|
Post by question on Sept 14, 2011 8:27:00 GMT -5
The question is still how to know that there is awareness in deep sleep and how to know that your awareness is the same as mine and how awareness controls body chemistry. I don't see how there could be any provable answers to that. That's actually a foundational declaration of all this nondual malarky, so what you're looking for will never happen. Right, and I didn't expect a proof. I said from the beginning that the way I understood the question there can't be a proof to it. But obviously you talked not to convince anyone to believe anything, you seem to have had a subtely different context in mind, one which I have missed and, if understand correctly will leave no choice but to recognize its dominance over the context that I've been talking from. And so I have been trying to clarify my understanding of the question/context and point out why it doesn't work, I've been trying to do that in the hopes that it will enable you to recognize where I'm stuck and make me aware of how to understand which context you are talking about. A good place to start would probably be to clarify the difference between consciousness and awareness. To me it's the same, or rather, if it's not the same, then I have no idea what you mean by 'awareness'. The way I think you're 'defining' awareness is that there can't be anything said, known, remembered about it, much like deep sleep and someone else's consciousness. So I think another strategy is required other than to attempt a 'prior to' logical figure, because the way I understand it that figure is fundamentally ambiguous as I think I've shown.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2011 12:45:12 GMT -5
I don't see how there could be any provable answers to that. That's actually a foundational declaration of all this nondual malarky, so what you're looking for will never happen. Right, and I didn't expect a proof. I said from the beginning that the way I understood the question there can't be a proof to it. But obviously you talked not to convince anyone to believe anything, you seem to have had a subtely different context in mind, one which I have missed and, if understand correctly will leave no choice but to recognize its dominance over the context that I've been talking from. And so I have been trying to clarify my understanding of the question/context and point out why it doesn't work, I've been trying to do that in the hopes that it will enable you to recognize where I'm stuck and make me aware of how to understand which context you are talking about. A good place to start would probably be to clarify the difference between consciousness and awareness. To me it's the same, or rather, if it's not the same, then I have no idea what you mean by 'awareness'. The way I think you're 'defining' awareness is that there can't be anything said, known, remembered about it, much like deep sleep and someone else's consciousness. So I think another strategy is required other than to attempt a 'prior to' logical figure, because the way I understand it that figure is fundamentally ambiguous as I think I've shown. Consciousness and awareness are terms used in a game of 'pointing away', since ultimately we would have to say neither has any substance or reality beyond ideas. What we're referring to with these terms is actually the source of all appearances, including thoughts and concepts, which means it can't actually be referred to with an appearance, thought or concept. So we end up using words like formlessness, emptiness, nothingness or '_____'. It's not really ambiguous, contradicting or paradoxical, it just means the source of thought cannot, itself, be thinking, nor can it be described by any of the thoughts it is sourcing. Not because it is indescribable or because mind doesn't have the capacity to grasp, but because there is nothing to describe or grasp about that which is the source of the notions of describing and grasping. These notions had no meaning until they were imagined, and then imagined to have some meaning. Mind assumes that everything can be defined, identified and labeled, but this whole process is imagination only. Knowledge is the notion that these labels have some ultimate meaning beyond imagination, and understanding is the notion that these labels can be arranged such that they form larger patterns, thereby imbuing them with greater meaning. The ideal is perhaps to form a huge pattern of interconnecting imagined labels in which every label adds to the defining of every other label. We would call this complete knowledge, and yet all that we've done is imagine a pattern that doesn't exist beyond the imagining of it. Aside from the fact that we imagine monsters and then terrify ourselves with them, this imagining process goes fine until we turn our attention to the source of imagining and try to imagine what that source is. At that point we might notice that the questions have no meaning at all beyond the idea that they do, and that the imagining game doesn't apply to anything outside the game, so we scurry back to the game board and continue imagining. Back to the game board (hehe), what I define as consciousness is all appearances. Consciousness is it's content of form, thought, feeling, sense perception. We can talk about consciousness as singular or individuated, though individuation is just another appearance in consciousness. In this individuated context, we can say consciousness comes and goes, for the person. In a larger context we can say consciousness is always present because the universe is always present, or apparently so. Awareness, as I use the term, is more fundamental. Awareness is the presence within which form plays and in which consciousness comes and goes and changes continually. As such, awareness does not come, go or change. Consciousness is only conceptually separated from awareness, and could be seen as 'awareness in motion'. When God is still, this is awareness. When God is waving his arms, this is consciousness moving within that stillness. Whether God is waving his arms or not, he is still there. He IS that stillness, that awareness. He only becomes 'aware of' something when he notices himself waving his arms.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 14, 2011 18:54:05 GMT -5
Yuppers. Nice explanation. A friend of mine, Mike Snider, likes to ask people to remember a vivid experience from their childhood. Then, he asks them if awareness in the present moment is any different than it was during their childhood experience. Has it changed in any way? Has it aged? Does it have any qualities? Does it need anything or want anything? Etc. After they have contemplated several such questions, he then says, "Well, that unmoving unchanging awareness is who you really are." Some people hear those words and have an "aha" moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 19:57:06 GMT -5
Yuppers. Nice explanation. A friend of mine, Mike Snider, likes to ask people to remember a vivid experience from their childhood. Then, he asks them if awareness in the present moment is any different than it was during their childhood experience. Has it changed in any way? Has it aged? Does it have any qualities? Does it need anything or want anything? Etc. After they have contemplated several such questions, he then says, "Well, that unmoving unchanging awareness is who you really are." Some people hear those words and have an "aha" moment. Not sure if this is coincidence but Mike Snider is the guy I quoted in the original post of this thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2011 20:03:41 GMT -5
Maxd: There's a very good reason scientists didn't find the watcher of thoughts. It's very difficult to imagine such an entity. Some people imagine a soul that is watching and memorizing thought. And many variations of this theme. Regarding your initial post, you can't see the same awareness at the same time as you see different people. Yes I see what you're saying. I think. Something makes sense there. It's been nagging at me from page 1.
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 14, 2011 22:00:40 GMT -5
Enigma, I think what you call consciousness I would simply call experience. Awareness I would call that which all experiences have in common. But it's really a logical deduction. We would need to experience the common denominator in isolation, before we can say that it isn't merely a logical figure. But I can't 'experience' something that is by definition not an experience, which I think doesn't primarily imply that the common denominator is an actuality prior to all experience, but rather that we have made a logical mistake in thinking that the common denominator is necessarily independent of experience. The common denominator could of course be independent of experience, but it's a unverifiable speculation.
In your terms this would then mean that although awareness is present in all consciousness it doesn't imply that awareness can persist without consciousness, which means that we don't know that there is a God who is ever NOT waving his arms. If we can't find awareness in isolation of consciousness then the distinction remains conceptual and its scope remains limited to ideas, the pointer isn't pointing anywhere, we remain on the game board.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 14, 2011 22:11:11 GMT -5
Yuppers. Nice explanation. A friend of mine, Mike Snider, likes to ask people to remember a vivid experience from their childhood. Then, he asks them if awareness in the present moment is any different than it was during their childhood experience. Has it changed in any way? Has it aged? Does it have any qualities? Does it need anything or want anything? Etc. After they have contemplated several such questions, he then says, "Well, that unmoving unchanging awareness is who you really are." Some people hear those words and have an "aha" moment. Not sure if this is coincidence but Mike Snider is the guy I quoted in the original post of this thread It's not a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 14, 2011 22:53:28 GMT -5
Enigma, I think what you call consciousness I would simply call experience. Awareness I would call that which all experiences have in common. But it's really a logical deduction. We would need to experience the common denominator in isolation, before we can say that it isn't merely a logical figure. But I can't 'experience' something that is by definition not an experience, which I think doesn't primarily imply that the common denominator is an actuality prior to all experience, but rather that we have made a logical mistake in thinking that the common denominator is necessarily independent of experience. The common denominator could of course be independent of experience, but it's a unverifiable speculation. In your terms this would then mean that although awareness is present in all consciousness it doesn't imply that awareness can persist without consciousness, which means that we don't know that there is a God who is ever NOT waving his arms. If we can't find awareness in isolation of consciousness then the distinction remains conceptual and its scope remains limited to ideas, the pointer isn't pointing anywhere, we remain on the game board. There is a habit of mind that assumes experience has such a solidity that it needs no external reference, and yet the reality of all of it is much like moving in an elevator at constant velocity; one does not experience movement from within the movement. In the larger context, movement can only be experienced from stillness, time can only be experienced from timelessness. Similarly, consciousness can only be known from that which transcends consciousness. All events are the verification of the presence of that which transcends events. This is the common denominator.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 15, 2011 1:14:54 GMT -5
Enigma, I think what you call consciousness I would simply call experience. Awareness I would call that which all experiences have in common. But it's really a logical deduction. We would need to experience the common denominator in isolation, before we can say that it isn't merely a logical figure. But I can't 'experience' something that is by definition not an experience, which I think doesn't primarily imply that the common denominator is an actuality prior to all experience, but rather that we have made a logical mistake in thinking that the common denominator is necessarily independent of experience. The common denominator could of course be independent of experience, but it's a unverifiable speculation. In your terms this would then mean that although awareness is present in all consciousness it doesn't imply that awareness can persist without consciousness, which means that we don't know that there is a God who is ever NOT waving his arms. If we can't find awareness in isolation of consciousness then the distinction remains conceptual and its scope remains limited to ideas, the pointer isn't pointing anywhere, we remain on the game board. There is a habit of mind that assumes experience has such a solidity that it needs no external reference, and yet the reality of all of it is much like moving in an elevator at constant velocity; one does not experience movement from within the movement. In the larger context, movement can only be experienced from stillness, time can only be experienced from timelessness. Similarly, consciousness can only be known from that which transcends consciousness. All events are the verification of the presence of that which transcends events. This is the common denominator. Remarkable clarity and insight considering LOL...truelly amazing.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 15, 2011 11:32:10 GMT -5
There is a habit of mind that assumes experience has such a solidity that it needs no external reference, and yet the reality of all of it is much like moving in an elevator at constant velocity; one does not experience movement from within the movement. In the larger context, movement can only be experienced from stillness, time can only be experienced from timelessness. Similarly, consciousness can only be known from that which transcends consciousness. All events are the verification of the presence of that which transcends events. This is the common denominator. Remarkable clarity and insight considering LOL...truelly amazing. "Considering?" Wow, what is that smell? If E. exhibited some clarity, I guess it must have been accidental. At least MS didn't think he was enlightened. Otherwise he would have been a real terror. Someone will need to answer Popee's question in the near future and discuss some of the pertinent issues. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 15, 2011 11:51:02 GMT -5
To be clear about the considering LOL...I think enigmas exibits incredibly accurate clarity and insight...its incredible to me, even awe inspiring, Becuase i don't think he's actually had the direct beyond I amness experience....I honestly think he might have one of the greatest philosophical minds in history.
He reminds me of a thing I read in a gurdjief book...about how there was a sculpture in old Russia who recreated the likeness of a historical figure with only the nose of an old statue to go by...he only had the nose as a direct referance point, but he was able to see so clearly from that nose that he acurately recreated the likeness of the figure...they only found out later when another likeness was found how accurate he was....enigma also reminds of a story I read about a famous Indian boy from a small village in India...the boy had one basic entry level math book...but from that very basic arithmetic book he was able to understand and develop mathematical proofs and theorums that took the most advanced and experienced mathematical minds in the world decades to understand....I put enigma into that class when i say considering...
I have poked at enigma...but i haven't poked at him to discredit him or say something about him good or bad to the rest of the people here, I've poked him becuae I love him the same way i love Max and Popee and everyone else LOL...
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 15, 2011 12:09:23 GMT -5
And now out of the same love I'll poke you Zen :-)
All of our senses, all of our thought patterns, really everything in the world of phenomena both inside and out comes as an outflowing of I amness....sometimes that outflowing comes from autopilot habit, sometimes from concious doing when we understand the nature of our I amness and conciously become aware of a doing...so my poke is this....is this "smell" you speak of some phenomena that your I amness is creating on autopilot from an attachment to some idea, or is it a concious creation?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2011 13:33:41 GMT -5
The need for experiences is a funny thang when viewed from outside the experiences.
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Sept 15, 2011 14:28:46 GMT -5
A good place to start would probably be to clarify the difference between consciousness and awareness. To me it's the same, or rather, if it's not the same, then I have no idea what you mean by 'awareness'. Ah! That point tickles me because my mother tongue is french and as far as I can investigate, both english words “consciousness” and “awareness” translate to the same: “conscience”. I have asked around to bylingual english/french people and they agree (if any of this particular breed please say your bit). Perhaps a blessing in disguise: less wordly definition = less error… ? PS I now have read E’s response (#76) and he confirms my last sentence… but then proceeds to develop the difference between the 2 words with the reservation that it’s as he uses the terms! The funny bit is I understand what he says but would be totally unable to explain to a french person (including myself, Ha-ha). I first encountered this short-circuit when reading Niz who at times clearly differentiates the 2 concepts, and I had to face that even the great sage has to rely on concepts devoid of truth to communicate. ... THE MOON, NOT THE FINGER!!!!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 15, 2011 16:55:19 GMT -5
A good place to start would probably be to clarify the difference between consciousness and awareness. To me it's the same, or rather, if it's not the same, then I have no idea what you mean by 'awareness'. Ah! That point tickles me because my mother tongue is french and as far as I can investigate, both english words “consciousness” and “awareness” translate to the same: “conscience”. I have asked around to bylingual english/french people and they agree (if any of this particular breed please say your bit). Perhaps a blessing in disguise: less wordly definition = less error… ? PS I now have read E’s response (#76) and he confirms my last sentence… but then proceeds to develop the difference between the 2 words with the reservation that it’s as he uses the terms! The funny bit is I understand what he says but would be totally unable to explain to a french person (including myself, Ha-ha). I first encountered this short-circuit when reading Niz who at times clearly differentiates the 2 concepts, and I had to face that even the great sage has to rely on concepts devoid of truth to communicate. ... THE MOON, NOT THE FINGER!!!! Yeah. Language is a funny thing. The early Greeks had numerous words for "love" ranging from romantic love (eros) to cosmic love (agape), yet in English we only have the one word for expressing a wide range of different meanings, emotions, feelings, experiences, etc. Same same with the word "know." "Gnossis" for body-knowing and "episteme" for mind-knowing. For those who enjoy language studies it's obvious that those early Greeks were pretty sophisticated. In several languages there are words for which there are no English translations. The word "yugen," in Japanese, for example, has no accurate English equivalent. To express what the word means requires a paragraph at best. These are only two minor communication problems one encounters when discussing things like non-duality. There are many more. Here, we are often writing about experiences and realizations that cannot be imagined at all. Anyone who has experienced samadhi, for example, knows that it is totally impossible to describe that state of being in words. If someone has not experienced pure awareness with no content and no experiencer, there is no way to understand what that is LIKE because it is not LIKE anything else. Words can only represent what can be imagined, so any form of unity-consciousness is beyond the capability of language, which depends upon the distinction of states differing in value. How does one communicate what total stillness is like? One can't because it can't be imagined. How does one communicate what life is like after the structures of thought supporting a sense of selfhood have disintegrated? One can't because it can't be imagined. How does one communicate the living truth? No way Jose! All one can do is point toward the truth and invite others to see it for themselves.
|
|