Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 12:12:51 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. laughter, especially, though of course all are welcome, do you have any thoughts about the above query? Laughter's response interests me because I know he's steeped in science and can relate to the agnostic framework. I'm not sure of this, but it seems like there is quite a bit of consensus (here) around the idea that what is being pointed to as without boundary, without time, always present, etc., is unconstrained by body, etc. and therefore present even absent the existence of a material expression. My question in the OP was offering another possible explanation. That which is referred to, without boundary yada yada, is by it's nature unbound in experience. That is, as expressed and experienced, when fully tapped into -- this is in the Awake or Enlightened or Realized state -- the Awareness (for lack of better term) appears to be unbound, unconditioned, not subject to time or life or death, yet it actually is. When the body's lights are out, the Awareness as manifest by that body is also done. There is no Ocean of Awareness still existing. The appearance of an Ocean disappeared with the dissipation of the wave. Are you getting me? Let me say at the outset, that I think my concern here is probably unimportant. Still, it niggles, and I itch it. To reiterate, Scenario #1 and scenario #2 in the OP are similar in that it takes as a starting condition that when Awareness is realized the 'experience' of that Awareness is of an unbound, timeless, immortal. Where the two scenarios differ is that #1 therefore infers that it is actually unbound, timeless, immortal and #2 claims that it is just the experience that is, and it's lights out when it's lights out. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2013 13:37:23 GMT -5
My question in the OP was offering another possible explanation. That which is referred to, without boundary yada yada, is by it's nature unbound in experience. That is, as expressed and experienced, when fully tapped into -- this is in the Awake or Enlightened or Realized state -- the Awareness (for lack of better term) appears to be unbound, unconditioned, not subject to time or life or death, yet it actually is. When the body's lights are out, the Awareness as manifest by that body is also done. There is no Ocean of Awareness still existing. The appearance of an Ocean disappeared with the dissipation of the wave. When Max dies, Enigma is still aware, so the question is, is awareness not still present and expressed through Enigma? Awareness has only ceased from the perspective of one of the objects appearing to awareness. When this Max object is identified with, it seems to be a particularly important object, and when the Enigma object is identified with, it also seems to be a particularly important object, but what you are is that which is doing the identifying in both cases, and placing particular importance on all these objects at once. Awareness, in this context, is radically singular, and so while we wouldn't say Max is Enigma, we can say the awareness of Max is the same as the awareness of Enigma. Awareness is non-local, and so the awareness of anything is 'your awareness', or more accurately, you AS awareness. As awareness, you never enter the land of dream objects at all. You never appear and so you never disappear. In one sense you are always here, and in another sense you are never here, because 'here' is appearing in you rather than you appearing 'here'. When I hear "the awareness" I can't help but hear awareness being objectified. You, as awareness, never become an object to yourself. You are subjectivity itself. All else is objects appearing as appearances only. There is no experience OF awareness. Awareness is the experiencer and that which is experienced is the 'movement' of awareness itself. As such, there is no 'distance' between awareness, and the process of being aware, and the object of awareness. The perceiver, the perceiving and the perceived are the same. What makes them seem to be different is only a set of imaginary ideas about a perceiver, a process, and an object being perceived. Once imagined, they seem to require reconciliation. You can't unimagine them, and so it's necessary to see them for what they are. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 6, 2013 14:44:46 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. laughter, especially, though of course all are welcome, do you have any thoughts about the above query? Laughter's response interests me because I know he's steeped in science and can relate to the agnostic framework. I'm not sure of this, but it seems like there is quite a bit of consensus (here) around the idea that what is being pointed to as without boundary, without time, always present, etc., is unconstrained by body, etc. and therefore present even absent the existence of a material expression. My question in the OP was offering another possible explanation. That which is referred to, without boundary yada yada, is by it's nature unbound in experience. That is, as expressed and experienced, when fully tapped into -- this is in the Awake or Enlightened or Realized state -- the Awareness (for lack of better term) appears to be unbound, unconditioned, not subject to time or life or death, yet it actually is. When the body's lights are out, the Awareness as manifest by that body is also done. There is no Ocean of Awareness still existing. The appearance of an Ocean disappeared with the dissipation of the wave. Are you getting me? Let me say at the outset, that I think my concern here is probably unimportant. Still, it niggles, and I itch it. To reiterate, Scenario #1 and scenario #2 in the OP are similar in that it takes as a starting condition that when Awareness is realized the 'experience' of that Awareness is of an unbound, timeless, immortal. Where the two scenarios differ is that #1 therefore infers that it is actually unbound, timeless, immortal and #2 claims that it is just the experience that is, and it's lights out when it's lights out. Hey Max, Before I reply I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. Can I paraphrase the 2nd proposed scenario as follows? Awareness is the natural experience of a body and different bodies share the same experience of awareness because they share the same physical characteristics. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 14:48:49 GMT -5
laughter, especially, though of course all are welcome, do you have any thoughts about the above query? Laughter's response interests me because I know he's steeped in science and can relate to the agnostic framework. I'm not sure of this, but it seems like there is quite a bit of consensus (here) around the idea that what is being pointed to as without boundary, without time, always present, etc., is unconstrained by body, etc. and therefore present even absent the existence of a material expression. My question in the OP was offering another possible explanation. That which is referred to, without boundary yada yada, is by it's nature unbound in experience. That is, as expressed and experienced, when fully tapped into -- this is in the Awake or Enlightened or Realized state -- the Awareness (for lack of better term) appears to be unbound, unconditioned, not subject to time or life or death, yet it actually is. When the body's lights are out, the Awareness as manifest by that body is also done. There is no Ocean of Awareness still existing. The appearance of an Ocean disappeared with the dissipation of the wave. Are you getting me? Let me say at the outset, that I think my concern here is probably unimportant. Still, it niggles, and I itch it. To reiterate, Scenario #1 and scenario #2 in the OP are similar in that it takes as a starting condition that when Awareness is realized the 'experience' of that Awareness is of an unbound, timeless, immortal. Where the two scenarios differ is that #1 therefore infers that it is actually unbound, timeless, immortal and #2 claims that it is just the experience that is, and it's lights out when it's lights out. Hey Max, Before I reply I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. Can I paraphrase the 2nd proposed scenario as follows? Awareness is the natural experience of a body and different bodies share the same experience of awareness because they share the same physical characteristics. Ahhh, so much simpler. And the experience of awareness is best described by adjectives such as nonlocal, unbounded, timeless, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 14:49:28 GMT -5
My question in the OP was offering another possible explanation. That which is referred to, without boundary yada yada, is by it's nature unbound in experience. That is, as expressed and experienced, when fully tapped into -- this is in the Awake or Enlightened or Realized state -- the Awareness (for lack of better term) appears to be unbound, unconditioned, not subject to time or life or death, yet it actually is. When the body's lights are out, the Awareness as manifest by that body is also done. There is no Ocean of Awareness still existing. The appearance of an Ocean disappeared with the dissipation of the wave. When Max dies, Enigma is still aware, so the question is, is awareness not still present and expressed through Enigma? Awareness has only ceased from the perspective of one of the objects appearing to awareness. When this Max object is identified with, it seems to be a particularly important object, and when the Enigma object is identified with, it also seems to be a particularly important object, but what you are is that which is doing the identifying in both cases, and placing particular importance on all these objects at once. Awareness, in this context, is radically singular, and so while we wouldn't say Max is Enigma, we can say the awareness of Max is the same as the awareness of Enigma. Awareness is non-local, and so the awareness of anything is 'your awareness', or more accurately, you AS awareness. As awareness, you never enter the land of dream objects at all. You never appear and so you never disappear. In one sense you are always here, and in another sense you are never here, because 'here' is appearing in you rather than you appearing 'here'. When I hear "the awareness" I can't help but hear awareness being objectified. You, as awareness, never become an object to yourself. You are subjectivity itself. All else is objects appearing as appearances only. There is no experience OF awareness. Awareness is the experiencer and that which is experienced is the 'movement' of awareness itself. As such, there is no 'distance' between awareness, and the process of being aware, and the object of awareness. The perceiver, the perceiving and the perceived are the same. What makes them seem to be different is only a set of imaginary ideas about a perceiver, a process, and an object being perceived. Once imagined, they seem to require reconciliation. You can't unimagine them, and so it's necessary to see them for what they are. This is a good explication of scenario #1. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 6, 2013 14:53:49 GMT -5
Hey Max, Before I reply I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. Can I paraphrase the 2nd proposed scenario as follows? Awareness is the natural experience of a body and different bodies share the same experience of awareness because they share the same physical characteristics. Ahhh, so much simpler. And the experience of awareness is best described by adjectives such as nonlocal, unbounded, timeless, etc. O.k. then. Before we get into any meta-physics, let's just explore the physics of scenario #2. "Awareness is the natural experience of a body and different bodies share the same experience of awareness because they share the same physical characteristics." We have "body" and the "experience of the body". We're limiting the body by the boundary of skin? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 14:57:57 GMT -5
Ahhh, so much simpler. And the experience of awareness is best described by adjectives such as nonlocal, unbounded, timeless, etc. O.k. then. Before we get into any meta-physics, let's just explore the physics of scenario #2. "Awareness is the natural experience of a body and different bodies share the same experience of awareness because they share the same physical characteristics." We have "body" and the "experience of the body". We're limiting the body by the boundary of skin? Sounds good. My interaction is hereby limited for the day so if you have more clarifying questions they'll have to await my replies until tomorrow. Otherwise, pontificate away, and I await laughter. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 6, 2013 15:01:33 GMT -5
O.k. then. Before we get into any meta-physics, let's just explore the physics of scenario #2. "Awareness is the natural experience of a body and different bodies share the same experience of awareness because they share the same physical characteristics." We have "body" and the "experience of the body". We're limiting the body by the boundary of skin? Sounds good. My interaction is hereby limited for the day so if you have more clarifying questions they'll have to await my replies until tomorrow. Otherwise, pontificate away, and I await laughter. Scenario #2 isn't physically plausible, and I can go into the details of that if you want. Usually, when this issue is discussed, the word "consciousness" is used instead of "awareness". As far as scenario #1 is concerned, my answer is: (** skijump! **) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2013 15:07:06 GMT -5
Hey Max, Before I reply I want to make sure I understand what you're asking. Can I paraphrase the 2nd proposed scenario as follows? Awareness is the natural experience of a body and different bodies share the same experience of awareness because they share the same physical characteristics. Ahhh, so much simpler. And the experience of awareness is best described by adjectives such as nonlocal, unbounded, timeless, etc. So what we call the experience of awareness is more of an absence of local, bounded, temporal stuff, right? Nothing added? |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 6, 2013 15:37:55 GMT -5
"You cannot be aware of anything. Somebody has fed people with this kind of `Bum-dole`. You have been fed so long on this bunk that anybody saying anything on this probably creates some kind of indigestion there. You want the same thing there. What exactly do you mean by `aware'? You cannot be aware. There is no you. When there is an awareness there is no you. It is not there. It [the awareness] is aware of itself. It sounds mystical, but it is so. The anger or the feeling is aware of itself.
The `you' separates you from that. That is the movement of thought. There is nothing else other than what you are looking at.
* * *
My emphasis is that awareness cannot be separated from the activity of the brain. It cannot be used as an instrument to understand anything, much less to bring about any change."
-UG
Sorry, UG always cracks me up.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 6, 2013 15:53:02 GMT -5
My question in the OP was offering another possible explanation. That which is referred to, without boundary yada yada, is by it's nature unbound in experience. That is, as expressed and experienced, when fully tapped into -- this is in the Awake or Enlightened or Realized state -- the Awareness (for lack of better term) appears to be unbound, unconditioned, not subject to time or life or death, yet it actually is. When the body's lights are out, the Awareness as manifest by that body is also done. There is no Ocean of Awareness still existing. The appearance of an Ocean disappeared with the dissipation of the wave. When Max dies, Enigma is still aware, so the question is, is awareness not still present and expressed through Enigma? Awareness has only ceased from the perspective of one of the objects appearing to awareness. When this Max object is identified with, it seems to be a particularly important object, and when the Enigma object is identified with, it also seems to be a particularly important object, but what you are is that which is doing the identifying in both cases, and placing particular importance on all these objects at once. Awareness, in this context, is radically singular, and so while we wouldn't say Max is Enigma, we can say the awareness of Max is the same as the awareness of Enigma. Awareness is non-local, and so the awareness of anything is 'your awareness', or more accurately, you AS awareness. As awareness, you never enter the land of dream objects at all. You never appear and so you never disappear. In one sense you are always here, and in another sense you are never here, because 'here' is appearing in you rather than you appearing 'here'. When I hear "the awareness" I can't help but hear awareness being objectified. You, as awareness, never become an object to yourself. You are subjectivity itself. All else is objects appearing as appearances only. There is no experience OF awareness. Awareness is the experiencer and that which is experienced is the 'movement' of awareness itself. As such, there is no 'distance' between awareness, and the process of being aware, and the object of awareness. The perceiver, the perceiving and the perceived are the same. What makes them seem to be different is only a set of imaginary ideas about a perceiver, a process, and an object being perceived. Once imagined, they seem to require reconciliation. You can't unimagine them, and so it's necessary to see them for what they are. Yep. E. has explained this well. The exact same awareness looks out of every set of eyes, and it is possible to experience this directly, and to know it without any doubt. Alternatively, it is possible to have a realization that dispels the illusion of selfhood. Such a realization makes it obvious what is not. A realization of this sort, however, while freeing one from the illusion of selfhood, does not give the experience of oneness directly. It is more a matter of seeing that THIS is all that remains after selfhood collapses. In a sense, an experience of oneness is internal and allows us to know the truth directly. A realization, by contrast, is external (although these words aren't totally appropriate), and allows us to know what the truth is NOT. When an experience occurs, it happens through some unknown organ of perception that operates unlike anything else. A realization is more like a wall falls down or a mirage is seen through. As one fellow described his experience of oneness, "I saw people coming toward me, but all were the same man. All were myself! I had never known this world. I had believed that I was created, but now I must change my opinion; I was never created; I was the cosmos; no individual existed." In his case there was a direct experience and a consequent realization, but in other cases there can be a realization without an experience. In both cases the illusion of selfhood vanishes, but an experience, alone, is usually insufficient to keep the illusion of selfhood from reappearing. A realization wipes it off the face of the map. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2013 16:53:01 GMT -5
"You cannot be aware of anything. Somebody has fed people with this kind of `Bum-dole`. You have been fed so long on this bunk that anybody saying anything on this probably creates some kind of indigestion there. You want the same thing there. What exactly do you mean by `aware'? You cannot be aware. There is no you. When there is an awareness there is no you. It is not there. It [the awareness] is aware of itself. It sounds mystical, but it is so. The anger or the feeling is aware of itself. The `you' separates you from that. That is the movement of thought. There is nothing else other than what you are looking at. * * * My emphasis is that awareness cannot be separated from the activity of the brain. It cannot be used as an instrument to understand anything, much less to bring about any change." -UG Sorry, UG always cracks me up. "Bum-dole"?? I'm not sure what that means but it doesn't sound like a good thingy. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 6, 2013 17:01:58 GMT -5
"You cannot be aware of anything. Somebody has fed people with this kind of `Bum-dole`. You have been fed so long on this bunk that anybody saying anything on this probably creates some kind of indigestion there. You want the same thing there. What exactly do you mean by `aware'? You cannot be aware. There is no you. When there is an awareness there is no you. It is not there. It [the awareness] is aware of itself. It sounds mystical, but it is so. The anger or the feeling is aware of itself. The `you' separates you from that. That is the movement of thought. There is nothing else other than what you are looking at. * * * My emphasis is that awareness cannot be separated from the activity of the brain. It cannot be used as an instrument to understand anything, much less to bring about any change." -UG Sorry, UG always cracks me up. "Bum-dole"?? I'm not sure what that means but it doesn't sound like a good thingy. ;D It's the new flavor of juice from Dole ;D. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 6, 2013 17:45:11 GMT -5
"Bum-dole"?? I'm not sure what that means but it doesn't sound like a good thingy. ;D It's the new flavor of juice from Dole ;D. I'm sure it will be a......um.......big seller.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 6, 2013 23:45:59 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. Great OP! Glad this one got bumped! I rez with no.1 -- same awareness. |
|
