8 comments on “Objects in consciousness

    • Thank you Alex. The fish tank was the first image that came to me. It was useful for the meditation part. Soon enough I realised, as you say, that it’s limiting – just a part of the “one”, which I simbolise with the ocean.

  1. Randomly I opened ‘I am that’ tonight. I haven’t looked at it since I bought it a year ago. Just let it fall open and and read;

    ” ‘Who am I?’ , the answer comes at once, though it is wordless and silent. Cease to be the object and become the subject of all that happens; once having turned within, you will find yourself beyond the object. When you have found yourself, you will find that you are also beyond the subject, that both the subject and the object exist in you, but you are neither. ”
    Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

    How spooky is that? I love synchronicity.


  2. Most respectfully, Dr. Parisetti, I disagree that people are not interested in scientific proof of the afterlife. I think people hunger for it. We are still in the grasp of a mostly materialistic scientific approach to consciousness, etc. But it seems to me, those on the leading edge are beginning to make the links necessary to prove consciousness survives death of the body. For so many, science is their religion…so I think these baby steps are heartening.

    As to your ponderings on objects of consciousness…I’ve read through your essay several times, noticing what bubbles up inside me to respond. Not sure if this is cogent to your thoughts but I will offer this up anyway. In my readings of Rudolf Steiner, he posits the theory that space is time…that all things are occurring now…we are just farther or closer to the event. Seems to me this applies to your objects in consciousness as well.

    Thank you for your work and your thoughts.

  3. Objects-for-a-subject is One’s surface appearance, in endless variety like ever changing facets of a giant diamond, and hence all part of what One is. There is no separation. No ‘I am this and not that’.

    But whatever works for you to allow the mind to come to a halt is just fine.

    Bernardo Kastrup’s endless conceptual wrangling misses the point from start to finish.

    And Nisargadatta can be misleading.

    A quiet mind is all anyone needs.

  4. I read once something that really made sense to me. It was along the lines of the saying that we are all here to learn. Lots of people upon reading this all agreed, but then a wise friend who is a medium and able to go into trance said “that actually is not true, you are here to experience!” That had a profound effect on my life. A whole thinking shift for me. My consciousness already sat down and drew up thoughts and theories of life and now it gets to actually experiment and build them. Some crash and some take flight, but the experience is never lost.
    So…does this all actually exist or is it a product of a mind/consciousness seeking to play in a virtual world? Well I guess I know my answer but that’s the point, we all have to get our own awakening one day. This life? Maybe…but maybe not for most.

  5. But I am not merely an observer with illusory thought forms, am I?. I am consciousness having interactive experiences, aren’t I?
    What happens to meaning or to love when you are left with only a quiet, detached mind? There may be no suffering but what is left? Why not disappear into mist and not live at all? Or is that an option? And if not, why not?

  6. It appears gurus of a very advanced level do exactly that. Removing themselves from most earthly desires. They are still having experiences but watered down without the “muck n gristle” of earthly life in all its glory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *