What is consciousness and in which forms can it appear?

[Starman]

I subscribe to the premise that consciousness, as we know it, is a product of awareness,
and so we might ask what is awareness, and I would say that awareness is light; it is a
specialized refined energy. Light that allows us to see and be aware of ourselves.

Keeping in mind that human beings are also said to have a subconscious-ness, a sublime
consciousness that most are not aware of. Which begs the question that consciousness
can exist without awareness. There can be existence without one being aware that
they exist

Exist in and absolutely unconscious state. I think to understand consciousness we must
also try to understand unconsciousness. I feel consciousness exists separately from
awareness, but consciousness has the potential to develop awareness. Consciousness
has the ability to develop countless features.

Still, we refer to ourselves and identify ourselves in our own awareness. A growing
awareness gives us a greater perception. I feel like we are consciousness here on earth
growing a greater awareness of ourselves.

I am of the belief that everything is consciousness existing in various levels of awareness,
or we might even say self-awareness. That includes microbial life, vegetation, minerals,
insects, water, fire, animal life, including humans, the Earth, other planets, stars, etc.
Everything is consciousness but everything does not have the same awareness.

[Starman]

From the Hebrew Qabbalah, it is said that we have and automatic consciousness and a manuel consciousness.
The automatic consciousness is sublime while the manual consciousness is what we use during our waking hours.

The automatic consciousness develops patterns and works within those patterns, while our manual consciousness
can be transformed to give birth to all sorts of features. Our everyday waking consciousness is inductive and our
automatic sublime consciousness is deductive.

Our waking consciousness gives suggestions to our subconscious-ness and that determines its’ patterns of behavior.
These patterns are developed by our internal dialogue, and what we think, say, and do. The process of
self-transformation involves making ourselves conscious of what we may be doing unconsciously.

The Qabbalah has a lot of stuff on this, as I am sure other esoteric, metaphysical, spiritual, and mystical
writings do. But having worked in the medical and mental health fields myself, I try to find a connection between
science and metaphysics. I think Dr. Deepak Chopra, MD does and excellent job at doing some of this.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Experiencing neither feeling, perception or thought would be emptiness. Emptiness is beyond or is not a thing.

Can you have a conscious experience of emptiness that is not a feeling of emptiness or a perception of emptiness? If yes, have you ever experienced it and how did you experience it?

--------------------------------

Originally Posted by ketzer

Without something to perceive, whether it be form, thought, or emotion, or even formlessness, then we would lose the ability to be conscious of the fact that we exist.

Would we only lose “the ability to be conscious of the fact that we exist”, if we had nothing to perceive and feel – or would we lose the ability to be conscious in general?
Can consciousness realize, manifest, or experience itself in a form other than feeling, perception or thought? Is it possible to experience something consciously that isn’t feeling, perception or thought?

Originally Posted by ketzer

So sorry, not only can I not add anything to your list, but I am afraid I would probably take them all away and leave only a question behind.

Maybe there is nothing more to add. How could you take something away?

Originally Posted by iamthat

we are pure Being which individualises as consciousness

Is “being” consciousness? If yes, does it experience itself in form of feeling or perception? If no, how does it experience itself?

Originally Posted by iamthat

If consciousness identifies with these thoughts, feelings and perceptions then we have a sense of "I". But consciousness is not the thoughts or the feelings or the perceptions. The fact that consciousness is aware of these things suggests that consciousness is separate from them.

Intuitively I rather think that “consciousness IS feeling and perception” than “consciousness has or identifies itself with feelings and perceptions”. But regardless of which formulation is more accurate: Can consciousness experience something else than feeling, perception or thought?

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

it is the tendency to ask such questions and expect to find an answer outside the experiencing that keeps one from experiencing the answer.

How should the answer be experienced? And why should asking questions keep one from experiencing the answer? Isn’t it the case that I, as a human, can’t control if I do or do not experience it? I would need the permission of my higher self to make supernatural experiences but in my current incarnation I shouldn’t make such experiences.

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

Feeling may be taken as the magnetic component of thought (electrical) as an analogy corresponding to an electromagnetic wave.

Thought and emotion going together ... texture of thought determining quality of emotion.

But feelings can also exist without thought. And is there a fourth form of consciousness that is not feeling, perception or though?

Originally Posted by Starman

awareness is light; it is a specialized refined energy.

What is energy?

Originally Posted by Starman

human beings are also said to have a subconscious-ness, a sublime
consciousness that most are not aware of. Which begs the question that consciousness
can exist without awareness. There can be existence without one being aware that
they exist.

Subconsciousness actually means that there is no consciousness. Something is processed subconscious or sublime if it is below the level of consciousness. So I think awareness and consciousness is more or less the same.

Originally Posted by Starman

The Qabbalah has a lot of stuff on this, as I am sure other esoteric, metaphysical, spiritual, and mystical writings do.

I do not rely on any sort of spiritual or religious writing or ideologies. They all are arbitrary. I only rely on logic and empiricism. Logical consistency is the only solid way to find the truth.

[Unseeking Seeker]

***

@ Siemens ... thought being resonation with chosen vibration positions us at the gateway to experience a corresponding emotion ... kind of handing over the baton of awareness to the feeling-aspect. However, without thought to start with, there is nothing. We may not be consciously aware though, more so in case of intuitive thought where the thinker or doer disappears but the cognised remains as presence.

Remove thought and we are comatose.

***

[God-Like]

There is only what you are present . Post realization of what you are one knows this . This is why there are the notions of non separation and oneness . These notions are a secondary knowing to the realization itself .

When we speak about I AM Consciousness this is even more further down the line of notions concocted to associate what we are with or too .

The word / term Consciousness came about from where? Whom realized that what we are is Consciousness .

This question doesn't normally go down too well with those attached to the scriptures .



x dazzle x

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Siemens

I do not rely on any sort of spiritual or religious writing or ideologies. They all are arbitrary. I only rely on logic and empiricism. Logical consistency is the only solid way to find the truth.

If this be the case then you have limited yourself to only one way of seeing things, and I respect that to be your choice.
But logic can also be faulty, as is the case in a logical fallacy. There are people who arbitrarily rationalize and call it "logic."
Logical syllogisms are not always sound or valid. I have done lots of empirical scientific research and it usually leads to
more questions than it does give answers.

[BigJohn]

Consciousness sounds to me like something man created ........ unfortunately ....... forgot to define let alone provided insight on how to use it.

[Siemens]

Originally Posted by Starman

If this be the case then you have limited yourself to only one way of seeing things, and I respect that to be your choice.

You can use religious, dogmatic, or ideological writings as inspiration, yes. But just believing what religion-xyz says without logically proving it isn’t a valid way of finding the truth.
The actual purpose of religion, ideologies, or "holy writings" isn’t to provide the truth but rather to provide a distorted version of it so that people can discuss and philosophize.

Originally Posted by Starman

But logic can also be faulty, as is the case in a logical fallacy.

Then it isn’t the logic per se that is faulty but the incapability of the person to think logically valid.

Originally Posted by Starman

There are people who arbitrarily rationalize and call it "logic."

Then not logic is the problem but the fact that a person produces rationalizations instead of logic.

Originally Posted by Starman

Logical syllogisms are not always sound or valid.

Then it aren’t the logic syllogisms per se that are the problem but the incapability of the person to produce deductive valid syllogisms.

In each example you gave the problem never is the use of logic but instead a lack of it.
Not does logic create problems but, on the contrary, the absent of it. Think logic!

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Siemens

When I think about myself and ask who or what I am the answer is: I AM CONSCIOUSNESS!


But have you ever asked yourself what consciousness actually is? I continued thinking about the issue and realized that consciousness can realize itself through three forms, namely: Feelings, Perceptions, and Thoughts. All I ever experienced consciously was either a feeling, or a perception, or a complex of thoughts. I experienced the feeling of inner harmony; the perception of a colorful garden; or the thoughts about a diversity of subjects. It further seems to be the case that perceptions are just complex feelings. And thoughts are consciously experienced in form of perceptions.

By my understanding the soul is the thing that generates consciousness. And to approach the question: “What is consciousness?” one answer could be that a feeling (the first form of consciousness) appears if the soul vibrates in a certain frequency. Experiencing different feelings would mean to vibrate in different frequencies. If you would feel pain, for example, your soul would vibrate in a pain-frequency. If you would feel joy, your soul vibrates in another frequency, a joy-frequency.
A perception (the second form of consciousness) could be something were many feelings mix which each other to form a complex image. For example, only experiencing the color red and nothing else than red could be considered as a feeling. You feel the redness. If you feel many colors next to each other (like the pixels on a computer screen), then your experience would be a perception: you see a picture.
When, in turn, you are consciously experiencing thoughts, you experience them in a form similar to perception: You experience your thoughts in form of “hearing” your inner voice what is equivalent to hearing something with your ears. Or you see images, inner pictures, when you think, what is equivalent to visual perception.

So my question is: Can consciousness only exist in these three forms: feelings, perceptions, and thoughts (whereby perceptions are a complex of feelings and thoughts are experienced in form of inner perceptions)? Or are there other possible forms of consciousness we can experience (for example outside the material world) that are not feelings, not perceptions, and not thoughts? Have you ever consciously experienced something whereby the content of your conscious experience was neither feeling, nor perception, nor thought?

My thoughts..

Consciousness is a self-aware energy/vibration which can arrange itself into any form or function it so chooses, from a rock (in all its rock-ness) to a human being (in all its humanity).

When I ask myself who/what I am, I either get one of two answers "who wants to know?" OR "just shut up and keep meditating".

I soon found out that whatever is perceivable is NOT "Consciousness" but merely represents the idea of Consciousness at the relative, physical level. This is illustrated beautifully by the Shiva Lingam, but anything can really take the place of the "rock" in all its "rock-ness" as representative of something OTHER than the rock...a tree in all its tree-ness...or a dog in all it's dog-ness...a human in all its humanity or a star in all its star-ness and in that regard, there is no difference..the only difference is in what we perceive it to be.

This has its foundations in my more animistic beliefs.

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Siemens

You can use religious, dogmatic, or ideological writings as inspiration, yes. But just believing what religion-xyz says without logically proving it isn’t a valid way of finding the truth.
The actual purpose of religion, ideologies, or "holy writings" isn’t to provide the truth but rather to provide a distorted version of it so that people can discuss and philosophize.

Then it isn’t the logic per se that is faulty but the incapability of the person to think logically valid.

Then not logic is the problem but the fact that a person produces rationalizations instead of logic.

Then it aren’t the logic syllogisms per se that are the problem but the incapability of the person to produce deductive valid syllogisms.

In each example you gave the problem never is the use of logic but instead a lack of it.
Not does logic create problems but, on the contrary, the absent of it. Think logic!

It is illogical to come to a Spiritual Forum, ask a question, and then reject spiritual references.
It might have shown clarity on your part to state in your original question that you wanted
something other than a spiritual or religious response. You might have gotten the responses
you were looking for if you posted this question on a scientific forum, or if you posted your
question in the Science and Spirituality section of this forum. But you posted your question
in the "Spirituality" section and then you reject spirituality responses to your question;
where is the logic in that?