Consciousness and Science

[dwai]

http://medhajournal.com/resident-philosoph...c-analysis.html

 

In light of so much confusion about what Consciousness is and whether it is a phenomenon or not, here's a masterful article written by a prof of Philosophy and of Physics.

 

A brief intro:

 

"Phenomenon" is anything that is or can in principle be an object of consciousness. All phenomena exist in time and some phenomena also exist in space. Thus tables, chairs, stars, galaxies, bacteria, college professors, etc., exist in both space and time; whereas thoughts, emotions, feelings, dreams, etc., exist only in time. Brahman, ultimate reality, is unborn, uncreated, undying, and hence timeless, eternal, and immortal. Brahman is formless and hence nameless; Brahman is not to be mistaken for the God(s) worshipped by people. Never was there a time when Brahman was not; nor will there ever be a time when Brahman will not be. Brahman is neither a She nor a He but the That (Tat). Brahman cannot be captured by the senses and mind; for whatever can be perceived and conceived is always an object. Brahman is impartite -- not made up of parts; for if Brahman were partite (composite), the parts would be fundamental and ultimate and not Brahman. No one can picture or visualize Brahman, for whatever one can picture and visualize is always, inevitably and ineluctably, an object. Brahman thus transcends the senses, mind, space, time, and causality. Let it be emphasized that to say that Brahman is transcendent is not to say that Brahman is beyond our ken and pale and cannot be experienced.

Edited January 13, 2010 by dwai

[Marblehead]

Hi Dwai,

 

And if we replace the word "Brahman" with "Tao" I would still totally agree with the quote.

 

Peace & Love!

[joeblast]

Ditto for Awareness

[glooper23]

Thanks for the link.

[dwai]

Hi Dwai,

 

And if we replace the word "Brahman" with "Tao" I would still totally agree with the quote.

 

Peace & Love!

 

That's all I've been trying to convey all the while. Incidentally, if you replace Brahman with "Void" or "Shunyata", that too make sense

[Marblehead]

That's all I've been trying to convey all the while. Incidentally, if you replace Brahman with "Void" or "Shunyata", that too make sense

 

I know, Dwai. I have always considered you a wonderful person with good and honest intentions.

 

Yes, we do disagree on occasion but that is mainly as a result of different understanding of words and terms used in our discussions.

 

That is one of the reasons why I always search for common English words and phrases to use in discussions. I think that oftentimes simpler is better as it reduces misunderstandings.

 

That is what was behind my crude statement about speaking in tongues the other day.

 

Be well and have a great day!

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

I know, Dwai. I have always considered you a wonderful person with good and honest intentions.

 

Yes, we do disagree on occasion but that is mainly as a result of different understanding of words and terms used in our discussions.

 

That is one of the reasons why I always search for common English words and phrases to use in discussions. I think that oftentimes simpler is better as it reduces misunderstandings.

 

That is what was behind my crude statement about speaking in tongues the other day.

 

Be well and have a great day!

 

Peace & Love!

 

Likewise and I don't get offended very easily...I can sense the intent behind comments posted and also the energy (in many cases). For eg: when someone is angry/irritated their energy carries through even in forum posts. I know you haven't been that way in any of our interactions.

 

Best,

 

Dwai

[Lucky7Strikes]

A subject also needs an object. An eye cannot see itself.

 

Dwai, you are a slave to your Gods, ready to go to war and kill your kin as Arjuna did. People like Xabir on the other hand are slave to phenomena, reveling in the role of irresponsible existence, "going with the flow" as with whatever rises, believing it to be reality.

 

Both are extremes, subject and object rise dependently and hence existence comes about and knows itself (also known as you). Each individual creates their own destiny towards self-discovery. no phenomena, no Universal God, no superior creation can bind him.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

A subject also needs an object. An eye cannot see itself.

 

Dwai, you are a slave to your Gods, ready to go to war and kill your kin as Arjuna did. People like Xabir on the other hand are slave to phenomena, reveling in the role of irresponsible existence, "going with the flow" as with whatever rises, believing it to be reality.

 

Both are extremes, subject and object rise dependently and hence existence comes about and knows itself (also known as you). Each individual creates their own destiny towards self-discovery. no phenomena, no Universal God, no superior creation can bind him.

 

What part of the article claims that Brahman is a God? Read it before you diss it man!

And can you challenge and disprove the author's thesis? He clearly throws a challenge out...if you can show that Consciousness is an object then he will withdraw his thesis.

 

My thesis that Consciousness cannot, in principle, be studied scientifically is to be regarded as an impotency-principle (an impotency-principle is a statement that something cannot, in principle be done). Examples of the impotency-principle are the second lay of thermodynamics, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Godel's second incompleteness theorem, etc.

 

This is, however, an important and significant difference between my impotency-principle and the others: my impotency-principle is directly based upon the phenomenology of our experience, whereas the others are based on logico-empirical considerations. Let me emphasize, however, that these logico-empiricial considerations themselves are fully founded and grounded in the phenomenology of our experience.

 

If someone has an argument, along with adequate evidence, to refute the impotency-principle I have proclaimed here, I should be most happy to hear. All one needs to do to refute my thesis is to come up with a single counter-example of something that is scientifically studiable but not an object of consciousness. In light of such a counter-example, I am prepared to withdraw my thesis.

 

I would like to see some of our Buddha-bums try.

Edited January 13, 2010 by dwai

[Lucky7Strikes]

What part of the article claims that Brahman is a God? Read it before you diss it man!

 

And when did I say consciousness was an object in the above quote? . You believe in a Universal Consciousness (God, Brahman, Whatever) and I believe in the individual.

 

As for the guy you quoted above, I will ask him otherwise: show me consciousness that experiences itself without phenomena manifestation which includes time and space.

 

But Dwai, these are too many words. I'd rather go meditate. .

Edited January 13, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

And when did I say consciousness was an object in the above quote? . You believe in a Universal Consciousness (God, Brahman, Whatever) and I believe in the individual.

 

As for the guy you quoted above, I will ask him otherwise: show me consciousness that experiences itself without phenomena manifestation which includes time and space.

 

But Dwai, these are too many words. I'd rather go meditate. .

 

If you meditate correctly, you will realize that Consciousness exists without phenomena or objects.

[Marblehead]

If you meditate correctly, you will realize that Consciousness exists without phenomena or objects.

 

Watch yourself Dwai. Hehehe. You are going to pull me back into this if you get too mystical on us.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

If you meditate correctly, you will realize that Consciousness exists without phenomena or objects.

 

But then the time frame is restablished and one returns to the state of Consciousness + phenomena for that meditative state to be acknowledge by reflecting on it.

 

Anyways, if your goal is to be a dead tree, just being conscious, simply aware, go ahead. Either you come back, or you just become attached to that state and forget the truer pleasures or life, which is to share that joy.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[dwai]

But then the time frame is restablished and one returns to the state of Consciousness + phenomena for that meditative state to be acknowledge by reflecting on it.

 

Anyways, if your goal is to be a dead tree, just being conscious, simply aware, go ahead. Either you come back, or you just become attached to that state and forget the truer pleasures or life, which is to share that joy.

 

The condition of our material existence cannot be wished away. It is a reality. But by realizing that there is Consciousness that exists without objects is valuable, given that each of us are seeking a "meaning" to our existence. Now the meaning might not be a logically deconstruct-able thing, but non-dual intuition (or prajna) will result in realizations that satisfy that quest. And a lot of things that seem impassable and insurmountable in our day to day lives become really insignificant in that light. And this is a state in which service (sharing of the joy) becomes a natural thing.

 

That said, the truth of the matter is the truth of the matter. The proof is in the eating...not talking about it. Go meditate now...we've wasted too much energy already.

 

 

Watch yourself Dwai. Hehehe. You are going to pull me back into this if you get too mystical on us.

 

Peace & Love!

 

There's really nothing mystical about it. Mysticism is just another label ascribed to what is really just another perspective into how a life can be led.

[forestofclarity]

Dwai,

 

What Sanskrit word are you using for consciousness?

[xabir2005]

That's all I've been trying to convey all the while. Incidentally, if you replace Brahman with "Void" or "Shunyata", that too make sense

No. Shunyata in Buddhism has nothing to do with a formless Brahman, rather it means that selves and phenomena are essence-less, unlocatable, ungraspable, and interdependent. You can't force an alien paradigm and reinterprete the words. In Buddhism, there is no Consciousness that exists apart from phenomena. Awareness is just points of luminous clarity, be it the sensation of Being or I AMness to the sensation of sights and sounds and thoughts. There is nothing ultimate about Consciousness. Consciousness is simply all manifest phenomena, and it is phenomena that is empty, "uncreated, undying, and hence timeless".

 

On the Anatta nature of Consciousness: as my friend Thusness told my friend Longchen during his 'I AMness' years in 2005 before his realisation of Anatta and Emptiness:

 

Hi longchen,

 

It is ungraspable not because the Ultimate Object cannot be the subject of observation; but rather there is really no such 'ultimate object' hiding behind anywhere. A 'someone' inside somewhere is from the very beginning a mistake. True authenticity comes when we realized that any form of 'centricity' is illusionary.

To experience the Pure Presence of Isness, 'I AMness' must completely dissolve. The Pure Presence you experienced is non-local and has no-center. It becomes an 'I AM' due to linear mode of analysis. If you have time do explore into insight meditation and the essence of 'Emptiness'

 

Regards,

Thusness

Edited January 14, 2010 by xabir2005

[voidisyinyang]

This is where the model of music is so handy. I too had this concept of "consciousness" (formless Brahman) as existing apart from phenomena. Actually consciousness is the PROCESS by which phenomenon are made manifest through energy. So consciousness is like spacetime only it's formless since it's not "contained" by a spatial measurement -- as is the case in Western science. So there's lots of ways to misunderstand both Buddhism and Vedic philosophy -- but actually consciousness is an eternal process in Vedic philosophy as well as in Buddhism.

 

The process is not through language -- that's the ultimate limitation of philosophy. It's the difference between conscious awareness and pure consciousness as formless awareness. That's where the terminology gets switched around easily if the practice is not focused on.

 

 

No. Shunyata in Buddhism has nothing to do with a formless Brahman, rather it means that selves and phenomena are essence-less, unlocatable, ungraspable, and interdependent. You can't force an alien paradigm and reinterprete the words. In Buddhism, there is no Consciousness that exists apart from phenomena. There is nothing ultimate about Consciousness. Consciousness is simply all manifest phenomena, and it is phenomena that is empty, "uncreated, undying, and hence timeless".

[dwai]

Dwai,

 

What Sanskrit word are you using for consciousness?

 

Atman

 

No. Shunyata in Buddhism has nothing to do with a formless Brahman, rather it means that selves and phenomena are essence-less, unlocatable, ungraspable, and interdependent. You can't force an alien paradigm and reinterprete the words. In Buddhism, there is no Consciousness that exists apart from phenomena. Awareness is just points of luminous clarity, be it the sensation of Being or I AMness to the sensation of sights and sounds and thoughts. There is nothing ultimate about Consciousness. Consciousness is simply all manifest phenomena, and it is phenomena that is empty, "uncreated, undying, and hence timeless".

 

On the Anatta nature of Consciousness: as my friend Thusness told my friend Longchen during his 'I AMness' years in 2005 before his realisation of Anatta and Emptiness:

 

Hi longchen,

 

It is ungraspable not because the Ultimate Object cannot be the subject of observation; but rather there is really no such 'ultimate object' hiding behind anywhere. A 'someone' inside somewhere is from the very beginning a mistake. True authenticity comes when we realized that any form of 'centricity' is illusionary.

To experience the Pure Presence of Isness, 'I AMness' must completely dissolve. The Pure Presence you experienced is non-local and has no-center. It becomes an 'I AM' due to linear mode of analysis. If you have time do explore into insight meditation and the essence of 'Emptiness'

 

Regards,

Thusness

 

There is the fallacy of Anatta. It cannot be proven that that "ultimate object" doesn't exist. As it (the Ultimate Object) is very clearly reachable with Meditation. Isness is I am ness. Except that this I AM is not the limited I but everythingness. The "I AM" that you think it is not the "I AM" that I am referring to.

 

And again syntax gets in the way...anyway those who had to get it, got it. Those who have to get it will get and those who dont wont.

 

This is where the model of music is so handy. I too had this concept of "consciousness" (formless Brahman) as existing apart from phenomena. Actually consciousness is the PROCESS by which phenomenon are made manifest through energy. So consciousness is like spacetime only it's formless since it's not "contained" by a spatial measurement -- as is the case in Western science. So there's lots of ways to misunderstand both Buddhism and Vedic philosophy -- but actually consciousness is an eternal process in Vedic philosophy as well as in Buddhism.

 

The process is not through language -- that's the ultimate limitation of philosophy. It's the difference between conscious awareness and pure consciousness as formless awareness. That's where the terminology gets switched around easily if the practice is not focused on.

 

I like the line of thinking...albeit I think ascribing Name-Form to it (for eg, where you equated it with spacetime) is useless. Consciousness is "Non-phenomenon" and therefore cannot be made subject to any categorical framework should suffice. Therefore it is beyond logic and the rules of any categorical framework, be it science or religion.

[voidisyinyang]

Well there is logical inference -- which isn't really Western logic. So when we repeat I-I-I and then listen for the source of the I-thought -- we can INFER that the source of the I-thought is consciousness. But this logical inference is an infinite process of awareness.

 

Atman

There is the fallacy of Anatta. It cannot be proven that that "ultimate object" doesn't exist. As it (the Ultimate Object) is very clearly reachable with Meditation. Isness is I am ness. Except that this I AM is not the limited I but everythingness. The "I AM" that you think it is not the "I AM" that I am referring to.

 

And again syntax gets in the way...anyway those who had to get it, got it. Those who have to get it will get and those who dont wont.

I like the line of thinking...albeit I think ascribing Name-Form to it (for eg, where you equated it with spacetime) is useless. Consciousness is "Non-phenomenon" and therefore cannot be made subject to any categorical framework should suffice. Therefore it is beyond logic and the rules of any categorical framework, be it science or religion.

[dwai]

Well there is logical inference -- which isn't really Western logic. So when we repeat I-I-I and then listen for the source of the I-thought -- we can INFER that the source of the I-thought is consciousness. But this logical inference is an infinite process of awareness.

 

I-thought as a limiting adjunct (or a result of it) is obvious. That is called Anatta by the Buddhists and Jiva by Advaitins. Since Consciousness is non-phenomenon, any speculation wrt why things are the way they are is futile, because it cannot be made subject to any categorical framework. Logic therefore won't work either. We can observe the "I-thought" but it cannot be said that it's source is Consciousness, because Consciousness cannot be studied or made subject to rules of inquiry. Logic being a ruleset (be it western or eastern) would also fail to analyze consciousness, because it is valid only on phenomena.

[voidisyinyang]

So you disagree with Ramana Maharshi? He teaches logical inference of the I-thought. It's actually really basic logic but I see what you're getting at.

 

I-thought as a limiting adjunct (or a result of it) is obvious. That is called Anatta by the Buddhists and Jiva by Advaitins. Since Consciousness is non-phenomenon, any speculation wrt why things are the way they are is futile, because it cannot be made subject to any categorical framework. Logic therefore won't work either. We can observe the "I-thought" but it cannot be said that it's source is Consciousness, because Consciousness cannot be studied or made subject to rules of inquiry. Logic being a ruleset (be it western or eastern) would also fail to analyze consciousness, because it is valid only on phenomena.

[xabir2005]

There is the fallacy of Anatta. It cannot be proven that that "ultimate object" doesn't exist. As it (the Ultimate Object) is very clearly reachable with Meditation. Isness is I am ness. Except that this I AM is not the limited I but everythingness. The "I AM" that you think it is not the "I AM" that I am referring to.

 

And again syntax gets in the way...anyway those who had to get it, got it. Those who have to get it will get and those who dont wont.

Both Thusness and Longchen have stucked at the I AM stage of experience for 15 years since their teenage years before realising Anatta and Emptiness. The I AM is experienced as not limited, but all pervading, timeless and spaceless. So obviously they knew what the I AM is through their experience and meditation. But this is not the final realisation. For Longchen he only realised Anatta in 2006 after a series of conversations with Thusness. He was very grateful and said he would be stuck at 'I AM' stage 'forever' if he did not met Thusness.

 

As Longchen put in his own words in some of his many posts on my Buddhist forum after his realisation of Anatta:

 

In an experience of 'no thought' and 'no sense impressions', the Presence will be felt as all-pervading. It is not vast, but all pervading. There is a difference here. Vast denotes great distance. All-pervading denotes infinity... no border... no center.

 

Further insight of this infinity may allow you to understanding why space, location and distance are merely impressions.

 

.......

 

Just my opinion only,

 

I think Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise to the experience of Presence.

 

To me, 'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.

 

However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.

 

.......

 

Thanks for the interesting article. It really contain many useful insights.

 

Just a sharing...

 

The author say that thought is a problem. It may not be entirely accurate.

 

IMO, when visual vision and thought imagery arise, there is a tendency to compartmentalise certain sections as entities, focus or objects. Next, there is a desire to modify that section. For example, in the visual sense, from the environment you are engaging a conversation with someone. The mind desires to change the 'person' into what it imagines will be the desired outcome. Example, you want to make the person think the way you think and so on so forth. The mind fails to see that this is 'hit and miss' and that the changes is really not dependent on the desire to modify the subject. Rather, it has got to do with the 'person' own willing or not.

 

So... to me, thought is the not the problem. Instead, the desire to modify and change 'what is' is the cause of suffering.

 

Also, when we say that we are not the thoughts or the body, unconsciously we have separated 'phemonena' from a 'untouchable' portion of ourself.

 

The difference at the non-duality stage is that, no attempt is made... Sensations are left as they are...

 

At the I AM/eternal witness stage, there is a seeking for the place beyond thoughts.

 

Also, at the I AM/eternal witness, no-suffering is preferred over suffering. There is no understanding that there is really NO blissful place that is beyond pain. When there is pain, there is nothing beyond it too.

 

So at the I AM/eternal witness stage, attempts may be employed by the mind to get rid of the pain... to go a place beyond the pain. The understanding that 'sensation and pain' is inseparable from Presence/Buddha Nature is not there yet.

Edited January 14, 2010 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

This is where the model of music is so handy. I too had this concept of "consciousness" (formless Brahman) as existing apart from phenomena. Actually consciousness is the PROCESS by which phenomenon are made manifest through energy. So consciousness is like spacetime only it's formless since it's not "contained" by a spatial measurement -- as is the case in Western science. So there's lots of ways to misunderstand both Buddhism and Vedic philosophy -- but actually consciousness is an eternal process in Vedic philosophy as well as in Buddhism.

 

The process is not through language -- that's the ultimate limitation of philosophy. It's the difference between conscious awareness and pure consciousness as formless awareness. That's where the terminology gets switched around easily if the practice is not focused on.

 

Interesting post. I had to read it a second time.

 

As a result of the second reading I decided to disagree with it.

 

Phenomenon are already manifest. Conscious realisation of their existence has nothing to do with their existence.

 

My awareness of a manifest object has nothing to do with its existence.

 

I do agree that this process (awareness) is not through language. We do not need to put awareness (of a phenomenon) into words in order to be aware.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

 

I like the line of thinking...albeit I think ascribing Name-Form to it (for eg, where you equated it with spacetime) is useless. Consciousness is "Non-phenomenon" and therefore cannot be made subject to any categorical framework should suffice. Therefore it is beyond logic and the rules of any categorical framework, be it science or religion.

 

But then I will agree with this, especially "Consciousness is non-phenomenon". Consciousness is a result of 'things', and not a thing in itself.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited January 14, 2010 by Marblehead

[dwai]

So you disagree with Ramana Maharshi? He teaches logical inference of the I-thought. It's actually really basic logic but I see what you're getting at.

 

Ramana Maharishi taught using the process of "Neti-Neti" or "Not-this, Not-this" to arrive at what this "I" is. That is a standard Advaita Vedantic practice. It applies logic to strip away all that is "Not" I...it doesn't do anything with the "I" itself. In other words, it strips away the predicates till pure subject remains.

 

That is also the purpose of Yoga...where Chitta Vritti (or Modifications in the field of Consciousness or Mind) is stopped so that Pure Subject remains (Turiya).

[Guest artform]

Here is a good look at the science as it is developing: http://www.nfb.ca/playlists/films-scientif...mystical_brain/

 

all the best thoughtful energetic voyaging all

 

artform