[estearum]

I see this comment nearly every time consciousness is brought up here and I’m pretty sure this is a misunderstanding of contemplative practices.

Are you a practitioner who has arrived at this understanding, or is it possible you are misremembering a common contemplative “breakthrough” that the self (as separate from consciousness) is illusory, and you’re mistakenly remembering this as saying consciousness itself is illusory?

Consciousness is the only thing we can be absolutely certain does actually exist.

[syawaworht]

Phenomenal consciousness as being raised here, and probably in most people's minds, is probably taken to be the self or at least deeply intertwined with the concept of a separate self. The article tries to define it left and right, but I think most people will look at their own experience and then get stuck in this conversation.

"Consciousness" in the traditions is maybe closer to some of the lower abstraction proposals put out in the article.

I don't think the idea of illusory is necessarily the right view here. Maybe most clearly the thing to say is that there is "not" self and "not" consciousness. That these things are not separate entities and instead are dependently arisen. That consciousness is also dependently arisen is probably more contentious and different traditions make different claims on that point.

[metalcrow]

As a very beginner practicer i've come to that conclusion myself, but how can the two be separate? If there is no self (or at least, there is a self but it exists in the same way that a nation or corporation "exists"), how can there be something to experience being? What separates the two?

[syawaworht]

My own experiential insight is not definitely not complete, so of course the guidance of a master or of course your own direct practice should be preferred.

But to the extent I have observed awareness, the idea of an entire "experiencer" is an extrapolation and fabrication. See how you generate that concept. And then, look closely at what's actually going on, there is "consciousness" of the components of the aggregate. (Maybe not dissimilar to some of the lower level mechanisms proposed in the article).

[metalcrow]

> the idea of an entire "experiencer" is an extrapolation and fabrication

Ok, makes sense.

> look closely at what's actually going on, there is "consciousness" of the components of the aggregate

Interesting. I'll try, but i would have to wonder what it means for some sort of element of the mind that cannot experience to nevertheless have consciousness. It's very confusing, especially without a good idea as to what to look for in regard to consciousness. I'll attempt this though, thank you.

[syawaworht]

Yea it's quite confusing and subtle, but there is something there. I'm not a teacher so I don't know how to phrase this to address where you are coming from, but I will say in general, our first reaction is to impose mental frameworks and preconceptions to try to understand things. Kind of what your first inclination is ("element of mind"), and of course the article and many of the posts here.

But I think it is all talking in circles, when the experiential truth can be directly observed (through practice). So I absolutely want to encourage your seeking.

[saulpw]

Personally I differentiate between 'awareness' and 'consciousness' and that makes it a bit clearer for me. Awareness of the 'suchness' of existence is what you're saying is the only thing we can be certain does actually exist. All the other "consciousness" things--self, self-awareness, thoughts, feelings, desires, even the senses themselves--are deconstructible into illusions.

[estearum]

Ehhh subtle but I'd say it's the suchness itself is what is guaranteed to exist. Awareness of the suchness falls into your latter category of "just a mental object."

[saulpw]

How do you square that with your statement above:

> Consciousness is the only thing we can be absolutely certain does actually exist.

Unless the "consciousness" that you're talking about is the same as the suchness? Is the distinction that the suchness is somehow conscious/aware but not "conscious of itself"?

[estearum]

> Is the distinction that the suchness is somehow conscious/aware but not "conscious of itself"?

Yes, that’s correct

There is experience itself (“suchness”), and one possible object that can exist in that experience/be experienced is the idea that one is a “self.”

But you can also have experience that does not have within it the sensation of “self.” So they must be distinct.

[saulpw]

Okay, I think that's basically the distinction I was making between 'awareness' vs 'consciousness'. I guess it's not workable, since 'awareness' does not seem to communicate that concept well even to someone who knows the distinction.

[syawaworht]

Agree with this.

[empath75]

> Consciousness is the only thing we can be absolutely certain does actually exist.

A lot of philosophers would disagree with this.

[estearum]

Yeah sure, it's irrelevant to my actual question which is whether GP thinks consciousness doesn't exist or whether they're mistakenly replacing consciousness for self.