Consciousness and Science

[xabir2005]

Oh cut that out. This is one reason I sometimes don't like zen. These little games and ambiguous sayings rather than just getting down to business and cutting through the bullshit. I'm not interested in that anymore. I'm interested in clear distinctions between right knowledge and wrong knowledge. I certainly have heard this koan. And It doesn't mean that there are no correct conceptual answers, if that is what you are implying. Ever heard of "right view?" You think Zen masters don't believe in right and wrong answers? Read some dogen and get back to me. What happened to concepts are no different than non conceptuality?

Ok, from my experience and study there are The 5 sensory consciousness', the thinking/ideation consciousness and the alaya. None of these are self existent/independent or unchanging. Try as I may, I can't find this self existent consciousness that you are talking about here. And I can't find any sort of watcher or pure subject which is witnessing the thoughts and which stands apart from the thoughts. That is you seem to be saying that there is consciousness as a light which illuminates and then there is a thought. So if I have a thought at this moment, that means there are two things involved, the light and the thought. Yet all I find from moment to moment is thought/thinking, hearing, seeing, etc. going by in rapid succession. If one were to presume that there is this light which is behind thoughts, I could only say that it couldn't be other than the thoughts themselves because the thoughts are all I can find! So then for me, there are not two things - the light/subject and the thought/object. In a moment of thinking, these two are completely one/inseparable/undivided in my own experience.

It seems your understanding of non-dual and anatta is strong. If you follow Daniel Ingram's practice completely, you won't go through the I AM experience, since his path leads straight to non-dual and anatta without going through the I AM stage. To understand Dwai's experience, you need to meditate on the relative nature of mind:

 

(Dalai Lama)

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/sea...%20Dalai%20Lama

Through the gates of the five sense organs a being sees, hears, smells, tastes and comes into contact with a host of external forms, objects and impressions. Let the form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental events which are the relations of the six senses be shut off. When this is done the recollection of past events on which the mind tends to dwell will be completely discontinued and the flow of memory cut off. Similarly, plans for the future and contemplation of future action must not be allowed to arise. It is necessary to create a space in place of all such processes of thought if one is to empty the mind of all such processes of thought. Freed from all these processes there will remain a pure, clean, distinct and quiescent mind. Now let us examine what sort of characteristics constitute the mind when it has attained this stage. We surely do possess some thing called mind, but how are we to recognize its existence? The real and essential mind is what is to be found when the entire load of gross obstructions and aberrations (i.e. sense impressions, memories, etc.) has been cleared away. Discerning this aspect of real mind, we shall discover that, unlike external objects, its true nature is devoid of form or color; nor can we find any basis of truth for such false and deceptive notions as that mind originated from this or that, or that it will move from here to there, or that it is located in such-and-such a place. When it comes into contact with no object mind is like a vast, boundless void, or like a serene, illimitable ocean. When it encounters an object it at once has cognizance of it, like a mirror instantly reflecting a person who stands in front of it. The true nature of mind consists not only in taking clear cognizance of the object but also in communicating a concrete experience of that object to the one experiencing it.* Normally, our forms of sense cognition, such as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., perform their functions on external phenomena in a manner involving gross distortion. Knowledge resulting from sense cognition, being based on gross external phenomena, is also of a gross nature. When this type of gross stimulation is shut out, and when concrete experiences and clear cognizance arise from within, mind assumes the characteristics of infinite void similar to the infinitude of space. But this void is not to be taken as the true nature of mind. We have become so habituated to consciousness of the form and color of gross objects that, when we make concentrated introspection into the nature of mind, it is, as I have said, found to be a vast, limitless void free from any gross obscurity or other hindrances. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we have discerned the subtle, true nature of the mind. What has been explained above concerns the state of mind in relation to the concrete experience and clear cognizance by the mind which are its function, but it describes only the relative nature of mind.

 

There are in addition several other aspects and states of mind. In other words, taking mind as the supreme basis, there are many attributes related to it. Just as an onion consists of layer upon layer that can be peeled away, so does every sort of object have a number of layers; and this is no less true of the nature of mind as explained here; it, too, has layer within layer, slate within state.

 

All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.

 

Of these two aspects, viz. the ultimate true nature of mind and a knowledge of that ultimate true nature, the former is the base, the latter an attribute. Mind (self) is the basis and all its different states are attributes. However, the basis and its attributes have from the first pertained to the same single essence. The non-self-created (depending on a cause other than itself) mind entity (basis) and its essence, sunyata, have unceasingly existed as the one, same, inseparable essence from beginningless beginning. The nature of sunyata pervades all elements. As we are now and since we cannot grasp or comprehend the indestructible, natural, ultimate reality (sunyata) of our own minds, we continue to commit errors and our defects persist.

 

Taking mind as the subject and mind's ultimate reality as its object, one will arrive at a proper comprehension of the true essence of mind, i.e. its ultimate reality. And when, after prolonged patient meditation, one comes to perceive and grasp at the knowledge of mind's ultimate reality which is devoid of dual characteristics, one will gradually be able to exhaust the delusions and defects of the central and secondary minds such as wrath, love of ostentation, jealousy, envy and so on.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

Because there is a false identification with the objects, while forgetting about the light. The light can stand on it's own without any objects. Why? Because it is so. Objects are objects only because they are in the light. Otherwise they don't exist.

 

This is nonsense dwai. First of all what is light? Light is an object of perception too. Secondly, what is an object? Etc. So you're using some kind of nonsense here. I tend to agree with you often, but in this case I must take exception.

 

Why? Because it is so.

 

I just can't hang with that kind of reasoning.

[xabir2005]

There are no objects Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Without object (a being capable of consciousness) there can never be consciousness.

 

First came object then came consciousness.

 

Object refers to manifest physical reality. We do not live in the void - we live in the objective manifest.

 

Without object there is no consciousness and no object to be conscious of.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

Science has a problem with consciousness because it wants it to be an object. Or perhaps an effect arising from the interaction of objects ... like brain chemistry for instance or electrical nerve impulses. But this brings about all sorts of conceptual anomalies ... like how does something insensate become sentient through complexity and at what point does this happen. So although science can describe many processes in the body which relate to our awareness/consciousness it cannot explain how or why we are conscious in the first place (or at least I haven't read anything that successfully does this).

 

You hit the nail on the head here 100%.

 

There also seems to be a confusion in mystical schools between those who use the term consciousness as being synonymous with the non-dual source (for want of a better term) and those which address the skhanda of consciousness which is as an attribute of the perception of objects does not exist in any sense independent of those supposed objects. I think this is just a kind terminological dispute and nothing more.

 

Not exactly. The problem is the consciousness cannot be considered to be separate from objects of some kind, even if those objects are formless or mysterious. At the same time, consciousness cannot be describe in terms of its objects. So for example, if you are conscious of being warm it doesn't mean consciousness is warm. If you are conscious of being cold it doesn't mean consciousness is cold and so on. The ability to think this way is called abstract thinking and not everyone knows how to think like that. This is a higher order ability.

 

When you refine your ability to think you begin to recognize that strong conceptual designations are deviant. So for example, if we say consciousness is the same as objects, that's deviant. But if we say consciousness is not the same as objects, that's deviant too. Each such definitive statement about consciousness is open to wide range of criticism. And that's the point of the Zen Koan "if you say yes, I hit you 50 times, and if you say no, I hit you 50 times." The point is that strong designations are deviant and do not capture the nuances.

 

So saying that consciousness is something completely on its own with regard to objects, is a deviant approach, because this involves conceiving of consciousness as a thing (how else can it be on its own? ownership, self-possession, is what things have, it's what thingness is). So Buddhists rightly critique this nonsense. However Buddhists then fall into a hole by going too far and saying consciousness is nothing but objects. That's another deviant approach because it limits the scope of consciousness. Consciousness works by cognizing what occurs as distinct from that which is not occurring now. When people talk about objects, they don't have in mind endless possible objects. They only mean the presently occurring ones. And to limit consciousness to those presently occurring objects is wrong, because consciousness is a "tension" (or interplay) between manifest and unmanifest rather than just manifest. The unknown plays a role in consciousness as much as known. The unseen defines the seen just like left defines the right, long short, and so on. So when you understand the full scope of consciousness, you won't want to limit it only to the presently occurring objects, and as far as what's not occurring, you won't want to name it in anything more than the vaguest way possible, because it's improper to talk about what's not occurring as it were were totally occurring now. The truth is that what's not occurring now is every so subtly occurring too, but we can't speak of it, or we break our language and meanings become void. So right here I am going to the very limit of language.

 

So by saying the consciousness is just objects you are narrowing the scope of it by ignoring the ever expanding contextuality of perception. Each object is only an object within a context. Each context is only what it is within further context. And that one is within further context and so on. This contextuality goes on forever without end, and to say "consciousness is just objects" is to ignore that endlessness that goes beyond objects.

 

There are no objects

 

Define "are".

[xabir2005]

Consciousness just IS. It is not a mental state of contrasting and comparison with things. That would be a thought of comparison, and when it arises, that too simply IS.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Consciousness just IS. It is not a mental state of contrasting and comparison with things. That would be a thought of comparison, and when it arises, that too simply IS.

 

Okay. I will agree that consciousness just is. No, it is not a mental state as in 'happy', 'sad', 'confused', or any of the other ideas (concepts) that define our condition of consciousness.

 

However, to say consciousness just is is a bit too simplified, I think. To the best of my knowledge consciousness requires at a minimum a central nervous system (no brain required) within some living organism.

 

But to suggest that consciousness is just out there somewhere just floating around waiting for a body to be transfused into is not, IMO, an acceptable thought.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

Consciousness just IS. It is not a mental state of contrasting and comparison with things. That would be a thought of comparison, and when it arises, that too simply IS.

 

Wrong. This is something you have no insight into yet. Thinking about comparing things is not the same thing as cognizance.

Edited January 16, 2010 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

Wrong. This is something you have no insight into yet. Thinking about comparing things is not the same thing as cognizance.

So you are not cognizant of the thought? Can a thought arise without cognizance? Or do you mean there is a watcher of the thought?

[Apech]

 

Not exactly. The problem is the consciousness cannot be considered to be separate from objects of some kind, even if those objects are formless or mysterious. At the same time, consciousness cannot be describe in terms of its objects. So for example, if you are conscious of being warm it doesn't mean consciousness is warm. If you are conscious of being cold it doesn't mean consciousness is cold and so on. The ability to think this way is called abstract thinking and not everyone knows how to think like that. This is a higher order ability.

 

When you refine your ability to think you begin to recognize that strong conceptual designations are deviant. So for example, if we say consciousness is the same as objects, that's deviant. But if we say consciousness is not the same as objects, that's deviant too. Each such definitive statement about consciousness is open to wide range of criticism. And that's the point of the Zen Koan "if you say yes, I hit you 50 times, and if you say no, I hit you 50 times." The point is that strong designations are deviant and do not capture the nuances.

 

So saying that consciousness is something completely on its own with regard to objects, is a deviant approach, because this involves conceiving of consciousness as a thing (how else can it be on its own? ownership, self-possession, is what things have, it's what thingness is). So Buddhists rightly critique this nonsense. However Buddhists then fall into a hole by going too far and saying consciousness is nothing but objects. That's another deviant approach because it limits the scope of consciousness. Consciousness works by cognizing what occurs as distinct from that which is not occurring now. When people talk about objects, they don't have in mind endless possible objects. They only mean the presently occurring ones. And to limit consciousness to those presently occurring objects is wrong, because consciousness is a "tension" (or interplay) between manifest and unmanifest rather than just manifest. The unknown plays a role in consciousness as much as known. The unseen defines the seen just like left defines the right, long short, and so on. So when you understand the full scope of consciousness, you won't want to limit it only to the presently occurring objects, and as far as what's not occurring, you won't want to name it in anything more than the vaguest way possible, because it's improper to talk about what's not occurring as it were were totally occurring now. The truth is that what's not occurring now is every so subtly occurring too, but we can't speak of it, or we break our language and meanings become void. So right here I am going to the very limit of language.

 

So by saying the consciousness is just objects you are narrowing the scope of it by ignoring the ever expanding contextuality of perception. Each object is only an object within a context. Each context is only what it is within further context. And that one is within further context and so on. This contextuality goes on forever without end, and to say "consciousness is just objects" is to ignore that endlessness that goes beyond objects.

 

 

 

Hi GiH,

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I still think I am right in that people are using the term 'consciousness' differently and then arguing over definitions.

 

The word 'object' is from L. obiectum - 'a thing thrown, hence put, before, hence a thing presented to one's attention ...' So the objects of consciousness are thrown or projected into view, so to speak. The 'ob' = before also means 'against' - so we can get the idea of objectors and 'to object' to something. So the objects of consciousness are those things thrown forward to be looked at. So to make consciousness an object would be nonsense, as would the idea that somehow the objective world comes first and consciousness is just a part of that.

[Marblehead]

... as would the idea that somehow the objective world comes first and consciousness is just a part of that.

 

I saw that.

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

This is nonsense dwai.

 

Very true! Because sense is in the realm of categorical frameworks.

 

First of all what is light? Light is an object of perception too. Secondly, what is an object? Etc. So you're using some kind of nonsense here. I tend to agree with you often, but in this case I must take exception.

I just can't hang with that kind of reasoning.

 

Dont take the analogy literally.

 

Hi GiH,

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying but I still think I am right in that people are using the term 'consciousness' differently and then arguing over definitions.

 

The word 'object' is from L. obiectum - 'a thing thrown, hence put, before, hence a thing presented to one's attention ...' So the objects of consciousness are thrown or projected into view, so to speak. The 'ob' = before also means 'against' - so we can get the idea of objectors and 'to object' to something. So the objects of consciousness are those things thrown forward to be looked at. So to make consciousness an object would be nonsense, as would the idea that somehow the objective world comes first and consciousness is just a part of that.

 

Exactly! If you read the article in the OP, you will see he is saying the same thing.