|
Post by steven on Jun 24, 2020 22:42:21 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'." Do, or don’t do :-)
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jun 24, 2020 22:44:07 GMT -5
I agree that in principle there is no reason why THIS could not do anything - but while a particular human expression abides we find that certain laws do seem to prevail. But I referenced ‘the laws of physics’ lazily in making the point that there is no reason why realisation would bestow special supernatural gifts on the individuated perspective. The point I was initially making is that if it is, in fact, NOT the mind (of a particular organism) that is subtly aware in deep sleep - if it’s the case that the mind has, in fact, been transcended. Why on earth would there be a witness of that particular unconscious mental perspective? (Refer to the original post above to get the emphasis.) It's quite a subtle point that is worth some consideration. I did understand your point, but I wasn't associating the unusual phenomena only with realized people. Unrealized people have also had strange stuff happen. It seems to me like the usual boundary between ordinary and non-ordinary reality can break down with anyone at certain times. I've talked to several people who have had non-local events occur after attending a long silent retreat. Kensho, for just one example, is certainly not an ordinary event. Which events ARE ordinary...what’s not phenomenal lol?
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jun 24, 2020 22:49:01 GMT -5
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. This inner versus outer is an imagined thing...stop imagining it and things get more vibrant and alive in one’s experience of this life. If you also stop imagining a distinction between the witness and the observed same thing...so much more alive to just be...in full enjoyment of life
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2020 7:27:02 GMT -5
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! Well, let's see how that goes. Anyway, I think the anti-layer cake stance is a neo-advaita thing only because they are unwilling to make any concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons). Traditional advaita, however, does make concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons again). Niz' model is basically a 4 layer cake model.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2020 8:20:38 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. read with interest. It occured to me earlier, while self consciously social distancing at a shop, that perhaps it's more 'self'-consciousness that's effortful, and there are varying degrees or intensities of 'self' consciousness . Can't social distance without some degree, which is why it's a pain in the butt (but i still do it). Perhaps all 'social conventions' require a degree of 'self' consciousness..because in a sense they are rationally created 'rules'. But also, perhaps can be said 'consciousness' IS 'self'. At core, perhaps the pure 'un-storied self' (though still not 'True/Actual' in the non-dual sense) e.g we wake frrom deep sleep and consciousness/self arises.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 25, 2020 8:21:41 GMT -5
I make no claim to that! Well, let's see how that goes. Anyway, I think the anti-layer cake stance is a neo-advaita thing only because they are unwilling to make any concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons). Traditional advaita, however, does make concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons again). Niz' model is basically a 4 layer cake model. lol at least.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 25, 2020 16:08:03 GMT -5
I make no claim to that! Well, let's see how that goes. Okay, but I'm watching from behind the sofa. Sure, I understand about the pro's and cons either way. For me, Neo loses something in its rigidity, and perhaps has a tendency to get extra 'brown-beary' at times. Personally I'll draw from anything that helps me express, and so my writing tends to be a bit of mish-mash. And I'm not adverse to biting off more than I can chew. In fact that's what tends to interest me most.
Four layers works for me ... if those four layers (in descending order) are Awareness, Consciousness, consciousness, mind-body.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 25, 2020 16:21:54 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. read with interest. Good to hear! It's certainly the case the more consciousness errs toward 'self' the more effortful it becomes, and vice-versa. I've been musing that you can't really separate consciousness from the mind-body, in one respect it's like a continuum, and in another way can be viewed as mutually supporting. So, in one respect mind-body is merely an appearance arising within consciousness (itself appearance), but in another it can be viewed as a station for consciousness, and station that must be maintained, and in part that's what I've been pointing to in terms of work. In fact, with that interdependency in mind, I was thinking on what L said about appearances being entropic, and moreover, how the mind-body in particular is basically a march against the flow of that entropy, hence 'work'. And trying to decide how broadly that can be extended. To life, the universe, and everything. The universal body. For me, 'the All' in its entirety is the realm of appearance, and I'm happy to conceive of that in terms of varying degrees of consciousness, i.e from fine to course.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 25, 2020 16:31:57 GMT -5
But also, perhaps can be said 'consciousness' IS 'self'. At core, perhaps the pure 'un-storied self' (though still not 'True/Actual' in the non-dual sense)e.g we wake frrom deep sleep and consciousness/self arises.
That last line of yours is a real doozy btw. It's something I've found myself contemplating from time to time, and not really coming up with a satisfactory handle on it. And I'm too tired right now.
No doubt in one respect it's true, but at the same time I don’t think it's quite that simple. Certainly when we bring mind-body and 'other' into the equation.
You see I'm not even exactly sure where I'd place that point in my cake.
Somewhere between the sponge and the butter icing!
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 25, 2020 18:03:19 GMT -5
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. This inner versus outer is an imagined thing... is top imagining it and things get more vibrant and alive in one’s experience of this life. If you also stop imagining a distinction between the witness and the observed same thing...so much more alive to just be...in full enjoyment of life Although I'm not sure what "is top imagining it" means exactly I get the gist of what you are saying and love where you are pointing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2020 19:00:45 GMT -5
Well, let's see how that goes. Anyway, I think the anti-layer cake stance is a neo-advaita thing only because they are unwilling to make any concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons). Traditional advaita, however, does make concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons again). Niz' model is basically a 4 layer cake model. lol at least. Yes, if you add the gunas, you've got another potential layer.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2020 19:22:18 GMT -5
Well, let's see how that goes. Okay, but I'm watching from behind the sofa. Sure, I understand about the pro's and cons either way. For me, Neo loses something in its rigidity, and perhaps has a tendency to get extra 'brown-beary' at times. Personally I'll draw from anything that helps me express, and so my writing tends to be a bit of mish-mash. And I'm not adverse to biting off more than I can chew. In fact that's what tends to interest me most.
Four layers works for me ... if those four layers (in descending order) are Awareness, Consciousness, consciousness, mind-body.
As far as I am aware, Niz doesn't distinguish between Consciousness and consciousness. Because to Niz, everything that falls within the context of consciousness is also always conscious (or alive). So, the Niz hierarchy goes more like this: 1) awareness (Parabrahman, the Absolute) 2) consciousness (Brahman, Beingness, I-AM-ness, knowingness, the world, God) 3) mind (I-AM this/that, the person) 4) body (food essence). As far as the Niz dialogs go, #1 and #2 never change, #3 and #4 are sometimes arranged differently when he talks about the gunas. Then he may add an extra layer (or more).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2020 19:37:58 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. Yes, that's what it looks like. The aphorisms aren't that clear as they pretend to be. Interestingly, he makes awareness subject to consciousness-without-an-object.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2020 20:24:59 GMT -5
I make no claim to that! Well, let's see how that goes. Anyway, I think the anti-layer cake stance is a neo-advaita thing only because they are unwilling to make any concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons). Traditional advaita, however, does make concessions to the seeker (which has its pros and cons again). Niz' model is basically a 4 layer cake model. Yes. Does that mean Niz has his cake and eats it too? : ) Does Niz anywhere negate what was his ~personal~ path? (Lived in as much as possible for 3 years I Am). That is, does he ever say those 3 years were superfluous?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 25, 2020 20:33:31 GMT -5
Yes, if you add the gunas, you've got another potential layer. Yes, the 3 gunas are what allow multi-layers. (Triads upon triads upon triads).
|
|