|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2018 15:39:16 GMT -5
Below you said... ''Awareness is the act of being aware. Consciousness is the act of being conscious. To assign either to one who is perceiving, or one who knows, would be a mistake.'' Now, I understand what you mean by this, the word 'act' is key (because it bypasses the idea of a 'one' or 'something' that is aware/conscious. This is what I have been asking you to clarify for weeks. So the 'act of being conscious' and the 'act of being aware' IS prior to appearances/form. What do you see as the difference between the two 'acts'? Do these 'acts' have a beginning and ending? Are these acts like the 'ocean' i.e always Whole? Are they ever not Whole? There is Awareness in the absence of something to be aware of. the first is awareness, the second is consciousness. (capitalize or not, doesn't matter) works fine for me, though you didn't answer my other question.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 7, 2018 15:40:56 GMT -5
Yes they are indistinguishable, hence why you don't know. But what we are talking about here is experiencing 'people' and non-experiencing 'people'. That was your word. So what are 'people' here? Does an experiencing 'person', have thoughts, feelings, heart, lungs? If not, can you describe an experiencing 'person'? And what is the difference between an experiencing 'person' and a non-experiencing person? Okay, I will be honest here and say that there is a level of disingenuousness to my questions. I KNOW the questions are bullsh/t, because I also know the theory is bullsh/t. I feel like I am asking you questions about Santa's reindeer. However, I guess my hope is that in you answering questions about the reindeer, you might suddenly remember that this is all nonsense. Yeah, that's where Tenka's questions come from too, and why I don't answer most of them, but they also demonstrate a serious lack of understanding power. There's no theory, just an absence of knowledge. The only mystery is where your knowledge comes from. Though it's not really so much of a mystery anymore. As usual, TMT and flawful logic. That 'people' specifically are conscious is just a contextual truth (you said it yourself). There are no 'figment people'. This reveals itself when we start looking at the characteristics of a figment person in contrast to a real person. I imagine a true solipsist would say that a figment person (or figment universe) has every characteristic of a real person/universe, except that the solipsist doesn't know if the figment person/universe exists. You do know the person/universe exists, because you have already agreed with the ocean = existence analogy i.e that existence is 'singular'...that there is nothing outside of existence. What is still not clear is whether you know (the act of) awareness/consciousness to be Whole or not, but this knowing goes deeper than any TMT or logic.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 7, 2018 16:35:42 GMT -5
Aha. I never quite understood the distinction between awareness and consciousness before. So, awareness can exist in the absence of something to be aware of, but consciousness requires something to be conscious of and someone or something to be conscious. Is that correct? Consciousness and Awareness – What’s the Difference?September 5th, 2010 If you are seeing this picture and understanding what it represents, then you are conscious. This is an indisputable fact. The knowledge of your own consciousness is the one and only fact of which you can be absolutely certain. Everything else that you might think that you know is an inference or assumption, and therefore cannot be known with certainty. The definition of consciousness that Francis Lucille has often used is based on this fact, and may be stated thus: Consciousness is whatever is reading these words right now, and understanding them. This is an experiential definition, and it seems to be necessary to define it this way because consciousness is not a “thing” or object per se, and therefore cannot be defined in terms of other things. Our minds simply cannot grasp the nature of consciousness, because of its lack on tangibility. Hence it can only be pointed to. And yet, it is apparent that consciousness is what we are ourselves. Whenever we refer to “I”, it is this very same consciousness to which we refer. So in the scheme of things, it seems important that we understand it! An interesting point to note is that, according to Lucille’s definition (and also as he has pointed out himself), there is no distinction between consciousness and awareness. The two words are treated synonymously, and are used interchangeably. Those of you who have an interest in non-duality will likely also have come across Sri Maharaj Nisargadatta. (A famous book documenting some of his discourses, I Am That (PDF), is available as a free download.) Nisargadatta spoke extensively about consciousness, but he also referred to awareness and made a distinction between the two. The following quote from the book illustrates this especially well. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious. But what exactly is the distinction here? This caused me some confusion, and apparently it has confused others too. The easy way out here might be to remember that we are talking about the intangible, and just paper over the cracks by suggesting that it’s not surprising that there would seem to be inconsistencies between intangible things when we try to conceptualise them. But in fact on further investigation there my be some rationality in the distinction after all. These further quotes from Nisargadatta may make things a little clearer. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it consciousness. This is your waking state — your consciousness shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: ‘my thought’. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the cognisance of consciousness as a whole. Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience. So the distinction that Nisargadatta is making appears to be between a mental/bodily consciousness (ie. our thoughts and sensory inputs) versus a broader awareness which extends beyond mentations and sensations. And this does appear to have a parallel with Lucille’s description of perception versus apperception (mentioned, for example, here). “Perception” refers to the experience of an object (phenomenon, that which appears, thought, body sensation or external sense perception), whereas “apperception” refers to the experience of the subject (noumenon, that to which that which appears appears). The human mind is the experience of perceptions, but apperception takes place beyond the mind. (Extract from Francis Answers No 27) Therefore I propose the following simple explanation of the distinction between consciousness and awareness. Nisargadatta’s “Consciousness” = Lucille’s mentations and perceptions (particular to a body/mind) Nisargadatta’s “Awareness” = Lucille’s consciousness (both perceptions and apperceptions, both particular to a body/mind and universal) Having sorted out that little conundrum to the (hopefully not overly smug) satisfaction of my own mind, the next question is what an apperception is, and how on earth we can be aware of something that is not within our own mind or body? Ah the joys of non-dual investigation!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 7, 2018 17:15:25 GMT -5
Aha. I never quite understood the distinction between awareness and consciousness before. So, awareness can exist in the absence of something to be aware of, but consciousness requires something to be conscious of and someone or something to be conscious. Is that correct? Consciousness and Awareness – What’s the Difference?September 5th, 2010 If you are seeing this picture and understanding what it represents, then you are conscious. This is an indisputable fact. The knowledge of your own consciousness is the one and only fact of which you can be absolutely certain. Everything else that you might think that you know is an inference or assumption, and therefore cannot be known with certainty. The definition of consciousness that Francis Lucille has often used is based on this fact, and may be stated thus: Consciousness is whatever is reading these words right now, and understanding them. This is an experiential definition, and it seems to be necessary to define it this way because consciousness is not a “thing” or object per se, and therefore cannot be defined in terms of other things. Our minds simply cannot grasp the nature of consciousness, because of its lack on tangibility. Hence it can only be pointed to. And yet, it is apparent that consciousness is what we are ourselves. Whenever we refer to “I”, it is this very same consciousness to which we refer. So in the scheme of things, it seems important that we understand it! An interesting point to note is that, according to Lucille’s definition (and also as he has pointed out himself), there is no distinction between consciousness and awareness. The two words are treated synonymously, and are used interchangeably. Those of you who have an interest in non-duality will likely also have come across Sri Maharaj Nisargadatta. (A famous book documenting some of his discourses, I Am That (PDF), is available as a free download.) Nisargadatta spoke extensively about consciousness, but he also referred to awareness and made a distinction between the two. The following quote from the book illustrates this especially well. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious. But what exactly is the distinction here? This caused me some confusion, and apparently it has confused others too. The easy way out here might be to remember that we are talking about the intangible, and just paper over the cracks by suggesting that it’s not surprising that there would seem to be inconsistencies between intangible things when we try to conceptualise them. But in fact on further investigation there my be some rationality in the distinction after all. These further quotes from Nisargadatta may make things a little clearer. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it consciousness. This is your waking state — your consciousness shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: ‘my thought’. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the cognisance of consciousness as a whole. Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience. So the distinction that Nisargadatta is making appears to be between a mental/bodily consciousness (ie. our thoughts and sensory inputs) versus a broader awareness which extends beyond mentations and sensations. And this does appear to have a parallel with Lucille’s description of perception versus apperception (mentioned, for example, here). “Perception” refers to the experience of an object (phenomenon, that which appears, thought, body sensation or external sense perception), whereas “apperception” refers to the experience of the subject (noumenon, that to which that which appears appears). The human mind is the experience of perceptions, but apperception takes place beyond the mind. (Extract from Francis Answers No 27) Therefore I propose the following simple explanation of the distinction between consciousness and awareness. Nisargadatta’s “Consciousness” = Lucille’s mentations and perceptions (particular to a body/mind) Nisargadatta’s “Awareness” = Lucille’s consciousness (both perceptions and apperceptions, both particular to a body/mind and universal) Having sorted out that little conundrum to the (hopefully not overly smug) satisfaction of my own mind, the next question is what an apperception is, and how on earth we can be aware of something that is not within our own mind or body? Ah the joys of non-dual investigation! Cool. I knew that awareness was foundational, but I never read a clear distinction between awareness and consciousness. During nirvikalpa samadhi there is only pure awareness and also awareness of awareness, but there is nothing else--no content at all. This why Zen calls it "the dropping off of body and mind" and why Ramana calls it "the deepest state." It is a non-dual state and one can feel everything unifying or solidifying prior to entering that state.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 20:02:32 GMT -5
Consciousness is not a perceiver, neither is Awareness. Awareness is the act of being aware. Consciousness is the act of being conscious. To assign either to one who is perceiving, or one who knows, would be a mistake. Is this not I have been arguing with you in the past that Perciever is not the entity but act of perceiving? You continued to deny with me,eh? Is this not I said you that Perceiver can't perceive nothing because Perceiver is an act which can't be separated from perceived? eh? I can guarantee I never talked about Awareness as an entity. I'm also saying Awareness is aware in the absence of anything to be aware of, so not what you're saying so much.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 20:06:04 GMT -5
The distinction I've made is between an appearance that is not associated with a point of perception, and one that is. Given that, do you still have a question? There are no appearances running around pretending to perceive the mountain or pretending to be Marie . There are no appearances that exist in the waking world that don't attain a pop . You have never met one, nor can you supposedly tell them apart . Again let me repeat Ramana ... Awareness becomes consciousness in the presence of an object - mind-body experience . There are no appearances that are not consciously aware in the way you have described . Andy, this is what I was saying about the Awareness/Consciousness dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 20:11:20 GMT -5
Yeah, that's where Tenka's questions come from too, and why I don't answer most of them, but they also demonstrate a serious lack of understanding power. There's no theory, just an absence of knowledge. The only mystery is where your knowledge comes from. Though it's not really so much of a mystery anymore. As usual, TMT and flawful logic. Please don't speak on my behalf . Speaking of whether your wife is a real perceiver is not a b/s question . It is when the essence of the century long argument is that nobody can know, except perhaps Marie.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 20:23:57 GMT -5
He commented on all of them, actually, in order AAMOF. <---(learned that from ZD, but at first I had to try to understand what he meant) What that tells me is that he went through your post line by line to address all of your questions. You know this because you proceeded to respond to those answers, so it seems odd that you would say there were no answers. It occurs to me that what you mean when you say "there were no answers to these questions" or "you didn't comment on any of these matters" is 'you didn't answer to my satisfaction' or ' you didn't resolve my concerns'. Is that the case? (serious question- please answer) Your welcome to post Z.D'S answers to my questions if you like . Are you matroning again? Still haven't heard your response to my question/s asked about the appearance of Marie that is consciously aware . First of all you need to get straight what I actually asked and what Z.D actually answered . If you can find the time to do this perhaps you can find the time to answer my questions that I asked you days or weeks ago that related to the appearance of Marie that is consciously aware . You didn't answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2018 20:37:38 GMT -5
There is Awareness in the absence of something to be aware of. the first is awareness, the second is consciousness. (capitalize or not, doesn't matter) Aha. I never quite understood the distinction between awareness and consciousness before. So, awareness can exist in the absence of something to be aware of, but consciousness requires something to be conscious of and someone or something to be conscious. Is that correct? Awareness, in this conceptualization, is existence itself, and so always exists. Consciousness arises in/as Awareness as the manifestation of form. Form need not be for Awareness to exist, but no form, no Consciousness. I think you know it's just a way to talk about ___________.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 8, 2018 0:41:38 GMT -5
You need to confirm / explain your foundation regarding what constitutes a conscious aware Marie and an appearance of Marie . The conscious aware Marie has eyes just as the appearance only Marie has eyes . The appearance of Marie cannot see, just like the cartoon character cannot see . You have said that the eyes are created through the actual / seeing / through them (rough translation) So there is only perception had via sight through a conscious, aware peep . You have said that everything is an appearance in consciousness .. So to say there isn't an appearance that relates to a real peep with real eyes is incorrect isn't it because you have already made a distinction between an appearance only and an appearance that is consciously aware .
I have seen of late that andy has asked you a good few times to explain yourself in regards to these differences . The distinction I've made is between an appearance that is not associated with a point of perception, and one that is. Given that, do you still have a question? He will continue to have the same questions, don't expect an end.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 8, 2018 0:42:56 GMT -5
Below you said... ''Awareness is the act of being aware. Consciousness is the act of being conscious. To assign either to one who is perceiving, or one who knows, would be a mistake.'' Now, I understand what you mean by this, the word 'act' is key (because it bypasses the idea of a 'one' or 'something' that is aware/conscious. This is what I have been asking you to clarify for weeks. So the 'act of being conscious' and the 'act of being aware' IS prior to appearances/form. What do you see as the difference between the two 'acts'? Do these 'acts' have a beginning and ending? Are these acts like the 'ocean' i.e always Whole? Are they ever not Whole? There is Awareness in the absence of something to be aware of. the first is awareness, the second is consciousness. (capitalize or not, doesn't matter) If Awareness can perceive nothing, then awareness is an entity. Act can't be performed on Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 8, 2018 0:48:37 GMT -5
There is Awareness in the absence of something to be aware of. the first is awareness, the second is consciousness. (capitalize or not, doesn't matter) Aha. I never quite understood the distinction between awareness and consciousness before. So, awareness can exist in the absence of something to be aware of, but consciousness requires something to be conscious of and someone or something to be conscious. Is that correct? People are in the journey of understanding him for past 5 years it seems! He is not quite consistent with his words. If you don't know what believes,then it would be difficult to understand him. I never misunderstand him mostly because I know what he believes. So If he uses the word consciousness for screen, I know it from the context, If he uses consciousness in the place of awareness, I know it from the context. I don't know why he is doing this, but he continue to do this that would make Andrew very busy chasing him after.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 8, 2018 0:51:27 GMT -5
Is this not I have been arguing with you in the past that Perciever is not the entity but act of perceiving? You continued to deny with me,eh? Is this not I said you that Perceiver can't perceive nothing because Perceiver is an act which can't be separated from perceived? eh? I can guarantee I never talked about Awareness as an entity. I'm also saying Awareness is aware in the absence of anything to be aware of, so not what you're saying so much. If Awareness is aware in the absence of anything to be aware of then it's entity. If awareness is act of perceiving then it's an attached part of perception.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Dec 8, 2018 1:04:02 GMT -5
He's not certain whether you're real so he doesn't have to. All he knows is how he feels, as is the case for you. It's a practical matter that affects all discussion, and given that English is a second language for him, it's definitely to his advantage. Even though It's my second language people are not confused with what I write. But all people here don't know what you write because you continue to change the words and using the words in an inappropriate way creates the trouble for all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 8, 2018 4:57:47 GMT -5
There are no appearances running around pretending to perceive the mountain or pretending to be Marie . There are no appearances that exist in the waking world that don't attain a pop . You have never met one, nor can you supposedly tell them apart . Again let me repeat Ramana ... Awareness becomes consciousness in the presence of an object - mind-body experience . There are no appearances that are not consciously aware in the way you have described . Andy, this is what I was saying about the Awareness/Consciousness dynamic. Yes, I spotted that.
|
|