Consciousness

[Stigweard]

That's as close as I would get in a discussion such as this.

Aye, I'm hearing ya

[zerostao]

Aye, I'm hearing ya

it coulda been brought up in the other thread

[Stigweard]

it coulda been brought up in the other thread

LOL ... it "coulda" ... but it wasn't

[Marblehead]

LOL ... it "coulda" ... but it wasn't

 

Isn't Tao Great?!?!?!? A proper time for everything.

[Birch]

Stig, IMO you've nailed it.

While I quite liked my "condensed milk" analogy, it doesn't take into account the permutations, hence Taoism :-) Which does!

So that would make for a neat "Jing-chi-shen" thread.

[Aaron]

 

Does Qi correspond to your notion of consciousness? Perhaps it does, there certainly has been much in depth research in this direction.

 

 

Hello Stig,

 

I wanted to just mention that I really am not interested in comparing this to anything else. For me consciousness is consciousness. It might be Tao and it might be chi, but I'll leave that for others to decide. (And I know we spent a good time trying to decide this elsewhere.)

 

I hope to answer everyone else's questions tonight. I just wanted to make sure people understood I'm not really interested in comparing this, but rather discussing it as consciousness.

 

Aaron

Edited March 25, 2011 by Twinner

[lazy cloud]

I look forward to the consciousness is consciousness answer. As I tend to view conscious and consciousness , both as umbrella terms.(Conceptual Pluarity) Until then I will wonder if our consciousness topic will include any of the following concepts:

 

awareness, cognitive psychology, perception and comprehension, sentience, wakefullness, self-awareness, Qualia, self-knowledge, states we are aware of, consciousness as an entity,

is it a noun,adjective, verb..,

is it life-like ? electro-magnetic ? neural?

 

Even a crude basic look at this for me is problematic.

3 questions, what is, how is or even how can, and why?

Subjectivity?

 

Or are going to look at Transitive consciousness or Access consciousness, involving a form of meta-mentality or meta-intionality? where is the link?

 

William James(1890) Stream of Consciousness. Consciousness as a dynamic process.

 

Will this be a difficult topic because of the inherent differences between our subjective and objective modes of understanding?

[ejr1069]

Good post, but I have some questions for you.

 

1. What is enlightenment ?

2. Who is it that becomes enlightened ?

 

What you imply is a duality. That there is a seeker, and that which is sought.

There is no difference between samsara and nirvana.

Enlightenment is found everywhere in the most ordinary, normal mundane activities. Not as a separate blissful mind-blowing superstate, free of all worries.

 

Today was a day of enlightenment for me:

 

I meditated

I emptied the cat litter

I practiced qigong

I took a shit

I scolded my children

I had a walk in the woods on my own

I drank coffee

I recited the nembutsu

I pruned the trees in my garden

I chatted with the neighbours

 

Best wishes

 

This post grabbed my attention and was thought provoking because it does not quite fit with my concept of enlightenment. I have heard the phrase before and after enlightenment "chop wood and carry water". However, I have always viewed enlightenment as a call to service (like Jesus or like buddha). If there are no fruits of enlightenment, if life just carries on the same after as before, if it does not benefit humanity in any way, then why pursue it? Couldn't all those hours spent in meditation be better spent in activities to benefit the planet or other sensient beings?

 

Would you mind providing a further explanation as to the meaning of your post?

[Otis]

I just want to start with saying that I agree with almost everything that you write in this forum, Aaron. I'm guessing that we have a lot in common. I am not interested in being disrespectful with you, just in holding up a mirror.

 

Hello Otis,

 

I think many people have had the same experience and drawn different conclusions... so maybe you have. I would love to hear your conclusions, if you care to share them.

 

Aaron

I have shared them. On your last couple threads, I've shared my arguments encouraging epistemological humility.

 

Your response to me was:

 

I can understand your skepticism. I was skeptical too for a long time. I am still skeptical of much of what religions and ideologies have to offer, but in this regard, in the regard of consciousness and our connection to it, I have no skepticism, because I have experienced it. It's not even faith, in the sense that I am not believing something based on ideology, but rather because I know for a fact, by experience that it does exist.

So, rather than actually responding to what I had to add, you dismissed it, by claiming (essentially): "I used to think like you, but now I know better. Why do I claim that? Because I KNOW".

 

Which, of course, is what my urgings about epistemological humility were warning against.

 

There's the danger in considering one's self "enlightened". If you already "know", how will you ever listen to someone else, who has a different point of view? What if someone else sees a piece of the puzzle that you don't, yet? How will you ever hear them, if you've already justified your own opinions as true knowledge?

 

As I mentioned before, I agree with just about everything you've written in the OP and in the Tao thread. I just balk at calling these metaphors "truth". It's not skepticism that I'm urging (a skeptic is one who doubts every belief, except his own). I am urging self-skepticism, a willingness to recognize your own epiphanies as still being stories (as opposed to "Truth"), no matter how certain they feel.

 

IME, surrendering "knowing" is at the heart of living in mystery. How can I live in "emptiness" if I am already "full" with knowing?

 

Just as the "nature of consciousness" is the epiphany you want to share with us, "epistemological humility" is the epiphany that I'm trying to share with you.

 

Peace,

 

otis

Edited March 25, 2011 by Otis

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[manitou]

Guys, any chance we can slip over to the right brain?

 

The funny thing about enlightenment is that you can almost feel the love emitting from the enlightened person's words.

Edited March 25, 2011 by manitou

[Marblehead]

Guys, any chance we can slip over to the right brain?

 

The funny thing about enlightenment is that you can almost feel the love emitting from the enlightened person's words.

 

Hehehe. Belly laughs.

 

But I still can't get much involved in this thread.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[zerostao]

Guys, any chance we can slip over to the right brain?

 

The funny thing about enlightenment is that you can almost feel the love emitting from the enlightened person's words.

I agree about feeling the love. have you ever met some of those rare folks , where the light shining out of their eyes is just beautiful?

 

I am sure the conversation will slip on over to the right side of the brain.

generally speaking i look at that as the unconscious mind tho. it looks like we are still trying to define exactly what/where this thread's direction is.

are we to look at a taoist conciousness?

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Marblehead]

are we to look at a taoist conciousness?

 

I think Aaron is looking at it from a universal point of view, not any specific philosophy or religion.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gendao]

Like I said above one of the things when you achieive Great Enlightenment (from reading the sutras. HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED IT.) is all your afflictions are wiped away instantaneously.

 

This has to do with the seventh consciousness and the skhanda of volition (which holds all ideation of a self and life.) TWINNER!! You should look up the highlighted part!

So, I have been wondering - is nonduality merely the first stage of Enlightenment?

 

But not the whole enchilada?

 

According to one rumor, Wang Liping demonstrated "genuine Enlightenment" by walking through a wall.

 

(Interestingly, a few others like Zhang Baosheng & Wong View Kit's sipak also allegedly had this ability.)

 

What do you think?

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Otis]

To Otis: HE IS NOT ENLIGHTENED. Period. Hes got a long, loooong way to go before that.

 

He is close to having an "awakening" though.

What you write may be so; I cannot know. I really can't say where Aaron is at. From most of what he writes, I believe that he's probably had several awakenings thus far, at least.

 

This is why I created a recent poll asking the Bums who has had "enlightenment experiences" (as opposed to "who is enlightened?"). Because I think there are many people on this forum who have done a great deal of waking up. I think we have woken up in different ways, and we grasp different insights, which is why a forum for sharing our understandings is so valuable.

 

What I don't think is valuable is coming to the Bums with the intent to teach, but not to learn. Once I have decided that I am "advanced beyond the rest of you", then I know too much to listen, and cannot grow.

[Birch]

Twinner: You're still attaching to or reifying an experience of consciousness. I think you can go deeper. An example of what I'm trying to convey is: A Shaivite would say "Pure Consciousness," whereas a Buddhist would say "Pure Awareness." That non-dual Awareness, is what is called (in Mahamudra and Dzogchen) the "natural state," "the unmodified state," or "naked awareness." It is that immediate awareness behind consciousness (so to speak,) which is beyond conceptualization; like a mirror that reflects all phenomena. Although awareness itself (and it's knowing aspect too) is just a function of the essential nature; interdependently originated and fundamentally ungrounded.

 

Before I started studying Buddhism, I went through an experience similar to yours. The only difference (unlike you) was that I believed in a God or some sort of source that was responsible for reality. It wasn't until reading some sutras, Zen, and commentaries and what not; that it allowed me to "see" the experience for what it was (or you can say allowed me to see reality-as-it-is.)

 

We are not "One" in the sense, that we are all the same consciousness. My experiences, realizations, individual karma or whatever are not yours, nor are yours mine. Rather you can say we are separate

consciousnesses contributing to and experiencing reality interdependently (i.e. dependent origination.)

 

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND you read these articles in order to intellectually understand the difference between Consciousness VS. Awareness:

 

1.http://www.meditationexpert.com/consciousness-studies/cs_what_is_consciousness.html

 

2.http://www.meditationexpert.com/consciousness-studies/cs_how_does_consciousness_arise.html

 

3.http://www.meditationexpert.com/consciousness-studies/cs_Buddhism_teaches_cognitive_science_about_consciousness.html

 

4.http://www.meditationexpert.com/consciousness-studies/cs_simple_comments_on_the_alaya_consciousness.html

 

5.http://www.meditationexpert.com/consciousness-studies/cs_four_turtles_of_consciousness.html

 

6.http://www.meditationexpert.com/consciousness-studies/cs_meditation_tie_up_five_omnipresent_factors_of_consciousness.html

 

7.http://www.meditationexpert.com/consciousness-studies/cs_omnipresent_mental_factors_and_afflicted_determination.html

 

Oh no, man, you said the r-word