Thread: Collective Consciousness

Good one.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Fair enough, I'll try to keep it simple and pointed.

Its a bit difficult to see where to start, so I will just set out here.


I see awareness as a condition that precedes consciousness, something that is distinct from consciousness.

One has to be first aware to be able to consciously work with that which one is aware of.

In the view I have in front of me, awareness is what is all interconnected, not consciousness.

I will stop there lest I get too far ahead of myself.

Any thoughts?

Also, I read up on memes. Very interesting.

Question: Would not the thought "I am" also be considered a meme?

Yes, I agree with all of this except the part about the consciousness not being connected but the awareness is. Awareness to me is the separate and individual part and the consciousness is the connected part. Awareness is merely an absorption of data; which is something that someone can do regardless of whether or not they are the only aware being in the universe. Consciousness on the other hand is based at least in part on the awareness of self, and the awareness of self is based at least in part in another's awareness of our self.

What we think we are is based in part on what others think we are.

Also yes, "I am" is a meme and is an intregral part of the rational paradigm that we operate under. I mentioned this in another thread, but the search function isn't working for me so I will have to find it later.

A room full of people

A table full of hot and cold foods

Music playing in the background

Alll see the same picture

All hear the same sounds

All smell the same smells

All taste the same tastes

All feel the same textures


Yet, each individual breaks down the same awareness into their own uniqueconscious experience of those same sense happenings, same sense awarenesses.

The conscious dissections are quite different one from another. No two exactly the same.

LAbels abound within the conscious mind, yet what is , IS, regardless of the labels. LAbels mean nothing to awareness, only to consciousness.

Your definition of awareness is tainted already as stated by the conscious mind. Stained with differentiation, duality. What I am talking about is prior to the influence of the mind, prior to the dualistic take down by the mind. Till the mind enters into the picture, there is no concept of "data", nor of absorbing it.

This is where I would reference personal meditative experience, and ancient teachings relating to that experience.

The experience arises, but to tell of it, it must arise to the mind, on the mind. And, the telling of it cannot accurately communicate the reality of the experience itself, only point to it. The above is the best words can do to communicate what it is that is trying to be communicated to show the independant connected nature of awareness and the split up, relative, isolated nature of consciousness.

All said, the is a certain connectedness to the consciousnesses, but that connectedness stems from, and through the awareness. Consciousness of its own, is isolation, isolation in need of a catalyst or medium to connect. Awareness is that medium.
Actually there must be two mediums. The second being a thought or idea upon the consciousness to "stimulate" the connection.


Consciousness is like many individual balls floating on the water of awareness, rising up and down in the waves. The balls are sometimes carried together, sometimes carried apart. It all depends on the circumstances of thw flow of the water and movement of the waves.

If there is oil on the water( the stimulus), then the balls can get covered in the oil. They can then stick together as seemingly one unit if viewed from afar. Yet, they are all still individual balls when one looks closely.

Do you see whats being said here?

How is consciousness like balls on water? I see how you are aiming to describe it, but I don't see the connection you are making between your description and the world around me, aside from your desire to describe it that way.

How exactly do you know that everyone in the room is aware of the same things, and in the same way, without a conscious communication of that awareness?

Awareness is a one way communication. You may say that my "definition of awareness is tainted... by the conscious mind" and yet you seem to feel like you can exclude yourself from that same admonition. You are right, awareness defies labels. As soon as you try to verify that you are aware of the same things as someone/something else, you are no longer talking about awareness but about perception. Awareness is such a lonely act, that I can't even be sure that anything else in all of the world is even aware at all.

The only way that I can see awareness as a connected thing is in the sense that I need another 'thing' to exist in order to be aware of anything, but one could still make the argument that it is possible to be aware of the lack of other things.


Also, I would just like to point out that if one looks close enough, everything appears to be discrete and individual. Looked at close enough, a society is actually made of separate individuals, and the individuals are made of separate organs and the organs are made of separate cells and the cells are made of separate molecules and the molecules are made of separate atoms and the atoms are made of separate protons and electrons and neutrons and those are made of separate quarks...

I'm sure you get the point. All of those things can be said to form cohesive wholes, even though we actually know what their separate parts are made of. We don't even know what consciousness is, and so I don't see how you expect to make the claim that you know what its specific qualities are or that it only exists at the level of human individuals. For what I know of it, I would make the claim that our parts are conscious to a degree just as soon as I would make the claim that those things we are a part of are conscious to a degree.

Whenever I see news reports (on television) about these internet phenomena the idea of the internet as its own discrete entity is cemented in my mind because these reporters always refer to it as such without really meaning to. They have no other way to do it, since there is no individual who is 'anonymous' or whatever and so in all of our minds it becomes this extra human thing that is spreading star wars kid or whatever else.

When they say "the internet is being blamed for such and such'. That always makes me grimace. As they are on very thin ice in terms of suggesting global responsibility for everything. It is more or less saying. Everyone we are all to blame for this particular problem. They get around this by trying to suggest that it's the technology that is at fault. Rather than the people using the technology.

So there is a massive issue coming up about what is consciousness. Since everyones individuality is now being joined together by the internet. We realize and are more aware of taking part in something larger and more powerful. Since it is more powerful and influential than us individually we are going to want to try and understand it and overcome it so we are more in control and equal to it. If that is to be done each and everyone must be integrated and understood to the degree where it can no longer be distinguished as individual minds. Then what happens?

By the way Xaqaria you are really thinking honestly about this way ahead of the game it's awesome.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How is consciousness like balls on water? I see how you are aiming to describe it, but I don't see the connection you are making between your description and the world around me, aside from your desire to describe it that way.

Its not a desire to describe it that way, its reaching for a way to communicate the experience, or the knowing of the thing in a way you can grasp the concept.

The water of the ocean itself is the substrate, the " notingness that the world around you arises from, a living essence that is aware, yet not itself conscious. The waves on the ocean are the world around you and all the material things and occurrences in it. The balls floating on the surface of the waves are the many consciousneses.
The oil on the surface that coats the balls and makes them stick together is likened to thoughts and ideas that stick one consciousness to another. IE politics, religion, social groups, beliefs, etc etc.
Currents and flow in the water are likened to events and occurances that drag individuals around bringing them together or pulling them apart.

How exactly do you know that everyone in the room is aware of the same things, and in the same way, without a conscious communication of that awareness?

Put 20 people in a room painted with a shade of paint that is kind of inbetween two distinct colors and then put some objects in the room. Everyone will be aware of the room and wahts in it as a whole. They will see the same picture, the same sight.

Take them on a one on one basis and get as conscious descripion of what is seen. You will likely get 20 slightly different descriptions.

Take and get 20 more people and show them the same room. Then ask them as a group for a description. The tendancy will be that they will discuss among themselves and come to a more uniform collective description as opposed to the desriptions presented by the first group. Do the experiment and see what happens. Could be fun and interesting.

Awareness is a one way communication. You may say that my "definition of awareness is tainted... by the conscious mind" and yet you seem to feel like you can exclude yourself from that same admonition. You are right, awareness defies labels. As soon as you try to verify that you are aware of the same things as someone/something else, you are no longer talking about awareness but about perception. Awareness is such a lonely act, that I can't even be sure that anything else in all of the world is even aware at all.

Thats right, on all acounts here. As soon as one takes and begins to relate or describe what is seen in simple awareness, the description itself taints what is seen.
There seems to be a point where the mind is in an empty state, allowing the awareness to be known without being tainted by duality, or differentiation of that which is known. Without corrupting the experience, this empty nature, or state of the mind allows the experience to be realized.
As soon as the mind begins to fill with thoughts on the awareness, the tainting begins. Very subtle, very fine lines here.

The only way that I can see awareness as a connected thing is in the sense that I need another 'thing' to exist in order to be aware of anything, but one could still make the argument that it is possible to be aware of the lack of other things.

If there is noting, no movement, then there can be no awareness at all. This goes back to a point I made quite sometime back as motion being the ground state of all things percieved.
Living things arise in existance and evolve to the point of being conscious. This seems to be the studied case. The level of consciousness seems also to be an evolving thing. It is the consciousness that allows for , or make possible the recognition of awareness. While the awraeness is always there, it takes the conscious mind to realize this, or become self realized or self aware. Seems to be how it all unfolds anyhow.

Also, I would just like to point out that if one looks close enough, everything appears to be discrete and individual. Looked at close enough, a society is actually made of separate individuals, and the individuals are made of separate organs and the organs are made of separate cells and the cells are made of separate molecules and the molecules are made of separate atoms and the atoms are made of separate protons and electrons and neutrons and those are made of separate quarks...

Interstingly though, is that the emptiness that all this arises from or on is a whole to begin with, or so everything seems to point to.

I'm sure you get the point. All of those things can be said to form cohesive wholes, even though we actually know what their separate parts are made of. We don't even know what consciousness is, and so I don't see how you expect to make the claim that you know what its specific qualities are or that it only exists at the level of human individuals. For what I know of it, I would make the claim that our parts are conscious to a degree just as soon as I would make the claim that those things we are a part of are conscious to a degree.

Just making observation within my own experience of living as I am. Any claims I would make are merely for my own reference, not really something I would demand others see themselves. People must see each fro themselves the things I am looking at. Such is not an understanding that can be handed to someone else with some outside proof to show it. Its all centered on ones own awareness, and conscious perception. There is noting else to really work with here. Thats why metaphor is used as it is. Pointing to other "things" in existance " and there relationship to one another is the closest thing to communicating the ideas as one can get in most of the cases.

You still have yet to show me how your oily balls description is anything more than a personal fantasy. Like I said, absolutely nothing in the world around me suggests anything remotely resembling the metaphor you are describing, and so without some evidence I would have to conclude that it doesn't apply to the real world.

Also, you haven't shown me how you expect to know exactly how others are aware in the same way that you are. Your perception of their awareness may seem comparable to your own, but that is all you can ever have; your own perceptions. You can give me no proof whatsoever that we are all aware of the same things or in the same way when presented with similar stimulus. Asserting that they see the same thing is a gross assumption on your part.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You still have yet to show me how your oily balls description is anything more than a personal fantasy

It is a shame that communication lacks so, that I cannot get the point across. How you are seeing and how I am seeing the subject of this whole topic is so very close in my view, yet in yours such the same comparrison seems, by your comments, miles apart.

The simple problem is that you are seeing the collective aspect as consciousness, while I see it as awareness. The rest of your take on the collective and the aspects thereof, I do generally agree with however. Its just this one point of contention. The only difference in those spects is that the mechanics of the process work a little differently with awareness being the source of the collective.

I cannot "hand you external proof" to the subtle yet simple premises I hold to, or see. Those premises are describe in book such as the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao, numerous books and teachings relating to Dzogchen, Advaita, Sufism, Gnosticism, the Kaballah, and so on and so forth.
Awareness as so described has to be experienced on your own consciousness to be able to grasp or taste it. I cannot do it for you.

There are great reasons for speaking in metaphor and esoteric ways. That reasoning is that arguing tends to push individuals away from looking into themselves for the answers. Of those who read such, the ones who are ready find meaning, those who are not find nonsense and jibberish.

I can take being laughed at and ridiculed, because I am there laughing with you. Just as I can take the wide eyed interest from those who see what is being described as I am there sharing their interest with them also. It is profound.


Dont be too quick to knock me off my perch, as where you are perched and where I am perched are right there close together. Close enough that you will be knocking yourself over as well. Though at this point you dont seem to be able to see that.

NonDualistic do you think I understand what you are saying?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

NonDualistic do you think I understand what you are saying?

The only requirement is that you see it for yourself beyond needing my asessment. Without such you really cant understand just going by someone elses words or description. One must taste it for themselves, which is beyond the need for anothers approval. Which is where I am coming from in my description of it.

Its not a matter of convincing anyone from my point of perception. Its more a matter of picking ways of describing it that best convey what it is I am seeing, so others may eventually find it within their own seeing.
All I am doing is pointing at it, and that just doesnt make the cut in someone else actually "knowing" what it is that I am describing.

You tell me..?

Now ask me the same question.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

Minervas Phoenix do you think I understand what you are saying?

YES

In my language, awareness and consciousness are the exact same thing. We only have one word for it, "Bewustzijn". In german it's "Bewusstsein". I don't think philosophers make a difference between awareness and consciousness.. Care to explain the difference?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

In my language, awareness and consciousness are the exact same thing. We only have one word for it, "Bewustzijn". In german it's "Bewusstsein". I don't think philosophers make a difference between awareness and consciousness.. Care to explain the difference?

Awareness deals with experiencing "what is"

Consciousness deals with recognition of "what is"

"I recognize a bunny walking over there"
"I experience the sight of a bunny walking over there"

the exact same thing.. I still see no difference, only different words.
And all the german philosophers ever lived didn't either because they only had one word for it..

Are you sure there really is a difference?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

There are great reasons for speaking in metaphor and esoteric ways.

I completely agree, I even believe the best way to explain something to someone is through metaphors. Take the allegory of the cave of Plato for example. Even if you don't understand right away, the image will easily stick in your head, and full understanding may come even years later.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

"I recognize a bunny walking over there"
"I experience the sight of a bunny walking over there"

the exact same thing.. I still see no difference, only different words.
And all the german philosophers ever lived didn't either because they only had one word for it..

Are you sure there really is a difference?

The sight of the bunny walking over there is experienced

This happens prior to any thoughts of "I" or "bunny" or "walking" or "over there" or any other differentiating, judgemental, discerning nature. The consciousness is not yet at work.

When the thoughts of "I" or "bunny" or "walking" or "over there" or any other differentiating, judgemental, discerning nature enter into the seeing, this is the consciousness, the conscious mind, entering into the awareness, arising on it. This is the recognition of distinction, of seemingly seperate individual components.

Experiment with your own sight, or any of your senses for that matter. Look at it yourself and see. Watch your own mind, center on the awareness and see the gap between being initially aware and the arising of the conscious mind.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

It is a shame that communication lacks so, that I cannot get the point across. How you are seeing and how I am seeing the subject of this whole topic is so very close in my view, yet in yours such the same comparrison seems, by your comments, miles apart.

The simple problem is that you are seeing the collective aspect as consciousness, while I see it as awareness. The rest of your take on the collective and the aspects thereof, I do generally agree with however. Its just this one point of contention. The only difference in those spects is that the mechanics of the process work a little differently with awareness being the source of the collective.

I cannot "hand you external proof" to the subtle yet simple premises I hold to, or see. Those premises are describe in book such as the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao, numerous books and teachings relating to Dzogchen, Advaita, Sufism, Gnosticism, the Kaballah, and so on and so forth.
Awareness as so described has to be experienced on your own consciousness to be able to grasp or taste it. I cannot do it for you.

There are great reasons for speaking in metaphor and esoteric ways. That reasoning is that arguing tends to push individuals away from looking into themselves for the answers. Of those who read such, the ones who are ready find meaning, those who are not find nonsense and jibberish.

I can take being laughed at and ridiculed, because I am there laughing with you. Just as I can take the wide eyed interest from those who see what is being described as I am there sharing their interest with them also. It is profound.


Dont be too quick to knock me off my perch, as where you are perched and where I am perched are right there close together. Close enough that you will be knocking yourself over as well. Though at this point you dont seem to be able to see that.

The thing is, I've studied many of the same texts that you are referencing, and yet I still do not interpret them, or the world in the ways that you are. Personally, I would say Atman corresponds to our current understanding of awareness, and is the inner witness that we all have that experiences the world of appearances, where as Brahman is the collective consciousness that gives us the ability to consider that which we are aware of once we accept our ideas of the world through individual awareness as fabrication.

Honestly, I would think by your name that you would believe that awareness and consciousness are two aspects of the same thing, based on the texts that you list.

Awareness, collective unconscious/conscious, Brahman; what preceedes self is what unites all entites and comes before the individual.

Consciousness (ego, self) nontheless exists.

Is the ultimate goal to abandon self, to deny that it is?

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Awareness, collective unconscious/conscious, Brahman; what preceedes self is what unites all entites and comes before the individual.

Consciousness (ego, self) nontheless exists.

Is the ultimate goal to abandon self, to deny that it is?

I don't understand your question, partly because I don't agree with your premise and partly because I can't see how it pertains to the topic. I don't see how any of the concepts we are discussing can preceed any of the others since they do not exist in terms of a timeline in relation to eachother, and also no one is currently arguing that one should abandon self or that it is an ultimate goal of anything.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't understand your question, partly because I don't agree with your premise and partly because I can't see how it pertains to the topic. I don't see how any of the concepts we are discussing can preceed any of the others since they do not exist in terms of a timeline in relation to eachother, and also no one is currently arguing that one should abandon self or that it is an ultimate goal of anything.

I asked this question in response to what has been discussed about awareness and consciousness, particularly to what NonDualistic has stated about the concepts and about self. NonDualistic's theory reminds me of the concept of nothingness in relation to Buddhism. Sorry for disrupting!

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Awareness, collective unconscious/conscious, Brahman; what preceedes self is what unites all entites and comes before the individual.

Consciousness (ego, self) nontheless exists.

Is the ultimate goal to abandon self, to deny that it is?

Yes ...and No... I will explain shortly

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't understand your question, partly because I don't agree with your premise and partly because I can't see how it pertains to the topic. I don't see how any of the concepts we are discussing can preceed any of the others since they do not exist in terms of a timeline in relation to each other, and also no one is currently arguing that one should abandon self or that it is an ultimate goal of anything.

I understand it without the slightest hesitation.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The thing is, I've studied many of the same texts that you are referencing, and yet I still do not interpret them, or the world in the ways that you are. Personally, I would say Atman corresponds to our current understanding of awareness, and is the inner witness that we all have that experiences the world of appearances, where as Brahman is the collective consciousness that gives us the ability to consider that which we are aware of once we accept our ideas of the world through individual awareness as fabrication.

Studying them, sifting through them with the conceptual mind, is quite different than living them, seeing what they are talking about at work within yourself.

Honestly, I would think by your name that you would believe that awareness and consciousness are two aspects of the same thing, based on the texts that you list.

True, everything is interconnected. Everything is all one, non dualistic in nature. However everything does work together with a certain degree of "mechanics" involved.

Just like a car, you can lose yourself in individual systems. Not being aware of the rest of the car you would not really get the picture of how the components themselves function in relationship to the whole of the car.
As you expand your awareness and then your conscious understanding of the whole car, you begin to see just how each sytem interacts and functions within the whole.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Awareness, collective unconscious/conscious, Brahman; what preceedes self is what unites all entites and comes before the individual.

Consciousness (ego, self) nontheless exists.

This is directed towards both InvisibleWoman and Xaqaria...it is how I see all of this within my own experience , within my own Self.

Xaqaria, you may not be disposed to what I am about to say, but nonetheless..



Self and the individual always are, always were, and always will be. Such is beyond the confines of time. Time itself is contained within this One.

Self as such, has no opposite, no other. There is no need for consciousness to breakdown the view as such as all is One within the view, within the awareness. Therefore there is no thought of "I", no thought of "me" , no thought of "mine.

All there is , is a subtle feeling to the tune of Self, as if everything seen within the view is yourself without any driving need or urge to recognize as such. Nothing compelling to split up or differentiate.

As the existant universe expands and grows, as living things begin to take shape, the capacity for consciousness to arise grows. As physical life takes shape and evolves, the single pointed awareness is split off into the senses of the body, much like light is divided into individual colors when it goes through a prism.

The awareness shines through the living body, and as consciousness develops into higher and higher capacities for recognition, a certain self awareness takes shape. Such is an individualistic identifacation set apart from the whole, no longer recognizing the whole through its now limited view, or limited, divided, separated, perception. The newly formed consciousness merges with the awareness into a "seemingly" single structure. "Seemingly" , because the consciousness "hides" the truly independant nature of the awareness.

This totally cut off from the whole, individualistic perception, this individualistic indentity is what I call self(lower case s). It is the basis of the ego manifestation. It is an unavoidable by product of consciousness arising in living things.

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Is the ultimate goal to abandon self, to deny that it is?

It is not to deny that it is, but rather to recognize it for what it is and see its limitations. See that it has its beginning and its ending. To recognize that consciousness is not what it( self) is, but that consciousness is the prize, the "spoils of war" that go to the victor.( Seismosaur inadvertantly pointed this out to me a while back)

"self" is born and self dies. If consciousness is left in control of the self, is left grounded in self, then consciousness also "dies" with the self. However, if Self ( uppercase s) reaches Self -awareness through the consciousness, ie becomes consciously aware of Self as Self, then there is the opportunity to re-ground the consciousness in Self rather than in the self. This is the heart of "enlightenment". To give consciousness continuance above and beyond the ego sense, that the consciousness can be allowed to continue to expand and grow. To reach higher and higher levels , gradually intertwining with the one pointed awareness. To Realize that every indiviudal consciousness as such will ultimately, in its yet own unique way find the same ONE destination in the end.




This is where it comes close to a "collective" consciousness. The point at which the consciousness merges or intertwines with the "collective awareness". But even then the consciousness is not truly collective as it is itself still uniquely individual in a way. Very difficult to put to words. What I have said thus far does not even begin to adequately or thoroughly communicate what is sitting in front of me in this view, in the moment.

NonDualistic, you seem willing to say, "this is how things are" but reluctant to say "this is why I think things are this way" or "these are the reasons why I think this".

Its easy to say, "I understand without the slightest hesitation" or that you've "[seen] what they are talking about at work within yourself" but if you can show no evidence of your understanding through explanation, then their is really no use for it beyond your own personal gratification, is there?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

To Realize that every indiviudal consciousness as such will ultimately, in its yet own unique way find the same ONE destination in the end.

If this is the case, what do you see as the point of a person's "unique way" or rather of individual consciousness?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

NonDualistic, you seem willing to say, "this is how things are" but reluctant to say "this is why I think things are this way" or "these are the reasons why I think this".

Its easy to say, "I understand without the slightest hesitation" or that you've "[seen] what they are talking about at work within yourself" but if you can show no evidence of your understanding through explanation, then their is really no use for it beyond your own personal gratification, is there?

Thats about right, but its nothing to do with a "egotistic" personal gratifacation. its more to do with constantly moving in the direction of realization, speaking and writing about it as one goes, not only explaining to others what is beeing seen, but learning as well form ones own explanations as they are being written.


It is obvious that verbal/written explanations only go so far. For those who have had the meditative realizations, such use of words does go quite a bit farther than with those who have not. Such is like trying to explain to a bicycle mechanic who has never seen a car, how to rebuild a car engine. Without him experiencing a car first hand, how easy is it going to be to tell him about a car, much less work with one?

Everyone, is capable of such realizations, there are no exceptions. But as the Dahli Lama indicated, such can take vast stretches of time, Eons was the word I believe he used. WHich in itself means many lifetimes., not just the one most all think there is to the experience. How many people are ready to get past that concept alone?

A persons mind is the greatest asset, but it is also the greatest hinderance. Patience is a necesity, especially patience with ones own self.