|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 27, 2010 21:34:23 GMT -5
Question: There once was a man who heard some strange truth claims made by seven explorers of a distant land. He considered his options:
1. Ignore the claims, and go about his daily life.
2. Assume that the claims are false, and go about his daily life.
3. Assume that the claims are true, and go about his daily life.
4. Discuss the claims incessantly, but never reach any resolution.
5. Ask for directions to the distant lands, go there, find out for himself what's there, and then, upon the basis of his own direct experience of the truth, conclude whether the claims are true or false.
The question he had to ask himself was, "Are the claims sufficiently important to me that I need to acquire some direct experience?"
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Apr 28, 2010 12:58:34 GMT -5
2. The universe can experience anything at anytime. As long as it's not comprehensible to our brains, we don't have a clue about it. You are trying to limit the experience of the universe to whatever humans are experiencing. That the universe can experience anything at anytime is a theory. I also don't understand how I am limiting the experience of the universe by asking questions about it and doubting that awareness as I experience it, is what the universe is made out of. For me, a more important question would be: why is the focal point of awareness on this body? It seems to have been so for quite a few years. My own answer: it's temporary; the focus will "go" somewhere else... What's a few decades compared to infinity? Very good question, very important in this context. But "it's temporary" is not an answer. Anyways, how do you know that "it's temporary"? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Apr 28, 2010 13:06:53 GMT -5
- 1/ 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? -2/ 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. Hey, Question. Excuse me. I´m not chasing you nor trying to "win the debate" ;D. It´s just that all the doubts you´re explaining are exactly the ones I had for some time, and after spending like 3 years being brutally honest and getting rid of all wishful thinking, I can say that all of them have an answer, so I feel the urge to make some corrections here and there. You talk about a pair of things: 1/ OK. I answer: Don´t mistake "Being" with "the feeling of Being". "Being" does not need "the feeling of being" in order to be, but the feeling of Being needs Being in order to exist. When your DVD player is off, does the machine ceases to exist? Does the screen in a cinema exists only when a movie is being projected? Does not the sense of taste exist even when the salty taste is not there? Again, you´re implying that Awareness means "to be aware of something", something with physical form, sound, etc. Awareness is not gone in deep sleep. But when the brain is in "off mode", Awareness has nothing to perceive. You got Being without perceptions. Or the empty screen in the cinema. **2/: No. Awareness is not localized, not limited. Mind is. You´re superimposing onto "Awareness" all the limitations the senses have when they collect information and the limitations of the mind in order to process the data supplied by the senses When you watch a tree, you can say that you watch it with your eyes, not with mine, and if you are in front of a particular part of that tree, you´ll watch that part, not the one I see with my eyes. But Awareness is more than the "image" you capture with your mind. It is more than the picture you perceive. It´s the "perceiving". Where is the cognizing space that perceives? Up? Down? Is it red? Blue? No. Nothing can be said about it. No limits nor location. Another example: You may say "why am I not able to perceive atoms without a mechanichal device if I´m unlimited Awareness"? Because the senses are limited. But if the senses had the capacity to watch it all, Awareness would be the one sustaining that experience. Hope that helps. Anyway, I´d suggest you to ask all your doubts and questions to a few available and trustable masters that do answer e-mails. They´ll do it much better than me. Shannon, I'm very grateful of every reply and every bit of help. You can't imagine how much I actually want you to "win the debate".  1) I've never felt Being. I have no idea what all those "feelers" are talking about. How do you "feel into" being or awareness, lol? Ok I know this argument, but it's not useful. Let's say I believe you that you are aware even in deep sleep, so what, it only proves that awareness isn't mind. But we all know this already. It doesn't prove that awareness is independent of the body. That's my question. You guys are constantly trying to bring up the mind into the discussion. I don't care about the mind. I'm asking about body/brain and awareness. And again, I agree with you about Being. But how do you justify giving it the quality of being aware? Why must Being be necessarily aware? Isn't it enough for it to just be? 2) The perception of time and space appears within awareness. Necessarily awareness is fundamentally prior to, and independent of the perception of time and space, it's prior to mind and all conceptual thinking. I agree with this completely. But if from this alone you deduce that awareness is fundamentally free from the physical world, then you have yourself made the mistake of equating image with reality. In other words, the fact that awareness is not limited by the perception of the physical world doesn't mean that it isn't subject to what the perception of the physical world is referring to. Only because the imaginary dog can't bite me doen't mean that real dogs also can't. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Apr 28, 2010 14:06:36 GMT -5
That the universe can experience anything at anytime is a theory. I also don't understand how I am limiting the experience of the universe by asking questions about it and doubting that awareness as I experience it, is what the universe is made out of. According to your initial post, it's not a theory for you: you mentioned that stuff happens while you're not aware, such as in deep sleep: snow, rain, etc. The universe experiences wind blowing through the trees, lions chasing gazelles, stars exploding, and a whole other bunch of stuff the brain doesn't have a clue about. This would be an imposed limit on the universe: You were asking if the universe can have the experience of awareness if it hadn't had the experience of a physical brain prior to awareness. I'd say it can. Very good question, very important in this context. But "it's temporary" is not an answer. Anyways, how do you know that "it's temporary"? Here, "It's temporary" is similar to "it's illusory" - especially given the size of what we're talking about. If you experienced change, then you know what temporary is. |
|
|
|
Post by shannon on Apr 28, 2010 17:54:23 GMT -5
awareness isn't mind. But we all know this already. It doesn't prove that awareness is independent of the body. That's my question. I don't care about the mind. I'm asking about body/brain and awareness Yes, I understand your question, but you are asking all these questions on the survival of Awareness because you want a continuity in what you think you are, that is, an individual, and your mind is trying to make sure that something will survive the death experience. But what´s that "something"? Being is not individual, Being IS, so how could Being die when your body dies? How can something that "IS" become something that is NOT? Through what mysterious process does "Being" turns into "Not Being"? You´ll only receive the answers for them all, not when the individual you think you are "gets it", but when that individual DISSAPEARS. As long as you keep thinking you are an individual, with individual awareness, with individual Being, you´ll have an incessant flow of questions, because the mind lives through the creation of a solid entity by means of a non stopping flow of thoughts and questions that spin around a ficticious center. I've never felt Being. I have no idea what all those "feelers" are talking about I was not clear enough here, I agree. I´ll copy and paste something I posted on another website: "It was not until I read a wonderful and unknown Spanish teacher, Pedro Rodea, that I understood what Nisargadatta repeated us. Pedro explains that the biggest problem for a correct understanding of Reality is confusing the "I Am" (and I´m talking about the pure, non-verbalized feeling of existence that arises when we wake up and dissapears at night) with Being,that is, confusing the "feeling of being" with Being itself. Being does not need the proof that this "feeling of Being" is. Being (Consciousness) does not need the presence of this "waking- state feeling of being" in order to Be. As you don´t perceive this feeling of being in deep sleep maybe you´re thinking that Being, Consciousness, is not present during that "state". In other words, that feeling of being that wakes up in the morning and goes to sleep at night is like the acid taste of a lemon drop and the Being would be "the sense of taste" . That is, the acid taste of the lemon drop reveals the sense of taste,it illuminates it, but it´s NOT the sense of taste, nor this sense of taste needs the acid taste to BE the sense of taste. So you may consider this feeling of being as a signal that remind you that you exist. Not just while the feeling is present, but even when it´s not." Hope this is clearer now. Being (...) how do you justify giving it the quality of being aware? Why must Being be necessarily aware? Isn't it enough for it to just be? Try and think of Being not knowing its existence. Could it be this "Being" considered to be existent? By whom, if not even itself knows its own existence? No thing, concept or reality can fall under the Awareness radar, because, how then that concept would "come into existence"? 2) (...) the fact that awareness is not limited by the perception of the physical world doesn't mean that it isn't subject to what the perception of the physical world is referring to. Only because the imaginary dog can't bite me doen't mean that real dogs also can't. Of course. The fact that Awareness is not limited by perceptions does not mean it does not perceive. And, yes, that includes those d**n Pitbull bites ;D Anyway, I encourage you to ask all these questions to a teacher. I have an understanding of these topics, but I don´t have the skills nor the knowledge of the language to sound convincing enough. Blame me, not the point of view. If you want, I can give you some names that could erase your doubts, but nothing will serve until you realize that the one who´s asking those questions (and the one answering them) does not exist now, not after the death of the body. Right now it is non existent. The ultimate answer is the lack of need of asking because the one who asks is gone. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 28, 2010 23:28:04 GMT -5
Shannon: Good post, but a certain amount of silence or contemplation may be necessary to appreciate the points you made. When I think back to the time when I was full of questions and had not yet found a single answer, I doubt that I would have understood your words. At that time everything in my universe was so imaginatively separated that I was like the guy who sees a cat walking back and forth past a slot in a fence. I would have concluded that a head has a cause and effect relationship with a tail because a head always precedes a tail as the cat walks past the slot. I would not have been able to perceive the underlying unity of the cat. LOL. This is why I keep telling Question that sooner or later he's going to have to sit down and turn off his "brain TV" for a while and rediscover his direct connection to reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 29, 2010 0:02:30 GMT -5
If awareness is prior to time and space, must it not be prior to physicality, which arises in the framework of time/space? Doesn't this mean it is prior to the physical world, and therefore independent of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 29, 2010 8:11:30 GMT -5
If awareness is prior to time and space, must it not be prior to physicality, which arises in the framework of time/space? Doesn't this mean it is prior to the physical world, and therefore independent of it? That certainly agrees with various experiences I've had. What we call "the physical universe" appears within awareness rather than the reverse. This is why I tell people that who we are will still be here even if this universe disappears. All universes appear and disappear within THAT. |
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Apr 29, 2010 12:32:36 GMT -5
zendancer,
So be IT.
|
|
|
|
Post by question on Apr 29, 2010 13:14:20 GMT -5
Very good question, very important in this context. But "it's temporary" is not an answer. Anyways, how do you know that "it's temporary"? Here, "It's temporary" is similar to "it's illusory" - especially given the size of what we're talking about. If you experienced change, then you know what temporary is. Porto: I think you mean temporary as in "awareness will surive the death of the body". So I'm asking how you can possibly know that. If awareness is prior to time and space, must it not be prior to physicality, which arises in the framework of time/space? Doesn't this mean it is prior to the physical world, and therefore independent of it? Enigma: That's not at all what I've said. I said that awareness is free of the mental concept and of the PERCEPTION of time and space. But from this to conclude that awareness is free of what the perception of time and space is referring to, is to equate the pointing finger with what is being pointed at. This is a very important point. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Apr 29, 2010 13:29:03 GMT -5
...your mind is trying to make sure that something will survive the death experience. But what´s that "something"? Being is not individual, Being IS, so how could Being die when your body dies? How can something that "IS" become something that is NOT? Through what mysterious process does "Being" turns into "Not Being"? Try and think of Being not knowing its existence. Could it be this "Being" considered to be existent? By whom, if not even itself knows its own existence? No thing, concept or reality can fall under the Awareness radar, because, how then that concept would "come into existence"? Shannon: Ok I'll say it again. I agree with you that Being is the ground of all existence, and it's not individual, it's all encompassing. And I'm not saying that Being somehow could turn into non-being, I'm saying that awareness is a temporary quality. Which brings me to the 2nd quote: Aren't you now limiting Being by assuming that it needs awareness to know and be aware of Being? Why would it need to be perceived in order to exist? Give Being some credit for being able to exist on its own, without awareness having to confirm Being's presence. I'm always happy to check out new teachers. I'd be glad if you would post their names. Shannon: Good post, but a certain amount of silence or contemplation may be necessary to appreciate the points you made. When I think back to the time when I was full of questions and had not yet found a single answer, I doubt that I would have understood your words. At that time everything in my universe was so imaginatively separated that I was like the guy who sees a cat walking back and forth past a slot in a fence. I would have concluded that a head has a cause and effect relationship with a tail because a head always precedes a tail as the cat walks past the slot. I would not have been able to perceive the underlying unity of the cat. LOL. This is why I keep telling Question that sooner or later he's going to have to sit down and turn off his "brain TV" for a while and rediscover his direct connection to reality. Zendancer: I've spent 2-3 years meditating at a regular basis and there was no effect. So I hope you understand that before wasting many years of my one and only life, I'd better make sure that it's well invested. Maybe it's just a projection of mine, but it appears to me like you think that I'm thinking with clenching teeth all day long, holding any silence and peace at bay, lol. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I spend a lot of time in silence, but not because of any kind of practise and certanly not because I expect spiritual answers out of it, but simply because I am a slacker and I enjoy being alone in silence. |
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Apr 29, 2010 14:43:32 GMT -5
question,
Awareness is body, mind, is everything.....
Awareness is no thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 29, 2010 14:45:16 GMT -5
Here, "It's temporary" is similar to "it's illusory" - especially given the size of what we're talking about. If you experienced change, then you know what temporary is. Porto: I think you mean temporary as in "awareness will surive the death of the body". So I'm asking how you can possibly know that. If awareness is prior to time and space, must it not be prior to physicality, which arises in the framework of time/space? Doesn't this mean it is prior to the physical world, and therefore independent of it? Oh, okay, so the way you see it is that awareness is prior to the perception of time and space, but time and space are real when they're not being perceived? I suggest that time and space are ONLY perceptions, only conceptual. As such, awareness is prior to anything found in this time/space. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 29, 2010 15:04:13 GMT -5
Question:
Aren't you now limiting Being by assuming that it needs awareness to know and be aware of Being? Why would it need to be perceived in order to exist? Give Being some credit for being able to exist on its own, without awareness having to confirm Being's presence.
Enigma:
Awareness does not point to a quality. It points to the same existence that beingness/isness/consciousness points to. Awareness is not independent of it's awareness of itself. It IS that awareness, and only that awareness. When it is aware of objects, it is aware of itself. When there are no objects, it's still aware of itself. We could say it is aware of awareness, but really we've said too much. There is no 'it', and 'it' is not aware of something that is not awareness itself.
We can substitute consciousness or beingness for the word 'awareness'. There is no actual awareness of being, just awareness. Awareness cannot be unaware, and it cannot be aware OF anything. It can just be what it is: awareness. It's not a thing and there's nothing else. There's not the slightest hand-hold for mind to grasp here. It collapses totally into the simplicity of THIS, without distinction of any kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 30, 2010 13:30:45 GMT -5
Ditto!
|
|
