Shambhu

@Seeker_of_truth Yes, consciousness is the knower when knowledge is appearing to it. Even this can be somewhat misleading. What is really being communicated is that Consciousness is the light by which any object is revealed, so you will hear words like "knower" or "seer" or "witness" ascribed to it.

@Seeker_of_truth You, as Consciousness, are limitless, but knowledge takes place in the mind, and therefore can be limited. If you take yourself as a mind, or try to attribute qualities of the mind to Consciousness, this type of confusion will be inevitable.

@Seeker_of_truth I actually liked this book, and I have worked with Greg in the past. I have also borrowed a great deal from the lineage of Sri Atmananda Krishna Menon, which is the source material for this book. The main thrust of the book is to provide "experiments" so that you can see from your own direct experience, that you never experience anything other than Consciousness. Since representation realism (RR) is the most widely accepted theory of perception, it is addressed directly. You don't even need these experiments to doubt RR. If your experience was actually representative of reality, then it should always appear the same, but it doesn't. A building changes size as you approach it or move away. A stick in a glass of water looks bent, but outside the glass looks straight. These are all long standing problems in philosophy with RR. The more important aspect of this book is to see that you never experience anything outside of Consciousness and that what is experienced is nothing other than Consciousness. You never experience an "outside world." The questions that Greg raised, such as "why can't I see other's thoughts?" is addressed, but not in a direct way. You have to thoroughly grasp the difference between what he calls the "Opaque Witness" and the "Transparent Witness" to get the answer to those questions. Now, Greg's view is not solipsistic. It does give room for other MINDS to have their own experience, but all minds ultimately resolve into Consciousness. The main problem I find in these forums is the confusion between mind and Consciousness.

@Spiral Wizard Even though I do not subscribe to the solipsism that is promoted on this forum, I do not find this video a convincing argument against it. To say that you cannot know solipsism is true unless you have had an experience that invalidates that truth is nonsensical. I do believe there are logical solutions to the problem, but I didn't find any of them here. @r0ckyreed Are you saying that God is one mind? If so, that is just another form of anthropomorphism. If not, that is no more true than saying the existence of more than one color is like saying there is more than one God.

@Batman Yes, I know what you were referring to :-) My statements stand. ...because misidentification can only happen in the mind. Again, the awakening is in the mind. Consciousness is not asleep in any sense of the word. No, only the mind can identify, misidentify, remember or forget. All of those things appear to Consciousness. Yes, awakening is direct knowledge of the true nature of existence, but that happens in the mind. To be even more precise would be to say it happens in the intellect, but I'm afraid by saying that the members here might be confused into believing that I am only referring to an intellectual experience. Tt certainly does not have that quality phenomenologically. In the Direct Path tradition, this is what is called the "Lower Witness" because you are still attributing mental functions to Consciousness. The "Higher Witness" has no such qualities. Ultimately, the mind does resolve into Consciousness, but the words are not equivalent. Just like a wave is nothing other than the ocean, the ocean is not a wave.

@Batman Awakening and sleeping all happen within the mind, so yes, it can have degrees. Imagine being under anesthesia where the mind is "offline," so to speak. Is spiritual awakening even possible in such a state? Having your mind "blown" is still a state of mind. Consciousness, Infinity, Love, God, or whatever you want to call it, never sleeps, wakes, or realizes. It is always completely free of such. Only the mind suffers ignorance and only knowledge can remedy that. The sickness and the cure happen on the same level...the mind.

@GreenWoods I understand that the only disagreement is probably in the use of language, but saying "Self-Consciousness" is like when people order a "chai tea." ? The two words are synonymous. Yes, I understand what is trying to be said, but it still not precise. Understanding is a function of the mind, and that appears to Consciousness. You can have greater or lesser understanding, knowledge, or even realizations, but not Consciousness.

@GreenWoods It appears to me that is conflating mind with consciousness. If something is absolute, it cannot become more or less absolute. The mind has states. Consciousness is that to which states appear.

@Seeker_of_truth I don't know what Leo means, but I agree with you. Since Consciousness is infinite, absolute, and unchanging, it cannot be "more" or "less."

@Girzo The whole time I was in India, I never heard his name or saw his picture. Saw lots of others though. No disrespect...just saying.

@Danioover9000 Reminded me of the first chapter of Sri Atmananda's book, Atma Darshan. 1. Advaita Jivas, like waves in the sea, come into being, rise and fall, fight each other and die. Striking against the seashore, waves recede, tired and worn out, seeking rest and peace. Likewise, Jivas seek the Supreme in various ways. Waves have their birth, life and death in the sea itself, Jivas in the Lord. Waves are nothing but water. So is the sea. Likewise, the Jiva and the Lord are nothing other than Sat, Chit, and Ananda. When waves realize that the sea is their common support, all fight ceases. Much is not gained thereby. This is not the final word. Work lies ahead to remove all sense of separateness. When water is realised, wave and sea vanish. What appeared as two is thus realised as one. Water can be reached straightaway from wave by following the direct path. If the way through the sea is taken, much more time is needed.

@RMQualtrough That sounds like a wonderful experience with valuable insights. Before I was only trying to clarify some terms if you are studying Vedanta. The language is rather precise.

@RMQualtrough While leaves are part of a tree, leaves and tree do not share the same equivalency. Also, there are many leaves, while only one tree. There is only one Brahman, and there is only one Atman; they are the same. This is the meaning of the mahavakya "Ayam Atma Brahma," or "the Self is Brahman."

@Bufo Alvarius In Vedanta, there is a clear distinction between minds and Consciousness. There is only one Consciousness (not many bubbles), but there are many minds. It would be more fitting to say the bubbles are minds within the one Consciousness, but only as an analogy. Now, the question you raised about how to know that other bubbles exist, when all you have access to is your bubble, is a very challenging question. I will say that there are answers to that question, but I don't know how satisfying they would be. Seeing that it is logically possible that other minds could exist might be sufficient, but if you want certainty, then the journey to get there cannot be stated simply within a few sentences.

@Seeker_of_truth Sounds like an excellent start. The "I've got it; I've lost it" experience is rather common in the beginning. Keep doing self-inquiry. Adding meditation to your practice will help in the process as well. Ignorance of our true nature has created our whole world, so it usually takes time to shine light into every dark corner. Until then, keep up the good work.

@Fandango God does not sleep, and therefore, God does not wake.

@RMQualtrough I would agree that mind is a broader term. The sense of self, or ego, is part of the mind. However, mind is not unlimited; it is just an appearing within awareness.

@ChadT The confusion I most often see is this. The individual ego believes it is the dreamer, when it is actually just the dream.

@RMQualtrough I think "bubbles" is just an analogy, meaning that the content of one is different from the other. It would be the same as saying the dinning room is different from the bathroom. "Rooms" are a distinction we make because it's useful, but in actuality, you cannot divide space. It's always a singular whole. That being said, the contents in one room are different from the contents in another room, just like the contents in one mind are different from the contents in another mind. It is the contents which we refer to as mind. The existence or non-existence of time does not logically show that only one mind exist, even if all contents are simultaneously now. There are other, more subtle problems here as well. If time does not exist (and you are correct, it doesn't), then minds do not exist. Time is just a measurement in change, but ultimate reality is changeless. Since by definition minds are constantly changing, if you remove change, you remove the mind. It's not that there is one or many minds; there are no minds at all. This is an absolute view. If we are speaking at the relative level, then we have to conclude there are many minds, just as there are many bodies. Here is another problem. In your current experience of now, which is all there is, how do you even know there was a past. All you have access to is present experience, which includes the memory of the past, but a memory is not the same as the past or proof of it. Since, you have no real evidence for the past, you cannot argue that a past mind is the same or different. One last problem is this. Let's assume there is a past, and because there is a past, there is change. Since there is change, there is the possibility for at least one mind. That much should feel self-evident, since we are thinking. How do you know that the mind from 10 minutes ago is the same mind as you are experiencing now? The contents of the past mind would be different from the contents of the current mind, and they would not share the same time or space. If they are different in every way, to call them identical would violate the law of noncontradiction. The only thing making them appear the same is a current thought that claims as much.

@RMQualtrough There are two ways to argue this, and your logic fails under both. LOL. Replace "minds" with chairs and see if you have some how proved there is only one chair in existence.

@RMQualtrough Ultimately, that is true, but on a relative level, time is needed for change and minds need change to exist. Otherwise, you could not distinguish one thought from the next. So to speak of minds is to speak of the relative level. On that level, the question isn't if the mind now is different from the mind in the past, but is if this mind different from another mind while sharing the same moment.

@Focus What makes you think that non-dual realization will enable you to better navigate the world? At worst it will change nothing, and at best it will dissolve your world ;-)

@Ineedanswers Everything you think, feel, or perceive (sights, sounds, etc.) is all part of your mind. If you were to experience what another was thinking or sensing, that would also be a part of your mind. That which is aware of your mind, is the same as that which is aware of another mind, but that awareness is not itself a mind. If you conflate awareness with the mind, you will have this confusion about the inability to share other's experiences. I have tried to state this the best I can without getting into all the I, no I, you, no you mire.

@IAmAtomical Meditation is both a state and the process used to arrive at that state. The meditation state is the steady flow of attention to one thing. That one thing can be large or small, subtle or gross. It can literally be everything in awareness or limited to just the breath. The process of noticing your attention wandering and bringing it back to your object is called concentration. When the attention is able to remain on the object uninterrupted, it is meditation. When meditation is sustained until the duality of subject and object dissolve, it is samadhi. This is the definition according to Yoga.

@Terell Kirby This is basically correct, albeit incomplete. What is perceived is not the perceiver, as you call it, but it is not other than the perceiver either. In the same way, a wave is water, but water is not a wave. The perceiver cannot be perceived, which would cause an infinite regress, but it can be known. However, that knowledge is also not the knower of it. Ultimately, the knower/knowing/known are artificial distinctions, because there is only one thing (I use that word loosely here). It's like referring to the front and back of a object as if they are two different things, when they are actually just two perspectives of the same thing. If they were actually two different things, I could take the front and you could take the back. I think you are asking the right questions, but I encourage you to contemplate them deeply, with a calm and focused mind. Try to actually realize the truth directly. Be open to whatever is already true, and don't allow previously accepted concepts to color your vision. Keep up the good work though.