|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2020 8:04:11 GMT -5
I contend that both the periodic need for sleep, and the capacity to die from a broken heart (i.e 'lose the will to live'), is demonstrative that consciousness is indeed, always to some degree, effortful.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 21, 2020 10:12:25 GMT -5
I contend that both the periodic need for sleep, and the capacity to die from a broken heart (i.e 'lose the will to live'), is demonstrative that consciousness is indeed, always to some degree, effortful. That's mind, isn't it? Mind always needs a purpose, a reason, an objective. And an overactive mind needs regular periods of rest or else it gets lost in its own clutter and becomes dysfunctional. Consciousness just is.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2020 11:51:14 GMT -5
I contend that both the periodic need for sleep, and the capacity to die from a broken heart (i.e 'lose the will to live'), is demonstrative that consciousness is indeed, always to some degree, effortful. That's mind, isn't it? Mind always needs a purpose, a reason, an objective. And an overactive mind needs regular periods of rest or else it gets lost in its own clutter and becomes dysfunctional. Consciousness just is. In the context I'm distinguishing between consciousness and Awareness, and I'd say it's Awareness that just is. I tend to consider consciousness as a grosser form of Awareness, and mind as a grosser form still. Is true that mind exertion increases the need for restful periods, which we especially see in children who are learning. But I still contend the same applies to consciousness. (So I guess I have a 3 layer cake already ).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 21, 2020 15:02:06 GMT -5
I contend that both the periodic need for sleep, and the capacity to die from a broken heart (i.e 'lose the will to live'), is demonstrative that consciousness is indeed, always to some degree, effortful. As far as I believe, it isn't that this awake-me needs sleep, but my inner-me needs to focus here (awake) to hone its skills, practice with the training wheels on. The capacity of dying from a broken heart is a measure of the need to come back here and learn to master emotions, and not let an incipient fear become a nightmare, to become lucid without waking up. What "consciousness is ... effortful" means, depends on how we define those words, as different people give different meanings to words. If you mean that you have to actively pursue evolvement, and not just stay on your hands letting it come to you, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2020 15:19:21 GMT -5
That's mind, isn't it? Mind always needs a purpose, a reason, an objective. And an overactive mind needs regular periods of rest or else it gets lost in its own clutter and becomes dysfunctional. Consciousness just is. In the context I'm distinguishing between consciousness and Awareness, and I'd say it's Awareness that just is. I tend to consider consciousness as a grosser form of Awareness, and mind as a grosser form still. Is true that mind exertion increases the need for restful periods, which we especially see in children who are learning. But I still contend the same applies to consciousness. (So I guess I have a 3 layer cake already ). I'm not quite sure what you're pointing to, but I like Nisargadatta's take on this issue. He said, "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2020 16:15:59 GMT -5
I contend that both the periodic need for sleep, and the capacity to die from a broken heart (i.e 'lose the will to live'), is demonstrative that consciousness is indeed, always to some degree, effortful. Perhaps we might say, that one pattern of the way appearances tend to appear, is that they're entropic. Might have asked you this at one point along the line already, but please forgive me if that's true as I don't recall the answer off the top of my head. But, I remember hearing someone quote the Buddha once with the line: "the world is on fire". Is that a fake quote?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 18:28:12 GMT -5
[...] I like Nisargadatta's take on this issue. He said, "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something." Franklin Merrell-Wolff used the phrase "Consciousness without an object". Maybe that is the "Awareness" that Nisargadatta is referring to here?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 21, 2020 18:53:25 GMT -5
[...] I like Nisargadatta's take on this issue. He said, "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something." Franklin Merrell-Wolff used the phrase "Consciousness without an object". Maybe that is the "Awareness" that Nisargadatta is referring to here? Questioner: What do you do when asleep? Maharaj: I am aware of being asleep. Q: Is not sleep a state of unconsciousness? M: Yes, I am aware of being unconscious. Q: And when awake, or dreaming? M: I am aware of being awake or dreaming. Q: I do not catch you. What exactly do you mean? Let me make my terms clear: by being asleep I mean unconscious, by being awake I mean conscious, by dreaming I mean conscious of one’s mind, but not of the surroundings. M: Well, it is about the same with me. Yet, there seems to be a difference. In each state you forget the other two, while to me there is but one state of being, including and transcending the three mental states of waking, dreaming and sleeping.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2020 19:08:46 GMT -5
Franklin Merrell-Wolff used the phrase "Consciousness without an object". Maybe that is the "Awareness" that Nisargadatta is referring to here? Questioner: What do you do when asleep? Maharaj: I am aware of being asleep. Q: Is not sleep a state of unconsciousness? M: Yes, I am aware of being unconscious. Q: And when awake, or dreaming? M: I am aware of being awake or dreaming. Q: I do not catch you. What exactly do you mean? Let me make my terms clear: by being asleep I mean unconscious, by being awake I mean conscious, by dreaming I mean conscious of one’s mind, but not of the surroundings. M: Well, it is about the same with me. Yet, there seems to be a difference. In each state you forget the other two, while to me there is but one state of being, including and transcending the three mental states of waking, dreaming and sleeping. There are some ZM's who describe this in the same way, but I can't remember the sources. They say that awareness continued in all states of mind. I think Suzanne Segal also wrote about this. If I can locate the applicable quotes, I'll post them.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2020 19:19:31 GMT -5
[...] I like Nisargadatta's take on this issue. He said, "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something." Franklin Merrell-Wolff used the phrase "Consciousness without an object". Maybe that is the "Awareness" that Nisargadatta is referring to here? I'm not sure. In nirvikalpa samadhi there is pure awareness without thought or perception. In that state the word "consciousness" does not seem applicable because there is nothing to be conscious of. I suspect that Franklin M-W used the phrase "consciousness without an object" to mean consciousness without distinction, or what I refer to as "ATA-T;" there is seeing of "what is" without name or ideation. One is conscious because "what is" is seen, but "what is" is not dualistically distinguished. In NS nothing is seen, but in wakeful consciousness "what is" is seen. I don't know whether this makes sense because what's being pointed to is a bit hard to communicate.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 21, 2020 19:32:44 GMT -5
Questioner: What do you do when asleep? Maharaj: I am aware of being asleep. Q: Is not sleep a state of unconsciousness? M: Yes, I am aware of being unconscious. Q: And when awake, or dreaming? M: I am aware of being awake or dreaming. Q: I do not catch you. What exactly do you mean? Let me make my terms clear: by being asleep I mean unconscious, by being awake I mean conscious, by dreaming I mean conscious of one’s mind, but not of the surroundings. M: Well, it is about the same with me. Yet, there seems to be a difference. In each state you forget the other two, while to me there is but one state of being, including and transcending the three mental states of waking, dreaming and sleeping. There are some ZM's who describe this in the same way, but I can't remember the sources. They say that awareness continued in all states of mind. I think Suzanne Segal also wrote about this. If I can locate the applicable quotes, I'll post them. That'd be great, ZD, if you do. I'd love to hear what others had to say about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2020 20:58:25 GMT -5
Franklin Merrell-Wolff used the phrase "Consciousness without an object". Maybe that is the "Awareness" that Nisargadatta is referring to here? Questioner: What do you do when asleep? Maharaj: I am aware of being asleep. Q: Is not sleep a state of unconsciousness? M: Yes, I am aware of being unconscious. Q: And when awake, or dreaming? M: I am aware of being awake or dreaming. Q: I do not catch you. What exactly do you mean? Let me make my terms clear: by being asleep I mean unconscious, by being awake I mean conscious, by dreaming I mean conscious of one’s mind, but not of the surroundings. M: Well, it is about the same with me. Yet, there seems to be a difference. In each state you forget the other two, while to me there is but one state of being, including and transcending the three mental states of waking, dreaming and sleeping. Anantha The Buddha's brother asked Buddha that I had been watching you many days you haven't even move a little while you sleep, not even your lips move a little. Then Buddha answered that If I wish I could move!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2020 21:18:25 GMT -5
Franklin Merrell-Wolff used the phrase "Consciousness without an object". Maybe that is the "Awareness" that Nisargadatta is referring to here? I'm not sure. In nirvikalpa samadhi there is pure awareness without thought or perception. In that state the word "consciousness" does not seem applicable because there is nothing to be conscious of. I suspect that Franklin M-W used the phrase "consciousness without an object" to mean consciousness without distinction, or what I refer to as "ATA-T;" there is seeing of "what is" without name or ideation. One is conscious because "what is" is seen, but "what is" is not dualistically distinguished. In NS nothing is seen, but in wakeful consciousness "what is" is seen. I don't know whether this makes sense because what's being pointed to is a bit hard to communicate. It would be correct to say what Merrell-Wolff means is Awareness without an object.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2020 21:26:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure. In nirvikalpa samadhi there is pure awareness without thought or perception. In that state the word "consciousness" does not seem applicable because there is nothing to be conscious of. I suspect that Franklin M-W used the phrase "consciousness without an object" to mean consciousness without distinction, or what I refer to as "ATA-T;" there is seeing of "what is" without name or ideation. One is conscious because "what is" is seen, but "what is" is not dualistically distinguished. In NS nothing is seen, but in wakeful consciousness "what is" is seen. I don't know whether this makes sense because what's being pointed to is a bit hard to communicate. It would be correct to say what Merrell-Wolff means is Awareness without an object. That would be my guess. Another way of saying it would be "awareness without the distinction of any objects" or "awareness of the field of reality without distinction," which would also mean "seeing 'what is.'"
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2020 21:45:16 GMT -5
It would be correct to say what Merrell-Wolff means is Awareness without an object. That would be my guess. Another way of saying it would be "awareness without the distinction of any objects" or "awareness of the field of reality without distinction," which would also mean "seeing 'what is.'" I read Pathways Through To Space and then The Philosophy of Consciousness Without An Object over 40 years ago. By Consciousness without an object I think Merrell-Wolff means exactly nirvikalpa samadhi. Different people use the words awareness and consciousness differently.
|
|