|
Post by question on Dec 28, 2010 22:50:39 GMT -5
Q: I understand that "what is" is the ultimate (pseudo)subject (within which an appearance of subject/object can take place) but this subject is unaware, the fact that "what is" is the ultimate subject doesn't mean that it is in any way aware. E: I'm not clear. If it isn't the subject that is aware, what is aware? The object?? Awareness is aware. Awareness is a (pseudo)object to 'what is'. 'What is' is a "pseudo"-subject. Pseudo, because it has no characteristics of a traditional subject (probably might aswell call it Truth, Tao etc, but I don't really know what those words mean, so I better avoid them). I used the "subject/object"-terminology to point out the hierarchical relationship of awareness towards its source. Awareness then has the option to become a similar pseudo-subject towards a subject/object split that appears. This last split would be the first one in the traditional sense (with me, you, my dog, your chair etc). No.
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 28, 2010 23:00:38 GMT -5
However, it's not really true that there is no link between perspectives. The source of all perspectives is the same, and they are inextricably linked. It wouldn't actually be possible for 'us' to communicate if this were not so. I agree, there must be a link. What is the link? If it is Awareness, then why do we even have to communicate? I think Being is the link and we have to communicate, because Being isn't aware. Awareness is an intermittent appearance within Being. And if one awareness wants to talk to another then it has to write messages etc.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2010 23:04:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2010 23:11:28 GMT -5
However, it's not really true that there is no link between perspectives. The source of all perspectives is the same, and they are inextricably linked. It wouldn't actually be possible for 'us' to communicate if this were not so. I agree, there must be a link. What is the link? If it is Awareness, then why do we even have to communicate? I think Being is the link and we have to communicate, because Being isn't aware. Awareness is an intermittent appearance within Being. And if one awareness wants to talk to another then it has to write messages etc. I find that I'm unable to use the term 'awareness' as you see it, so if it can be avoided, that would help me. Throwing out my own definition is doable, but taking on yours is becoming challenging. I thought you couldn't see awareness as a noun, and here you've turned it into one. What is commonly referred to in non-dual circles as Consciousness is the link. The term 'collective consciousness' is sometimes useful.
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 28, 2010 23:23:26 GMT -5
Awareness is aware. Awareness is a (pseudo)object to 'what is'. 'What is' is a "pseudo"-subject. Pseudo, because it has no characteristics of a traditional subject (probably might aswell call it Truth, Tao etc, but I don't really know what those words mean, so I better avoid them). I used the "subject/object"-terminology to point out the hierarchical relationship of awareness towards its source. E: So it's an object that is aware?We can call it an appearance if you want. I used the word "object" to show the hierarchical structure. E: An object that you are aware of is what is aware?Yes, although obviously not exactly an object, or "me" (see above explanation). First there is unaware Being, then within it appears Awareness, awareness goes away and then there's unaware Being again. When Awareness was, it was still exactly Being and while Awareness was, it was aware of itself. Being can't be more of itself that it already is -- not even with awareness. E: What about that which is aware of the object?Being isn't aware of awareness. Awareness appears within/as being and awareness is aware of awareness. Being is busy being what is. E: You see an object as having an option to become a subject? (pseudo or otherwise)No option, no choice. Stuff just happens. What is is busy being what is.
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 28, 2010 23:42:17 GMT -5
I find that I'm unable to use the term 'awareness' as you see it, so if it can be avoided, that would help me. I can use consciousness if you want. I don't see a difference. But awareness/consciousness as I know it is very distinct from cognition, mind, memory etc if that's what you're hinting at.
I thought you couldn't see awareness as a noun, and here you've turned it into one. Hm, maybe. To my defense I have to say that there aren't really any "things" that can't be seen as a process or action (without a doer obv) anyways. I guess it the verb/noun distinction isn't important.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2010 2:01:04 GMT -5
Awareness is aware. Awareness is a (pseudo)object to 'what is'. 'What is' is a "pseudo"-subject. Pseudo, because it has no characteristics of a traditional subject (probably might aswell call it Truth, Tao etc, but I don't really know what those words mean, so I better avoid them). I used the "subject/object"-terminology to point out the hierarchical relationship of awareness towards its source. E: So it's an object that is aware?We can call it an appearance if you want. I used the word "object" to show the hierarchical structure. E: An object that you are aware of is what is aware?Yes, although obviously not exactly an object, or "me" (see above explanation). First there is unaware Being, then within it appears Awareness, awareness goes away and then there's unaware Being again. When Awareness was, it was still exactly Being and while Awareness was, it was aware of itself. Being can't be more of itself that it already is -- not even with awareness. E: What about that which is aware of the object?Being isn't aware of awareness. Awareness appears within/as being and awareness is aware of awareness. Being is busy being what is. E: You see an object as having an option to become a subject? (pseudo or otherwise)No option, no choice. Stuff just happens. What is is busy being what is. Okay, I have this strong urge to simplify the equation somehow. Firstly, I see no hierarchy at all when we're looking at that which exists (in the ultimate sense beyond mere appearances). Everything that appears, is sourced from, and appears to, that which exists. That which exists is what can be aware of every 'object' that appears. One of those objects cannot be aware of something because you are already aware of the 'object'. You (whatever you are) already transcends this object by virtue of your awareness of it. All of these objects appear to you. You cannot talk about anything that is aware that you are not more fundamental than. Conceptually, you can separate Being from that which appears in Being as an object that seems to be aware of stuff, but the object is an appearance only, and it is still Being that is aware of it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2010 2:11:32 GMT -5
I find that I'm unable to use the term 'awareness' as you see it, so if it can be avoided, that would help me.I can use consciousness if you want. I don't see a difference. But awareness/consciousness as I know it is very distinct from cognition, mind, memory etc if that's what you're hinting at. What I see as consciousness is not other than the content you describe, along with everything else that appears to the senses. (Consciousness is it's content) There is a distinction between, say, visual perception and thought, but they are both appearances in/as consciousness. I would say that Being is existence in stillness and consciousness is Being in motion. Consciousness is a movement that arises (and falls) in Being. Perception is the perception of movement.
|
|
|
Post by wynn on Dec 29, 2010 10:05:02 GMT -5
This is why I always say just keep going and never look back. Michael Keep going where? Look back at what? I often get stuck on this issue. What is spiritual progress? Is there a ladder of sorts? Christ/Buddha/? on the top step, the imagination dwelling fool on the bottom rung, those like us somewhere in-between? Sometimes I think I should be doing more (meditation, reading master's words, whatever) but then the little birdie in my ear says, "no, do less" (which makes sense, and doesn't, at the same time). This quandary causes to me either visit this board, or not. Mostly, I dislike words because they are so vague. 'Signposts' I know, but words seem to be a tool of the ego, and often misleading. A few weeks ago I realized I have stopped thinking. This was not a conscious decision of something I wanted to do, it just began. It appears my 'default' mode now is no-thought, except when a situation arises, and I start it up again (like now lol).
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Dec 29, 2010 22:48:21 GMT -5
Hi wynn, I wouldn't say you've stopped thinking, because that would be impossible, as your not the thinker of thoughts. What's happening I believe, is that the thoughts have nothing to stick too. Your not giving them any attention and subsequent power. Consequently, they have no place to set down roots. You've turned the tables on thought and realized that thought must report to you and right now, your not caring about them at all... ...how wonderful TRF
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 29, 2010 23:38:45 GMT -5
Wynn,
TRF is right. If thinking has stopped, then the obvious will soon become obvious. Wonderful!
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 29, 2010 23:53:03 GMT -5
TRF done a very good job by elaborating on m post.Thinking can seem to stop but in truth as TRF pointed out the thoughts are still there but now they do not land on you. Michael Keep going where? Look back at what? I often get stuck on this issue. What is spiritual progress? Is there a ladder of sorts? Christ/Buddha/? on the top step, the imagination dwelling fool on the bottom rung, those like us somewhere in-between? Sometimes I think I should be doing more (meditation, reading master's words, whatever) but then the little birdie in my ear says, "no, do less" (which makes sense, and doesn't, at the same time). This quandary causes to me either visit this board, or not. Mostly, I dislike words because they are so vague. 'Signposts' I know, but words seem to be a tool of the ego, and often misleading. A few weeks ago I realized I have stopped thinking. This was not a conscious decision of something I wanted to do, it just began. It appears my 'default' mode now is no-thought, except when a situation arises, and I start it up again (like now lol).
|
|
|
Post by wynn on Dec 30, 2010 8:53:27 GMT -5
Thank you all for the warm replies. I apologize for hijacking the thread, that was not my intention starting out, I just started 'talking', and now here we are. Sorry to OP and all.
I assume any thought which comes as words to be from ego. Any 'eureka' moment from mind. But once "eureka" is translated into words, it becomes tainted somehow. I don't trust any thought I have. But 'trust' seems to be a judgment, and ultimately, freeing myself from all judgments is my goal. So, my journey continues.
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 31, 2010 20:30:59 GMT -5
When I was trying to start with the premise that Awareness and Being are identical, I quickly hit a wall because Being is everything, but the scope of what one is aware of is extremely limited. And in light of the limitations the only way to maintain the A.+B. identity is with solipsism. The only other conclusion (in my mind) was to use my model of eternal Being and temporary appearances (one of which is Awareness).
What occured to me recently is that I used a double-standard when thinking about A+B. When Being appears as a form, the oneness of Being doesn't prevent a relative isolation of a form. A form is such that it is exclusive of another form, two mutually exclusive forms don't "penetrate" each other, even though they are essentially the same and of one Being. (sounds like physicalism, it's not meant that way)
When I was thinking of Awareness I didn't allow for such exclusivity of forms. This relates directly to the perspectivity/multisubjectivity issue. When a particular perspective arises, then its nature is such that it is exclusive of another perspective and just like a physical chair can't penetrate a physical table, one perspective can't penetrate another perspective, because they are by definition mutually exclusive.
Let's say I'm asking "why am I me and not Brad Pitt?" My answer is that 'what is' is Question and Brad Pitt simultaneously, but the nature of Q. as an individual subject is such that he is exclusive of Brad (and everything else), Q will never know Brad. And the nature of Brad Pitt is to not know Question which results in the ability to ask "why am I Brad and not Q?". 'What is' is Q and Brad and in that it simultaneously knows both perspectives and from within both perspectives 'what is' simultaneously "not-knows" anything beyond the respective perspectives. The relative "not knowing" of other perspectives and the absolute "knowing" of both perspectives is simultaneous.
Here's another angle. Earlier in the thread Michael quoted Atmananda: "The knowledge of one object implies the ignorance of all objects other than that particular object." I now think it means that an object knows only itself. An object is to itself such that it is in isolation of everything else in order to be the exact object that it is. The object is known fully to 'what is' and this knowing includes the object's "not-knowing" anything except for the object's knowledge of itself (is this what "I am" means?). With this interpretation the rest of Atmananda's text makes a lot more sense to me.
With this formula we can drop the false assumption that an absolute Awareness would necessitate the awareness of all forms through the eyes of one particular form. With this problem being gone, the absolute Awareness theory gains some plausibility and momentum for me, but it still seems far from being a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 31, 2010 23:16:34 GMT -5
Yeah, that all sounds pretty good to me. Experience is, by it's nature, separated and individualized. The separation is not really so as all experiences are sourced in and experienced by the same Being which results in a complete integration of all experiences in the largest context, but the appearance of such 'segmentation' at an individuation level is necessary for experience to happen at all. (The experience of 'everything' is not an experience at all)
"With this problem being gone, the absolute Awareness theory gains some plausibility and momentum for me, but it still seems far from being a necessity."
Not really sure what you mean. You mean the 'awareness as a noun' idea?
|
|