for another. You could tell me all about what it means for you to live free of delusion and I might say, 'How deluded!' Who decides? The implication is that we are deciding...

The problem is in seeing 'enlightenment' as a fixed state, I think.

"Well, because the Truth is so unique and singular, and because it is always the same in all times and places, it becomes possible to tell whether another person is conscious of it and is expressing it in his speech and actions. If you understand the Truth yourself, you also understand the outer signs and symptoms that are necessarily involved in knowing it."

I don't mesan to be contentious (but I assume people here like to talk about these things, and some sort of difference of opinion is welcome) but your statement has an absolute ring to it. Who gets to define these things? The fact is that 'truth' is constantly shifting, there is no fixed definition, and yet there does seem to be a state or an experience, of some persons, that is described as 'enlightened'. You use a language---'signs and symptoms'---that is common in Hindu descriptions of enlightened persons (I assume you are involved in Buddhism). Personally, I am suspicious of these hard and fast categories and I think they are very misleading.

"They spontaneously do God's will."

And there are millions and millions of 'God's wills'.

"In some ways that's true. Wise Buddhism is essentially identical to wise Hinduism, but expressions of wise Buddhism and wise Hinduism are very rare in this world. Usually, whenever there is Buddhism or Hinduism occurring in the world, it is of a very deluded form."

Not to be overly difficult, because I think I understand what you mean: I think we can sometimes identify delusion and illusion, and we can come to terms about it. But not all the time. I have yet to meet a Hindu representative of 'enlightenment' that I can relate to, and I have no experience of Buddhists except anecdotally. I just question what we are really talking about in using the term 'enlightened'.

"When the Buddha was formulating his teachings, he was breaking away from the deluded form of Hinduism which was predominant in his time. He wasn't really creating a new teaching as such. Rather, he was restoring the wise Hinduism that had long been forgotten."

When I read paragraphs he is said to have spoken, I agree. I have always liked what I have read---always very common-sensical, direct. Nothing celestial. Grounded.

I tend to think, as I do about spirituality and religion generally, that like it or not we are forced to move in the direction of new definitions that are quite independant of the old definitions.

Who are Buddhist teachers that you admire? Can you provide a link?

Alex Jacob wrote:David Quinn wrote:

"It just means giving up all delusion. This is as grand, or as mundane, as you want to make it. "

I don't think it is in ansy sense as simple or even as clear as you imply. It is really pretty hard to define what is a delusion and what is not, and what is a delusion for one is definitely not for another. You could tell me all about what it means for you to live free of delusion and I might say, 'How deluded!' Who decides? The implication is that we are deciding...

The problem is in seeing 'enlightenment' as a fixed state, I think.

"Well, because the Truth is so unique and singular, and because it is always the same in all times and places, it becomes possible to tell whether another person is conscious of it and is expressing it in his speech and actions. If you understand the Truth yourself, you also understand the outer signs and symptoms that are necessarily involved in knowing it."

I don't mesan to be contentious (but I assume people here like to talk about these things, and some sort of difference of opinion is welcome) but your statement has an absolute ring to it. Who gets to define these things? The fact is that 'truth' is constantly shifting, there is no fixed definition, and yet there does seem to be a state or an experience, of some persons, that is described as 'enlightened'. You use a language---'signs and symptoms'---that is common in Hindu descriptions of enlightened persons (I assume you are involved in Buddhism). Personally, I am suspicious of these hard and fast categories and I think they are very misleading.

"They spontaneously do God's will."

And there are millions and millions of 'God's wills'.

"In some ways that's true. Wise Buddhism is essentially identical to wise Hinduism, but expressions of wise Buddhism and wise Hinduism are very rare in this world. Usually, whenever there is Buddhism or Hinduism occurring in the world, it is of a very deluded form."

Not to be overly difficult, because I think I understand what you mean: I think we can sometimes identify delusion and illusion, and we can come to terms about it. But not all the time. I have yet to meet a Hindu representative of 'enlightenment' that I can relate to, and I have no experience of Buddhists except anecdotally. I just question what we are really talking about in using the term 'enlightened'.

"When the Buddha was formulating his teachings, he was breaking away from the deluded form of Hinduism which was predominant in his time. He wasn't really creating a new teaching as such. Rather, he was restoring the wise Hinduism that had long been forgotten."

When I read paragraphs he is said to have spoken, I agree. I have always liked what I have read---always very common-sensical, direct. Nothing celestial. Grounded.

I tend to think, as I do about spirituality and religion generally, that like it or not we are forced to move in the direction of new definitions that are quite independant of the old definitions.

Who are Buddhist teachers that you admire? Can you provide a link?

Sorry Alex, you're shit outta luck on any replies from Master David.

Thanks a lot, you ruined it for everyone ;-)