"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." - Nikola Tesla
Possibly one of the most inspiring videos on youtube - Maharaj reached the Absolute and transcended even consciousness and was nice enough to leave us infinite love on this topic and more. I would love to get involved with the community of Non-dualist - where can I find this sort of information. Thank you in advance and keep on loving and sharing.
What happens between? Well, what happens is that one becomes aware that one is aware (Shambhavopaya!)... Though, if you're a typical adult human, it's very short lived, since mind comes back and starts hogging cpu and ram, again.... Usually takes some kind of practice and dedication to overcome this tendency.
"split a piece of wood and Iam there " - Jesus " for the ignorant Self is limited to this body while Self is infinite for the wise" - Sri Ramana Maharshi
You can start by seeing each thought and each feeling as individual lifeforms. Then you can see how they communicate and combine to form the "self" that you feel as "you". You can also see how this "beings" can dissolve and recombine and how they can be subdivided infinitely, observing their dynamics with absolute selflessness, undertanding that there's no need of an observer for the observation to exists in itself as this dynamics. At the beggining it can be scary because you start to see that you actually never existed, but you should face your fear and keep going on. Then you start to realise that those little beings are just pure dynamics of just one fundamental thing, you could call it the "itself" or just "this".
That fundamental thing is in some cultures called Brahman. It is and it isn't. I like to think of it as the impenetrable mystery of existence. You only get to know the living dynamics, nothing else, it's impossible to go deeper.
This conflict in Science dates back to Newton and Leibniz in the 17th Century. Both discovered The Calculus but Leibniz developed Differential Calculus, the notation which was adopted. He said said to Newton: "You have left out the most obvious fact of all, human consciousness". He also laid the basis for modern logic (Boolean Algebra), developed Binary Notation and Calculating Machines (used into the 1960's), and promoted the concept of a Perennial Philosophy. He also translated Newton's Principia into German and French, adding the equations and concepts of Potential and Kinetic Energy together with the Law of Conservation of Energy. He had a keen interest in Chinese Philosophy, and promoted this in Europe.
Leibniz disagreed with Newton's concept of 'empty space', where all motion was relative to this underlying 'empty space'. His view was that space and time were associated with the distance and movement between objects, stating: "Surely time and space are relative". Einstein recognised how close they were at this theoretical level. For Leibniz, if all matter were removed from the Universe, one would not be left with 'empty space' but with nothing at all. Matter and the space it occupied could not be separated. It is a basic property of matter that it 'creates' the space needed for its existence. He rejected the division between mind and matter and attempted to formulate a Theory of the structure of matter (this was before the modern atomic theory). His Theory can seem quite bizarre, but much less so since Quantum Theory. For me, Leibniz' Theory is the only one that I have come across which gives some mechanism by which "spooky action at a distance" might occur. For Leibniz science could not be separated from an optimistic spirituality, whereas these became separated by Newton's followers (but this probably does not apply to Newton himself). During the 18th Century, Leibniz' philosophy was strongly attacked by Voltaire in "Candide". Voltaire had originally accepted Leibniz' ideas, but became very pessimistic after a severe earthquake in Lisbon, feeling that life was meaningless. This was a crucial time, the Age of Reason, when Europeans looked to Science and what it could do. Unfortunately for all of us, Leibniz was almost forgotten. Interest in him has gradually resurfaced during the 20th Century, with logicians such as Bertrand Russell and Kurt Godel being amongst the leaders, as well as some Quantum Physicists. Yet, without his Differential Calculus science would have developed at a much slower pace. It would be impossible even to write down Maxwell's and Einstein's Equations without the notation of Differential Calculus. (During the 19th Century, the basis for Differential Calculus was thought by mathematicians to be illogical, but you could not do mathematics without it: the very notation used was that powerful. More recently, since about 1970, mathematics has managed to add new numbers to the ones we usually use: the Hyper-Real Numbers, again making Differential Calculus a logical part of mathematics.)
***** I find the discussions between Newton and Leibniz very enlightening. Leibniz appears to have been in general agreement with Spinoza with whom he had discussions (Einstein also gained a lot from Spinoza). Leibniz was particularly opposed to Descartes' concept that mind and matter are 2 separate entities. I think most people still follow Descartes Miletus, Pythagoras' first teacher, considered this problem in about 550 B.C. He stated that everything (including mind and matter) must share the same underlying essence -- otherwise how could they possibly inter-react, with one producing changes in the other. This appears to be Leibniz' point. Leibniz viewed space as a property of matter itself. That is, it created the necessary space in which to exist. We view the objects around us, and how they move relative to one another. So we form a concept of spatial relationships, and from this have tended to assume the existence of "space" divorced from the reality that we experience. Leibniz felt strongly that no such "space" existed. The same for time, since that is a concept we form from the observation of change in our Universe. Leibniz saw the problem that Newton's ideas gave rise to. He put it to Newton, something like: "You say there is some Universal Clock and that everything happens in a sequence and timing determined by that Clock. Where is this Clock?" Newton could only answer: "It exists in the mind of God". To Leibniz, it could not exist somewhere separate from the rest of the Universe. (It seems that Leibniz refused to believe that God would be so separate from the Universe. The Universe would be complete and whole in itself). However, Newton HAD to make these assumptions, so that the resulting Physical Model of Reality was simple enough to be handled by the mathematics available at that time. You are puzzled by Newton not regarding space and time as genuine substances, but, to put it briefly, only existing in the mind of God, or being necessary because of a particular concept about what God is. Leibniz would say you have every right to be puzzled because Newton got it wrong (as was later proven by Einstein). Leibniz certainly believed in a Creative Power, but he never puts it precisely into words (at a young age he was horrified by the religious wars in Europe) -- in vague terms, perhaps similar to Buddhist philosophy, or Spinoza's "the Universe is God". One then comes up against the existence of suffering in the World. Leibniz saw that the Universe would have to be consistent right through, from top to bottom, in all it's great breadth. As King Solomon asks: "Why should animals suffer, and yet somehow humans be exempt. Are we so vain as to think we are better or more important than other animals?" It is almost a choice between having feeling life in the Universe, or no life at all. Leibniz stated that he believed that this was the best of all such possible Universes. He was seen by some as being stupidly optimistic, and this was his most controversial statement. Critics would say: "Surely we could have had a world without flies, just as a minor improvement." Einstein was the first to give a scientific definition of time, and he does it so beautifully and simply: "The experiences of an individual appear to be arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember, appear to be ordered according to the criterion of 'earlier' and 'later', which cannot be analysed further" He then gives a simple definition of a clock, whereby a number is associated with an event. However, he gives an example where someone 'at rest' would observe 2 events as occurring at the same time. He then shows that someone else moving relative to the first observer would see one event occurring before the other one. Thus time is "relative" in the sense that one observer would say the 2 events occurred at the same time, whereas the other observer would disagree. This is a property of the Universe in which we live. Although Einstein corrected some errors in Newton's Theory, the mathematics needed had only been developed about 50 years before Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein believed that Newton was more aware of the simplifying assumptions that he had to make than were most physicists who followed him. Newton needed the assumption of a background, empty space because objects moved relative to it. He also needed the concept of some Universal Time, otherwise the mathematics becomes far too difficult. I think that is why the reasons he gives for them do not sound convincing. Newton's Physics certainly has not been superseded, and is the one most commonly used in everyday situations. We have mathematical models of Reality; but they are NOT Reality itself (the models are always simplified). They are real to the extent that they work; but they do tell us something about Reality. Einstein was overcome by a profound experience when he realised that his General Theory of Relativity explained the aberrant orbit of Mercury. "Why should the Universe behave in such a way just because I have reasoned that was the logical way for things to happen". He said that he had an awareness of a Consciousness which is far beyond our comprehension. But what is Reality, or more simply Scientific Reality. Again Einstein gives a beautifully simple definition: "By the aid of language different individuals can, to a certain extent, compare their experiences. Then it turns out that certain sense perceptions of different individuals correspond to each other; while for other sense perceptions no such correspondence can be established. We are accustomed to regard as REAL those sense perceptions which are common to the great majority of different individuals". If only a small percentage of individuals share the same experience, then it is usually not regarded as real; or not capable of being studied by science. Science can only study those things which the great majority of people regard as being real. (This does not completely invalidate an experience just because it may not be a common one). People and Science will then form concepts and systems of concepts that serve to represent the complex of common experiences. This is the only justification or legitimacy for the (scientific) systems of concepts (Theories or Laws) -- they represent the complex of our common experiences. However, one must admit, if a scientific theory leads to a prediction which turns out to occur, then it merits special consideration.
On Leibniz and the structure of matter-mind: He concluded that the smallest "particles" (or monads as he called them) could not have the same properties as small particles that we experience around us. They would have to have very different properties, some of these properties being akin to what we consider to be thoughts, or "mind-objects". Of course this seems quite strange (especially before the era of Quantum Mechanics). However the amazing thing is that he arrives at this conclusion by a process associated with his development of Differential Calculus. That word "Differential" is crucial: Differentials are infinitely small but still not zero. Any continuum, no matter how small, could be further subdivided an infinite number of times. The monads were the size of a differential: as stated above, entities of this size must take on new properties. During the 19th Century, mathematicians came to view the concept of Differentials as being illogical, and could not be made consistent with the rest of mathematics. Just the same, mathematicians continued to use the notation of Differentials because it was so powerful, and essential equations in science (e.g. Maxwell's Equations of Electro-magnetism; and Einstein's Equations of Relativity) could not even be written down without the language of Differentials. Since about1970, there has been a minor revolution in mathematics with the development of the Hyper-Real Numbers; these numbers can be added in a logical way to our present numbers. With the addition of these numbers, Differential Calculus again becomes logical and consistent with the rest of mathematics. We can define what we mean when we say the Hyper-Real Numbers (Differentials) are infinitely small. Consider a Hyper-Real Number 'h'. Then consider any Real Number 'r' greater then zero, but as small as you wish to make it. Then, 0 < h < r. That is, the Hyper-Reals are smaller than any Real Number. It is quite an achievement in Model Theory, to be able to add the Hyper-Reals to our Number System. Newton also developed the Calculus independently of Leibniz, but Newton did NOT use "Differentials". It is Differential Calculus that has been used so successfully. The exception being England, where they attempted to persist with Newton's Calculus for the next 200 years for reasons of nationalism. This put English Mathematics and some Science behind the rest of Europe, only catching up again about a Century ago. The English were fortunate that the Scots and Irish adopted Leibniz' Differential Calculus; it is no accident that the Industrial Revolution occurred in Scotland, rather than in England. (Maxwell was a Scot). Newton behaved badly, arranging for The Royal Society for Science to find Leibniz guilty of plagiarism (Newton was President of that Society). It now seems clear that Leibniz saw where Newtonian Physics was heading: towards a belief in a 'Clockwork Universe' which was devoid of meaning. I believe that is partly the reason that he questioned the existence of a 'separate' infinite empty space, and the existence of some 'universal' clock also separate from the rest of the universe. It was not long before "infinite empty space" and "Universal time" just existed for no particular reason. They are really no more than convenient concepts formed by our own mind. For Leibniz there was always a moral dimension. It would matter a great deal if people came to believe in a meaningless Universe, completely explicable by a few Laws of Mechanics. And that is what happened. It is as if Leibniz believed that God would create a Universe complete and whole in itself (certainly Leibniz did not believe in the "God" as portrayed in the Old Testament). But we have reached the stage where "Consciousness" is viewed as something 'secreted by matter' when it becomes complex enough; then every thought and emotion is the result of brain neuronal activity, and underneath it all this means we do not even have free will. For Leibniz, Consciousness was the primary thing: and Matter was not something "dead", but consisted of monads in constant motion -- everything was motion and force. He was saying effectively, that piece of "dead matter" contains immense amounts of Energy (after all, it was Leibniz who first formulated the scientific concept of 'energy'). And that Energy has Consciousness associated with it. The monads do not follow blind laws of Nature, but have a degree of "choice" in what they will do; they also have an awareness of what other monads are doing. Not too far from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, nor "spooky action at a distance"
This is terrific. Hopeful. Only intelligence will save us and intelligence is embodied only when information and emotion are integrated by the incredible human brain. Our brains are desperate to be freed from social conditioning. Projects that explore "consciousness" must include practices that liberate emotion. THIS is not venting. It is integration!!!
+Pam Maccabee Consciousness is beyond limited human intelligence. Consciousness led to science NOT the other way round. It is neither mind nor body. it is also the basis for karma and re-incarnation. Welcome to hinduism which is neither monotheism nor pantheism. We (both matter, consciousness of living and non living) are infinite decimal part of that transcendent one. Matter = Energy which can neither be destroyed nor created. Laws of thermodynamics also copied from hindu/vedic high philosophies. 8000 yrs old Vaiseshika (atomic physics) Sutras of hinduism deal with the investigation, observation and mechanics of the universe and the elements and the theory of space and time. A lot of the modern sciences concepts were copied from it like laws of motion, gravitation, thermodynamics, waves, hydrostatics and magnetism among others.
+Irene Stroia Read "I am that" by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (free pdf download just put I am that in Google) read it over and over and trust his word. You will not fail.
Scheisse is not my name, I don't know why it appears here? So sorry! But... I think it'sso fantastic, that these Videos are shown again after 7 years! We are in the times to really start to understand this, what is said here, fantastic 💞
looks pretty cool. "Know the nature of the Knowing" shame Rick Hanson and B Alan Wallace are not part of this as these two Buddhists are exploring that very area.
Consciousness defined; The plane of ideas and objects manifest and not. Consciousness is all. Everything is the stuff of consciousness. Itself nothing imagination. Consciousness is an integrated particle mind reality. Consciousness can only be realized through itself. The unique individual.
Awareness might simply be a function of the brain, like viewing is a simple function of the camera lens. But what of your cognizance of your awareness? The "your" in that last sentence, where/what is that? I am aware. "I", who is aware. Where is that "I"? What is that "I"?
This video simply perpetuates the illusion that Consciousness is identical to Awareness. How sad that gurus have learned so little about the Primordial Condition of their own body-minds in 6,000 years...
The difference between Consciousness and Awareness comes from my own personal experience. Awareness is the ability to apprehend, or pay to attention to, things arising in the environment. It usually refers to a Condition in which an Object appears whose existence The Observer apprehends, The Object of his Awareness, or to some property of that Object which The Observer has, for some reason, put his attention on. It is a generic term, having nothing directly to do with radically specific spiritual and technical tems like Realization, Enlightenment, or The Conscious Condition. Consciousness, on the other hand, is a radical sub-set of Awareness which functions conceptually to introduce the observer to a Condition in which everything which arises in his phenomenal environment appears somehow to be the result of a singular, solitary, unified, radical Force-Field at the root of all existence, including his very own. Awareness is common to many seekers, and for that matter, to many non-seekers, but Consciousness is quite rare to the seeker because it is The Awareness that everything in his phenomenal field is somehow both the result of, and the reflection of, a primordial Force-Field at the root of all existence, similar to the one Einstein talked about, and in no way separate from it. We might say that Conscioiusness is the Awareness of existence when viewed from the perspective of the fundamental and inherent Unity of All Things. Many seekers are aware, and assume for that reason they are also Conscious, but they are wrong. The two states are not at all identical. Consciousness requires the seeker additionally to awaken to the fact that, not only everything exists, but that everything is connected to everything else and coulld not be otherwise.
Bruce Ryan Hi Bruce, I appreciate your response and find your distinction between the two interesting. Generally, I find the two terms are interchangeable in most contexts, and that most people don't make the distinction and might just say, " higher awareness" or "higher consciousness" when alluding to the way you use the term, "Consciousness;" but even then, that particular use of those terms must be understood by both parties as having that specific definition, or we end up wasting our time with semantics. Also, If I may, I would like to recommend that you make that definition clear from the beginning, rather than assuming others "just don't get it," because, well, I and a number of others do get it, but we were confused without the obvious distinction stated by you. But thanks for making it clear with your response. Since you seem spiritually aware/conscious, I'm curious what you think of the following: "There is no doer;" Free Will is an illusion;" "The Perceiver, Perception, and the Perceived, is just an idea showing up in Consciousness about how Awareness might work;" "Awareness/Consciousness will never understand itself/themselves in its/their totality because that totality cannot show up within the Perception of itself/themselves;" "People and their assumed power, are illusions and just aspects of the Ego, which is the sum total of all identities, which Consciousness believes it is, until the Truth (Consciousness becoming aware of Consciousness/itself) arises from the acculturated delusion delivered to Consciousness continuously from its birth into this time/space existence."
brentbb0 Thanks for your input, Brent. Its nice to know that there are at least a few people in our civilization who are interested in how The Conscious Process works. I think your suggestion to make the distinction between Consciousness and awareness very clear right right at the outset is a good one. Consciousness is actually a very specialized kind of awareness rooted in the unity of all things and to assume that generic forms of common, ordinary awareness have anything to do with Consciousness simply obfuscates The Spiritual Process. Clarity and precision are extremely important when engaging That Process anyway and I constantly find that taking for granted any of the conceptual instruments required to investigate how Consciousness works is a huge mistake. The reason for this is obvious, if one thinks about it: it allows the human ego to slip into the discussion unnoticed and to shape and distort our vision of how the Process of Consciousness really works. The instruments for this distortion are the many unexamined assumptions and fixed ideas we constantly bring to our investigation of Consciousness. Lets define The Conscious Process as that Process which enables the seeker to realize his Primordial, born, Condition in Consciousness, or Enlightenment, as we call it. There has to be a way to account for the almost universal failure of that Process to work for seekers everywhere over the last 6,000 years. Its a deeply puzzling issue for most of us! I would suggest that it has to do with the metaphysical context out of which our vision of The Conscious Process arises. There are only two viewpoints available to the seeker to understand how The Conscious Process actually works: The first is the viewpoint of ego, or the idea that I am somehow separate, or divided, from you, and the second is the viewpoint of Consciousness, the Idea that I am somehow not separate, not divided, from you, and that therefore, you and I are fundamentally an expression of the same Force of Unity. Frankly, there are no other perspectives available which will enable a seeker to understand The Conscious Process. This tells me that the issue of how Consciousness works is actually very black and white. There are no gray areas. Either a Force of Separation exists between you and me, or it does not. One is right and one is wrong. Period. If the seeker adopts the first position, the viewpoint of ego, he will think that he is not in The Conscious Condition, and has to somehow do something to get himself there. So he tries various strategies like acquiring a guru, worshipping someone, adopting a set of spiritual beliefs, joining some spiritual group, entering a Lineage, dancing, chanting, meditating, trying to trigger the kundalini or the shakti, developing mantras, conducting rituals, willfully thinking certain thoughts, or feeling certain feelings, etc. This observation accounts for the strategies of about 99.999% of all spiritual seekers, and actually explains why almost no one ever attains The Enlightened Condition, if I may talk that way. Seekers constantly assume that The Spiritual Process reveals itself to them from The Viewpoint of Ego, while ego is rooted in illusion and Consciousness is rooted in Truth. The problem is that illusion never generates Truth. It only generates itself. Actually, the issue of whether position (1) or (2) is true has been settled for the human race many, many decades ago. It was settled for us by none other than Einstein himself, who proved the existence of The Unified Field mathmatically in the early 19th century. This tells me that what we call The Conscious Process is actually a Branch of Science which can be explored using the techniques of The Scientific Method, just like any other Branch of Science. This means that the point of The Conscious Process is to describe The Universe exactly and precisely as it is, subtracting nothing from it that is there, and adding nothing to it that is not. Anyone who practices these two rules is guaranteed to realize their Primordial Condition in Consciousness, because they turn The Conscious Process into a Science, and the hallmark of all Science is predictability. We can see from these insights that, if one wants to understand how The Conscious Process works, the only viewpoint that could possibly be true is (2): The Viewpoint of Consciousness. This tells me that if the spiritual seeker wants to understand how Enlightenment works, he must look at The Universe from the eyes of Consciousness, rather than ego. At the root of that vision is the idea that everything which arises in the seeker's phenomenal field is connected to everything else, i.e., is the expression of a Singular, Unified, Force or Force Field. There is nothing controversial about this assertion, because Einstein has already demonstrated that we humans beings inhabit just such a Field simply by being born onto Planet Earth. Moreover, Consciousness Herself makes that very same point to us when She tells us that Her Condition of Unity is also our born Condition as conscious, sentient beings. It is also of utmost importance to note that (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive alternatives. Either we are born into a condition of separation and division from each other, or we are born into a condition of Unity and Onenness. There is no other alternative. The reason why is that it is impossible for The Force of Separation to arise in a Field that is Unified, and vice versa. This is a tautology because it is true by definition, and there can be no exceptions. Separation and division cannot arise in a Field that is unified, and it is precisely our assumption that they can which derails our search for peace and happiness. Despite these obvious facts almost all seekers and Gurus investigate The Conscious Process from The Viewpoint of Ego, i.e., separation and division. They do this because they fail to realize that they actually bring a viewpoint to their investigation. That is to say they see The Conscious Condition as a Condition not natural to the seeker, and separated from him by a Force Field which he must somehow master or traverse in order to realize his born Condition in Consciousness. That is just a viewpoint, a presumption, of course, and there is no reason to think it is true. It is just a story we tell ourselves. It can't be true actually, because the seeker's born Condition is natural to him in the sense that it cannot be escaped by him. Those who think otherwise find that their viewpoint, instead of uniting them to The Field of Consciousness into which they were born, actually separates them from that Field, stranding them in illusion and suffering. The implications of this vision of The Conscious Process are awesome. They tell us that the whole idea of Guru-ism, the idea that I need a Guru to show me The Way to Enlightenment, is rooted in the exact same notion of separation and division proposed by the human ego itself. But since it is impossible for a Force of Separation to arise in a Field of Unity, this means that the notion of Guru-ism itself is also rooted in illusion, the exact same sort of illusion represented by the human ego. This is precisely what we find, since it runs counter to the pronouncement of Consciousness herself that Unity with her is our born Condition. How can a seeker possibly be separated from a Condition he was born into??? Obviously he just thinks he is! What this means is that every spiritual seeker is a natural Configuration of Consciousness born at a particular point in space and time in this Dimension of Reality, who has been confused by some unexamined, fixed ideas into thinking he is not. If this is correct, The Conscious Process is simply a process in which The Unified Information Field of Consciousness communicates with particular forms or Configurations of Herself arising at various points in space and time, educating them to the fact that they are one and the same Force, information-wise, as She is. Nothing more. Nothing less. Therefore, the raw Truth is that there is only Consciousness, and She is basically talking to herself. The moment I saw this point, everything changed for me, because it was just plain obvious that Consciousness does not need a third party, a guru, in order to talk to Herself. Enlghtenment is the most intimate expression of the relationship between the seeker and The Universe he was born into, one so intimate that it literally begins to appear as a Form of himself everywhere he looks. No guru can mediate that relationship, because it needs no mediation. Guru-ism is a big business, especially under Capitalism. But it has absolutely nothing to do with The Conscious Process. Its all about the selling of information: making money without having to work for a living. I've had 17 Gurus myself, but I've yet to meet one who understands how Consciousness works. That would be really bad for their business. Guruism is, in fact, the greatest single obstacle to Enlihghtenment the spiritual seeker faces, as far as the Realization of his Primordial Condition in Consciousness goes. Its all about the money. As for your additional questions, they, too, need to be examined from The Viewpoint of Consciousness: (1) "There is no doer." Understanding is The Nervous System of Consciousness, while activity, i.e., doing, is The Nervous System of Ego. But since ego is separation, and it is impossible for The Force of Separation to arise in a Field of Unity, there is no such thing as an Ego. The notion of Ego is an illusion, plain and simple. Freud was completely confused. And so are his partisans. This means that there is nothing the seeker can do to become Enlightened. The reason for this paradox is because he already is. It is his born Condition in Consciousness! Suppose, e.g., you are sitting in a room and someone asks you to enter that room. What would be your response? You would probably get confused because you already have entered it. That's how you got there! In fact you were born into that room. You can't enter a room which you already have entered. You can only re-enter that room. But that's not what you are being asked to do. You are being asked to enter it, not re-enter it. The raw Truth is that there is nowhere the seeker can go to in order to enter the room. He would first have to go outside the room and then go back into the room. But there is no place in his phenomenal field that is "outside" the room. Consciousness tells us this herself when She says that She is Everywhere and Everything. The room is Consciousness. We are born into a Condition of Unification with everything that arises within The Information Field of Consciousness. There is nothing we can do about that fact but understand it. Period. We can't chant to make it happen. We can't meditate to make it happen. We can't dance to make it happen. We can't do anything to make it happen because it has already happened! We can only understand that it has already happened. We call the Condition which results from that understanding, Enlightenment. (2) "Free will is an illusion." Seekers love to think that their Will is Free, because they want to believe that entering The Conscious Condition is a simple matter of Free Will. But they are wrong. That's actually the viewpoint of Ego. Since The Nervous System of Consciousness is Understanding, entering The Conscious Condition is an Act of Understanding, not an Act of Free Will. Look at it this way: since the seeker is by definition seeking to unite himself with The Field of Consciousness, he must be assuming that he is already separate from that Field. But how can a seeker's Will possibly be free when it is wedded to the idea that he is separated from Consciousness? By Her very own words She tells us that idea is rooted in illusion. So this claim is true: Free Will is an illusion precisely because Consciousness is our born Condition... (3) "The Perceiver, Perception, and the Perceived, is just an idea showing up in Consciousness about how Awareness might work;" Conceptual Instruments like The Perceiver, Perception, and The Perceived, are specialized terms designed to show us how Consciousness works, not to show us how generic concepts like awareness work. One can be very aware, yet totally unconscious spiritually. Just look at most students of Freud. So for the seeker who is interested in Enlightenment, how Consciousness works is what counts, not how generic Awareness, awareness in general, works. In truth, Consciousness is a specialized Branch of Awareness because it demands that we not only acknowledge the existence of things, but their inherent metaphysical connection to each other simply by virtue of the fact that they arise in the same Unified Field of Information. Those who fail to meet this demand, fail to acknowledge this very same Field. So how can they possibly be Conscious? In this sense Perception is a Form of Information, The Perceiver is the one who receives and then processes that Form of Information, and The Perceived is The Object of that Form of Information. Since The Perceiver is always rooted Primordially in The Unified Information Field of Consciousness, what this fact tells us is that through Consciousness he brings together and processes his Perceptions in order to make sense of, and understand, The Object they point to. This means that Rupert Spira's idea that the notion of an object of the seeker's perception inherently presumes a Force of Separation between The Perceiver and The Perceived, is nothing but another unexamined, fixed idea arising out of the illusions of a viewpoint rooted in Separation. If we are born into a Field of Unity, and Consciousness tells us that we are, it is imposssible for a Force of Separation to arise anywhere between The Perceiver and The Perceived, because both exist within that Field. This means that The Perceiver is basically just perceiving a form of himself and nothing else, and that act of perception does not require a Force-Field of Separation. Rupert Spira is a very confused person. His Teaching is loaded with an endless array of unexamined, fixed ideas of this kind. He is a classic example of the failures of Guru-ism. He never finds out for himself what is true. He just repeats what his Guru told him and then charges us money for it. Sorry to be so frank, but he was much more useful to The Conscious Process when he was lathing pottery bowls. Today he is just in the way. (4) "People and their assumed power, are illusions and just aspects of the Ego, which is the sum total of all identities, which Consciousness believes it is, until the Truth (Consciousness becoming aware of Consciousness/itself) arises from the acculturated delusion delivered to Consciousness continuously from its birth into this time/space existence." A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I'm afraid the above comments demonstrate this adage only all too well. Mistake # 1: The Ego is not "the sum total of all identities Consciousness believes it is". To call The Ego a linear result of the mistaken beliefs of Consciousness is absurd because Consciousness is not about the acquisition of beliefs. Consciousness is about the acquisition of Understanding. A belief is the emotional endorsement of what the seeker thinks is true, but since the seeker is seeking for The Truth when it is already present in him as his born Condition, who cares what he thinks is true? He is living in illusion. Illusion is not caused by Consciousness. It is caused by the mis-understanding of Consciousness. That mis-understanding is due to the presence of unexamined, unnoticed, fixed ideas (exactly like the one proposed here) in the seeker's viewpoint. Mistake # 2: The Truth is not Consciousness becomming aware of itself, or its existence. It is Consciousness becomming aware of the fact that all of its Configurations are connected to each other through their birth into, and their arising out of, The Unified Field. In short, Truth is about Unity, not existence. Mistake # 3: Truth does not arise out of "the acculturated delusion delivered to Consciousness continuously from its birth into this time/space existence." In fact, Truth does not arise in Consciousness at all. It is always, already present because there is nowhere else for it be. It is present in Consciousness by default. There is nowhere else for it to be because its only alternative is the human ego, and the human ego is rooted in illusion. I've written a book on Consciousness from this perspective which examines these issues in much greater detail, in case you're interested. Its called ROASTING THE BUDDHA and is posted on Amazon. But don't feel you have to read it. Its only for those who want to examine these issues in a very deep way. All the information you need to Realize your Primordial Condition in Consciousness, if you haven't already, is contained right in these very paragraphs. Just study The Unified Structure of Consciousness and allow that Structure to unfold itself in your viewpoint or your mind, free of all unexamined, fixed ideas. Keep investigating your assumptions about Consciousness to determine if they are true. You'll be astonished at the transformation it produces! Of course feel free to ask me more questions at any time, if you want to pursue these issues further. I'll do my best to answer them. But try not to look on me as a Guru. I know that is a strong impulse in many seekers. It is in me too. But if you do, you will create that very sense of separation between you and me you are trying to escape in your life. I'm just a guy with a viewpoint. For all I know I may actually be wrong. That's why I constantly test my ideas in the court of human experience, and I strongly suggest that you do the same. The Spiritual Process is about finding out for yourself what is true, not about taking someone's word for it. I'm not after your money and I think it is ridiculous to demand, like the guru does, that people give him a free ride through life financially just because he has had a spiritual experience, or may have some information about The Conscious Process they don't. If you look at the structure of Consciousness its obvious there is no such thing as a Guru anyway. Its just a form of division run amuck in The Field of Consciousness, the quintessential essence of illusion. Its an Old Boys Club. Most gurus are appointed by themselves, and those who aren't, are appointed by each other. How sad to realize that The Search for Truth in our Civilization has come to such a pathetic end! We are truly living on borrowed time... Show message history
Bruce Ryan Hi Bruce, First of all, sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. My mind has been preoccupied.... Thanks for taking the time to answer in great detail. I very much appreciate it. I read through it all a couple of times and went to Amazon to take a look at your book and read more of your comments there. I sense we are both trying very hard to put into words what we are seeing and feeling of this amazing "awakening" that is taking place within us both, and others, of course, too. In doing so, we are trying to find the right words to express visions which in some cases cannot be understood by anyone unless they have had similar insights ("To he who has had the experience, no explanation is necessary; to he who has not had the experience, no explanation is possible.) I have had many revelations over the years in a number of different contexts, including spiritual study and inquiry groups, various books, psychedelics, a couple of gurus, and most recently a way of meditating I've stumbled upon that I call, "Feedback Loop Meditation" (FLM) which is simply speaking out loud about what is being seen and felt, so that the sounds can re-enter the brain, which actually causes the focus of attention to increase and the depth of the experience to deepen. This process works in an absolutely revelatory way, beyond any expectations I had when I first noticed it happening. Try it if you haven't yet discovered its power. So, all of this has given me much more awareness and insight into Consciousness. Also, talking about what I've seen to individuals and in small groups has taught me that little is understood by others unless great care is taken to make sure we are on the same page regarding the definitions of words like "mind, consciousness, awareness, being, ego, etc., "and the various contexts these words can appear. Also, it has become obvious to me on many occasions that what I had been talking about, that I thought was being understood, just wasn't at all, to my dismay. I'm sure you know what I mean. In your long response, I see things that I understand, and other things that look like I didn't make myself clear to you so you could understand exactly what I meant, because you didn't appear to in your reply; but, at least in one case, I know you did, because you said essentially the same thing at another point in you post. We could go back and forth here for a long time trying to get things straight, but I see a possible, much better way. You mentioned you had an incredible vision one day in San Francisco. Do you live there now? I just happen to live in Berkeley, myself, and if you do, then we could get together and accomplish more communication in a few hours than we could get here, going back and forth for weeks. So, I hope you live in the SF Bay area and this can happen. I'll leave it here for now, rather than go into specific responses to the many things you mentioned, most of which I agree with, except for some of your comments to the questions I had for you. I would also like to move this to normal email rather than here, as it will be easier to deal with, if you don't mind. Talking on the phone can be good also. My email is (that's a zero after bb) I'm looking forward to sharing our visions and seeing how they may benefit us both. Brent
Not true. Religious dogma is characterised by explicit adherence to one book or ideology or belief (e.g., the bible, or the belief that brain is making consciousness,), as if that book or idea is the only true source of wisdom and knowledge. What has been said in this video is the exact opposite of that. What is being encouraged here is the exploration of consciousness from a scientific standpoint. And with 20 billion a year going into brain-consciousness reserach, look forward to more knowledge on the subject (no pun) :D
This is one of the most beautiful and inspiring videos I've seen. Moved me to tears.
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." - Nikola Tesla
Funny because we have been for over two decades
all respect to Rupert Spira who has the clearest explanation along with the highest understanding to Consciousness
definitely
Thank you Maurizio for this beautiful little film... Bravissimo!
I love nature, keep it onward!
what is the name of the song ?
Possibly one of the most inspiring videos on youtube - Maharaj reached the Absolute and transcended even consciousness and was nice enough to leave us infinite love on this topic and more. I would love to get involved with the community of Non-dualist - where can I find this sort of information. Thank you in advance and keep on loving and sharing.
The shift or seeming evolution, modulation for this age...I Am, therefore I think...A great video...Thanks for posting !!!
Spot on! Thank you for this one.
What happens between the question are you Aware and the answer yes?
So delicious part of the WHOLE video :)
I love it! Pure Joy!
What happens between? Well, what happens is that one becomes aware that one is aware (Shambhavopaya!)... Though, if you're a typical adult human, it's very short lived, since mind comes back and starts hogging cpu and ram, again.... Usually takes some kind of practice and dedication to overcome this tendency.
"split a piece of wood and Iam there " - Jesus
" for the ignorant Self is limited to this body while Self is infinite for the wise" - Sri Ramana Maharshi
This is beautiful
In need of psychedelic products, check
morgan Drugz
On !g
(Instagram)
And yet NON-DUALITY is much deeper and , let's not hide it, tougher to understand ...
You can start by seeing each thought and each feeling as individual lifeforms. Then you can see how they communicate and combine to form the "self" that you feel as "you". You can also see how this "beings" can dissolve and recombine and how they can be subdivided infinitely, observing their dynamics with absolute selflessness, undertanding that there's no need of an observer for the observation to exists in itself as this dynamics.
At the beggining it can be scary because you start to see that you actually never existed, but you should face your fear and keep going on.
Then you start to realise that those little beings are just pure dynamics of just one fundamental thing, you could call it the "itself" or just "this".
That fundamental thing is in some cultures called Brahman. It is and it isn't.
I like to think of it as the impenetrable mystery of existence.
You only get to know the living dynamics, nothing else, it's impossible to go deeper.
Music name please
Wondering what the other half of the species, ie, women, might have to say on the topic
This conflict in Science dates back to Newton and Leibniz in the 17th Century. Both discovered The Calculus but Leibniz developed Differential Calculus, the notation which was adopted. He said said to Newton: "You have left out the most obvious fact of all, human consciousness".
He also laid the basis for modern logic (Boolean Algebra), developed Binary Notation and Calculating Machines (used into the 1960's), and promoted the concept of a Perennial Philosophy.
He also translated Newton's Principia into German and French, adding the equations and concepts of Potential and Kinetic Energy together with the Law of Conservation of Energy.
He had a keen interest in Chinese Philosophy, and promoted this in Europe.
Leibniz disagreed with Newton's concept of 'empty space', where all motion was relative to this underlying 'empty space'. His view was that space and time were associated with the distance and movement between objects, stating: "Surely time and space are relative". Einstein recognised how close they were at this theoretical level. For Leibniz, if all matter were removed from the Universe, one would not be left with 'empty space' but with nothing at all. Matter and the space it occupied could not be separated. It is a basic property of matter that it 'creates' the space needed for its existence.
He rejected the division between mind and matter and attempted to formulate a Theory of the structure of matter (this was before the modern atomic theory). His Theory can seem quite bizarre, but much less so since Quantum Theory. For me, Leibniz' Theory is the only one that I have come across which gives some mechanism by which "spooky action at a distance" might occur.
For Leibniz science could not be separated from an optimistic spirituality, whereas these became separated by Newton's followers (but this probably does not apply to Newton himself). During the 18th Century, Leibniz' philosophy was strongly attacked by Voltaire in "Candide". Voltaire had originally accepted Leibniz' ideas, but became very pessimistic after a severe earthquake in Lisbon, feeling that life was meaningless.
This was a crucial time, the Age of Reason, when Europeans looked to Science and what it could do. Unfortunately for all of us, Leibniz was almost forgotten. Interest in him has gradually resurfaced during the 20th Century, with logicians such as Bertrand Russell and Kurt Godel being amongst the leaders, as well as some Quantum Physicists. Yet, without his Differential Calculus science would have developed at a much slower pace. It would be impossible even to write down Maxwell's and Einstein's Equations without the notation of Differential Calculus.
(During the 19th Century, the basis for Differential Calculus was thought by mathematicians to be illogical, but you could not do mathematics without it: the very notation used was that powerful. More recently, since about 1970, mathematics has managed to add new numbers to the ones we usually use: the Hyper-Real Numbers, again making Differential Calculus a logical part of mathematics.)
***** I find the discussions between Newton and Leibniz very enlightening. Leibniz appears to have been in general agreement with Spinoza with whom he had discussions (Einstein also gained a lot from Spinoza).
Leibniz was particularly opposed to Descartes' concept that mind and matter are 2 separate entities. I think most people still follow Descartes
Miletus, Pythagoras' first teacher, considered this problem in about 550 B.C. He stated that everything (including mind and matter) must share the same underlying essence -- otherwise how could they possibly inter-react, with one producing changes in the other.
This appears to be Leibniz' point. Leibniz viewed space as a property of matter itself. That is, it created the necessary space in which to exist. We view the objects around us, and how they move relative to one another. So we form a concept of spatial relationships, and from this have tended to assume the existence of "space" divorced from the reality that we experience. Leibniz felt strongly that no such "space" existed. The same for time, since that is a concept we form from the observation of change in our Universe.
Leibniz saw the problem that Newton's ideas gave rise to. He put it to Newton, something like: "You say there is some Universal Clock and that everything happens in a sequence and timing determined by that Clock. Where is this Clock?" Newton could only answer: "It exists in the mind of God". To Leibniz, it could not exist somewhere separate from the rest of the Universe. (It seems that Leibniz refused to believe that God would be so separate from the Universe. The Universe would be complete and whole in itself).
However, Newton HAD to make these assumptions, so that the resulting Physical Model of Reality was simple enough to be handled by the mathematics available at that time.
You are puzzled by Newton not regarding space and time as genuine substances, but, to put it briefly, only existing in the mind of God, or being necessary because of a particular concept about what God is. Leibniz would say you have every right to be puzzled because Newton got it wrong (as was later proven by Einstein).
Leibniz certainly believed in a Creative Power, but he never puts it precisely into words (at a young age he was horrified by the religious wars in Europe) -- in vague terms, perhaps similar to Buddhist philosophy, or Spinoza's "the Universe is God". One then comes up against the existence of suffering in the World. Leibniz saw that the Universe would have to be consistent right through, from top to bottom, in all it's great breadth. As King Solomon asks: "Why should animals suffer, and yet somehow humans be exempt. Are we so vain as to think we are better or more important than other animals?" It is almost a choice between having feeling life in the Universe, or no life at all. Leibniz stated that he believed that this was the best of all such possible Universes. He was seen by some as being stupidly optimistic, and this was his most controversial statement. Critics would say: "Surely we could have had a world without flies, just as a minor improvement."
Einstein was the first to give a scientific definition of time, and he does it so beautifully and simply:
"The experiences of an individual appear to be arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember, appear to be ordered according to the criterion of 'earlier' and 'later', which cannot be analysed further"
He then gives a simple definition of a clock, whereby a number is associated with an event.
However, he gives an example where someone 'at rest' would observe 2 events as occurring at the same time. He then shows that someone else moving relative to the first observer would see one event occurring before the other one. Thus time is "relative" in the sense that one observer would say the 2 events occurred at the same time, whereas the other observer would disagree. This is a property of the Universe in which we live.
Although Einstein corrected some errors in Newton's Theory, the mathematics needed had only been developed about 50 years before Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity.
Einstein believed that Newton was more aware of the simplifying assumptions that he had to make than were most physicists who followed him.
Newton needed the assumption of a background, empty space because objects moved relative to it. He also needed the concept of some Universal Time, otherwise the mathematics becomes far too difficult. I think that is why the reasons he gives for them do not sound convincing.
Newton's Physics certainly has not been superseded, and is the one most commonly used in everyday situations.
We have mathematical models of Reality; but they are NOT Reality itself (the models are always simplified). They are real to the extent that they work; but they do tell us something about Reality.
Einstein was overcome by a profound experience when he realised that his General Theory of Relativity explained the aberrant orbit of Mercury. "Why should the Universe behave in such a way just because I have reasoned that was the logical way for things to happen". He said that he had an awareness of a Consciousness which is far beyond our comprehension.
But what is Reality, or more simply Scientific Reality. Again Einstein gives a beautifully simple definition:
"By the aid of language different individuals can, to a certain extent, compare their experiences. Then it turns out that certain sense perceptions of different individuals correspond to each other; while for other sense perceptions no such correspondence can be established. We are accustomed to regard as REAL those sense perceptions which are common to the great majority of different individuals". If only a small percentage of individuals share the same experience, then it is usually not regarded as real; or not capable of being studied by science.
Science can only study those things which the great majority of people regard as being real.
(This does not completely invalidate an experience just because it may not be a common one).
People and Science will then form concepts and systems of concepts that serve to represent the complex of common experiences. This is the only justification or legitimacy for the (scientific) systems of concepts (Theories or Laws) -- they represent the complex of our common experiences.
However, one must admit, if a scientific theory leads to a prediction which turns out to occur, then it merits special consideration.
On Leibniz and the structure of matter-mind: He concluded that the smallest "particles" (or monads as he called them) could not have the same properties as small particles that we experience around us. They would have to have very different properties, some of these properties being akin to what we consider to be thoughts, or "mind-objects".
Of course this seems quite strange (especially before the era of Quantum Mechanics). However the amazing thing is that he arrives at this conclusion by a process associated with his development of Differential Calculus. That word "Differential" is crucial: Differentials are infinitely small but still not zero. Any continuum, no matter how small, could be further subdivided an infinite number of times.
The monads were the size of a differential: as stated above, entities of this size must take on new properties.
During the 19th Century, mathematicians came to view the concept of Differentials as being illogical, and could not be made consistent with the rest of mathematics. Just the same, mathematicians continued to use the notation of Differentials because it was so powerful, and essential equations in science (e.g. Maxwell's Equations of Electro-magnetism; and Einstein's Equations of Relativity) could not even be written down without the language of Differentials.
Since about1970, there has been a minor revolution in mathematics with the development of the Hyper-Real Numbers; these numbers can be added in a logical way to our present numbers. With the addition of these numbers, Differential Calculus again becomes logical and consistent with the rest of mathematics.
We can define what we mean when we say the Hyper-Real Numbers (Differentials) are infinitely small.
Consider a Hyper-Real Number 'h'.
Then consider any Real Number 'r' greater then zero, but as small as you wish to make it.
Then,
0 < h < r.
That is, the Hyper-Reals are smaller than any Real Number.
It is quite an achievement in Model Theory, to be able to add the Hyper-Reals to our Number System.
Newton also developed the Calculus independently of Leibniz, but Newton did NOT use "Differentials". It is Differential Calculus that has been used so successfully. The exception being England, where they attempted to persist with Newton's Calculus for the next 200 years for reasons of nationalism. This put English Mathematics and some Science behind the rest of Europe, only catching up again about a Century ago. The English were fortunate that the Scots and Irish adopted Leibniz' Differential Calculus; it is no accident that the Industrial Revolution occurred in Scotland, rather than in England. (Maxwell was a Scot).
Newton behaved badly, arranging for The Royal Society for Science to find Leibniz guilty of plagiarism (Newton was President of that Society).
It now seems clear that Leibniz saw where Newtonian Physics was heading: towards a belief in a 'Clockwork Universe' which was devoid of meaning.
I believe that is partly the reason that he questioned the existence of a 'separate' infinite empty space, and the existence of some 'universal' clock also separate from the rest of the universe. It was not long before "infinite empty space" and "Universal time" just existed for no particular reason. They are really no more than convenient concepts formed by our own mind. For Leibniz there was always a moral dimension. It would matter a great deal if people came to believe in a meaningless Universe, completely explicable by a few Laws of Mechanics. And that is what happened. It is as if Leibniz believed that God would create a Universe complete and whole in itself (certainly Leibniz did not believe in the "God" as portrayed in the Old Testament).
But we have reached the stage where "Consciousness" is viewed as something 'secreted by matter' when it becomes complex enough; then every thought and emotion is the result of brain neuronal activity, and underneath it all this means we do not even have free will.
For Leibniz, Consciousness was the primary thing: and Matter was not something "dead", but consisted of monads in constant motion -- everything was motion and force. He was saying effectively, that piece of "dead matter" contains immense amounts of Energy (after all, it was Leibniz who first formulated the scientific concept of 'energy'). And that Energy has Consciousness associated with it. The monads do not follow blind laws of Nature, but have a degree of "choice" in what they will do; they also have an awareness of what other monads are doing. Not too far from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, nor "spooky action at a distance"
If you're the voice inside of you, who is the one listening to it? ~Your/our/are Destiny~
Amazing...
Very reassuring. Thank you.
This is terrific. Hopeful. Only intelligence will save us and intelligence is embodied only when information and emotion are integrated by the incredible human brain. Our brains are desperate to be freed from social conditioning. Projects that explore "consciousness" must include practices that liberate emotion. THIS is not venting. It is integration!!!
+Pam Maccabee Consciousness is beyond limited human intelligence. Consciousness led to science NOT the other way round. It is neither mind nor body. it is also the basis for karma and re-incarnation. Welcome to hinduism which is neither monotheism nor pantheism. We (both matter, consciousness of living and non living) are infinite decimal part of that transcendent one. Matter = Energy which can neither be destroyed nor created. Laws of thermodynamics also copied from hindu/vedic high philosophies. 8000 yrs old Vaiseshika (atomic physics) Sutras of hinduism deal with the investigation, observation and mechanics of the universe and the elements and the theory of space and time. A lot of the modern sciences concepts were copied from it like laws of motion, gravitation, thermodynamics, waves, hydrostatics and magnetism among others.
what does he say at the end?
+Irene Stroia
"The world we perceive is made of consciousness.
What we call matter is consciousness itself."
[Nisargadatta Maharaj]
+Irene Stroia Read "I am that" by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (free pdf download just put I am that in Google) read it over and over and trust his word. You will not fail.
+jzartl
She's probably talking about the part where he says something about mirage. I couldnt understand that part too.
Eclectic Media not something about mirage - he says 'Nisargadatta Maharaj'.
jzartl
Ah, I see. Thanks. That is correct.
who knows the music?
I want to know also.
The composition is by Ron Alan Cohen, played by Katy Boyd on cello. It's in the _credits_ at the end of the film, where they typically are.
Scheisse is not my name, I don't know why it appears here? So sorry!
But... I think it'sso fantastic, that these Videos are shown again after 7 years! We are in the times to really start to understand this, what is said here, fantastic 💞
looks pretty cool.
"Know the nature of the Knowing" shame Rick Hanson and B Alan Wallace are not part of this as these two Buddhists are exploring that very area.
i'm very aware of this video. Thanks!
Consciousness defined; The plane of ideas and objects manifest and not. Consciousness is all. Everything is the stuff of consciousness. Itself nothing imagination. Consciousness is an integrated particle mind reality. Consciousness can only be realized through itself. The unique individual.
Wise'n'Beautiful
7 years later and I'm only just discovering this beaut'
The buddha was right all along!! :)
Beauty
Awareness is a simple function of the brain.
Wrongg, as you experience through your senses
Awareness might simply be a function of the brain, like viewing is a simple function of the camera lens. But what of your cognizance of your awareness? The "your" in that last sentence, where/what is that? I am aware. "I", who is aware. Where is that "I"? What is that "I"?
This video simply perpetuates the illusion that Consciousness is identical to Awareness. How sad that gurus have learned so little about the Primordial Condition of their own body-minds in 6,000 years...
Bruce Ryan What's the difference between Consciousness and Awareness? Do you have a source or does this come from personal experience?
The difference between Consciousness and Awareness comes from my own personal experience. Awareness is the ability to apprehend, or pay to attention to, things arising in the environment. It usually refers to a Condition in which an Object appears whose existence The Observer apprehends, The Object of his Awareness, or to some property of that Object which The Observer has, for some reason, put his attention on. It is a generic term, having nothing directly to do with radically specific spiritual and technical tems like Realization, Enlightenment, or The Conscious Condition. Consciousness, on the other hand, is a radical sub-set of Awareness which functions conceptually to introduce the observer to a Condition in which everything which arises in his phenomenal environment appears somehow to be the result of a singular, solitary, unified, radical Force-Field at the root of all existence, including his very own. Awareness is common to many seekers, and for that matter, to many non-seekers, but Consciousness is quite rare to the seeker because it is The Awareness that everything in his phenomenal field is somehow both the result of, and the reflection of, a primordial Force-Field at the root of all existence, similar to the one Einstein talked about, and in no way separate from it. We might say that Conscioiusness is the Awareness of existence when viewed from the perspective of the fundamental and inherent Unity of All Things. Many seekers are aware, and assume for that reason they are also Conscious, but they are wrong. The two states are not at all identical. Consciousness requires the seeker additionally to awaken to the fact that, not only everything exists, but that everything is connected to everything else and coulld not be otherwise.
Bruce Ryan Hi Bruce, I appreciate your response and find your distinction between the two interesting. Generally, I find the two terms are interchangeable in most contexts, and that most people don't make the distinction and might just say, " higher awareness" or "higher consciousness" when alluding to the way you use the term, "Consciousness;" but even then, that particular use of those terms must be understood by both parties as having that specific definition, or we end up wasting our time with semantics. Also, If I may, I would like to recommend that you make that definition clear from the beginning, rather than assuming others "just don't get it," because, well, I and a number of others do get it, but we were confused without the obvious distinction stated by you. But thanks for making it clear with your response.
Since you seem spiritually aware/conscious, I'm curious what you think of the following:
"There is no doer;" Free Will is an illusion;"
"The Perceiver, Perception, and the Perceived, is just an idea showing up in Consciousness about how Awareness might work;"
"Awareness/Consciousness will never understand itself/themselves in its/their totality because that totality cannot show up within the Perception of itself/themselves;"
"People and their assumed power, are illusions and just aspects of the Ego, which is the sum total of all identities, which Consciousness believes it is, until the Truth (Consciousness becoming aware of Consciousness/itself) arises from the acculturated delusion delivered to Consciousness continuously from its birth into this time/space existence."
brentbb0 Thanks for your input, Brent. Its nice to know that there are at least a few people in our civilization who are interested in how The Conscious Process works. I think your suggestion to make the distinction between Consciousness and awareness very clear right right at the outset is a good one. Consciousness is actually a very specialized kind of awareness rooted in the unity of all things and to assume that generic forms of common, ordinary awareness have anything to do with Consciousness simply obfuscates The Spiritual Process. Clarity and precision are extremely important when engaging That Process anyway and I constantly find that taking for granted any of the conceptual instruments required to investigate how Consciousness works is a huge mistake. The reason for this is obvious, if one thinks about it: it allows the human ego to slip into the discussion unnoticed and to shape and distort our vision of how the Process of Consciousness really works. The instruments for this distortion are the many unexamined assumptions and fixed ideas we constantly bring to our investigation of Consciousness.
Lets define The Conscious Process as that Process which enables the seeker to realize his Primordial, born, Condition in Consciousness, or Enlightenment, as we call it. There has to be a way to account for the almost universal failure of that Process to work for seekers everywhere over the last 6,000 years. Its a deeply puzzling issue for most of us! I would suggest that it has to do with the metaphysical context out of which our vision of The Conscious Process arises.
There are only two viewpoints available to the seeker to understand how The Conscious Process actually works: The first is the viewpoint of ego, or the idea that I am somehow separate, or divided, from you, and the second is the viewpoint of Consciousness, the Idea that I am somehow not separate, not divided, from you, and that therefore, you and I are fundamentally an expression of the same Force of Unity. Frankly, there are no other perspectives available which will enable a seeker to understand The Conscious Process. This tells me that the issue of how Consciousness works is actually very black and white. There are no gray areas. Either a Force of Separation exists between you and me, or it does not. One is right and one is wrong. Period.
If the seeker adopts the first position, the viewpoint of ego, he will think that he is not in The Conscious Condition, and has to somehow do something to get himself there. So he tries various strategies like acquiring a guru, worshipping someone, adopting a set of spiritual beliefs, joining some spiritual group, entering a Lineage, dancing, chanting, meditating, trying to trigger the kundalini or the shakti, developing mantras, conducting rituals, willfully thinking certain thoughts, or feeling certain feelings, etc. This observation accounts for the strategies of about 99.999% of all spiritual seekers, and actually explains why almost no one ever attains The Enlightened Condition, if I may talk that way. Seekers constantly assume that The Spiritual Process reveals itself to them from The Viewpoint of Ego, while ego is rooted in illusion and Consciousness is rooted in Truth. The problem is that illusion never generates Truth. It only generates itself.
Actually, the issue of whether position (1) or (2) is true has been settled for the human race many, many decades ago. It was settled for us by none other than Einstein himself, who proved the existence of The Unified Field mathmatically in the early 19th century. This tells me that what we call The Conscious Process is actually a Branch of Science which can be explored using the techniques of The Scientific Method, just like any other Branch of Science. This means that the point of The Conscious Process is to describe The Universe exactly and precisely as it is, subtracting nothing from it that is there, and adding nothing to it that is not. Anyone who practices these two rules is guaranteed to realize their Primordial Condition in Consciousness, because they turn The Conscious Process into a Science, and the hallmark of all Science is predictability.
We can see from these insights that, if one wants to understand how The Conscious Process works, the only viewpoint that could possibly be true is (2): The Viewpoint of Consciousness. This tells me that if the spiritual seeker wants to understand how Enlightenment works, he must look at The Universe from the eyes of Consciousness, rather than ego. At the root of that vision is the idea that everything which arises in the seeker's phenomenal field is connected to everything else, i.e., is the expression of a Singular, Unified, Force or Force Field. There is nothing controversial about this assertion, because Einstein has already demonstrated that we humans beings inhabit just such a Field simply by being born onto Planet Earth. Moreover, Consciousness Herself makes that very same point to us when She tells us that Her Condition of Unity is also our born Condition as conscious, sentient beings.
It is also of utmost importance to note that (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive alternatives. Either we are born into a condition of separation and division from each other, or we are born into a condition of Unity and Onenness. There is no other alternative. The reason why is that it is impossible for The Force of Separation to arise in a Field that is Unified, and vice versa. This is a tautology because it is true by definition, and there can be no exceptions. Separation and division cannot arise in a Field that is unified, and it is precisely our assumption that they can which derails our search for peace and happiness.
Despite these obvious facts almost all seekers and Gurus investigate The Conscious Process from The Viewpoint of Ego, i.e., separation and division. They do this because they fail to realize that they actually bring a viewpoint to their investigation. That is to say they see The Conscious Condition as a Condition not natural to the seeker, and separated from him by a Force Field which he must somehow master or traverse in order to realize his born Condition in Consciousness. That is just a viewpoint, a presumption, of course, and there is no reason to think it is true. It is just a story we tell ourselves. It can't be true actually, because the seeker's born Condition is natural to him in the sense that it cannot be escaped by him. Those who think otherwise find that their viewpoint, instead of uniting them to The Field of Consciousness into which they were born, actually separates them from that Field, stranding them in illusion and suffering.
The implications of this vision of The Conscious Process are awesome. They tell us that the whole idea of Guru-ism, the idea that I need a Guru to show me The Way to Enlightenment, is rooted in the exact same notion of separation and division proposed by the human ego itself. But since it is impossible for a Force of Separation to arise in a Field of Unity, this means that the notion of Guru-ism itself is also rooted in illusion, the exact same sort of illusion represented by the human ego. This is precisely what we find, since it runs counter to the pronouncement of Consciousness herself that Unity with her is our born Condition. How can a seeker possibly be separated from a Condition he was born into??? Obviously he just thinks he is!
What this means is that every spiritual seeker is a natural Configuration of Consciousness born at a particular point in space and time in this Dimension of Reality, who has been confused by some unexamined, fixed ideas into thinking he is not. If this is correct, The Conscious Process is simply a process in which The Unified Information Field of Consciousness communicates with particular forms or Configurations of Herself arising at various points in space and time, educating them to the fact that they are one and the same Force, information-wise, as She is. Nothing more. Nothing less. Therefore, the raw Truth is that there is only Consciousness, and She is basically talking to herself. The moment I saw this point, everything changed for me, because it was just plain obvious that Consciousness does not need a third party, a guru, in order to talk to Herself. Enlghtenment is the most intimate expression of the relationship between the seeker and The Universe he was born into, one so intimate that it literally begins to appear as a Form of himself everywhere he looks. No guru can mediate that relationship, because it needs no mediation. Guru-ism is a big business, especially under Capitalism. But it has absolutely nothing to do with The Conscious Process. Its all about the selling of information: making money without having to work for a living. I've had 17 Gurus myself, but I've yet to meet one who understands how Consciousness works. That would be really bad for their business. Guruism is, in fact, the greatest single obstacle to Enlihghtenment the spiritual seeker faces, as far as the Realization of his Primordial Condition in Consciousness goes. Its all about the money.
As for your additional questions, they, too, need to be examined from The Viewpoint of Consciousness:
(1) "There is no doer."
Understanding is The Nervous System of Consciousness, while activity, i.e., doing, is The Nervous System of Ego. But since ego is separation, and it is impossible for The Force of Separation to arise in a Field of Unity, there is no such thing as an Ego. The notion of Ego is an illusion, plain and simple. Freud was completely confused. And so are his partisans. This means that there is nothing the seeker can do to become Enlightened. The reason for this paradox is because he already is. It is his born Condition in Consciousness! Suppose, e.g., you are sitting in a room and someone asks you to enter that room. What would be your response? You would probably get confused because you already have entered it. That's how you got there! In fact you were born into that room. You can't enter a room which you already have entered. You can only re-enter that room. But that's not what you are being asked to do. You are being asked to enter it, not re-enter it. The raw Truth is that there is nowhere the seeker can go to in order to enter the room. He would first have to go outside the room and then go back into the room. But there is no place in his phenomenal field that is "outside" the room. Consciousness tells us this herself when She says that She is Everywhere and Everything. The room is Consciousness. We are born into a Condition of Unification with everything that arises within The Information Field of Consciousness. There is nothing we can do about that fact but understand it. Period. We can't chant to make it happen. We can't meditate to make it happen. We can't dance to make it happen. We can't do anything to make it happen because it has already happened! We can only understand that it has already happened. We call the Condition which results from that understanding, Enlightenment.
(2) "Free will is an illusion."
Seekers love to think that their Will is Free, because they want to believe that entering The Conscious Condition is a simple matter of Free Will. But they are wrong. That's actually the viewpoint of Ego. Since The Nervous System of Consciousness is Understanding, entering The Conscious Condition is an Act of Understanding, not an Act of Free Will. Look at it this way: since the seeker is by definition seeking to unite himself with The Field of Consciousness, he must be assuming that he is already separate from that Field. But how can a seeker's Will possibly be free when it is wedded to the idea that he is separated from Consciousness? By Her very own words She tells us that idea is rooted in illusion. So this claim is true: Free Will is an illusion precisely because Consciousness is our born Condition...
(3) "The Perceiver, Perception, and the Perceived, is just an idea showing up in Consciousness about how
Awareness might work;"
Conceptual Instruments like The Perceiver, Perception, and The Perceived, are specialized terms designed to show us how Consciousness works, not to show us how generic concepts like awareness work. One can be very aware, yet totally unconscious spiritually. Just look at most students of Freud. So for the seeker who is interested in Enlightenment, how Consciousness works is what counts, not how generic Awareness, awareness in general, works.
In truth, Consciousness is a specialized Branch of Awareness because it demands that we not only acknowledge the existence of things, but their inherent metaphysical connection to each other simply by virtue of the fact that they arise in the same Unified Field of Information. Those who fail to meet this demand, fail to acknowledge this very same Field. So how can they possibly be Conscious? In this sense Perception is a Form of Information, The Perceiver is the one who receives and then processes that Form of Information, and The Perceived is The Object of that Form of Information. Since The Perceiver is always rooted Primordially in The Unified Information Field of Consciousness, what this fact tells us is that through Consciousness he brings together and processes his Perceptions in order to make sense of, and understand, The Object they point to. This means that Rupert Spira's idea that the notion of an object of the seeker's perception inherently presumes a Force of Separation between The Perceiver and The Perceived, is nothing but another unexamined, fixed idea arising out of the illusions of a viewpoint rooted in Separation. If we are born into a Field of Unity, and Consciousness tells us that we are, it is imposssible for a Force of Separation to arise anywhere between The Perceiver and The Perceived, because both exist within that Field. This means that The Perceiver is basically just perceiving a form of himself and nothing else, and that act of perception does not require a Force-Field of Separation. Rupert Spira is a very confused person. His Teaching is loaded with an endless array of unexamined, fixed ideas of this kind. He is a classic example of the failures of Guru-ism. He never finds out for himself what is true. He just repeats what his Guru told him and then charges us money for it. Sorry to be so frank, but he was much more useful to The Conscious Process when he was lathing pottery bowls. Today he is just in the way.
(4) "People and their assumed power, are illusions and just aspects of the Ego, which is the sum total of all identities, which Consciousness believes it is, until the Truth (Consciousness becoming aware of Consciousness/itself) arises from the acculturated delusion delivered to Consciousness continuously from its birth into this time/space existence."
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I'm afraid the above comments demonstrate this adage only all too well.
Mistake # 1: The Ego is not "the sum total of all identities Consciousness believes it is". To call The Ego a linear result of the mistaken beliefs of Consciousness is absurd because Consciousness is not about the acquisition of beliefs. Consciousness is about the acquisition of Understanding. A belief is the emotional endorsement of what the seeker thinks is true, but since the seeker is seeking for The Truth when it is already present in him as his born Condition, who cares what he thinks is true? He is living in illusion. Illusion is not caused by Consciousness. It is caused by the mis-understanding of Consciousness. That mis-understanding is due to the presence of unexamined, unnoticed, fixed ideas (exactly like the one proposed here) in the seeker's viewpoint.
Mistake # 2: The Truth is not Consciousness becomming aware of itself, or its existence. It is Consciousness becomming aware of the fact that all of its Configurations are connected to each other through their birth into, and their arising out of, The Unified Field. In short, Truth is about Unity, not existence.
Mistake # 3: Truth does not arise out of "the acculturated delusion delivered to Consciousness continuously from its birth into this time/space existence." In fact, Truth does not arise in Consciousness at all. It is always, already present because there is nowhere else for it be. It is present in Consciousness by default. There is nowhere else for it to be because its only alternative is the human ego, and the human ego is rooted in illusion.
I've written a book on Consciousness from this perspective which examines these issues in much greater detail, in case you're interested. Its called ROASTING THE BUDDHA and is posted on Amazon. But don't feel you have to read it. Its only for those who want to examine these issues in a very deep way. All the information you need to Realize your Primordial Condition in Consciousness, if you haven't already, is contained right in these very paragraphs. Just study The Unified Structure of Consciousness and allow that Structure to unfold itself in your viewpoint or your mind, free of all unexamined, fixed ideas. Keep investigating your assumptions about Consciousness to determine if they are true. You'll be astonished at the transformation it produces! Of course feel free to ask me more questions at any time, if you want to pursue these issues further. I'll do my best to answer them. But try not to look on me as a Guru. I know that is a strong impulse in many seekers. It is in me too. But if you do, you will create that very sense of separation between you and me you are trying to escape in your life. I'm just a guy with a viewpoint. For all I know I may actually be wrong. That's why I constantly test my ideas in the court of human experience, and I strongly suggest that you do the same. The Spiritual Process is about finding out for yourself what is true, not about taking someone's word for it. I'm not after your money and I think it is ridiculous to demand, like the guru does, that people give him a free ride through life financially just because he has had a spiritual experience, or may have some information about The Conscious Process they don't. If you look at the structure of Consciousness its obvious there is no such thing as a Guru anyway. Its just a form of division run amuck in The Field of Consciousness, the quintessential essence of illusion. Its an Old Boys Club. Most gurus are appointed by themselves, and those who aren't, are appointed by each other. How sad to realize that The Search for Truth in our Civilization has come to such a pathetic end! We are truly living on borrowed time...
Show message history
Bruce Ryan
Hi Bruce,
First of all, sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. My mind has been preoccupied....
Thanks for taking the time to answer in great detail. I very much appreciate it. I read through it all a couple of times and went to Amazon to take a look at your book and read more of your comments there. I sense we are both trying very hard to put into words what we are seeing and feeling of this amazing "awakening" that is taking place within us both, and others, of course, too. In doing so, we are trying to find the right words to express visions which in some cases cannot be understood by anyone unless they have had similar insights ("To he who has had the experience, no explanation is necessary; to he who has not had the experience, no explanation is possible.)
I have had many revelations over the years in a number of different contexts, including spiritual study and inquiry groups, various books, psychedelics, a couple of gurus, and most recently a way of meditating I've stumbled upon that I call, "Feedback Loop Meditation" (FLM) which is simply speaking out loud about what is being seen and felt, so that the sounds can re-enter the brain, which actually causes the focus of attention to increase and the depth of the experience to deepen. This process works in an absolutely revelatory way, beyond any expectations I had when I first noticed it happening. Try it if you haven't yet discovered its power.
So, all of this has given me much more awareness and insight into Consciousness. Also, talking about what I've seen to individuals and in small groups has taught me that little is understood by others unless great care is taken to make sure we are on the same page regarding the definitions of words like "mind, consciousness, awareness, being, ego, etc., "and the various contexts these words can appear. Also, it has become obvious to me on many occasions that what I had been talking about, that I thought was being understood, just wasn't at all, to my dismay. I'm sure you know what I mean.
In your long response, I see things that I understand, and other things that look like I didn't make myself clear to you so you could understand exactly what I meant, because you didn't appear to in your reply; but, at least in one case, I know you did, because you said essentially the same thing at another point in you post.
We could go back and forth here for a long time trying to get things straight, but I see a possible, much better way. You mentioned you had an incredible vision one day in San Francisco. Do you live there now? I just happen to live in Berkeley, myself, and if you do, then we could get together and accomplish more communication in a few hours than we could get here, going back and forth for weeks. So, I hope you live in the SF Bay area and this can happen.
I'll leave it here for now, rather than go into specific responses to the many things you mentioned, most of which I agree with, except for some of your comments to the questions I had for you.
I would also like to move this to normal email rather than here, as it will be easier to deal with, if you don't mind. Talking on the phone can be good also.
My email is (that's a zero after bb)
I'm looking forward to sharing our visions and seeing how they may benefit us both.
Brent
Amazing. But I need to know who the cute man is.. The one who said science could learn from the mystics.
Maurizio here. I am blushing... Thank you Andee! :-)
: )
This crap is kin to religious dogma
Not true. Religious dogma is characterised by explicit adherence to one book or ideology or belief (e.g., the bible, or the belief that brain is making consciousness,), as if that book or idea is the only true source of wisdom and knowledge. What has been said in this video is the exact opposite of that. What is being encouraged here is the exploration of consciousness from a scientific standpoint. And with 20 billion a year going into brain-consciousness reserach, look forward to more knowledge on the subject (no pun) :D
This is the antidote to religious dogma