« Another great Duhism | Main | Agnostics and atheists are better than believers »

November 03, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

No self and no continuous stream of

I.E. There is no WHO that watches it.

Faquir Chand once sent a letter to
Sawan Singh asking him if he was
conscious in sleep. Strange letter.

Sawan did not answer, because it meant
if he was not conscious in sleep, consciousness was not continuous.

How would it look if a Perfect Master
was un conscious in sleep, just like
everyone else ?

Shouldn't the perfect master be flying
around in the inner planes at night ?

They don't. They are sound asleep and snore
like everyone else.

"...We must be clear what is meant by the word 'illusion'. An illusion is not something that does not exist, like a phantom or phlogiston. Rather, it is something that it is not what it appears to be, like a visual illusion or a mirage."

---What would the 'something' be, that 'it' is not what 'it' appears to be? Should the 'something' word be replaced with another? As usual, this would be for convesation purposes only.

Roger, I quoted Blackmore as saying that consciousness is a "something" that exists, but she considers that it isn't as we humans normally consider it to be.

Namely, something that is continuous every moment that we're awake, and something that belongs to (or is observed by) a separate "self."

It's difficult to imagine what this alternative "something" would appear like, since currently Blackmore says we view the world in a illusory way.

With a mirage on a hot road, shimmering so it looks like a pool of water, we can drive closer to it and watch it disappear. But consciousness is different. We can't get closer or further away from it, since it is us.

"The truth is that when we are not asking the question ["Am I conscious now?"], there are no contents of consciousness and no one to experience them. Instead, the brain carries on, doing multiple things in parallel -- as in Dennett's multiple drafts theory -- and none of them is either in consciousness or out of it."

---What word could we use to describe "the brain carries on" activity? Non-conscious, non-awareness, non-somethingessness? Again, more conversationalism.
---What would be the absolute 'truth' we should be asking?

After taking it all terribly seriously and asking very important questions about the nature of existence, the content of consciousness, and the quality of awareness and having often had some fantastic revelations about the aforementioned, the brain and its attendant receptacle generally just gets on with life; but perhaps not taking it all quite so seriously.

Thanks Brian,

"Namely, something that is continuous every moment that we're awake, and something that belongs to (or is observed by) a separate "self."

--Would the 'brain' inside of the body(say mine) be the generator of the 'something' that is continuous every moment that I am awake? The 'I' would be my separate dualistic self. All of this makes good dualistic conversation. Nothing more.


Yes, you make good points. I can see a non-serious dualistic conversation within a blog. This type of blog conversation can be fun.

I would wonder how a revelation becomes fantastic. During and after blogging, we can just get on with life.

Roger, this morning i thumbed through D.T. Suzuki's "Lectures on Zen Buddhism" and came across this quotation. It made me think of your allusion to "something."

"The race or the battle of swordsmanship is not to the swiftest or to the strongest or to the most skillful, but to the one whose mind is pure and selfless.

Whether or not we accept this interpretation is another question: the fact is that the master swordsman possesses what we may designate the unconscious and that this state of mind is attained when he is no more conscious of his acts and leaves everything to something which is not of his relative consciousness.

We call this something or somebody; because of its being outside the ordinary field of consciousness we have no word for it except to give it a negative name, X, or the unconscious. The unknown, or X, is too vague, and as it comes in connection with consciousness in such a way that X avails itself of all the technical skill acquired consciously, it may not be inappropriately designated as the unconscious."

Blogging IS life! Revelations can be described as fantastic, or ordinary, or however they seem to be; but they are never as described, for once described, they are an abstract concept and not the actual revelation. And so it goes for it all.

Thanks again Brian,

As we(the regulars) know, I have a rather limited vocabulary. I was just curious as to a new word(for me) for the 'something' word, as used in this thread conversation.

The 'unconscious' word, I already have in my simple notes. I can accept various interpretations, that's the hobby.

I would wonder, how the swordsman, when he is no more conscious of his acts and leaves everything to something which is not of his relative consciousness. So, how did he/she know the 'point' when the act leaves 'everything' to the something? He/she may actually not known. Carrying around that sword may have been a distraction.


I enjoy reading your blog.

I liked,

".... but they are never as described, for once described, they are an abstract concept and not the actual revelation."

I'd suggest this self that arises each morning or moment to be the basis for the idea of reincarnation.

Like the spark plugs in an engine.
The neurons fire so fast it creates
the delusion of continuity.

But, we exist only in seperate micro

Like the individual frames in movie

Like the propeller on an aeroplane
when moving, looks like a continous
circle. So convinving is this delusion,
if we place our hand in the propeller, we get it cut off.

It is both real and unreal at the same time.

That's why in any discussion of enlightenement, both sides of the argument
will be correct.

"Give a savage a watch and he believes it
has a soul."
quote Napoleon

Brian. This is all an example of my concern. The constant quotes, referring to what others have said. Statements of like or dislike of a quote. Its not real to that person so they always look to others. Yes others can help, but one must let it go. Not talk of how one needs to let it go, seeing that fact and the natural act of letting go that follows. You have said this cant be learnt, thats a fact. Why should it end with what others have said? We all need to continue with this work as something new.Otherwise its as dead as the limitations we claim to see. I will not post on your site again, as I dont want to upset you or you freinds. You have been good to allow this forum. Good days Brian. Vas.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.