Keeping consciousness simple

It’s astounding, really. We all confidently say, “I think…,” “I believe…,” “I feel…,” “I see….” Yet we don’t know who or what the “I” is. So how confident should we be about all those statements we make, to others and to our own self, when the nature of the statement-making entity is a mystery?

Last night I managed to watch about fifteen minutes of an interview with Deepak Chopra before this I-entity overdosed on New Age gobbledygook. Nonetheless, I did appreciate how Chopra focuses on unraveling the essence of consciousness.

He believes that consciousness is foundational in the cosmos—a reversal of the usual scientific way of thinking, in which mind emerges from matter. Maybe. I sure hope so. For this implies that consciousness survives bodily death, not being dependent on matter for its existence.

If this is to be anything other than an article of faith, little different from “Jesus saves,” there has to be direct experience of consciousness separate from physical thoughts, emotions, perceptions, imaginings, and such.

In his book, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness, Robert K.C. Forman talks about what this experience is like. Forman is a mystic as well as a scholar. He discusses his own altered perceptions of reality that stem from many years of meditative practice (Forman describes himself as a neo-Advaitist; he says his primary teachers are Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Ram Dass, and Meister Eckhart).

I just finished re-reading this book. Some chapters are densely intellectual, but overall Forman achieves his aim:

It is my hope that this book will serve to finally close the door on the possibility that one can assume without further justification that mysticism is constructed, and will open the door to much broader and more far-reaching debates on both the deeper character of mysticism, and on what mysticism has to show us about the nature of human consciousness and life.

By “constructed,” Forman means that the mystic’s or meditator’s conceptual/linguistic scheme shapes his or her mystical experiences. Most of the time this is the case. When have you heard of a Christian contemplative encountering the Buddha or Allah? Somehow Jesus makes an appearance instead.

But “most of the time” doesn’t mean “all of the time.” Forman argues persuasively that it’s possible to experience a pure consciousness event (PCE).

One is not perceiving or thinking about some thing, even a one, but rather is coming to be that one thing which one inherently is, if you will, without any additional mental content…the distinguishing mark of the pure consciousness event is that it is not described as an experience of something.

So supposedly there’s nothing that a PCE could be constructed out of (unless, a skeptic might suggest, the prior expectation that a PCE is possible; however, Forman provides instances of PCE’s coming from out of the blue, unexpectedly).

In the article “What Does Mysticism Have to Teach Us About Consciousness?,” you can get the essence of his message. (tip: for easier reading, minimize your web browser to make the page width narrower).

I liked how Forman begins with a common-sense tenet: to understand something complex, turn to its simple forms. He likens the pure consciousness event to E. coli, whose simple gene structure allows researchers to understand the gene functioning of complex species.

Well, E. coli isn’t the most appealing image to plant in my mind before I meditate. But I’m sure these little bacteria look cute to their mothers. And if I’m ever going to have a PCE of my own, there won’t be any thoughts of anything in my consciousness, E. coliish or otherwise.

Religion asks us to become someone new. Mysticism invites us to be who we’ve always been, but have mislaid under all the crap that we’ve piled into our consciousness. Strip it away and you’re left with something simple and pure: awareness. Commenting on Meister Eckhart’s teachings, Forman says:

Eckhart instructs his listener to drag the inwardness outward, as it were, bringing it into activity. One is to act in such a way that reality—activity, thought, perception, etc.—is perceived and undergone while not losing the interior silence encountered in contemplation [of a PCE].

Conversely, one is to lead “reality into the inwardness,” i.e., make the silent inwardness dynamic. In other words, one is to learn to think, speak, walk, and work without losing awareness of the inward silence.

…We may characterize this as a new pattern of mystical experiences: the Dualistic Mystical State, or DMS. It may be defined as an unchanging interior silence that is maintained concurrently with intentional experience in a long-term or permanent way.

Hope this doesn’t sound too complicated. Really, it isn’t. The basic notion is that we can know things separate from our own consciousness, but we can’t know the knower, because we are that. Or as a Buddhist would say, we are That.

We can be who we truly are. That’s all. We can’t know, describe, analyze, or perceive our own self, for it is impossible to stand outside of awareness (if you could, you’d be aware of that). So spirituality starts, and likely ends, by coming to grips with who is trying to be spiritual.

Religion would have us look up toward a distant God, or outward toward a divine person worthy of emulation. However, this just adds additional objects to the already crowded contents of our consciousness.

Uh-oh. I have a premonition that I’m about to quote myself. Why resist? Can’t fight the urge. Must turn to my “Simplicity is Superior” chapter in Return to the One.

Most of us remain absorbed in what is showing on the screen of consciousness and never make much of an effort to discern how those images are projected. This keeps us imprisoned in Plato’s cave of illusion, absorbed in counting the shadows on the cavern wall and debating among ourselves which comes first and which after, which is most desirable and which least desirable, all the while failing to turn around and learn the source of the light that produces the shadows.

We aren’t going to be able to approach the single source of consciousness, the One, so long as we are occupied with its many products…Adhering to the adage “know yourself” means being present to one’s self as one’s true self, not looking upon one’s self as if it was an object, something to be perceived or pondered.

…It isn’t necessary to go through life as a sort of double image: a me that does things and a largely unnecessary hanger-on inside my head who watches and comments on the doer. The internal mental dialogue most people take for granted is akin to a play-by-play announcer who never stops gabbing about what is happening on the field of our awareness.

The problem is that I already know what is going on because I’m directly experiencing it. I should be able to wash the dishes without an inner voice telling me the obvious: “I’m washing the dishes.”

Wow. The guy who wrote those words sure makes a lot of sense. Interesting that he happens to be me. I’ve got to listen to him more often. Except, he just told me not to, so I guess I won’t.

Comments

[Marcel Cairo]

Brian, I'm not sure how many followers your church has, or how even how many people relate to your path of enlightenment through spiritual detachment. All I know is that you're not winning the souls and minds in the mosh pit. Want to know who where the churchless youth are turning to?

Check it out --> http://www.sundancechannel.com/onepunk/

[Roger]

Is a PCE another way to describe a Satori?

It is stated by many that, "A finite Person or Mind can not comprehend; God the Absolute, or God the Infinite."

Then what does a PCE actually do? Does PCE make one aware of something between the Finite and Infinite?

Could this just be another type of "Tease?"

[Hal K]

Perhaps, rather than being something that exists prior to everything else in the universe, consciousness is just a potential inherent in the physical laws of the universe which requires something like a brain to be realized.

This doesn't mean consciousness will be easy to understand. This particular "I" entity thinks that consciousness is an infinite mystery. One implication of this would be that computers will never pass the Turing Test. (If computers could pass the Turing Test then that would mean that consciousness could be understood in terms of a logical set of instructions, which I think is impossible.)

Consciousness is sort of a "little" mystery to add to the "big" mystery of existence itself. The problem with the "little" mystery is that not everyone believes that it will always remain a mystery.

This says nothing about mysticism. I am more comfortable with an approach rooted in science, although I am all in favor of mysticism, especially if it can help me with the opposite sex:

http://the-mouse-trap.blogspot.com/2006/11/scizophrenia-and-autism-two-cultures.html

(Just kidding, I'm married, actually.)

I have extended these comments and posted them on my own blog.

[Edward]

Maybe the mind is infinite and we all participate in that mind. "Comprehension" is from a sense of mutual agreement. More suited to this subject would be "apprehension", a sort of intuitive acceptance of a thing's being.

Crowley instructs the apprentice to cut their own arm with a blade whenever they use the word "I", (Wilson, ever coddled, suggests a sharp snap with a rubber band.) The purpose is behavior modification: less use of the word "I" will shift mental focus away from the ego.

Harsh and misguided. The mental focus in these terms is shown to be ridiculously ineffectual. There are so many other layers, or facets, to apprehending.

This orientation from Forman is interesting, but has as much to do with a pure conciousness event as putting gas in the plane has to do with sky diving.

[tao]

M. Cairo:

It is not at all evident that Brian has ever espoused, as you say, "a path of enlightenment through spiritual detachment" here in this blog. Perhaps you could indicate just where you find that to be the case?

Also, I never had the idea that this is any kind of actual "church", as you say. For myself anyway, it is simply only an internet blog with the terms "church" and "churchless" used as a name.

Neither has it been evident that Brian is concerned with, or interested in, as you say, "winning the souls and minds" of the "churchless youth". I don't see him trying to win the "souls and minds" of anyone for that matter.

As for that Bakker boy you touted, he's only substituted religion in place of punk-rock and drugs. Not impressive. ... even if he does appeal to some of the mind-less mosh-head morons. But then you probably identify with such religious Bible toting punks such as he apparently is.

[Roger]

Forman's discussions of PCE and DMS are interesting. I wonder, has anyone in our regulars group experienced either one? Does anyone in our regulars group, personally, know of someone that has experienced either one?

Forman, apparently, has experienced both, some time in his twenties, and continuely since then.

I wonder, why the need to write a book, discussing PCE or DMS? Why would he care what anyone thinks about PCE and DMS, after experiencing them?

Thanks for any comments,
Roger

[Marcel Cairo]

Tao, I know you're intelligent, I just don't know if you're smart. I also think you need to distinguish between just regular old sarcasm and wink-wink nudge-nudge tongue and cheekism.

My post about "The Bakker Boy" was just that - a joke. I just thought it was funny how Jay Bakker is using reality TV to gain a following and how he is deuling his father by being the punk, tattoed, ex-drunk version of his father.

Deep down, I know you are not a true A-hole, but merely combatitive and enjoy mental jousting. The only problem is you lack finesse and charm. Still, I just don't want to get into with you.

[tao]

Marcel, Actually I'm smarter than I am intelligent. I thought your Bakker boy link was a joke, but I wasn't sure. I wasn't on your case, I was just poking you a little. I actually found his site to be curious for a few minutes.

Sorry I don't measure up to your expectations for finesse and charm, I am a 60 years old guy now, and not nearly the same lady-killer rock-star that I used to be. However, I may have lost some of my charm, but I've gained vastly more in wisdom.

I don't really enjoy "mental jousting", its actually more that I just don't dig ego-centric spiritual know-it-alls who have yet to awaken from the dream. And I've already passed through all those places so very long ago.

In any case, I'd really be more careful if I were you about who you get into mental and spiritual jousting with. Contact me privately if you want to know why I say that and where I'm coming from.

[ET]

Marcel and Tau have brought up 2 very good points.

The FIRST POINT is about intelligence. Dr. Howard Gardner , (Harvard professor) developed the theory of multiple intelligences in 1983. His theory suggests that the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, is very limited. Dr. Gardner proposes 8 intelligences:

Verbal- Linguistic intelligence ("word smart"):
Logical-mathematical intelligence ("number/reasoning smart")
Visual-Spatial intelligence ("picture smart")
Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence ("body smart")
Musical intelligence ("music smart")
Interpersonal intelligence ("people smart")
Intrapersonal intelligence ("self smart")
Naturalist intelligence ("nature smart”

http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

In other words it is not how smart we are, but rather how we are smart. We all have varying degrees of each of these intelligences. One way this is often demonstrated is to ask a group how they would solve a problem:

If 2 people start walking together by extending their left feet first and one takes a step half as long as the other how many steps are needed before they have there left foot together again.

Then when we observe the group we will see these various intelligences exhibited. For example; some with strong verbal linguistic skills will immediately start discussing the problem with another, the logical mathematical intelligence will work out an equation, the body kinesthetic types will get up and walk together, and the music intelligence will begin tapping out the walking rhythms, and the intrapersonal type will just sit and stare or close his eyes and meditate.

Often those who are ignorant of these different intelligences will accuse others who do not see things as they do of being stupid and unfit and puff themselves up as being a superior intelligence.

The SECOND POINT is that the bandwidth of blogging is very limited. Face-to-face meetings are full duplex, where both parties can speak at the same time and still hear each other.

Also, face to face communications provides feedback about how the other is responding to what we say instantly - facial expression, smiles, frowns, nods, confused looks, rolling eyes, winks, blushes, and bored expressions, all influence the communication exchange.

In an attempt to overcome some of this we often interject "emoticons" into our typed comments, or pick up a phone and call the other or arrange for a face to face meeting in order to communicate more completely and effectively.

-ET

[Marcel Cairo]

The problem with contacting you privately, Tao, is that your name link goes to a fictional address. In fact, I think you are one of a few people commenting on this post who hides behind a pseudonym.

If truth is the way, then why not be truthful and open about who you are. You can criticize me all day and night, but at least I'm not hiding behind a mask.

Reveal thyself, Zorro!

[tao]

Marcel,

Try not to take yourself so seriously. I was not criticising you at all. Tis the season to be jolly... and so I was merely trying to be more friendly. Unfortunately, I guess you misunderstood.

As for the link you mentioned, it is for the domain of "tao". I don't publish my e-mail in public forums. It has nothing to do with hiding behind masks or not being truthful.

You seem to assume that most here use real names and e-mail, but for all I know, it could be just the opposite. I personally don't have a problem with internet pseudonyms or anonymity. I am more interested in what people have to say, not what name they use, real or otherwise.

I am more or less a fairly private person these days. I have my reasons. However, I don't care whether you choose to be either public or private. To each his own. Each option has its reasons, its benefits, and its drawbacks. I have no problem if others choose to be private, so why should care if I do? You seem to be trying to cast me in odd light.

In any case, I assume you have an e-mail contact connection on your webpage, so if you indicate to do so, I will send something via that so you can then reply to me if you wish.

[tao]

Marcel,

PS: Brian knows me through RSSB and he has my private e-mail address. You can contact him via e-mail and he hereby has my permission to give it to you, if you care to correspond with me privately.