Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 7:41:28 GMT -5
So here’s a puzzler that I’ve been wondering about:
Take this:
-- What looks through my eyes is the same as what looks through your eyes --
Call it awareness, presence -- (just pointers) -- that’s the ‘what’ in the above line.
Now is this awareness
1. absolutely the same thing -- there’s one Awareness and it’s what is looking through both of our eyes.
or
2. the same type of thing. Because we both have eyes, brains, etc. we have the same equipment, and awareness is the natural experience or whatever that arises as a result. It’s not the same absolute thing as in #1 because there is no connection.
I’m comfortable with #2 but open to see where I’m amiss. It’s the old Agnostic in me. A person raised in a more god-fearing way may prefer #1.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 11, 2011 7:57:50 GMT -5
Hey Max,
The only thing that we have in common with the other objects and people is the same consciousness/awareness. If these were different, it would be like living in parallel universes - there would be no way to 'commune/interact.'
If you are aware of something, it is aware of you as well! Same awareness!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 11, 2011 8:35:07 GMT -5
Max: Porto's right. Same awareness
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2011 11:09:27 GMT -5
In your self inquiry, you see objects, and then notice that 'something' sees the objects. Everything that appears, appears to 'something' that doesn't appear, otherwise it would be something else that you see. If it doesn't appear, is it here with me or over there with you or is it nowhere or is it everywhere?
So is the thingy that sees objects over there different from the thingy that sees objects over here if it's neither here nor there? Could it be there isn't even a here or there, but just the appearance of here and there?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 11, 2011 11:20:58 GMT -5
Max: Porto's right. Same awareness Agreed, Enigma contends though, that there is no 'out there'. In which case the awareness is not looking out from other peeps eyes, just our own 'in here'. Perhaps the perception of dualism, separateness and otherness, is a game that the mind plays. Because if there is no 'out there', then the mind is forced to look at the thought, that it is alone in the universe. To the mind that aloneness is frightening... But to the awareness, that stillness and emptiness is grace. Not that the awareness would know it though...heh Peace
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Sept 11, 2011 12:37:19 GMT -5
In your self inquiry, you see objects, and then notice that 'something' sees the objects. Everything that appears, appears to 'something' that doesn't appear, otherwise it would be something else that you see. If it doesn't appear, is it here with me or over there with you or is it nowhere or is it everywhere? So is the thingy that sees objects over there different from the thingy that sees objects over here if it's neither here nor there? Could it be there isn't even a here or there, but just the appearance of here and there? Errr, say what? A hell of a mind twister, that. @zd, would that count as a koan?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2011 12:55:08 GMT -5
Max: Porto's right. Same awareness Agreed, Enigma contends though, that there is no 'out there'. In which case the awareness is not looking out from other peeps eyes, just our own 'in here'. Perhaps the perception of dualism, separateness and otherness, is a game that the mind plays. Because if there is no 'out there', then the mind is forced to look at the thought, that it is alone in the universe. To the mind that aloneness is frightening... But to the awareness, that stillness and emptiness is grace. Not that the awareness would know it though...heh Peace If there is no 'out there', there also is no 'in here'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 11, 2011 13:03:18 GMT -5
In your self inquiry, you see objects, and then notice that 'something' sees the objects. Everything that appears, appears to 'something' that doesn't appear, otherwise it would be something else that you see. If it doesn't appear, is it here with me or over there with you or is it nowhere or is it everywhere? So is the thingy that sees objects over there different from the thingy that sees objects over here if it's neither here nor there? Could it be there isn't even a here or there, but just the appearance of here and there? Errr, say what? A hell of a mind twister, that. @zd, would that count as a koan? Hehe. Okay, lets try the dream analogy. Even in that context, you aren't any of the stuff that appears in the dream, you're the mind that it appears TO. The mind, itself, never appears. Is the subject inside the intrepid Vacant dream character, or is it in the fire breathing dragon? It's not IN either one, right? We could say the dreamer is in both (though I wouldn't), or we could say the dreamer is in neither, or we could say the dreamer IS both, but we can't say it is in one dream character as opposed to another.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 11, 2011 15:09:05 GMT -5
In your self inquiry, you see objects, and then notice that 'something' sees the objects. Everything that appears, appears to 'something' that doesn't appear, otherwise it would be something else that you see. If it doesn't appear, is it here with me or over there with you or is it nowhere or is it everywhere? So is the thingy that sees objects over there different from the thingy that sees objects over here if it's neither here nor there? Could it be there isn't even a here or there, but just the appearance of here and there? Errr, say what? A hell of a mind twister, that. @zd, would that count as a koan? Ha ha! Yep. That could be a koan, but I wouldn't touch that sucker with a ten-foot pole! LOL
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Sept 11, 2011 18:32:12 GMT -5
Because if there is no 'out there', then the mind is forced to look at the thought, that it is alone in the universe. To the mind that aloneness is frightening... Yeah, looking at that was enough to throw me into panic for 3 solid months. And the whole time I kept wondering if I had asked a stupid question because the fear just wouldn't subside.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 19:06:10 GMT -5
Hey Max, The only thing that we have in common with the other objects and people is the same consciousness/awareness. Hi Porto, thanks for answering. Objects too? That's a mindbender. I can grasp that we have awareness in common with other people (sentient beings?). But this keyboard? That spoonful of mashed potatos? Also, having something in common could be something more like we have existence in common but it's not necessarily the same existence. I don't get how that follows. Why couldn't holding a similar sequence of genes provide an awareness operating system that would provide the foundation for communing and interacting? The actual details of how communing and interacting happen would be shaped by the environment, etc that that sentient being grows in. I guess another way of asking the question would be: does our biological apparatus allow us to tap into an already-existing awareness (sort of like a radio taps into already-existing radio waves) or does the apparatus just provide the necessary framework for the experience of awareness to happen? So that spoonful of mashed potatos is aware of me?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 11, 2011 19:23:49 GMT -5
Ha ha. Yes, but its even funnier and stranger than that. That spoonful of mashed potatoes IS you. Literally. There are no real boundaries here. Wherever you look, you are looking at yourself. You are both the looker and the lookee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 19:32:57 GMT -5
In your self inquiry, you see objects, and then notice that 'something' sees the objects. Everything that appears, appears to 'something' that doesn't appear, otherwise it would be something else that you see. I'm with ya, sort of. Right now, living this life, it is the one thing that does not come and go. But when I croak I'm guessing that max's awareness will be gone too. And somewhere along the line between fertilization and now awareness started happening. I don't know. But it could be the same sort of awareness that you are experiencing over there. It seems like it, based on the feedback I've been getting from you. I don't think it's nowhere in the sense of not existing. And it seems to be something happening here. "Here" is meaning that every waking moment it is functioning so that stuff is perceived. And my guess is that it's happening over your way too but it could be a massive delusion, however unlikely. It could be dependent on physiological equipment and so it could be neither nowhere nor everywhere but rather somewheres. Like here and with you over there (and everyone else reading this, and possibly that vase of flowers has some goin' on too.). Well it seems 'neither here nor there' is not a conclusion I've arrived at. Yes I see that as a logical question if the premises you're working with are there from the beginning. Not there yet over here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 19:38:45 GMT -5
Max: Porto's right. Same awareness Agreed, Enigma contends though, that there is no 'out there'. In which case the awareness is not looking out from other peeps eyes, just our own 'in here'. Perhaps the perception of dualism, separateness and otherness, is a game that the mind plays. Because if there is no 'out there', then the mind is forced to look at the thought, that it is alone in the universe. To the mind that aloneness is frightening... Well i wish this here mind would just buck up. Because it's wasting a lot of time and energy with this kabuki theater around not wanting to face reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2011 20:00:23 GMT -5
Errr, say what? A hell of a mind twister, that. @zd, would that count as a koan? Hehe. Okay, lets try the dream analogy. Even in that context, you aren't any of the stuff that appears in the dream, you're the mind that it appears TO. The mind, itself, never appears. Is the subject inside the intrepid Vacant dream character, or is it in the fire breathing dragon? It's not IN either one, right? We could say the dreamer is in both (though I wouldn't), or we could say the dreamer is in neither, or we could say the dreamer IS both, but we can't say it is in one dream character as opposed to another. Thanks for being patient folks! Not sure I get this yet. ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png) The mind never appears during the dream, but when waking up or falling into deep dreamless sleep, the mind could be said to disappear and the dreamstuff stops happening. Isn't that analogous to death? And, entering the dreamstate again, the mind could be said to 'become' again. 'Appear' doesn't really work because there isn't anything for it to appear to. But there is a sort of death and birth in this analogy. And the substrate -- whether it be the mind in the dream or awareness in wakefulness -- dies or is born as well. How could we know otherwise? (Alright I just heard an interview with Jan Esmann who says he is aware during deep sleep and has god-consciousness yada yada yada.) -- I'll see it when I see it. I also can accept that the belief in separation is just that: a belief. And I can accept that transcending this belief is a way of living sort of a more pure existence where what is experienced within awareness is less cluttered with obsessive thoughts (based on separation). In other words, the scientific worldview basically affirms that we are ultimately not separate -- just a bunch of energy and changing forms. However I guess I'm wondering why this extra step of then saying that all is the same awareness. The spoonful of mashed potatos? Really?
|
|