Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: The Content of Consciousness?

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    One can say anything has a spirit or consciousness. I can say that this table I am working on has a spirit. In brief, I can say it; the act of saying doesn t
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 25, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      One can say anything has a spirit or consciousness. I can say that this
      table I am working on has a spirit. In brief, I can say it; the act of
      saying doesn't make it so.

      But let's go with your idea that there is a universal spirit. If there is a
      cosmic spirit, it must be doing something. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if
      it is there or not. If it does nothing, or can't have some action
      attributed to it, then it might as well not exist. It used to believed that
      the universe was full of "aether" which enabled the transmittance of light.
      After they did a number of tests, they could not find any affect due to this
      aether; thus, they looked elsewhere and found that light is propagated in
      the form of electromagnetic waves. So the conclusion was that there is no
      such thing as "aether".

      Therefore, let's test your theory and ask ... what action can be said due
      to this universal spirit?

      eduard

      -----Original Message-----
      From: devindersingh
      Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:35 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: The Content of Consciousness?


      Cosmic spirit? It is the cosmic spirit, it is the universal spirit, it
      is the spirit that's in the whole universe. There is a universe. You
      know what the universe is? Well, this universe has a spirit, and this
      spirit is the cosmic spirit; this universe has a consciousness and its
      consciousness is the cosmic, universal consciousness.

      One may very well imagine that the universe is only an entity in
      something which is still vaster, as the individual is only an entity in
      a much vaster totality. Now, each unit has its consciousness and its own
      spirit which contains all the others, as a group consciousness is made
      up of all the individual consciousnesses which constitute it and as a
      national consciousness is made up of all the individual consciousnesses
      which constitute it, and something more. The individual is only an
      element in the whole, even as the earth is a part of the solar system,
      and the solar system makes a part of all the systems of the universe. So
      just as there is an individual consciousness, there is a group
      consciousness and a consciousness of the system, a universal
      consciousness which is made up of the set of all the consciousnesses
      composing it, plus something, something – something more subtle.
      Just like you: you have lots of cells in your body; each cell has its
      own consciousness and you have a consciousness which is the
      consciousness of your total individuality, though made up of all these
      small cellulary consciousnesses.

      Mother, here it is written: "... there is a wall of separative
      ignorance between" the individual and the cosmic consciousness. Then how
      to break down this wall?

      Get rid of the ignorance, enter the knowledge.

      First of all you must know what I have just told you, that you are a
      part of the whole, that this whole is a part of a greater whole, and
      that this greater whole is a part of a still greater whole, right up to
      its forming one single totality. Once you know that, you begin to become
      aware that in reality there cannot be any separation between you and
      something greater than you of which you are a part. This is the
      beginning. Now, you must come to the point not only of thinking this but
      of feeling it and even living it, and then the wall of ignorance
      tumbles: one feels this unity everywhere and realises that he is only a
      more or less fragmentary part of a whole much vaster than he, which is
      the universe. Then one begins to have a more universal consciousness.

      The Mother; Collected Works, Vol 7 Page – 236-37

      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheBecoming/message/293
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
      >
      > "Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that like?
      > You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are
      they
      > talking about something which they know by experience? If they know it
      > then they could talk about it and describe what it is like. But they
      > don't."
      >
      > I agree entirely. These words [cosmic consciousness] that are dreamt
      up and
      > passed off as being some kind of reality. And the speaker requires
      that
      > everyone should pause for the moment and accept it.
      >
      > Consciousness is simply a function. We are conscious when we are
      aware of
      > stuff, like the cold out there. The brain doesn't shut down when you
      are
      > not being aware of something. It kinda runs on idle, since being
      aware is
      > actually being aware of sensor differences. Humans quickly become
      unaware
      > when the scene does not change. Like I cannot feel my watch at this
      moment
      > even though it is a weight on my wrist. Which is also the reason why
      I have
      > lost the recognition [interesting word] of certain things in my room,
      > because I see them all the time.
      >
      > Consciousness requires a brain. The Cosmos does not have a brain and
      thus
      > cannot be said to be conscious.
      >
      > eduard

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Dick.
      > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:04 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] The Content of Consciousness?

      > The Content of Consciousness?

      > [ You speak of the content of consciousness as opposed to
      consciousness
      > itself; and say that there can be no consciousness devoid of content.
      > What do you mean by this exactly?]

      > It means that which you are consciously aware of at any moment. Walk
      out
      > of your front door and what are you consciously aware of? You can see
      > what you see, you may have some kind of feelings about that, and you
      are
      > consciously aware of them. It may be cold or it may be hot and you can
      > feel that. You might not be concentrating on these things and thinking
      > about something else, and you are consciously aware of them, etc etc.
      So
      > these things are the content of you consciousness at that moment. You
      > could also sit in a dark room and cut off all your sensory input but
      you
      > are still consciously aware of existing at that moment. In dreamless
      > sleep you are not consciously aware of anything, so there is no
      > conscious content. And no consciousness.

      > So, if folks are going to speak of consciousness as independent of
      > content (observer less, ego less) then they had best explain as to
      how
      > they could know it and what they know at that moment and as to how
      they
      > could exist knowing that there was no content to their consciousness.
      > Physicist, or quasi physicists, talk of quantum consciousness. So what
      > is it like and what is it aware of? Religionists talk of the Divine
      > Consciousness, so what is it like and what is it conscious of? Gurus
      > talk of uniting with (whatever it is) so what is it like and what is
      it
      > conscious off? Some talk of Cosmic Consciousness, so what is that
      like?
      > You ask them this and not a bloody one of them answers you. So, are
      they
      > talking about something which they know by experience? If they know it
      > then they could talk about it and describe what it is like. But they
      > don't.

      > I talk of the Timeless consciousness in the root of MY being, and I
      > describe exactly what it (I) is like and what it is conscious of. If
      I
      > can do that then why don't they describe what they are talking
      > about? If not then why do they talk about something which they
      > don't know? How could one do that anyway? Can you talk about
      > something which you have never known? I have never known a headache
      so
      > I keep off the subject. But let those who have known a headache talk
      > about it. And no I would not ask them to prove that they have had a
      > headache. I would just listen to what they had to say. Neither would I
      > say that there is no such thing as a headache just because I have not
      > known one. Neither would I say it was pointless and meaningless saying
      > it because it cannot be proved. I would have thought that having a
      > headache is proof enough of its existence. What more proof would they
      > need than having it? Or is it the case that they are not really real
      > because they don't last for ever? Yeah, I have met them all mate.

      > rwr



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.