Pure Consciousness isn't what its name implies

I don't like the term pure consciousness. Or its identical twin, pure awareness. I've written about this dislike in some blog posts: here, here, here, and here. 

Obviously I've got no problem with talking about consciousness or awareness, which in my view are the same thing. If we're conscious of something we're aware of that thing.

It's the pure that rubs me the wrong way.

That word conjures us an image of something absolutely clear and transparent, nothing in it except consciousness/awareness. (From now on I'll just speak of consciousness rather than wearing out my laptop's slash key.)

Sure, I get the idea that consciousness is akin to an empty sky in which clouds, birds, airplanes, and such are contained. I jotted down a couple of ways Sam Harris describes consciousness in this fashion in his Waking Up app's guided meditations.

Consciousness is the space in which everything is arising on its own; rest as that... You are the condition in which everything is appearing.

So this seems to presume that what is most real about us isn't what we're aware of, but a formless that composed of pure consciousness. 

Well, it's a nice idea. It just doesn't make sense, though. Where's the evidence that consciousness ever can be experienced in such a pure state, there's no content of consciousness? 

And if this somehow were possible, how would someone know they've experienced pure consciousness? After all, there can't be a sense of "This is pure consciousness," for that sense clearly isn't pure, it's a sensation of this is pure consciousness. 

Thus if consciousness truly was pure, there would be no way for that purity to contain an experience of purity, for experience always is of something. After all, what would pure experience be like?

Nothing, I guess, for the experience would be of nothing.

I got to thinking about pure consciousness because Paul Breer talks about it quite a bit in some chapters near the end of his book, Beyond Self-Realization: A Non-Sectarian Path to Enlightenment. I've enjoyed his right-on take on free will (it doesn't exist) and the ethereal Self (nobody has one).

However, his frequent use of "Pure Consciousness" rubbed me the wrong way, at least until I read enough about how Breer uses this term to realize that when he's referring to isn't really pure.

Breer's book consists of dialogues between a group of people taking an enlightenment course at a local library led by someone who, not surprisingly, bears a lot of resemblance to Paul Breer. Here's some passages describing Pure Consciousness.

What I "see" is Pure Consciousness in the background of my perception of you; just as in an enlightenment experience you would see Pure Consciousness in the background of your perception of me. 

At the same time I see both you and me in the conventional sense, that is, as separate individuals, you over "there," me over "here." In the foreground, I see the two of us as separate individuals; in the background I see (with my inner eye) Consciousness Itself which serves as the Source for the distinctions I make in the foreground. The same would be true for you if the roles were reversed.

...Whenever you gain access to Pure Consciousness, you will experience it as a background to whatever you see, hear, taste, touch, or smell -- and that includes your awareness of me. I'm not saying, as your books apparently suggest, that everything in the universe contains Pure Consciousness. 

When I say that the world is One, I'm referring to the sense of Wholeness created by THAT which serves as background for whatever I perceive in my foreground. The experience of wholeness takes place "here"; it's not something that exists in blades of grass, bluebirds, trash cans or any other objects of perception.

Oneness, in other words, is a feature not of the universe itself nor of the objects in that universe, but of our own perception of the world when viewed from a background of Pure Consciousness.

...Most fundamentally, you are Pure Consciousness. As such, you are THAT which enables an organism with a brain and nervous system to make distinctions and use those distinctions to construct a perceptual field composed of objects and a subject.

Even after you have discovered your deeper nature (Pure Consciousness), you retain a limited identification with the part (as body-mind) you are playing in a particular perceptual construction. In other words, you are both the "movie" (the construction) and the context (Pure Consciousness) in which the movie is playing.

So when I burrow down into the nitty-gritty of what Breer is saying here, it seems to be quite simple and uncontroversial. 

Consciousness is necessary for perceptions of the world. From birth until death, being conscious is how we perceive everything inside and outside of us -- the contents of consciousness. I'm not sure how this realization translates into enlightenment, since it seems to be a basic fact of life.

But maybe that's what Zen masters are getting at when they keep pointing the student searching for enlightenment back to everyday perceptions. Cooking rice. Running water. Ringing of bells. 

I don't disagree with how Breer views Pure Consciousness. Just seems to me that what he's talking about is merely consciousness being the foundation of all experience. Which is damn obvious.

 

Comments

[Ron E.]

Here are two interpretations of consciousness and awareness: -

‘Consciousness can be thought of as a dualistic, embodied, and embedded cognitive process, whereas awareness is a nondual and nonlocal process.’

And, ‘Consciousness and awareness are often used as synonyms, but they have different meanings. Consciousness is the state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, feel, or be conscious of events, objects, thoughts, emotions, or sensory patterns. Awareness is more fundamental than consciousness, as it can exist without consciousness, but not vice versa.’

I think we need to include the mind in all this. In Psychology Today Jacob Sage M.D. Post-ed January 31, 2011. “As a neurologist, I contend that consciousness is nothing more than the ability of our brain to acquire information (which is the state of being awake) AND all the content that the information contains AND the ability to get all that information into and out of memory. The key word is "ALL". If you have all that, you are conscious of the blue sky and the red sun. Nothing more is needed to be conscious of that beautiful sky. My contention is that the brain can do all that, and, therefore, a functioning brain is identical to a conscious mind.”

All living organisms demonstrate the ability to be aware – even a simple cell is aware enough to respond to other cells, to light and dark etc. – but are they conscious? Some refer to them as being ‘minimally conscious’, though awareness seems more accurate for cells. In this sense trees and flowers are aware – they are comprised of cells that interact, reproduce and generally respond to their environment.

Animals certainly have an awareness of ‘me’ and ‘not me’, otherwise they could not survive in what is generally a hostile environment. Perhaps the difference is they do not (like us) form mental constructs around their feelings that they recognise as being a ‘me’ alone that is being affected.

So, is this it? In not forming mental constructs are we experiencing a mind that is quiet, a mind that is not overlaying what is being sensed with its ‘store’ of contents? Or, as J. Krishnamurti often pointed to – ‘choiceless awareness’. I can envisage that such choiceless awareness can be the same as pure consciousness where in such moments there is just natural awareness, awareness that is untainted by the contents of consciousness.

[SantMat64]

Still reading Breer I see. I wonder what other child molesters have to say about pure consciousness.

[Brian Hines]

SantMat64, if you'd read this post, you'd see there's zero mention of the two years Breer spent in jail. Yes, that appears to have been on a charge of sexual abuse of a relative who was under 18 at the time, a charge that he seems to deny in one of his books (I saw seems, since his second book has Breer speaking in the voice of a fictional character).

When I read a book, I pay attention to the ideas and content, not the author's personal life. No one is perfect. People still follow the guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas even though he's been entangled to financial fraud and other possible crimes.

Donald Trump has four criminal indictments and one civil case determined he was guilty of sexual abuse/rape. Another civil case has found that his company committed financial fraud. Yet many millions of people still admire and support Trump. Given your dislike of people who commit sexual abuse, I assume you also heartily condemn Trump. Good for you. I do too, but that's just one reason for me.

[Grim Reaper]

I can be conscious (aware) of something, but only in a limited way. Being completely aware of everything there is to know about that thing, would make me fully conscious, or if you will, having pure consciousness. It‘s just hair splitting and semantics Brian.

BTW

Have you read about how the clot shots have led to massive injuries and death, as I told you they would some time ago? Heart problems, reproductive organs problems, immune system collapse, turbo cancers, … it‘s an endless list.

I warned clot shot fanboys like you not to advertise for these monstrosities … yet the dip shit you are, you not only let yourself be death jabbed, you hastened others unto the cattle cars … you fucking smart ass, dip shit.

The articles discussing your blunder are now uncountable. Here the latest …. You dip shit:

https://expose-news.com/2023/10/01/gov-canada-data-triple-jabbed-have-a-i-d-s/

Fucking idiot!

[um]

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

[Spence Tepper]

Consciousness is the state of being aware. Nothing more. It is not a thing of itself, but a quality attributed to awareness.

You can become more aware or less.

Things like strong emotions, lust, anger, greed, attachment and pride, jealousy, ecstacy and pain can all create inbalance which reduces both objectivity and awareness.

Pure consciousness may just be a condition of a more peaceful mind, balanced mind, less attached mind.

So long as we see from a single point of view, we can raise our viewpoint, see the whole, become aware of more, but all from that single viewer position.

That never disappears. It's us.

[Spence Tepper]

I think that when anyone has an experience of greater understanding, or awareness, they describe it as a special condition. But it is human nature to grow, and to have such experiences. It shouldn't separate us, but bring is closer to our true destiny as more complete human beings. Striving to see, to understand without distraction this moment, we just need to stay close to the moment, and to the compassion for all life that naturally overwhelms us as we become more aware of the condition of our fellow human beings and all life.

[gyan from vedanta]

good explanation of consciousness
and why it's confusing fir people
https://youtu.be/9n6NvDpcwLM?si=9bfm7IjC5LfeY84k

[gyan from vedanta]

consciousness is not personal
what have you smuggled in with it?

watch this
https://youtu.be/PX86zxRAAzk?si=vU2uLqtxs7BKMxW_

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Gyan

The confusion of the speaker in this video is captured in his sentence, "when you understand consciousness is beyond body and mind..."

He presumes consciousness is a thing. That would be like saying gravity is a thing. Both are qualities shaped by the material they are connected to. They have no existence without the matter they are qualities of, though as distinct qualities that can only be understood by experience of that quality.

The difference between one "consciousness and another" is not, as the speaker claims, identification with the physical body. One is a quality of the other.

It is the actual single point of view of the individual. Since they have a specific awareness from one place and time. That awareness can be raised but it is always individual. You can be perceiving from any different level but the perceiver perceives as one single point. This is where the speaker makes a classic error in thinking, by considering the body as a thing separate from thinking and perceiving, while those two are qualities of the body. Transcending the body spiritually is simply perceiving from a finer more universal perspective from within the same body. It isn't becoming anything different than what you are..an individual with many layers connected to the whole. That never changes. You can see from a different perspective, you can raise our point of view, but the sanctity of the individual is always there.

Consciousness isn't a thing. It's a quality of awareness, an attribute of the body.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Gyan
The speaker in the video describes chityanam as the central light from which all thought emerges.

This is a mistake. Chita is just mind stuff, the finer material that shapes and reshapes thoughts. It looks like a living creature. You are not that. Like your lungs or kidneys it is part of the finer body, but still just an attribute of body. The source of thinking isn't the viewer, but another layer to be transcended.

[gyan from vedanta]

i am just a student o this swami,
he seems to know, and goes into great detail
what you say also makes sense.

in this video

https://www.youtube.com/live/DFIEdl4WtX4?si=dnL9TZTGtGERm0KO

at 1h 53 mins someone asks a question about spiritual practice
very interesting answer

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Gyan

At that place the speaker says "If you have learned through Vedanta that Lord is everywhere..."

But we don't learn this through religion. Lord makes us aware of it through one channel or another, can be religion, philosophy or none of those. Lord is behind all religions and who can say which is best? Best for us, individually is our individual belief as it matures. Lord made that. As Lord is making us.

Teachings help but they are culture bound. Reality is another awakening.

[gyan from vedanta]

https://youtu.be/J85Q6T2OGdc?si=r_nkJaFg_y-Of5Oo

23 mins in
he addresses the scientific solution to consciousness vs the vedantic
very interesting

[gyan from vedanta]

https://youtu.be/iHXgRFOOEB4?si=H-AsQu91QEvyj8vr

spira giving his version

does everyone just have their own understanding?

[24 Months Left]

Never heard of “Breer” before but I like what he said here. What does “pure consciousness being the foundation of all have to do with enlightenment?”

Quite simple. Consciousness does not change. What consciousness is aware of, is what change. It (consciousness) remains exactly as it always was, supremely unaffected by what appears to it. A body appears, gets old, gets sick, and dies and yet the consciousness that witnessed this never changed even slightly.

So, how does this end suffering?
What does not change cannot be harmed. What cannot be harmed has no fear, worry, or anxiety. Thus realizing consciousness is the foundation of all, and you are only that, permanently ends all possibility of suffering if you reason it through.