GENIUS FORUMS

David,
I believe from the discussion so far following ideas come forth.

1) Enlightenement means percieving universe as a logical chain of cause and effect, without the screen of emotional judgement and want.

2)To be enlightened implies development of this ability to see clearly, so that this mode of perception becomes the only mode of perception effortlessly.

Some questions remain
1)Do the enlightened see themselves as separate from the mind, or is the perception of consciousness for them an artifact of the mind, as most scientists seem to insist? In other words is the consciousness primary and the mind secondary or vice versa?

2)Do the enlightened have likes and dislikes, or they percieve the likes and dislikes as the (evolutionary or conditioned?) habits of
the mind and thus do not care about either?

3) Richard and others from actualfreedom insist the the enlightened, believe themselves to the basis of the universe, or
God and are thus deluded, while they is just composed of inert matter, which somehow became self conscious. Actual freedom is to get rid of the psychic entity called the I which is a delusion of the mind(maybe an evolutionary survival strategy). They insist that the enlightened beings see themselves as the universal element, which does not exist and thus they are thoroughly deluded. Thus in addition to the ego perception of I which everybody has, they have elevated it to a universal status, increasing the delusion manifold. What are your comments on their ideas( This reminds me of the split between hinduism and buddhism on the question of the universal witness, the atman, where hindus said that the atman is the unchanging reality, while Buddha denied the existence of the same)

Ankit,

I believe from the discussion so far following ideas come forth.

1) Enlightenement means percieving universe as a logical chain of cause and effect, without the screen of emotional judgement and want.

Perceiving the causal nature of the Universe is just a first step towards enlightenment, but other than that I agree.

2)To be enlightened implies development of this ability to see clearly, so that this mode of perception becomes the only mode of perception effortlessly.

Well, one can go into other modes of perception if one wants to, but the ability to see into the nature of Reality is developed to such a degree that it becomes effortless, yes.

Some questions remain
1)Do the enlightened see themselves as separate from the mind, or is the perception of consciousness for them an artifact of the mind, as most scientists seem to insist? In other words is the consciousness primary and the mind secondary or vice versa?

What, in your view, is the difference between mind and consciousness? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by these terms.

2)Do the enlightened have likes and dislikes, or they percieve the likes and dislikes as the (evolutionary or conditioned?) habits of the mind and thus do not care about either?

The enlightened person has his likes and dislikes, but the difference with him is these likes and dislikes are not emotional and self-serving in nature, as is the case with the average person. Rather, they are aligned to his central purpose in life, which is the survival of wisdom.

For example, he might "like" to talk about truth, wisdom, causality, psychology, and so on, with other people, as opposed to football and kundalini experiences. Or he might "like" to eat healthy food, as opposed to junk food, in order to lengthen his life and thus prolong his efforts for the survival of wisdom.

3) Richard and others from actualfreedom insist the the enlightened, believe themselves to the basis of the universe, or
God and are thus deluded, while they is just composed of inert matter, which somehow became self conscious. Actual freedom is to get rid of the psychic entity called the I which is a delusion of the mind(maybe an evolutionary survival strategy). They insist that the enlightened beings see themselves as the universal element, which does not exist and thus they are thoroughly deluded. Thus in addition to the ego perception of I which everybody has, they have elevated it to a universal status, increasing the delusion manifold. What are your comments on their ideas ( This reminds me of the split between hinduism and buddhism on the question of the universal witness, the atman, where hindus said that the atman is the unchanging reality, while Buddha denied the existence of the same)

Yes, we've had Richard on this forum before. The main problem I had with him was that he wasn't able to talk, in a relaxed way, about the self as a practical reality, which is what it is. He was adamant that any kind of talk at all about the self was automatically a delusion from the outset. This indicated to me that his understanding was immature.

While the self doesn't have any real existence, outside of our imaginations, it is still a useful fiction nonetheless. It helps us deal with the practicalities of our lives. To steadfastly reject the use of this fiction simply because it is an artifact of the imagination is, to my mind, a form of madness. It is like rejecting the lines of longitude and lattitude purely out of ideology, regardless of useful they can be.

We don't have to get rid of the "I" altogether. We only have to break the spell that it has over us, a spell which causes us to remain ignorant, defensive and emotional. The enlightened person is perfectly able to make use of the I-concept without ever getting taken in by it.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote: What, in your view, is the difference between mind and consciousness? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by these terms.

First of all let me thank you for a fruitful discussion. By the mind I meant the physical brain. Is consciousness an artifact of the brain. Or is it primary and the brain secondary(vedantic view)? What is your take on this issue(empirically and logically)?

Of course this distinction does not matter when it comes to the actual experience anyhow.

unwise wrote: Just live your life and don't give a rat's ass to be something you are not. Seeking is not being. Be real.

Dear unwise, your words seem to ring quite true and logical. I agree with most part. With the above I may say that seeking can also be fun. If I do not know how to play a game and try learning the game it would be fun and in the case of the enlightenment it is of immense value. So do not discourage seekers/learners with such harsh judgements.

Ankit,

By the mind I meant the physical brain. Is consciousness an artifact of the brain. Or is it primary and the brain secondary(vedantic view)? What is your take on this issue(empirically and logically)?

Well, there are a number of levels to this issue. But it's true to say that everything we experience in wakeful life (and, of course, in dreams) is a construction of consciousness. This includes the people we meet, the stars, the mountains, the cities in which we live, our bodies, our senses, and our brain. It is all a creation whipped up by consciousness.

As to what prompts our consciousness to whip up these things, it is impossible to say. Not because we are ignorant, but because whatever lies beyond our consciousness cannot have any form or attributes (since only things within consciousness are capable of having form and attributes). So in a very real sense, there is nothing to know in this regard.

Of course this distinction does not matter when it comes to the actual experience anyhow.

I disagree with this. Understanding these matters properly is all part of the process of eliminating one's mental delusions, which, in turn, has a huge impact on the way we view things and the way we lead our lives.

-

David,

But it's true to say that everything we experience in wakeful life (and, of course, in dreams) is a construction of consciousness. This includes the people we meet, the stars, the mountains, the cities in which we live, our bodies, our senses, and our brain. It is all a creation whipped up by consciousness.

As to what prompts our consciousness to whip up these things, it is impossible to say. Not because we are ignorant, but because whatever lies beyond our consciousness cannot have any form or attributes (since only things within consciousness are capable of having form and attributes). So in a very real sense, there is nothing to know in this regard.

I disagree. Yes, everything we experiense, including our own bodies, is illusion; a mental representation of the thing, but not the thing itself, but I believe 'consciousness' is the name we give the illusion. It is the physical reality colliding with the physical aspect of one's self that stimulates our senses and gives rise to the electrical activity which presents us with the illusion. Consciousness is a construct of the brain.

Further, there are many things of which we are not conscious that lie beyond our perception in these four dimentions of height, width, depth and time with which we are familiar (ie. cosmic radiation, the full spectrum of electromagnitism, infra- and ultra-sound). It is the technological extention of our senses that has allowed us to learn of these things. However, these phenominon were nonetheless occuring long before we were aware of them. Also, theoretical physics suggests there are a total of 11 dimentions, all of which contribute their influence to the 4 we experience. Whatever is happening in these other 7 dimentions must be equally real to whatever is happening in my room right now. (However 'real' it can be said to be, of course)

It is true that our lack of perception means these things cannot be assigned any form or attributes, but that is not because they have none. It is precisely that we are ignorant of them because of the limitations of our senses that these things have no form or attributes. There is no mental representation of them in our experience, therefore they cannot be made the subject of description.

That said, I agree that we are ultimately limited to what comes in through our senses, therefore we are only using the illusion to determine what is or is not real, and so we cannot be utterly certain that any of it is real, but it is my belief that there is a physical reality behind the illusion.

DavidQuinn000 wrote: But it's true to say that everything we experience in wakeful life (and, of course, in dreams) is a construction of consciousness. This includes the people we meet, the stars, the mountains, the cities in which we live, our bodies, our senses, and our brain. It is all a creation whipped up by consciousness.

I cannot agree without reservations that everything is whipped out by our consciousness. How about the following hypothesis that the consciousness is an observer of whatever is out there already whipped out, by whatever, including the brain and the senses.

Understanding these matters properly is all part of the process of eliminating one's mental delusions, which, in turn, has a huge impact on the way we view things and the way we lead our lives.
-

A perfect knowledge of this seems to be impossible, being consciousness(observer) oneself, this is the limit of observation/empiricism. Thus I seem to be unable to know about my own nature as well as the origin of the current world mechanism. I would say that to assert any opinion on this matter is useless since it is unverifiable. Plus the direct experience does not change irrespective of the views held dear. The best course is to accept defeat about this question, I would say that both your and my viewpoints are valid, and I cannot choose between either.

SasQuatch9585 wrote:

Yes, everything we experiense, including our own bodies, is illusion; a mental representation of the thing, but not the thing itself, but I believe 'consciousness' is the name we give the illusion. It is the physical reality colliding with the physical aspect of one's self that stimulates our senses and gives rise to the electrical activity which presents us with the illusion. Consciousness is a construct of the brain.

Further, there are many things of which we are not conscious that lie beyond our perception in these four dimentions of height, width, depth and time with which we are familiar (ie. cosmic radiation, the full spectrum of electromagnitism, infra- and ultra-sound). It is the technological extention of our senses that has allowed us to learn of these things. However, these phenominon were nonetheless occuring long before we were aware of them. Also, theoretical physics suggests there are a total of 11 dimentions, all of which contribute their influence to the 4 we experience. Whatever is happening in these other 7 dimentions must be equally real to whatever is happening in my room right now. (However 'real' it can be said to be, of course)

It is true that our lack of perception means these things cannot be assigned any form or attributes, but that is not because they have none. It is precisely that we are ignorant of them because of the limitations of our senses that these things have no form or attributes. There is no mental representation of them in our experience, therefore they cannot be made the subject of description.

That said, I agree that we are ultimately limited to what comes in through our senses, therefore we are only using the illusion to determine what is or is not real, and so we cannot be utterly certain that any of it is real, but it is my belief that there is a physical reality behind the illusion.

That's certainly the conventional view of things that we are all brought up with. There are a number of insurmountable problems with it, however.

For example, if you examine carefully what it means for an object to "exist", you will find that it simply means to present an appearance. In other words, an object can only be said to exist if it has a form, and it can only ever have a form when it is presenting an appearance to an observer. Having a form and presenting an appearance to an observer means precisely the same thing.

The logical implication of this is that it is impossible for anything to exist beyond consciousness. Not even nothingness itself (it too being a perceivable thing with form) can exist beyond consciousness.

Further, there are many things of which we are not conscious that lie beyond our perception in these four dimentions of height, width, depth and time with which we are familiar (ie. cosmic radiation, the full spectrum of electromagnitism, infra- and ultra-sound). It is the technological extention of our senses that has allowed us to learn of these things. However, these phenominon were nonetheless occuring long before we were aware of them.

So we are led to believe. But the fact remains that we only ever know of these things as objects of consciousness. Even when we look at normally-hidden phenomena through a telescope or microscope, we are only perceiving things within our own consciousness.

Moreover, in light of the reasoning that I provide above, it is impossible for anything to occur outside of consciousness. A radiation wave, for example, can only exist in the form that we know when it is placed against the perspective generated an observer. Without this observer's perspective in place, there is no basis for the radiation wave to come into existence.

-

From Ankit:

Some questions remain
1)Do the enlightened see themselves as separate from the mind, or is the perception of consciousness for them an artifact of the mind, as most scientists seem to insist? In other words is the consciousness primary and the mind secondary or vice versa?

I will offer you my opinion if you would like it. It is almost universally believed that consciousness is a product of the brain. This is partly true, for one requires a brain to DETECT consciousness, not PRODUCE it. Consciousness and materiality are symbiotic and coeval - they eternally depend on each other but exist independently. Without a brain, nothing is perceived and nothing exists. It is like a radio and radio signals from a tower. The radio signals exist without a radio set, but without the set, what good are the signals?

2)Do the enlightened have likes and dislikes, or they perceive the likes and dislikes as the (evolutionary or conditioned?) habits of
the mind and thus do not care about either

There are many many likes and dislikes that have nothing to do with self preservation or 'truth.' Ramana Maharshi, for example, liked certain foods over other equally sustaining food. He liked to read the newspaper; he liked to take walks. H.W. Poonja liked to watch world futbol on TV. Nasargadatta Maharaj smoked cigarettes.

So, yes, enlightened people have likes and dislikes. The difference is that they do not identify with them. They see them as karmic habits that have to be endured. They feel independent of the body/mind/personality that indulges in them. The unenlightened person can not understand how the body/mind/personality which acts can be different from the 'I.'

Actual freedom is to get rid of the psychic entity called the I which is a delusion of the mind(maybe an evolutionary survival strategy). They insist that the enlightened beings see themselves as the universal element, which does not exist and thus they are thoroughly deluded. Thus in addition to the ego perception of I which everybody has, they have elevated it to a universal status, increasing the delusion manifold.

There seems to be a difference of opinion between Buddhism and Hinduism regarding a universal 'I.' I think it is all perspective and semantics. It is certainly not a topic for unenlightened people to concern themselves with. I suppose it might be better to be taught that there is no I. The 'I' that people cling to is a goner. Jesus said the same thing - "He that lays down his life for me (truth) will find that he has Eternal Life." From my perspective there is only one I. That does not make me arrogant or deluded. Quite the contrary. I find myself both as God and as a servant/worshiper of God. I do not view the world as delusion. I see it as a manifestation of god. Also, the world can disappear and you see yourself only as god. Same thing to me.

I think you are right when you say I should not tell people to stop seeking. I shouldn't do it. If people seek, there is a reason for it and it, too, is part of the process. I think the process works like this: indulgence and mindlessness - seeking - despair - abandonment of seeking - enlightenment. But I can only speak for myself.

What you're talking about here is not enlightenment, but a vegetable's existence.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:

SasQuatch9585 wrote:

Yes, everything we experiense, including our own bodies, is illusion; a mental representation of the thing, but not the thing itself, but I believe 'consciousness' is the name we give the illusion. It is the physical reality colliding with the physical aspect of one's self that stimulates our senses and gives rise to the electrical activity which presents us with the illusion. Consciousness is a construct of the brain.

Further, there are many things of which we are not conscious that lie beyond our perception in these four dimentions of height, width, depth and time with which we are familiar (ie. cosmic radiation, the full spectrum of electromagnitism, infra- and ultra-sound). It is the technological extention of our senses that has allowed us to learn of these things. However, these phenominon were nonetheless occuring long before we were aware of them. Also, theoretical physics suggests there are a total of 11 dimentions, all of which contribute their influence to the 4 we experience. Whatever is happening in these other 7 dimentions must be equally real to whatever is happening in my room right now. (However 'real' it can be said to be, of course)

It is true that our lack of perception means these things cannot be assigned any form or attributes, but that is not because they have none. It is precisely that we are ignorant of them because of the limitations of our senses that these things have no form or attributes. There is no mental representation of them in our experience, therefore they cannot be made the subject of description.

That said, I agree that we are ultimately limited to what comes in through our senses, therefore we are only using the illusion to determine what is or is not real, and so we cannot be utterly certain that any of it is real, but it is my belief that there is a physical reality behind the illusion.

That's certainly the conventional view of things that we are all brought up with. There are a number of insurmountable problems with it, however.

For example, if you examine carefully what it means for an object to "exist", you will find that it simply means to present an appearance. In other words, an object can only be said to exist if it has a form, and it can only ever have a form when it is presenting an appearance to an observer. Having a form and presenting an appearance to an observer means precisely the same thing.

The logical implication of this is that it is impossible for anything to exist beyond consciousness. Not even nothingness itself (it too being a perceivable thing with form) can exist beyond consciousness.

Further, there are many things of which we are not conscious that lie beyond our perception in these four dimentions of height, width, depth and time with which we are familiar (ie. cosmic radiation, the full spectrum of electromagnitism, infra- and ultra-sound). It is the technological extention of our senses that has allowed us to learn of these things. However, these phenominon were nonetheless occuring long before we were aware of them.

So we are led to believe. But the fact remains that we only ever know of these things as objects of consciousness. Even when we look at normally-hidden phenomena through a telescope or microscope, we are only perceiving things within our own consciousness.

Moreover, in light of the reasoning that I provide above, it is impossible for anything to occur outside of consciousness. A radiation wave, for example, can only exist in the form that we know when it is placed against the perspective generated an observer. Without this observer's perspective in place, there is no basis for the radiation wave to come into existence

Your definition of existence seems to rely on the observer's experience. I agree that it is impossible for anything to be experienced beyond consciousness, and that without consciousness there is no basis for anything to come into our experience, but you seem to be equating the experience of a thing with the existence of the thing.

There are many things about a rock which we can experience with our senses and with our technology. There may also be many things about a rock which are happening in dimentions we cannot percieve with our best technology and therefore they do not come into our experience, but that doesn't mean to me that those dimentions and the events that take place in them do not exist.

To me real existence doesn't rely on an observer. Reality is that which exists independant of an observer's judgement. Hence, the problem we have in not knowing what reality is, because we are observers and are constantly judging things to be or to not be. I don't believe the existence of a thing--the reality of a thing--has anything to do with whether we can experience it.

SasQuatch9585

Your definition of existence seems to rely on the observer's experience. I agree that it is impossible for anything to be experienced beyond consciousness, and that without consciousness there is no basis for anything to come into our experience, but you seem to be equating the experience of a thing with the existence of the thing.

Oh well, it's a subtle point that people need to meditate deeply on. Try to imagine, if you can, how a thing could possibly exist without having any form at all. For again, as soon as a thing displays a form in any way - no matter what kind of form it is - the observer is immediately part of the equation.

In short, ask yourself: can there ever be form without an observer?

Note that I'm not asserting there is nothing at all beyond consciousness, because nothingness too is a form which requires an observer. Indeed, I'm not postulating any kind of objective scenario at all. The point I am making is far more radical and profound.

Even the term "beyond" only has meaning within the field of consciousness. We can't really talk about what is "beyond consciousness" without immediately falling into error.

To me real existence doesn't rely on an observer. Reality is that which exists independant of an observer's judgement.

I agree that Reality is independent of an observer's judgement, but that is different from saying that Reality only exists in the realm beyond consciousness.

Reality's independence stems from the fact that it permeates all existence, and always does so, irrespective of what people believe or think. The world we experience in our consciousness is just as much a valid expression of Reality as anything else is. This business of dividing the Whole into illuson (what we experience in our consciousness) and reality (what is beyond consciousness) is a false duality. In truth, literally everything is a part of Reality.

So if we want to know what Reality is, and understand its basic nature, we only need to stop projecting our false interpretations and beliefs onto what we experience in each moment. We only have to open our eyes and see what is actually before us. We don't have to worry about what lies beyond consciousness.

-

David,

In short, ask yourself: can there ever be form without an observer?

If 'form' is the mental image of a thing, then no. But is a mental image really a form? I wouldn't say so. It is an illusion stimulated by the form. Form as I would define it is an atribute of reality. So abso-f'n-lutely there can be form without observers.

Reality's independence stems from the fact that it permeates all existence, and always does so, irrespective of what people believe or think. The world we experience in our consciousness is just as much a valid expression of Reality as anything else is. This business of dividing the Whole into illuson (what we experience in our consciousness) and reality (what is beyond consciousness) is a false duality. In truth, literally everything is a part of Reality.

Including conciousness itself, yes. I didn't mean to imply that reality and consciousness are seperate. Consciousness is an illusion, but it is still a manifestation of reality nonetheless, and therefore part of it.

SasQuatch9585 wrote:

DQ: In short, ask yourself: can there ever be form without an observer?

SQ: If 'form' is the mental image of a thing, then no. But is a mental image really a form?

Well, my point holds for all foms, whether they be mental or physical in nature. Outside of consciousness, a thing cannot possess colour, shape, solidness, texture, or any of the other attributes we usually find in objects. For all these things can only arise in relation to consciousness.

If you strip away every perceiveable attribute from an object, what do you have left? The answer is - nothing.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote

If you strip away every perceiveable attribute from an object, what do you have left? The answer is - nothing.

To our consciousness, yes there is nothing. My point is that there must be more to reality than that which we experience, therefore stripping away every perceivable attribute from an object would leave you with those attributes which are not perceivable. Attributes that exist outside our ability to perceive. To us, yes there's nothing there, but is that the truth of the matter?

Well, my point holds for all foms, whether they be mental or physical in nature. Outside of consciousness, a thing cannot possess colour, shape, solidness, texture, or any of the other attributes we usually find in objects. For all these things can only arise in relation to consciousness.

If you strip away every perceiveable attribute from an object, what do you have left? The answer is - nothing.

I don't get this point. Sure consciousness determines the type of form a thing will have, because any form is always a combination of the duality of the external thing and the interal tools of consciousness, but outside of consciousness it is not that nothing exists, but that nothing is defined. Albeit that the act of defining is also the act of creating "forms of existence", nonetheless the potentality for definition always remains, thus the form of "undefined existance" always exists.

SasQuatch9585 wrote:

DQ: If you strip away every perceiveable attribute from an object, what do you have left? The answer is - nothing.

SQ: To our consciousness, yes there is nothing. My point is that there must be more to reality than that which we experience, therefore stripping away every perceivable attribute from an object would leave you with those attributes which are not perceivable. Attributes that exist outside our ability to perceive. To us, yes there's nothing there, but is that the truth of the matter?

I've already addressed this by pointing out that nothingness is also a perceivable form and cannot occur outside of consciousness either. The truth is that whatever is beyond consciousness neither has the form of a "something" (e.g. objects possessing form, a God, pure existence, or whatever), nor the form of "nothing". It is literally beyond the scope of the human mind to imagine - or indeed beyond the scope of any mind to imagine.

It is important to think outside the box with regards to this issue. It can never be resolved by applying the ordinary concepts of our everyday world to it.

-

James:

I don't get this point. Sure consciousness determines the type of form a thing will have, because any form is always a combination of the duality of the external thing and the interal tools of consciousness, [snip]

That doesn’t make any sense. If the type of form (??) of a thing is determined by consciousness because any form is always a combination of “an external thing” and “the internal tools of consciousness”, are these “internal tools of consciousness” not a form determined by such a combination of “internal/external” elements? If so, to say that consciousness determines the type of form a thing will have is wrong.

...but outside of consciousness it is not that nothing exists, but that nothing is defined.

This is not clear, either. Are you saying something exists outside of consciousness or that nothing itself is defined outside of consciousness?

Albeit that the act of defining is also the act of creating "forms of existence", nonetheless the potentality for definition always remains, thus the form of "undefined existance" always exists.

The act of defining is not the act of creating forms of existence, it is a function of consciousness and the faculty of logic. Unless you want to call animals completely unconscious, which doesn't appear to be in alignment with your opening paragraph on proper consideration.

.