On 08 Nov 2011, at 20:56, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I would rather call this consciousness.
Indeed I agree with Dan that it is quite accurate to say that there
person in the sense that experience is not personal, it doesn't
anyone (but it is very intimate with itself nontheless).
I think we only fear the elimination of personhood because we
conscious as an ego with being conscious.
I see this as the confusion between the little ego and the "higher
self". The first one is a person which identifies itself with the
and memories, the second one identifies itself with its source. By
doing so, it dissociate himself with every contingent realities.
In my view this confusion is rooted in thinking that the little ego is
actual more than a relative identity (like in a roleplay). If taken as
reality it becomes the "experiental ego"; the sense of personal
responsibility (not a courageous responsibility, but a sense of
responsibility rooted in guilt and authority and dogma), of
doership ("I" am doing something with my body and with my world).
Actually the first one is also a sort of dissociation. It is the
dissociation from actual experience and Self to an idea of
Self. Also the second one is association with the timeless and
peaceful reality of consciousness, and the freshness of present
Really there is just the source, and whatever "else" there is, is an
expression of the source and not an "other" to the source.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ah, OK. We just have to be careful here that we are extending the
person to something which is not normally considered to be a person.
not, we can extend the use of words, and in this case I can see the
We somehow think that if we in the
state of feeling to be a seperate individual cease to exist, we as
beings cease to exist, which is simply not true.
I agree with you. I just call "person" the conscious being.
I think it is reasonable to consider consciousness an attribute of a
Still, we should be aware that this person might indeed by nothing
I don't think this makes sense. I don't see what would be the meaning
of "consciousness is conscious". It makes consciousness into a person,
and as I said, it seems to me to be an attribute of a person
(concrete, abstract, real, fictive, whatever).
and has nothing to do with something that is bound by
body, mind, space, time, etc...
I do agree with this.
In the mechanist theory, we could say that consciousness is "bounded"
by (arithmetical, analytical, psychological, theological, ...) truth.
It is not really a bound because truth, even arithmetical truth, have
no (effective) bounds.
I know you don't like that theory very much despite this, sorry.
And it might be useful to realize that
actually we can't find the experiencer apart from the experience.
one, even though we can make relative distinction (the experiencer
is beyond *particular* experiences, but not experience as such,
be the same as the experiencer).
It might depend on the type of consciousness (normal, altered, etc.)
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is just a big change of perspective, and we fear that as we fear
unknown in general.
Yes. It is the same type of fear than the fear of freedom, and of
knowledge. It is also the root of the fear of other people.
There is also a fear that an understanding of the mystery would
into a very cold and inhuman place, but this comes from some
reductionist idea on the mystery itself.
Some people also fears that if the other cease to fear the Unknown,
they will become non controllable (which is partially true). Some
religion insists that we have to fear God, like some parents, and
teachers, confuse fear and respect.
Really I think that ultimately fear is not even fear of something in
particular. It is (especially in humans) mostly the reaction to the
possibility of treat, which comes with the feeling of there being an
(which might have bad intentions).
We project that fear on everything, so we fear freedom, but also
fear knowledge, but also ignorance, we fear mystery, but also
we fear the bad, but we also fear the good, we fear God, but we also
the devil, we fear everything, but also nothingness. No wonder we are
suffering if everything becomes a reason to be fearful. The only
to discover directly that there is *nothing* that ever could
we really are, and so fear becomes just a tool to sense whether
there is an
actually imminent danger, not something that is constantly (whether
obviously or subtly) determining the way we live our lifes.
I think fear is a great ally in local survival. Basically there is the
little fear (the fear of not being able to eat), and the big fear (the
fear of being eaten). With the reflexive loop, probably in the cortex,
we have also the richer and dangerous Löbian fears: the fear of fears,
the fear that our children (or others) cannot eat, or are eaten, the
fear of the long term future, and of the unknown, the fear of oneself.
Those can be allies too, when use with moderation, but can become
pathological, especially in critical situations or when they resonate
in collective difficulties, or when they become obsessive.
You cannot remind someone that he is God and so has nothing to be
afraid of, when he is going to see the dentist, or when he realizes
that he can no more pay the taxes. That will not work and push him a
step farther from understanding this, I think. But you can suggest him
to meditate, pray, take holiday, or smoke salvia, etc., and illustrate
the result by your example, but words will not work. At least this can
be explained by UMs and LUMs about UMs and LUMs.
Anything brought back from Heaven to Earth through normative
assertions, will only deepen the illusion, prolongate the Samsara,
enlarge the divine gap.
Realizing that there is only one One, is an intrinsically personal
step, that, eventually (in case it is true) no one can really miss. No
worries, then, except for some local painful detours.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at