Are you a practitioner who has arrived at this understanding, or is it possible you are misremembering a common contemplative “breakthrough” that the self (as separate from consciousness) is illusory, and you’re mistakenly remembering this as saying consciousness itself is illusory?
Consciousness is the only thing we can be absolutely certain does actually exist.
> Consciousness is the only thing we can be absolutely certain does actually exist.
Unless the "consciousness" that you're talking about is the same as the suchness? Is the distinction that the suchness is somehow conscious/aware but not "conscious of itself"?
Yes, that’s correct
There is experience itself (“suchness”), and one possible object that can exist in that experience/be experienced is the idea that one is a “self.”
But you can also have experience that does not have within it the sensation of “self.” So they must be distinct.
But to the extent I have observed awareness, the idea of an entire "experiencer" is an extrapolation and fabrication. See how you generate that concept. And then, look closely at what's actually going on, there is "consciousness" of the components of the aggregate. (Maybe not dissimilar to some of the lower level mechanisms proposed in the article).
Ok, makes sense.
> look closely at what's actually going on, there is "consciousness" of the components of the aggregate
Interesting. I'll try, but i would have to wonder what it means for some sort of element of the mind that cannot experience to nevertheless have consciousness. It's very confusing, especially without a good idea as to what to look for in regard to consciousness. I'll attempt this though, thank you.
But I think it is all talking in circles, when the experiential truth can be directly observed (through practice). So I absolutely want to encourage your seeking.
"Consciousness" in the traditions is maybe closer to some of the lower abstraction proposals put out in the article.
I don't think the idea of illusory is necessarily the right view here. Maybe most clearly the thing to say is that there is "not" self and "not" consciousness. That these things are not separate entities and instead are dependently arisen. That consciousness is also dependently arisen is probably more contentious and different traditions make different claims on that point.
A lot of philosophers would disagree with this.
This is the endpoint of meditation, and the observation behind some religious traditions, which is look carefully and see that there was never phenomenal consciousness where we are a solid subject to begin with. If we can observe that behavior clearly, then we can remove the confusion in this search.