The Battle of Duality

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Sat Chit Ananda. Existence Consciousness Bliss. It doesn't need to enter anywhere or into anything because it already is everywhere and everything.

Body, mind and any other object is but name and form of Sat Chit Ananda. The Chit illumines all forms and names (thoughts are also form and name) and through Its illumination the mind perceives and experiences. So mind doesn't posses inherent consciousness but is illumined by the One consciousness. It's just a reflection or manifestation and it's always there but not recognized for what It actually is.

Eye of the eye. Mind of the mind.

Anyway this is the non-dual view, at least of Advaita and that's one of the oldest non-dual spiritual traditions dating back over 1,400 years and in truth its teaching go even further back to the Upanishads dating back another 1,400 years.

If everyone defines it as they see fit it's kind of pointless, confusing and doesn't facilitate understanding by others. This is why I recommend studying the teachings of either one of the great non-dual traditions, Advaita or Buddhism. At least then it's internally consistent and in truth there's really not a whole lot of difference between the two as far as I can tell, though my knowledge of Buddhism is much more shallow .

The problem here is that saying that Chit is Consciousness and that "it doesn't need to enter anywhere or into anything because it already is everywhere and everything" doesn't actually explain anything.

Because if there is only omnipresent Consciousness then how can there be an Observer, since the Observer requires a point of separation from which to observe? Because the Observer too is consciousness.

We may refer back to Advaita, but even the realisation of the omnipresent unchanging Self does not remove the Observer. It is all too easy to repeat the words of Advaita, but repeating the words does not mean that we have penetrated the meaning behind the words.

So maybe we do need to differentiate between absolute Consciousness and relative consciousness. And when people talk about expansion of consciousness then we need to be clear which consciousness we are talking about. Absolute Consciousness (the Chit of SatChitAnanda) may be all pervading and changeless. But our experience is that of relative consciousness, in which expansion is possible.

Peace

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Absolute Consciousness (the Chit of SatChitAnanda) may be all pervading and changeless. But ...

Yah, if there is such a thang (that is, aside from what people consciously or subconsciously 'project' and so experience it to be. In face of the flux of Life (if it weren't 'fluxing' it would be 'dead', I think!) many find the idea of it very 'comforting'.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

And without consciousness it's all a bunch of neurons, synaptic connections and electrochemical firings across networks and minus experience. In other words nothing more than a zombie, philosophically speaking. Or a sophisticated computer, if you will, devoid of meaning.

The same One consciousness illuminates all minds, regardless how well (or not so well!) they might be developed, and not only human minds.

I was driving long at 70mph when a truck pulled into my lane from stationary, I had a barrier on one side and a line of traffic on the other. I was conscious of being shown to a chair in a dark room, and after that I wasn't aware of much of what was going on. I managed to piece together a sequence of events from what Mrs G told me and dashcam footage, and it was obvious that there was a lot going on in my mind that I wasn't conscious of. I heard Mrs G scream but in the distance, I was very vaguely of a slight pressure on my foot as I braked, and heard a muffled bang as we hit the truck but it was all very.... unreal. I know the vision of me being shown to a chair was a reaction to the trauma and the consciousness 'detaching' itself from the scene, it's a normal survival mechanism.

Whether all of that was devoid of meaning I don't know, but Mrs G said that I did some pretty cool driving to keep us both alive. Certainly minus the experience. After walking away from an insurance write-off I was well and truly ticked because I'd not long filled the fuel tank, and it took a couple of days before I was myself again.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Your position is consciousness is just a tool in the mind's toolkit. My position is mind is but a tool of Consciousness to explore Itself via the multiplicity.

I disagree with both you and David, and would say that one is not subordinate to the other but they are in a symbiotic relationship. Another way to put it is that the body/brain/mind mechanism and consciousness are in a feedback loop with each other. But yes, exploring itself via multiplicity or consciousness becoming conscious of itself.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The same One consciousness illuminates all minds, regardless how well (or not so well!) they might be developed, and not only human minds.

Another feedback loop, according to Nassim Harramein.

Originally Posted by iamthat

What some people call unchanging, infinite and absolute Consciousness, other people would call Being. And that Being individualises as consciousness, a point of separate awareness, the Observer. The sense of expansion or contraction depends on what consciousness identifies with.

The consciousness has no identification with anything, identification is an aspect of the go not consciousness itself - consciousness would be conscious of that. Depending on the study there's a 90ms-120ms gap between any physical processing of experience by the brain/mind and it coming into the consciousness, and because of this gap the mind can think that it was 'always there'. This is the what people call unchanging, infinite and absolute.

Originally Posted by iamthat

And does the mind really realise consciousness? Or is it that when the mind becomes still then it creates a space for consciousness to enter the mental body. The mind is just a tool, and it is in the absence of mind that consciousness is realised on a mental level.

The mind is just a tool? Any concept of hierarchy is of the mind, not what we are conscious of. Consciousness encompasses. We can realise that we are consciousness, that we have it and what we become conscious of but consciousness itself is always 'one step ahead', as we become conscious of one 'layer' of consciousness consciousness itself becomes conscious that it is a 'layer' above.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy
The same One consciousness illuminates all minds, regardless how well (or not so well!) they might be developed, and not only human minds.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Another feedback loop, according to Nassim Harramein.

What missing in this conversation is the idea of soul, resulting in peeps thinking that 'consciousness' is, or at least is the progenitor of ALL that is experienced.

A bunch of 'eggheads' you all are, IMO.

Soul includes purpose, i.e. e-motion!

The person who dissociates (and so 'views' whatever is happening from another 'point' of view) in the midst of a 'crisis' is doing so by virtue of her/his soul choosing to deploy its 'consciousness' in such manner because to 'view' said 'crisis' from within its clonltext would be (unnecessarily) 'trauma'tic (as your soul did in the case of your 'driving' 'accident', GS).

This is why souls (generally - there are always 'exceptional' variables!) 'exit' their 'bodies' before the 'moment' of its 'death'.

It deploys its 'consciousness' so as to make the 'best' of its 'situation'. Consciousness is a tool of soul. It is not the 'be all and end all' of "THE Cat's Meeow", JASG!

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy
The same One consciousness illuminates all minds, regardless how well (or not so well!) they might be developed, and not only human minds.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Another feedback loop, according to Nassim Harramein.

What missing in this conversation is the idea of soul, resulting in peeps thinking that 'consciousness' is or must be the determiner/progenitor of ALL that is experienced.

A bunch of 'eggheads' you all are, IMO.

Soul includes purpose, i.e. e-motion!

The person who dissociates (and so 'views' whatever is happening from another 'point' of view) in the midst of a 'crisis' is doing so by virtue of her/his soul choosing to deploy its 'consciousness' in such manner because 'viewing' said 'crisis' from within its context would be (unnecessarily) 'trauma'tic (as your soul did in the case of your 'driving' 'accident', GS).

This is why souls (generally - there are always 'exceptional' variables!) 'exit' the 'bodies' they are ensconsed in before the 'moment' of said bodies' 'deaths'.

They deploy their 'consciousness' so as to make the 'best' of their 'situation'. Consciousness is a tool of soul. It is not the 'be all and end all' of "THE Cat's Meeow", JASG!

Originally Posted by davidsun

What missing in this conversation is the idea of soul, resulting in peeps thinking that 'consciousness' is or must be the determiner/progenitor of ALL that is experienced.

A bunch of 'eggheads' you all are, IMO.

Soul includes purpose, i.e. e-motion!

The person who dissociates (and so 'views' whatever is happening from another 'point' of view) in the midst of a 'crisis' is doing so by virtue of her/his soul choosing to deploy its 'consciousness' in such manner because 'viewing' said 'crisis' from within its context would be (unnecessarily) 'trauma'tic (as your soul did in the case of your 'driving' 'accident', GS).

This is why souls (generally - there are always 'exceptional' variables!) 'exit' the 'bodies' they are ensconsed in before the 'moment' of said bodies' 'deaths'.

They deploy their 'consciousness' so as to make the 'best' of their 'situation'. Consciousness is a tool of soul. It is not the 'be all and end all' of "THE Cat's Meeow", JASG!

That's all well and good but it's dualism. Either there's One (non-dualism) or there are many (dualism). I have no problem with either but it's incorrect to paint dualism as non-dualism.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

That's all well and good but it's dualism. Either there's One (non-dualism) or there are many (dualism). I have no problem with either but it's incorrect to paint dualism as non-dualism.

Is it really a case of either/or? Perhaps both are real depending on where the individual stands.

If we do not know the One then non-dualism is just a concept. Dualism is our reality.

When we know the One then non-dualism is our reality. And we realise that non-dualism is present in all apparent dualism.

If we are stuck in dualism then it can certainly be helpful to understand that the world of opposites is just a temporary experience arising in consciousness. But we still have to deal with that world of opposites.

All the philosophy of dualism and non-dualism is just thought arising in consciousness. When we know the One then such philosophy is unnecessary.

Peace

Originally Posted by iamthat

Is it really a case of either/or? Perhaps both are real depending on where the individual stands.

If we do not know the One then non-dualism is just a concept. Dualism is our reality.

When we know the One then non-dualism is our reality. And we realise that non-dualism is present in all apparent dualism.

If we are stuck in dualism then it can certainly be helpful to understand that the world of opposites is just a temporary experience arising in consciousness. But we still have to deal with that world of opposites.

All the philosophy of dualism and non-dualism is just thought arising in consciousness. When we know the One then such philosophy is unnecessary.

Peace

From a philosophical perspective it is either/or. Either one subscribes to a dualistic or non-dualistic spirituality and both are perfectly valid approaches.

If against all odds one happens to become fully realized the apparent duality is still present so it might as well be engaged in all its names and forms but without attachment to doership/ownership and from an ethical and moral perspective. That's pretty much the central theme of the Bhagavad Gita.

Originally Posted by davidsun

It deploys its 'consciousness' so as to make the 'best' of its 'situation'. Consciousness is a tool of soul. It is not the 'be all and end all' of "THE Cat's Meeow", JASG!

The use of the word 'tool' suggests an hierarchy, and that isn't the case at all. It also suggests levels of importance and that's where these discussions go a little sideways, because the mind is being used to understand what is beyond the mind. There is something called 'Gestalt Reality' which explains it nicely. There is a saying - "The sum of the parts being greater than the whole" but Gestalt Reality goes beyond that, and the sum of the parts is a 'whole new being'. In the supposed "Battle of Duality" there is the human and the Spiritual, for instance, and generally that consists of a duality because it's one versus the other. What people either can't or won't get their heads around is that one PLUS one - gives you Triplex Unity - yep, three - and therefore 5D thinking, using Sacred Geometry as a visualisation.

With Gestalt Reality it's easy to acknowledge and understand a symbiotic relationship - Buddhist Egg or Flower of Life - between the various multi-dimensional aspects of our being to create a being that is beyond the sum of its parts. That would include the Soul, of course. Or you can carry on with the battle of Duality and be one-dimensional.