|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2022 12:42:21 GMT -5
Excerpt From
Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana MaharshiQ: What is this awareness and how can one obtain and cultivate it? A: You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it. All that you have to do is to give up being aware of other things, that is of the not-Self. If one gives up being aware of them then pure awareness alone remains, and that is the Self. Awareness is always aware of something, awareness is nothing but the act of being of aware of something, its not an entity. So it can't give up being aware of something. Where's E' to explain context when you need 'em?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 12:53:30 GMT -5
If you KNOW, then there is a process of knowing is happening, and the knower is not left with nothing. Sorry. No reference. NS is beyond logic and ideation. "The state of NS is known during NS" |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2022 12:54:25 GMT -5
Ramana and many others report that it's possible. My intuition tells me it's possible. I've experienced a couple interesting hints myself. I'm going to tentatively trust all that over you, no offense.  So you think something called awareness is performing the act of being aware? Awareness, in the way Ramana used the term in these 3 sentences, is aware, but this is a pointer: Excerpt From
Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana MaharshiQ: What is this awareness and how can one obtain and cultivate it? A: You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it. That's really all that thinking-mind can ever make of this meaning. "Awareness is aware". Then, in the next breath, RM flips existential context, telling the person who he just told "you are awareness", what they should do to try to realize what he was pointing to: This "being aware" that RM is referring to is the personalized, focused "awareness", it's not the same meaning as "You are awareness". "you are being aware" is the personal existential context. "you are awareness" is the impersonal, non-dual existential "context" that can only be pointed to. Finally, RM tries to sort out the mix that he just did, differentiating the pointing-use of "aware" with the term "pure awareness": personal existential context impersonal existential (pointing) "context" |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2022 12:59:04 GMT -5
It might've been semantics, or lost in translations (?) You aren't awareness, but an identity that is aware. You are a gestalt of consciousness. If I remember right, you've posted that people should not "believe" gurus, books, etc. I agree with that. And of course I include other people in that list of things that I'm not going to simply believe. So that would include you, and Ramana. The goal is to look directly for oneself. This is the core of the teaching from Ramana and others. It's not a concept structure given out to believe in. They're saying: look in this way, so you see for yourself, and go beyond all beliefs and ideas and teachers. When I look directly for myself, what do I see? (I don't mean visually.) Well, words fail and cannot contain immediate truth. Words are just a tiny part of our reality, used by a part of our mind. But they're pointers. The word awareness (or consciousness, which I sometimes view as a synonym) points to something utterly immediate and undeniable. The word gestalt I rarely use, and here it has no meaning to me. I might use it in its psychological sense, to mean something like a "complex". The word identity is interesting. To me it means: essential being, that which you are. Or it could point to an individual "identity", which upon close inspection, is revealed to be merely an appearance or object in consciousness, and not what you truly are. So words like "awareness" and "identity" and "being" – they point to the edge of where the mind can go. If I meditate and follow those pointers, all words fail. I would never debate someone about whether we are "awareness" or "being" or "identity that is aware". Because at that point words are failing. What interests me is then: what can you know for sure, directly? What can you directly experience about this most essential reality? Without believing in anything external? As Walt Whitman wrote: Have you reckon’d a thousand acres much? have you reckon’d the earth much?
Have you practis’d so long to learn to read?
Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?
Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of all poems [words],
You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions of suns left,)
You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books,
You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me,
You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.For what it might be worth to ya', it's quite clear to me that RM wasn't describing some sort of expanded sense of personalized identity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 13:14:06 GMT -5
So you think something called awareness is performing the act of being aware? Awareness, in the way Ramana used the term in these 3 sentences, is aware, but this is a pointer: Excerpt From
Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana MaharshiQ: What is this awareness and how can one obtain and cultivate it? A: You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it. That's really all that thinking-mind can ever make of this meaning. "Awareness is aware". Then, in the next breath, RM flips existential context, telling the person who he just told "you are awareness", what they should do to try to realize what he was pointing to: This "being aware" that RM is referring to is the personalized, focused "awareness", it's not the same meaning as "You are awareness". "you are being aware" is the personal existential context. "you are awareness" is the impersonal, non-dual existential "context" that can only be pointed to. Finally, RM tries to sort out the mix that he just did, differentiating the pointing-use of "aware" with the term "pure awareness": personal existential context impersonal existential (pointing) "context" My point is, you are awareness. Awareness is the process of becoming aware of something. It can't be separated from what's perceived. Perceiver and perceived are one. Perceiver is the attached part of ongoing perception. Good night, see you tomorrow! |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Dec 21, 2022 13:18:13 GMT -5
Awareness, the Absolute, Reality, God, whatever name you use for what we are ultimately is just a name. It can never be an object. It cannot be known the way we know objects in time and space. This is why sages say you can't "know" God, you can only BE God. Now that is a problematic statement and I hate to use it because it can be fill the ego with enough arrogance and bluster to float itself into the stratosphere and go off strutting and claiming to be master of the universe.
THIS cannot be known. This is why we say it is beyond mind or beyond the intellect. THIS can be experienced, perhaps a better word for it is "lived," in other words, you can BE God. In fact, you've never not been God, the Absolute, pure Awareness, THIS. You've deluded yourself to think that you are not.
This is why enlightenment is not an aggrandizement, but rather profoundly humbling. Why folks say nothing is gained, but ourselves, our separate self, is lost. Why jnani's dedicate themselves to so-called others because there are no other's. There is only Self.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2022 13:37:57 GMT -5
Awareness, in the way Ramana used the term in these 3 sentences, is aware, but this is a pointer: That's really all that thinking-mind can ever make of this meaning. "Awareness is aware". Then, in the next breath, RM flips existential context, telling the person who he just told "you are awareness", what they should do to try to realize what he was pointing to: This "being aware" that RM is referring to is the personalized, focused "awareness", it's not the same meaning as "You are awareness". "you are being aware" is the personal existential context. "you are awareness" is the impersonal, non-dual existential "context" that can only be pointed to. Finally, RM tries to sort out the mix that he just did, differentiating the pointing-use of "aware" with the term "pure awareness": personal existential context impersonal existential (pointing) "context" My point is, you are awareness. Awareness is the process of becoming aware of something. It can't be separated from what's perceived. Perceiver and perceived are one. Perceiver is the attached part of ongoing perception. Good night, see you tomorrow! Ok, that's pretty good. But the "Awareness" that you are, isn't a process. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 21, 2022 13:40:30 GMT -5
Sorry. No reference. NS is beyond logic and ideation. "The state of NS is known during NS" No reference, so no understanding of what's being pointed to. Logic is useless here. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 21, 2022 13:48:22 GMT -5
Awareness, the Absolute, Reality, God, whatever name you use for what we are ultimately is just a name. It can never be an object. It cannot be known the way we know objects in time and space. This is why sages say you can't "know" God, you can only BE God. Now that is a problematic statement and I hate to use it because it can be fill the ego with enough arrogance and bluster to float itself into the stratosphere and go off strutting and claiming to be master of the universe. THIS cannot be known. This is why we say it is beyond mind or beyond the intellect. THIS can be experienced, perhaps a better word for it is "lived," in other words, you can BE God. In fact, you've never not been God, the Absolute, pure Awareness, THIS. You've deluded yourself to think that you are not. This is why enlightenment is not an aggrandizement, but rather profoundly humbling. Why folks say nothing is gained, but ourselves, our separate self, is lost. Why jnani's dedicate themselves to so-called others because there are no other's. There is only Self. Exactly. For people who have no reference for NS it's like standing outside a closed door and claiming to know what's on the other side. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 21, 2022 13:55:53 GMT -5
My point is, you are awareness. Awareness is the process of becoming aware of something. It can't be separated from what's perceived. Perceiver and perceived are one. Perceiver is the attached part of ongoing perception. Good night, see you tomorrow! Ok, that's pretty good. But the "Awareness" that you are, isn't a process. Correct. Awareness is NOT the process of becoming aware of something. Awareness is primordial. Even if what we call "the universe" disappeared completely, awareness would remain without content, exactly as it does in NS. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 14:58:44 GMT -5
If I remember right, you've posted that people should not "believe" gurus, books, etc. I agree with that. And of course I include other people in that list of things that I'm not going to simply believe. So that would include you, and Ramana. The goal is to look directly for oneself. This is the core of the teaching from Ramana and others. It's not a concept structure given out to believe in. They're saying: look in this way, so you see for yourself, and go beyond all beliefs and ideas and teachers. When I look directly for myself, what do I see? (I don't mean visually.) Well, words fail and cannot contain immediate truth. Words are just a tiny part of our reality, used by a part of our mind. But they're pointers. The word awareness (or consciousness, which I sometimes view as a synonym) points to something utterly immediate and undeniable. The word gestalt I rarely use, and here it has no meaning to me. I might use it in its psychological sense, to mean something like a "complex". The word identity is interesting. To me it means: essential being, that which you are. Or it could point to an individual "identity", which upon close inspection, is revealed to be merely an appearance or object in consciousness, and not what you truly are. So words like "awareness" and "identity" and "being" – they point to the edge of where the mind can go. If I meditate and follow those pointers, all words fail. I would never debate someone about whether we are "awareness" or "being" or "identity that is aware". Because at that point words are failing. What interests me is then: what can you know for sure, directly? What can you directly experience about this most essential reality? Without believing in anything external? As Walt Whitman wrote: Have you reckon’d a thousand acres much? have you reckon’d the earth much?
Have you practis’d so long to learn to read?
Have you felt so proud to get at the meaning of poems?
Stop this day and night with me and you shall possess the origin of all poems [words],
You shall possess the good of the earth and sun, (there are millions of suns left,)
You shall no longer take things at second or third hand, nor look through the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the spectres in books,
You shall not look through my eyes either, nor take things from me,
You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.For what it might be worth to ya', it's quite clear to me that RM wasn't describing some sort of expanded sense of personalized identity. I don't think Whitman was either. He wrote in that language some, but I don't take it literally. In my opinion parts Song of Myself evoke the feeling of cosmic consciousness. Do I want to debate this? Hell no. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 21, 2022 15:11:21 GMT -5
Then there is something in your focus while you are there in NS. Cheers! Sorry, no reference and no understanding. Cheers! Just to be clear, because language cannot capture what's being pointed to, there is awareness of pure awareness but not as a separate state. reminds ... EDIT: Disclaimer: I am / was an engineer ... And, I love dogs! |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Dec 21, 2022 15:13:45 GMT -5
sorry you are not showing enough willingness to where I point at! May be somebody from this forum may help you about what I am talking about. No reference for NS. I think that says it all. You can't know what it means to be hit by a bus if you've never been hit by a bus ... EDIT: Disclaimer: I've never been hit by a bus, and I'm doing my best to never be hit by one ... |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 21, 2022 15:55:14 GMT -5
So you think something called awareness is performing the act of being aware? Awareness, in the way Ramana used the term in these 3 sentences, is aware, but this is a pointer: Excerpt From
Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana MaharshiQ: What is this awareness and how can one obtain and cultivate it? A: You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it. That's really all that thinking-mind can ever make of this meaning. "Awareness is aware". Then, in the next breath, RM flips existential context, telling the person who he just told "you are awareness", what they should do to try to realize what he was pointing to: This "being aware" that RM is referring to is the personalized, focused "awareness", it's not the same meaning as "You are awareness". "you are being aware" is the personal existential context. "you are awareness" is the impersonal, non-dual existential "context" that can only be pointed to. Finally, RM tries to sort out the mix that he just did, differentiating the pointing-use of "aware" with the term "pure awareness": personal existential context impersonal existential (pointing) "context" Good quotes. Yes, R makes the difference quite clear. This will NOT be understood or appreciated by people who are attached to limited definitions and logic. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 21, 2022 15:56:41 GMT -5
No reference for NS. I think that says it all. You can't know what it means to be hit by a bus if you've never been hit by a bus ... EDIT: Disclaimer: I've never been hit by a bus, and I'm doing my best to never be hit by one ... |
|
