Is There A Huge Gap In Understanding?

[pseudonymous]

I am admittedly not learned of world religions & philosophies. Aside from what I have overheard or read in my life - a life for the most part with little to no interest in the spiritual - I have remarkably little idea beyond the basics what the difference is from one belief/faith to the next.

That said, in light of the particular spiritual path I have been on for the last 9 years - receiving a calling, and arriving at my awareness via a direct line of non-verbal communication with something metaphysical (labelled by me as the active principle) - I have a question that I would like to pose to this comparative religion board to see what those of you who have education of various faiths/beliefs can tell me.

According to that which guides me, it is consciousness (as the active principle) that is awakening and evolving, and we humans are cells of that organism evolving. It was important for that which guides me, that I understood that form (with consciousness as the mostly unconscious pilot of physical bodies) had been evolving for 4 billion years prior to humanity's debut on the scene.

What I wish to know is this:

Do any religions or philosophies mention this huge amount of time of evolving prior to humanity's inception? I do not mean do they say one thing which has been re-interpreted in the modern area so as to fit our current awareness, such as: christians saying that each day of the creation was equal to 1000 years, etc.

I was contemplating one day when this thought and question entered my mind: If the people who wrote the sacred texts and philosophies of thousands of years ago had not been aware of evolution, and humanity being a very small part of it, would these sacred texts and philosophies be written differently then they were if they had been aware of it?

I know it was important to my own understanding of consciousness (& Self) to know that humanity is new on the scene - and therefor shifted my attention from human-centric to consciousness (active principle)-centric.

Again, does any world religion or philosophy of at least 200 years age make a clear & definitive statement about there being billions of years of creation prior to humanity, and if not, do you think your particular religion or philosophy might be much different if they had known about consciousness' evolution?

dcv-

 

[iBrian]

Interesting question - certainly evolution in it's modern sense was a rather huge shift in terms of rationalism - we as humans are so used to seeing reality around us as static that taknig account of billions of years of change would be a rather gargantuan concept to deal with.

The only texts I know of that explicitly deal with large numbers and the age of the universe as measured in billions of years is Hinduism - I'm sure there may be something somewhere that might be relevant to this. But there are so many texts...it would take someone with better knowledge of Hindu texts to be able to provide a proper answer and quote. If not, it's a starter for possible research.

 

[pseudonymous]

brian,

thanks for responding. i was beginning to worry that i asked a stupid question that no one wanted to touch . i am curious in the hindu texts whether they include humans in these eons, or whether there is a generalization of time without reference to physical bodies? the only thing i have heard that sounds similar (in my albeit limited experience) is the hopi myths involving ages, where we were different types of animals or insects in prior ages. i do not recall enough to verify that, or add to it. i think it would be a huge omission from any theology/philosophy to not be aware that humans are late bloomers on the spectrum.

dcv-

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste pseudonymous,

thank you for the post.

Do any religions or philosophies mention this huge amount of time of evolving prior to humanity's inception? I do not mean do they say one thing which has been re-interpreted in the modern area so as to fit our current awareness, such as: christians saying that each day of the creation was equal to 1000 years, etc.

Buddhism uses a term to measures of time, Kalpa, which was an ancient Indian measure. a Kalpa is roughly equilivant to 4.3 million years. the metaphor for this length of time goes like this:

rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn't passed!

in our Suttas/Sutras, the Buddha says that the universe is beginningless and endless.. it expands and contracts to expand again.. over and over. we can not find the beginning of the material universe... which, it seems WMAP has confirmed... go figure

Again, does any world religion or philosophy of at least 200 years age make a clear & definitive statement about there being billions of years of creation prior to humanity, and if not, do you think your particular religion or philosophy might be much different if they had known about consciousness' evolution?

dcv-

yes, mine does in fact, it clearly says that all beings were pure consciousness at first... the human form has evolved through the Kalpas.. generally speaking, Buddhists don't have an issue with the ToE to explain the arising of the various forms that exist.

the interested reader is directed here for more information:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/budcosmo.html

 

[pseudonymous]

the human form has evolved through the Kalpas.

the human form evolved, or form evolved through the kalpas? if it were the human form, then it would be a human-centric concept. this is why i wanted specifics as to what was said, because it is too easy to interpret things loosely.

i appreciate that buddhism mentions pure consciousness (whatever that is) as the original state, but often wonder why they figure that is our ideal, as consciousness seems to be desirous of moving away from it. if pure awareness is defined as nothingness, or undifferentiated then that would not be my ideal as a sentient being (and i am not referring to my physical body, but any form i would take would be sentient in this present state of awakening). "pure" to me seems to denote inexperienced, and it is physical experience that has made some of us Self aware.

dcv-

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste,


all phsycial forms have evolved... not just humans.

remember.. in the Buddhist tradition, there are 8-10 (depending on the tradition) levels of increasingly subtle consciousness... and it is only the last 2 or 3 that are the "Ground of Being" from the Buddhist view. the other levels of consciousness are predicated on the physical form that we have arisin in.

consciousness is not nothingness... in fact, that term is not appropos for the Buddhist teachings at all. usually, it's a misunderstanding of the term Shunyata, which is translated as "emptiness". this is not emptiness in the sense of noting being present, rather, this is emptiness in the sense of beyond conception.. i.e. it is "empty" of concept.

 

[pseudonymous]

consciousness is not nothingness... in fact, that term is not appropos for the Buddhist teachings at all. usually, it's a misunderstanding of the term Shunyata, which is translated as "emptiness". this is not emptiness in the sense of nothing being present, rather, this is emptiness in the sense of beyond conception.. i.e. it is "empty" of concept.

i am not sure of my own ability to translate, but to me the statement "emptiness in the sense of beyond conception" or "empty of concept" still comes across to me as inexperienced. experience creates concepts until awareness of the concepts make them experiencial understanding (not sure if that came across very clearly). if the "pure" state equals experiencial understanding then i would say i concur...

but if it is an emptiness of thought, then i would repeat that that does not seem an ideal state, nor does the evolution of consciousness show any sign that it desires that outcome either. i think a person needs to ask themselves what the buddhist definition of the ideal state would represent in our limited experience, then in the moment ask if this is our reality as evolving sentient beings or not.

it still feels like attachment to the passive principle to me, where the witness denies its own existence because of the safety and mental comfort of inactivity within the womb. evolution remains unidirectional in my experience.

dcv-

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste pseudonymous,

thank you for the post.

i am not sure of my own ability to translate, but to me the statement "emptiness in the sense of beyond conception" or "empty of concept" still comes across to me as inexperienced.

if no concept can be applied to the experience... how can it be either inexperienced or experienced... it simply is.. no amount of mental posturing will change it in any manner.

experience creates concepts until awareness of the concepts make them experiencial understanding (not sure if that came across very clearly). if the "pure" state equals experiencial understanding then i would say i concur...

here's one place where we'd disagree. experience doesn't create anything.. it simply is. our mental processes create the defintional and conceptual framework in which we try to integrate the experience into our mental continumm.

but if it is an emptiness of thought,

empty of conception is not empty of thought.

then i would repeat that that does not seem an ideal state, nor does the evolution of consciousness show any sign that it desires that outcome either.

and it should not. the "desire" aspect is one of the factors that leads to a gross material form... actually, it's attachment to desire or grasping that is a more direct cause.. but we can leave that aside for now.

i think

what is this "I" that thinks?

a person needs to ask themselves what the buddhist definition of the ideal state would represent in our limited experience, then in the moment ask if this is our reality as evolving sentient beings or not.

since the definition is beyond conception.. i'm not clear how a being could do this further, it's quite possible that our evolutionary progress is not able to be discerned from our present location and condition, given the limitations of the human intellect.

it still feels like attachment to the passive principle to me,

if it feels like attachment, it's not Buddhism

where the witness denies its own existence because of the safety and mental comfort of inactivity within the womb. evolution remains unidirectional in my experience.

dcv-

what "witness"?

from what i've observed of your postings thus far, there is still a very strong sense of "i" in your enlightened state which dictates how you view other traditions and their view of enlightenment. whilst i cannot say one way or the other in your tradition, this is not a view that the Buddhist tradition would uphold.

nevertheless, the OP of this post was:

..does any world religion or philosophy of at least 200 years age make a clear & definitive statement about there being billions of years of creation prior to humanity....?


which Buddhism answers in the affirmative.

 

[bananabrain]

our mystical tradition says that "before our world was created, the Holy Blessed One created worlds and destroyed them"...

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[pseudonymous]

if no concept can be applied to the experience... how can it be either inexperienced or experienced... it simply is.. no amount of mental posturing will change it in any manner.

how would you know if you experienced it or not if no concept can be applied? how can anyone label it "empty of concept" unless they experienced it as empty of concept? have you experienced this "pure consciousness"? can you be certain, as i have stated in my essay "the active & passive principle & the self" that you are not making a perceptual error in assuming it is "pure consciousness" and not the passive principle pre-form? i can make that assumption, because i have witnessed the state of "empty of concept" associated with the passive principle in its undifferentiated state, because without a sensual form there is no sensing. but i did not confuse it with the active principle in its undifferentiated state, because it is impossible (in my experiencial opinion) to witness it.

experience doesn't create anything

i know that experience does not create anything. it was a grammatical error on my part. but experience is within the line of cause and effect that results in the Self arriving at conceptual awareness - which is not antagonistic to what you said. we agree in different wording.

empty of conception is not empty of thought.

in your experience (not the buddhist definition, but your's based on your experience of it), please describe to me what the consciousness level referred to as "the ground of being" is. is it sensual in nature? is there consciousness without senses? if there is no sensuality, then how would anyone know they had attained that level? does it not require a witness of the experience of that level to be able to experience it, define it, and label it?

the "desire" aspect is one of the factors that leads to a gross material form... actually, it's attachment to desire or grasping that is a more direct cause.. but we can leave that aside for now.

you left out the "in your opinion" part - or rather in the buddhist opinion. i of course do not subscribe to the concept that desire led to our form. it is evolution in my opinion that led to our form - to meet the needs of mobility, mental capacity, and sentient function of the expanded conscious awareness within it. evolution (expansion in conscious awareness) likewise will be the cause of the human form becoming obsolete. desire and attachment likely had no affect whatsoever on the evolution of form through the past 10 billion years or so...it was expansion in awareness that dictated form. that seems rather Self evident to me, but of course it takes away that whole "suffering by means of being attached" angle that buddhism is so fond of.

what is this "I" that thinks?

it is a part (cell) of the active principle. it is non-physical, and cannot exist without a form to house it. this "I" is in relation to your "I" which typed the query. this "I" is mySelf, a sentient being of body & mind and conscious awareness.


since the definition is beyond conception.. i'm not clear how a being could do this
precisely. how does an experience that is beyond conception actually be able to be experienced? what exists within the ground of being that can come back and report that such a conscious level exists? good point.

if it feels like attachment, it's not Buddhism


in my experience, if a concept is attached to, it stands a good chance of being buddhism


what "witness"? from what i've observed of your postings thus far, there is still a very strong sense of "i" in your enlightened state which dictates how you view other traditions and their view of enlightenment. whilst i cannot say one way or the other in your tradition, this is not a view that the Buddhist tradition would uphold.

the reason why there is a strong sense of "I", and "witness", and "Self" is because that is my reality in my experience. the denial of Self/I/Witness as being existential is simply a perceptual fallacy in my opinion (attachment to the passive principle). my sense of Self is not a tradition, it is an experiencial history. i was asleep once, now i am awake. being awake is not being pure consciousness - again, that i believe to be impossible for there would be no differentiation, and therefor no witness to report on the experience. it takes a witness to know that some thing happened...even no thing.


yes, mine does in fact, it clearly says that all beings were pure consciousness at first... the human form has evolved through the Kalpas.. generally speaking, Buddhists don't have an issue with the ToE to explain the arising of the various forms that exist.

if this was a literal take on buddhist thought, then it says that the human form has evolved through all the kalpas - which says to me that buddhists believe humans were here since the beginning...this seems at odds with present day scientific understanding of homosapiens sapiens debut on the scene. and it shows buddhism as a human-centric ontology - and not a consciousness-centric one. we (humans) were not the first out of the gate of pure consciousness - our bodies were the last ones arriving as form however in a complex expanded vehicle for consciousness, to the best of our knowledge.


so far no one has given any specific example of any religion or philosophy that clearly expresses a knowledge that humanity is the last of a very very very very long line of dominoes in the physical universe. evolution was not pointing at us - but the form that houses us. i think that is the issue that i am addressing here - attachment to our form, and not recognition of our Selves. in my opinion, most religions and philosophies are attached to the form (human-centric), and know very little experiencially of the substances that either mind or body arose from. i know some r & p's attest to knowing, but i have seen little evidence of anything beyond concepts and limited perceptions.

dcv-

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

so far no one has given any specific example of any religion or philosophy that clearly expresses a knowledge that humanity is the last of a very very very very long line of dominoes in the physical universe. evolution was not pointing at us - but the form that houses us. i think that is the issue that i am addressing here - attachment to our form, and not recognition of our Selves. in my opinion, most religions and philosophies are attached to the form (human-centric), and know very little experiencially of the substances that either mind or body arose from. i know some r & p's attest to knowing, but i have seen little evidence of anything beyond concepts and limited perceptions.

Here are my thoughts.

I've found many myths to be an attempt to express an experience of "Self" separate from "form." The tricky thing about language is that it is based on form and function. To logically work with and communicate an idea, the mind breaks the unified whole into managable parts in terms of form and function and assigns signs and symbols to the fractured parts for the purpose of categorizing the experiences and communicating them to others.

Understanding the "whole" is impossible. Having flashes of consciousness of "Self" being the whole is possible - but impossible to express in words because that is not within the capacity of words. Enlightenment isn't the experince of the conscious self but an experiential glimpse at what lies "beyond" or "within" Self - a reconnection of the Self as part of everything, the All, or the Tao, or the Brahman, or God. Myths are an attempt to express this experience in words. To give a voice to the experience of life.

As soon as you try to put that experience into words, whether it's in your own mind or for the purpose of communicating the experience to others, it immediately loses its meaning. Indeed, it's precisely because of language, and the illusion of separateness that it creates, that we seek these experiences - to go beyond language and rediscover a oneness with the All - a sense of identity that transcends "Self" and "feels" right. That's not to say there is anything fundamentally wrong with language. Our physical survival depends on categorizing our environment into manageable pieces based on our experience of form and function. Communication depends on creating signs and symbols (language) to express those concepts of form and function.

But the experience of a "thing" and the expression of a thing are NOT the same as the "thing." The trick of consciousness is the illusion created that experiences of the "thing" and expressions of that experience in language contain some absolute truth about the "thing." Thus, you have all manner of of illusory separations that guide our thoughts and actions: good/evil, man/woman, human/God or human/nature, human/Garden of Eden, being/non-being, Islam/Jew, me/you.

I think this is what Nietzsche is getting at with his four theses from "Twilight of the Idols" (note the reference to being "Dyonisian"):

It will be appreciated if I condense so essential and so new an insight into four theses. In that way I facilitate comprehension; in that way I provoke contradiction.

First proposition. The reasons for which "this" world has been characterized as "apparent" are the very reasons which indicate its reality; any other kind of reality is absolutely indemonstrable.

Second proposition. The criteria which have been bestowed on the "true being" of things are the criteria of not-being, of naught, the "true world" has been constructed out of contradiction to the actual world: indeed an apparent world, insofar as it is merely a moral-optical illusion.

Third proposition. To invent fables about a world "other" than this one has no meaning at all, unless an instinct of slander, detraction, and suspicion against life has gained the upper hand in us: in that case, we avenge ourselves against life with a phantasmagoria of "another," a "better" life.

Fourth proposition. Any distinction between a "true" and an "apparent" world--whether in the Christian manner or in the manner of Kant (in the end, an underhanded Christian)--is only a suggestion of decadence, a symptom of the decline of life. That the artist esteems appearance higher than reality is no objection to this proposition. For "appearance" in this case means reality once more, only by way of selection, reinforcement, and correction. The tragic artist is no pessimist: he is precisely the one who says Yes to everything questionable, even to the terrible--he is Dionysian.

This is an elaboration of his conclusion about reason and grammar:

At long last, let us contrast the very different manner in which we conceive the problem of error and appearance. (I say "we" for politeness' sake.) Formerly, alteration, change, any becoming at all, were taken as proof of mere appearance, as an indication that there must be something which led us astray. Today, conversely, precisely insofar as the prejudice of reason forces us to posit unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause, thinghood, being, we see ourselves somehow caught in error, compelled into error. So certain are we, on the basis of rigorous examination, that this is where the error lies.

It is no different in this case than with the movement of the sun: there our eye is the constant advocate of error, here it is our language. In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things--only thereby does it first create the concept of "thing." Everywhere "being" is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a capacity. Today we know that it is only a word. . .

And in India, as in Greece, the same mistake was made: "We must once have been at home in a higher world (instead of a very much lower one, which would have been the truth); we must have been divine, for we have reason!" Indeed, nothing has yet possessed a more naive power of persuasion than the error concerning being, as it has been formulated by the Eleatics, for example. After all, every word and every sentence we say speak in its favor. Even the opponents of the Eleatics still succumbed to the seduction of their concept of being: Democritus, among others, when he invented his atom. "Reason" in language--oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste pseudo,

thank you for the post.

how would you know if you experienced it or not if no concept can be applied?

perhaps we are meaning different things. experience is not a mental conception, would you agree or disagree with that view?

how can anyone label it "empty of concept" unless they experienced it as empty of concept? have you experienced this "pure consciousness"?

it is not "labled" in that fashion. this is part of the Four Fold Negation.. nevertheless, to answer you query... we all experience this pure consciousness, however, not all beings recognize it as such.

can you be certain, as i have stated in my essay "the active & passive principle & the self" that you are not making a perceptual error in assuming it is "pure consciousness" and not the passive principle pre-form?

yes, i am certain the active and passive principles seem to be very Taoist in nature, at least what you've described thus far.

in your experience (not the buddhist definition, but your's based on your experience of it), please describe to me what the consciousness level referred to as "the ground of being" is.

happily, as soon as you describe what eating a orange is like

herein lies the issue, in my view.

we cannot accurately describe any experience, let alone one as profound as the dissolution gross levels of consciousness. our words are approximations that we try to conform to the reality which we experience.. without an agreed upon definition of said word, no communication can take place. nevertheless, the words we use are like the words on the menu.. they are not the meal.

is it sensual in nature? is there consciousness without senses? if there is no sensuality, then how would anyone know they had attained that level? does it not require a witness of the experience of that level to be able to experience it, define it, and label it?

why would it need to be labled? in any case... i'll let Paul Tillich describe his concept for himself.


"This power of being is the prius of everything that has being. It precedes all special contents logically and ontologically. It precedes every separation and makes every interaction possible, because it is the point of identity without which neither separation nor interaction can be thought. This refers basically to the separation and interaction of subject and object, in knowing as well as in acting. The prius of subject and object cannot become an object to which man as a subject is theoretically and practically related. God is no object for us as subjects. He is always that which precedes this division"

you left out the "in your opinion" part - or rather in the buddhist opinion. i of course do not subscribe to the concept that desire led to our form.

it seems rather obvious that my opinions are mine though if you'd like that i state that more often, i'd be happy to comply.

it is evolution in my opinion that led to our form - to meet the needs of mobility, mental capacity, and sentient function of the expanded conscious awareness within it.

indeed. it would also appear that you consider consiousness to be an epiphenomena of matter, which is something that Buddhists wouldn't agree with.

it was expansion in awareness that dictated form. that seems rather Self evident to me, but of course it takes away that whole "suffering by means of being attached" angle that buddhism is so fond of.

why would you think that? however.. it is not the "expansion" of conciousness that drove this from our view, rather, the limiting of conciousness that dictated form.

it is a part (cell) of the active principle. it is non-physical, and cannot exist without a form to house it. this "I" is in relation to your "I" which typed the query. this "I" is mySelf, a sentient being of body & mind and conscious awareness.

so.. the "I" is an imputation by the mind of a solid, self-sufficient entity onto an ontological reality which does not conform to the imputation?

precisely. how does an experience that is beyond conception actually be able to be experienced? what exists within the ground of being that can come back and report that such a conscious level exists? good point.

the experience of eating an orange is beyond conception i'm unclear what you're going for here... are you asserting that only if something can be conceptualized that it is an experience?

in my experience, if a concept is attached to, it stands a good chance of being buddhism

i see. perhaps, you should gain more experience

the reason why there is a strong sense of "I", and "witness", and "Self" is because that is my reality in my experience.

quite right. and your experience of your reality does not, necessarily, comport with reality as it is. you are experiencing it through your paradigm and imputing unto it qualities which you feel it has. which has no bearing on the actual ground of reality itself. i'm sure you would agree with this.

the denial of Self/I/Witness as being existential is simply a perceptual fallacy in my opinion (attachment to the passive principle).

we Buddhist types don't "deny" self... we simply cannot find it when we look for it.... an important distinction to recognize. perhaps, you can show me where your "self" is apart from the aggregates that comprise your physical form?

my sense of Self is not a tradition, it is an experiencial history.

oh? did you believe that you had a self before your spiritual experiences?

i was asleep once, now i am awake. being awake is not being pure consciousness - again, that i believe to be impossible

fortuantely it's not a matter of belief or non-belief that's quite alright... many beings find the teachings of Buddhism to be nonsenscial to their way of thinking.

for there would be no differentiation, and therefor no witness to report on the experience. it takes a witness to know that some thing happened...even no thing.

indeed.. the subject/object dichotomoy is resolved in the awakened state in Buddhism.

if this was a literal take on buddhist thought, then it says that the human form has evolved through all the kalpas - which says to me that buddhists believe humans were here since the beginning...

hmm.. perhaps you've misread. all physical forms, no matter the species, have evolved through the kalpas. mind you, this world system has undergone an endless number of kalpas... at the end of the kalpa, the world system contracts and then expands once more.

of course, now that we've got the WMAP data, it may cause us Buddhist types to revisit this view if the data turns out to be correct.

this seems at odds with present day scientific understanding of homosapiens sapiens debut on the scene.

homosapien sapien was not the first human.

and it shows buddhism as a human-centric ontology - and not a consciousness-centric one. we (humans) were not the first out of the gate of pure consciousness - our bodies were the last ones arriving as form however in a complex expanded vehicle for consciousness, to the best of our knowledge.

indeed... the various gods and goddesses were the first ones to fall from the gate of pure consciousness. it's no good to try to formulate an opinion on this subject from reading my paltry words.. you can read the actual suttas on this for yourself and make draw your own conclusion on this matter.

so far no one has given any specific example of any religion or philosophy that clearly expresses a knowledge that humanity is the last of a very very very very long line of dominoes in the physical universe.

ah ha! now we get to the heart of the matter. indeed... this would presuppose that humans are the last thing that will arise in the physical universe. this would be fallicious in nearly every regard... though it certainly does show a very human-centric point of view, as you so happily accuse us Buddhist types of

this sort of thinking would imply that evolution has ceased... when, demonstrably, it has not.

evolution was not pointing at us

how could it? evolution is the theory to describe the genetic change in a population over time. it's not a concsious entity that can "direct" anything.

- but the form that houses us. i think that is the issue that i am addressing here - attachment to our form, and not recognition of our Selves.

this sounds like Vedanta philosophy.

in my opinion, most religions and philosophies are attached to the form (human-centric), and know very little experiencially of the substances that either mind or body arose from. i know some r & p's attest to knowing, but i have seen little evidence of anything beyond concepts and limited perceptions.

and that's a fine opinion to hold. it may not be correct, but you can hold it in any case what's an "r & p"?

 

[pseudonymous]

vajradhara,

i think i have been alluding to basically the same experiences and states of being that you have, but have yet again gotten sidetracked by words and their assorted meanings for each individual. i went out and contemplated this morning, and that which guides me walked me through some important points.

in my essay "the present moment" i discuss what being present is to me - and it seems to me that it is the same definition of what you refer to as "pure consciousness", only in slightly different wording. i describe it as a passive witnessing where the mind brushes up against form, but does not define or describe it. the witness simply is, and the form simply is. i do perceive form as being separate from the witness as explained in my other essays regarding mind being a part of the active principle, and form being a part of the passive principle.

but in my contemplation i recognized what "empty of concept" meant. for me it is when you can just be (witness) but there is no reaction to form, or defining going on. it is like the consciousness housed in my body simply brushes against the consciousness (or lack thereof in regards to non-sentient form) housed in whatever form i am witnessing. another way of expressing it would be i hear, but am not listening - and i see, but am not looking. there is no outward focus on the object, but there is a witnessing of it just being it.

that said, if my perception of the term is correct, then that has been the base of my state of being for the past four years since awakening to the moment. i still will experience through my form other forms when it is called for in my expanding self awareness. but in pure consciousness there is no experiencing taking place - it is simply being here now. in order for me to evolve in awareness however, i do have to experience in form. so although pure consciousness may be the ideal state of being, exploring as Self, which leads to evolving Self awareness, requires me to "do here now", utilizing the sensual vehicle that houses me.

i think that may be why i balked at the idea of pure consciousness being an ideal. it is necessary in order to awaken, but there is much more exploration that emerges once a Self is lucid in the world of matter. that is why i often refer to awakening as the beginning of Self awareness - where unconsciousness was the (little "s") self awareness.

i do think that the pure consciousness as referred to by us is not the same state as consciousness existed in pre-experience & pre-evolution of 10+ billion years ago. that was mind prior to having any awareness of itSelf, whereas pure consciousness is mind with its history of expanding awareness intact, but with its relationship to form in an awakened state.


experience is not a mental conception, would you agree or disagree with that view?

experience as i most often use the word is a verb - to experience. however i do think mental conception requires experience to happen - a Self requires experience in order to evolve to Self awareness (the journey prior to pure consciousness being realized) and in Self awareness (the journey once pure consciousness is realized).



we all experience this pure consciousness, however, not all beings recognize it as such.

i would say that most do not ever come to recognize it at all. a distraced tittilated mind is an easy thing to waste.


the active and passive principles seem to be very Taoist in nature, at least what you've described thus far.

so i have been told...those taoists must be on to something then if they arrived at a similar awareness as i did with my direct guidance...hmmm, maybe the active principle is a taoist?


we cannot accurately describe any experience, let alone one as profound as the dissolution gross levels of consciousness. our words are approximations that we try to conform to the reality which we experience



in my essay "the active & passive principles & self" i mention that Self cannot look back at itSelf, but can only experience through form, so we do not appear to have any disagreements there. again the wording tends to trip me because i get so much flack for my usage - the price of arriving solo without pre-formed pre-packaged ontologies. i do think we can get an approximate description of experience however, as long as both parties (as you allude to) can find a usable language for sharing. after all, our defining has led to an enormous amount of evolution in Self awareness as experiences are pointed towards using words - some disciples have managed to translate enough to progress.


i'll let Paul Tillich describe his concept for himself.


i would rather hear it from you, in your own words. when you quote paul you leave the conversation...and it is your experiences and perceptions that most interest me. if i want to know paul's i can go buy his book. i value your impressions most when communicating directly with you.


it seems rather obvious that my opinions are mine though if you'd like that i state that more often, i'd be happy to comply.

i am thinking of those who are reading our dialogue. it is always a wonderful teaching tool to remind everyone that no matter what the subject matter is, when discussing the metaphysical subjectively that it is conjecture & speculation. sometimes i think people forget that, and should be reminded that even the most learned among us use the same guesswork as the beginner does, but with perhaps more information. it might help to dissolve debates into dialogues to remind that truth (otherwise than factual objective) is mutable and subject to change with expanding awareness.


it would also appear that you consider consiousness to be an epiphenomena of matter

consciousness evolving is a product of mind and body (Self and a sensual vehicle). consciousness itSelf is principle (active principle) - but in its primal state was unaware of itSelf. a Self without a dream is a flatlining Self.


why would you think that? however.. it is not the "expansion" of conciousness that drove this from our view, rather, the limiting of conciousness that dictated form.

what is that saying?...oh yeah, necessity is the mother of invention. as awareness expands, a more complex vehicle would be required to house it...our physical brains contain that journey with lizard > mammal > pre-frontal lobe layers. our fetus' make the same journey (i think i once read that somewhere that the human fetus goes through some rather similar appearance changes in its 9 month development - perhaps someone could expand on this for me who is more knowledgable).


so.. the "I" is an imputation by the mind of a solid, self-sufficient entity onto an ontological reality which does not conform to the imputation?

could you run that one by me again in layman's terms? are you forgetting my daftness?

are you asserting that only if something can be conceptualized that it is an experience?

an experience takes place within form - no form, no experience. it is a relationship between the Self and a thing (or even another Self). experiences can always be conceptualized by the Self , because it takes place within form.

the experience of eating an orange is beyond conception

concept = a general idea or understanding (esp one derived from specific instances or occurances). that says to me that concepts are understandings based upon experience (either my own or someone else's). so you are saying that the experience (action) of eating an orange is beyond understanding? i still say you might have an attachment to the passive principle hiding in your concepts somewhere - because that is what it feels like to me - i am experiencing (verb) form (the orange) as Self, and you are having an experience (noun) of form (the orange) as Self.

i see. perhaps, you should gain more experience

the idea of buddhists being attached to concepts (other people's boundaries) is something i have experienced many many many many many times online (my only access to buddhists so far in my life). i don't need any more experiences to verify that generality - however, the wording i used was incorrect - it should have read "buddhists" and not "buddhism".


oh? did you believe that you had a self before your spiritual experiences?

well i had heard it said before here and there in my life, but thought those people needed to cut back on the bong a bit...now i know bongs had little (to nothing) to do with it...


indeed.. the subject/object dichotomoy is resolved in the awakened state in Buddhism.

could you clarify this a little bit? in my awakened state i know that i am separate from all form (that whole "Self from active, form from passive principle" stuff i keep blabbing on about). is that what you mean?

perhaps you've misread. all physical forms, no matter the species, have evolved through the kalpas

no i read it right. did the human body emerge after say the apes, or did the apes and algae and humans all evolve together from the beginning? i'm not sure why the question - which is based upon our current theories regarding evolution - can't be answered with a yes or no, but is always danced around. does buddhism say specifically that the human form evolved from apes which evolved from....etc etc - or does buddhism just mention that forms evolve (which would not denote knowledge that the human form is new on the big scene). that is not the question i asked - i specifically ask whether they know humans are late on the scene or not, and not whether they know of evolution as a generality.

homosapien sapien was not the first human.

no, but as defined as "aware that they are aware" they would be "us", and not the post-apes, pre-us of before. since we are chatting about Self awareness i like to begin with the at least partially lucid.

the various gods and goddesses were the first ones to fall from the gate of pure consciousness.


well that would fly in the face of evolution theories of course, which suppose a trek from simple to complex in form. but i always hold such creation myths in light of the intellect of the times and general ignorance of the physical universe as cute leftovers of the dark ages. evolution remains unidirectional.

ah ha! now we get to the heart of the matter.

don't get too excited..."last" should read "latest". given my views on the evolution of consciousness you should know i do not think the human form is the last to emerge - was just a typo. i allude to future subtler forms housing consciousness in several of my writings.

what's an "r & p"?

religions and philosophies. i just didn't feel like typing it twice in the same paragraph...i was getting tired by the time i got there.

do something nice for yourSelf tonight...and thanks for the chat...

dcv-

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste pseudo,


thank you for the post...

it's a bit late tonight.. so i'll try to address your discussion points tomorrow or Sunday..

enjoy your weekend