This resonates with me, but I think the most interesting part of the “hard problem” discussion often gets missed.
The debate usually becomes: does consciousness arise from matter, or does matter arise from consciousness? But that framing still keeps everything at the level of abstraction.
The line from the Gospel of Thomas — “how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty” — points to something much more experiential.
If consciousness really is primary, then the real question becomes: why would something vast appear through something so limited?
Maybe limitation is exactly the mechanism that makes experience possible.
Without a body there’s no sensation, no emotion, no relationship, no time. Pure consciousness might be infinite, but infinity alone doesn’t create contrast. And without contrast, there’s nothing to actually experience.
So embodiment might not be consciousness trapped in matter. It might be consciousness articulating itself through constraint.
In that sense the “poverty” of the body isn’t a downgrade from spirit — it’s the very thing that allows the “wealth” of consciousness to show up at all.
I wonder if it can’t be conceived as cyclical, paced, rhythmic, versus linear. Borges touched upon this ‘nature of consciousness’ in The Circular Ruins, if you aren’t already familiar with this piece, it’s a great read.
Hi Patrick, I found the sentence “But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders” truly beautiful. It reminded me of the process of learning how to live in this world after awakening to other dimensions of reality - or to our soul’s path - the process of “bringing heaven to earth.” Beautiful.
This resonates with me, but I think the most interesting part of the “hard problem” discussion often gets missed.
The debate usually becomes: does consciousness arise from matter, or does matter arise from consciousness? But that framing still keeps everything at the level of abstraction.
The line from the Gospel of Thomas — “how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty” — points to something much more experiential.
If consciousness really is primary, then the real question becomes: why would something vast appear through something so limited?
Maybe limitation is exactly the mechanism that makes experience possible.
Without a body there’s no sensation, no emotion, no relationship, no time. Pure consciousness might be infinite, but infinity alone doesn’t create contrast. And without contrast, there’s nothing to actually experience.
So embodiment might not be consciousness trapped in matter. It might be consciousness articulating itself through constraint.
In that sense the “poverty” of the body isn’t a downgrade from spirit — it’s the very thing that allows the “wealth” of consciousness to show up at all.
Patrick, you keep moving the needle in the direction of ultimate awareness or consciousness.
You wrote: “…In this view, consciousness is the ‘space’ in which the physical world is perceived. The physical world appears within awareness rather than awareness emerging from it…”
Then might we ask what IS this “space” if awareness is consciousness?
Hi John, thanks for another thoughtful comment. The non-dual perspective is constantly making concessions to language and our dualistic experience of the world (the appearance of separation). That’s the trouble of presenting a model that exists prior to subject-object relations - we are waves believing ourselves separate from the ocean.
The ‘space’ is a metaphor. I’m not proposing another thing or substance with the term. I like to think of it this way; just as our awareness allows experiences, sensations and thoughts to arise within it, space allows objects to appear within it. Awareness (the ‘space’) is the field in which experience occurs.
Another way I try and think about it is through (my limited knowledge of) quantum physics, which suggests that the universe is fundamentally composed of fields. In quantum theory, particles are activities in underlying fields rather than tiny solid objects moving through space. Matter feels permanent but at a deeper level, atoms are mostly empty space. It's like ripples on the ocean (particle activity), or perhaps an iceberg; something appearing solid but it's really just a pattern of waves momentarily held together.
I'd like to get to grips with the scientific side of things more at some point, because the more lectures I watch, the clearer the parallels seem between what great spiritual teachers and religious texts were pointing to and what modern science is beginning to describe.
Patrick, you always offer so much for me to think about. I am deeply appreciative of this opportunity to learn from you, and also present my views and perspectives, incompletely formed as they are.
You explore some quite interesting points about space, awareness, and indeed, first causes even. Your choice of words is telling. Our awareness (infused by God?) “allows” experiences, sensations and thoughts, and space “allows” objects to appear within It. Does this imply the existence of a Prime Mover, God, Ultimate Consciousness or the “Supreme Being,” whose very existence allows us “created” beings of matter and spirit to grasp what we actually are comprised of (certainly not just atoms), who we are in in relation to other human beings and our universe, and what is the actual purpose of this matter/awareness that has been (allowed) to become a home for a soul? Is it all guided and purposeful? Is everything conscious fields of energy and vibration. Is is all ultimately benevolent and eternal?
I think certain scientists are rapidly catching up with these ideas, and reluctantly, but humbly, allowing themselves to be encompassed by quantum theory and physics and the new paradigms that come forth from that, corroborating the wisdom of the ancients.
Long before I knew anything about the ideas of Kastrup, Hoffman, Koch, Chalmers and others, I started to read a book published in 2001 titled, “The Hidden Face of God: How Science reveals the Ultimate Truth” by Gerald L. Schroeder, who also wrote “the Science of God.” These titles seemed rather provocative at the time, but I avidly read 40 pages of the book and made many notations. Then I put it aside. Now 25 years later, it cries out to be finished or at least continued, and I plan to do that.
At the same time I am going to start “Irreducible” by Federico Faggin, which I am very excited about and wonder if you’ve read.
This resonates with me, but I think the most interesting part of the “hard problem” discussion often gets missed.
The debate usually becomes: does consciousness arise from matter, or does matter arise from consciousness? But that framing still keeps everything at the level of abstraction.
The line from the Gospel of Thomas — “how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty” — points to something much more experiential.
If consciousness really is primary, then the real question becomes: why would something vast appear through something so limited?
Maybe limitation is exactly the mechanism that makes experience possible.
Without a body there’s no sensation, no emotion, no relationship, no time. Pure consciousness might be infinite, but infinity alone doesn’t create contrast. And without contrast, there’s nothing to actually experience.
So embodiment might not be consciousness trapped in matter. It might be consciousness articulating itself through constraint.
In that sense the “poverty” of the body isn’t a downgrade from spirit — it’s the very thing that allows the “wealth” of consciousness to show up at all.
I wonder if it can’t be conceived as cyclical, paced, rhythmic, versus linear. Borges touched upon this ‘nature of consciousness’ in The Circular Ruins, if you aren’t already familiar with this piece, it’s a great read.
Thanks for this, I haven’t read. Will do so
Hi Patrick, I found the sentence “But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders” truly beautiful. It reminded me of the process of learning how to live in this world after awakening to other dimensions of reality - or to our soul’s path - the process of “bringing heaven to earth.” Beautiful.
Yes it’s an incredible one
It seems to me to be a most compelling argument for the existence of God.
🙏
Have you read Julian Jayne’s book: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?
No, but thanks for the suggestion, I’ll look into it
This resonates with me, but I think the most interesting part of the “hard problem” discussion often gets missed.
The debate usually becomes: does consciousness arise from matter, or does matter arise from consciousness? But that framing still keeps everything at the level of abstraction.
The line from the Gospel of Thomas — “how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty” — points to something much more experiential.
If consciousness really is primary, then the real question becomes: why would something vast appear through something so limited?
Maybe limitation is exactly the mechanism that makes experience possible.
Without a body there’s no sensation, no emotion, no relationship, no time. Pure consciousness might be infinite, but infinity alone doesn’t create contrast. And without contrast, there’s nothing to actually experience.
So embodiment might not be consciousness trapped in matter. It might be consciousness articulating itself through constraint.
In that sense the “poverty” of the body isn’t a downgrade from spirit — it’s the very thing that allows the “wealth” of consciousness to show up at all.
Patrick, you keep moving the needle in the direction of ultimate awareness or consciousness.
You wrote: “…In this view, consciousness is the ‘space’ in which the physical world is perceived. The physical world appears within awareness rather than awareness emerging from it…”
Then might we ask what IS this “space” if awareness is consciousness?
Hi John, thanks for another thoughtful comment. The non-dual perspective is constantly making concessions to language and our dualistic experience of the world (the appearance of separation). That’s the trouble of presenting a model that exists prior to subject-object relations - we are waves believing ourselves separate from the ocean.
The ‘space’ is a metaphor. I’m not proposing another thing or substance with the term. I like to think of it this way; just as our awareness allows experiences, sensations and thoughts to arise within it, space allows objects to appear within it. Awareness (the ‘space’) is the field in which experience occurs.
Another way I try and think about it is through (my limited knowledge of) quantum physics, which suggests that the universe is fundamentally composed of fields. In quantum theory, particles are activities in underlying fields rather than tiny solid objects moving through space. Matter feels permanent but at a deeper level, atoms are mostly empty space. It's like ripples on the ocean (particle activity), or perhaps an iceberg; something appearing solid but it's really just a pattern of waves momentarily held together.
I'd like to get to grips with the scientific side of things more at some point, because the more lectures I watch, the clearer the parallels seem between what great spiritual teachers and religious texts were pointing to and what modern science is beginning to describe.
Patrick, you always offer so much for me to think about. I am deeply appreciative of this opportunity to learn from you, and also present my views and perspectives, incompletely formed as they are.
You explore some quite interesting points about space, awareness, and indeed, first causes even. Your choice of words is telling. Our awareness (infused by God?) “allows” experiences, sensations and thoughts, and space “allows” objects to appear within It. Does this imply the existence of a Prime Mover, God, Ultimate Consciousness or the “Supreme Being,” whose very existence allows us “created” beings of matter and spirit to grasp what we actually are comprised of (certainly not just atoms), who we are in in relation to other human beings and our universe, and what is the actual purpose of this matter/awareness that has been (allowed) to become a home for a soul? Is it all guided and purposeful? Is everything conscious fields of energy and vibration. Is is all ultimately benevolent and eternal?
I think certain scientists are rapidly catching up with these ideas, and reluctantly, but humbly, allowing themselves to be encompassed by quantum theory and physics and the new paradigms that come forth from that, corroborating the wisdom of the ancients.
Long before I knew anything about the ideas of Kastrup, Hoffman, Koch, Chalmers and others, I started to read a book published in 2001 titled, “The Hidden Face of God: How Science reveals the Ultimate Truth” by Gerald L. Schroeder, who also wrote “the Science of God.” These titles seemed rather provocative at the time, but I avidly read 40 pages of the book and made many notations. Then I put it aside. Now 25 years later, it cries out to be finished or at least continued, and I plan to do that.
At the same time I am going to start “Irreducible” by Federico Faggin, which I am very excited about and wonder if you’ve read.
I’ll have to look into that book, thank you, John!