Consciousness is Not Eternal

[xabir2005]

The hypothesis of this thread is that consciousness is not eternal.

 

Consciousness comes and goes like everything else, for example, during periods of deep sleep, certain meditative states, or when one is given anesthesia.

 

Note, this is a hypothesis, not a statement of fact.

 

I would like to hear opposing views based on logic, experience, or other understanding.

My experience/insight is that consciousness is indeed not eternal, consciousness is ever-changing, momentary, manifestations. Though there was a time when I treated Consciousness as the supreme Self, unchanging and ultimate.

 

Just a few moments ago I was re-visiting something Thusness wrote 2 year ago shortly after my realization of anatta.

 

(btw, there are some teachers, some of those following Nisargadatta (and Nis himself), and recently Bentinho Massaro, who had new experiences recently and moved on from awareness teachings and treated this 'non-experience black hole' as Absolute and treated non-dual consciousness as another passing dream. Thusness's message is not this: as he clearly states, even this 'non-experience black hole' is absolutely empty and passing, nothing ultimate as well)

 

Thusness:

 

"Yes, all PCEs, all NDNCDIMOP, all these will pass (not into some great void).

 

The article Death, Reincarnation, Nonduality, and other dreams ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/death-reincarnation-nonduality-and.html ) in your blog by Jeff Foster talking about deep dreamless sleep as a form of psuedo death. He is talking about this ‘psuedo death’ that is a direct opposite of the NDNCDIMOP much like an absolute 'no experience' black-hole that even non-dual presence cannot escape. He urges practitioners to see it with an unbiased mind and not be overly attached to non-dual presence.

 

Yet this 'pseudo death' too will pass.

 

Similarly if we were to turn micro and practice vipassana, there are body sensations, fluctuation thoughts, beliefs, heart beats, sound, scent...no permanent agent that is owner of these arising and passing phenomena can be found. A ‘permanent unchanging witness’ is just simply 'a thought that claims ownership along this arising and passing stream. :-)

 

The insight of no-self must not only realize the illusionary division of subject-object duality and turns non-dual experience implicit; it must also allow practitioner to clearly see the stream of ever becoming. When there is no permanent agent,there is just seeing, thinking, hearing; there is simply scenery, thoughts, sounds; there are still fear, emotion, anger…there is action, there is karma…just no self.

 

What is the implication?

 

The mind upon seeing anatta must not continue to live in a fantasy land and clearly see the workings of these arising and passing phenomena. There is no escape for there is just this and practitioners are always dealing with attachments, deeper dispositions, latent tendencies, supporting conditions, action, karma.

 

Can you stop an arising thought from subsiding?

 

Is the present moment of thought the same as the previous moment of thought?

 

Can this moment of thought not affect the next moment of thought?

 

Stabilizing the insight of anatta requires the realization of dependent origination.

 

With the absence of ‘dualistic and inherent’ tendencies as the supporting conditions, experience turns non-dual and liberating; so do not mistake the ‘effect’ for ‘cause’ and focus too much on PCEs. :-)"

Edited July 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

My experience/insight is that ...

That was very complicated but I think I agree with you.

[xabir2005]

That was very complicated but I think I agree with you.

But neither do I hold the belief of nihilism, which is that a self annihilates upon death, which you seem to be holding. I hold that there is karmic rebirth for those who are not liberated*.

 

My view is the middle way: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/06/eternalism-nihilism-and-middle-way.html

 

 

*Rizenfenix:

 

Continuing consciousness after death is, in most religions, a matter of revealed truth. In Buddhism, the evidence comes from the contemplative experience of people who are certainly not ordinary but who are sufficiently numerous that what they say about it is worth taking seriously into account. Indeed, such testimonies begin with those of the Buddha himself.

 

Nevertheless, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some ‘entity’ or other. It’s not a process of metempsychosis because there is no ‘soul’. As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, ‘There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.’ Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a ‘person’, but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness.

 

Additionally, Buddhism speaks of successive states of existence; in other words, everything isn’t limited to just one lifetime. We’ve experienced other states of existence before our birth in this lifetime, and we’ll experience others after death. This, of course, leads to a fundamental question: is there a nonmaterial consciousness distinct from the body? It would be virtually impossible to talk about reincarnation without first examining the relationship between body and mind. Moreover, since Buddhism denies the existence of any self that could be seen as a separate entity capable of transmigrating from one existence to another by passing from one body to another, one might well wonder what it could be that links those successive states of existence together.

 

One could possibly understand it better by considering it as a continuum, a stream of consciousness that continues to flow without there being any fixed or autonomous entity running through it… Rather it could be likened to a river without a boat, or to a lamp flame that lights a second lamp, which in-turn lights a third lamp, and so on and so forth; the flame at the end of the process is neither the same flame as at the outset, nor a completely different one…

Edited July 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[gatito]

............

(btw, there are some teachers, some of those following Nisargadatta (and Nis himself), and recently Bentinho Massaro, who had new experiences recently and moved on from awareness teachings and treated this 'non-experience black hole' as Absolute and treated non-dual consciousness as another passing dream. Thusness's message is not this: as he clearly states, even this 'non-experience black hole' is absolutely empty and passing, nothing ultimate as well)

 

.......

 

 

That's interesting because Bentinho Massaro is one of the rapidly-growing crop of neo-adviatans (like Jeff Foster and the original - Tony Parsons).

 

If he's now changed his tune then that's evidence that he was teaching from ignorance previously and it begs the question - why should anyone believe that he's got it right now?

Edited July 23, 2012 by gatito

[xabir2005]

That's interesting because Bentinho Massaro is one of the rapidly-growing crop of neo-adviatans (like Jeff Foster and the original - Tony Parsons).

 

If he's now changed his tune then that's evidence that he was teaching from ignorance previously and it begs the question - why should anyone believe that he's got it right now?

I would not say so. Anyway this is not new - Nisargadatta basically teaches the same thing, to discover the pure consciousness before moving beyond it into the Absolute which is the ultimate state of non-being, oblivion even of existence, the origin even prior to consciousness itself.

 

Bentinho was teaching from true insight and experience previously, but he had new discoveries which made him change his position with regards to 'non-dual awareness'. Even though he did not deny 'non-dual awareness' (which he himself realized and experienced previously), he now treats a state 'beyond consciousness' as even more freeing. In other words, Bentinho is shifting between 1, 2, 4, to Stage 3 of http://awakeningtore...experience.html

 

Thusness Stage 3 becomes most important to him now, more important than non-dual awareness. Stage 3 becomes treated as an ultimate to him (same for Nisargadatta and many others).

 

To me and Thusness, these are true experiences, but the conclusions formulated about these true experience are wrong. The framework which substantializes - either awareness, or nothingness, into an ultimate, is wrong. There is no hierarchy.

 

As Thusness pointed out recently (and in fact many years ago he said a lot of similar statements):

 

 

7/8/2012 11:32 PM: John: The intensity is focusing on the essence (clarity) of mind....it is important to understand for a practitioner to later let go of the grasping of presence and be natural. Otherwise practitioner will have sought after the state of oblivion to get beyond presence. A practitioner that releases the grasping of presence has no such issue. But to see how the grasping of ultimate One Mind is but an attachment that prevents clear seeing and releasing is crucial.

 

 

Here are some quotations from him a few years ago which are relevant to Bentinho's (recent) issue: https://www.box.com/...21dfa62ccd0ca7b

[xabir2005]

For a debate like this I like the direct path style of Krishna Menon.

 

Consciousness is the basic fact of our entire experience.

 

Thinking, Feeling, perceiving, believing, personing {acting upon the sense that we are a person}, and anything else we can think of, all happen within consciousness.

 

So Consciousness is the actual ground of everything.

 

 

What does Consciousness do?

 

It experiences... and that is it.

 

 

Waking life, is an experience within consciousness of lots of stuff happening.

 

Dreaming is an experience within consciousness of other stuff happening.

 

Deep sleep or unconsciousness or death are an experience of nothing happening till after death experiences start.

 

 

Consciousness is prior to and behind all experience, and is completely untouched by those experiences. having ones leg chopped off, having an orgasm, waking up in the morning, disproving consciousness is eternal or having ones head blown off... all these things happen within a consciousness that was already there, that does not change or alter in the least, no matter what it is that goes on...

 

We are not actually even a person. Being a person is also just an experience next to lots of other experiences within consciousness...

 

 

What is consciousness? Who knows?

Knowing itself is an experience within consciousness. Including meditation stages of 'oneness' with consciousness...

Greg's book based on Sri Atmananda teachings (anyway Greg is probabably Sri Atmananda's reincarnation) deconstructs objectivity and the Witness into One Mind...

 

This 'consciousness' in One Mind is what gets even further deconstructed in Anatta - as what Zen priest Alex Weith so nicely put in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html

Edited July 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

But neither do I hold the belief of nihilism, which is that a self annihilates upon death, which you seem to be holding. I hold that there is karmic rebirth for those who are not liberated*.

Yes, we have had that discussion before and I think we ended up agreeing that we would disagree. Hehehe. It is, afterall, part of your belief system and I can't really argue against that.

[Mokona]

Yes, we have had that discussion before and I think we ended up agreeing that we would disagree. Hehehe. It is, afterall, part of your belief system and I can't really argue against that.

Just an offhand-

 

If someone experiences a persitant overpowering spiritual event - that he or she cannot prove to most others, does that make it a fact or a belief? I think it may be the base for many peeps who go nuts when they start to develop real energy.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I would not say so. Anyway this is not new - Nisargadatta basically teaches the same thing, to discover the pure consciousness before moving beyond it into the Absolute which is the ultimate state of non-being, oblivion even of existence, the origin even prior to consciousness itself.

 

Bentinho was teaching from true insight and experience previously, but he had new discoveries which made him change his position with regards to 'non-dual awareness'. Even though he did not deny 'non-dual awareness' (which he himself realized and experienced previously), he now treats a state 'beyond consciousness' as even more freeing. In other words, Bentinho is shifting between 1, 2, 4, to Stage 3 of http://awakeningtore...experience.html

 

Thusness Stage 3 becomes most important to him now, more important than non-dual awareness. Stage 3 becomes treated as an ultimate to him (same for Nisargadatta and many others).

 

To me and Thusness, these are true experiences, but the conclusions formulated about these true experience are wrong. The framework which substantializes - either awareness, or nothingness, into an ultimate, is wrong. There is no hierarchy.

 

As Thusness pointed out recently (and in fact many years ago he said a lot of similar statements):

 

 

7/8/2012 11:32 PM: John: The intensity is focusing on the essence (clarity) of mind....it is important to understand for a practitioner to later let go of the grasping of presence and be natural. Otherwise practitioner will have sought after the state of oblivion to get beyond presence. A practitioner that releases the grasping of presence has no such issue. But to see how the grasping of ultimate One Mind is but an attachment that prevents clear seeing and releasing is crucial.

 

 

Here are some quotations from him a few years ago which are relevant to Bentinho's (recent) issue: https://www.box.com/...21dfa62ccd0ca7b

I think one thing you should really clarify is that it is your thoughts, reactions and attempts to analyze experiences of presence that objectifies presence experiences and basically gets you stuck there. This includes Self and no-self and dependent origination or whatever. They are all limitations to what may be revealed in one's experience. I'm not saying they are true or untrue. But the mind saying anything in those lines is bound to be a limitation.

 

You will probably disagree because you worship Thusness's experiences like it's a religion, a fact set in stone, but Thusness is only sharing what has been seen by him so far and there only seem to be these "stages" because they were when the mind decided, "hey this is it, this is how it is." I doubt he believes what he knows now is an ultimate truth or the structure of reality or whatever.

 

Has he experienced beyond the body and the mind? I'm not talking about concentration states, but literally beyond the physical realm.

 

These so called "realizations" are revealed to the mind with the deepening of direct awareness experiences and not the other way around. Like how you can see the process of attachment and karmic functioning happening in your head when presence becomes clearer. So to say Self, no-self, impermanence are "realizations" is a problem because when one's vision ultimately deepens is when these realizations are loosened and everything is again seen directly. So the base must be presence. One cannot say to have experienced what thusness calls anatta without presence. The mental understanding of anatta may get you to direct presence, but it is not the same.

 

That's why discussions like this are almost always detrimental because it is with the head-mind we are trying to conceptualize reality. It feeds the mind's tendencies to finalize, an almost opposite reaction to what you are really looking for.

[gatito]

I would not say so. Anyway this is not new - Nisargadatta basically teaches the same thing, to discover the pure consciousness before moving beyond it into the Absolute which is the ultimate state of non-being, oblivion even of existence, the origin even prior to consciousness itself.

 

Bentinho was teaching from true insight and experience previously, but he had new discoveries which made him change his position with regards to 'non-dual awareness'. Even though he did not deny 'non-dual awareness' (which he himself realized and experienced previously), he now treats a state 'beyond consciousness' as even more freeing. In other words, Bentinho is shifting between 1, 2, 4, to Stage 3 of http://awakeningtore...experience.html

 

Thusness Stage 3 becomes most important to him now, more important than non-dual awareness. Stage 3 becomes treated as an ultimate to him (same for Nisargadatta and many others).

 

To me and Thusness, these are true experiences, but the conclusions formulated about these true experience are wrong. The framework which substantializes - either awareness, or nothingness, into an ultimate, is wrong. There is no hierarchy.

 

As Thusness pointed out recently (and in fact many years ago he said a lot of similar statements):

 

 

7/8/2012 11:32 PM: John: The intensity is focusing on the essence (clarity) of mind....it is important to understand for a practitioner to later let go of the grasping of presence and be natural. Otherwise practitioner will hv sought after the state of oblivion to get beyond presence. A practitioner that releases the grasping of presence has no such issue. But to see how the grasping of ultimate One Mind is but an attachment that prevents clear seeing and releasing is crucial.

 

 

Here are some quotations from him a few years ago which are relevant to Bentinho's (recent) issue: https://www.box.com/...21dfa62ccd0ca7b

 

I don't consider that either Bentinho or Thusness are authorities on advaita and I can't discuss Nisargadatta because I've never studied his writings in any depth.

 

Just to reiterate: either Bentinho was teaching from a position of having seen the Truth of non-duality himself or he was not.

 

Clearly if he changed his mind about it, he was not.

 

It really is that simple.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't consider that either Bentinho or Thusness are authorities on advaita and I can't discuss Nisargadatta because I've never studied his writings in any depth.

 

Just to reiterate: either Bentinho was teaching from a position of having seen the Truth of non-duality himself or he was not.

 

Clearly if he changed his mind about it, he was not.

 

It really is that simple.

Uh, or maybe his understanding deepened. People can you know, learn more stuff.

[xabir2005]

I don't consider that either Bentinho or Thusness are authorities on advaita and I can't discuss Nisargadatta because I've never studied his writings in any depth.

 

Just to reiterate: either Bentinho was teaching from a position of having seen the Truth of non-duality himself or he was not.

 

Clearly if he changed his mind about it, he was not.

 

It really is that simple.

It is not as simple as you think.

 

For example: you can realize 1, then later realize 1+1 = 2. 1+1 = 2 does not deny 1.

 

His new realization does not deny his previous realization. They are both true experience. Though his new realization does make him loosen his attachment to consciousness.

Edited July 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[gatito]

Greg's book based on Sri Atmananda teachings (anyway Greg is probabably Sri Atmananda's reincarnation) deconstructs objectivity and the Witness into One Mind...

 

This 'consciousness' in One Mind is what gets even further deconstructed in Anatta - as what Zen priest Alex Weith so nicely put in http://awakeningtore...hiya-sutta.html

 

When "It" is seen clearly, it is seen that there is no separate entity to reincarnate.

 

"There is only Consciousness and even that is saying too much" GG

(I might have slightly misquoted from memory but if you doubt that I'll see if I can locate the actual quote.

 

Greg doesn't deconstruct into one mind - there are many apparent minds but there are not many Consciousnesses. It doesn't work to mix and match like that. Greg teaches Direct Path and he teaches Emptiness. They're different approaches.

[gatito]

It is not as simple as you think.

 

For example: you can realize 1, then later realize 1+1 = 2. 1+1 = 2 does not deny 1.

 

His new realization does not deny his previous realization. They are both true experience. Though his new realization does make him loosen his attachment to consciousness.

 

Actually, it really is that simple. The problem comes when the dualising mind tries to conceptualise what is Real

 

This has nothing to do with algebra.

 

Not-twoness does not equal Oneness.

[gatito]

Uh, or maybe his understanding deepened. People can you know, learn more stuff.

 

Either nonduality is seen clearly or it is not.

 

It is direct Knowledge - not "learning" or "belief".

 

Uh,

[xabir2005]

I think one thing you should really clarify is that it is your thoughts, reactions and attempts to analyze experiences of presence that objectifies presence experiences and basically gets you stuck there. This includes Self and no-self and dependent origination or whatever. They are all limitations to what may be revealed in one's experience. I'm not saying they are true or untrue. But the mind saying anything in those lines is bound to be a limitation.

 

You will probably disagree because you worship Thusness's experiences like it's a religion, a fact set in stone, but Thusness is only sharing what has been seen by him so far and there only seem to be these "stages" because they were when the mind decided, "hey this is it, this is how it is." I doubt he believes what he knows now is an ultimate truth or the structure of reality or whatever.

In Thusness's words, there is no ultimate reality, but the ultimate truth in buddhism is emptiness. Everything is realized to be empty, including consciousness. There isn't even dependent origination (dependent origination is empty). Thusness: "No body, no mind, no dependent origination, no nothing, no something, no birth, no death. Profoundly deconstructed and emptied! Just vivid shimmering appearances as Primordial Suchness in one whole seamless unobstructed-interpenetration."

Has he experienced beyond the body and the mind? I'm not talking about concentration states, but literally beyond the physical realm.

What do you classify as beyond physical realm? I think in Buddhism only the 4 formless jhanas are considered beyond physical, (I am thinking that perhaps samadhi/absorption in oceanic I AM and in nothingness would correspond to jhana of infinite consciousness and nothingness) as well as utter cessation of nirodha samadhi. In these states, there can be utter oblivion of the body, the five senses may be shut, and yet there it is - infinite consciousness, nothingness, etc. Also he has plenty of experiences, including visiting other planes/realms, seeing Buddhas, etc, do you consider these beyond body and mind? Again he does not reveal too much to me, and even if he does, I cannot reveal too much as well.

These so called "realizations" are revealed to the mind with the deepening of direct awareness experiences and not the other way around. Like how you can see the process of attachment and karmic functioning happening in your head when presence becomes clearer. So to say Self, no-self, impermanence are "realizations" is a problem because when one's vision ultimately deepens is when these realizations are loosened and everything is again seen directly. So the base must be presence. One cannot say to have experienced what thusness calls anatta without presence. The mental understanding of anatta may get you to direct presence, but it is not the same.

 

That's why discussions like this are almost always detrimental because it is with the head-mind we are trying to conceptualize reality. It feeds the mind's tendencies to finalize, an almost opposite reaction to what you are really looking for.

Let me put it this way: Anatta as a realization clears up all delusions, grasping, projection, confusion, views, etc... that which obscures the effortless, total, seamless experience of Presence.

 

For, as long as there is the slightest view of duality, of inherency, there will be no seamless, effortless and liberating experience of Presence.

 

Just an example: the holding on to a Self, a background (which is only a dead image of a previous non-dual experience being reified), prevents effortless experience of Presence as foreground sensations. (and this is only part of it, not all)

 

Being very clear, luminous, present, may not necessarily lead to anatta realization... it also requires a certain form of investigation and contemplation.

 

Non-conceptual presence isn't all there is to the path... even a conceptual right view can also help, in fact it is a good 'raft'.

Edited July 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Actually, it really is that simple. The problem comes when the dualising mind tries to conceptualise what is Real

 

This has nothing to do with algebra.

 

Not-twoness does not equal Oneness.

Realizing the nothingness does not negate that consciousness is without subject-object duality.

[xabir2005]

When "It" is seen clearly, it is seen that there is no separate entity to reincarnate.

 

"There is only Consciousness and even that is saying too much" GG

(I might have slightly misquoted from memory but if you doubt that I'll see if I can locate the actual quote.

 

Greg doesn't deconstruct into one mind - there are many apparent minds but there are not many Consciousnesses. It doesn't work to mix and match like that. Greg teaches Direct Path and he teaches Emptiness. They're different approaches.

What you call One Consciousness is what I call One Mind (not mind as conceptual thoughts).

 

I wrote an article differentiating One Mind and Anatta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2011/08/substantial-and-insubstantial-non.html

Edited July 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[gatito]

Realizing the nothingness does not negate that consciousness is without subject-object duality.

 

It's not realising "nothingness".

 

Consciousness is always awake and always aware.

[xabir2005]

It's not realising "nothingness".

 

Consciousness is always awake and always aware.

No, by nothingness, I am referring to Thusness Stage 3, or what Nisargadatta, or what Bentinho, and many others are now teaching.

[gatito]

What you call One Consciousness is what I call One Mind (not mind as conceptual thoughts).

 

I wrote an article differentiating One Mind and Anatta: http://awakeningtore...antial-non.html

 

Consciousness is not mind.

 

Consciousness is not one because this implies two - instant duality.

[gatito]

No, by nothingness, I am referring to Thusness Stage 3, or what Nisargadatta, or what Bentinho, and many others are now teaching.

 

I've already said that I don't regard Benthino and many other neo-advaitans as authorities on advaita.

 

I find them confused.

[xabir2005]

Consciousness is not mind.

 

Consciousness is not one because this implies two - instant duality.

You have different terminology of 'mind'.

 

What I said is just a statement "Consciousness is all there is." "Consciousness alone is".

 

i.e. Everything is only Consciousness, which isn't many.

 

Advaita is reducing everything to Self.

Edited July 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[Marblehead]

Just an offhand-

 

If someone experiences a persitant overpowering spiritual event - that he or she cannot prove to most others, does that make it a fact or a belief? I think it may be the base for many peeps who go nuts when they start to develop real energy.

Excellent point of consideration. I am reminded to keep that in mind every now and again.

 

Proof is with the beholder, isn't it?

[Boy]

...

Edited October 11, 2012 by Boy