Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Hi All, It seems that " awareness " appears to inviolate for some. One just has to have it. I posted in the Direct Approach list that I did not experience awareness as it is commonly defined. This was met with strong opposition by two posters and with a customary belittling and an ad hominem attack by one. Another poster was considerate and reasoned with me. Being incorrigible in it, it was a hopeless enterprise for them. I did not propose that there is no awareness for others, only that I did not experience it as it is commonly defined. Somehow it seems that my experience is not possible for them. I cannot have this experience or that awareness is somehow necessary, primary or a permanent feature of existence. I do not experience awareness as commonly defined. On the conventional conceptual level, that is, in language and expression the concept of does not stand by itself. It depends on a host of concepts to exist, some exclusivley others peripherally, including, a perceiver, mind, memory, consciousness, perception, percepts, brain, brain function, health, disease, and so on. When any of these change so does awareness. If awareness is self-existing, or primary or is beyond these, how so is it affected by them? If awareness arises with some conditions and fails or ceases with others, how can it be primary, self-existing, permanent, unique or eternal? It seems to me that the experience of awareness is a result of taken for granted sequestering and labeling of experience, into that which is aware, (however manages to do that) and that which is not. It seems to me to be a fundamental basis of duality. Clinging to such a basis is one of the most stultifying behaviors that can be done. It seems that few advocate its abandonment and when they do there is a storm of protest over it, especially if they are common folk. What is the basis of the storm of protest? Up for an examination of awareness? Here is starting point. Awareness is a concept, a belief held by many, an unexamined taken for granted assumption held naively. Awareness assumed, held, believed, clung to parcels experience in its favor, subverting it, taking it over and subugating wholeness to dualities of the aware and nonaware, subject and object. It is an illusion, it is empty. It is something to go beyond. For the sake of the list goals, here is Nisargadatta's take on it from " I Am That, " (Chetana, Bombay, 1992). 'When you go beyond awareness, there is a state of non-duality, in which there is no cognition, only pure being, which may be as well called non-being, if by being you mean being something in particular.' (409) 'Your true home is in nothingness, in emptiness of all content.' (487) Lewis Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile./maildemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Hi All, > > It seems that " awareness " appears to inviolate for > some. One just has to have it. I posted in the Direct > Approach list that I did not experience awareness as > it is commonly defined. This was met with strong > opposition by two posters and with a customary > belittling and an ad hominem attack by one. Another > poster was considerate and reasoned with me. Being > incorrigible in it, it was a hopeless enterprise for > them. > > I did not propose that there is no awareness for > others, only that I did not experience it as it is > commonly defined. Somehow it seems that my experience > is not possible for them. I cannot have this > experience or that awareness is somehow necessary, > primary or a permanent feature of existence. > > I do not experience awareness as commonly defined. On > the conventional conceptual level, that is, in > language and expression the concept of does not stand > by itself. It depends on a host of concepts to exist, > some exclusivley others peripherally, including, a > perceiver, mind, memory, consciousness, perception, > percepts, brain, brain function, health, disease, and > so on. When any of these change so does awareness. If > awareness is self-existing, or primary or is beyond > these, how so is it affected by them? If awareness > arises with some conditions and fails or ceases with > others, how can it be primary, self-existing, > permanent, unique or eternal? *If* awareness arises with some conditions, then awareness is not permanent, but does it? First of all, maybe awareness is not an *it*, a thing, an object, not even a field, a field of energy or what have you. Also, where is the past? Has awareness existed in some past? Do you believe you have existed as a child? Do you believe you have experienced yesterday in an actual yesterday, or is yestedary only a phenomenon experienced now, and only now? > > It seems to me that the experience of awareness is a > result of taken for granted sequestering and labeling > of experience, into that which is aware, (however > manages to do that) and that which is not. It seems to > me to be a fundamental basis of duality. Clinging to > such a basis is one of the most stultifying behaviors > that can be done. It seems that few advocate its > abandonment and when they do there is a storm of > protest over it, especially if they are common folk. > What is the basis of the storm of protest? You talk about phenomena here. Awareness is what is *aware* of phenomena. Perhaps there can be no awareness without phenomena, and that they go together, but phenomena without awareness? How can we know if that is possible? > > Up for an examination of awareness? Here is starting > point. > > Awareness is a concept, Yes and no. Awareness is a concept, yes, but only awareness is *aware* of that concept. See? > a belief held by many, an > unexamined taken for granted assumption held naively. > Awareness assumed, held, believed, clung to parcels > experience in its favor, subverting it, taking it over > and subugating wholeness to dualities of the aware and > nonaware, subject and object. It is an illusion, it is > empty. It is something to go beyond. Maybe awareness as something eternal is an illusion. But awareness itself can not be an illusion. Awareness is aware of phenomena, including illusions, and it matters not on a primordial level what that phenomena is. > > For the sake of the list goals, here is Nisargadatta's > take on it from " I Am That, " (Chetana, Bombay, 1992). > > 'When you go beyond awareness, there is a state of > non-duality, in which there is no cognition, only pure > being, which may be as well called non-being, if by > being you mean being something in particular.' (409) > > 'Your true home is in nothingness, in emptiness of all > content.' (487) > > Lewis If awareness and phenomena go together, then perhaps there is a non-dual source which is neither awareness or phenomena, and that it is possible, as Nisargadatta said, that reaching this source is to go beyond awareness. /AL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. > http://mobile./maildemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 In a message dated 3/19/05 6:13:27 AM, lbb10 writes: > Lewis: Yes. This is the point of the examination. If > awareness is a composite, it arises and ceases and > changes with other conditions and this composite is > then taken for granted, implicitly assumed, accepted > unexamined as true, as a self-existing entity or > process, then what are the implications and > consequences of such an astounding assumption for > experience and living?..... > > P: Good paragraph Lewis, except, may I suggest that the notions of " true, " or " self-existing " are really not the points of contention here. You most agree awareness is 'true' in the sense that it exist to be discussed, in one form or another as the basis, or at least an element of perception. And whether it's self-existent or not, most people do not give a fig about. But the real points of contention with believers are, is it durable? Is it going to survive death? Is it mine, or me? To answer 'no' to such questions is what rattles people's cages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Hi All, Lewis: It seems that " awareness " appears to inviolate for some. One just has to have it. I posted in the Direct Approach list that I did not experience awareness as it is commonly defined. This was met with strong opposition by two posters and with a customary belittling and an ad hohominemttack by one. Another poster was considerate and reasoned with me. Being incorrigible in it, it was a hopeless enterprise for them. I did not propose that there is no awareness for others, only that I did not experience it as it is commonly defined. Somehow it seems that my experience is not possible for them. I cannot have this experience or that awareness is somehow necessary, primary or a permanent feature of existence. I do not experience awareness as commonly defined. On the conventional conceptual level, that is, in language and expression the concept of does not stand by itself. It depends on a host of concepts to exist, some exexclusivelythers peripherally, including, a perceiver, mind, memory, consciousness, perception, percepts, brain, brain function, health, disease, and so on. When any of these change so does awareness. If awareness is self-existing, or primary or is beyond these, how so is it affected by them? If awareness arises with some conditions and fails or ceases with others, how can it be primary, self-existing, permanent, unique or eternal? Anders: *If* awareness arises with some conditions, then awareness is not permanent, but does it? First of all, maybe awareness is not an *it*, a thing, an object, not even a field, a field of energy or what have you. Also, where is the past? Has awareness existed in some past? Do you believe you have existed as a child? Do you believe you have experienced yesterday in an actual yesterday, or is yeyestedarynly a phenomenon experienced now, and only now? Lewis: We are starting with awareness as a concept. As such it can be considered a static conceptual thing or a dynamic conceptual process. The " substance " of awareness is usually not considered in it conceptual definition and that is an interesting point to consider. Time and awareness is also another point to consider. Does awareness co-arise with time? If time is absent is awareness absent? It seems that time co-arises with awareness but not the reverse. If time is absent, awareness remains. Lewis: It seems to me that the experience of awareness is a result of taken for granted sequestering and labeling of experience, into that which is aware, (however manages to do that) and that which is not. It seems to me to be a fundamental basis of duality. Clinging to such a basis is one of the most stultifying behaviors that can be done. It seems that few advocate its abandonment and when they do there is a storm of protest over it, especially if they are common folk. What is the basis of the storm of protest? Anders: You talk about phenomena here. Awareness is what is *aware* of phenomena. Perhaps there can be no awareness without phenomena, and that they go together, but phenomena without awareness? How can we know if that is possible? Lewis: Yes. Awareness is defined as having knowledge of something (phenomena). Awareness arises with something or phenomena including itself. If there are no phenomena, there is no awareness by definition and as long as there is life there is phenomena, So conceptually awareness without phenomena is not possible in life. Phenomena without awareness? To have phenomena without awareness is to be dead. For example, a lifeless body has no awareness as defined. There is phenomenon and no awareness. It is simple, unless the possibility of death is denied. Lewis: Up for an examination of awareness? Here is starting point. Lewis: Awareness is a concept, Anders: Yes and no. Awareness is a concept, yes, but only awareness is *aware* of that concept. See? Lewis: You are moving ahead to experience when we are only looking at the concept. To say that only awareness is a aware of that concept is presupposition. It can easily be said that consciousness is aware of the concept of awareness, or God is aware of the concept of awareness or the brain is aware of the coconceptf awareness. This is the problem under examination. Please hold off on presupposing until we are done with the concept. Lewis: a belief held by many, an unexamined taken for granted assumption held naively. Awareness assumed, held, believed, clung to parcels experience in its favor, subverting it, taking it over and subjugating wholeness to dualities of the aware and nononawaresubject and object. It is an illusion, it is empty. It is something to go beyond. Anders: Maybe awareness as something eternal is an illusion. But awareness itself can not be an illusion. Awareness is aware of phenomena, including illusions, and it matters not on a primordial level what that phenomena is. Lewis: Let us avoid presupposing for the moment. " Awareness as an experience " is not denied. It is simply being held in abeyance for discussion. As mentioned above, there are many other concepts that can be substituted for awareness; God, consciousness, Atman, brain function, etc. Lewis: For the sake of the list goals, here is NiNisargadatta'sake on it from " I Am That, " (ChChetanaBombay, 1992). 'When you go beyond awareness, there is a state of non-duality, in which there is no cognition, only pure being, which may be as well called non-being, if by being you mean being something in particular.' (409) 'Your true home is in nothingness, in emptiness of all content.' (487) Lewis Anders: If awareness and phenomena go together, then perhaps there is a non-dual source which is neither awareness or phenomena, and that it is possible, as NiNisargadattaaid, that reaching this source is to go beyond awareness. /AL Lewis: Yes. This is the point of the examination. If awareness is a composite, it arises and ceases and changes with other conditions and this composite is then taken for granted, implicitly assumed, accepted unexamined as true, as a self-existing entity or process, then what are the implications and consequences of such an astounding assumption for experience and living?..... Perhaps, the experience of awareness is equivalent to the experience of the sun rising in the east going overhead and setting in the west. Both undeniable in experience. One was shown to be an optical illusion. Is awareness an illusion? If it is, NiNisagardatta'sords make sense. Even though the optical illusion of the the sun rising in the east going overhead and setting in the west is know to be such, how many understand the optical illusion, how it is produced and how many can " see beyond it? " Very few, I imagine. Most of the world's peoples are content to base their activities on that optical illusion and it serves them well. Think of the those major enterprises that that take up most of human activity on earth; making a living and subsisting, getting educated (4 to 30 year ololdsn general) and sleeping. Similarly, most people accept " awareness " in precisely the same way; without question. This is the curiosity. How can one go beyond awareness to pure being if awawarenesss accepted unexamined? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Hi All, > > Lewis: It seems that " awareness " appears to inviolate > for some. One just has to have it. I posted in the > Direct Approach list that I did not experience > awareness as it is commonly defined. This was met with > strong opposition by two posters and with a customary > belittling and an ad hohominemttack by one. Another > poster was considerate and reasoned with me. Being > incorrigible in it, it was a hopeless enterprise for > them. > > I did not propose that there is no awareness for > others, only that I did not experience it as it is > commonly defined. Somehow it seems that my experience > is not possible for them. I cannot have this > experience or that awareness is somehow necessary, > primary or a permanent feature of existence. > > I do not experience awareness as commonly defined. On > the conventional conceptual level, that is, in > language and expression the concept of does not stand > by itself. It depends on a host of concepts to exist, > some exexclusivelythers peripherally, including, a > perceiver, mind, memory, consciousness, perception, > percepts, brain, brain function, health, disease, and > so on. When any of these change so does awareness. If > awareness is self-existing, or primary or is beyond > these, how so is it affected by them? If awareness > arises with some conditions and fails or ceases with > others, how can it be primary, self-existing, > permanent, unique or eternal? > > Anders: *If* awareness arises with some conditions, > then awareness is not permanent, but does it? First of > all, maybe awareness is not an *it*, a thing, an > object, not even a field, a field of energy or what > have you. Also, where is the past? Has awareness > existed in some past? Do you believe you have existed > as a child? Do you believe you have experienced > yesterday in an actual yesterday, or is yeyestedarynly > a phenomenon experienced now, and only now? > > Lewis: We are starting with awareness as a concept. As > such it can be considered a static conceptual thing or > a dynamic conceptual process. The " substance " of > awareness is usually not considered in it conceptual > definition and that is an interesting point to > consider. Time and awareness is also another point to > consider. Does awareness co-arise with time? If time > is absent is awareness absent? It seems that time > co-arises with awareness but not the reverse. If time > is absent, awareness remains. > > Lewis: It seems to me that the experience of awareness > is a result of taken for granted sequestering and > labeling of experience, into that which is aware, > (however manages to do that) and that which is not. It > seems to me to be a fundamental basis of duality. > Clinging to such a basis is one of the most > stultifying behaviors that can be done. It seems that > few advocate its abandonment and when they do there is > a storm of protest over it, especially if they are > common folk. What is the basis of the storm of > protest? > > Anders: You talk about phenomena here. Awareness is > what is *aware* of phenomena. Perhaps there can be no > awareness without phenomena, and that they go > together, but phenomena without awareness? How can we > know if that is possible? > > Lewis: Yes. Awareness is defined as having knowledge > of something (phenomena). Awareness arises with > something or phenomena including itself. If there are > no phenomena, there is no awareness by definition and > as long as there is life there is phenomena, So > conceptually awareness without phenomena is not > possible in life. Phenomena without awareness? To have > phenomena without awareness is to be dead. For > example, a lifeless body has no awareness as defined. > There is phenomenon and no awareness. It is simple, > unless the possibility of death is denied. > > Lewis: Up for an examination of awareness? Here is > starting point. > > Lewis: Awareness is a concept, > > Anders: Yes and no. Awareness is a concept, yes, but > only awareness is *aware* of that concept. See? > > Lewis: You are moving ahead to experience when we are > only looking at the concept. To say that only > awareness is a aware of that concept is > presupposition. It can easily be said that > consciousness is aware of the concept of awareness, or > God is aware of the concept of awareness or the brain > is aware of the coconceptf awareness. This is the > problem under examination. Please hold off on > presupposing until we are done with the concept. > > Lewis: a belief held by many, an unexamined taken for > granted assumption held naively. Awareness assumed, > held, believed, clung to parcels experience in its > favor, subverting it, taking it over and subjugating > wholeness to dualities of the aware and > nononawaresubject and object. It is an illusion, it is > empty. It is something to go beyond. > > Anders: Maybe awareness as something eternal is an > illusion. But awareness itself can not be an illusion. > Awareness is aware of phenomena, including illusions, > and it matters not on a primordial level what that > phenomena is. > > Lewis: Let us avoid presupposing for the moment. > " Awareness as an experience " is not denied. It is > simply being held in abeyance for discussion. As > mentioned above, there are many other concepts that > can be substituted for awareness; God, consciousness, > Atman, brain function, etc. > > Lewis: For the sake of the list goals, here is > NiNisargadatta'sake on it from " I Am > That, " (ChChetanaBombay, 1992). > > 'When you go beyond awareness, there is a state of > non-duality, in which there is no cognition, only pure > being, which may be as well called non-being, if by > being you mean being something in particular.' (409) > > 'Your true home is in nothingness, in emptiness of all > content.' (487) > > Lewis > > Anders: If awareness and phenomena go together, then > perhaps there is a non-dual source which is neither > awareness or phenomena, and that it is possible, as > NiNisargadattaaid, that reaching this source is to go > beyond awareness. > > /AL > > Lewis: Yes. This is the point of the examination. If > awareness is a composite, it arises and ceases and > changes with other conditions and this composite is > then taken for granted, implicitly assumed, accepted > unexamined as true, as a self-existing entity or > process, then what are the implications and > consequences of such an astounding assumption for > experience and living?..... > > Perhaps, the experience of awareness is equivalent to > the experience of the sun rising in the east going > overhead and setting in the west. Both undeniable in > experience. One was shown to be an optical illusion. > Is awareness an illusion? If it is, > NiNisagardatta'sords make sense. Even though the > optical illusion of the the sun rising in the east > going overhead and setting in the west is know to be > such, how many understand the optical illusion, how it > is produced and how many can " see beyond it? " Very > few, I imagine. Most of the world's peoples are > content to base their activities on that optical > illusion and it serves them well. Think of the those > major enterprises that that take up most of human > activity on earth; making a living and subsisting, > getting educated (4 to 30 year ololdsn general) and > sleeping. Similarly, most people accept " awareness " in > precisely the same way; without question. This is the > curiosity. How can one go beyond awareness to pure > being if awawarenesss accepted unexamined? > Illusions are always in phenomena. Awareness is not phenomena as I see it, because awareness is aware of phenomena. Maybe phenomena and awareness are two sides of the same coin. We cannot say that there is no such thing as phenomena, like physical objects, and we cannot say that there is no such thing as awareness, for there is awareness of things. For example, I cannot deny that I am looking at a computer monitor (phenomeon) right now, and I cannot deny the fact that I am being aware (awareness) of looking at the computer monitor. Going beyond awareness, I don't know. I don't see the need for it. Awareness is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Is there a nondual state without awareness? Who would know such state without being aware of it? There must be some form of awareness (or whatever we want to call it) for experience to be experienced. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Continued from Post 20952 Nisargadatta/message/20952 Anders: Illusions are always in phenomena. Awareness is not phenomena as I see it, because awareness is aware of phenomena. Lewis: Aware is aware of itself. It is phenomena too. That is why it is conceptualized and discussed as an object. Anders: Maybe phenomena and awareness are two sides of the same coin. Lewis: Then what is that one coin? From here, we can create monisms; absolute or material. Both try resolve the issue of awareness. Absolute monism makes phenomena illusions that dance in an absolute mirror (Brahman/Atman) or in the mind of God or is the substance of God with God as the Universal Mind. There is One with awareness supreme and primary. Material monism reduces awareness to epiphenomena variously produced by and through the brain and biological functions in relation to an external material world. It is fragmentary and secondary as a matter/energy by product of human functioning and nothing more. Such syntheses suffer from internal contradictions and both cannot be used to substantiate assertions made. On the one hand there is the assertion of awareness as ultimately unitary, unchanging, self-existing, independent and eternal and on the other as matter/energy by products of biological brain function. Awareness in both cases remain as assertions regardless of the explanatory vehicle. Anders: We cannot say that there is no such thing as phenomena, like physical objects, Lewis: Yes, that it seems unavoidable as long as there is life in the appearance. When death occurs the lifeless appearance has no awareness and there is no phenomena for it. Anders:….and we cannot say that there is no such thing as awareness, for there is awareness of things. Lewis: Yes. There is no need to deny the assertion. As labeled, it is a common experience. There is also no reason to make the assertion as something primary as it has been said by some neuroscientists who consider awareness as insignificant epiphenomena. Affirming or denying does not help understanding or cognition of awareness. Again Anders you presuppose what is under investigation and as said before there is no reason to assume awareness is the only label for " having knowledge of something " . We can substitute, God, consciousness, brain function, life, or any new creation for it. The same problems hold for all such solutions. Anders: For example, I cannot deny that I am looking at a computer monitor (phenomeon) right now, and I cannot deny the fact that I am being aware (awareness) of looking at the computer monitor. Lewis: There is no need to either affirm or deny your experience that you label awareness. It can be labeled in many different ways. Anders: Going beyond awareness, I don't know. I don't see the need for it. Lewis: Yes. One cannot go beyond what one does not see or understand or even imagine so there is no need to do so. Also, it may be a figure of speech a metaphor; " going beyond awareness. " Where shall we go? What is that pointing to? Is it imagined that beyond awareness there is no having knowledge of something? Is it imagined to be a state of blankness, darkness, emptiness, nothingness? What is pure being that Nisargadatta pointed to? Is direct thoughtless perception? How does one go to that? No sense being blind and led by the blind. We do as we are in this. Anders: Awareness is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Lewis: Again Anders this is an assertion. So far you have consistently asserted awareness as more or less unchanging, permanent, (perhaps) eternal, independent and self-existing (1). You have denied that awareness does not exist (2), you have proposed a synthesis that saves awareness from non-existence or impermanence by positing a " one coin " solution, (3) in asserting awareness and denying its non-existence, you have never doubted awareness (4) and you have avoided examining in any detail that awareness may be changing, impermanent, transient, interdependent, and co-arising. One does not die if all five alternatives are considered. Look I am still alive? :-) Anders: Is there a nondual state without awareness? Who would know such state without being aware of it? There must be some form of awareness (or whatever we want to call it) for experience to be experienced. /AL Lewis: What is a nondual state in the first place? That needs examination as well. And there you point to the problem that the concept of awareness brings. The fascination with awareness, and experience as well, and the taken for granted and unexamined way both of these are conducted in daily life seems to have a confounding effect that seems to lead to formation of an underlying craving to somehow be in control of being or doing, to have some form of awareness for experience to experienced, to be aware of what one is undergoing (to be aware, to be knowing, to be vigilant, to be indifferent, to be caring, to be certain or uncertain, to be this or that in being, knowing, doing, etc. ………). And in trying to be by being aware, being is obfuscated by the fascination and focus on being aware, on having awareness, being mindful, expanding awareness, being in the Now, and so on. Perhaps this is what is happening as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. A thorough examination of awareness may prove useful if presuppositions on what it is are held in abeyance or dropped. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 --- Pedsie2 wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/19/05 6:13:27 AM, > lbb10 writes: > > Lewis: Yes. This is the point of the examination. If awareness is a composite, it arises and ceases and changes with other conditions and this composite is then taken for granted, implicitly assumed, accepted unexamined as true, as a self-existing entity or process, then what are the implications and consequences of such an astounding assumption for experience and living?..... P: Good paragraph Lewis, except, may I suggest that the notions of " true, " or " self-existing " are really not the points of contention here. You most agree awareness is 'true' in the sense that it exist to be discussed, in one form or another as the basis, or at least an element of perception. And whether it's self-existent or not, most people do not give a fig about. But the real points of contention with believers are, is it durable? Is it going to survive death? Is it mine, or me? To answer 'no' to such questions is what rattles people's cages. Lewis: In that conversation, awareness is not finally affirmed or denied. The experience and concept of awareness is admitted so that we can talk about it and as you say, " awareness is 'true' in the sense that it exist to be discussed, in one form or another as the basis, or at least an element of perception. " In that paragraph it is not a point of contention in the logical or argumentative sense. It is a point made only in that it being taken for granted and true, it lies beneath itself and works how it does unnoticed and unexamined and this has consequences. Self-existing is a fig for many and it is a point of contention. For those who assume or assert awarenenss as independent of other conditions having its own self-existing, immutable nature that is not affected by anything else, the idea that it may not be as imagined or experienced or non-existing is a serious difference that leads to rattling and denial. And self-existing relates directly to your main point of durability. Focusing on, asserting, assuming or believing awareness as being independent of other conditions having its own self-existing, immutable nature allows awareness to be durable and even eternal and not subject to change during life and after death. The permanence and immutability of awareness during life is always called into contention when conditions affecting awareness, that co-arise with awareness change and awareness is altered such as in memory loss. Even so, awareness can be asserted to exist even though memory loss occurs. Fixation on positions, tenable or untenable has it consequences and when fixations are challenged there is always rattling and denial. Any position may taken up without fixation, that is, it is not the final one for all, the truth, just the one for me now at the moment. Why fixate? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Continued from Post 20952 > > Nisargadatta/message/20952 > > Anders: Illusions are always in phenomena. Awareness > is not phenomena as I see it, because awareness is > aware of phenomena. > > Lewis: Aware is aware of itself. It is phenomena too. > That is why it is conceptualized and discussed as an > object. We can only talk about awareness through concepts, but awareness is not only a concept. Awareness is more than a concept. The simple extraordinary fact of being aware! > > Anders: Maybe phenomena and awareness are two sides of > the same coin. > > Lewis: Then what is that one coin? From here, we can > create monisms; absolute or material. Both try resolve > the issue of awareness. Absolute monism makes > phenomena illusions that dance in an absolute mirror > (Brahman/Atman) or in the mind of God or is the > substance of God with God as the Universal Mind. There > is One with awareness supreme and primary. Material > monism reduces awareness to epiphenomena variously > produced by and through the brain and biological > functions in relation to an external material world. > It is fragmentary and secondary as a matter/energy by > product of human functioning and nothing more. Such > syntheses suffer from internal contradictions and both > cannot be used to substantiate assertions made. On the > one hand there is the assertion of awareness as > ultimately unitary, unchanging, self-existing, > independent and eternal and on the other as > matter/energy by products of biological brain > function. Awareness in both cases remain as assertions > regardless of the explanatory vehicle. I agree with Ken Wilber who says that consciousness/awareness has correlates in the world of 'its' such as the brain and the nervous system, but cannot be reduced to only 'its'. I also agree with Eckhart Tolle who says that knowing the unmanifested cannot be understood by the mind, because it is the ground for all understanding, and cannot be understood conceptually; one can only be it. Understanding arises from the unmanifested, but itself it cannot be understood. > > Anders: We cannot say that there is no such thing as > phenomena, like physical objects, > > Lewis: Yes, that it seems unavoidable as long as there > is life in the appearance. When death occurs the > lifeless appearance has no awareness and there is no > phenomena for it. I am not sure that there can be matter without awareness. > > Anders:….and we cannot say that there is no such thing > as awareness, for there is awareness of things. > > Lewis: Yes. There is no need to deny the assertion. As > labeled, it is a common experience. There is also no > reason to make the assertion as something primary as > it has been said by some neuroscientists who consider > awareness as insignificant epiphenomena. Affirming or > denying does not help understanding or cognition of > awareness. Again Anders you presuppose what is under > investigation and as said before there is no reason to > assume awareness is the only label for " having > knowledge of something " . We can substitute, God, > consciousness, brain function, life, or any new > creation for it. The same problems hold for all such > solutions. For me awareness is simply the fact of being aware. Mysterious, yet simply existing. > > Anders: For example, I cannot deny that I am looking > at a computer monitor (phenomeon) right now, and I > cannot deny the fact that I am being aware (awareness) > of looking at the computer monitor. > > Lewis: There is no need to either affirm or deny your > experience that you label awareness. It can be labeled > in many different ways. > > Anders: Going beyond awareness, I don't know. I don't > see the need for it. > > Lewis: Yes. One cannot go beyond what one does not see > or understand or even imagine so there is no need to > do so. Also, it may be a figure of speech a metaphor; > " going beyond awareness. " Where shall we go? What is > that pointing to? Is it imagined that beyond awareness > there is no having knowledge of something? Is it > imagined to be a state of blankness, darkness, > emptiness, nothingness? What is pure being that > Nisargadatta pointed to? Is direct thoughtless > perception? How does one go to that? No sense being > blind and led by the blind. > We do as we are in this. I suspect that Nisargadatta meant that going beyond awareness is to realize that awareness and that the world of form are That, that which is, unshakeable, unbelievably solid and real. > > Anders: Awareness is what makes the universe able to > experience itself in its diversity of color and form. > > Lewis: Again Anders this is an assertion. So far you > have consistently asserted awareness as more or less > unchanging, permanent, (perhaps) eternal, independent > and self-existing (1). You have denied that awareness > does not exist (2), you have proposed a synthesis that > saves awareness from non-existence or impermanence by > positing a " one coin " solution, (3) in asserting > awareness and denying its non-existence, you have > never doubted awareness (4) and you have avoided > examining in any detail that awareness may be > changing, impermanent, transient, interdependent, and > co-arising. One does not die if all five alternatives > are considered. Look I am still alive? :-) Awareness may be impermanent. I don't deny that possibility. It may also be permanent. And that is the view I like best. My idea is that awareness is changeless infinite intelligence and that we are going to begin to see evidence of that. > > Anders: Is there a nondual state without awareness? > Who would know such state without being aware of it? > There must be some form of awareness (or whatever we > want to call it) for experience to be experienced. > > /AL > > > Lewis: What is a nondual state in the first place? > That needs examination as well. And there you point to > the problem that the concept of awareness brings. The > fascination with awareness, and experience as well, > and the taken for granted and unexamined way both of > these are conducted in daily life seems to have a > confounding effect that seems to lead to formation of > an underlying craving to somehow be in control of > being or doing, to have some form of awareness for > experience to experienced, to be aware of what one is > undergoing (to be aware, to be knowing, to be > vigilant, to be indifferent, to be caring, to be > certain or uncertain, to be this or that in being, > knowing, doing, etc. ………). And in trying to be by > being aware, being is obfuscated by the fascination > and focus on being aware, on having awareness, being > mindful, expanding awareness, being in the Now, and so > on. Perhaps this is what is happening as the sun rises > in the east and sets in the west. A thorough > examination of awareness may prove useful if > presuppositions on what it is are held in abeyance or > dropped. > > Lewis > I doubt there can be being without awareness. The world is in me. I am closest to the future. All physical reality is only information. It's all a gigantic virtual reality, and everybody is his or her world. What is an atom? Information! What is an atom made of? Information! What is the human body made of? Information! What is information made of? Tiny billard balls? Some billard balls with '1' on them, and others with a '0' written on them? If we have one:s and zero:s, then what connects them? What is the glue? Awareness! Physical reality is not solid, yet appear solid indeed. Emptiness is simply the recognition of solid matter as being empty, a virtual reality! What is solid is awareness. It binds the universe together. 'Solid' particles are just appearance of collapsing probabilities. What is a probablility. Certainly not a solid thing! The world is simply not solid. It is impermanent at best, and 'made' of probabilities. You have no body. There is simply no body there!!! You have the _appearance_ of a body. " ....what on the surface looks like a physical body..... " -- Eckhart Tolle describing himself All you are aware of is the past. Is the past solid? Is the past alive? /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 In a message dated 3/19/05 11:11:08 AM, lbb10 writes: > Lewis: What is a nondual state in the first place? > P: Can you know, remember, be aware of the state before conception? Zen masters ask the question this way: " What was your true face before your parents met? That's what always is/is not, even now. The only nondual state. What Nis called the Absolute beyond consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 In a message dated 3/19/05 7:29:07 PM, cptc writes: > Do you think it .............odd.......that consciousness could envision > something beyond itself? > > > toombaru > P: I think it odd.... it couldn't. Try to imagine yourself gone. A world without Toomb. You'll be as happy as I feel envisioning such paradise. Just joking with you. I would miss you.... I think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/19/05 11:11:08 AM, lbb10@c... writes: > > > > Lewis: What is a nondual state in the first place? > > > > P: Can you know, remember, be aware of the > state before conception? Zen masters ask > the question this way: " What was your true face > before your parents met? That's what > always is/is not, even now. The only > nondual state. What Nis called the Absolute > beyond consciousness. > > Do you think it .............odd.......that consciousness could envision something beyond itself? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2005 Report Share Posted March 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/19/05 7:29:07 PM, cptc@w... writes: > > > > Do you think it .............odd.......that consciousness could envision > > something beyond itself? > > > > > > toombaru > > > > P: I think it odd.... it couldn't. Try to imagine yourself gone. > A world without Toomb. > You'll be as happy as I feel envisioning such paradise. Just > joking with you. I would > miss you.... I think! > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ......and I would miss you. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ......and yet...... We are told that all there is...is consciousness. Somehow....this makes prefect sense to me. (alas.....I am far too inarticulate to verbalize that) but to imagine something beyond or outside of consciousness makes no sense. (to me) Mind would forever be isolated from something " outside " of itself. Just ramblin.....here........:-) toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Continued from Post 20952 Nisargadatta/message/20952 ** = NEW COMMENTS Anders: Illusions are always in phenomena. Awareness is not phenomena as I see it, because awareness is aware of phenomena. Lewis: Aware is aware of itself. It is phenomena too. That is why it is conceptualized and discussed as an object. **Anders: We can only talk about awareness through concepts, but awareness is not only a concept. Awareness is more than a concept. The simple extraordinary fact of being aware! **Lewis: Awareness, that which we talk about, points to something identified in experience and is not the experience itself. Further, awareness is an abstraction of an experience and that abstraction from experience is an abstraction from a larger one that is unnoticed and that includes another level of awareness seldom, I would dare say almost never, included in non-dual treatises on awareness in all of the traditions. The awareness we have been speaking of is surface awareness of a superficial kind. So in addition to being interdependent co-arising it is of the most superficial kind. What we have been trying to move towards is the realization that what everyone has been talking about, describing this way and that as " awareness " is an extremely narrow surface abstraction twice removed from experience. And this surface abstraction has come to act as a confining and limiting filter on experiencing as it is unexamined, assumed, and taken for granted in daily life and the center of focus in nonduality. The narrow, surface conception has become reified over several millennia and continues to be accepted as is presented, taken up, clamped on, so that human experience is confined to its narrow surface parameters of " having knowledge of something " or as you say it, " The simple extraordinary fact of being aware! " Anders: Maybe phenomena and awareness are two sides of the same coin. Lewis: Then what is that one coin? From here, we can create monisms; absolute or material. Both try resolve the issue of awareness. Absolute monism makes phenomena illusions that dance in an absolute mirror (Brahman/Atman) or in the mind of God or is the substance of God with God as the Universal Mind. There is One with awareness supreme and primary. Material monism reduces awareness to epiphenomena variously produced by and through the brain and biological functions in relation to an external material world. It is fragmentary and secondary as a matter/energy by product of human functioning and nothing more. Such syntheses suffer from internal contradictions and both cannot be used to substantiate assertions made. On the one hand there is the assertion of awareness as ultimately unitary, unchanging, self-existing, independent and eternal and on the other as matter/energy by products of biological brain function. Awareness in both cases remain as assertions regardless of the explanatory vehicle. **Anders: I agree with Ken Wilber who says that consciousness/awareness has correlates in the world of 'its' such as the brain and the nervous system, but cannot be reduced to only 'its'. I also agree with Eckhart Tolle who says that knowing the unmanifested cannot be understood by the mind, because it is the ground for all understanding, and cannot be understood conceptually; one can only be it. Understanding arises from the unmanifested, but itself it cannot be understood. Anders: We cannot say that there is no such thing as phenomena, like physical objects, Lewis: Yes, that it seems unavoidable as long as there is life in the appearance. When death occurs the lifeless appearance has no awareness and there is no phenomena for it. **Anders: I am not sure that there can be matter without awareness. **Lewis: Awareness, as defined, and certain, not all, phenomena, however conceived, co-arise. Anders:….and we cannot say that there is no such thing as awareness, for there is awareness of things. Lewis: Yes. There is no need to deny the assertion. As labeled, it is a common experience. There is also no reason to make the assertion as something primary as it has been said by some neuroscientists who consider awareness as insignificant epiphenomena. Affirming or denying does not help understanding or cognition of awareness. Again Anders you presuppose what is under investigation and as said before there is no reason to assume awareness is the only label for " having knowledge of something " . We can substitute, God, consciousness, brain function, life, or any new creation for it. The same problems hold for all such solutions. **Anders: For me awareness is simply the fact of being aware. Mysterious, yet simply existing. Anders: For example, I cannot deny that I am looking at a computer monitor (phenomeon) right now, and I cannot deny the fact that I am being aware (awareness) of looking at the computer monitor. Lewis: There is no need to either affirm or deny your experience that you label awareness. It can be labeled in many different ways. Anders: Going beyond awareness, I don't know. I don't see the need for it. Lewis: Yes. One cannot go beyond what one does not see or understand or even imagine so there is no need to do so. Also, it may be a figure of speech a metaphor; " going beyond awareness. " Where shall we go? What is that pointing to? Is it imagined that beyond awareness there is no having knowledge of something? Is it imagined to be a state of blankness, darkness, emptiness, nothingness? What is pure being that Nisargadatta pointed to? Is direct thoughtless perception? How does one go to that? No sense being blind and led by the blind. We do as we are in this. **Anders: I suspect that Nisargadatta meant that going beyond awareness is to realize that awareness and that the world of form are That, that which is, unshakeable, unbelievably solid and real. **Lewis: That is one interpretation and it and as such it amounts to ordinary everyday experience. Anders: Awareness is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Lewis: Again Anders this is an assertion. So far you have consistently asserted awareness as more or less unchanging, permanent, (perhaps) eternal, independent and self-existing (1). You have denied that awareness does not exist (2), you have proposed a synthesis that saves awareness from non-existence or impermanence by positing a " one coin " solution, (3) in asserting awareness and denying its non-existence, you have never doubted awareness (4) and you have avoided examining in any detail that awareness may be changing, impermanent, transient, interdependent, and co-arising. One does not die if all five alternatives are considered. Look I am still alive? :-) **Lewis: Here are alternative or substitutes for awareness as posit it and the meaning is retained and acceptable to many. God is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Parabrahman is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Brain function is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Life is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Consciousness is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Transcendental Intelligence is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Universal Mind is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. All of the above are different. You could also have: ____________is what makes the universe able to experience itself in its diversity of color and form. **Anders: Awareness may be impermanent. I don't deny that possibility. It may also be permanent. And that is the view I like best. My idea is that awareness is changeless infinite intelligence and that we are going to begin to see evidence of that. **Lewis: Alternative Number One served hot and tasty! & #61514; Anders: Is there a nondual state without awareness? Who would know such state without being aware of it? There must be some form of awareness (or whatever we want to call it) for experience to be experienced. /AL Lewis: What is a nondual state in the first place? That needs examination as well. And there you point to the problem that the concept of awareness brings. The fascination with awareness, and experience as well, and the taken for granted and unexamined way both of these are conducted in daily life seems to have a confounding effect that seems to lead to formation of an underlying craving to somehow be in control of being or doing, to have some form of awareness for experience to experienced, to be aware of what one is undergoing (to be aware, to be knowing, to be vigilant, to be indifferent, to be caring, to be certain or uncertain, to be this or that in being, knowing, doing, etc. ………). And in trying to be by being aware, being is obfuscated by the fascination and focus on being aware, on having awareness, being mindful, expanding awareness, being in the Now, and so on. Perhaps this is what is happening as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. A thorough examination of awareness may prove useful if presuppositions on what it is are held in abeyance or dropped. Lewis **Anders: I doubt there can be being without awareness. **Lewis: Is that avoidable? For awareness to arise as commonly experienced memory/memories must function/arise and as long as the appearance is functioning well memory will be there and therefore surface awareness. So does experiencing " pure being " erase memory and thus awareness? So what is " pure being " where memory and awareness remain as long as there is functioning life in the appearance? What is beyond memory and awareness? Anders: The world is in me. I am closest to the future. All physical reality is only information. It's all a gigantic virtual reality, and everybody is his or her world. What is an atom? Information! What is an atom made of? Information! What is the human body made of? Information! What is information made of? Tiny billard balls? Some billard balls with '1' on them, and others with a '0' written on them? If we have one:s and zero:s, then what connects them? What is the glue? Awareness! Physical reality is not solid, yet appear solid indeed. Emptiness is simply the recognition of solid matter as being empty, a virtual reality! What is solid is awareness. It binds the universe together. 'Solid' particles are just appearance of collapsing probabilities. What is a probablility. Certainly not a solid thing! The world is simply not solid. It is impermanent at best, and 'made' of probabilities. You have no body. There is simply no body there!!! You have the _appearance_ of a body. " ....what on the surface looks like a physical body..... " -- Eckhart Tolle describing himself All you are aware of is the past. Is the past solid? Is the past alive? /AL Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Continued from Post 20952 > > Nisargadatta/message/20952 > > ** = NEW COMMENTS > > Anders: Illusions are always in phenomena. Awareness > is not phenomena as I see it, because awareness is > aware of phenomena. > > Lewis: Aware is aware of itself. It is phenomena too. > That is why it is conceptualized and discussed as an > object. > > **Anders: We can only talk about awareness through > concepts, but awareness is not only a concept. > Awareness is more than a concept. The simple > extraordinary fact of being aware! > > **Lewis: Awareness, that which we talk about, points > to something identified in experience and is not the > experience itself. Further, awareness is an > abstraction of an experience and that abstraction from > experience is an abstraction from a larger one that is > unnoticed and that includes another level of awareness > seldom, I would dare say almost never, included in > non-dual treatises on awareness in all of the > traditions. The awareness we have been speaking of is > surface awareness of a superficial kind. So in > addition to being interdependent co-arising it is of > the most superficial kind. > > What we have been trying to move towards is the > realization that what everyone has been talking about, > describing this way and that as " awareness " is an > extremely narrow surface abstraction twice removed > from experience. And this surface abstraction has come > to act as a confining and limiting filter on > experiencing as it is unexamined, assumed, and taken > for granted in daily life and the center of focus in > nonduality. The narrow, surface conception has become > reified over several millennia and continues to be > accepted as is presented, taken up, clamped on, so > that human experience is confined to its narrow > surface parameters of " having knowledge of something " > or as you say it, " The simple extraordinary fact of > being aware! " I agree that awareness is often overlooked when thinking about things and experiencing events. And there is a depth to awareness that goes beyond superficial thought processes, but that depth is continously hidden by those surface thoughts and emotions. But the starting point for recognizing awareness, for redeeming awareness, to reveal its depths, is to acknowledge the simple fact of being aware is an extraordinary act. > > Anders: Maybe phenomena and awareness are two sides of > the same coin. > > Lewis: Then what is that one coin? From here, we can > create monisms; absolute or material. Both try resolve > the issue of awareness. Absolute monism makes > phenomena illusions that dance in an absolute mirror > (Brahman/Atman) or in the mind of God or is the > substance of God with God as the Universal Mind. There > is One with awareness supreme and primary. Material > monism reduces awareness to epiphenomena variously > produced by and through the brain and biological > functions in relation to an external material world. > It is fragmentary and secondary as a matter/energy by > product of human functioning and nothing more. Such > syntheses suffer from internal contradictions and both > cannot be used to substantiate assertions made. On the > one hand there is the assertion of awareness as > ultimately unitary, unchanging, self-existing, > independent and eternal and on the other as > matter/energy by products of biological brain > function. Awareness in both cases remain as assertions > regardless of the explanatory vehicle. > > **Anders: I agree with Ken Wilber who says that > consciousness/awareness has correlates in the world of > 'its' such as the brain and the nervous system, but > cannot be reduced to only 'its'. I also agree with > Eckhart Tolle who says that knowing the unmanifested > cannot be understood by the mind, because it is the > ground for all understanding, and cannot be understood > conceptually; one can only be it. Understanding arises > from the unmanifested, but itself it cannot be > understood. > > Anders: We cannot say that there is no such thing as > phenomena, like physical objects, > > Lewis: Yes, that it seems unavoidable as long as there > is life in the appearance. When death occurs the > lifeless appearance has no awareness and there is no > phenomena for it. > > **Anders: I am not sure that there can be matter > without awareness. > > **Lewis: Awareness, as defined, and certain, not all, > phenomena, however conceived, co-arise. > > Anders:….and we cannot say that there is no such thing > as awareness, for there is awareness of things. > > Lewis: Yes. There is no need to deny the assertion. As > labeled, it is a common experience. There is also no > reason to make the assertion as something primary as > it has been said by some neuroscientists who consider > awareness as insignificant epiphenomena. Affirming or > denying does not help understanding or cognition of > awareness. Again Anders you presuppose what is under > investigation and as said before there is no reason to > assume awareness is the only label for " having > knowledge of something " . We can substitute, God, > consciousness, brain function, life, or any new > creation for it. The same problems hold for all such > solutions. > > **Anders: For me awareness is simply the fact of being > aware. Mysterious, yet simply existing. > > Anders: For example, I cannot deny that I am looking > at a computer monitor (phenomeon) right now, and I > cannot deny the fact that I am being aware (awareness) > of looking at the computer monitor. > > Lewis: There is no need to either affirm or deny your > experience that you label awareness. It can be labeled > in many different ways. > > Anders: Going beyond awareness, I don't know. I don't > see the need for it. > > Lewis: Yes. One cannot go beyond what one does not see > or understand or even imagine so there is no need to > do so. Also, it may be a figure of speech a metaphor; > " going beyond awareness. " Where shall we go? What is > that pointing to? Is it imagined that beyond awareness > there is no having knowledge of something? Is it > imagined to be a state of blankness, darkness, > emptiness, nothingness? What is pure being that > Nisargadatta pointed to? Is direct thoughtless > perception? How does one go to that? No sense being > blind and led by the blind. We do as we are in this. > > **Anders: I suspect that Nisargadatta meant that going > beyond awareness is to realize that awareness and that > the world of form are That, that which is, > unshakeable, unbelievably solid and real. > > **Lewis: That is one interpretation and it and as such > it amounts to ordinary everyday experience. > > Anders: Awareness is what makes the universe able to > experience itself in its diversity of color and form. > > Lewis: Again Anders this is an assertion. So far you > have consistently asserted awareness as more or less > unchanging, permanent, (perhaps) eternal, independent > and self-existing (1). You have denied that awareness > does not exist (2), you have proposed a synthesis that > saves awareness from non-existence or impermanence by > positing a " one coin " solution, (3) in asserting > awareness and denying its non-existence, you have > never doubted awareness (4) and you have avoided > examining in any detail that awareness may be > changing, impermanent, transient, interdependent, and > co-arising. One does not die if all five alternatives > are considered. Look I am still alive? :-) > > **Lewis: Here are alternative or substitutes for > awareness as posit it and the meaning is retained and > acceptable to many. > > God is what makes the universe able to experience > itself in its diversity of color and form. > > Parabrahman is what makes the universe able to > experience itself in its diversity of color and form. > > Brain function is what makes the universe able to > experience itself in its diversity of color and form. > > Life is what makes the universe able to experience > itself in its diversity of color and form. > > Consciousness is what makes the universe able to > experience itself in its diversity of color and form. > > Transcendental Intelligence is what makes the universe > able to experience itself in its diversity of color > and form. > > Universal Mind is what makes the universe able to > experience itself in its diversity of color and form. > > All of the above are different. You could also have: > > > ____________is what makes the universe able to > experience itself in its diversity of color and form. Maybe awareness cannot really be completely fit into a concept, be it God, Brahman, Emptiness or Allah. > > > **Anders: Awareness may be impermanent. I don't deny > that possibility. It may also be permanent. And that > is the view I like best. My idea is that awareness is > changeless infinite intelligence and that we are going > to begin to see evidence of that. > > **Lewis: Alternative Number One served hot and tasty! > & #61514; > > Anders: Is there a nondual state without awareness? > Who would know such state without being aware of it? > There must be some form of awareness (or whatever we > want to call it) for experience to be experienced. > > /AL > > > Lewis: What is a nondual state in the first place? > That needs examination as well. And there you point to > the problem that the concept of awareness brings. The > fascination with awareness, and experience as well, > and the taken for granted and unexamined way both of > these are conducted in daily life seems to have a > confounding effect that seems to lead to formation of > an underlying craving to somehow be in control of > being or doing, to have some form of awareness for > experience to experienced, to be aware of what one is > undergoing (to be aware, to be knowing, to be > vigilant, to be indifferent, to be caring, to be > certain or uncertain, to be this or that in being, > knowing, doing, etc. ………). And in trying to be by > being aware, being is obfuscated by the fascination > and focus on being aware, on having awareness, being > mindful, expanding awareness, being in the Now, and so > on. Perhaps this is what is happening as the sun rises > in the east and sets in the west. A thorough > examination of awareness may prove useful if > presuppositions on what it is are held in abeyance or > dropped. > > Lewis > > **Anders: I doubt there can be being without > awareness. > > **Lewis: Is that avoidable? For awareness to arise as > commonly experienced memory/memories must > function/arise and as long as the appearance is > functioning well memory will be there and therefore > surface awareness. So does experiencing " pure being " > erase memory and thus awareness? So what is " pure > being " where memory and awareness remain as long as > there is functioning life in the appearance? What is > beyond memory and awareness? Pure being is what we experience now I suspect. However, being can take many forms, some more valuable than others. I grade being as experiencing peace higher than being in conflict (with itself). /AL > > Anders: The world is in me. I am closest to the > future. All physical reality is only information. It's > all a gigantic virtual reality, and everybody is his > or her world. > > What is an atom? Information! What is an atom made of? > Information! What is the human body made of? > Information! What is information made of? Tiny billard > balls? Some billard balls with '1' on them, and others > with a '0' written on them? If we have one:s and > zero:s, then what connects them? What is the glue? > Awareness! > > Physical reality is not solid, yet appear solid > indeed. Emptiness is simply the recognition of solid > matter as being empty, a virtual reality! What is > solid is awareness. It binds the universe together. > > 'Solid' particles are just appearance of collapsing > probabilities. What is a probablility. Certainly not a > solid thing! The world is simply not solid. It is > impermanent at best, and 'made' of probabilities. > > You have no body. There is simply no body there!!! You > have the _appearance_ of a body. > > " ....what on the surface looks like a physical > body..... " -- Eckhart Tolle describing himself > > All you are aware of is the past. Is the past solid? > Is the past alive? > > /AL > Lewis > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: Continued from Post 20952 Nisargadatta/message/20952 *** = NEW COMMENTS Anders: Illusions are always in phenomena. Awareness is not phenomena as I see it, because awareness is aware of phenomena. Lewis: Aware is aware of itself. It is phenomena too. That is why it is conceptualized and discussed as an object. **Anders: We can only talk about awareness through concepts, but awareness is not only a concept. Awareness is more than a concept. The simple extraordinary fact of being aware! **Lewis: Awareness, that which we talk about, points to something identified in experience and is not the experience itself. Further, awareness is an abstraction of an experience and that abstraction from experience is an abstraction from a larger one that is unnoticed and that includes another level of awareness seldom, I would dare say almost never, included in non-dual treatises on awareness in all of the traditions. The awareness we have been speaking of is surface awareness of a superficial kind. So in addition to being interdependent co-arising it is of the most superficial kind. What we have been trying to move towards is the realization that what everyone has been talking about, describing this way and that as " awareness " is an extremely narrow surface abstraction twice removed from experience. And this surface abstraction has come to act as a confining and limiting filter on experiencing as it is unexamined, assumed, and taken for granted in daily life and the center of focus in nonduality. The narrow, surface conception has become reified over several millennia and continues to be accepted as is presented, taken up, clamped on, so that human experience is confined to its narrow surface parameters of " having knowledge of something " or as you say it, " The simple extraordinary fact of being aware! " *** Anders: I agree that awareness is often overlooked when thinking about things and experiencing events. And there is a depth to awareness that goes beyond superficial thought processes, but that depth is continously hidden by those surface thoughts and emotions. But the starting point for recognizing awareness, for redeeming awareness, to reveal its depths, is to acknowledge the simple fact of being aware is an extraordinary act. ***Lewis: Once acknowledged, what next? The reification of awareness occurs in the same way as other reifications and the effect is the same. When the earth was assumed flat and was " taken-for-granted " that that was so, the earth was flat. What one believes, thinks, does, and experiences in a taken for granted manner determines these as sunglasses colors the world and blinders prevent peripheral vision. To remove the sunglasses or blinders that one does not realize are in place is no easy task. Sensing that the color of the world and all those things formerly out of the range of vision are there can be disturbing for it distinctly alters the taken for granted what and the how of daily life. It is easier to take things for granted; just go on. A taken for granted concept determines rather than it being determined and of no consequence beyond utility and the taken for granted grasping that the reified and taken for granted concept of awareness promotes and the blocakges and problems for living it fosters is obviated. Locked into such a blinding and binding notion(s), we stumble about believing we are " aware " when it is obvious, given the condition of humanity, that mammalians do better at living than we do, regardless of the monumental creations we have produced. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess > <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > Continued from Post 20952 > > > > Nisargadatta/message/20952 > > *** = NEW COMMENTS > > Anders: Illusions are always in phenomena. Awareness > is not phenomena as I see it, because awareness is > aware of phenomena. > > Lewis: Aware is aware of itself. It is phenomena too. > That is why it is conceptualized and discussed as an > object. > > **Anders: We can only talk about awareness through > concepts, but awareness is not only a concept. > Awareness is more than a concept. The simple > extraordinary fact of being aware! > > **Lewis: Awareness, that which we talk about, points > to something identified in experience and is not the > experience itself. Further, awareness is an > abstraction of an experience and that abstraction from > experience is an abstraction from a larger one that is > unnoticed and that includes another level of awareness > seldom, I would dare say almost never, included in > non-dual treatises on awareness in all of the > traditions. The awareness we have been speaking of is > surface awareness of a superficial kind. So in > addition to being interdependent co-arising it is of > the most superficial kind. > > What we have been trying to move towards is the > realization that what everyone has been talking about, > describing this way and that as " awareness " is an > extremely narrow surface abstraction twice removed > from experience. And this surface abstraction has come > to act as a confining and limiting filter on > experiencing as it is unexamined, assumed, and taken > for granted in daily life and the center of focus in > nonduality. The narrow, surface conception has become > reified over several millennia and continues to be > accepted as is presented, taken up, clamped on, so > that human experience is confined to its narrow > surface parameters of " having knowledge of something " > or as you say it, " The simple extraordinary fact of > being aware! " > > *** Anders: I agree that awareness is often overlooked > when thinking about things and experiencing events. > And there is a depth to awareness that goes beyond > superficial thought processes, but that depth is > continously hidden by those surface thoughts and > emotions. But the starting point for recognizing > awareness, for redeeming awareness, to reveal its > depths, is to acknowledge the simple fact of being > aware is an extraordinary act. > > ***Lewis: Once acknowledged, what next? The > reification of awareness occurs in the same way as > other reifications and the effect is the same. When > the earth was assumed flat and was " taken-for-granted " > that that was so, the earth was flat. What one > believes, thinks, does, and experiences in a taken for > granted manner determines these as sunglasses colors > the world and blinders prevent peripheral vision. To > remove the sunglasses or blinders that one does not > realize are in place is no easy task. Sensing that the > color of the world and all those things formerly out > of the range of vision are there can be disturbing for > it distinctly alters the taken for granted what and > the how of daily life. It is easier to take things for > granted; just go on. > > A taken for granted concept determines rather than it > being determined and of no consequence beyond utility > and the taken for granted grasping that the reified > and taken for granted concept of awareness promotes > and the blocakges and problems for living it fosters > is obviated. Locked into such a blinding and binding > notion(s), we stumble about believing we are " aware " > when it is obvious, given the condition of humanity, > that mammalians do better at living than we do, > regardless of the monumental creations we have > produced. > > Lewis > > Thinking about awareness is not awareness. Awareness is aware of thinking about awareness though. We can be aware without thinking, but can we think without being aware of it? Maybe we can, but then the thinking process has become subconsious. Maybe that is exactly what happens to people who enter a thoughtless state. The thinking process becomes subconscious, in a similar way that regulating the heart beat is a subconscious process. Thinking is a very high/advanced state of processing where huge amounts of information are reduced to thoughts - thinking is much more advanced than the process that regulates the heart, for example. But what if there is a state possible which is even highter/more advanced than thinking? In such state, much of the thinking could become subconscious. When the mind reaches that higher state, then it maybe will find thinking to be very shallow, dry and mechanical, even completely redundant in most everyday experiences. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 --- anders_lindman <anders_lindman wrote: We can be aware without thinking, but can we think without being aware of it? Maybe we can, but then the thinking process has become subconsious. Maybe that is exactly what happens to people who enter a thoughtless state. The thinking process becomes subconscious, in a similar way that regulating the heart beat is a subconscious process. Thinking is a very high/advanced state of processing where huge amounts of information are reduced to thoughts - thinking is much more advanced than the process that regulates the heart, for example. But what if there is a state possible which is even highter/more advanced than thinking? In such state, much of the thinking could become subconscious. When the mind reaches that higher state, then it maybe will find thinking to be very shallow, dry and mechanical, even completely redundant in most everyday experiences. /AL Lewis: You are standing at the door of understanding intellectually the reification and superficiality of awareness and conscious thought. The door to experiencing it is not locked. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.