@@rickdeckard1075, isnt it so amazing how time is the breadth by which we, as humans, have our being?! if I think of this existing for only a few minutes, I sense that the openness of Consciousness is timeless!! Time, in fact, is as illusory as all of this, but serves its perfect function.... to reMIND me of what I truly am~ I have a suspicion that Im clueless- as the human- as to how Majestic this experience is....;)
39.17. From the view point that Consciousness is an emergent process of the brain,the brain emerges from..is part of the Universe and therefore it is the Universe in final analysis, which is the reality that perceives.... Excellent Francis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i used to think the works of parmenides was lost to time. apparently not, this excract is enough to let us know the core of his teaching. I am going to transcribe that 'oxford' translation francis read out, and post it here
Thank you, Francis. What the question boils down to - if universal consciousness is simply a belief since it cannot be proven or even grasped being beyond thought, feeling , perception, much like a belief in God, could you define that belief as a form of religious sentiment?
What you don't have proof for is the separateness of a particular body. Only mind is capable of making such distinction of me mine, not mine and so on. In this sense the term universal exists only in relation to the contrary claims of limited individuality and has no meaning outside of that. Just a conceptual tool to extract a belief. Not a new belief to be added. The onus is on the one who believes in such separation to prove it. I mean if one is going to be so cerebral, then it's best to apply that to ones own preconceptions. That's a good use of discrimination. Otherwise, one is an insincere fence sitter and asking the wrong questions rarely leads anywhere
Francis, later in the video you imply that the belief in universal consciousness is a rational belief, unlike the story of the Virgin, but many religious people would say exactly the same about God. Many of the biblical stories are metaphorical or symbolic in nature.
Eyal. Are you conscious..? The answer is "Yes". Right? In other words: Consciousness exists and since you are conscious of Consciousness, you are Consciusness. That is all. In other words: Consciousness is not a rational belief, metaphor or symbol. It is an experiential fact.
Here's my take! The story of the virgin is specific and defined - they may believe that story literally, and therein lies the issue of evidence and rationality. But 'God' is not so easily defined. Metaphor and symbol, along with the concept of God, can be taken seriously without losing rationality, because what is pointed to may actually be evidenced (via what I think Francis called a 'non-phenomenal' experience.) Such an experience can't be described objectively, hence the use of symbol and metaphor to 'evince' rather than describe. Is belief required for this? Clearly not, though perhaps some faith is required. For example, faith that the simple experiences of love that Francis relates are expressions of our true identity - because we may also have beliefs that try to convince us they are incidental, or even meaningless. That faith is rational, and whatever draws us to it is rationality itself and that (as the Logos) has been called God.
Am I conscious? Medically speaking, once I have electrical activity in the brain and nervous system which creates thoughts feelings perceptions, then yes, I am. Some of my thoughts are self-reflective. Psychology teaches us that the more introverted we are the more self - reflective we become. But once you elevate consciousness phenomena or experience to the status of non-objective, non -phenomenal, empty and ungraspable by mind-body, fourth dimensional experience you immediately enter the realm of belief, faith, and religious sentiment. Rupert Spira speaks of a different kind of knowing but it sounds more like a play of words. Have you tried turning attention on itself and experience awareness which is beyond all thoughts, feelings, sensations? Experientially, there is nothing there.
You say: Have you tried turning attention on itself and experience awareness which is beyond all thoughts, feelings, sensations? Experientially, there is nothing there. Response: How do you know there is nothing there..? Because you are experientially conscious of the fact that there is nothing there. Right..?
"But once you elevate consciousness phenomena or experience to the status of non-objective, non -phenomenal, empty and ungraspable by mind-body, fourth dimensional experience you immediately enter the realm of belief, faith, and religious sentiment." That's not what's going on. As Francis made clear in the video, what you are criticising is a specific after-the-fact 'take' on what's going on. And your criticism is another take. The reality spoken of does not manifest this way. If meta-cognition is involved, it's not the kind that lands on specifics (that's what is meant by 'empty', non-phenomenal, etc.) It doesn't require analysis and it doesn't have to be linked into a metaphysical framework. The only problem is that people appear not to see it, hence all the struggle to convey it, the conceptualisations that are so easily misunderstood, myth, woo, etc.
I like Francis a lot. But in all honesty these Americans ask questions about things that have nothing to do with what Francis is advancing here. My guru Ramesh Balsekar would have said who cares about what someone has said about love or the absence of love and it’s outcomes. It’s just his concept, you can either agree with it or not agree with it …who cares ?
I find Francis quite irritating, along with Rupert Spira. Just sayin' is all! I don't know, but isn't the idea that consciousness is one just as conditioned as saying it's separate? And if you say so, they just come back with "Well you have to experience it to know." Somebody ought to bop them on the nose! See how they react to that! Ha! BOP!
