Seth

Questions about levels of consciousness

154 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

@Shambhu Maybe he thought to say that there is no separation between consciousness and experience.

Consciousness and phenomena inside it are made of same "stuff" there fore are not separate. However in my opinion they are different otherwise we would not ne able to notice a change in appearance and dissapearnce of phenomena(experience) in conciousness

Edited by DecemberFlower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura How is there no difference if one notices the other? 

Consciousness is aware of experience happening and changing so there is contrast and like you said in some of your episodes with out contrast you would not know absolutely anything. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DecemberFlower

16 minutes ago, DecemberFlower said:

@Shambhu Maybe he thought to say that there is no separation between consciousness and experience.

Consciousness and phenomena inside it are made of same "stuff" there fore are not separate. However in my opinion they are different otherwise we would not ne able to notice a change in appearance and dissapearnce of phenomena(experience) in conciousness

Agreed.  Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shambhu said:

@Leo Gura Experience changes, and therefore cannot be Absolute.  You still seem confused ?

You are simply not awake. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying such silly things.

You guys are fooling yourselves with neo-Advaita.

1 hour ago, DecemberFlower said:

@Leo Gura How is there no difference if one notices the other? 

Consciousness is aware of experience happening and changing so there is contrast and like you said in some of your episodes with out contrast you would not know absolutely anything.

There is no other. There is only oneness.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are simply not awake. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying such silly things.

People in glass houses... ?

Quote

You guys are fooling yourselves with neo-Advaita.

My background is in traditional Yoga sadhana and Advaita Vedanta.  Everything I wrote is found in the Upanishads and the Tantras.  It's telling that you cannot recognize the difference between that and what is branded as neo-Advaita ;-)

I appreciate that you have created this space and are attempting to help others according to your understanding, but you might learn something here too if you listened to and contemplated what is being said.

Quote

There is no other.

You seem to be having some trouble knowing where to land on that one ?

Quote

There is only oneness.

Yes, I agree completely ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shambhu said:

@Leo Gura

People in glass houses... ?

My background is in traditional Yoga sadhana and Advaita Vedanta.  Everything I wrote is found in the Upanishads and the Tantras.  It's telling that you cannot recognize the difference between that and what is branded as neo-Advaita ;-)

Cute, but it doesn't make you any more awake.

Form is formlessness, formlessness is form.

Your realizations are incomplete.

Just because you study a bunch of spiritual stuff doesn't mean anything. All your spiritual studies are a dream.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Cute, but it doesn't make you any more awake.

@Leo Gura

No, it doesn't, but let's be honest, you don't know how awake I am.  I'm not even convinced you know how awake you are ;-)

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Your realizations are incomplete.

And yours aren't?

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Just because you study  plug a bunch of spiritual stuff  5-MEO doesn't mean anything. All your spiritual studies psychedelics are a dream.

_/|\_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 hours ago, Shambhu said:

@BlueOak

No, I am not experiencing everything there is to be experienced in this moment, and I have certainly grown as a person over the years.  All of this is in the realm of the mind.  That is my point, or at least part of it.  The other part is that the mind is an appearance in Consciousness, but Consciousness is not an appearance.  Just like a mirror is not the images contained within it, Consciousness is the unchanging substratum of all experience.  

Then you have chosen to create division and separation between yourself and consciousness. *Calling it mind.

There is nothing wrong with that, I lived many decades with such a division, it was very useful to raise awareness.
In a second you can realise that the mind is consciousness therefore what you are calling the mind, is also consciousness. Not a separate part of it.

Same with Leo's experience, same with these words, same with these responses. All of it is you. If you want it to be. You'll assign meaning, perhaps emotion, or reason to each poster here, and then respond to what you chose. Nobody else will assign that for you.

*I have realised I am repeating a duality here where none can exist and will reflect on it

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DecemberFlower said:

@Leo Gura How is there no difference if one notices the other? 

Consciousness is aware of experience happening and changing so there is contrast and like you said in some of your episodes with out contrast you would not know absolutely anything. 

 

Because in life you can choose to divide something or see it as the same.

A duality I needed to collapse was, that there is no difference. This conversation has helped me see that. So again thank you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awareness is a ground state that sustains consciousness.  The nature of awareness is effulgence and it is in an unconscious condition before the objects appear.  When it touches objects, consciousness springs up.  It is in turn the appearance of objects in the mind, naturally looking outwards for objects, and flitting all the time.  Moreover, consciousness is known by the name of synergy which implies geometric expansion with the birth of its dominant and subtle expressions.

On the other hand, the mind is a pattern of consciousness that comes out of awareness and is known as consciousness in individuality.   In other words, the origin of individuality is identical to the origin of the mind, which is something more objective and entails clear discrimination.  This means that the mind differentiates and understands the characteristics of objects and is used to understand things, since it understands the manipulation of consciousness.

Awareness (e.g. pre-1,2,3)  => Consciousness (e.g. 1,2,3) => Mind (e.g. 1-2, 3/2, 2x2, 3+1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shambhu said:

@zurew

Yes, there is good reason to have such a distinction.  The mind is ultimately Consciousness, but Consciousness is not the mind.  

If I have a wood desk, it is correct to say that the desk is wood, but it is incorrect to say wood is a desk.  If that were true, I could send you out into the forest looking for a desk and you would be able to successfully find one ;-)

When we conflate the mind with Consciousness, or try to justify it by saying "the mind is consciousness," then we could say "everything is anger (or red or hunger or...you get the point) because anger is consciousness" and things like that.  

Even when the mind dissolves into deep sleep at night, Consciousness is still present.  The mind is dependent upon Consciousness, but Consciousness is not dependent upon the mind.

What about the heart sutra?

Form is emptiness,

Emptiness is form.

The way you describe it has a subtle form of separation between consciousness and 'things'.

Perhaps a better way to describe it would be the ocean and the wave. There is no separate wave. It is the ocean waving. Just as consciousness is thoughting. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BlueOak

11 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Then you have chosen to create division and separation between yourself and consciousness. *Calling it mind.

I have created a distinction, not a separation.  I was also speaking form the perspective of man.  Just like you, I am not currently aware of everything.  That is true from that perspective.  It is not Absolute Truth.

Quote

There is nothing wrong with that, I lived many decades with such a division, it was very useful to raise awareness.
In a second you can realise that the mind is consciousness therefore what you are calling the mind, is also consciousness. Not a separate part of it.

The mind is Consciousness, but Consciousness is not the mind.  When you look into a mirror, is your reflection the mirror?  Yes, of course it is.  There is no separation between the reflection and the mirror, and the reflection is nothing other than mirror.  However, is the mirror the reflection?  No.  If it was, as soon you stepped away from the front of the mirror, the mirror would disappear.  This is an analogy for the relationship between the mind and Consciousness.  Just like the reflection is dependent upon the mirror, but the mirror is not dependent upon the reflection, the mind is dependent upon Consciousness but not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WelcometoReality

11 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

What about the heart sutra?

Form is emptiness,

Emptiness is form.

Honestly, I don't feel qualified to speak about Zen philosophy, better to ask a Buddhist.

Quote

The way you describe it has a subtle form of separation between consciousness and 'things'.

There is no separation, subtle or otherwise.

Quote

Perhaps a better way to describe it would be the ocean and the wave. There is no separate wave. It is the ocean waving. Just as consciousness is thoughting.

The ocean and wave analogy is a good one.  The ocean (or water) is not a wave, but the wave is only water.  The water is not dependent upon the wave, but the wave is dependent upon the water.  Without water, there is no wave, but without the wave, water still is.  This is comparable to mind and Consciousness.  It's just an analogy of course, and as such isn't perfect.  It can easily be stretched too far, but I hope you understand my point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Because in life you can choose to divide something or see it as the same.

A duality I needed to collapse was, that there is no difference. This conversation has helped me see that. So again thank you all.

14 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Because in life you can choose to divide something or see it as the same.

A duality I needed to collapse was, that there is no difference. This conversation has helped me see that. So again thank you all.

@BlueOak @Leo Gura @Leo Gura @Leo Gura @Leo Gura

Still no clue how no separation(division) is the same like no difference between things but oh well.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put simply, the observed truth would appear within the context of absolute truth, without exception.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Shambhu said:

@BlueOak

The mind is Consciousness, but Consciousness is not the mind.  When you look into a mirror, is your reflection the mirror?  Yes, of course it is.  There is no separation between the reflection and the mirror, and the reflection is nothing other than mirror.  However, is the mirror the reflection?  No.  If it was, as soon you stepped away from the front of the mirror, the mirror would disappear.  This is an analogy for the relationship between the mind and Consciousness.  Just like the reflection is dependent upon the mirror, but the mirror is not dependent upon the reflection, the mind is dependent upon Consciousness but not the other way around.

@Shambhu
If you were to show an animal or child who had made no distinctions between the two they would treat the mirror as the reflection.

Yes the mirror is also the reflection. It is the room. It is the people in the room. The interpretation of it. The different assigned pieces. Because all of that comes from you. There is nothing you will ever experience outside of what you observe in some form. There is nothing that will ever exist in your life other than what you define and how you define it.

Including mind.

In your example, I could further separate them instead. I could say there was light, glass, energy, your eyes, how they interpret light etc, and the more I knew about the subject the more distinctions I could give you. If you were talking to a scientist or better yet an optometrist no doubt he or she would give you many terms of distinction about what exactly was going on between that mirror and your eye. You could probably read many books on it.

Or I could say it was a room, or an experience. A pretty picture. An ugly reflection. Everything in that moment would be my definition of it. Including the conceptualization of mind.

Consciousness is realised through the observer. It is defined or conceptualized by the interactions of ideas, concepts, forms, forces, beliefs, and definitions within it. Otherwise, it is formless, it could not be interacted with, and it could not be seen. There would be no mirror, no reflection, and no mind.

37 minutes ago, DecemberFlower said:

@BlueOak @Leo Gura @Leo Gura @Leo Gura @Leo Gura

Still no clue how no separation(division) is the same like no difference between things but oh well.. 

@DecemberFlower
I haven't closed this duality fully, and I realise it's one of the last ones I will because it'll be the root of all the others.

All I can give you is: What is observed is everything at once. Then you define things yourself, what their meaning is. How they will look to you. What their relationships are to each other and your life. In the process of doing that is how consciousness is seen or observed. The process of separation is how the whole is seen, in its interactions. Otherwise, it would not be visible at all. We'd just have static ideas, forms, forces, and belief systems that had no meaning. In their changing, separation, and interaction with each other is how we observe consciousness.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

23 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

If you were to show an animal or child who had made no distinctions between the two they would treat the mirror as the reflection.

You're rebuttal is that the ignorant cannot tell the difference between two?  Well, in that case we both agree LOL

25 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

In your example, I could further separate them instead. I could say there was light, glass, energy, your eyes, how they interpret light etc, and the more I knew about the subject the more distinctions I could give you. If you were talking to a scientist or better yet an optometrist no doubt he or she would give you many terms of distinction about what exactly was going on between that mirror and your eye. You could probably read many books on it.

You have stretched the analogy beyond it's limits.  I gave a warning about that above.  It's only intended use is as a pointer.

26 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Consciousness is realised through the observer.

Consciousness is the observer.

27 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

It is defined or conceptualized by the interactions of ideas, concepts, forms, forces, beliefs, and definitions within it.

All of this is the mind.

27 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Otherwise, it is formless, it could not be interacted with, and it could not be seen. There would be no mirror, no reflection, and no mind.

Now you are knocking at the door!

:-)

Quote

1.1 Now, instruction in Union.

1.2. Union is restraining the thought-streams natural to the mind.

1.3. Then the seer dwells in his own nature.

1.4. Otherwise he is of the same form as the thought-streams.

Patanjali's Yoga Sutras Chapter 1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DecemberFlower said:

@BlueOak @Leo Gura

Still no clue how no separation(division) is the same like no difference between things but oh well.. 

Since everything is absolutely relative, the difference between any two things has no reality other than as held in your mind.

The only reason a taco and a zebra are different is because you think they are. At the ontological level that difference is purely relative. All difference is a bias held within consciousness. This includes all physical difference, since the difference between physical and mental is just another relative difference.

To God, there is literally no difference between anything. Which is why God is Love.

Contemplate this: Why would a difference between anything exist? And then realize, it shouldn't and doesn't other than as held by a biased mind such as yours. The only reason you see differences between things is because it's necessary for your survival as a finite self. If you stopped seeing differences you would die and become Infinity (indifference).


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Leo Gura

Quote

At the ontological level that difference is purely relative.

A zebra is a sentinet life-form whereas a taco isn't. If that difference isn't real, then I don't know what is.

Edited by Yali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yali said:

then I don't know what is.

Nothing is. Obviously.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now