|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 21, 2010 19:01:00 GMT -5
Awareness IS.. It's not a subject/object relationship as Enigma pointed out.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2010 20:00:06 GMT -5
Hi Enigma, You said, "A self (person) can ACT in a selfless way but cannot actually be selfless. It's just an act carried out through, and in the interest of, the self. To be selfless means to be without self." I'm not so sure that doing a selfless act, is in any way, an act carried out in the "interest", of the self. It seems to me, that the act of unselfishness alone, reveals how selfish and self absorbed the self really is. I don't know how it would further it's cause and deception, by also showing how delusional and insane it is, by pretending to act unselfishly, when that's clearly not it's nature. To truly act in it's own interest, I think that it would rather act in ways that keep itself hidden and consequently safe from scrutiny. When I say I can act in a selfless way, I mean that, I can act in way that more aptly reflects that which is not a self, that which is there, even before, the thought of self arises. TRF Any defining of that effort is the self defining itself as selfless. What does a selfless act look like? Who is it who can act in a selfless way? The one who acts selflessly doesn't know anything about it. Genuine virtues are invisible to the virtuous.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2010 20:18:01 GMT -5
Awareness IS.. It's not a subject/object relationship as Enigma pointed out. Michael Yeah, to be aware of Awareness can be confusing as it seems to imply Awareness as an object of awareness, which can never be. To say Awareness is Self aware is perhaps less confusing, and as maybe Question is implying, this is the case right now. When one is conscious, it is already clear that one is aware since awareness must be present in order to be aware of anything, though it is perhaps just implied. The difficulty is that attention is entirely on the object of awareness such that if there is no object, there seems to be no subject. What is it that sees there is no object and then reaches out for an object so as to identify itself as existing?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 21, 2010 20:38:09 GMT -5
A insecure seeker ;D Michael What is it that sees there is no object and then reaches out for an object so as to identify itself as existing?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Dec 21, 2010 21:28:53 GMT -5
What if I gave you a pill that in this moment, prevented you from hearing, seeing, feeling, sensing, smelling, tasting and also stopped all your thoughts including your imagination.
What are you?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 21, 2010 21:41:33 GMT -5
What else would I be but the same.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 21, 2010 22:19:29 GMT -5
What if I gave you a pill that in this moment, prevented you from hearing, seeing, feeling, sensing, smelling, tasting and also stopped all your thoughts including your imagination. What are you? Well, I couldn't really say. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 22, 2010 0:02:27 GMT -5
Awareness IS.. It's not a subject/object relationship as Enigma pointed out. Michael Yes thats why I don't understand how at some point in time awareness can become aware of itself, which implies that prior to that it wasn't aware of itself. Like I said, the only way I can picture that this could be said is when what becomes aware is nothing more than a representation of a misunderstood awareness being inserted into a mindstructure. Is there a difference between Awareness and Selfawareness? My hunch is that both are exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 22, 2010 1:04:33 GMT -5
Well you answered your question when you use the words "at some point in time" Awareness if it's being used the same way as the Absolute is not space/time bound therefore whatever happens in space/time is really a illusion. need to go to bed now Michael Yes thats why I don't understand how at some point in time awareness can become aware of itself, which implies that prior to that it wasn't aware of itself. Like I said, the only way I can picture that this could be said is when what becomes aware is nothing more than a representation of a misunderstood awareness being inserted into a mindstructure. Is there a difference between Awareness and Selfawareness? My hunch is that both are exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 22, 2010 1:15:46 GMT -5
Awareness IS.. It's not a subject/object relationship as Enigma pointed out. Michael Yes thats why I don't understand how at some point in time awareness can become aware of itself, which implies that prior to that it wasn't aware of itself. Like I said, the only way I can picture that this could be said is when what becomes aware is nothing more than a representation of a misunderstood awareness being inserted into a mindstructure. Is there a difference between Awareness and Selfawareness? My hunch is that both are exactly the same. Maybe we could say that Self awareness is the awareness that all there is, is awareness. This implies it's not so much about becoming aware of something as it is becoming aware of what is NOT so. What you're hinting at, I think, is that the fact of awareness is too impossibly obvious to be hidden. This is actually so, and so in a sense (and all such interpretations are misinterpretations) there is nothing to become aware of that isn't already too obvious to not be aware of. This awareness that is sought is already known intimately but remains unrecognized through consciousness. We could try to approach it from the 'other side'. There is the simplicity of awareness out of which the entire universe of thought and forms appears. You therefore stand prior to all thought and form and exist prior to, and in the absence of, all form; all notions. In this state prior to all distinction, not only can nothing be said about you, there literally is nothing to say. You are the source of all ideas, all words, all thought and form, and so you are idealess, wordless, thoughtless, formless, experienceless, timeless, spaceless. You cannot be found since all seeking is the seeking of some kind of distinction, and so the seeking must fail in the mission it has defined for itself. No seeker has ever found himself, though some have dissolved, leaving only awareness. If one is seeking something, how can one find the nothing that is the origin of all somethings, including the seeker? It becomes apparent that, not only is the mission impossible, but the mission is what obscures, and has always obscured, the obvious which does not need to be found since it was never lost. There is a subtle turning of attention away. The attention of awareness is a light that shines as long as consciousness is present, but consciousness is form and so attention is pulled outward into the form, and yet what attends to this form is the very formlessness that is sought. There is no way for it to be closer, more immediate, more present, but it is not a mind object and so remains invisible to mind. The seeker uses a tool of form creation to search for the formless out of which mind itself arises. The entire situation is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Dec 22, 2010 12:27:03 GMT -5
TRF- What if I gave you a pill that in this moment, that prevented you from hearing, seeing, feeling, sensing, smelling, tasting and also stopped all your thoughts including your imagination. What are you? What else would I be but the same. Michael Yes...what else would you be. Are you free?
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Dec 22, 2010 14:02:40 GMT -5
Enigma, What a magnificent post that is! In the mind-blowing category, hi-hi.
The understanding of it leaves me with some kind of satisfactory well-being which is neither joyful nor not. Perhaps this stubborn carapace I think myself to wear is eroding some, unnoticed. Aah! There is a temptation to wish it would be easier to put words to it, but then to paraphrase Lao-Tzu it wouldn’t be the Tao, would it?
Seems to me you make it abundantly clear that seeking is disharmonious functioning, my definition of illness. Is the seeker’s syndrome a disease? Certainly feels like dis – ease!
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 22, 2010 14:22:15 GMT -5
Interesting comment. Here's something to chew on. You(everyone) has been in a constant state of dis-ease since you found your identity around the age of 2. You were made(programed to enjoy this state but soon you learn that you lived in a world of polarity. To be happy you needed to be sad, to feel hot you needed cold etc. However what was really happening was the putting of labels on the actual symptoms of the dis-ease. Michael Seems to me you make it abundantly clear that seeking is disharmonious functioning, my definition of illness. Is the seeker’s syndrome a disease? Certainly feels like dis – ease!
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Dec 22, 2010 16:36:04 GMT -5
Hey Michael, thanks for that, I chew but will need more chewing before I understand.
Agreed that the state of dis-ease feels it’s been here long time, but my memories aren’t the trustworthy kind. Forgive me but I cannot tell whether your point is not made clearly or my understanding is dim, the latter being an understatement at any given time. My natural guess is a good dose of both.
As for putting labels —words, name calling, etc— on the symptoms it’s a very valid point, but without doing so there would be no posting on the board, very much in accord with the gesture your very lovely “avatar” picture shows. Shhhh.
Lets chew-tchoo on… All love.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 22, 2010 16:46:24 GMT -5
Hi Vacant, no problem and no point to be made except there are times when a nice chew helps.
Michael
|
|