i think i have been alluding to basically the same experiences and states of being that you have, but have yet again gotten sidetracked by words and their assorted meanings for each individual. i went out and contemplated this morning, and that which guides me walked me through some important points.
in my essay "the present moment" i discuss what being present is to me - and it seems to me that it is the same definition of what you refer to as "pure consciousness", only in slightly different wording. i describe it as a passive witnessing where the mind brushes up against form, but does not define or describe it. the witness simply is, and the form simply is. i do perceive form as being separate from the witness as explained in my other essays regarding mind being a part of the active principle, and form being a part of the passive principle.
but in my contemplation i recognized what "empty of concept" meant. for me it is when you can just be (witness) but there is no reaction to form, or defining going on. it is like the consciousness housed in my body simply brushes against the consciousness (or lack thereof in regards to non-sentient form) housed in whatever form i am witnessing. another way of expressing it would be i hear, but am not listening - and i see, but am not looking. there is no outward focus on the object, but there is a witnessing of it just being it.
that said, if my perception of the term is correct, then that has been the base of my state of being for the past four years since awakening to the moment. i still will experience through my form other forms when it is called for in my expanding self awareness. but in pure consciousness there is no experiencing taking place - it is simply being here now. in order for me to evolve in awareness however, i do have to experience in form. so although pure consciousness may be the ideal state of being, exploring as Self, which leads to evolving Self awareness, requires me to "do here now", utilizing the sensual vehicle that houses me.
i think that may be why i balked at the idea of pure consciousness being an ideal. it is necessary in order to awaken, but there is much more exploration that emerges once a Self is lucid in the world of matter. that is why i often refer to awakening as the beginning of Self awareness - where unconsciousness was the (little "s") self awareness.
i do think that the pure consciousness as referred to by us is not the same state as consciousness existed in pre-experience & pre-evolution of 10+ billion years ago. that was mind prior to having any awareness of itSelf, whereas pure consciousness is mind with its history of expanding awareness intact, but with its relationship to form in an awakened state.
experience is not a mental conception, would you agree or disagree with that view?
experience as i most often use the word is a verb - to experience. however i do think mental conception requires experience to happen - a Self requires experience in order to evolve to
Self awareness (the journey prior to pure consciousness being realized) and in
Self awareness (the journey once pure consciousness is realized).
we all experience this pure consciousness, however, not all beings recognize it as such.
i would say that most do not ever come to recognize it at all. a distraced tittilated mind is an easy thing to waste.
the active and passive principles seem to be very Taoist in nature, at least what you've described thus far.
so i have been told...those taoists must be on to something then if they arrived at a similar awareness as i did with my direct guidance...hmmm, maybe the active principle is a taoist?
we cannot accurately describe any experience, let alone one as profound as the dissolution gross levels of consciousness. our words are approximations that we try to conform to the reality which we experience
in my essay "the active & passive principles & self" i mention that Self cannot look back at itSelf, but can only experience through form, so we do not appear to have any disagreements there. again the wording tends to trip me because i get so much flack for my usage - the price of arriving solo without pre-formed pre-packaged ontologies. i do think we can get an approximate description of experience however, as long as both parties (as you allude to) can find a usable language for sharing. after all, our defining has led to an enormous amount of evolution in Self awareness as experiences are pointed towards using words - some disciples have managed to translate enough to progress.
i'll let Paul Tillich describe his concept for himself.
i would rather hear it from you, in your own words. when you quote paul you leave the conversation...and it is your experiences and perceptions that most interest me. if i want to know paul's i can go buy his book. i value your impressions most when communicating directly with you.
it seems rather obvious that my opinions are mine though if you'd like that i state that more often, i'd be happy to comply.
i am thinking of those who are reading our dialogue. it is always a wonderful teaching tool to remind everyone that no matter what the subject matter is, when discussing the metaphysical subjectively that it is conjecture & speculation. sometimes i think people forget that, and should be reminded that even the most learned among us use the same guesswork as the beginner does, but with perhaps more information. it might help to dissolve debates into dialogues to remind that truth (otherwise than factual objective) is mutable and subject to change with expanding awareness.
it would also appear that you consider consiousness to be an epiphenomena of matter
consciousness evolving is a product of mind and body (Self and a sensual vehicle). consciousness itSelf is principle (active principle) - but in its primal state was unaware of itSelf. a Self without a dream is a flatlining Self.
why would you think that? however.. it is not the "expansion" of conciousness that drove this from our view, rather, the limiting of conciousness that dictated form.
what is that saying?...oh yeah, necessity is the mother of invention. as awareness expands, a more complex vehicle would be required to house it...our physical brains contain that journey with lizard > mammal > pre-frontal lobe layers. our fetus' make the same journey (i think i once read that somewhere that the human fetus goes through some rather similar appearance changes in its 9 month development - perhaps someone could expand on this for me who is more knowledgable).
so.. the "I" is an imputation by the mind of a solid, self-sufficient entity onto an ontological reality which does not conform to the imputation?
could you run that one by me again in layman's terms? are you forgetting my daftness?
are you asserting that only if something can be conceptualized that it is an experience?
an experience takes place within form - no form, no experience. it is a relationship between the Self and a thing (or even another Self). experiences can always be conceptualized by the Self , because it takes place within form.
the experience of eating an orange is beyond conception
concept = a general idea or understanding (esp one derived from specific instances or occurances). that says to me that concepts are understandings based upon experience (either my own or someone else's). so you are saying that the experience (action) of eating an orange is beyond understanding? i still say you might have an attachment to the passive principle hiding in your concepts somewhere - because that is what it feels like to me - i am experiencing (verb) form (the orange) as Self, and you are having an experience (noun) of form (the orange) as Self.
i see. perhaps, you should gain more experience
the idea of buddhists being attached to concepts (other people's boundaries) is something i have experienced many many many many many times online (my only access to buddhists so far in my life). i don't need any more experiences to verify that generality - however, the wording i used was incorrect - it should have read "buddhists" and not "buddhism".
oh? did you believe that you had a self before your spiritual experiences?
well i had heard it said before here and there in my life, but thought those people needed to cut back on the bong a bit...now i know bongs had little (to nothing) to do with it...
indeed.. the subject/object dichotomoy is resolved in the awakened state in Buddhism.
could you clarify this a little bit? in my awakened state i know that i am separate from all form (that whole "Self from active, form from passive principle" stuff i keep blabbing on about). is that what you mean?
perhaps you've misread. all physical forms, no matter the species, have evolved through the kalpas
no i read it right. did the human body emerge after say the apes, or did the apes and algae and humans all evolve together from the beginning? i'm not sure why the question - which is based upon our current theories regarding evolution - can't be answered with a yes or no, but is always danced around. does buddhism say specifically that the human form evolved from apes which evolved from....etc etc - or does buddhism just mention that forms evolve (which would not denote knowledge that the human form is new on the big scene). that is not the question i asked - i specifically ask whether they know humans are late on the scene or not, and not whether they know of evolution as a generality.
homosapien sapien was not the first human.
no, but as defined as "aware that they are aware" they would be "us", and not the post-apes, pre-us of before. since we are chatting about Self awareness i like to begin with the at least partially lucid.
the various gods and goddesses were the first ones to fall from the gate of pure consciousness.
well that would fly in the face of evolution theories of course, which suppose a trek from simple to complex in form. but i always hold such creation myths in light of the intellect of the times and general ignorance of the physical universe as cute leftovers of the dark ages. evolution remains unidirectional.
ah ha! now we get to the heart of the matter.
don't get too excited..."last" should read "latest". given my views on the evolution of consciousness you should know i do not think the human form is the last to emerge - was just a typo. i allude to future subtler forms housing consciousness in several of my writings.
what's an "r & p"?
religions and philosophies. i just didn't feel like typing it twice in the same paragraph...i was getting tired by the time i got there.
do something nice for yourSelf tonight...and thanks for the chat...