Guest guest Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 I think of consciousness not as a thing, but as the " no thing " that contains all things. So comparing consciousness to a flame of a candle is like comparing a " no thing " with a " thing " . al. Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > > P: Excellent, Joyce. One of your best. Thanks > > > > On Oct 25, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Insight wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > One could think of consciousness as > > a moment of awareness in which case a > > good question for those interested > > in non-dual philosophy is whether > > or not there is an unchanging, separate, > > independent awareness/consciousness thats > > just going on as the basis of all our experience > > and it is this awareness that is 'I', > > 'the doer'. > > > > If one believes that yes, there is > > this ongoing, unchanging awareness underlying experience, > > how would you prove or demonstrate this? > > > > > > In order for something to be called > > an 'experience' there would have to be > > something to experience and something > > to experience it. There would always > > be something knowing something or being > > aware of it. If either of these two > > are missing, would there be 'experience'? > > > > > > In a way, consciousness can be seen > > as a partial or divided knowing. > > If one accepts notions of time and > > space, then the nature of consciousness > > must be something divisible - things known > > and a self/knower that knows them. > > Furthermore, since each moment of > > consciousness has a different object each moment > > of consciousness is separate and distinct. > > It might be a consciousness of sight, sound, > > taste, touch, a mental image etc. but whatever > > it is, it is quite distinct from any other > > moment of consciousness that has gone before > > and the moment to come does not yet exist. > > > > > > So consciousness can only ever be momentary > > and such momentary phenomena can't qualify > > for the label 'self'. Thus the mind or awareness > > that seems to be behind all experience cannot > > be the self/Self either. > > > > All of which would be interesting > > to apply to such notions as 'life', > > 'death' etc. > > > > Take a candle flame, for example. > > One can say in a general way, " That candle > > has been burning all day. " But in absolute > > terms, no flame has been burning all day. > > The flame was never the same flame from one minute > > to the next. There was no single, lasting > > flame there at all. The was no flame as such, > > but it is still meaningful to > > talk about flames. > > > > Ditto for 'persons'. > > > > > > Joyce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.