What is Consciousness? Is Consciousness Being? Is Creation ‘but’ a Dream?

 What is Consciousness? Is Consciousness Being? Is Creation ‘but’ a Dream?

By Giorgio Piacenza

The utmost degree of Being includes Consciousness of itself because Consciousness also …is. Ultimately, it’s the junction of Being and Knowing and Absolute Consciousness is Actual, therefore, Absolute Being.

We could say that Consciousness is Being knowing itself. In fact, nondual Consciousness is Consciousness-Being. Consciousness is Being, and Being is Consciousness. Together. One.

A clue here could be that Consciousness is the capacity to experience its own Being. That Consciousness is the capacity to experience itself as Being. Alternatively, that Consciousness is Being’s capacity to experience itself.

Being is Consciousness’s self, the very own reality self of Consciousness experienced as itself or – in the case of the illusion of separation - as something (some ‘thing’) outside of itself.
In the second (“contingent”) case, Consciousness limits itself in order to experience in a manner subjected to a relationship with its own potential objects and AS IF they were outside itself. Its ultimate experienced freedom as unlimited Being is self-curtailed by investing part of its own Being in the appearance of objects… as if they existed outside of itself.

Limited, subjective, particular, contingent modes of expression of Fundamental (nondual) Consciousness (or, more precisely, “Consciousness-Being”) would be the capacity to experience things AS IF they were other than Fundamental Being. This would take place under the illusion of separation, including an experiential separation from its own Being. However, in essence, that subjective, limited, experiential consciousness (or particular subjectivity) would never be separated from itself, either as Fundamental Consciousness or as its own Fundamental Being.

Regarding Panentheism: Ultimately, nondual Consciousness-Being would infinitely transcend its own experiential investment in things as if such things were outside itself or as… in a dream. Only nondual Consciousness-Being transcending and including its own distinctions can be and not be its own contingent dream or manifest illusion or… creation.

But, is a dream the dreamer?... so that manifest, relative nature or cosmos (in all its multiple levels and dimensions) is compatible with a Panentheist (perhaps, in a sense, Spinozan) view of God? Or is the “dream” a separate creatio ex nihilo (without the creator needing anything outside or other than Himself to create)? It could be BOTH. How Much did the dreamer invest himself in that dream? How much did the dreamer invest Himself experientially speaking in that dream? Does he have to in order to sustain the dream?

Perhaps “God” (as simpler term for Nondual Consciousness-Being) would be limited and not limited by his own dream or creation. And this dream, manifestation, or creation would depend on God for continued sustenance, much as a dream depends on the dreamer.

Furthermore, from our finite (but also intimately connected) perspective as conscious subjectivities participating in Consciousness-Being, God’s nonduality would not be a mere product of organized physics, nor a neutral guiding but unconscious intelligence or even an infinitely lonely conscious entity needing to create in order to discover or entertain itself. Lacking nothing, and as the Source of all relative …created expressions of Being, in fact, as “All That Is,” he, she, it would possess what we call a “will” and freedom to create.

As nonduality itself, God, would have all the supreme characteristics of Being as an impersonal “it” or as universal, creative, organizing “force,” a universal mind, like Brahman is sometimes understood or, perhaps, as an organizing principle or “logos”. But, lacking nothing it would also be free and possess personal choice. This Ultimate would be like the Buddha Mind Essence of the Maha Madhyamika (Jonangpa) tradition, the only real entity that is not ultimately empty; a completely free Tathagatagarbha but with a Will, inasmuch as we can understand the meaning of such a Will from a limited subjective perspective.

And, since our particular subjectivities participate in it but its Being (containing all possibilities) is not exhausted by finitude, it would infinitely transcend any particular understanding and subjectivity. Thus, it can intimately be felt, hinted at, or metaphorically pointed to with various degrees of accuracy with a self-improving attitude accompanying our continuously improving reasoning and observation of the Cosmos’ natural patterns.

Consciousness-Being as the utmost entity would transcend and include the distinction between an entity existing in a state infinitely transcendent to His dream (a dream understood as a finite expression or reflection of His Being) and existing as partially subjected or limited to the illusion of experiencing His own ‘dream’ through His sustaining, participatory immanence in this illusion. Moreover, the ‘dream’ or manifestation of potential or creation would be a completely real thing as understood under the power of its own illusory experiential premises.

Nonetheless, the magnificence of the eternal Consciousness-Being (extending, extruding, or ‘investing’ part of its Being and itself to create), would also make it a noble entity rather than a heartless, multilevel, material illusion to escape from. Thus, ‘creation’ or ‘manifestation’ (whether considered as separate from Consciousness-Being or as an extension of Consciousness-Being), and - in spite of originating in an illusory negation of Being (thus inevitably including in its dynamics struggle, pain, and tragedy) would ultimately be led by Truth, Good, and Beauty. This can be explained in a later essay.