What evidence is there for the physical dependence of pure awareness and against it? What are the limitations of the physicalist perspective here? What are the limitations of the Buddhist perspective here?
There are good reasons for believing the Buddhist view that the fundamental character of consciousness as pure awareness is not dependent on the brain, however, there is other evidence to suggest the opposite; consciousness is indefinitely dependent on the brain. In this essay, I am going to be arguing against the thesis that the fundamental consciousness as pure awareness is not dependent on the brain, as I personally believe that this is impossible. Additionally, in order to effectively argue in this essay, I need to define the term ‘consciousness’ and the term ‘pure awareness’ in the Buddhist sense. …show more content…
Many would say that consciousness does, indeed, require a physical basis, whilst many would disagree with this. A dualist would say that mind and body are separate and so is consciousness. In Indian philosophy, consciousness is that which is luminous and knowing. The Dalai Lama explains this: “As the primary feature of light is to illuminate, so consciousness is said to illuminate all objects. Just as in light there is no categorical distinction between the illumination and that which illuminates, so in consciousness there is no real difference between the process of knowing or cognition and that which knows or cognises. In consciousness, as in light, there is a quality of illumination.”
In Evan Thompson’s Sleeping, Waking, Being; he states that luminosity is like a mirror. However, pure awareness is distinct from pure consciousness as consciousness illuminates mental objects; it has the capacity to reveal things but it is just a luminosity itself with no object in it. The fact that it reveals objects is
There are good reasons for believing the Buddhist view that the fundamental character of consciousness as pure awareness is not dependent on the brain, however, there is other evidence to suggest the opposite; consciousness is indefinitely dependent on the brain. In this essay, I am going to be arguing against the thesis that the fundamental consciousness as pure awareness is not dependent on the brain, as I personally believe that this is impossible. Additionally, in order to effectively argue in this essay, I need to define the term ‘consciousness’ and the term ‘pure awareness’ in the Buddhist sense. …show more content…
Many would say that consciousness does, indeed, require a physical basis, whilst many would disagree with this. A dualist would say that mind and body are separate and so is consciousness. In Indian philosophy, consciousness is that which is luminous and knowing. The Dalai Lama explains this: “As the primary feature of light is to illuminate, so consciousness is said to illuminate all objects. Just as in light there is no categorical distinction between the illumination and that which illuminates, so in consciousness there is no real difference between the process of knowing or cognition and that which knows or cognises. In consciousness, as in light, there is a quality of illumination.”
In Evan Thompson’s Sleeping, Waking, Being; he states that luminosity is like a mirror. However, pure awareness is distinct from pure consciousness as consciousness illuminates mental objects; it has the capacity to reveal things but it is just a luminosity itself with no object in it. The fact that it reveals objects is