reply to post by LesMisanthrope
Dominicus, I think using consciousness so haphazardly to describe a fundamental unified-something might be a bit confusing to those of a skeptical
nature. Myself for example. We know consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." In other words, it is a state of
appearance; a notion conceived and applied to the way someone appears to be awake and conscious.
Well what I found in myself, through years of going within, observing myself, studying self, meditation, etc ...is that the
Observer/Awareness/Consciousness ...whatever you want to call it (damn semantics) .....is non-local and does not depend on a physical body for its
existence, has pre-existed prior to the body and entered into a fetus, can gain the ability to leave the body at will in advanced practitioners, and
will continue after the body dies.
It is something Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Various Greek and other part of the world philosophies have discussed, and goes back to the dawn of
man. I found that in myself, it is so .... and have met many others who have found this to be true within them also.
The only ones who don't agree with this are the ones who have been kept from investigating this within themselves because of self created skepticism
and bias bubbles. And science is playing catch up to all those who have realized that there is a soul and a source to it.
The appearance of being awake vs. asleep seems to be all that consciousness amounts to: a non-entity, nothing fundamental, and merely an idea
regarding the way someone appears when they are aware (a verb) of their surroundings.
Not everyone loses consciousness when they are asleep. I can present you with various texts from various philosophies that discuss a state a person
can reach of constant awareness, even in deep sleep. It's not all so black and white when we factor in what you would perhaps call anomalies.
Consciousness or awareness or any word with the suffix 'ness' are abstract nouns, which represent only ideas or concepts.
Ok, well we don't have to play this game for the sake of this conversation, cause I can go the Buddhist route and say that every word in existence is
an abstract illusion, so then we end up asking ourselves; "then why ask anything? why even talk?"
Would it be possible to explain your experience using perhaps a different word than consciousness? Because to me, when you say 'I existed as pure
consciousness,' I assume you existed as something to which you gave the name consciousness. But consciousness isn't a something, but the appearance of
something doing the verb 'conscious'.
I was a unit of awareness, an observer, but non-local, non-physical. I had the ability to think, to be aware, and to communicate with other units. The
communication was non-verbal. It was instead sending my perspective over to you and then you would experience directly my perspective, and then send
Since then, by going within myself, I have located the center of awareness/observer and finding this center, has loosened this subjective "me" from
the physical body. I can't necessarily do it, "at will" yet ...but this non-local me "pops out" sometimes at random times.
I have also experienced the "Source" of this awareness/observer/pure subject aspect of me. Akin to a drop of water falling into an ocean.... and have
found quite a few others who have also discovered all of these things as well. On page 2, Night Star also mentioned she remembers pre-existing.
I know this might be confusing, but I ask this because I'd like to understand your experiences better. ETA: In other words, how would you explain
your experience to a nominalist?
I read that nominalist but its like more definitions, more questions than answers, more bias. WHich one are you? :
One version denies the existence of universals—things that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things (e.g. strength, humanity).
The other version specifically denies the existence of abstract objects—objects that do not exist in space and time.
So now we have rules within which I have to explain by. No matter how I express it's not the same as the actual memory or experience of these things
which in a sense are ineffable.
The thing is, I cannot deny the memory of pre-existence because it came prior to mind. It wasn't through "thought" which it came, but from some deeper
place that circumvented mind, or delusions, or imagination, or any of that stuff, and I have since located that aspect of myself that has pre-existed
and found it to be so.
So in my view, science is playing catch up, to eventually/inevitably prove all of this to be so
edit on 6-2-2013 by dominicus because: (no