Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 9:13:02 GMT -5
Thank you for placing this quote. But still I liked this line very much " 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"
I struggle to find credibility in such claims. If there were such a wide-awake witness throughout deep sleep - which ‘transcends mental states’ - why on earth would it have ANY connection (or association, or relationship) to a particular body-mind unit? Think about it. If the mind/identity has been left behind in deep sleep why would there be a transcendent witness of the contents or circumstances of THAT particular mind? Why would it hang about watching the unconscious body at rest (as opposed to all manner of alternative possibilities)? The reason why is surely because it is still within the sphere of that particular body-mind - albeit in a very subtle state of cognition. In other words, the mind is not really asleep.
I find it far more credible to understand such claims/assertions as a confirmation of the fact that in deep sleep ’something’ is still very much operative - a deep intelligence remains at work which is ultimately is beyond the limited cognition of ordinary waking intellect and sensory perception. This deep intelligence transcends - and is the ground of - all states.
Hi, I read all your reply. First off, I wanted to tell you I met the "third realized individual" in this forum after Enigma and someNothing! I really see the value in your writing and also I see honesty and integrity in your writing.
coming back to conversation, I did not say I advocate that idea that ZD posted from that book instead I said I liked that idea because when someone made some supernatural claim, I always amazed by their view whether they are true or false.
And here is my view towards deep sleep. Perceiver can't be left with no perception at any point in time even if it is a deep sleep(even though I couldn't recall anything), perceiver always finds something to be perceived, the reason is, KNOWING is happening IN perceiver which also means perceiver is attached part of perception If we watch it very carefully. And also If perceiver enters into the state in which he perceives nothing(in deep sleep), then the question always comes to me how does his memory reports back when he comes back to reality, that's impossible. So I really like your line of "fact that in deep sleep ’something’ is still very much operative -"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2020 9:15:16 GMT -5
Metaphorically, we might say that the wave is the entire ocean, it just appears otherwise to most people most of the time, while the ocean isn't just the wave. But the metaphor is materially bound. These notions of size, relation, connection/continuity, etc. .. they simply don't apply. No science denial here: I'm happy to admit the relative appearance of cause and effect, and wanting supepowers is a thing, after all. On the other hand, the material realist, objective picture of reality is simply flat out untrue, and, nonlocality happens. Bringing it back to the metaphor, we call a tsunami a wave, but there's no flooding without the weight of the ocean behind it. The instant our movement of mind shades even a hare beyond metaphor to theory is the instant intellect has jumped into deep water with no life jacket. I don’t know that. If you know that ‘flat out’ then you certainly know more than me. As I said earlier, for me (in my experience/realisation) the essence of non-duality (or no-separation) is simple. Instead of the delusion of trillions of things happening there is the felt-sense apperception of ‘one thing’ (or no thing) happening. That’s it. The rest is mainly philosophy of mind related differences and factional issues - which have their place. The realisation comes in an instant - the philosophy of mind is an add-on. Not flat-out untrue in a philisophical sense. Not relative, intellectual falsity. Existential falsity. No mechanical description of what an individual mind can or can't do or perceive or experience has anything to with the existential truth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2020 9:15:49 GMT -5
heh heh .. I've had it happen not by being present, but the opposite of pumping up the fear and panic trance the night before, and yet somehow, inexplicably, getting to sleep anyways with less that 5 or 6 hours to go. Essentially, I woke up a few minutes before the alarm went off out of terror that I'd sleep through it. Okay, sure, I suppose it's difficult to pinpoint what if any difference there might be between sleeping with one eye open, and what might be described as an abiding measure of lucidity throughout all states ….
But I'm confident you can do it! (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 24, 2020 9:16:29 GMT -5
(** frowns and wags finger **) Yeah I realise that ones a tough sell. It's just that consciousness is always subject to some measure of …. 'work'. Just curious, but by "work" do you mean the movement or activity toward seeing "what is" versus remaining lost in the relatively unconscious consensus paradigm? It dawned on me while re-reading some of these posts that you may be pointing to what's involved in shifting attention away from thoughts to what is actual. Niz claimed that he had to expend considerable effort when he was first attempting to stay aware of the "I am," and maybe that's what you're referring to. After a certain point, some of us look back and say, "Shifting attention seemed effortful at the time, but that was because it was imagined that a separate entity was at the center of that activity; now it is seen as more of a unified unfolding, and the idea of effort was an illusion based upon the idea of a 'me'."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2020 9:26:11 GMT -5
Thanks, well worth the read, and I don't recall seeing that before. To my eye, effortlessness is implicated by "full release". This doesn't mean that flowers stop giving off scent, or that the eye remains closed, or the mind a blank, with no "contact" giving rise to a process of thinking. But it does mean that the old trance is not only broken, but that it can't ever deceive again. Yes, that one's mercifully short enough to hold my interest, hehe. Seems to be about detachment from the senses and mind in order for the degree of liberation you describe to come about. Unbound. No doubt that in itself is truly rare and marvellous. Although for me, "full release", as you put it, would be something even more profound. Parinibbana. With anything short of that remaining subject to some measure of 'effort'. Hmmm, I'm trying to decide whether I'd say that NS, being the closest to that, would necessitate the least 'effort', insofar as it involves the least amount of 'doing'. It's tricky to approach it like this. I found the story deeply moving. I figure most people are gonna read it and just think, what swine's boys can be! Profound? But also, ultimately, very ordinary - never not right here and now. The fire sermon is light on the balance of positive/negative, like the Buddha was shaking his head sadly at the lostness of the people in the All. I can rezz with the laying down of the senses, the withdrawl of "contact" - reminds me of the Ashtavakra Gita. But that's just a means to an end.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2020 9:36:58 GMT -5
(** frowns and wags finger **) Yeah I realise that ones a tough sell. It's just that consciousness is always subject to some measure of …. 'work'. That's just the world. On fire. The warmth might feel nice on a cold night, but, the flickering light, is just a distraction!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 10:28:02 GMT -5
I don’t know that. If you know that ‘flat out’ then you certainly know more than me. As I said earlier, for me (in my experience/realisation) the essence of non-duality (or no-separation) is simple. Instead of the delusion of trillions of things happening there is the felt-sense apperception of ‘one thing’ (or no thing) happening. That’s it. The rest is mainly philosophy of mind related differences and factional issues - which have their place. The realisation comes in an instant - the philosophy of mind is an add-on. Not flat-out untrue in a philosophical sense. Not relative, intellectual falsity. Existential falsity. No mechanical description of what an individual mind can or can't do or perceive or experience has anything to with the existential truth. Aha.. looks like you've found what can 'actually' be called Empty.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 24, 2020 10:31:23 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 ). Personally, I don't mind how many layers your cake has as long as it helps you getting your point across. After all, what we are discussing here is just different models of reality. In that sense, these awareness vs. consciousness discussions always seemed a bit pettifoggerish to me. Some people think this distinction is important, some people think it isn't. I can understand both perspectives though.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 24, 2020 10:40:03 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'd say depends on what 'without an object means'. Does it mean a) perception without objectification or b) nothing perceived at all. If it is a), then no. If it is b), then yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 11:03:31 GMT -5
Franklin Merrell-Wolff used the phrase "Consciousness without an object". Maybe that is the "Awareness" that Nisargadatta is referring to here? I'd say depends on what 'without an object means'. Does it mean a) perception without objectification or b) nothing perceived at all. If it is a), then no. If it is b), then yes. I searched and found these: www.merrell-wolff.org/fmw/aphorismsMakes me think he was using more like (b), but I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2020 11:36:25 GMT -5
I'd say depends on what 'without an object means'. Does it mean a) perception without objectification or b) nothing perceived at all. If it is a), then no. If it is b), then yes. I searched and found these: www.merrell-wolff.org/fmw/aphorismsMakes me think he was using more like (b), but I don't know. My recollection from then (reading over 40 years ago) is that he meant nothing, nothing perceived at all. edit: browsed the link, recollection confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2020 11:45:16 GMT -5
Not flat-out untrue in a philosophical sense. Not relative, intellectual falsity. Existential falsity. No mechanical description of what an individual mind can or can't do or perceive or experience has anything to with the existential truth. Aha.. looks like you've found what can 'actually' be called Empty. That was an simple expression of negation. Emptiness, is something that I rather get poetic about .. .. similar to the way shadow play described his apperception.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2020 13:05:42 GMT -5
Yeah I realise that ones a tough sell. It's just that consciousness is always subject to some measure of …. 'work'. Just curious, but by "work" do you mean the movement or activity toward seeing "what is" versus remaining lost in the relatively unconscious consensus paradigm? It dawned on me while re-reading some of these posts that you may be pointing to what's involved in shifting attention away from thoughts to what is actual. Niz claimed that he had to expend considerable effort when he was first attempting to stay aware of the "I am," and maybe that's what you're referring to. After a certain point, some of us look back and say, "Shifting attention seemed effortful at the time, but that was because it was imagined that a separate entity was at the center of that activity; now it is seen as more of a unified unfolding, and the idea of effort was an illusion based upon the idea of a 'me'." No, that's not what I've been pointing to here. In fact, in some respects what I'm saying is the opposite of that, i.e. that the less work that is being done, the more prevalent "what is" is, naturally. If that makes any sense. What I'm trying to point to is really tricky to articulate. To begin with I'm trying to paint a picture (always dangerous) where, Awareness is effortless, however the descent from that, so from capital (C)onsciousness down through to the mundane, effectively equates to a corresponding degree of intent/will/effort/work/. With 'mind' being the lowest and therefore most exertive of such states. But with no exemption. In the picture that descent in its entirety encompasses 'life'/corporeality/The All. One aspect of it, (and in part what I was saying with that particular line about 'work'), is that, in order for consciousness to be sustained, conditions have to be met. Always and without exception. Even in the broadest, subtlest, deepest states of being, i.e capital (C)onsciousness, and ranging through the likes of CC, SS, or NS etc, to the mundane, it must be supported in order to be sustained. But crucially, more immediately than that, I'm saying the state itself is movement, ergo is 'work'. However imperceptibly. So it could be said that, at any given time, the 'deeper' the state, the less work is being done, and by extension the less support (work) is needed to sustain it. Classic example would be the accounts of yogi that can maintain body temperature, (or life-force) for some time after medical death has been declared. Or those who go so deep the heart slows, sometimes to all intents and purposes stopping. Not much movement going on, so not much maintainence required. Anyway, first point being that, in all states and at all stages of life, be it from within the womb, to wound down on our deathbed, and everything in between, (including the highest of attainments), consciousness must be sustained, ergo 'work'. And you may be inclined to take the position that after SR sustenance comes effortlessly, hehe, but as I intimated, I'm still trying to get at something more immediate, more fundamental than all that. Which is that, over and above the required nutriment/nourishment to sustain … (which already necessitates 'work') …. 's omething' still 'props up' consciousness. Hmmm, I felt the niz quote JLY posted alluded to it, but unfortunately 'Q' didn't pursue the issue. Basically, my contention is that Consciousness at every level is movement, and movement is work. But why does it arise, if it's all about being still. What ' propels' it. What supports it. Don’t tell me it just is! I could talk some about the Buddhist perspective on the answer to that question, but not as competently or authoritatively as I'd like.
Perhaps the closest I've been able to point to what I'm really trying to get at was when I posed this question ….
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2020 13:07:06 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 ). Personally, I don't mind how many layers your cake has as long as it helps you getting your point across. After all, what we are discussing here is just different models of reality. In that sense, these awareness vs. consciousness discussions always seemed a bit pettifoggerish to me. Some people think this distinction is important, some people think it isn't. I can understand both perspectives though. I make no claim to that!
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2020 13:09:42 GMT -5
Ah… so you missed out on the 1980 limited edition available to fan club members only. nah man, I didn't miss out on nothing.. and my body is proof. I'm like an old scratched up vinyl with a tattered album cover at this point. That's a double negative, ... intimating you missed out on something. Story of my life.
|
|