Correction if I may. The "state" that you are talking about is not really a state. It's the end of alt "states", and that is why it is liberating, because there is no longer any illusory self-image to maintain.
@@Roshan-q6n Wrong… All (human) experiences are chemical signals converted to electrical signals in the brain… (Although difficult)…one can simulate the feeling of lemon by turning on those same neurons…..without actually eating an actual lemon… And what does tasting lemons have to do with clarity…? Ie…There are many types of lemons, ranging from very tart to very sweet….and where does a lemon end and orange (taxonomy ) start..
I mean, no one gets by without outputting energy... unless the outsource it to someone or something else. Money is just a transfer of energy. I mean, no one gets food and shelter without building them and maintaining them. Your body has to pay "bills" too. Not in the same way of course. But it has to deal with the consequences of the expenditure of biological resources and replenish. Just sayin. So, yes, transfer of energy and energy debt are fundamental to life itself, not just society. Just sayin. Society is actually quite efficient in many ways Just sayin because a lot if people talk like money is just a social construct. Sure, but there are underlying natural processes mirror the transfer of money and justify it. Of course, there"@ lots of shady business that goes down in finances, and some people have to work a lot harder for it. It's not a perfect system, but overall, a justifiable system. Just sayin.
@@thomasridley8675 that is a traditional western definition. Enlightenment does mean a different perspective on things. But the term does have a spiritual context, stemming from Buddhism.
I suspect that what he refers to as enlightenment is the mind's sudden insight that what one normally interprets as "other" are actually the mind's own mental projections consisting of itself, which is what they're always been as a necessary condition for being experienced at all.
They left out a LOT! I think the starting point can be this … since you’re aware of the world, we can posit awareness as something that exists. Since it seems to exist in our minds, so we can say minds exists. Our mind exists. The mind is embodied, so bodies exist. Our body exists. We are our conscious mind+body. The world outside affects us. The world outside exists. This is pretty much our world. Now, we review this world using the principle that, “that which I perceive (objects) is not me (the subject)”. We see a flower. The eye apprehends a flower as an (inside down, laterally inverted) image of the flower. This image is not conscious. The image is projected on our cornea. This image is an optical signal. It is not conscious. The cornea is a thing. It is not sentient. The cornea sends electrically encoded image info to the brain via electrochemical ionic channels. This electrochemical signal reaches “the brain”. The brain apprehends the converts the electrical signal to a form the “mind” can apprehend. While we don’t know what a mind is- its material or shape is not known- we posit it as the locus of comprehension. Four (or more) functions can be attributed to the mind, a sense of self, a seat of judgement or discernment or discrimination is a second function attributed to the brain. Then memories. And finally thoughts and emotions. None of these is intrinsically and obviously sentient. There is the awareness of our memories. The memory itself is not aware. The brain isn’t sentient, it is a physical object. So, there is always an object, of which there is awareness, and a subject, that which is aware. We are the subject. We are not the flower, not the eye, not the brain, and not the mind. We are aware of these, so we are not these. So we become, in principle, disembodied “subjects”, not strictly reducible to specific objects. Those who have pondered this assert that, logically, it is impossible to claim that the source of consciousness for you is different from that for me. They give the example of two mirrors reflecting your one face. Each mirror might claim to posses a unique face, and the images will be unique, but the face, your face is one. In this amplify, the mind is the mirror that is reflecting the CONSCIOUSNESS. Ultimately, if we buy this metaphysical formulation, then we must be CONSCIOUSNESS, because that which is unconscious is an object of our (us) awareness. You can’t be your emotions or thoughts or memories, or even your sense of self because you’re aware of your thoughts, emotions, memories. And of your own ego. It is a subtle point. But it holds up. The awareness that we are this conscious agent, and in this sense nondual from all other conscious entities is the root of the sense of oneness. Not having a free agency is a corollary. If the mind is insentient, then in what sense can it have “will”. To have will it must be sentient. This too is a subtle point, but it survives interrogation.
"What is Enlightenment?" TRUE Enlightenment is the heavenly light or wisdom that you may receive being shared to you because of your sincere faith in the existence of a loving GOD.... This light not only may make you understand the loving GOD much better but also may make you see the meaning of your existence - the main purpose why you are here.... Choosing to have faith in the existence of an Almighty Loving GOD may start when you begin to acknowledge that your physical brain and body and all the free bounties you benefit and enjoy were all NOT CREATED by you, to think that SOMEONE may have done it whom to be thankful to... Happy New Year to you all ! ... I hope that you will celebrate this new year and all the years to come with FAITH in a Loving GOD....
@hershchat yeah, so everything you just said is either it, or the opposite, lol. I'm thinking what you describe us actually closer to the symbolic, not non symbolic way of seeing things.
A sense of well being is not considered a single emotion itself, but rather a broader state encomassing positive emotions like happiness, contentment and life satisfaction, making it more of a combination of feelings and perceptions about one's life rather than a specific emotion. When they are asked if they want to go back to the former state their reply is that they do not, demonstrating that they are relying on their sense perceptions. You cannot inhabit a body without sense perceptions. Perhaps they feel they are One with everyone, but that is still a feeling. What they dont experience is the negative emotions. So, enlightened is the relinquishing of the ego and that is why they feel a sense of oneness. Perhaps the emotions are not extreme and more subdued. The ego can experience extreme emotions of positive and negative which enlightened individuals lack.
Also, enlightened individuals often laugh; such as the Dalai Lama. I'm not saying he's enlightened because I don't know and I haven't been around enlightened individuals to know how they act, so I'm not sure.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It is possible to have an understanding of PNSC, and still be attached to basic things like not being tortured. Even Buddha said not all suffering is transcended. In fact the #1 truth in Buddhism is that sufferring is inevitable, it is our relationship with it that changes. But yes, attachment to it would be gone, theoretically. No way to test that unless some really difficult things happen in peoples lives. Also have to consider things like, people come from different backgrounds. Some people come to accept that they will lose everything, and others were abused and never had any self worth at all. What it means to lose in life will be interpreted differently by both. Letting go of ego would likely be a very different thing for different people.
@JayS, Nobody wants to be tortured. I was referring to enlightenment under normal circumstances. Even Jesus said; father, if possible, let this cup pass from me, and "father why have you forsaken me". I agree with what you're saying.
I have experienced that sense of being one with the world. It was fleeting but real - to me. It came unannounced and ceased of its own accord. To a degree, we are trapped in the prison of our own self-identity. People who see themselves as part of a whole - their fellow people, their community, the world, the environment etc. arguably lead happier, more fulfilled and more contributing lives.
🐟 17. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SPIRITUAL AWAKENING, LIBERATION, & ENLIGHTENMENT: AWAKENING: Any person who has experienced a state of cosmic awareness can rightly be called a “buddha” (a Sanskrit/Pali term for “an awakened being”). During such TEMPORAL experiences (that is, they begin at some point in time and then end at a subsequent point in time, even if at the time of death), there is usually an apparent dissolution of the subject-object dichotomy, or at least a radical shift in one’s perception of life. In the most profound awakening experience, the perceiver, the perceived, and the perceiving, mystically unify (“advaita anubhava”, in Sanskrit). Awakening means to clearly see that one’s persona is but a character in a dream of The Absolute, and that one is essentially that Flawless Awareness. Therefore, it is not to be taken literally - that the person wakes from the “Cosmic Dream” in the same way that a human wakes from a night dream. It simply implies that the person realizes that he/she is one of the multitude of dream CHARACTERS, and that individual free-will was purely an illusion. When one experiences a night dream, one usually identifies with only one particular character (for example, “last night, I dreamed that I played chess with the prince”). However, all the characters in one's dream originate in the very same mind. Similarly, the living creatures in this universe are naught but characters in the “Mind of God”, to put it in theistic terms. During such awakenings, one experiences the non-conceptual state, which is somewhat akin to the state of equanimous mind or "steady-mind" (“samādhi”, in Sanskrit). However, samādhi is usually a far longer-term state of being, normally arising after lengthy periods of practice. Spiritual awakening is a relatively common phenomenon. In fact, there are most probably MILLIONS of persons currently on earth who have experienced some kind of awakening, where they directly perceive themselves to be more than a mere body-mind complex. The experience can be either totally spontaneous, or it can follow many decades of intense spiritual practice (“sādhanā”, in Sanskrit). However, there is no direct causal link between religious practices and awakening experiences, despite what most religionists (“sādhaka”, in Sanskrit) believe. It is common for newly-awakened persons to CONFUSE and conflate relative and absolute truth. That is to say, when neophyte buddhas speak of relative concepts, they invariably use absolute terms. This is colloquially known as the “spiritual side-step” or as “spiritual bypassing”. For instance, they may make such statements as: “You don't exist”; “Nothing ever happened”; “There is no right or wrong”; “Everything and/or everyone is equal”; “I am not my body”; “We are One”; and “I am you, and you are me”. Hopefully, such persons will come to see that there is no need to speak about everything from the Absolute perspective. Verily, it is unbeneficial to the persons with whom they are conversing (unless, of course, those third persons are thoroughly deluded materialists, who are unable to see beyond the physical realm). Awakening to one’s true nature does NOT automatically promote one to being a saint, since one’s unique characteristics, flaws and obsessions may perdure. There is an abundance of evidence that awakening experiences can be induced simply by the administration of certain hallucinogenic drugs, so to claim that one is exceptionally remarkable just for being a buddha, is rather conceited. Unfortunately (for spiritual-seekers), there is a multitude of awakened or partially-awakened persons who mistakenly believe that they are somehow enlightened masters, and proceed to embark on a teaching career. The fact is, practically every one of these BOGUS “gurus” are afflicted with a narcissistic, demonic mentality, bereft of morality, and ought to be exposed and denounced for the fraudsters that they are. As will be very succinctly explained in forthcoming chapters of this Holy Scripture, it is the sacred duty of members of the Priesthood ALONE to disseminate religious/spiritual knowledge throughout society (or to be more accurate, teach seminarians and the leader of the government, who in turn teach other men, who in turn teach their own subordinates). Simply attaining a “spiritual state”, even with the benefit of a vast body of knowledge, does not automatically confer authority on a person to become a spiritual master (“guru”, in Sanskrit). There is, in fact, an enormous gulf between the two (that is, between an awakened non-priest working as a spiritual teacher, and an enlightened spiritual master). Most persons would undoubtedly disapprove of a person stealing the property of another, yet think nothing of a working-class chap or a mere woman performing the function of a priest (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit). The fact is, when any person (other than a priest/guru) assumes the role of a spiritual leader, he or she is quite LITERALLY stealing the occupation of a priest. The phrase “The blind leading the blind” is pertinent here. By understanding the entirety of this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, it shall assist one in the discernment necessary to distinguish an actual spiritual master from a person who may superficially seem to be a wise and holy teacher by the masses, yet is, in fact, a charlatan. Unfortunately, only a wise sage can identify his peers, so it requires a genuine prophet to recognize which spiritual teachers are ACTUAL masters. Nevertheless, as a general rule, at least ninety-nine per cent of those giving spiritual precepts to society, are unqualified to do so (see Chapter 20 to know the prerequisites for a member of the Holy Priesthood. Despite what many believe, priests are not at all ordinary men). LIBERATION: “Liberation” means “freedom”. Thus, a liberated soul is a person who has become emancipated from the five kinds of suffering (blame, shame, pride, regrets/expectations, and anxiety), all of which are based on the belief in personal AGENCY. Read Chapter 15 to understand the nature of suffering, and Chapter 11 to understand that humans are not independent agents with freedom of volition. Awakening experiences are not a prerequisite to being liberated from suffering. LIKEWISE, not all liberated persons are automatically enlightened (at least not to the degree necessary in order to be labelled as such), but there is a strong correlation between the two states of being. It's possible to be liberated, whilst not possessing a deep understanding of life. A liberated person is scarce, because very few understand the true nature of suffering, and of those who do understand the distinction between psycho-physical pain and ACTUAL (psychological) suffering, it is difficult to surrender to one's circumstances, free of obsessive thinking and judging. Liberated souls are usually those who have diligently practiced one of the four systems of yoga described in Chapter 16. Cont...
It's called passing the satori gate. Look up satori gate. There is actually a physical representation of it. It's a physical representation of passing the metaphorical gate that separates the illusion of division and not division.
"persistent non-symbolic consciousness" yes, this would be a way to do an academic or even scientific study. i'm surprised CtT didn't seem even willing to entertain the idea even for a moment.
good observation. it has been defined in the video and its nature has been described (i.e. now does it feel) but what is enlightenment remains to be seen I guess? I would call it a state of consciousness…but then what is consciousness? So yeah, I assume you get the point
Whatever you achieve in meditation, you only achieve in your subjective experience. Talks about mystics achieving enlightenment do not go beyond the word enlightenment. History talks about enlightenment by many mystics through many different practices. However, in my opinion, there may be exaggerations.
For sure. From a certain pov, measuring enlightenment is kind of absurd, but it does sound like this person knows what he is talking about. There is value in studying it academically.
Engaging BUT, the idea is more than a little frightening.. A dissipation of our sense of self..?? What would we ACTUALLY be in such a bizzaro world? The Borg with a hive-mind? Robert is spot on here, in my humble opinion.. Very FEW would/should choose NO sense of self over a life filled with various emotions, including (among many) joy, pride, AND even grief and righteous anger.. These are all experiences that make us humans instead of featureless unfeeling automatons..
Ps: REALIZING what we are and what our nature is WHILE simultaneously keeping our biases in descending order of : family, dear friends, and associates is TRUE enlightenment in my humble opinion..
Enlightened about what? Einstein experienced enlightenment when he realized that gravitation was equivalent to acceleration. You do not have to meditate to become enlightened about something.
People knew gravity was acceleration long before Einstein.. Galileo, Newton,etc studied gravity. Anyone who dropped a rock knew gravity was acceleration….
@@georgegrubbs2966 Actually no… Many people think Einstein theories are completely new science/math… …but in fact are modifications or generalized or specific circumstances of classical science/math… Ie.. it’s derived from classical (Newtonian) science…
Ehhh... I don't know. Seems like it's pretty well figured out by now. The term was originally used to describe Buddha's awakening under the Boddhi tree, where he realized the path to end suffering, and the nature of reality. Now this definition seems to describe qualities of the experience. What part is not clear to you, or why do you feel there are many interpretations? Is it possible much of what you have heard is saying the same things in slightly different ways? If you ask me though, any definition should at least acknowledge where the term came from, or else, anyone could use it to mean anything. The spiritual definition of the word is from Buddhism.
@JayS.-mm3qr Ok now, you are using a different cultural bias. Spiritual enlightenment isn't a claim made just by Buddhists. You could easily say its spiritual truth, or understanding, or simply belief.
@@thomasridley8675 ehhh... nah I still think even the other eastern religions that use the term, have a very similar meaning. Anyway, I'm still wondering why you say there are many interpretations.
@@thomasridley8675 ehhh, I think you would have to try pretty hard to interpret enlightenment as spiritual beliefs. The eastern versions, even from different religions, are similar. If you want consistency, why not go with the academic version, proposed in the video. I don't see it as inconsistent with eastern versions.
@JayS.-mm3qr Are you enlightened or unenlightened ? It depends on who you ask. I'm enlightened, but you are not. Is it just a convenient illusion ? 🤔 I'm here just to finish my life sentence. I don't expect a special reality because of where and when i live. And if i am wrong, at least i will be in the majority.
Yes, he absolutely is defining it.. from an eastern perspective. His single minded focus on it is what i question. Like i should suddenly convert. You do realize that the rest of civilization exists ? All with their own perspective. With their own idea of being "enlightened". Hmmm ! I don't know of a single theology that doesn't think they are the enlightened ones. And everyone else isn't.
In your own words, define "RELIGION". 🤔 If your definition comes within a light year of the ACTUAL definition, I promise that I will send you a very valuable gift.🎁
@JagadguruSvamiVegananda Religions as a systems of beliefs not based on facts and science. Believes in imaginary God's who don't exist. Some conspiracy theorys included. Plus some theorys coming from fizics who are also delusional and not proven by any experiments
..try having faith in a loving GOD that you may receive enlightenment... we fell from Heaven because we rejected the truth... we were sent here now TO BELIEVE...
@@oskarngo9138it is not human physical bodies that fell from Heaven but our souls for losing faith in God... our souls were sent here to use temporary physical vessels for a chance of returning back HOME through regaining this faith...
Important to know: Liberation is superior and a little different from enlightenment. Shakyamuni Buddha was both enlightened and liberated. Platonists in Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus were clearly enlightened and liberated. Shankaracharya clearly enlightened and liberated. Study their texts and see for yourselves. Because of the mind some people falsely believe that science and theology, metaphysics and physics are different things - this isn't a state of enlightenment. Enlightenment in a man of science would see the true value of the texts by the men mentioned above and see the oneness of everything - mysticism or books concocted into the form of mysticism represents this unity. A man who proselytizes claiming that the quran is the true word of God, that islam is the only religion true to God, a detractor who denigrates other avataras like Jesus Christ, is the exact opposite of enlightenment, and is not liberate but gravely bondaged. A man following modern science and the status quo in materialism, which is the professional concensus view to a degree, who only ever scratches the surface level of meaning having no inner yearning to actually Know, is not enlightenment. Enlightenment is seen in a being who has an inner glow radiating which he can not obscure; this energy is felt and attracts folks of commonality, and also attracts narcissists. A religious man who cannot let go of his conditional idea of God, his view of what is good, and his condition of familiarities, who needs everything in his colloquial or lexicon, although enlightened, perhaps not liberated. For the wisemen do teach that all of phenomena, such things distinguished by name and form, ultimately is from the one and same substrate, therefore in truth, there is no division or duality and such may not be liberation.
I think the teachings of Jesus are based upon the highest truth. Sure. There are other religions or fields of contemporary science. But I am comfortable with my choice. Best wishes to everyone for an easy going new year.
Have you ever wondered why the first commandment was to love GOD above all ? God was not doing it to favor Himself but to favor all His children... ...because once you have faith in a loving God, you can not help but love and care for all His children as well for love of Him.... Understanding that we are all one family to care for each other would be difficult to happen without believing in a loving GOD's existence first... This kind of Enlightenment can not lose your agency but only can apply your agency not only to benefit yourself but also to help others being one family of the Divine ALMIGHTY...
"What is Enlightenment?" TRUE Enlightenment is the heavenly light or wisdom that you may receive being shared to you because of your sincere faith in the existence of a loving GOD.... This light not only may make you understand the loving GOD much better but also may make you see the meaning of your existence - the main purpose why you are here.... Choosing to have faith in the existence of an Almighty Loving GOD may start when you begin to acknowledge that your physical brain and body and all the free bounties you benefit and enjoy were all NOT CREATED by you, to think that SOMEONE may have done it whom to be thankful to... Happy New Year to you all ! ... I hope that you will celebrate this new year and all the years to come with FAITH in a Loving GOD..
I've always associated "Enlightenment" with having a sudden, clear sense of realization. In most cases, "Enlightenment" is what you get after realizing you were *blatantly wrong* about something. A theist might feel enlightened after discovering God's existence. and an atheist might feel enlightened after discovering God's nonexistence. ........... "Enlightenment" is totally subjective.
Enlightenment in the strict sense has to do with personal experiences that give you a deeper understanding about reality beyond what you can learn from science and stuff.
Mystics term enlightenment as a process where in a human experiences godliness. He or she becomes a God in human form. Then he may proclaim himself a Avatar, a Messiah or a divine Messenger.
I watched this and am still not sure what is meant by enlightenment. Does it mean that we lose a sense of self-identity? What does this mean? Our thoughts are always our own thoughts and are private unless we choose to reveal our thoughts.
@@evaadam3635 Thanks. I had trouble with the meaning of the word agency. It refers to (the feeling of) being in charge of their actions and the ability to initiate and control actions.
I think the starting point can be this … since you’re aware of the world, we can posit awareness as something that exists. Since it seems to exist in our minds, so we can say minds exists. Our mind exists. The mind is embodied, so bodies exist. Our body exists. We are our conscious mind+body. The world outside affects us. The world outside exists. This is pretty much our world. Now, we review this world using the principle that, “that which I perceive (objects) is not me (the subject)”. We see a flower. The eye apprehends a flower as an (inside down, laterally inverted) image of the flower. This image is not conscious. The image is projected on our cornea. This image is an optical signal. It is not conscious. The cornea is a thing. It is not sentient. The cornea sends electrically encoded image info to the brain via electrochemical ionic channels. This electrochemical signal reaches “the brain”. The brain apprehends the converts the electrical signal to a form the “mind” can apprehend. While we don’t know what a mind is- its material or shape is not known- we posit it as the locus of comprehension. Four (or more) functions can be attributed to the mind, a sense of self, a seat of judgement or discernment or discrimination is a second function attributed to the brain. Then memories. And finally thoughts and emotions. None of these is intrinsically and obviously sentient. There is the awareness of our memories. The memory itself is not aware. The brain isn’t sentient, it is a physical object. So, there is always an object, of which there is awareness, and a subject, that which is aware. We are the subject. We are not the flower, not the eye, not the brain, and not the mind. We are aware of these, so we are not these. So we become, in principle, disembodied “subjects”, not strictly reducible to specific objects. Those who have pondered this assert that, logically, it is impossible to claim that the source of consciousness for you is different from that for me. They give the example of two mirrors reflecting your one face. Each mirror might claim to posses a unique face, and the images will be unique, but the face, your face is one. In this amplify, the mind is the mirror that is reflecting the CONSCIOUSNESS. Ultimately, if we buy this metaphysical formulation, then we must be CONSCIOUSNESS, because that which is unconscious is an object of our (us) awareness. You can’t be your emotions or thoughts or memories, or even your sense of self because you’re aware of your thoughts, emotions, memories. And of your own ego. It is a subtle point. But it holds up. The awareness that we are this conscious agent, and in this sense nondual from all other conscious entities is the root of the sense of oneness. Not having a free agency is a corollary. If the mind is insentient, then in what sense can it have “will”. To have will it must be sentient. This too is a subtle point, but it survives interrogation.
consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the phenomenon where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example, an adult could perhaps ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. As far as biologists can ascertain, no other animal has the brain functionality to scrutinize its own existence/being, and to ponder the prospect that it may not exist in the future, nor that it may not have existed at any time in the past (let alone higher notions, such as contemplating the meaning of its life, metaphysics, meta-ethics, or to design advanced technology, as do we Homo sapiens sapiens). In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri). Please note that this usage (“Consciousness”) is merely a concession to both the English language (which lacks a single-word equivalent of “Brahman/Tao”), and to the so-called “ultra-spiritual/neo-advaita” community (which invariably uses the terms “Consciousness” and “Awareness”, interchangeably, in their capitalized forms, as a moniker for The Absolute/Brahman/Tao).
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda my understanding of consciousness and sentience is opposite. Consciousness is just awareness. Sentience is the ability to act intelligently in response to awareness. Humans have the most sentience in terms of planning, but equal level of consciousness to most animals, as as awareness of pain.
@@jackarmstrong5645..real delusion is when you choose to stare at Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama coming from Unconscious Bigbang out of NOTHING..
Correction if I may. The "state" that you are talking about is not really a state.
It's the end of alt "states", and that is why it is liberating, because there is no longer any illusory self-image to maintain.
🙏
Super empathy.
Honesty is a key here
Enlightenment achieves clarity where ones mind no longer runs amok.
Like what? Give an example of clarity?
@jimliu2560 Give an example of the taste of a lemon. To know it, you have to experience it.
@@Roshan-q6n
Wrong…
All (human) experiences are chemical signals converted to electrical signals in the brain…
(Although difficult)…one can simulate the feeling of lemon by turning on those same neurons…..without actually eating an actual lemon…
And what does tasting lemons have to do with clarity…?
Ie…There are many types of lemons, ranging from very tart to very sweet….and where does a lemon end and orange (taxonomy ) start..
@jimliu2560 You missed the point.
@@jimliu2560 You have to experience clarity in your own mind to know what it is.
Enlightenment is realization that bills and taxes are inevitable
You left out death
That's part of it. Social contract. Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
I mean, no one gets by without outputting energy... unless the outsource it to someone or something else. Money is just a transfer of energy. I mean, no one gets food and shelter without building them and maintaining them. Your body has to pay "bills" too. Not in the same way of course. But it has to deal with the consequences of the expenditure of biological resources and replenish. Just sayin. So, yes, transfer of energy and energy debt are fundamental to life itself, not just society. Just sayin. Society is actually quite efficient in many ways
Just sayin because a lot if people talk like money is just a social construct. Sure, but there are underlying natural processes mirror the transfer of money and justify it. Of course, there"@ lots of shady business that goes down in finances, and some people have to work a lot harder for it. It's not a perfect system, but overall, a justifiable system. Just sayin.
For me, enlightenment is breaking the chains of an outdated perspective.
@@thomasridley8675 that is a traditional western definition. Enlightenment does mean a different perspective on things. But the term does have a spiritual context, stemming from Buddhism.
Loved the explanation. Eastern religions and spirituality are about attaining this state
I suspect that what he refers to as enlightenment is the mind's sudden insight that what one normally interprets as "other" are actually the mind's own mental projections consisting of itself, which is what they're always been as a necessary condition for being experienced at all.
There must be something that the mind is crafting a projection out of. That something affects us, and denies nonduality.
Yeah, the sudden realization is called satori.
He defines enlightenment by the term " persistent" only to specifically state its not " persistent
How did he suggest it is not persistent?
It was hard to get anything out of that discussion for me. That might mean I still have free agency.
They left out a LOT!
I think the starting point can be this … since you’re aware of the world, we can posit awareness as something that exists.
Since it seems to exist in our minds, so we can say minds exists. Our mind exists.
The mind is embodied, so bodies exist. Our body exists.
We are our conscious mind+body. The world outside affects us. The world outside exists.
This is pretty much our world.
Now, we review this world using the principle that, “that which I perceive (objects) is not me (the subject)”. We see a flower. The eye apprehends a flower as an (inside down, laterally inverted) image of the flower. This image is not conscious. The image is projected on our cornea. This image is an optical signal. It is not conscious. The cornea is a thing. It is not sentient. The cornea sends electrically encoded image info to the brain via electrochemical ionic channels. This electrochemical signal reaches “the brain”. The brain apprehends the converts the electrical signal to a form the “mind” can apprehend. While we don’t know what a mind is- its material or shape is not known- we posit it as the locus of comprehension. Four (or more) functions can be attributed to the mind, a sense of self, a seat of judgement or discernment or discrimination is a second function attributed to the brain. Then memories. And finally thoughts and emotions. None of these is intrinsically and obviously sentient. There is the awareness of our memories. The memory itself is not aware.
The brain isn’t sentient, it is a physical object.
So, there is always an object, of which there is awareness, and a subject, that which is aware. We are the subject. We are not the flower, not the eye, not the brain, and not the mind. We are aware of these, so we are not these.
So we become, in principle, disembodied “subjects”, not strictly reducible to specific objects.
Those who have pondered this assert that, logically, it is impossible to claim that the source of consciousness for you is different from that for me. They give the example of two mirrors reflecting your one face. Each mirror might claim to posses a unique face, and the images will be unique, but the face, your face is one.
In this amplify, the mind is the mirror that is reflecting the CONSCIOUSNESS.
Ultimately, if we buy this metaphysical formulation, then we must be CONSCIOUSNESS, because that which is unconscious is an object of our (us) awareness. You can’t be your emotions or thoughts or memories, or even your sense of self because you’re aware of your thoughts, emotions, memories. And of your own ego. It is a subtle point. But it holds up.
The awareness that we are this conscious agent, and in this sense nondual from all other conscious entities is the root of the sense of oneness.
Not having a free agency is a corollary. If the mind is insentient, then in what sense can it have “will”. To have will it must be sentient. This too is a subtle point, but it survives interrogation.
@hershchat Ecclesiastes 3:20-21
"What is Enlightenment?"
TRUE Enlightenment is the heavenly light or wisdom that you may receive being shared to you because of your sincere faith in the existence of a loving GOD.... This light not only may make you understand the loving GOD much better but also may make you see the meaning of your existence - the main purpose why you are here....
Choosing to have faith in the existence of an Almighty Loving GOD may start when you begin to acknowledge that your physical brain and body and all the free bounties you benefit and enjoy were all NOT CREATED by you, to think that SOMEONE may have done it whom to be thankful to...
Happy New Year to you all ! ... I hope that you will celebrate this new year and all the years to come with FAITH in a Loving GOD....
@hershchat yeah, so everything you just said is either it, or the opposite, lol. I'm thinking what you describe us actually closer to the symbolic, not non symbolic way of seeing things.
@@evaadam3635 no, I am confident the person in the video would not agree. Just sayin.
Great! Insightful! Conversation!
This video is more proof that science and philosophy is beginning to merge back together again
A sense of well being is not considered a single emotion itself, but rather a broader state encomassing positive emotions like happiness, contentment and life satisfaction, making it more of a combination of feelings and perceptions about one's life rather than a specific emotion. When they are asked if they want to go back to the former state their reply is that they do not, demonstrating that they are relying on their sense perceptions. You cannot inhabit a body without sense perceptions. Perhaps they feel they are One with everyone, but that is still a feeling. What they dont experience is the negative emotions. So, enlightened is the relinquishing of the ego and that is why they feel a sense of oneness. Perhaps the emotions are not extreme and more subdued. The ego can experience extreme emotions of positive and negative which enlightened individuals lack.
Also, enlightened individuals often laugh; such as the Dalai Lama. I'm not saying he's enlightened because I don't know and I haven't been around enlightened individuals to know how they act, so I'm not sure.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It is possible to have an understanding of PNSC, and still be attached to basic things like not being tortured. Even Buddha said not all suffering is transcended. In fact the #1 truth in Buddhism is that sufferring is inevitable, it is our relationship with it that changes. But yes, attachment to it would be gone, theoretically. No way to test that unless some really difficult things happen in peoples lives.
Also have to consider things like, people come from different backgrounds. Some people come to accept that they will lose everything, and others were abused and never had any self worth at all. What it means to lose in life will be interpreted differently by both. Letting go of ego would likely be a very different thing for different people.
@JayS, Nobody wants to be tortured. I was referring to enlightenment under normal circumstances. Even Jesus said; father, if possible, let this cup pass from me, and "father why have you forsaken me". I agree with what you're saying.
I have experienced that sense of being one with the world. It was fleeting but real - to me. It came unannounced and ceased of its own accord. To a degree, we are trapped in the prison of our own self-identity. People who see themselves as part of a whole - their fellow people, their community, the world, the environment etc. arguably lead happier, more fulfilled and more contributing lives.
🐟 17. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SPIRITUAL AWAKENING, LIBERATION, & ENLIGHTENMENT:
AWAKENING:
Any person who has experienced a state of cosmic awareness can rightly be called a “buddha” (a Sanskrit/Pali term for “an awakened being”). During such TEMPORAL experiences (that is, they begin at some point in time and then end at a subsequent point in time, even if at the time of death), there is usually an apparent dissolution of the subject-object dichotomy, or at least a radical shift in one’s perception of life. In the most profound awakening experience, the perceiver, the perceived, and the perceiving, mystically unify (“advaita anubhava”, in Sanskrit).
Awakening means to clearly see that one’s persona is but a character in a dream of The Absolute, and that one is essentially that Flawless Awareness. Therefore, it is not to be taken literally - that the person wakes from the “Cosmic Dream” in the same way that a human wakes from a night dream. It simply implies that the person realizes that he/she is one of the multitude of dream CHARACTERS, and that individual free-will was purely an illusion. When one experiences a night dream, one usually identifies with only one particular character (for example, “last night, I dreamed that I played chess with the prince”). However, all the characters in one's dream originate in the very same mind. Similarly, the living creatures in this universe are naught but characters in the “Mind of God”, to put it in theistic terms.
During such awakenings, one experiences the non-conceptual state, which is somewhat akin to the state of equanimous mind or "steady-mind" (“samādhi”, in Sanskrit). However, samādhi is usually a far longer-term state of being, normally arising after lengthy periods of practice.
Spiritual awakening is a relatively common phenomenon. In fact, there are most probably MILLIONS of persons currently on earth who have experienced some kind of awakening, where they directly perceive themselves to be more than a mere body-mind complex. The experience can be either totally spontaneous, or it can follow many decades of intense spiritual practice (“sādhanā”, in Sanskrit). However, there is no direct causal link between religious practices and awakening experiences, despite what most religionists (“sādhaka”, in Sanskrit) believe.
It is common for newly-awakened persons to CONFUSE and conflate relative and absolute truth. That is to say, when neophyte buddhas speak of relative concepts, they invariably use absolute terms. This is colloquially known as the “spiritual side-step” or as “spiritual bypassing”.
For instance, they may make such statements as: “You don't exist”; “Nothing ever happened”; “There is no right or wrong”; “Everything and/or everyone is equal”; “I am not my body”; “We are One”; and “I am you, and you are me”. Hopefully, such persons will come to see that there is no need to speak about everything from the Absolute perspective. Verily, it is unbeneficial to the persons with whom they are conversing (unless, of course, those third persons are thoroughly deluded materialists, who are unable to see beyond the physical realm).
Awakening to one’s true nature does NOT automatically promote one to being a saint, since one’s unique characteristics, flaws and obsessions may perdure. There is an abundance of evidence that awakening experiences can be induced simply by the administration of certain hallucinogenic drugs, so to claim that one is exceptionally remarkable just for being a buddha, is rather conceited.
Unfortunately (for spiritual-seekers), there is a multitude of awakened or partially-awakened persons who mistakenly believe that they are somehow enlightened masters, and proceed to embark on a teaching career.
The fact is, practically every one of these BOGUS “gurus” are afflicted with a narcissistic, demonic mentality, bereft of morality, and ought to be exposed and denounced for the fraudsters that they are.
As will be very succinctly explained in forthcoming chapters of this Holy Scripture, it is the sacred duty of members of the Priesthood ALONE to disseminate religious/spiritual knowledge throughout society (or to be more accurate, teach seminarians and the leader of the government, who in turn teach other men, who in turn teach their own subordinates). Simply attaining a “spiritual state”, even with the benefit of a vast body of knowledge, does not automatically confer authority on a person to become a spiritual master (“guru”, in Sanskrit). There is, in fact, an enormous gulf between the two (that is, between an awakened non-priest working as a spiritual teacher, and an enlightened spiritual master).
Most persons would undoubtedly disapprove of a person stealing the property of another, yet think nothing of a working-class chap or a mere woman performing the function of a priest (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit). The fact is, when any person (other than a priest/guru) assumes the role of a spiritual leader, he or she is quite LITERALLY stealing the occupation of a priest. The phrase “The blind leading the blind” is pertinent here.
By understanding the entirety of this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, it shall assist one in the discernment necessary to distinguish an actual spiritual master from a person who may superficially seem to be a wise and holy teacher by the masses, yet is, in fact, a charlatan.
Unfortunately, only a wise sage can identify his peers, so it requires a genuine prophet to recognize which spiritual teachers are ACTUAL masters. Nevertheless, as a general rule, at least ninety-nine per cent of those giving spiritual precepts to society, are unqualified to do so (see Chapter 20 to know the prerequisites for a member of the Holy Priesthood. Despite what many believe, priests are not at all ordinary men).
LIBERATION:
“Liberation” means “freedom”. Thus, a liberated soul is a person who has become emancipated from the five kinds of suffering (blame, shame, pride, regrets/expectations, and anxiety), all of which are based on the belief in personal AGENCY. Read Chapter 15 to understand the nature of suffering, and Chapter 11 to understand that humans are not independent agents with freedom of volition.
Awakening experiences are not a prerequisite to being liberated from suffering.
LIKEWISE, not all liberated persons are automatically enlightened (at least not to the degree necessary in order to be labelled as such), but there is a strong correlation between the two states of being. It's possible to be liberated, whilst not possessing a deep understanding of life.
A liberated person is scarce, because very few understand the true nature of suffering, and of those who do understand the distinction between psycho-physical pain and ACTUAL (psychological) suffering, it is difficult to surrender to one's circumstances, free of obsessive thinking and judging. Liberated souls are usually those who have diligently practiced one of the four systems of yoga described in Chapter 16.
Cont...
Best comment here.
It's called passing the satori gate. Look up satori gate. There is actually a physical representation of it. It's a physical representation of passing the metaphorical gate that separates the illusion of division and not division.
@@noelwass4738, because?
"persistent non-symbolic consciousness" yes, this would be a way to do an academic or even scientific study. i'm surprised CtT didn't seem even willing to entertain the idea even for a moment.
That’s a great description of what enlightenment feels like, but the original question remains: what is it?
good observation. it has been defined in the video and its nature has been described (i.e. now does it feel) but what is enlightenment remains to be seen I guess? I would call it a state of consciousness…but then what is consciousness? So yeah, I assume you get the point
It’s a simulation to gain experience of the brain and quantum computer/information field interface.
Enlightenment emerges when “me” dies.
I find it funny that the host seems least interested in this topic, of everything that he has covered, and this shortest of all his videos. Lol.
Totally, he is so welded to his own thoughts
@@JayS.-mm3qr I emailed him years ago, but no response. 🥴
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda what did you say? Was it super verbose? I read some of your stuff. You can be verbose af. Lol
@@JayS.-mm3qr, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Whatever you achieve in meditation, you only achieve in your subjective experience. Talks about mystics achieving enlightenment do not go beyond the word enlightenment. History talks about enlightenment by many mystics through many different practices. However, in my opinion, there may be exaggerations.
For sure. From a certain pov, measuring enlightenment is kind of absurd, but it does sound like this person knows what he is talking about. There is value in studying it academically.
@@JayS.-mm3qr Age of Enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that was based on reason, freedom, and progress.
To fall into a habit is to begin to cease to be - Miguel de Unamuno
So... drugs? Interview anyone on Skid Row, they'll more or less tell you the same thing
Engaging BUT, the idea is more than a little frightening.. A dissipation of our sense of self..?? What would we ACTUALLY be in such a bizzaro world? The Borg with a hive-mind? Robert is spot on here, in my humble opinion.. Very FEW would/should choose NO sense of self over a life filled with various emotions, including (among many) joy, pride, AND even grief and righteous anger.. These are all experiences that make us humans instead of featureless unfeeling automatons..
Ps: REALIZING what we are and what our nature is WHILE simultaneously keeping our biases in descending order of : family, dear friends, and associates is TRUE enlightenment in my humble opinion..
One man's enlightenment is another man's foolishness.
..being enlightened to see that your Original Mommy is Darwin's Anchovy is indeed foolishness, I agree...
Persistent Non-Symbolic Consciousness ....What a lot of BS. Nothing more than linguistic mental gymnastics games played by Academics.
He-he, you made comment!
Enlightenment = knowing that you know nothing.
Enlightened about what? Einstein experienced enlightenment when he realized that gravitation was equivalent to acceleration.
You do not have to meditate to become enlightened about something.
I am not sure if enlightenment has a different meaning in this context.
People knew gravity was acceleration long before Einstein..
Galileo, Newton,etc studied gravity.
Anyone who dropped a rock knew gravity was acceleration….
@@jimliu2560Not in the same manner as Einstein that led to equivalent physics in rigid frames of reference.
@@georgegrubbs2966
Actually no…
Many people think Einstein theories are completely new science/math…
…but in fact are modifications or generalized or specific circumstances of classical science/math…
Ie.. it’s derived from classical (Newtonian) science…
Go rewatch the video. He said the said the answer, which is: the realization that you as an individual does not exist without everything else
It seems that enlightenment is a matter of perception. Or it wouldn't have so many mutually exclusive interpretations.
Ehhh... I don't know. Seems like it's pretty well figured out by now. The term was originally used to describe Buddha's awakening under the Boddhi tree, where he realized the path to end suffering, and the nature of reality. Now this definition seems to describe qualities of the experience. What part is not clear to you, or why do you feel there are many interpretations? Is it possible much of what you have heard is saying the same things in slightly different ways?
If you ask me though, any definition should at least acknowledge where the term came from, or else, anyone could use it to mean anything. The spiritual definition of the word is from Buddhism.
@JayS.-mm3qr
Ok now, you are using a different cultural bias.
Spiritual enlightenment isn't a claim made just by Buddhists. You could easily say its spiritual truth, or understanding, or simply belief.
@@thomasridley8675 ehhh... nah I still think even the other eastern religions that use the term, have a very similar meaning. Anyway, I'm still wondering why you say there are many interpretations.
@@thomasridley8675 ehhh, I think you would have to try pretty hard to interpret enlightenment as spiritual beliefs. The eastern versions, even from different religions, are similar. If you want consistency, why not go with the academic version, proposed in the video. I don't see it as inconsistent with eastern versions.
@JayS.-mm3qr
Are you enlightened or unenlightened ?
It depends on who you ask. I'm enlightened, but you are not. Is it just a convenient illusion ? 🤔
I'm here just to finish my life sentence. I don't expect a special reality because of where and when i live. And if i am wrong, at least i will be in the majority.
Yes, he absolutely is defining it.. from an eastern perspective.
His single minded focus on it is what i question. Like i should suddenly convert.
You do realize that the rest of civilization exists ? All with their own perspective. With their own idea of being "enlightened".
Hmmm ! I don't know of a single theology that doesn't think they are the enlightened ones. And everyone else isn't.
Reason , science, experiment over superstions religions believe, emotions ,exaltations.
In your own words, define "RELIGION". 🤔
If your definition comes within a light year of the ACTUAL definition, I promise that I will send you a very valuable gift.🎁
@JagadguruSvamiVegananda Religions as a systems of beliefs not based on facts and science. Believes in imaginary God's who don't exist. Some conspiracy theorys included. Plus some theorys coming from fizics who are also delusional and not proven by any experiments
@@LucyFre, have you ever considered applying for work editing DICTIONARY entries? 📖
If so, I would STRONGLY urge you to reconsider. 😜
@JagadguruSvamiVegananda He re is not filology podcast or blog ( by the way..)
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda
Religion is very, very, very slow Science!
How that?
There is No enlightenment because there is no absolute (moral) truth...!
..try having faith in a loving GOD that you may receive enlightenment... we fell from Heaven because we rejected the truth... we were sent here now TO BELIEVE...
@
God is not loving...
Humans did not fall from the sky..
Biology 101 has already shown “your version” of God is False...
@@oskarngo9138it is not human physical bodies that fell from Heaven but our souls for losing faith in God... our souls were sent here to use temporary physical vessels for a chance of returning back HOME through regaining this faith...
Important to know: Liberation is superior and a little different from enlightenment.
Shakyamuni Buddha was both enlightened and liberated.
Platonists in Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus were clearly enlightened and liberated.
Shankaracharya clearly enlightened and liberated.
Study their texts and see for yourselves.
Because of the mind some people falsely believe that science and theology, metaphysics and physics are different things - this isn't a state of enlightenment. Enlightenment in a man of science would see the true value of the texts by the men mentioned above and see the oneness of everything - mysticism or books concocted into the form of mysticism represents this unity.
A man who proselytizes claiming that the quran is the true word of God, that islam is the only religion true to God, a detractor who denigrates other avataras like Jesus Christ, is the exact opposite of enlightenment, and is not liberate but gravely bondaged.
A man following modern science and the status quo in materialism, which is the professional concensus view to a degree, who only ever scratches the surface level of meaning having no inner yearning to actually Know, is not enlightenment. Enlightenment is seen in a being who has an inner glow radiating which he can not obscure; this energy is felt and attracts folks of commonality, and also attracts narcissists.
A religious man who cannot let go of his conditional idea of God, his view of what is good, and his condition of familiarities, who needs everything in his colloquial or lexicon, although enlightened, perhaps not liberated. For the wisemen do teach that all of phenomena, such things distinguished by name and form, ultimately is from the one and same substrate, therefore in truth, there is no division or duality and such may not be liberation.
I think the teachings of Jesus are based upon the highest truth. Sure. There are other religions or fields of contemporary science. But I am comfortable with my choice. Best wishes to everyone for an easy going new year.
Have you ever wondered why the first commandment was to love GOD above all ? God was not doing it to favor Himself but to favor all His children...
...because once you have faith in a loving God, you can not help but love and care for all His children as well for love of Him.... Understanding that we are all one family to care for each other would be difficult to happen without believing in a loving GOD's existence first...
This kind of Enlightenment can not lose your agency but only can apply your agency not only to benefit yourself but also to help others being one family of the Divine ALMIGHTY...
"What is Enlightenment?"
TRUE Enlightenment is the heavenly light or wisdom that you may receive being shared to you because of your sincere faith in the existence of a loving GOD.... This light not only may make you understand the loving GOD much better but also may make you see the meaning of your existence - the main purpose why you are here....
Choosing to have faith in the existence of an Almighty Loving GOD may start when you begin to acknowledge that your physical brain and body and all the free bounties you benefit and enjoy were all NOT CREATED by you, to think that SOMEONE may have done it whom to be thankful to...
Happy New Year to you all ! ... I hope that you will celebrate this new year and all the years to come with FAITH in a Loving GOD..
I've always associated "Enlightenment" with having a sudden, clear sense of realization. In most cases, "Enlightenment" is what you get after realizing you were *blatantly wrong* about something. A theist might feel enlightened after discovering God's existence. and an atheist might feel enlightened after discovering God's nonexistence. ........... "Enlightenment" is totally subjective.
Are you ABSOLUTELY certain of that? 🤨
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda *"Are you ABSOLUTELY certain of that?"*
... If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me.
Enlightenment in the strict sense has to do with personal experiences that give you a deeper understanding about reality beyond what you can learn from science and stuff.
Blink already
Mystics term enlightenment as a process where in a human experiences godliness. He or she becomes a God in human form. Then he may proclaim himself a Avatar, a Messiah or a divine Messenger.
End light menT
😅😂😂😂😂
I watched this and am still not sure what is meant by enlightenment. Does it mean that we lose a sense of self-identity? What does this mean? Our thoughts are always our own thoughts and are private unless we choose to reveal our thoughts.
...you won't lose your agency.... you will just apply your agency not only to benefit yourself but also to help others..
@@evaadam3635 Thanks. I had trouble with the meaning of the word agency. It refers to (the feeling of) being in charge of their actions and the ability to initiate and control actions.
I think the starting point can be this … since you’re aware of the world, we can posit awareness as something that exists.
Since it seems to exist in our minds, so we can say minds exists. Our mind exists.
The mind is embodied, so bodies exist. Our body exists.
We are our conscious mind+body. The world outside affects us. The world outside exists.
This is pretty much our world.
Now, we review this world using the principle that, “that which I perceive (objects) is not me (the subject)”. We see a flower. The eye apprehends a flower as an (inside down, laterally inverted) image of the flower. This image is not conscious. The image is projected on our cornea. This image is an optical signal. It is not conscious. The cornea is a thing. It is not sentient. The cornea sends electrically encoded image info to the brain via electrochemical ionic channels. This electrochemical signal reaches “the brain”. The brain apprehends the converts the electrical signal to a form the “mind” can apprehend. While we don’t know what a mind is- its material or shape is not known- we posit it as the locus of comprehension. Four (or more) functions can be attributed to the mind, a sense of self, a seat of judgement or discernment or discrimination is a second function attributed to the brain. Then memories. And finally thoughts and emotions. None of these is intrinsically and obviously sentient. There is the awareness of our memories. The memory itself is not aware.
The brain isn’t sentient, it is a physical object.
So, there is always an object, of which there is awareness, and a subject, that which is aware. We are the subject. We are not the flower, not the eye, not the brain, and not the mind. We are aware of these, so we are not these.
So we become, in principle, disembodied “subjects”, not strictly reducible to specific objects.
Those who have pondered this assert that, logically, it is impossible to claim that the source of consciousness for you is different from that for me. They give the example of two mirrors reflecting your one face. Each mirror might claim to posses a unique face, and the images will be unique, but the face, your face is one.
In this amplify, the mind is the mirror that is reflecting the CONSCIOUSNESS.
Ultimately, if we buy this metaphysical formulation, then we must be CONSCIOUSNESS, because that which is unconscious is an object of our (us) awareness. You can’t be your emotions or thoughts or memories, or even your sense of self because you’re aware of your thoughts, emotions, memories. And of your own ego. It is a subtle point. But it holds up.
The awareness that we are this conscious agent, and in this sense nondual from all other conscious entities is the root of the sense of oneness.
Not having a free agency is a corollary. If the mind is insentient, then in what sense can it have “will”. To have will it must be sentient. This too is a subtle point, but it survives interrogation.
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the phenomenon where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example, an adult could perhaps ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, no other animal has the brain functionality to scrutinize its own existence/being, and to ponder the prospect that it may not exist in the future, nor that it may not have existed at any time in the past (let alone higher notions, such as contemplating the meaning of its life, metaphysics, meta-ethics, or to design advanced technology, as do we Homo sapiens sapiens).
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
Please note that this usage (“Consciousness”) is merely a concession to both the English language (which lacks a single-word equivalent of “Brahman/Tao”), and to the so-called “ultra-spiritual/neo-advaita” community (which invariably uses the terms “Consciousness” and “Awareness”, interchangeably, in their capitalized forms, as a moniker for The Absolute/Brahman/Tao).
@@JagadguruSvamiVegananda my understanding of consciousness and sentience is opposite. Consciousness is just awareness. Sentience is the ability to act intelligently in response to awareness. Humans have the most sentience in terms of planning, but equal level of consciousness to most animals, as as awareness of pain.
@@JayS.-mm3qr
Have you CAREFULLY read my previous comment?☝️
If not, I suggest you re-read it.
quite burdensome then
What a worthless con.
..what is missing in his speech is faith in a loving God..
@@evaadam3635 Self delusion in other words.
@@jackarmstrong5645..real delusion is when you choose to stare at Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama coming from Unconscious Bigbang out of NOTHING..