Guest guest Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 * It appears that there is both a relative perspective, and also an absolute perspective? .... One is from the perspective of 'things in relationship', and then another where there is nothing but the 'emptiness of being', but with infinite potential? Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie4@e...> wrote: > > > P: Excellent, Joyce. One of your best. Thanks > > > > On Oct 25, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Insight wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > One could think of consciousness as > > a moment of awareness in which case a > > good question for those interested > > in non-dual philosophy is whether > > or not there is an unchanging, separate, > > independent awareness/consciousness thats > > just going on as the basis of all our experience > > and it is this awareness that is 'I', > > 'the doer'. > > > > If one believes that yes, there is > > this ongoing, unchanging awareness underlying experience, > > how would you prove or demonstrate this? > > > > > > In order for something to be called > > an 'experience' there would have to be > > something to experience and something > > to experience it. There would always > > be something knowing something or being > > aware of it. If either of these two > > are missing, would there be 'experience'? > > > > > > In a way, consciousness can be seen > > as a partial or divided knowing. > > If one accepts notions of time and > > space, then the nature of consciousness > > must be something divisible - things known > > and a self/knower that knows them. > > Furthermore, since each moment of > > consciousness has a different object each moment > > of consciousness is separate and distinct. > > It might be a consciousness of sight, sound, > > taste, touch, a mental image etc. but whatever > > it is, it is quite distinct from any other > > moment of consciousness that has gone before > > and the moment to come does not yet exist. > > > > > > So consciousness can only ever be momentary > > and such momentary phenomena can't qualify > > for the label 'self'. Thus the mind or awareness > > that seems to be behind all experience cannot > > be the self/Self either. > > > > All of which would be interesting > > to apply to such notions as 'life', > > 'death' etc. > > > > Take a candle flame, for example. > > One can say in a general way, " That candle > > has been burning all day. " But in absolute > > terms, no flame has been burning all day. > > The flame was never the same flame from one minute > > to the next. There was no single, lasting > > flame there at all. The was no flame as such, > > but it is still meaningful to > > talk about flames. > > > > Ditto for 'persons'. > > > > > > Joyce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 In a message dated 10/25/2005 10:13:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pedsie4 writes: One could think of consciousness as > a moment of awareness in which case a > good question for those interested > in non-dual philosophy is whether > or not there is an unchanging, separate, > independent awareness/consciousness thats > just going on as the basis of all our experience > and it is this awareness that is 'I', > 'the doer'. Perhaps the 'I' is not the doer but is simply pure, subjective awareness? If one believes that yes, there is > this ongoing, unchanging awareness underlying experience, > how would you prove or demonstrate this? The tools available at one's disposal for proving this are inadequate, even if the ego were genuinely determined to prove it's nonexistence. By way of analogy, let's assume you believe yourself to be a car rather than the driver, and you seek to prove, from the perspective of your carness, that you are actually something unknown beyond carness. While pondering how ignition is initiated, you would simply conclude that you choose to engage the starter yourself. You conclude that you engage the gears by your own volition in order to transport you to where you have chosen to go. All of these conclusions arise naturally from the assumption that you are the vehicle. No other conclusion could be made, given that false foundation. Phil > Hi All, > > One could think of consciousness as > a moment of awareness in which case a > good question for those interested > in non-dual philosophy is whether > or not there is an unchanging, separate, > independent awareness/consciousness thats > just going on as the basis of all our experience > and it is this awareness that is 'I', > 'the doer'. > > If one believes that yes, there is > this ongoing, unchanging awareness underlying experience, > how would you prove or demonstrate this? > > > In order for something to be called > an 'experience' there would have to be > something to experience and something > to experience it. There would always > be something knowing something or being > aware of it. If either of these two > are missing, would there be 'experience'? > > > In a way, consciousness can be seen > as a partial or divided knowing. > If one accepts notions of time and > space, then the nature of consciousness > must be something divisible - things known > and a self/knower that knows them. > Furthermore, since each moment of > consciousness has a different object each moment > of consciousness is separate and distinct. > It might be a consciousness of sight, sound, > taste, touch, a mental image etc. but whatever > it is, it is quite distinct from any other > moment of consciousness that has gone before > and the moment to come does not yet exist. > > > So consciousness can only ever be momentary > and such momentary phenomena can't qualify > for the label 'self'. Thus the mind or awareness > that seems to be behind all experience cannot > be the self/Self either. > > All of which would be interesting > to apply to such notions as 'life', > 'death' etc. > > Take a candle flame, for example. > One can say in a general way, " That candle > has been burning all day. " But in absolute > terms, no flame has been burning all day. > The flame was never the same flame from one minute > to the next. There was no single, lasting > flame there at all. The was no flame as such, > but it is still meaningful to > talk about flames. > > Ditto for 'persons'. > > > Joyce > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 In a message dated 10/25/2005 11:12:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cptc writes: How do you suppose that a dream character could ever get a glimps of the deeper meaning of the dream? Can dream stuff....ever see the dream? toombaru Clearly so, if the enlightened masters are to be believed, though it is the dreamer itself that 'sees', since the dream character has no Self. The phenomenon of lucid dreaming is an interesting one to ponder. I've always had such dreams where I'm aware that I'm not the dream character but rather I'm creating the dream experience while immersed within it. The most interesting characteristic is that there is no fear, regardless of what frightening images might be experienced. Instead, it's very often a joyful exploration of the dreamscape where all things are possible. Another interesting characteristic of dreams is that, at least for me, my body is not actually seen in the dreamscape, nor do I observe the dream through the dream character's eyes, but rather from a different perspective, never quite within the body. It's not clear just why this is so. Phil 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.