Chakra Superstar wrote:Mmmm… I think I may have confused you? The stained-glass metaphor was solely to do with the clarity of the mind: it’s ‘stained’ by beliefs (including non-duality beliefs) or it’s clear in its open, naked innocence.
I get it. It just reminded me of my theories of mind. I would describe the stain glass window metaphor as a mix of the window model and the system model. The window model aspect is maintained in the fact that light from the outside still gets through but it has the aspect of the system model in that part of what's getting through (the color) isn't from the outside but artificially added as it passes through. The system model of consciousness takes the artificial aspect and runs all the way with it, saying it's all artificial, that there
is no light coming from the outside, that it's
all stain glass generating its own light (so more like a television screen than a stain glass).
Actually, I normally wouldn't use the term 'artificial'. I don't actually believe the system model of consciousness generates a 'fake' reality. The light is still real. It's just coming from within, not without. It's more a theory of what consciousness is rather than what reality is.
This is one of the reasons why I'm so curious to know what the experience of enlightenment is like. I want to know if I'd be able to chock it up to just another experience--a very special and unique experience, but not something undeniably
more than experience. If so, it could be considered just another system of experiences projecting itself as reality. It would still be a very special experience and perhaps the one we're all seeking. Maybe enlightenment is not so much a "waking up" but a "finding". A finding of that special state of consciousness that finally satisfies our deepest spiritual longings and brings to rest our perpetual psychological struggle with ourselves and the yearning for happiness. After all, we always feel like we know reality now, that we've "woken up" to the truth compared to the ignorance and naivety we used to live in when we were younger. If only I knew then what I know now, we say. Isn't this just the way consciousness is? Doesn't consciousness always project its beliefs and ways of experiencing the world now as raw reality? If the experience of becoming enlightened is like waking from a dream, wouldn't the same be true of the enlightened state we enter into? Wouldn't we say, like we'd say of any other mental state we enter into,
now I see reality for what it is? And we might feel that we have arrived at the final resting spot on our journey simply because we are satisfied with where we are, and wish to stay here, and wish to show others the way.
It would still be a wholy worthwhile state to strive for, and not necessarily illusory (if you take my concept of consciousness generating its own light seriously). It would also explain a great deal of cases of seemingly spontaneous enlightenment, or cases of individuals who seem naturally enlightened all the time.
Chakra Superstar wrote:The Universe-First model (materialism) says: In the beginning, there was nothing and from that nothing, something appeared (Big Bang universe) then, from that something (aka matter), consciousness appeared. In other words, consciousness comes from matter.
The Consciousness-First model (non-duality) also says: In the beginning there was Nothing (No-thing/the Absolute/Para Brahman) but what came from the Absolute Nothingness was the relative somethingness: aka Consciousness -- which in turn gave birth to (or dreamed up) the dream world we appear to exist in.
In other words, matter -- and everything else in this dream/virtual reality -- is created by Consciousness somewhat similar to how consciousness (little ‘c’) seemingly creates the dreams we have every night.
Yeah, the consciousness-first view is very much like my system-of-experiences view. In fact, as a panpsychic and idealist, I don't believe there was ever a time when there wasn't consciousness (though there was a time when there was no matter, no physicality). The Eastern idea of "nothingness" or "emptiness" has always entrigued me. It contrasts, from what I understand, with the Western idea of nothingness/emptiness in that it tries to say it's really somethingness but a somethingness that can't be thought of as something. It's like it's not something but not nothing either--it's something inconceivable, something that falls outside all intelligible categories. (which seems like cheating to me).
And you call the something that came out of the Absolute Nothingness
relative somethingness. What does 'relative' mean? It is only something
relative to the Absolute Nothing?
Chakra Superstar wrote:But these bodies feel real and they feel conscious, right? Yes, but when you’re dreaming at night, your dream body feels real and your dream body feels conscious, but is it? Do the imagined, non-existent dream characters have their own individual consciousness, or does it all come from the one, single source – the dreamer’s consciousness?
This is the Advaita/non-dual Conscious-First model. It states that every 'thing' comes from Consciousness ("non-dual", "all is one"). There's just one source that flows through all the universes whether they be material, energetic or spiritual universes.
I can agree with the "one source" idea, but I've always had a problem with the all-is-illusion idea just because it's projected by consciousness. I think consciousness
gives reality to things. Which means you could say things are
invented, but invention isn't always synonymous with fake. We regard the dream world as fake only in relation to the real world we wake up to. It's fake only because our consciousness isn't projecting it anymore. But at the time, it could be regarded as real. This jars our ordinary way of thinking about things because it forces us to conceptualize the waking world and the dream world as both real at the same time, but without an adequate concept of "reality" that can accommodate both. This is why I'm a relativist. I find that relativism, with careful use of language, sorts out all the confusion and contradiction. We don't have to say the dream world is real and the waking world is real at the same time, but that relative to what I'm experiencing now, the dream I had last night is fake and the world I see around me now is real. But at the time, the dream world was real for me, and the waking world was, well, it was non-existent for all intents and purposes. And I think absolute reality is fundamentally relative (ironic choice of wording, I realize). That is, there is no such thing as "the" truth--only truth according to someone, or some source, or at the end of the day, experience. This doesn't make truth any less real than Einstein's relativism makes motion unreal. The idea that relativism implies unreality is a misconception. The whole point of relativism is to offer an alternative to saying: this is real but that is not. It is to say: the reality of this or that depends on something (a person, a standard, a frame of reference). But at the end of the day,
something has to be real--for me and my theories, it just depends on experience.