GENIUS FORUMS

Sorry for the repost.

I believe that consciousness is caused (by having a baby) and then is preserved for infinity. I don't think that it is god who does this, but there might be a "place" (yeah, the whole non-spatial consciousness thing, but you know what I mean) where these "selves" go.

The requisite condition for ending is beginning, so until somebody can give me a satisfactory theory on how EVERYTHING (as a whole) started, than i'm going to believe my theory.

Borommakot,

You're not far off the truth, actually. Except for the 'never ending' part, of course. :) Consciousness is the self (even though a Buddhist will tell you that consciousness is only an aggregate of self). Without question; that phenom doesn't arise unless there is a body (that was born, obviously). When the body dies, the self goes where a fire goes when its fuel is exhausted. Keep in mind that you are the self. Consciousness is not awareness of the tree; it's the 'looker'. Awareness is a centerless field. It does not radiate from the body.

Borommakot, I prefer what you say to be true, although, you could also reason that an ending and begining are both entirely illusionary.

For instance, when you observe the ocean and take note of each wave - Where does a wave begin? You know, to give an absolutely true answer, you would have to say that it had no definable begining - - and as for its ending, what is it that is ending? Is there really any inherent thing there to end? Was there anything that really began, and thus, is there any thing that really ends?

Kowtaaia wrote:

Kow: Consciousness is not awareness of the tree; it's the 'looker'. Awareness is a centerless field. It does not radiate from the body.

Are you trying to distinguish consciousness from awareness, or are you saying that they are the same thing?

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Kowtaaia wrote:

Kow: Consciousness is not awareness of the tree; it's the 'looker'. Awareness is a centerless field. It does not radiate from the body.

Are you trying to distinguish consciousness from awareness, or are you saying that they are the same thing?

What isn't clear?

kowtaaia wrote:

There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions.To include them in the totality of awareness is an error.

This is sci fi stuff. Reality is simply manifestion in the absence of thought.

I’m going to butt into this conversation mid-stream. But, I am allowed to do that because I am God.

Is truth mental or physical?

If truth is mental, then your statements can be potentially true. If there is only the physical, and the mental and its inventions are illusions, no statement that you make can be true for it would be impossible to be aware of truth since it is no more a physical object than “the spirit.”

Neither is illusion.

I think you are failing to make sufficient distinctions between truth, illusion and delusion. Course, the easy way out of this is to be a materialist.

.

Leyla,

You really botched the quote and your question is born of that confusion.

kowtaaia wrote:

Richard wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions.To include them in the totality of awareness is an error.

The physical is equally an illusion; but all three are conceptually real. Illusory ideas are no less a part of the totality of awareness than real ones. There are only forms.

Reality is not physical - it is empty of all form. The universe is an infinitesimal part of Reality, and not the whole.

This is sci fi stuff. Reality is simply manifestion in the absence of thought.

Clear now? :)

My confusion is similar to leyla's

First you say:

kow: There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions.

but then you say:

Time is movement through space. Consciousness is non-spatial.

How can consciousness be physical and non-spatial?

And then you say:

kow: Reality is simply manifestion in the absence of thought.

I understand that the thought 'tree' is not the tree, the word is not the thing, however, it is thought itself that knows itself. How can a 'manifestation' be acknowledged without thought to acknowledge it? When thought is absent, how can a manifestation be even acknowledged? Thought can know its own limitations, however, despite that it does, it goes on functioning, and reality is inextricably tied to thought, in the same way that a reflection must be on the pond.

Kow: Consciousness is not awareness of the tree; it's the 'looker'. Awareness is a centerless field. It does not radiate from the body.

Cory: Are you trying to distinguish consciousness from awareness, or are you saying that they are the same thing?


kow: What isn't clear?

Well, first off - do you regard 'consciousness' as radiating from the body?

Cory Duchesne wrote:My confusion is similar to leyla's

First you say:

kow: There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions.

but then you say:

Time is movement through space. Consciousness is non-spatial.

How can consciousness be physical and non-spatial?

And then you say:

kow: Reality is simply manifestion in the absence of thought.

I understand that the thought 'tree' is not the tree, the word is not the thing, however, it is thought itself that knows itself. How can a 'manifestation' be acknowledged without thought to acknowledge it? When thought is absent, how can a manifestation be even acknowledged? Thought can know its own limitations, however, despite that it does, it goes on functioning, and reality is inextricably tied to thought, in the same way that a reflection must be on the pond.

Where did you read that consciosness was physical? Consciousness IS the mental! As already said on the other thread: "Consciousness is the sense of existing".

**************************************
**************************************

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Kow: Consciousness is not awareness of the tree; it's the 'looker'. Awareness is a centerless field. It does not radiate from the body.

Cory: Are you trying to distinguish consciousness from awareness, or are you saying that they are the same thing?


kow: What isn't clear?

Well, first off - do you regard 'consciousness' as radiating from the body?

The sensation that awareness radiates outwards from the body, is ego, self, the sense of center. It is an illusion. Read and heed: Self awareness is awareness of illusion.

Kow: Where did you read that consciosness was physical? Consciousness IS the mental! As already said on the other thread: "Consciousness is the sense of existing".

If that’s the case, then how is it that your perspective is not along the same lines as dualism?


Dualism: Philosophy. The view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as mind and matter.


And hey, remember when you said this:

Kow: The subjective state is the reality of thought. Thought is consciousness. The Buddhist "becoming" is the continuation of that state. The continuation is the activity of thought as the 'me'. Don't you like the answer?

Isn’t thought a physical process happening in the brain? Or do you not consider 'electricity' physical?

Kow: The sensation that awareness radiates outwards from the body, is ego, self, the sense of center. It is an illusion. Read and heed: Self awareness is awareness of illusion.

Ok, so this thing called self awareness, it can exist at the very beginning of ego development, right?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Kow: Where did you read that consciosness was physical? Consciousness IS the mental! As already said on the other thread: "Consciousness is the sense of existing".

If that’s the case, then how is it that your perspective is not along the same lines as dualism?


Dualism: Philosophy. The view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as mind and matter.

What part of "The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions." don't you understand?

Cory Duchesne wrote:
And hey, remember when you said this:

Kow: The subjective state is the reality of thought. Thought is consciousness. The Buddhist "becoming" is the continuation of that state. The continuation is the activity of thought as the 'me'. Don't you like the answer?

Isn’t thought a physical process happening in the brain? Or do you not consider 'electricity' physical?

The mind itself is the result of the brains (physical) registration of sensation/experience.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Kow: The sensation that awareness radiates outwards from the body, is ego, self, the sense of center. It is an illusion. Read and heed: Self awareness is awareness of illusion.

Ok, so this thing called self awareness, it can exist at the very beginning of ego development, right?

We've already gone over this.

Cory: Isn’t thought a physical process happening in the brain? Or do you not consider 'electricity' physical?

Kow: The mind itself is the result of the brains (physical) registration of sensation/experience.

So why not say that the active brain is consciousness, and thus, why don't we say that consciousness is real?

Kow: "There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions."

Cory:"How can consciousness be physical and non-spatial?"

Kow,
I'm trying to understand. It sounds like you are saying that there is only consciousness(the mental) and physical sensation (which is caused by self-awareness), which in turn brings about thought. But, if I'm right, what happens when thought is gone? Does it go backwards, elimenating self-awareness, and then your very state of being? That goes against what I said earlier, so convince me.

(only if i'm right):)

Kow: Where did you read that consciosness was physical? Consciousness IS the mental! As already said on the other thread: "Consciousness is the sense of existing".

Kow: There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions.To include them in the totality of awareness is an error.

Kow: The subjective state is the reality of thought. Thought is consciousness.

It looks to me like kow is saying that all that is real is what we can see or palpate, and that conciousness is just an illusion. Is that what you're saying kow?

Elizabeth wrote,

It looks to me like kow is saying that all that is real is what we can see or palpate, and that conciousness is just an illusion.

If 'seeing & palpation' is real, then isnt consciousness real?

Are you saying that 'seeing/palpation' is non-consciousness?

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Cory: Isn’t thought a physical process happening in the brain? Or do you not consider 'electricity' physical?

Kow: The mind itself is the result of the brains (physical) registration of sensation/experience.

So why not say that the active brain is consciousness, and thus, why don't we say that consciousness is real?

This is getting sillier and sillier. To answer your questions, though: Not all brain activity is consciousness and illusion is most definitely a reality, real.

uh.....
OK kow.

Borommakot wrote:Kow: "There is only the physical.The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions."

Cory:"How can consciousness be physical and non-spatial?"

Kow,
I'm trying to understand. It sounds like you are saying that there is only consciousness(the mental) and physical sensation (which is caused by self-awareness), which in turn brings about thought. But, if I'm right, what happens when thought is gone? Does it go backwards, elimenating self-awareness, and then your very state of being? That goes against what I said earlier, so convince me.

(only if i'm right):)

It's not about convincing. It's about putting forth for consideration. :) Yes, when thought is (COMPLETELY) absent, the non-dual is manifest.

EI,
No.

I'm going to sleep on that one. Goodnight everyone. Kow, you have excellent ideas.

That sounds like a good idea. Goodnight friend.

Kow wrote,

This is getting sillier and sillier. To answer your questions, though: Not all brain activity is consciousness and illusion is most definitely a reality, real.

You make things silly by expecting people to accept your subjective terminology without question.

Its makes you seem like some idiot pretending to be Jiddu Krishnamurti.

:)

Cory Duchesne wrote:

This is getting sillier and sillier. To answer your questions, though: Not all brain activity is consciousness and illusion is most definitely a reality, real.

You make things silly by expecting people to accept your subjective terminology without question.

Its makes you seem like some idiot pretending to be Jiddu Krishnamurti.

:)

If memory serves, J.K. wouldn't have agreed, either.

You are just a rude teenager that doesn't have very much reading skill. It's unfortunate that your ignorance has polluted yet another thread. :(

I see your point, kowtaaia, but I certainly do not agree with this definition of reality, or the value of it as a reply:

Reality is simply manifestion in the absence of thought.

I mean, I could extrapolate from it that dead people are the only one's who can know reality. How does that resolve the question of spirit?

If you don't want your ideas taken bit-and-piece, then I recommend not delivering them in such a manner. If you do--well...

.

Leyla Shen wrote:I see your point, kowtaaia, but I certainly do not agree with this definition of reality, or the value of it as a reply:

Reality is simply manifestion in the absence of thought.

I mean, I could extrapolate from it that dead people are the only one's who can know reality. How does that resolve the question of spirit?

If you don't want your ideas taken bit-and-piece, then I recommend not delivering them in such a manner. If you do--well...

.

Replies are specific. The absense of thought most definitely goes along with the body being alive. :) It's really the whole point of life. The fact that awareness is a field that doesn't radiate from the body, is very good news.