Rene Descartes is best known for his quote, “I think, therefore I am.” Although this is a highly cited quote, I feel that some say this without truly understanding the depth of this statement. If you believe that the acknowledgment of your own being is defined by your thoughts, then your consciousness and the perception thereof define reality. In other words reality is a perceptual process. Yet, how can consciousness be the chief determinate of reality if we can barely bring about a clear definition of the consciousness that is to define our reality? The difficulty in defining consciousness lies in its deeply personal and internal nature. I feel that reality is determined by consciousness, but in an almost paradoxical way, reality also shapes consciousness in a reciprocal manner. One’s influences, motives, apprehensions and vices are all lenses, which we look at reality through. Our consciousness and the attitude therein are helplessly molded by these perceptions. Now that the external world has influenced conscious attitude, consciousness then interprets the outside world and shapes the perception thereof in its image (consider the chicken and the egg).

The intimate nature of consciousness and its perceptive ego-based augmentations limit the ability to realize a uniform definition of consciousness. This is because the individual perceptions and various interpretations of everyday life events that vary from one person to the next are the determinates of consciousness, therefore the definition of consciousness varies from one person to the next as well. Consciousness is born directly from a human’s perception of the environment they are experiencing. There are no divine sources from which the soul or consciousness arises. Contrary, it is the interpretations and perspectives born through consciousness that permit us to fancy a higher realm of divination.

To truly understand the most basic mechanics and fundamental rules that are ceaselessly inherent in all persons’ sense of consciousness we must dispassionately strip away the lenses of fear, anxiety, hopes and desires from out perceptive processes. In this method one has the opportunity to allow his or her consciousness to interpret reality without basing it on preconceived notions that may or may not lead us further from a true sense of consciousness. The stripping away of these lenses could be considered an act of “ego death”, a goal of many religions and schools of thought, not limited to Buddhism, Hinduism, or Jainism; all of which are in search of a higher sense of awareness. It is in the stripping away of the sense of self that one attains a sense of true understanding, not only of the world around them but the world beyond their scope of awareness as well.

However, if consciousness is determined by a person’s personal interpretation of the world around them, can there ever be a uniform definition of consciousness? Any perception based on any instance that offers the observer a chance to use it to build his or her definition of consciousness is a perception that will be unique and dissimilar among a random survey of individuals. By this rationale there can never be a completely accurate description of consciousness that will apply to everyone. Interestingly enough, with perceptions molding consciousness, if one has negative perceptions of stimuli this will form negative aspects in their consciousness. These negative aspects of consciousness then exhibit themselves in the perceptions and reactions of the individual. This creates a loop of negative existence, which is in its own way a self-fulfilling prophecy. Comfortingly, the same can be said for positive thought as well.

Similar Posts:

• The Methodology and Physiology of Kundalini Yoga and the Significance of the Pineal Gland by Adam David Dodd
• The Philosophy of the Empty Vessel by Adam David Dodd