Matter or consciousness?

[dwai]

i was at a BBQ pool party last evening and somehow managed to discuss meditation and consciousness with a friend. He is an educated scientific professional and we got around to discussing consciousness since he inquired about my meditation practice. He wanted to know "What I meditate on" (or in other words, what was the goal of my meditation practice).

 

This is a very valid question and one that needs some thoughtful introspection in many cases...often the answer is not as easy as it seems on the surface. But that was not the problem here...my response to him was "Meditation is expanding the gap between thoughts"...so he said...

 

 

F:"What happens when you get to the gap between thoughts? How can there even be a gap...surely if we don't have thoughts we die or are in deep sleep, right?"

Me: "No no...the gap between thoughts are very valid and do exist. You only have to meditate a little while and it will become clear".

F: "So what happens in the gap?"

Me: "You stop thinking"

F: "How do you know you have stopped thinking?"

Me: "Because thoughts don't exist"

F: "But if you have realized that you aren't thinking, then you are thinking, aren't you?"

Me: "Yes...but you only realize that you experienced the gap after thoughts are triggered again and not during the gap".

 

All in all...a very deep rabbit hole to go down, if you ask me...

 

So we discussed more and he questioned the reason for meditation. I said "To find the unchanging, eternal consciousness that has always been there and will always be". So he asked:

 

F: "Where does this consciousness exist, inside me or outside?"

Me: "Both inside, outside, neither inside nor outside, neither not inside nor not outside"

F: "You are being silly!"

Me: "No...let me explain why"

Me: "Are you familiar with Subject and Object?"

F: "Sort of....object is inanimate and subject is animate or perhaps object is third-person whereas subject is first-person?"

Me: "Subject is the experiencer....Objected is that which is being experienced"

F: "Elaborate"

Me: "Subject, let's say you, are aware, you have a consciousness...that is experiencing this samosa you are eating right now"

Me: "So you are the subject, the samosa is the object, and you are interacting with it using your sense organs"

F: "Oh okay...so anything I experience is an object and I am a subject"

F: " And this subject is my Consciousness"

Me: "Okay...if you didn't have this samosa in your hand and weren't eating it, does it exist?"

F: "It may exist, even if I wasn't aware of it"

Me: "To you, your reality is the presence of absence of an object in your field of sensations...so if it isn't there in your field of sensations, it doesn't exist to YOU, right?"

F: "Okay...I see where you are going with this..."

Me: "Great! So you agree that the samosa doesn't exist if you haven't seen it or sensed it in any way?"

F: "No...just because I haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't exist"

Me: "So you are trying to say that someone else might have experienced it and told you about it?"

F: "Yes...isn't that how things are?"

Me: "Yes...these are called Pramanas...or proofs. There can be three types...Direct experience, testimony of a reliable source or logical inference. For eg: your friend told you that a samosa exists on the kitchen table and even though you haven't experienced it directly, you friend has, so it becomes a testimony of a reliable source. Similarly, there might be other things you can logically conclude and thus come up with...such and such a thing exists because of certain conditions being met"

F: "Right...so this creation thing...it is a matter of chance...there is no higher consciousness that has created this universe. The scientists have said it all began with a Big Bang. Surely, even if consciousness doesn't exist, the material universe can and does exist?"

Me: "If a tree fell in a forest and there was no one to see it fall, did it really fall?"

F: "Yes....no....I see what you are trying to say...but just because someone didn't see, how can I say it didn't happen?"

Me: "Isn't your reality created by those things that you can experience, or listen to others testify as being existent or logically infer as being existent?"

F: "Yes...but...how can we say it doesn't exist...we don't know!"

Me: "Exactly, if you don't know it doesn't exist, do you know that it does exist?"

F: "The probability of it existing, mathematically...."

Me: "If there was no Consciousness to witness and experience the universe, then there would be no Math neither probablity, right?"

F: "Right!"

Me: "So you agree that Consciousness is the most important function of the Universe"

F: "Yes...but how can you say that there is only one underlying consciousness and that it exists forever and will continue to be that way?"

Me: "There have been Rishis who went into a deep meditative state called Samadhi and came up with the knowledge that all universe is One...there is nothing else. And have prescribed meditation and yoga to be a path to get there, to the realization of One-ness"

At this point I had to get up and discuss something else with someone since it was getting every heavy....but thought I'd share this interesting experience

 

I had written this a couple of ers vack on medhajournal...dont think i'd posted it here...bums' thoughts are welcome

Edited November 10, 2011 by dwai

[Marblehead]

I had written this a couple of ers vack on medhajournal...dont think i'd posted it here...bums' thoughts are welcome

 

Well, I was in agreement with you until you got to the tree which is where your logic breaks down. The tree doesn't need you or me of any observer to either remain standing or fall down.

 

And everything after that is invalid because it is based on this flaw of logic.

[dwai]

Well, I was in agreement with you until you got to the tree which is where your logic breaks down. The tree doesn't need you or me of any observer to either remain standing or fall down.

 

And everything after that is invalid because it is based on this flaw of logic.

 

I don't agree Marble

Without your consciousness registering the tree as being either standing or fallen, it doesn't exist. Now, it might be that whether "a tree" exists or doesn't really is not relevant to us in the grand scheme of things, but the koan was used to illustrate that all knowledge (and reality) is a product of consciousness.

[Lucky7Strikes]

.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

I don't agree Marble

Without your consciousness registering the tree as being either standing or fallen, it doesn't exist. Now, it might be that whether "a tree" exists or doesn't really is not relevant to us in the grand scheme of things, but the koan was used to illustrate that all knowledge (and reality) is a product of consciousness.

 

Hehehe. How did I know you would not agree with me?

 

Knowledge is subjective. The tree is objective. The tree needs no conscious entity to tell it that it exists. Many trees existed before any conscious beings recognized their existence.

 

And yes, I suggest that many trees had fallen prior to the existence of man - even prior to the dinosaurs.

 

I will agree that all knowledge is a product of consciousness but I do not agree that reality, the entire universe, is a product of consciousness. The universe managed quite well for 13.6+ billion years without us.

[Marblehead]

.

 

Was that in support of Dwai or in support of my understanding or are you taking an alternate view?

[suninmyeyes]

What a conversation! No wonder you had to walk away and talk about something else.

 

I don't agree Marble

Without your consciousness registering the tree as being either standing or fallen.

What about the underlying consciousness you spoke of?

And how do you know that it exists forever ? How do you know?

[3bob]

Dear MH, are you saying the dear trees are not consious (to whatever degree possible for a tree)

 

HEHEHOHO

Edited November 11, 2011 by 3bob

[Lucky7Strikes]

Was that in support of Dwai or in support of my understanding or are you taking an alternate view?

I was being a bit critical of Dwai, but realized it wasn't going to be a productive discussion in any way. I think logically your position and Dwai's position can both be justified and negated. But for convenience sakes, I would, as most people do, take your position. It's probably the more practical way to live.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Dear MH, are you saying the dear trees are not consious (to whatever degree possible for a tree)

 

HEHEHOHO

 

Okay. I admit defeat on that one. Hehehe. A tree is a living thing and it contains the life energy of Chi.

 

How about I use the rocks that slide around in that one area in Death Valley? They move but yet I suggest they have no consciousness because they are not living things.

[Marblehead]

I was being a bit critical of Dwai, but realized it wasn't going to be a productive discussion in any way. I think logically your position and Dwai's position can both be justified and negated. But for convenience sakes, I would, as most people do, take your position. It's probably the more practical way to live.

 

Thanks.

 

I really do enjoy talking with Dwai. We actually have much more in agreement than we have in differences. Every now and again I get the chance to question his logic and this is one of them. He and I have very different roots to our philosophical understandings. It is such a nice feeling when we have a fiesty discussion and at some point find a commonality where we can agree with each other.

[dwai]

Hehehe. How did I know you would not agree with me?

 

Knowledge is subjective. The tree is objective. The tree needs no conscious entity to tell it that it exists. Many trees existed before any conscious beings recognized their existence.

 

And yes, I suggest that many trees had fallen prior to the existence of man - even prior to the dinosaurs.

 

I will agree that all knowledge is a product of consciousness but I do not agree that reality, the entire universe, is a product of consciousness. The universe managed quite well for 13.6+ billion years without us.

 

How do you know without having the consciousness to gain that knowledge? If there wasn't a consciousness to register that, did it really matter?

 

Also, it is a moot point for us sentient beings to discuss whether non-sentient reality exists independently because there would be no relevance to "us" as sentient beings, ie without our "being-ness".

Edited November 11, 2011 by dwai

[dwai]

What a conversation! No wonder you had to walk away and talk about something else.

 

 

What about the underlying consciousness you spoke of?

And how do you know that it exists forever ? How do you know?

 

by experiencing it directly.

[Marblehead]

How do you know without having the consciousness to gain that knowledge? If there wasn't a consciousness to register that, did it really matter?

 

Also, it is a moot point for us sentient beings to discuss whether non-sentient reality exists independently because there would be no relevance to "us" as sentient beings, ie without our "being-ness".

 

One cannot "know" without having consciousness. And true, if one were not conscious nothing would matter.

 

I do disagree with your second paragraph. I think it is important to know that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that our solar system is 4.5 billion years old and that what is called man, in whatever form, has been here for about 4 million years.

 

Therefore it can be said that "we" sentient beings are not the center of the universe and its existence does not depend on us. We just happen to be the most evolved species at the moment. Wasn't too long ago it was the dinosaurs.

 

And yes, that a road exists outside my driveway is important to me. Now true, the road wouldn't matter if there were no one to drive or walk the road. Kinda' like that program on TV, "Life Without People". Yes, life would go on. And everything we have done would be destroyed. And no, that wouldn't matter either.

 

In fact, after I die I am sure that nothing will matter to me anymore. I will not even be for anything to matter. But there will be people still here after I die. I am sure things will matter to them.

 

Have I said anything? I don't know.

[Birch]

It's a tough one Mr MH. It could mean little pockets of consciouness around little pockets of non-consciousness. It hurts my brain a bit to contemplate it, but i do disagree that the world is brought into being by sentient beings. Then it happens i do agree that our impressions of the world aren't it due to our limitations. I heard the argument that those limitations are caused by self-identifying with them but i don't know about that either. It's too complicated for me to understand but that doesn't mean other people do either. A good argument can still have no basis in reality.

 

Off to play with my pet rock:-)

[3bob]

Okay. I admit defeat on that one. Hehehe. A tree is a living thing and it contains the life energy of Chi.

 

How about I use the rocks that slide around in that one area in Death Valley? They move but yet I suggest they have no consciousness because they are not living things.

 

Hehehe -

How about I use crystals that have ordered growth? Thus I reiterate that "consciousness" is in no way limited to 'common' human concepts about same. (although one could narrow things down drastically and make the 'human' variation the topic of the day)

 

Om

[Marblehead]

Hehehe -

How about I use crystals that have ordered growth? Thus I reiterate that "consciousness" is in no way limited to 'common' human concepts about same. (although one could narrow things down drastically and make the 'human' variation the topic of the day)

 

Om

 

Yeah, 'crystals' is an interesting one. I, personally, think it is only because of their physical properties but there are many who believe that there is more to crystals then there is with other basic elements in the universe. But I still wouldn't consider that 'consciousness' in any form. More at the ability to radiate energy in a specific pattern. In my understanding, Chi permeates all things and non-things. Perhaps crystals have the ability to alter the movement of Chi.

 

But in my understanding it requires a brain of some sort for consciousness to exist.

[suninmyeyes]

by experiencing it directly.

Ah OK I was just wandering becouse your friend asked you the same question and you started to explain about Rishis going to samadhi .

[suninmyeyes]

 

Off to play with my pet rock:-)

Say hi to it from Auntie Sun!

[Birch]

Say hi to it from Auntie Sun!

Will do! But not too loudly. Seems those rocks are sensitive :-)

 

However, back to topic. IMO/IME whatever the nature of inanimate "stuff", it does seem to be in pretty constant interaction/transformation with us animate beings. So where does one draw any lines? At the purely perceptual level? What about the "stuff" we can't perceive (or don't bother paying attention to, like eating rocks, uh, I mean salt:-) and what happens then?

 

Do the rocks i ate gain "sentience" because i ate them? Or were they smart enough to get themselves eaten?? I don't know.

[3bob]

Yeah, 'crystals' is an interesting one. I, personally, think it is only because of their physical properties but there are many who believe that there is more to crystals then there is with other basic elements in the universe. But I still wouldn't consider that 'consciousness' in any form. More at the ability to radiate energy in a specific pattern. In my understanding, Chi permeates all things and non-things. Perhaps crystals have the ability to alter the movement of Chi.

 

But in my understanding it requires a brain of some sort for consciousness to exist.

 

Ok MH, Thank you for the feedback.

 

:-)

[forestofclarity]

So is pain an inherent quality of fires and sharp corners?

[Marblehead]

So is pain an inherent quality of fires and sharp corners?

 

Interesting question.

 

I am going to remain at the surface level and say, "No". Yes, fires and sharp corners have their inherent qualities but it is only through improper interaction of some essence capable of feeling pain that these qualities will be experienced. But it is not in the giving be rather in the receiving.

[deci belle]

Ah OK I was just wandering becouse your friend asked you the same question and you started to explain about Rishis going to samadhi .

 

I believe dwai hasn't experienced this personally so was making the reference to those who have. This is valid and also follows the logic that was complicit in the conversation that was taking place. I'm not conversant in "logic", but it is a fine example of dwai's understanding and practice!!

 

I enjoyed that, dwai.

 

And Suninmyeyes' honing in on that is how people create buddhas!❤

 

(ed note: add last line)

Edited November 14, 2011 by deci belle

[Aaron]

This koan isn't meant to disprove that things exist or don't exist when you cease to view them, but rather that you can only know what you experience yourself and that everything that you view is derived from your own experience. It doesn't necessarily infer that a tree only exists so long as you are their to view it, because in fact the tree can exist if I was there to view it, unless of course you're saying I don't exist when you do not view me.

 

Now if what you're saying is true, then it would be logical to assume that since things only exist so long as we perceive them, then there is no reason why we can't alter our perception of things and thus change their actual shape and appearance, yet if those shapes and appearances are static and do not change, then it seems to be logical to assume that they do exist, or at the very least, if we use the quantum consciousness model, they exist so long as something conscious views it, rather than just your own individual consciousness.

 

Just my point of view.

 

Aaron

Edited November 14, 2011 by Twinner