We all have a consciousness, and we take this obvious fact for granted. But what is the function of this consciousness? Is it simply "us," in which case we don't have a consciousness, we are consciousness. Or is consciousness nothing more than memory, the record of all that has affected us in life? What is the relation of consciousness to the present, now?

max

Conciousness is awareness informed by memory, and the problem with conventional conciousness is too much information. We're conditioned to be more knowledgeable than sensitive.

I have no clue what consciousness is except the biological definition of being awake as opposed to being asleep. I want to see some more replies before I can comment. I do think that Nick's definition as I reread it is insightful. The idea that being awake when we are aware is then filled with memory which comes from whereever it comes from is quite an intriguing concept. I like: the conditioned state is more one of too much knowledge as opposed to sensitivity which would be the state of being conscious but not having thought to overload it.

Great topic Max with no solution having been found yet. What is a thought? Maybe thought is the definition of consciousness, yet thought has no location except in the mind which is not consciousness but just thought. Surely, consciousness has a physical representation which is beyond thought which has no reality except to the person who is thinking the thought and that is always a representation in a language, which language is learned and cannot be anything more than learned.

This must extend to self consciousness, then. Which is the illusion that there is a thinker. But the thinker is a thought which means that consciously I am no more than a thought. But this takes us back to Nick's statement that consciousness is awareness with informed memory and that memory has been informed with the fact that the consciousness is itself the "I" which then may be too much information or actually the wrong information. So the knowledge that we or I am conscious is a conditioned response based on a biological fact that we are awake and aware. I agree...TMI...

Nick,

Consciousness has to be 100% concerned with the past. It's not possible to be conscious of something unless it has already happened. In effect, to be conscious is to remember.

Awareness and observation are the present--the immediate present. Both awareness and observation appear to have very little need for consciousness and memory. Is it possible to be aware and observing while one is conscious (remembering), or does consciousness "come back" afterward?

max

ok..now we are getting down to definition...if consciousness is only the process of memory and as you say, Max, it is just the past and is just something we remember...if it has nothing to do with the present or awareness then consciousness doesnt even exist..it is dead...it is memory which is non locateable...so what then would be the purpose of consciousness? Why would we need thought at all? Perhaps for communication? that is language is consciousness and nothing more? or vise versa consciousness is language...I told you I have no clue what this is...

max greene wrote:
Or is consciousness nothing more than memory, the record of all that has affected us in life?

Max Sir, I am conscious of my thoughts and they are coming from memory. But I am also conscious of my body,its needs,its sensations.These do not belong to the category of words, images and symbols( memory). So, consciousness can not be only memory. We may have to understand different levels or degrees of consciousness.Those organism that do not have proper nervous system are also interacting with their environment and hence are conscious.

Regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Phil,

". . . so what then would be the purpose of consciousness?"

That's it exactly. That's what the topic is: what is the function of consciousness?

Consciousness deals totally with the past. It has absolutely nothing to do with awareness and observation, and as a matter of fact hinders observation. Consciousness appears to be mostly memory and the "I" (and it has been pretty well established that the "I" is illusionary). So is consciousness just another name for memory?

max

Dr. Sharma,

"I am conscious of my thoughts and they are coming from memory."

Are you conscious of your thoughts, or are you those thoughts? At the moment of thinking, in the act of thinking, you are the act. Consciousness and the illusionary "I" come after.

All that we know has been created and is therefore already the past. In this sense, all that we know is memory.

It would appear that we, as living beings, mostly observe and think. We observe to bring our surroundings in to us, and we store these observations as memories. We think in order to recall these memories and "re-member," or reconstruct (only as an image, of course), the past. These are the two basic things we do. What part does consciousness, a third thing, have in this? Is it only to support and propagate an individual "I"?

max

Conciousness is an ongoing relationship between the past and the present. One is awareness (the present) informed by memory (the past). This is observable at any moment. Conciousness as we know it, however, is memory over-reacting to awareness due to fear. You can't function without being informed by experience, but too much information, superfluous information, causes dysfunction.

.Ok...its time for a little help...Here is a quote from Torey's book The Crucible of Consciousness page 4:
"Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon. It is impossible to specify what it is, what it does or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it. Sutherland (1989) The Dictionary of Psychology"

Now that should tell us that we ain't going to figure it out here. However, Torey goes on to say we must clarify terms, and he talks about "reflective awareness" rather than "conscious awareness or consciousness" In essence then Sudhir is bringing up the point of what do we really mean. He talks about consciousness of his memory but also consciousness of his body etc.

So K said the content of consciousness is consciousness and this would be your definition I would think, Max. In other words, when content is working which is memory and this would be all memory not just words then that would be consciousness and not the other state of observation or awareness. The latter would be your statements you have made about being in the now.

If I am conscious of my body, I cant even be using the word "I" at the moment because there would be knowledge of being conscious. So that kind of consciousness has to be observation before the memory identifies and says "I hurt." Now we must be somewhat careful because there is no such thing as being alive without some kind of memory. I don't see without memory filling in the blanks. This is a biological fact. I am not sure what being brain dead means but one would hope that this is the state of complete loss of consciousness that we are talking about.

So to define what is the function of consciousness, we would say to be alive for the ordinary consciousness, but for the consciousness of content that would be simple because without memory we would not move from point A to point B. Now what about reflective consciousness where we see thought. Is that needed? Well, why not? Hasn't the ability to see thought allowed us to manipulate thought as all animals manipulate the environment. This is not a quality of other animals. Torey says all mammals are aware, but none appear to be aware of thought.

You know, Max, I think this is the subject that drives people to nervous breakdowns. So lets ask if the problem is not necessarily seeing thought or having thought (I think we beat up that poor guy who said he was getting rid of thought completely), but isn't it when the ?I? takes credit for this entire process; yet it is just a thought itself? So whatever the cause in the human evolutionary process that we developed something different from the animals, isn't it just how we have interpreted it within its own system that has caused any problems with it?

One other thing. Is it possible that this whole development is just a function of advanced language which is used for communication and a shift to control by the left brain and language consciousness over the body as opposed to right brain control? If so we could say that the content of consciousness is language and eliminate other memories. This then takes care of the thinker is a thought but not the observer is the observed. Sorry, I just had to throw the brain in there.

opps...Nick snuck in a reply while I was typing...he said "Conciousness as we know it, however, is memory over-reacting to awareness due to fear." I think this is the state of conditioning defined perfectly.

This post was last updated by phil K Mon, 16 Nov 2009.

Max Sir, some very important points are becoming clearer to me .

max greene wrote:
At the moment of thinking, in the act of thinking, you are the act.

Or one can say that there is only the act of thinking? Use of 'you' only confuses the issue.

max greene wrote:
All that we know has been created and is therefore already the past. In this sense, all that we know is memory.

I will appreciate a reply as regards to the consciousness of body, its needs,their fulfillment and sensations emanating from body. isn't observing my own body a different act, quality wise, than observing any other body? Could it be possible that higher centres of the brain are not needed for this level of consciousness? What you describe later on as 'observing' is directly showing these (not through memory).

max greene wrote:
It would appear that we, as living beings, mostly observe and think. We observe to bring our surroundings in to us, and we store these observations as memories. We think in order to recall these memories and "re-member," or reconstruct (only as an image, of course), the past

So, observing, per se,will be 'formless' , essence of thinking will be'silence' and 'emptiness' could apply to both.Is this right?

max greene wrote:
What part does consciousness, a third thing, have in this? Is it only to support and propagate an individual "I"?

Another important question will be 'Why did it become necessary , in the first place, for consciousness to come in to being? What role is it playing in propagation of life?

Thank you very much in staring a very good topic.

Regards !

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Phil,

" So that kind of consciousness has to be observation before the memory identifies and says "I hurt." Now we must be somewhat careful because there is no such thing as being alive without some kind of memory."

Consciousness is always of that which exists or is past, and observation is now. It doesn't appear possible to "consciously observe" anything.

Memory certainly seems to be an attribute of being alive, just as awareness, observation, and all other actions are exclusively attributes of living. But what is consciousness? It is very difficult to separate consciousness from identification and individuality.

Consciousness seems to be part and parcel of individuality. Actually, however, the "individual" may be totally a myth. To illustrate: When we observe, at the moment of observation, now, there is only the act of observation. There is no consciousness of an individual--and if there is, it is not clear observation. When we think, at the moment of thinking, now, there is only the act of thinking--and once more, if there is consciousness of an individual, thinking is distorted.

So the individual comes into existence only when consciousness itself exists. There is observation and thinking apparently totally free of the individual. "Living" probably doesn't need consciousness--but to exist as individuals consciousness appears necessary. Consciousness seems to be the raison d'etre for the individual.

max

Dr. Sharma,

Thinking, observing--all action, no matter what it is--if "done properly," that means with the full involvement of the living being, will have no element of individual consciousness in it. All energy has gone into the act. In this sense, the individual simply doesn't exist.

Why did consciousness come into being? This is a question none of us may be able to answer. It's like asking, why is their life or existence in the first place. All that can be said is that consciousness appears to have a lot to do with individuality.

max

Max Sir, allow me to summarise what is so far clear to me.

At any moment (Now) man can be in two states.One, observing, acting and thinking( As a living being). Secondly, as individual consciousness when what has been recorded is remembered.It is always the past that can be remembered.

Sir, what is the relationnship between these two channels of existence in man? If consciousness can not touch living movement, then isn't vice-versa also true? If a man could live only in the active present, then what would be his life like? He may be a gainer on some fronts but a loser on others.Then whatever important is deficient in his life, not allowing that deficiency to occure could be the functions consciousness is performing in us. Please throw some light on this.

Another question that arises is 'Why, how and where the energy flow shift from 'living' to 'consciousness' level and the other way around ?Are both the states present in the brain? If you could connect this shifting to 'love' , I will be grateful.

Regard !

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr. Sharma,

"At any moment (Now) man can be in two states.One, observing, acting and thinking( As a living being)."

Seems to me living has only one state, and that is the state of action. Living is action, energy. Observing and thinking are actions. (How does consciousness fit in here? Is it just thinking in another guise?)

It's true that the past cannot touch the living moment. However, the past can always be recalled into the living moment, but only as an image, by thinking. We do this all the time--and the present gets distorted by images from the past.

"If a man could live only in the active present, then what would be his life like? He may be a gainer on some fronts but a loser on others.Then whatever important is deficient in his life, not allowing that deficiency to occure could be the functions consciousness is performing in us."

These are important points. Consciousness might be something necessary, from the standpoint of evolution, as a survival tool.

"If a man could live only in the active present. . . " The active present is the only condition under which life and living is possible--wouldn't you say that this has to be true? What makes us believe that we are not living in the active present? Why are our minds closed to this obvious fact?

You brought up the question of love. I don't know what to say about it. Maybe it's another thing that is there but our minds are closed to it.

Why are our minds closed to these things? Is it that we are so tied up with consciousness that we simply aren't free to be aware?

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 17 Nov 2009.

Max you said this earlier: ?Consciousness is always of that which exists or is past, and observation is now. It doesn't appear possible to "consciously observe" anything.? Now I would like to throw something out there for consideration.

Here we have definition problems. Consciousness must exist to live and observe and in this case the two could be used together. Now the question is ?Can I observe with memory operating at the same time- memory being from the content of consciousness.? I think the answer is yes but can man observe and function simultaneously with memory if the illusion of ?I? exits. Well, now lets see what happens in this case. I observe something and memory identifies the thing (content of consciousness working). I keep observing even after the identification because I am aware at the moment of memory operating; i.e. I have no illusion that the thought that is appearing at the same time as observation of a thing is as real as the thing being observed. Then the thing is not the word nor is the object the image I have. What happens then. Absolutely, nothing unless there is a self which then creates the separation in the thinking process. So the process would be with the self existing in the content of conscious of an individual: observation of an object then identification then if asked one says....?I see that!? In this is the illusion and the separation from the object.

Max, thought and image are observable simultaneously with the object. I think this is a phenomenon of the brain and reflective thinking. I don't think this can happen with the self because it always interfers with the thinking as being the thinker.

Max Sir, please consider the following-

A. Living is the state of action and thinking is an action in 'now' moment.

B. Past can be recalled in to living moment, but only as an image, by thinking. So, this image is actually formed in the active present (now).

C. You have, at other times, emphasised the fact that living moment is ahead or before everything else. If thought is also being formed in the active present, then living moment is ahead of what ? Won't there be nothing that is following it ? Could it be possible that the totallity of energy is flowing in two channels-one superimposed on another ?

After you have responded to this, there is another part of your post I would like to discuss further. Thanks for all the clarifications.

Regards !.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Both breathing and consciousness are born with the body.The function of consciousness is to complete "PRARBDHA-KARMA"(accumulated activities of past lives)in conjuction with the breathing in the body. When the "karma" is completed,the body dies,consciousness and the conjoined breadth vanish away into
"SPACE".

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Krishnan,

What do you yourself see here? We're hoping for original observation and thought on the subject. Maybe we can all learn something.

max

Phil,

I wonder if there is that which we call an "individual" at all. In the moment there is living, which is action, and these are not differentiated. The individual, if we are determined to have one, can be said to be the action.

Is it possible, in the moment, for there to be two actions, so far as the individual is concerned? In other words, can the individual think and observe in the same moment? I can answer only for myself, and in my case I don't seem to be able to do this.

It appears that when we speak of the "individual" we are picturing a conscious being--a consciousness. But consciousness is far down the road from the action of living. The illusion of "I" might extend to include all of consciousness. The real individual (as I say, if we are determined to have one) is the action, the living, that is in the moment, that is now.

max

Dr. Sharma,

Your A and B parts look to be what I'm saying. As for C, the moment, now, is not in increments. It is not a series of points. It can't be. It is a flowing constant present. Action takes place only now, obviously, but there can be, is, and must be sequence to action in the flow of now. For example, we observe something for a few minutes. This is sequential action within now.

I wouldn't say the energy of living is split into two channels. I can't see now as being anything but a shoreless sea or a borderless field. Anytime we talk about a split we are talking about a gap. If there is a gap in now, what is it?

max

Speaking for myself, Max, I can do that as long as we have our terms the same.

max greene wrote:
What do you yourself see here? We're hoping for original observation and thought on the subject. Maybe we can all learn something.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

max greene wrote:
What do you yourself see here? We're hoping for original observation and thought on the subject. Maybe we can all learn something.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Max,
This is my observation.This body of mine is bound to two things:1.Breathing.2.Consciousness when I am awake or semi-awake.This consciousness is completely absent when I am in deep sleep,though my breathing ciontinues.When my body dies, from observing others die, I believe my consciousness and my breathing vanishes or disappear from my body,I assume,
Whatever I plan in my life with my consciousness operating as an individual mind is never complete, my free will is of no use because out there, flows the strong currents of an Universal Consciousness. So I assume it is my "karma" to be bound to this boidy/consciousness/breadth.Please do not assume I quote some holy saint here. This is my simple observation through my life. Your repeating of the "NOW" does not lead one anywhere. Drumming up the now is stuck up within a moment/locus/. Look beyond.... See the wide Horizons,...

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

This post was last updated by Krishnan Srinivasan Wed, 18 Nov 2009.

But Krishnan, wouldn't you say that now is real? We are living now. That's all I'm saying.

Then the very reasonable question arises, can we define this now. Is it something like your Universal Consciousness, or is it something else.

max

max greene wrote:
wouldn't you say that now is real? We are living now. That's all I'm saying.
Then the very reasonable question arises, can we define this now. Is it something like your Universal Consciousness, or is it something else.
Yes, NOW is a moment of all enclosing energetic point of time that is actual and intense.It can include my individual consciousness into the universal consciousness if i focuss on it.It includes all "prabanjas"/all universes.The little "I" is lost.Awareness persists at the moment.And that is eternal JOY!
Witnessing all that continues the pre-ordained fate of "this little individual" until DEATH/Ending.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Krishnan,

Yes, "now" includes all that exists--as you put it, "all universes." And all that exists includes living organisms such as you and I and all that is non-living, such as the minerals and everything that has been constructed by man.

But there is a tremendous difference between the living and the non-living. That which is alive is capable of acting, of taking action, whereas a non-living thing is totally incapable of taking action on its own.

You and I are living and able to act, and any action we take will always be now since it is impossible to act in the past or in the future.

As living beings, it appears that we are directly connected to now. We are not "little 'I's' but only as we limit ourselves. What do you say to this?

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 19 Nov 2009.

yes we are connected.With my Indian background, i am afraid I am not for any action except being a WITNESS.i.e. watching,observing, accepting,waiting for my END/DEATH. I abhor the so.called-samaritans.I have tried to be one in my life and found it fruitless.So action is banned for me.I simply abide by the fate that is drawing me to my Death through the medium of my consciousnes/Breath/living in the NOW.Persons like SRI RAMANA MAHARSHI ,Nisargadatta , and others all say:JUST BE(HAPPY)-because you are in the form of GOD.To be just witnessing all that goes on until the end comes is the motto here on EARTH. NOTHING TO DO.
EVERYTHING IS DONE BY HIM/HER RESIDING WITHIN YOU:UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS.do not fragment it into "mine" etc.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

now now

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.