|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2020 21:45:51 GMT -5
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. Segal: p53, "In sleep, the mind finally stopped pumping out its unceasing litany of terror, and the witness was left to witness an unconscious mind." Segal: p.137-138, "The infinite--which is at once the substance of everything and the ocean within which everything arises and passes away--is aware of itself constantly, whether the mind and body are sleeping, dreaming, or waking. In every moment, this body-mind circuitry is consciously participating in the sense organ through which the infinite perceives itself. There is never a locatable 'me'."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2020 21:47:39 GMT -5
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. If that's true, then he's only referring to the deepest meditative state rather than a waking state.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 22, 2020 8:44:39 GMT -5
That'd be great, ZD, if you do. I'd love to hear what others had to say about it. Segal: p53, "In sleep, the mind finally stopped pumping out its unceasing litany of terror, and the witness was left to witness an unconscious mind." Segal: p.137-138, "The infinite--which is at once the substance of everything and the ocean within which everything arises and passes away--is aware of itself constantly, whether the mind and body are sleeping, dreaming, or waking. In every moment, this body-mind circuitry is consciously participating in the sense organ through which the infinite perceives itself. There is never a locatable 'me'." Yes, saying the same thing just as you said. Thank you for posting those. At 4 years old I was taken to a dentist and put under with gas for whatever reason. Now, I remember how the outer world disappeared and how an inner world arose. I can only describe it as a world of brilliant, dancing, ever-changing colors. I remember being as vividly aware of that inner world as I was of the outer world. In other words, there was no change in the witnessing awareness even though there was unconsciousness of the outer world.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 22, 2020 10:22:12 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. Yes, and often there's a lot of chopping and changing, as the terms are used interchangeably, and in different contexts on these forums, which can get confusing. The definitions can be quite vague anyway, and in the case of consciousness, perhaps even necessarily.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 22, 2020 10:30:09 GMT -5
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." I'm not quite sure what I'm pointing to either yet hehe, but I often see folks on these forums talking about how after SR, life becomes totally effortless, and when it comes up I find it's not something I agree with for the reasons touched upon in the OP. Yesterday I heard a sad story about a swan who was nursing a clutch of eggs. The story went that some boys came along and threw bricks at the eggs and destroyed them. Subsequently the swans partner left her, and a few days later she died. The locals concluded she died of a broken heart. Sure there may have been more to that particular tale, but regardless, I do believe in the capacity to die from a broken heart, or 'lose the will to live'. Most people will be familiar with accounts of old couples who have been together many years, and when one falls of their horse, the other is broken and follows shortly after. Additionally, I've noted before that in the face of adversity, less complex organisms seem even more disposed to simply 'give up the ghost'. Anyway, after hearing the story I was moved to throw up a post and just see where it goes. The premise is, if one can simply lose the will to live, then does that not suggest that to some extent 'will' underpins corporeal experience itself … I put a thread up some time back posing the question whether intent is something that happens on a purely conscious level. Don't think it got a lot of traction, but it seems fairly obvious to me that it's a phenomenon that runs much deeper than that. I guess will, effort, and intent, are all much-a-much, and this is about exploring that a little. To what extent it pervades, and perhaps even underpins, corporeality. My contention is that it's to a far greater extent than is generally acknowledged.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 22, 2020 10:46:38 GMT -5
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." Coming back to this, yes, for the most part that sounds good to me. Briefly, the 'contact' part always tends to cause me a little consternation, because for me it has a twang of 'inherently existing and abiding' about it, of separation. Buddhism has something similar in dependant arising, in fact the sixth - phassa is translated directly as contact, and details the nature of sense impression, i.e. the five senses coming into contact with phenomena. As you will know, co-dependant arising is the Buddhas doctrine on causality, (another hot potato) but in its entirety the stages are intended as fluid and interdependent, and again the way they are used seems to depend a lot on context. So I don’t let it trouble me too much. And for me, experientially speaking, the appearance of duality, or duality as appearance, is as real as anything is. However, on the whole I very much relate to the paragraph. Agree with the description of Awareness. Agree there can be no consciousness without Awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness. As for the relation between consciousness and content, that's where it gets interesting. Content would be a key in this topic. Where I talked previously about a triple layer cake, I certainly class content as synonymous with mind. In context I might use mind and consciousness interchangeably, with consciousness as generally a broader, finer, more encompassing version of. I might even distinguish between a small (c)onsciousness and Capital (C)onsciousness, whilst still utilising the latter as distinct from purely Awareness. For example when talking about CC. Thus potentially introducing a fourth layer! What I'm less keen on is using Awareness and Consciousness interchangeably, because of what Niz says. It can get unecessarily confusing.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 22, 2020 11:01:43 GMT -5
The premise is, if one can simply lose the will to live, then does that not suggest that to some extent 'will' underpins corporeal experience itself … from the book "I Am That" M: You are completely free even now. What you call destiny (karma) is but the result of your own will to live. How strong is this will you can judge by the universal horror of death. Q: People die willingly quite often. M: Only when the alternative is worse than death. But such readiness to die flows from the same source as the will to live, a source deeper even than life itself. To be a living being is not the ultimate state; there is something beyond, much more wonderful, which is neither being nor non-being, neither living nor not-living. It is a state of pure awareness, beyond the limitations of space and time. Once the illusion that the body-mind is oneself is abandoned, death loses its terror, it becomes a part of living.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 22, 2020 11:21:39 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. Absolutely. No problem, (I don’t remember us having the conversation), but my understanding is that fire as a simile is one the Buddha often used, and there are many references to it throughout the suttas. For example, the Buddha specifically referred to the attainment of the state of nirvana as 'like a fire going out'. But in this instance the one that springs to mind would be Adittapariyaya Sutta: The Fire Sermon, where he begins by stating " the All is aflame". 'The All' is most definitely analogous to what we conceive of as the world. So, not a fake quote.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 22, 2020 11:56:23 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. Yes, the other aspect of this is the sleep aspect, and later I see meditative states has come up later too, which is good. It becomes a tad problematic to use the term consciousness when we talk about this, because the state of sleep might normally be classed as a state of unconsciousness, but I agree awareness continues in all states of mind, really it has to, being the substratum of mind itself. Plus it's my direct experience! I recall E talking about being able to wake on time without an alarm clock, and that's something I can relate to. But then surely we are talking about some level of conscious awareness happening in sleep, (another reason why I don’t like to use Awareness and Consciousness interchangeably). Then there's a distinction to be made between sleeping unconsciousness, and knocked out sparko - swallow your tongue - unconscious. I tend to envisage continuingly refining degrees of consciousness bridging Awareness to mind, or rather fluidly transitioning. This will allow for altered or meditative states of consciousness too. With the subtlest, finest, broadest Consciousness, being akin to 'life-force' …. or sphincter loosening absence of. My contention being some proto form of will/ effort/intent underpinning even this.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 22, 2020 12:24:51 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. The question that immediately springs to mind is whether such a state is subject to the sleep cycle, or if not, how long could one dwell in such a state. Also, if "what is" is seen, then isn't that regarded at some degree of 'content' going on, in which case the need to sleep would likely still be applicable at some stage. I remember reading (paraphrasing) that having achieved the state of nirvana, and thereby purging consciousness of the mundane perturbations of mind, the Buddha required relatively little sleep. Yet sleep was still required nonetheless. (Although this isn't to say he was permanently dwelling in NS.) But SS for example must involve a degree of content. And presumably SS is regarded at still being subject to a sleep cycle. Why?? …. if it were a state of unequivocal effortlessness.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 22, 2020 12:30:39 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. 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! Now that one smacks of fake Buddha quote! Can't imagine the Buddha spent much time wishing for things that weren't possible. My guess is, at best, perhaps a clumsy paraphrase.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 22, 2020 12:35:52 GMT -5
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." I'm not quite sure what I'm pointing to either yet hehe, but I often see folks on these forums talking about how after SR, life becomes totally effortless, and when it comes up I find it's not something I agree with for the reasons touched upon in the OP. Yesterday I heard a story about a swan who was nursing a clutch of eggs. The story went that some boys came along and threw bricks at the eggs and destroyed them. Subsequently the swans partner left her, and a few days later she died. The locals concluded she died of a broken heart. Sure there may have been more to that particular tale, but regardless, I do believe in the capacity to die from a broken heart, or 'lose the will to live'. Most people will be familiar with accounts of old couples who have been together many years, and when one falls of their horse, the other is broken and follows shortly after. Additionally, I've noted before that in the face of adversity, less complex organisms seem even more disposed to simply 'give up the ghost'. Anyway, after hearing the story I was moved to throw up a post and just see where it goes. The premise is, if one can simply lose the will to live, then does that not suggest that to some extent 'will' underpins corporeal experience itself … I put a thread up some time back posing the question whether intent is something that happens on a purely conscious level. Don't think it got a lot of traction, but it seems fairly obvious to me that it's a phenomenon that runs much deeper than that. I guess will, effort, and intent, are all much-a-much, and this is about exploring that a little. To what extent it pervades, and perhaps underpins, corporeality. My contention is that it's to a far greater extent than is generally acknowledged. My take on this is somewhat different, but that may be because this particular character was always a bit like Peter Pan. haha. I always had extremely strong interests, and my parents supported those interests and gave me enormous freedom. This allowed me to "follow my bliss," and primarily only do things that I found to be fun. Over the years I watched as interests shifted from one thing to another, and I noticed that many things I felt like doing were almost compulsive in nature and not based on anything logical or predictable. Many interests and compulsions seemed to come from out of the blue. I never questioned changes in interests or compulsive non-rational actions; I just did whatever I felt drawn to do. For almost forty years I had very little interest in money, so I never became "mature" in the way that adults typically do as a result of cultural indoctrination. I started meditating at the age of forty only because I lost my peace of mind due to incessant thinking, and after encountering a small book that suggested peace of mind could be gained via meditation. Shortly after starting to shift attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception, I started having realizations, fell into deep states of non-dual samadhi, and then had a mind-blowing CC. Until that happened I assumed that my search for answers to existential questions (a primary interest) would eventually be answered via scientific insights into reality, but after the CC, I lost interest in the intellect as a source of existential understanding and became laser-focused on "getting out of my head," "looking within," and becoming sufficiently silent for answers to existential questions to appear. As the internal dialogue diminished, and there were sustained periods of silence, it became increasingly obvious that whatever the body does is exactly like blood cells moving through veins and arteries going wherever they need to go. IOW, it was seen that what we call "reality" is incomprehensibly intelligent and is functioning primarily below the level of conscious awareness. After the illusion of being an SVP collapsed, words like "intent," "motivation," "will," "effort," etc. all collapsed into a state of unified suchness, and the organism simply continued doing what it had always done but without the kind of intellectual overlay that had been dominant in the past. Life then felt like floating down a river on a raft and letting the current carry the raft in whatever direction it moved. This outlook is not in opposition to the fact that some people seem to lose "their will to live." That, too, is just the way that the Infinite manifests as human beings.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 22, 2020 12:37:18 GMT -5
The premise is, if one can simply lose the will to live, then does that not suggest that to some extent 'will' underpins corporeal experience itself … from the book "I Am That" M: You are completely free even now. What you call destiny (karma) is but the result of your own will to live. How strong is this will you can judge by the universal horror of death. Q: People die willingly quite often. M: Only when the alternative is worse than death. But such readiness to die flows from the same source as the will to live, a source deeper even than life itself. To be a living being is not the ultimate state; there is something beyond, much more wonderful, which is neither being nor non-being, neither living nor not-living. It is a state of pure awareness, beyond the limitations of space and time. Once the illusion that the body-mind is oneself is abandoned, death loses its terror, it becomes a part of living. Exactly!
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 22, 2020 12:39:50 GMT -5
The premise is, if one can simply lose the will to live, then does that not suggest that to some extent 'will' underpins corporeal experience itself … from the book "I Am That" M: You are completely free even now. What you call destiny (karma) is but the result of your own will to live. How strong is this will you can judge by the universal horror of death. Q: People die willingly quite often. M: Only when the alternative is worse than death. But such readiness to die flows from the same source as the will to live, a source deeper even than life itself. To be a living being is not the ultimate state; there is something beyond, much more wonderful, which is neither being nor non-being, neither living nor not-living. It is a state of pure awareness, beyond the limitations of space and time. Once the illusion that the body-mind is oneself is abandoned, death loses its terror, it becomes a part of living. That's fascinating, thanks for that. For me, kamma is the other piece of the puzzle in all this, although what's interesting is the Buddha outright stated, "kamma is intent".
Fascinating line, I wasn't familiar with.
I shall ponder this. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2020 12:42:02 GMT -5
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! Now that one smacks of fake Buddha quote! Can't imagine the Buddha spent much time wishing for things that weren't possible. At best, perhaps a clumsy paraphrase. I read that quote very long back.
By the way do you understand that quote? he says he is aware even when he sleeps!
|
|