What I was getting at John, is that superficially we have this duality of consciousness and unconsciousness - awareness and no awareness. Then we say at the basis of these two, we have 'pure consciousness'. But we are using the same word 'consciousness' to apply to this more basic level. We could equally say 'pure unconsciousness'. So using the word consciousness this way creates a kind of misdirection, a sleight of hand for the intellect because the same word is referring to two different states or characteristics. I tend to like the term 'pure existence' or 'being' because these seem more neutral in this situation.
You were referring to what I suppose are levels or quantities of consciousness in various things. A rock, a tree, a human. This would imply that the organisation of matter seems to correlate with the amount of awareness present, and thus we have the idea scientists formulate, that consciousness is an emergent property of matter, and seems correlated with the way matter is organised. There is the 19th century vitalist principle, which states that organic beings are the only types of objects that can be conscious or have life, that this is some special organisation of matter. But if a rock can have consciousness, computers theoretically could also be conscious, which is OK with me. A CPU made of silicon is basically just rock, but it has more organisation than just rock. But it also would need sensory input of some kind if consciousness were a possibility. The experience of consciousness is also peculiar because in order to know that you can experience transcendental consciousness, for example, you have to be able to remember something, otherwise you would be in a perpetual blank state with no recollection of anything. In order to have knowledge of some kind and to know you have it, memory is required, there has to be some kind of self-referral loop that retains an impression of what went before. Some kind of manifestation beyond blank being is needed. Perhaps this is something of what Maharishi meant when he said 'pure consciousness becomes conscious'. Imagining what our experience was before we were conceived could be an exercise in discovering what that is like. It would seem, in order to appreciate whatever the fundamental value of existence is, we need manifestation in some degree - what in the TMO is called the 'relative' in order to know about it. So it requires everything that exists, manifest and unmanifest to know that there is such a state as existence, or to know there is such a process as consciousness that can be aware of all this. In other words, what is called absolute and relative are inseparable. They are not separate states or entities or levels. They are equivalences and their separation into separate ideas or states results from the inability of language to express this union of everything without fragmenting experience into descriptive components. Without this fragmentation, nothing could be said, it would be all just one lump, and we would not even know it was just one lump. There is that cryptic creation hymn from the Rig Veda which seems to be permeated with this kind of ambiguity: [Translation by Ralph T.H. Griffith in 1896 - perhaps cardmaister would have a shot at this verse] Then was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. ----------- --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Consciousness is Consciousness. It does not develop. > > > > It does not become. > > > > > > Bravo. This is the first intelligent thing said > > > here in weeks. > > > > You know Barry, this comment applies to all the posts you have made in the > > past couple of weeks too. :-) > > > > John's post, from which this quote from tartbrain was a reply seemed to > > mostly rehash the TMO perspective. Since discussion of consciousness always > > seems to end in paradox, maybe this will be a mystery forever. John used > > terminology very loosely. For example we can ask is Being pure > > consciousness? > > Xeno, the answer is that Being is pure consciousness. > > > And is it conscious or does it become conscious under certain circumstances. > Maharishi once used the phrase 'when pure consciousness *becomes* conscious'. > This throws a monkey wrench in the fray if you are promoting the TM > perspective because it seems to imply that consciousness in its 'pure' state > maybe really isn't what we think of consciousness as an awake kind of thing. > > Pure Being is always conscious. But this consciousness is not fully awakened > at the various levels of existence in the universe. This is the reason why > MMY wants to awaken the inner potential of human beings to realize that > consciousness is the source and the apex of all existence. > > > > > > Consciousness, at least when we have it and assume we exist, seems to be a > > 'given', and so I would agree with tartbrain's assertion here. > > Consciousness is a tautology in a manner of speaking. It is always true, > > but there is nothing else you can say about it. An experiential parallel to > > a logical tautology 'he is employed or he is not employed', a statement > > that is always true, but conveys no information. > > > To apply Schroedinger's cat experiment, he can be both employed and not > employed at the same time. You can only find the true state by opening the > box where the cat is stored. :) > > > > > >
