Annette Nibley

[Deleted]

From her blog What Never Changes:

What Misidentifies?


Question: If the problem is identification of “I” with the body-mind complex, what is it that makes the misidentification – awareness, or the mind?

Answer: You know it can’t be awareness, since awareness isn’t a thinker or a feeler, and can’t get identified with anything. It’s not possible. And the problem with saying it is the body-mind that makes the mistake is that we know the body-mind appears only as a result of this mistaken identity! So it can’t be the cause of the problem and also the effect.

A good way to unfold this is to remember the relationship between awareness and the body-mind. The body-mind is awareness, but awareness is not the body-mind. In other words, objects are nothing but awareness, but awareness is not limited to or shaped by any object it appears as.

The “clay and pots” analogy might help:

Everything in the world appears in awareness, and is made of nothing but awareness, since reality is non-dual. There is only one “substance” in existence, and that is awareness. We can call awareness the clay, out of which a multiplicity of pots and ornaments are shaped. The clay always remains free of the pots. The clay is not changed by the pots, and is not dependent upon the pots in order to be clay.

But this relationship is one-way. The pots are totally dependent on the clay for their existence. Without the clay (awareness), the pots (objects appearing) could not be at all. The pots are clay through and through! They take a form which makes them appear to be something other than clay, meaning, we might notice the pot without thinking about the clay. But the pots never stopped being clay.

The pots in this analogy are all the objects appearing in awareness, including the body-mind. The body-mind never stopped being awareness, it only takes this form which makes it appear to be something on its own, independently. And it is this mistaken appearance that is taken by the body-mind itself as “me,” when in reality, it is awareness that is “me.” And so it is the body-mind making the mistake, but the body-mind is nothing but awareness. It is awareness, appearing as a body-mind.

It sounds like I’m not answering the question, but this whole explanation is necessary in order to explain how awareness can seemingly mistake itself for a body-mind. It does not, except as the body-mind it is appearing as. As the apparent body-mind, all kinds of mistakes can be made, and are. This is ignorance, and ignorance is very pervasive.

But the body-mind never stopped being awareness through and through. There is only awareness. The person is awareness. It just doesn’t know that until the ignorance is removed.

So who is identifying itself as the body-mind? It is awareness in the form of a body-mind, which is not aware that the form is superficial and temporary. A falsehood doesn’t know who it is and so takes its own falsehood to be its identity. Awareness never makes a mistake, but objects (such as the body-mind) appearing out of awareness and resolving into awareness are able to make a mistake, while they are appearing.*

You could say “I” am making a mistake. “I” am taking myself to be a body-mind. What is that “I”? I am the Self. And so I am not making a mistake. That’s not possible. I cannot make a mistake. I cannot misidentify with anything. So it is not even a true statement to say, “I am identifying with a body-mind.” You are not! You are awareness, and you are unchanging and untouched by ignorance.

One way or another, it is a matter of sorting out what you are. It’s not all that simple to do. That’s why I recommend Vedanta so highly. There is only awareness, and that is what you are, but awareness appears as jivas, and that is also what you are. The jiva is the pot, and awareness is the clay. You are both, because they are both nothing but awareness.

* This brings up another question that has to be addressed, and that is: How did this false appearance, which takes itself to be a body-mind, appear in the first place? This question is addressed here, in “How Does the Body-Mind Appear?”

[silence]

Jul 7, 2014 11:00:50 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

From her blog What Never Changes:

What Misidentifies?


Question: If the problem is identification of “I” with the body-mind complex, what is it that makes the misidentification – awareness, or the mind?

Answer: You know it can’t be awareness, since awareness isn’t a thinker or a feeler, and can’t get identified with anything. It’s not possible. And the problem with saying it is the body-mind that makes the mistake is that we know the body-mind appears only as a result of this mistaken identity! So it can’t be the cause of the problem and also the effect.

A good way to unfold this is to remember the relationship between awareness and the body-mind. The body-mind is awareness, but awareness is not the body-mind. In other words, objects are nothing but awareness, but awareness is not limited to or shaped by any object it appears as.

The “clay and pots” analogy might help:

Everything in the world appears in awareness, and is made of nothing but awareness, since reality is non-dual. There is only one “substance” in existence, and that is awareness. We can call awareness the clay, out of which a multiplicity of pots and ornaments are shaped. The clay always remains free of the pots. The clay is not changed by the pots, and is not dependent upon the pots in order to be clay.

But this relationship is one-way. The pots are totally dependent on the clay for their existence. Without the clay (awareness), the pots (objects appearing) could not be at all. The pots are clay through and through! They take a form which makes them appear to be something other than clay, meaning, we might notice the pot without thinking about the clay. But the pots never stopped being clay.

The pots in this analogy are all the objects appearing in awareness, including the body-mind. The body-mind never stopped being awareness, it only takes this form which makes it appear to be something on its own, independently. And it is this mistaken appearance that is taken by the body-mind itself as “me,” when in reality, it is awareness that is “me.” And so it is the body-mind making the mistake, but the body-mind is nothing but awareness. It is awareness, appearing as a body-mind.

It sounds like I’m not answering the question, but this whole explanation is necessary in order to explain how awareness can seemingly mistake itself for a body-mind. It does not, except as the body-mind it is appearing as. As the apparent body-mind, all kinds of mistakes can be made, and are. This is ignorance, and ignorance is very pervasive.

But the body-mind never stopped being awareness through and through. There is only awareness. The person is awareness. It just doesn’t know that until the ignorance is removed.

So who is identifying itself as the body-mind? It is awareness in the form of a body-mind, which is not aware that the form is superficial and temporary. A falsehood doesn’t know who it is and so takes its own falsehood to be its identity. Awareness never makes a mistake, but objects (such as the body-mind) appearing out of awareness and resolving into awareness are able to make a mistake, while they are appearing.*

You could say “I” am making a mistake. “I” am taking myself to be a body-mind. What is that “I”? I am the Self. And so I am not making a mistake. That’s not possible. I cannot make a mistake. I cannot misidentify with anything. So it is not even a true statement to say, “I am identifying with a body-mind.” You are not! You are awareness, and you are unchanging and untouched by ignorance.

One way or another, it is a matter of sorting out what you are. It’s not all that simple to do. That’s why I recommend Vedanta so highly. There is only awareness, and that is what you are, but awareness appears as jivas, and that is also what you are. The jiva is the pot, and awareness is the clay. You are both, because they are both nothing but awareness.

* This brings up another question that has to be addressed, and that is: How did this false appearance, which takes itself to be a body-mind, appear in the first place? This question is addressed here, in “How Does the Body-Mind Appear?”

It reads to me less like a pointer and more like a long convoluted string of logic.

[runstill]

Jul 7, 2014 11:00:50 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

From her blog What Never Changes:

What Misidentifies?


Question: If the problem is identification of “I” with the body-mind complex, what is it that makes the misidentification – awareness, or the mind?

Answer: You know it can’t be awareness, since awareness isn’t a thinker or a feeler, and can’t get identified with anything. It’s not possible. And the problem with saying it is the body-mind that makes the mistake is that we know the body-mind appears only as a result of this mistaken identity! So it can’t be the cause of the problem and also the effect.

A good way to unfold this is to remember the relationship between awareness and the body-mind. The body-mind is awareness, but awareness is not the body-mind. In other words, objects are nothing but awareness, but awareness is not limited to or shaped by any object it appears as.

The “clay and pots” analogy might help:

Everything in the world appears in awareness, and is made of nothing but awareness, since reality is non-dual. There is only one “substance” in existence, and that is awareness. We can call awareness the clay, out of which a multiplicity of pots and ornaments are shaped. The clay always remains free of the pots. The clay is not changed by the pots, and is not dependent upon the pots in order to be clay.

But this relationship is one-way. The pots are totally dependent on the clay for their existence. Without the clay (awareness), the pots (objects appearing) could not be at all. The pots are clay through and through! They take a form which makes them appear to be something other than clay, meaning, we might notice the pot without thinking about the clay. But the pots never stopped being clay.

The pots in this analogy are all the objects appearing in awareness, including the body-mind. The body-mind never stopped being awareness, it only takes this form which makes it appear to be something on its own, independently. And it is this mistaken appearance that is taken by the body-mind itself as “me,” when in reality, it is awareness that is “me.” And so it is the body-mind making the mistake, but the body-mind is nothing but awareness. It is awareness, appearing as a body-mind.

It sounds like I’m not answering the question, but this whole explanation is necessary in order to explain how awareness can seemingly mistake itself for a body-mind. It does not, except as the body-mind it is appearing as. As the apparent body-mind, all kinds of mistakes can be made, and are. This is ignorance, and ignorance is very pervasive.

But the body-mind never stopped being awareness through and through. There is only awareness. The person is awareness. It just doesn’t know that until the ignorance is removed.

So who is identifying itself as the body-mind? It is awareness in the form of a body-mind, which is not aware that the form is superficial and temporary. A falsehood doesn’t know who it is and so takes its own falsehood to be its identity. Awareness never makes a mistake, but objects (such as the body-mind) appearing out of awareness and resolving into awareness are able to make a mistake, while they are appearing.*

You could say “I” am making a mistake. “I” am taking myself to be a body-mind. What is that “I”? I am the Self. And so I am not making a mistake. That’s not possible. I cannot make a mistake. I cannot misidentify with anything. So it is not even a true statement to say, “I am identifying with a body-mind.” You are not! You are awareness, and you are unchanging and untouched by ignorance.

One way or another, it is a matter of sorting out what you are. It’s not all that simple to do. That’s why I recommend Vedanta so highly. There is only awareness, and that is what you are, but awareness appears as jivas, and that is also what you are. The jiva is the pot, and awareness is the clay. You are both, because they are both nothing but awareness.

* This brings up another question that has to be addressed, and that is: How did this false appearance, which takes itself to be a body-mind, appear in the first place? This question is addressed here, in “How Does the Body-Mind Appear?”

Overall I like the analogy there might be a question or two , could you post a little more of her stuff.

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2014 9:29:59 GMT -5 runstill said:

Jul 7, 2014 11:00:50 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

From her blog What Never Changes:

Overall I like the analogy there might be a question or two , could you post a little more of her stuff.

You mean you don't mind the logic?

This is what shows up on the main page of her website when you go there:

“What Never Changes,” first launched in 2006, has always been a non-duality website, but has recently come to focus on traditional Vedanta. The shift of emphasis to Vedanta calls for a little bit of explanation.

I first stumbled upon non-duality in 2005, and it was a watershed event in my seeking life. I’ll never forget the first moment I realized there was something here I had never noticed, that there was this witnessing consciousness which had always been here, was always at total peace, hadn’t changed since I was a little kid, and had never been affected in any way by the experiences of my life.

This recognition naturally led me to want to know more — what is this witness? It’s always peaceful, and it’s always here — I can see this so clearly. But I’m not peaceful! That’s not my experience! So what’s going on? And there arose a strong desire to get to the bottom of it, to partake of that peace and make it my own experience.

Along the way, I was helped by many wonderful non-dual teachers, and I owe them all a huge debt of gratitude, particularly John Wheeler. I was an enthusiastic non-dualist, to say the least, and for several years I posted many non-dual essays and dialogues on this website. Some even said that I expressed the non-dual ideas eloquently. I was feeling pretty good about it all.

But at some point, I knew there was something wrong. Although I had gone as far as anyone could go with “popular” non-duality — and most of the time I was extremely peaceful — when suffering did arise, I still identified myself as the sufferer. In non-duality, it is this identification with the bound, limited, suffering person that is eradicated completely — or so they say. It hadn’t happened for me. Here I was advising people about non-duality, supposedly having it all figured out, and yet I was still suffering!

What wasn’t complete yet in my knowledge? I knew this much, that there are two parts to discovering one’s true nature: Finding out what you are not, and finding out what you are. I knew what I was not, but the second part was still evading my grasp. The Self had not yet been revealed. So I kept looking.

The non-dual marketplace seemed to have nothing more to offer me, no more tricks up its sleeve to move me off this spot. In fact, everyone I knew was in the same spot, even some who were publishing non-dual websites and books as supposed experts. This seemed to be a place many people could not get beyond, where doubts remained, final questions were not answered, all the pieces of the puzzle were not fully and finally in place. And worst of all, virtually all the non-dual advice I could find was extremely unhelpful, such as, “There is no one to realize the Self. You are already the Self you seek. The ‘you’ who is suffering does not exist. There is no such thing as suffering.” No such thing? Then how can it be so painful? This was the epitome of frustration and confusion. More on this in my first blog post.

Through grace, I was led to the website of James Swartz, who has been teaching traditional Vedanta for forty years, since his self-realization under the discipleship of Swami Chinmayananda in 1970. At the time I found James, I didn’t know there was such a thing as traditional Vedanta, which is a tried and true, systematic, methodical means to non-dual realization, thousands of years old, deriving from Vedic source texts, and given a reawakening by the great philosopher Adi Shankaracharya in the 8th century A.D. All this time, I thought non-duality was only communicated in Nisargadatta-style freeform satsangs, in dribs and drabs, and you just had to sort of hope that eventually it would soak in, if you kept “inquiring.” Not very scientific, but okay, if that’s all I had to work with.

Skeptical of the organized method at first (since all my indoctrination had been that non-duality was never meant to be taught in a structured way, and therefore any structured teaching was automatically invalidated!), I just began to listen, and luckily, I stuck with it. I listened to James’ intelligent, illuminating commentary on the source texts of non-duality, in an organized and logical fashion. I couldn’t believe that my long-standing questions were being addressed and answered.

Most importantly, the “person” I experienced myself to be was not being denied (as in the popular buzz phrase, “There is no person”), but instead she was given tools and a road map for finding her way out of bondage. The failure of my previous education was clear: Popular non-duality was negating the person too soon! Before she herself discovered her true nature as the One Self. The person needs time, tools, a means to dismantle its false self-image and discover its own being as the Self. After all, it is the imagined person who needs liberating, not the Self. The Self is already free — we all know that. The one experiencing herself as a person is the one who is liberated through understanding all of this. Then the person goes, the teaching goes, it all goes. But not before the person’s ignorance is addressed. This is what traditional Vedanta does, it addresses the ignorance and uproots it, piece by piece, methodically, logically, cleverly.

It wasn’t too long before I realized what I was writing online was a bunch of crap. The crap was mixed in with the good, but that made it even worse, in a way. It was extremely confusing to people trying to sort all this out. So I stopped writing, and I swore never to write again until I knew for sure that I wasn’t misleading anyone. So this is why I took the website down in 2010.

For the next two years, I did nothing but listen to Vedanta. I listened in the way James recommends. He says, Don’t analyze this teaching in the light of your existing belief system, do it the other way around: Analyze your existing belief system in the light of this teaching! After all, your belief system is all that’s keeping you bound. Sure, I tried picking it apart at first, trying to make my beliefs be the arbiter, but I found that my logic did not stand up to the logic of Vedanta. So I just let it take over, basically. It was like getting a new operating system.

And that’s the end of the story. I know I am the Self, and I can say that with rock-solid confidence and know what it means. And, I can still speak from the standpoint of the person, and there is no problem with that. From the standpoint of the Self, there was no liberation, there was no process, and there is no person who was liberated. But that’s not what’s being discussed here. What I’m talking about exists and operates on the relative plane, and affects relative beings. Until you are completely confident that you are not a relative being, and that you are the Self, this talk can be useful to you.

So I wanted to put the website back up, mostly to direct you to the traditional Vedanta teaching, and mainly to the awesome audios and videos that are available on James Swartz’s website. There are hundreds of hours of teaching available, and it was truly these recordings that, over time, little by little, revealed my own being as the Self. James has spent forty years in service of this teaching, for the liberation of people like you, and these recordings are an invaluable resource. He does a fabulous job of this. I can’t speak highly enough of James.

But it’s not all about James Swartz. I also write about Vedanta myself. I don’t purport to be a Vedanta teacher, but I do have comments, inspiration, and points of comparison between my “old” way of thinking and Vedanta that could be helpful in clearing certain things up. In studying Vedanta, I was constantly reminded of the shortcomings of the non-dual teachings I was exposed to previously. I’d like to share those observations with you.

Annette Nibley
June 2013

[laughter]

In a sense there's a sort of honesty to the AV approach she outlines that becomes clear in the presentation of her story: if there is suffering, if there are still egoic patterns playing out, then regardless of what one knows or doesn't know, isn't there potential for a set of tools oriented toward the person to point in the right direction?

It also explains the nature of the answer to the question given in the OP. "Awareness" is being used the same way that Buddhists use "emptiness", and she's essentially describing a tangled hierarchy: form is emptiness, emptiness is form ... and form is impermanent, while emptiness isn't.

But this question:

Jul 7, 2014 11:00:50 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

What Misidentifies?


Question: If the problem is identification of “I” with the body-mind complex, what is it that makes the misidentification – awareness, or the mind?

... strikes me as obviously one of self-inquiry, and that, of course, can't be answered by logic or any other faculty of the intellect, and it can't be answered by asking the question of someone else.

What I see as WIBIGO here is that an analysis like the one that was given in answer is intended to appeal to a peep who might have an interest in this topic -- "awareness" -- but that for who direct and non-conceptual self-inquiry isn't happening at the time the question is asked. My intuition suggests that the intention likely flows from the expectation that at any given satsang there's gonna be more peeps looking and listening through intellect and emotions than not.

[Deleted]

Jul 7, 2014 11:00:50 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

From her blog What Never Changes:

What Misidentifies?


Question: If the problem is identification of “I” with the body-mind complex, what is it that makes the misidentification – awareness, or the mind?

Answer: You know it can’t be awareness, since awareness isn’t a thinker or a feeler, and can’t get identified with anything. It’s not possible. And the problem with saying it is the body-mind that makes the mistake is that we know the body-mind appears only as a result of this mistaken identity! So it can’t be the cause of the problem and also the effect.

A good way to unfold this is to remember the relationship between awareness and the body-mind. The body-mind is awareness, but awareness is not the body-mind. In other words, objects are nothing but awareness, but awareness is not limited to or shaped by any object it appears as.

The “clay and pots” analogy might help:

Everything in the world appears in awareness, and is made of nothing but awareness, since reality is non-dual. There is only one “substance” in existence, and that is awareness. We can call awareness the clay, out of which a multiplicity of pots and ornaments are shaped. The clay always remains free of the pots. The clay is not changed by the pots, and is not dependent upon the pots in order to be clay.

But this relationship is one-way. The pots are totally dependent on the clay for their existence. Without the clay (awareness), the pots (objects appearing) could not be at all. The pots are clay through and through! They take a form which makes them appear to be something other than clay, meaning, we might notice the pot without thinking about the clay. But the pots never stopped being clay.

The pots in this analogy are all the objects appearing in awareness, including the body-mind. The body-mind never stopped being awareness, it only takes this form which makes it appear to be something on its own, independently. And it is this mistaken appearance that is taken by the body-mind itself as “me,” when in reality, it is awareness that is “me.” And so it is the body-mind making the mistake, but the body-mind is nothing but awareness. It is awareness, appearing as a body-mind.

It sounds like I’m not answering the question, but this whole explanation is necessary in order to explain how awareness can seemingly mistake itself for a body-mind. It does not, except as the body-mind it is appearing as. As the apparent body-mind, all kinds of mistakes can be made, and are. This is ignorance, and ignorance is very pervasive.

But the body-mind never stopped being awareness through and through. There is only awareness. The person is awareness. It just doesn’t know that until the ignorance is removed.

So who is identifying itself as the body-mind? It is awareness in the form of a body-mind, which is not aware that the form is superficial and temporary. A falsehood doesn’t know who it is and so takes its own falsehood to be its identity. Awareness never makes a mistake, but objects (such as the body-mind) appearing out of awareness and resolving into awareness are able to make a mistake, while they are appearing.*

You could say “I” am making a mistake. “I” am taking myself to be a body-mind. What is that “I”? I am the Self. And so I am not making a mistake. That’s not possible. I cannot make a mistake. I cannot misidentify with anything. So it is not even a true statement to say, “I am identifying with a body-mind.” You are not! You are awareness, and you are unchanging and untouched by ignorance.

One way or another, it is a matter of sorting out what you are. It’s not all that simple to do. That’s why I recommend Vedanta so highly. There is only awareness, and that is what you are, but awareness appears as jivas, and that is also what you are. The jiva is the pot, and awareness is the clay. You are both, because they are both nothing but awareness.

* This brings up another question that has to be addressed, and that is: How did this false appearance, which takes itself to be a body-mind, appear in the first place? This question is addressed here, in “How Does the Body-Mind Appear?”

I understand that awareness must be concomitant with an event or object in order for it to be cognized by a brain. But how do we get to a belief that all things are awareness? Sounds like fun philosophical conjecture rather than hard science.

[Deleted]

Nov 29, 2024 22:30:39 GMT -5 @djembebum said:

I understand that awareness must be concomitant with an event or object in order for it to be cognized by a brain. But how do we get to a belief that all things are awareness? Sounds like fun philosophical conjecture rather than hard science.

Cheers to that. She's tackling a hard question there, IMO. And I think the question is preserved despite her answer.

[laughter]

Jul 12, 2014 22:59:33 GMT -5 @djembebum said:

Jul 7, 2014 11:00:50 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

From her blog What Never Changes:

I understand that awareness must be concomitant with an event or object in order for it to be cognized by a brain. But how do we get to a belief that all things are awareness? Sounds like fun philosophical conjecture rather than hard science.

Based on three data points (your A.N excerpt, what rupa took away from Spira, and this from Colin Drake) it seems to me that it's currently fashionable to use the word awareness to refer to the space between thoughts, or when the mind is stopped in it's tracks by natural beauty or any one of a number of ways that the mind stops as a matter of course for anyone and everyone -- -- albeit for some, only occasionally.

No point in fighting a trend but it's interesting to wonder whether it's just a fad or the front end of some new, more enduring cultural artifact. The obvious pitfall of course is that there's a sort of de-facto settlement on a conceptualization of what it is that we are. IE: a collective round of high-stakes identity poker.

While shifting the sense of identification away from form by pointing to emptiness is an Advanced Teacher Methodology^TM, remember that the original cigarette man was attached to .. emptiness.

[silence]

Jul 13, 2014 17:04:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jul 12, 2014 22:59:33 GMT -5 @djembebum said:

I understand that awareness must be concomitant with an event or object in order for it to be cognized by a brain. But how do we get to a belief that all things are awareness? Sounds like fun philosophical conjecture rather than hard science.

Based on three data points (your A.N excerpt, what rupa took away from Spira, and this from Colin Drake) it seems to me that it's currently fashionable to use the word awareness to refer to the space between thoughts, or when the mind is stopped in it's tracks by natural beauty or any one of a number of ways that the mind stops as a matter of course for anyone and everyone -- -- albeit for some, only occasionally.

No point in fighting a trend but it's interesting to wonder whether it's just a fad or the front end of some new, more enduring cultural artifact. The obvious pitfall of course is that there's a sort of de-facto settlement on a conceptualization of what it is that we are. IE: a collective round of high-stakes identity poker.

While shifting the sense of identification away from form by pointing to emptiness is an Advanced Teacher Methodology^TM, remember that the original cigarette man was attached to .. emptiness.

That's well said.

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2014 17:04:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jul 12, 2014 22:59:33 GMT -5 @djembebum said:

I understand that awareness must be concomitant with an event or object in order for it to be cognized by a brain. But how do we get to a belief that all things are awareness? Sounds like fun philosophical conjecture rather than hard science.

Based on three data points (your A.N excerpt, what rupa took away from Spira, and this from Colin Drake) it seems to me that it's currently fashionable to use the word awareness to refer to the space between thoughts, or when the mind is stopped in it's tracks by natural beauty or any one of a number of ways that the mind stops as a matter of course for anyone and everyone -- -- albeit for some, only occasionally.

No point in fighting a trend but it's interesting to wonder whether it's just a fad or the front end of some new, more enduring cultural artifact. The obvious pitfall of course is that there's a sort of de-facto settlement on a conceptualization of what it is that we are. IE: a collective round of high-stakes identity poker.

While shifting the sense of identification away from form by pointing to emptiness is an Advanced Teacher Methodology^TM, remember that the original cigarette man was attached to .. emptiness.

cigarette man...x-files?

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2014 17:04:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jul 12, 2014 22:59:33 GMT -5 @djembebum said:

I understand that awareness must be concomitant with an event or object in order for it to be cognized by a brain. But how do we get to a belief that all things are awareness? Sounds like fun philosophical conjecture rather than hard science.

Based on three data points (your A.N excerpt, what rupa took away from Spira, and this from Colin Drake) it seems to me that it's currently fashionable to use the word awareness to refer to the space between thoughts, or when the mind is stopped in it's tracks by natural beauty or any one of a number of ways that the mind stops as a matter of course for anyone and everyone -- -- albeit for some, only occasionally.

No point in fighting a trend but it's interesting to wonder whether it's just a fad or the front end of some new, more enduring cultural artifact. The obvious pitfall of course is that there's a sort of de-facto settlement on a conceptualization of what it is that we are. IE: a collective round of high-stakes identity poker.

While shifting the sense of identification away from form by pointing to emptiness is an Advanced Teacher Methodology^TM, remember that the original cigarette man was attached to .. emptiness.

If I'm not mistaken, I think using Awareness as the term du jour is out of fashion for that very reason for some of the Advanced Teachers out there.

[laughter]

Jul 14, 2014 10:36:07 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Jul 13, 2014 17:04:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

Based on three data points (your A.N excerpt, what rupa took away from Spira, and this from Colin Drake) it seems to me that it's currently fashionable to use the word awareness to refer to the space between thoughts, or when the mind is stopped in it's tracks by natural beauty or any one of a number of ways that the mind stops as a matter of course for anyone and everyone -- -- albeit for some, only occasionally.

No point in fighting a trend but it's interesting to wonder whether it's just a fad or the front end of some new, more enduring cultural artifact. The obvious pitfall of course is that there's a sort of de-facto settlement on a conceptualization of what it is that we are. IE: a collective round of high-stakes identity poker.

While shifting the sense of identification away from form by pointing to emptiness is an Advanced Teacher Methodology^TM, remember that the original cigarette man was attached to .. emptiness.

If I'm not mistaken, I think using Awareness as the term du jour is out of fashion for that very reason for some of the Advanced Teachers out there.

(** bows to Maxy's superior breadth of knowledge in the subject matter at large **)

[Deleted]

Jul 14, 2014 11:08:19 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jul 14, 2014 10:36:07 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

If I'm not mistaken, I think using Awareness as the term du jour is out of fashion for that very reason for some of the Advanced Teachers out there.

(** bows to Maxy's superior breadth of knowledge in the subject matter at large **)

"superior" is a very low bar in this case, so you may win the Limbo.

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2014 17:04:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

Jul 12, 2014 22:59:33 GMT -5 @djembebum said:

I understand that awareness must be concomitant with an event or object in order for it to be cognized by a brain. But how do we get to a belief that all things are awareness? Sounds like fun philosophical conjecture rather than hard science.

Based on three data points (your A.N excerpt, what rupa took away from Spira, and this from Colin Drake) it seems to me that it's currently fashionable to use the word awareness to refer to the space between thoughts, or when the mind is stopped in it's tracks by natural beauty or any one of a number of ways that the mind stops as a matter of course for anyone and everyone -- -- albeit for some, only occasionally.

No point in fighting a trend but it's interesting to wonder whether it's just a fad or the front end of some new, more enduring cultural artifact. The obvious pitfall of course is that there's a sort of de-facto settlement on a conceptualization of what it is that we are. IE: a collective round of high-stakes identity poker.

While shifting the sense of identification away from form by pointing to emptiness is an Advanced Teacher Methodology^TM, remember that the original cigarette man was attached to .. emptiness.

who is the cigarette man?

[Deleted]

Jul 14, 2014 14:37:26 GMT -5 @djembebum said:

Jul 13, 2014 17:04:05 GMT -5 laughter said:

Based on three data points (your A.N excerpt, what rupa took away from Spira, and this from Colin Drake) it seems to me that it's currently fashionable to use the word awareness to refer to the space between thoughts, or when the mind is stopped in it's tracks by natural beauty or any one of a number of ways that the mind stops as a matter of course for anyone and everyone -- -- albeit for some, only occasionally.

No point in fighting a trend but it's interesting to wonder whether it's just a fad or the front end of some new, more enduring cultural artifact. The obvious pitfall of course is that there's a sort of de-facto settlement on a conceptualization of what it is that we are. IE: a collective round of high-stakes identity poker.

While shifting the sense of identification away from form by pointing to emptiness is an Advanced Teacher Methodology^TM, remember that the original cigarette man was attached to .. emptiness.

who is the cigarette man?

ZD ST classic

A guy walks into a Buddhist temple smoking a cigarette. He has had a big enlightenment experience and he has realized that all is One. In this Oneness there is no holy or unholy; evenything is the same. He therefore flicks cigarette ashes on the statue of the Buddha because the Buddha is no different than the ground outside the temple. This man has understood One, but he hasn't yet understood what lies beyond One. You are a Zen student and your job is to teach people. How can you teach the cigarette man that one more step is necessary--that holy is holy and unholy is unholy? This man is at 180 degrees on the Zen circle; how do you show him where 360 degrees lies? If you open your mouth to say anything to him, he will hit you. He is very strong--much stronger than you are. How can you teach the cigarette man?