Post by question on Apr 26, 2010 17:08:59 GMT -5
Hey guys. The thread title is my current No.1 question. I'll copy paste the conversion that was starting in Shannon's excellent "Deep Sleep" thread, which I didn't want to derail. Anyways, first I asked:
"Not sure why deep sleep is supposed to be so important. Try to look at it without the nonduality jargon. The brain takes a break and shuts off for a while, and nothing remains of a mind. In some rare cases some awareness is still present, in my case it is not. Even if awareness is present in deep sleep and is described as having no content, no form, no nothing, how do you know that it is absolute and completely independent of the body's (or more specific: of the brain's) functioning (same question applies to the samadhi states btw)? Rupert Spira touches on this in his article, but every time he tries to tackle this question he unfortunately digresses into nonduality language games."
Shannon and Enigma replied. I'm going to quote both and write my reply below the quote:
Well, the answer is very clear. Does "no content, no form, no nothing" need a brain? Obviously not. You need it in order to perceive "content, form, something". But no "content, form or something" is what we are. We are the absence of all observable qualities.
I get your point, but it comes from a misundertanding of what "eternity" or "independent of the body" mean. It does not mean an "expansion in time". It means "out of space and time". That which is aware of my words now in you is not a thing, it has no borders, and having no shape, it´s not touched by time.
The problem is that most people imagine that eternity must imply a continuity in "perception", in being aware of something, and you would obviously need a brain in order to remain aware OF something.
But right now, if you search for an "I" you´ll discover it´s not possible to find it in space or time. And if it does not occupy a fragment of space or time, if it´s pure "nothing", what´s the need of a brain to keep being what you are right now?
That´s why deep sleep is important, because it gives you a taste of what consciousness without an object is. It shows what´s the realm of "no name, no form", something that´s very difficult in the waking state or dream state.
You're right, theoretically "no form" doesn't need a brain. It's the experience of "no form" that needs an experience, hence something to experience it with. An experience of something without borders, no form, not touched by time, even if it looks like nothing, it's still an experience. How else would you be able to tell me about it?
What Rupert seems to suggest is that mind cannot know a truth sought on the foundation of an illusion. Mind will formulate an assumption, and then ask for proof that the conclusion derived from that assumption is false. If I assume I'm the tree in my back yard, prove to me that I can't grow leaves. Obviously, I can. Another example would be, if God loves us, why does he let us suffer? Obviously, He does.
Hencely, it's necessary to challenge the assumption on which the question is formulated. If it is found that the assumption is not valid, the question dissolves and needs no answer.
In this case, the question as to how we know that Awareness is independent of body/mind is asked on the basis of the assumption that body/mind is independent of Awareness. Where is the evidence that this is so? Is something happening that you are not aware of? If so, how is it you are aware of this? If it is not so that something is independent of Awareness, what becomes of the question of whether Awareness can be independent of body/mind?
If that sounds like nonduality language games, it seems to be the best I can do.
If you assume you're a tree, then I'll burn that tree down in front of your eyes. Then you'll see that, although the tree is gone, you're still here, therefore you can't be the tree and your assumption is seen to have been an incorrect one. And since you weren't the tree in the first place, you couldn't have caused those leaves to grow. The conclusion of a faulty assumption can also be shown as incorrect. A truth can be found even from false assumptions, namely that the world doesn't work according to this now disproved assumption. All that is needed for that truth to shine is the collision of the predictions of this false assumption with what is actually the case. That's how scientific reasoning works. Most assumptions that scientists make are wrong, but they all go through a rigorous verification process that selects those that have been disproved from those that haven't been disproved yet. Unfortunately Spira and the likes of him try to reverse this scientific process, which is unacceptable imo.
Everyone agrees that assumptions must be challenged. The problem is that the 'evidence' for awareness' independence comes in subjective form. I can't show it to anyone, I can't do peer review on this evidence. Perception is in principle always susceptible to illusion, that's why scientists constantly double check each other and the tiniest detail in the proces of finding the truth. The nature of subjective awareness is such that it can't prove to someone else its dependence or independence of the body, maybe it can't even prove it to itself.
Next point, you ask: "Is something happening that you are not aware of? If so, how is it you are aware of this?" There are unimaginably many events occuring every single moment that we are absolutely unaware of. How do we know that we don't know? By the using the most basic kind of logic. I wake up in the morning and see snow outside. Where did all this snow come from? It must have been snowing while I was asleep. Funny that I wasn't aware of it snowing, I wasn't even aware that I wasn't aware, awareness had absolutely nothing to do with this whole snowing affair.
We suspect that awareness is dependent on the body for many reasons. So far, most data supports this suspicion. I'll list the most trivial reasons, those that everyone can relate to:
- Awareness is localized. I can perceive only with the tools that are available to MY body. Only MY perspective is available to me, everything else is entirely inaccessible.
- Deep sleep. For must of us, and certainly for me, awareness is gone in deep sleep. How can the existence of my awareness, which is supposedly independent of the body, rely on whether the brain is in working mode or not?
Sorry if I'm a bit polemic here and there. I simply want to make sure that there is no way for you to misunderstand me. I want to use the simplest kind of language, the most everyday kind of examples.
"Not sure why deep sleep is supposed to be so important. Try to look at it without the nonduality jargon. The brain takes a break and shuts off for a while, and nothing remains of a mind. In some rare cases some awareness is still present, in my case it is not. Even if awareness is present in deep sleep and is described as having no content, no form, no nothing, how do you know that it is absolute and completely independent of the body's (or more specific: of the brain's) functioning (same question applies to the samadhi states btw)? Rupert Spira touches on this in his article, but every time he tries to tackle this question he unfortunately digresses into nonduality language games."
Shannon and Enigma replied. I'm going to quote both and write my reply below the quote:
I get your point, but it comes from a misundertanding of what "eternity" or "independent of the body" mean. It does not mean an "expansion in time". It means "out of space and time". That which is aware of my words now in you is not a thing, it has no borders, and having no shape, it´s not touched by time.
The problem is that most people imagine that eternity must imply a continuity in "perception", in being aware of something, and you would obviously need a brain in order to remain aware OF something.
But right now, if you search for an "I" you´ll discover it´s not possible to find it in space or time. And if it does not occupy a fragment of space or time, if it´s pure "nothing", what´s the need of a brain to keep being what you are right now?
That´s why deep sleep is important, because it gives you a taste of what consciousness without an object is. It shows what´s the realm of "no name, no form", something that´s very difficult in the waking state or dream state.
You're right, theoretically "no form" doesn't need a brain. It's the experience of "no form" that needs an experience, hence something to experience it with. An experience of something without borders, no form, not touched by time, even if it looks like nothing, it's still an experience. How else would you be able to tell me about it?
Hencely, it's necessary to challenge the assumption on which the question is formulated. If it is found that the assumption is not valid, the question dissolves and needs no answer.
In this case, the question as to how we know that Awareness is independent of body/mind is asked on the basis of the assumption that body/mind is independent of Awareness. Where is the evidence that this is so? Is something happening that you are not aware of? If so, how is it you are aware of this? If it is not so that something is independent of Awareness, what becomes of the question of whether Awareness can be independent of body/mind?
If that sounds like nonduality language games, it seems to be the best I can do.
If you assume you're a tree, then I'll burn that tree down in front of your eyes. Then you'll see that, although the tree is gone, you're still here, therefore you can't be the tree and your assumption is seen to have been an incorrect one. And since you weren't the tree in the first place, you couldn't have caused those leaves to grow. The conclusion of a faulty assumption can also be shown as incorrect. A truth can be found even from false assumptions, namely that the world doesn't work according to this now disproved assumption. All that is needed for that truth to shine is the collision of the predictions of this false assumption with what is actually the case. That's how scientific reasoning works. Most assumptions that scientists make are wrong, but they all go through a rigorous verification process that selects those that have been disproved from those that haven't been disproved yet. Unfortunately Spira and the likes of him try to reverse this scientific process, which is unacceptable imo.
Everyone agrees that assumptions must be challenged. The problem is that the 'evidence' for awareness' independence comes in subjective form. I can't show it to anyone, I can't do peer review on this evidence. Perception is in principle always susceptible to illusion, that's why scientists constantly double check each other and the tiniest detail in the proces of finding the truth. The nature of subjective awareness is such that it can't prove to someone else its dependence or independence of the body, maybe it can't even prove it to itself.
Next point, you ask: "Is something happening that you are not aware of? If so, how is it you are aware of this?" There are unimaginably many events occuring every single moment that we are absolutely unaware of. How do we know that we don't know? By the using the most basic kind of logic. I wake up in the morning and see snow outside. Where did all this snow come from? It must have been snowing while I was asleep. Funny that I wasn't aware of it snowing, I wasn't even aware that I wasn't aware, awareness had absolutely nothing to do with this whole snowing affair.
We suspect that awareness is dependent on the body for many reasons. So far, most data supports this suspicion. I'll list the most trivial reasons, those that everyone can relate to:
- Awareness is localized. I can perceive only with the tools that are available to MY body. Only MY perspective is available to me, everything else is entirely inaccessible.
- Deep sleep. For must of us, and certainly for me, awareness is gone in deep sleep. How can the existence of my awareness, which is supposedly independent of the body, rely on whether the brain is in working mode or not?
Sorry if I'm a bit polemic here and there. I simply want to make sure that there is no way for you to misunderstand me. I want to use the simplest kind of language, the most everyday kind of examples.
