Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> We somehow think that if we in the
>>>> state of feeling to be a seperate individual cease to exist, we as
>>>> conscious
>>>> beings cease to exist, which is simply not true.
>>> I agree with you. I just call "person" the conscious being.
>> Ah, OK. We just have to be careful here that we are extending the  
>> use of
>> person to something which is not normally considered to be a person.  
>> But why
>> not, we can extend the use of words, and in this case I can see the  
>> meaning
>> in that.
> I think it is reasonable to consider consciousness an attribute of a  
> person.
I don't think that consciousness is an attribute, expect relatively speaking
(a person can be conscious or unconscious, but this is only a description of
the content of consciousness and doesn't make it an attribute).
Consciousness is just experiental, and as such not an attribute, thing,
person, form...
When we assign consciousness to be an attribute we are really speaking about
"consciousness" not consciousness. "Consciousness" means that something can
be assigned some experience (so you can or can't have consciousness), while
consciousness means experiencing as such.

Of course both usages are meaningful, but we shouldn't overlook absolute
consciouness in favour of relative consciousnss.
Absolute consciousness is what is present right here, right now, and can't
be an attribute. It simply what is lived, and so can't be anything other
than that.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Still, we should be aware that this person might indeed by nothing  
>> else than
>> consciousness itself,
> 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).
OK, it seems we are not speaking about the same consciousness.
For me there could be nothing more obvious than that consciousness is
conscious. To say the opposite is like denying that water is wet.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> And it might be useful to realize that
>> actually we can't find the experiencer apart from the experience.  
>> They are
>> one, even though we can make relative distinction (the experiencer  
>> is what
>> is beyond *particular* experiences, but not experience as such,  
>> which would
>> be the same as the experiencer).
> It might depend on the type of consciousness (normal, altered, etc.)
I don't think so. It is just not possible to have an experiencer apart from
the experience, since all that can be experienced is the experience. What
sense does it make to posit something which can not be experienced as the
fundament of experience?

What is true is that we can pretend that there is an experiencer apart from
experience, but then this is just the experience of pretending that there is
an experiencer apart from experience (which is felt as inner division and
Also, the experiencer is not a *particular* experience, but experiencing as

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 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.
You are right that most of the time just saying it won't do much (just like
saying "take it like a man" won't do much).
But sometimes the thought can help to give rise to some realization, so I
feel it's quite useful to remind people of it (though of course it is better
to be sensitive whether it is appropiate to do it).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  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.
Right, the only use of words is if they help to give rise to direct
experiental insight.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Anything brought back from Heaven to Earth through normative  
> assertions, will only deepen the illusion, prolongate the Samsara,  
> enlarge the divine gap.
Very true. Saying that someone is God doesn't mean: "You have to be God" or
"You have to acknowledge you are God". It is more meant to be an invitation
to look deeper than personality into your experience, and consider that you
might be much, much grander than you imagine yourself to be.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 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.
I agree. Unfortunately believing "I will realize it anyway, so I'll just
continue with my unconscious behaviour" will make the realization difficult
(and if it happens it might be very rough), that's why it sometimes makes
sense to put some light pressure on your (personal)self and others (the big
pressure is given by life itself) so you don't act like it is something
which you could safely ignore until it becomes obvious by itself (which will
be felt as suffering). With light pressure I mean that we can confront
people with deep things, even if they are not immediatly thankful for it
(like daring to question deeply ingrained and cherished beliefs, which are
subtly destructive).

Ultimately, I have no worries about anybody. It might be a very long and
rough ride until they realize it, but it really is nothing compared to the
reward of finally being free (and recognizing it).


View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to