This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What is the nature of consciousness? Is consciousness merely a by-product of the physical brain?
Consciousness is perhaps the greatest mystery ever to be presented to mankind. My question is: What is the nature of consciousness? How can the materialistic world view of mankind explain the phenomenon of consciousness. By its nature, which is of a totally immaterial and invisible, with its inner activity of thinking, also a totally invisible activity, which the whole of the scientific world view rests upon..."Thinking". What is thinking if not a non-physical super-sensible invisible, immaterial reality. For the scientific world view to understand itself, it must examine the nature of thinking. And in doing so, the "religious" world view will be able to find something to hang onto.Science and religion can meet on this question. Because it is here where they both fall short. Science cannot explain consciousness out of the materialistic world view. Religion cannot explain evolutionary principles in nature without adapting the scientific world view. The two are locked in an unending battle. Can it be that thinking is,in fact, the "spiritual activity of man"
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
daniel hehir 20+
I guess I can agree with a lot of what your are saying. There's a lot of ideas in your comment so I think I have to start with just one thing at a time...
As for consciousness being a "spacial" phenomenon ... I fell first upon the question of time.. as time is seemingly related to space... however if we can extract our perspective long enough out... like imagining that we are floating out into space and then imagining or visualizing the earth spinning around the sun... we are in a way projecting ourselves out of the time element of consciousness. As an astronaut ... the wheel of time is no longer bound to the earthly existence... but the biological clock that continues ticking in our bodies continues...perhaps at a different rhythm than the original biological rhythm that we were born into. What we experience as jet lag is also a disturbance of this biological rhythm . Time is also related to movement... circular movement.. Could become a whole new discussion here... as Tim and I talked about earlier. Concepts of infinity and eternity.... are they real ? How fully do we really understand them.
I would venture to say that when we die.. the time element becomes a spacial element... This is why we can "see" our whole life pass before our field of vision in a review. The review that Colleen was talking about earlier here on this discussion and the same review that people who have a NDE. The flow of events throughout or lives becomes an object of our perception. Our consciousness, which we experience as an individualized part of the universal consciousness, then expands out into the universal consciousness. The time flow becomes a spacial flow of existence.
This all sounds pretty far fetched I know... anyone reading this now, without having read my previous comments will surely think this is a conglomeration of a wild imagination... but I think you might follow what I'm getting at...
SANTHIP KANHOLY
When ultimately one falls into the primal IS of non-dual consciousness, one is everything and nothing at the same time. One isn't then limited by the body, or the biological clock that is associated with the body that is arising out of the dual consciousness of "I" am the "body". One sees the transient happening withing themselves and as not being separate from it at the same time. Such individuals do not "sleep" when they sleep. They are awake even when they are sleeping. Infact if you look at their brain waves when they are awake, it would show delta brain waves, which implies their "waking" state of consciousness is that of "sleep" state of consciousness. I can point you to individuals who can show this any time of the day.
As far as infinity and eternity goes, yes .. they are real. There is this non-dual state of consciousness which is infinite in its expression, and eternal ( has existed beyond time ). Living proof is in the existence of such individuals described in the paragraph above. But trying to understand them would imply the need to put a box around them, and also calls for an observer/subject "trying" to "understand" them. But when one experiences this non-dual reality of consciousness, there is no one left who is trying to understand. If there is "someone" left trying to understand, then it isn't non-dual consciousness. This reality can only be experienced directly when one stills the mind ( a state of no thoughts)
natasha nikulina 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
SANTHIP KANHOLY
Having said that, for the majority of us non-dual consciousness isn't the living state of awareness/consciousness within us. But there are individuals who have attained such a state ( the evidence for which is very evident especially in their presence). So yes, it is possible to still one's mind, and be open to what is happening in the moment without separating it based on our own individual systems of perceptions and perceptual filters. In fact , upon deeper observation, the greatest inspiration/thought is observed when one has a still mind. It doesn't happen because we continuously were thinking, but when we stilled our mind to allow the thought to happen. So yes.. still mind is always present and can be strengthened using practices with time.
Mark Meijer 100+
natasha nikulina 50+
Mark Meijer 100+
SANTHIP KANHOLY
Whatever needs to happen will happen. And honestly the ego which tries to control simply cannot control everything . Time can only emerge out of an ego/subject-object construct. Because we are familiar with the ego construct, we choose to hang onto the familiar rather than surrendering ourselves to the truth in the moment, which is the timeless reality. And yes, no language/ or any other dualistic medium can put the ultimate reality within a box, but can only help to point to it, rather than completely define it.
Yes. I know an enlightened teacher, who is willing to give guidance to those who are sincerely seeking the truth of their own being. Her name is Guru Swami-G ( www.guruswamig.com ). I came across her through complete chance encounter on the internet searching about kundalini. She has experienced enlightenment, and has been giving guidance ever since. She has brought a handful of students to direct experience as well. So yes, she is willing to give guidance to those who seek it. Having said that, it still remains a very individual and lonely journey, which must be taken by the individual themselves. But having access to someone who has completed the journey helps in progressing quickly and tremendously.
And yes .. she doesn't think at all. And she finds that she is still able to get tons of things get done without thinking, in fact more efficiently than before. Have been fortunate to bear witness to this myself.
natasha nikulina 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
I think I understood your original question. Is it possible to still the mind without fracturing the whole. You are refering to the whole of the "self"? In your next comment, you ask: "can they deliver, if they choose to, via what?" By that you mean can they function in our world?
The thought process is still available to us even if we choose to "turn it off" most of the time.
By taking the path of stilling the mind, we are not giving up anything, but rather, choosing a different focus. It is definetely an individual quest, and each individual may experience it differently. One person may choose to be totally secluded and not use the thinking process at all. Another person may choose to function more actively in the world and use the thinking process on occasion, but generally function from a place of knowing, rather than thinking. Does that make any sense?
Mark Meijer 100+
I don't think so. That state of "simplicity" is actually a state of complete freedom to get involved in any amount of complexity as one chooses (including a sense of self), and withdraw from it as one chooses. Before that, one doesn't have that choice, one is stuck with it.
So what is the cost? Before: Ego is prison, ego is master. After: Ego is at best a useful tool, to be picked up or put down as the situation requires. It just won't confine you anymore and you won't be its slave.
If ones current sense of self is "everything", then one might say the cost of attaining that state is "everything". But even that would be false, because you'd still be free to pick up that sense of self, insofar as you'd still want to.
So what one actually gives up to attain that state? Self-inflicted limitation and a good measure of ignorance.
I think I can find a short video for you about this...
EDIT: Sorry I didn't find the video I had in mind, but here are some other relevant ones:
A Deeper Freedom: Experiences of Selflessness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfw_tHC0A9w
Enlightenment "Downsides":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoAbCgmhqdM
The Absolute Witness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drLxJSpeb8c
Non-Dual Awareness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwOccTTAcVw
Zen, Vipassana, & Becoming Impermanence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ15Y6WrDTE
Advanced FAQs: Regarding Emptiness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=812I4KYLMF8
Expansion and Contraction - Graduate Level Version:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M28c-8VfVjQ
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbKlB-0eORs
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTPWNtGgp6A
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsgj-5yCLGU
Don't know if it's what you were looking for, or maybe it's too much, but I hope you find something helpful it there anyway.
Mark Meijer 100+
http://www.google.com/search?q=Chong+An+Sunim+Won+Kwang+Sa+2007&hl=en&tbs=vid:1,srcf:H4sIAAAAAAAAANNOz89Pz0nVS87PVcvJzMtOLqoEs7PLU1OTM8DMsvyUgvwUMDM1Nyk1pbgkPzkbzM0sT8wryc_1LgWgBALYUzwJLAAAA&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=Agd9TcbLMsT1sgbkn8HZBw&ved=0CCEQpwUoAQ
SANTHIP KANHOLY
But it doesn't mean that they would lose their sense. If car is cheaper and if they have little money then they will choose car. So what needs to happen will happen.
But yes, even though I haven't experienced this "non-thinking" state, which is highly unimaginable for the common populace, when one merges with the timeless reality, thinking doesn't take place at all to get everyday things get done.
daniel hehir 20+
SANTHIP KANHOLY
No amount of thinking can out think thinking. It seems that you are mixing ideas of "awareness" in what you are describing as thinking. Again, when one comes back to what is happening in the moment, one can experience that there is no need for any memory to get things done. The answer for 8x8 would be 64, and would come spontaneously. The intuitive mind begins to take precedence.
Einstein had once remarked that a problem cannot be solved at the same consciousness state that it was formulated. There needs to be a higher consciousness state to "resolve" thinking. And a quiet mind is the place to begin. Slowly and steadily. One step at a time.
One can use logic to point to the ultimate state. But it can only point. It isn't what it is pointing to. Once we know what it is pointing to, then we jump into the point and experience it. Thinking fails to equate with the direct experience, and has its place as a lower level tool when compared to the higher awareness. The only way to verify this is by experiencing it yourself. There is no other better way to do so.
natasha nikulina 50+
daniel hehir 20+
Mark Meijer 100+
The reason you "think" it does is because you're only "thinking" about it all the time ;) if you understand what I mean. You're turning the whole thing into an intellectual game, hypothesizing and modelling and trying to deduce and infer what seems to make sense. This in itself is not a bad thing, but it won't get you anywhere if your contemplation has no basis in direct experience.
For example you can write equations and do measurements and analyze everything there is to analyze about jumping on a trampoline, but you'll never know what it's like until you've tried it yourself. If you want to know what it's like to step out of your thinking mind and see what there is to see on the other side, then the only way is to try it out (not an easy task but something everybody can learn with practice).
If you remain stuck in thinking alone without perceiving, then all you'll ever come up with is mere hypotheses that are untested and necessarily require thought as the prime cause of consciousness.
SANTHIP KANHOLY
Daniel, it seems you are trying to mix up "awareness" with thinking. Let me define awareness. Awareness is the state of being aware. One can be aware of their body sensations, their emotions, or their thoughts. Thinking is the act of being aware of their thoughts. Concentration is the act of pulling back awareness into what you are doing in the moment rather than get pulled by other thoughts.
The act of being aware is different from the act of being aware of one's thoughts. One can be aware of anything else. Hence I would like to restrict the definition of thinking to the act of being aware of one's thoughts rather than the act of observing, which is more in line with being aware.
You do not need to be a monk to flush out thinking. Hundreds do meditation on a daily basis just to be in a quiet mind. It is possible to do this with practice. It is not an easy task to give up thinking and to be in a quiet mind. The modern world has wrongly taught/imbibed us with a sense that a quiet mind is equivalent to being numb. But that is the farthest from the truth. Health benefits of meditation ( quieting your mind ) is more than beneficial. And again, you can easily function more efficiently when your mind is quiet rather than relying on your thoughts. Even though it may seem not to be familiar doesn't mean it can't be done nor contradictory. Simply, It can be done.
Instead of emphasizing on thinking, I would say it is necessary to go beyond the thinking mind to experience the fuller and ultimate nature of consciousness. It cannot be conceptualized as thoughts and realized as a superfical understanding. But it has to experienced by quietening the mind.
daniel hehir 20+
With the word non dual consciousness, do you mean monism?
Mark Meijer 100+
"Not two" isn't the same as "one". Monism denies separateness, dualism denies oneness. The way I understand it, the concept of non-dualism denies both oneness and separateness as absolutes, but recognizes both as valid partial views.
Non-dual awareness is not a conceptual framework, but a state of awareness in which the above is directly perceived (that's why people with such awareness often say things that appear paradoxical). Some call it mystical experience. What Santhip says about having a mind without thinking, that is exactly what leads to this state of awareness. Because that ends our self-identification with thought, which is what keeps us trapped in a dualistic state of awareness. A quiet mind is the most direct doorway towards the first-hand experience of non-dualism (there are many ways to get there, but they all basically lead to a quiet mind, which can be difficult to attain directly).
Alan Watts, when addressing academics, preferred the word ecological awareness. I'm not sure that exactly covers it, but it's meant to give an idea of what it is, using words that are meaningful to the target audience. This is one way in which he explains it:
http://markmeijer.blogspot.com/2011/01/quoting-alan-watts.html
Enlightenment is basically the combination of non-dual awareness with the fundamental insights that it brings through additional contemplation (which indeed often means going back into focussed thought, and so the wisdom of enlightenment is actually born from the interplay between those two extremes).
I'm also very interested in Santhip's explanation.
natasha nikulina 50+
SANTHIP KANHOLY
Mark did a good job explaining what non-dual awareness is. I will add my own words to elaborate it as well :-)
My first reaction after your question of monism was, what is monism ? Is it the "ism" that basically says there is only "one" or is it the "ism" that says there is only one god ? Is it pointing to that which is one with everything and is not separate from anything ?
Non-dual consciousness would be the consciousness state in which there is no separation. There is no more subject-object consciousness state of duality and thus of separation in it. It is the dual consciousness that is persisting on creating a division between a "me" and the object. In non-dual consciousness, there is no "me" to feel separate from the object. It just IS.
Non-dual consciousness cannot be fully described conceptually, to be honest. It must be experienced. The individuals who have experienced it says it to be the highest state that can be attained by a man. They would never trade it for all the money in china. Such is the feeling of enlightenment, and end of suffering they percieve.
Monism, if used to point to that single absolute reality, which is not separate from anything and yet is not affected by the transient, can be useful in equating with non-dual awareness. But if monism is used to point to a "god" ( father figure ) which is separate and controlling the fate of mankind through another concept of sin etc, then it fails to be equal to non-dual awareness. Ultimately this consciousness state can be experienced only by a still mind devoid of thoughts.
And yes, when you fall into this non-dual awareness, there is no more of the individual "ego" or "me". The "me" has to die before it can experience this non-dual awareness. That is simply the truth of it. :-)
Mark Meijer 100+
Btw. once you're able to let go of thinking and have non-dual awareness, you don't suddenly lose that when you start thinking again. That only happens to us thought addicts :P because thought still grips us and drags us away.
On the other hand, according to some definitions of enlightenment, you don't even need to habitually abide in non-dual awareness (which basically means you've stepped out of your self-prison). If you've seen the prison of your sense of self for what it is, but you are still trapped in it most of the time, that still fits the classical definition of buddhist "stream entry" enlightenment (in summary, but here's a slightly more detailed explanation):
http://www.ted.com/conversations/182/neuroscientific_studies_of_enl.html?c=208495
Of course the reason why this is meaningful is mainly because seeing the prison allows you to work at stepping out. As Santhip indicates in the other thread, that is still the end goal. Well, nobody will force you :P and if you decide it's not for you then really that's fine, there is no "enlightenment police" who will arrest you if you don't go all the way. But if you've seen the prison then the tendency to want to step out usually comes very naturally, and the reason not to work towards that goal would be because of certain fears or doubts that you may have.
natasha nikulina 50+
SANTHIP KANHOLY
Only by practising non-thinking can you let go of thinking .. So active meditation in every moment is the way to go. :-)
Colleen Steen 500+
Santhip,
It may not be your way to go, but there are many paths that different people take to achieve what they desire. You are sounding like many religious leaders who say "my way is the only way"!!! That's simply not true.
You say "only by practicing non-thinking can you let go of thinking...so active meditation in every moment is the way to go".
Are you familier with the definition of meditation? "To focus one's thoughts; reflecton or ponder over; to plan or project in the mind to engage in contemplation or reflection; a discourse intended to express its author's reflections or to guide others in contemplation".
You are suggesting only the practice of non-thinking...letting go of thinking AND staying in the state of "active meditation"? That seems contradictory.
Perhaps you are confusing "mind chatter" or unfocused thoughts with focused thinking? There's a big difference.
Mark Meijer 100+
The whole reason we're having this discussion here, is to cater to the thinking mind :P, for the purpose of pointing beyond the thinking mind. No doubt you know the saying that we shouldn't confuse the finger that is pointing to the moon, with the moon itself, and this is true. But words are the finger used for pointing, and they are still essential, because you need them to point to the moon, to show where it is and to call attention and interest to it.
And that is all while we're still thought addicts :P. Now from the perspective of someone with non-dual awareness, thought is still extremely useful, it just has a different function. Or rather, it has finally become freed up to fulfill its original function, thought is now finally used properly and efficiently as it was meant to, without it turning into a prison of dualistic identity. You can have "active meditation in every moment", as you call it, and still use thought. In fact it just happens, thought will be there when you need it just like your legs will be there when you need to walk.
Not all thought is self-referential, and even so, self-referential thought can be used purposefully to take on a new sense of self, to which you are no longer a slave and which you can drop at will. Actually this is what happens if you practice the Vajrayana path to enlightenment, where temporarily taking on an entirely imagined identity is what ultimately leads you to realize the nature of your own self-prison as a thought addict, which will enable you to step out of the prison, which leads to non-dual awareness.
Tim Colgan 50+
Why should meditation be the preferred method?
SANTHIP KANHOLY
Meditation is the act of stilling the mind. One can still the mind through action, dancing, knowledge etc. So meditation ( stilling the mind ) is the preferred method :-)
SANTHIP KANHOLY
There are spiritual paths where one sits with a single thought " who am I ? " , and they just sit with it until the answer presents to them with an experience. Even in this path, the mind eventually stills onto a single thought, with attention not being pulled by any other thought, and eventually deconstructing the ego/mind. So thought was useful in this context, but the mind had to be still. I know it sounds scary, but merely stating the facts :-)
But to experience the ultimate nature one will have to still the mind and even the utility value thoughts hold for us. As the ancients say, you have to give up the "world" ( of thoughts as well) to experience the pearl of great price.
Colleen Steen 500+
There are many different spiritual paths that all reach the same destination. I am aware of many of them, and many people who follow different paths. It is not at all scary...sorry you percieve it to be. With your belief that there is only one way, you limit yourself:>)
Ed Schulte 50+
...there is no such thing as "non-dual" thinking .......in order for the there to be "thought" there has to be the "consciousness-as thought" and there has to be the "consciousness- as observer." Same "consciousness" as there is only one Source BUT fractured into "dual" ....and then the drama begins !!!
It is all to common for thought to take itself seriously..."I must know myself" etc etc and forgetting that the Observer ...the Pure source is "there"...always is always will be ....it is only when the Thought thinker lays down its heave burden of "thought-thinkng" that it realizes "enlightenment" ....that which every HUman never left!!!
Rumi has a great way of appeasing the "thought-thinker" ....and self applied "afflictions"
Don't complain of affliction (thought-thinker)
Don't complain of affliction,
for it's a smooth-paced horse
carrying you toward nonexistence.
__________
Indeed!!! it is the Inheritance of very HUman to be "carried" back to non-existence .....the Sufi 'wink' and 'nudge' is ....But when you get close enough to no existence to decide ...Will you choose exomatosis ??...or stay stay in Duality and suffer the afflictions of thought thinker again contribute to a growing/evolving manifest consciousness as the Hman Idea is meant to do???
Hmmmm what to do...what to do..The Drama the Drama!!
:-) have a good weekend ALL!!
natasha nikulina 50+