Question A

In Eastern philosophies, are we ever asked to truly give up our consciousness- to deny its existence, to extinguish it? Or are we merely asked to release it into a higher state of being- a state that already exists within our consciousness?

In certain lights, the philosophies we've studied to seem to require a non existence of self and consciousness. In Taoism, for example, a in order for a follower to be in tune with the Dao they must be in a state of non doing, non wanting, and non action. They let everything happen to them, and live their lives in the direction that any worldly force pushes them. Is this healthy? Not actively doing does not mean that nothing happens or nothing is accomplished- if teachers want a follower to do his homework, he does it, since he must neither want to do nor not want to do it. By this train of thought, laziness, procrastination, and other such traits wouldn't happen. However, neither would any change. Change requires a person to recognize that a situation is bad (as far as I can tell, this type of recognition isn't supported by the Tao Te Ching), to want to change it, and then to take action to effect this change. So much of today's world wouldn't exist if the people of it only went with the flow; this may be good or bad depending on your view point, but I'm going to go with bad. It's especially bad if you take the question literally: No change means no medical advances, which truly is not healthy. Spiritually, this seems unhealthy as well, for how can one connect with or be a higher consciousness/being if one's in a constant state of lethargy and non thought?

Yet, not all of Eastern philosophy seems to require this extinction of will and self. Buddhism doesn't even state whether there is or is not a self- it's irrelevant to the message and philosophy. Emptiness replaces non existence. All things (form, feeling, volition, conditioning factors, consciousness) are empty. This does not mean non existence, but rather, without characteristics, unproduced, unceased, undiminished, unfilled, and all other sorts of purposefully conflicting adjectives. Phenomenon do not exist, yet they do not not exist. Self and consciousness fall under the category of phenomenon; therefore, according Buddhism their existence neither is nor isn't. So, are we truly being asked to eradicate our consciousness? Our consciousness that does not exist, yet also doesn't lie in the non existence category? How can we end something that doesn't exist to begin with?

Buddhism states in its Noble Truths that life is suffering, and desire causes suffering. Where does desire come from, if not from the self, the consciousness? Buddhism asks its followers to release themselves from their consciousness so that they may end desire and therefore suffering. By becoming part of a "higher consciousness" they are not ending their own- their consciousness is the higher one, just as the higher one is "lower". The self consciousness (not the low self esteem kind) and the higher consciousness are not other. In reaching this state of higher being, a follower is indeed released from desire, but they gain compassion, and compassion (as much as desire) can spur one to action and change. 

Therefore, release from one's consciousness and self is healthy. Besides the physical benefits of stress reduction, etc., the spiritual benefits of happiness and release from suffering far outweigh the "negatives" of not actively pursuing goals at all times. Which, if you think about it, isn't all that negative.