Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 PH: Pure, subjective awareness cannot be aware of itself, and there is nothing outside of awareness of which to be aware. So, yes, awareness is not conscious as such. Consciousness arises out of awareness. This doesn't mean that consciousness is not awareness. It must be in order for it to arise from awareness. But consciousness becomes the object to the subjective awareness. Since consciousness is not other than awareness, but only seems to be, awareness may view itself from the perspective of consciousness. This is, in fact, what you are doing now. In order for consciousness to observe awareness, it must seemingly not contain the entire 'contents' of awareness or it will lose it's ability to seem to be other than awareness and will dissolve back into awareness. Consciousness defines itself through limitation, the boundaries of which make creation/perception possible. The flaw in your argument is that you assume that to be 'positioned' as awareness is to no longer share in the consciousness of consciousness. You continue to project your dualistic perception into the Totality of Awareness and assume it is not something. (conscious). There is nothing that the totality of All That Is.......isn't. All potentiality is contained within Awareness. It is, therefore, you who 'split' Wholeness conceptually. Phil Phil! What I said was very simple: 1) Awareness & consciousness are one, not two. They are synonymies. Different words but exactly the same meaning. Some sages use the word Awareness for the Absolute, this creates confusion because the Absolute is only conscious through brains. Consciousness arises in it, but is not it. There is no disembodied awareness floating " out there. " You also seem to be using Awareness for the Absolute. 2) I did not posit an entity who is conscious of consciousness. There is none. 3) You accuse me of splitting the whole conceptually, Phil, any one that uses thought, or words, splits the whole conceptually. And that includes anything you said or will say. Maybe the only difference between what you say and what I say is that I know it's only a crude pointing, and not truth itself. I neither belief, nor need what I say. I only say it to fight grossly mistaken concepts with less delusive ones, but in the end all concepts must be discarded. There is no such thing as a nondual concept. So the question is: Why does Phil needs or believe in concepts? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Some sages use the word Awareness for the Absolute, this creates confusion because the Absolute is only conscious through brains. Consciousness arises in it, but is not it. There is no disembodied awareness floating " out there. " You also seem to be using Awareness for the Absolute. Yes, I'm using awareness that way. Why is it confusing? Because awareness is not conscious? Or because it doesn't directly manifest through a physical vehicle? 2) I did not posit an entity who is conscious of consciousness. There is none. I didn't suggest that you did. 3) You accuse me of splitting the whole conceptually It was not an accusation. It was just my perception that you were not including consciousness as 'part' of the totality of wholeness. I see now that you don't choose to conceptualize awareness and consciousness differently, and so my point has no meaning for you. Phil, any one that uses thought, or words, splits the whole conceptually. And that includes anything you said or will say. Maybe the only difference between what you say and what I say is that I know it's only a crude pointing, and not truth itself. I neither belief, nor need what I say. I only say it to fight grossly mistaken concepts with less delusive ones, but in the end all concepts must be discarded. There is no such thing as a nondual concept. So the question is: Why does Phil needs or believe in concepts? I'm aware of that. Belief is not a function of need or of choice. The brain conceptualizes. That's simply what it does. Perception leads to beliefs about how things are as conceptualized by this mind. That's how it is. It's not a choice to not think or to not believe. I have no such choice and neither do you, so why question it as though it's an option available for our choosing? I also seek to expand concepts beyond their gross limitations just as you are doing, so why do you perceive us to be at odds? Phil In a message dated 10/28/2005 9:31:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pedsie4 writes: PH: Pure, subjective awareness cannot be aware of itself, and there is nothing outside of awareness of which to be aware. So, yes, awareness is not conscious as such. Consciousness arises out of awareness. This doesn't mean that consciousness is not awareness. It must be in order for it to arise from awareness. But consciousness becomes the object to the subjective awareness. Since consciousness is not other than awareness, but only seems to be, awareness may view itself from the perspective of consciousness. This is, in fact, what you are doing now. In order for consciousness to observe awareness, it must seemingly not contain the entire 'contents' of awareness or it will lose it's ability to seem to be other than awareness and will dissolve back into awareness. Consciousness defines itself through limitation, the boundaries of which make creation/perception possible. The flaw in your argument is that you assume that to be 'positioned' as awareness is to no longer share in the consciousness of consciousness. You continue to project your dualistic perception into the Totality of Awareness and assume it is not something. (conscious). There is nothing that the totality of All That Is.......isn't. All potentiality is contained within Awareness. It is, therefore, you who 'split' Wholeness conceptually. Phil Phil! What I said was very simple: 1) Awareness & consciousness are one, not two. They are synonymies. Different words but exactly the same meaning. Some sages use the word Awareness for the Absolute, this creates confusion because the Absolute is only conscious through brains. Consciousness arises in it, but is not it. There is no disembodied awareness floating " out there. " You also seem to be using Awareness for the Absolute. 2) I did not posit an entity who is conscious of consciousness. There is none. 3) You accuse me of splitting the whole conceptually, Phil, any one that uses thought, or words, splits the whole conceptually. And that includes anything you said or will say. Maybe the only difference between what you say and what I say is that I know it's only a crude pointing, and not truth itself. I neither belief, nor need what I say. I only say it to fight grossly mistaken concepts with less delusive ones, but in the end all concepts must be discarded. There is no such thing as a nondual concept. So the question is: Why does Phil needs or believe in concepts? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2005 Report Share Posted October 30, 2005 In a message dated 10/30/2005 9:00:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, pedsie4 writes: On Oct 29, 2005, at 10:20 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > Yes, all concepts must ultimately be abandoned, desires surrendered and > thinkingness stopped. All in good time. > > Phil P: I was going to ask you if that time has come for you, but I see that in an answer to Toomb you said you are not ready yet. Of course, you understand, that what has to be abandon is the belief that concepts, or thinking will deliver, find, or portray reality. Thinking will then be used only when needed , it won't be used to feel alive or real. We will always have needs as long as we live, and some of those must be satisfied to go on living. The important thing is to acquire the knack to stop when activity is not need and just be. Why can't we stop? We know how to stop our car when we get to our destination. So why can't we stop our mind? Because the feeling of arriving has not yet downed. The feeling of arriving is tied up to the feeling of going somewhere. When we realize there is nowhere to go, then the mind stops. Yup. And possibly what's somewhat different is that I don't pretend the thinking is going to stop by my command or that beliefs will dissolve when I decide they should. (Not referring to you personally, just a general comment) I don't concern myself with any of that because I don't have any control over any of it. Some will project their struggles onto me but the fact is that struggle is nearly absent here. Others will project their fear of thinkingness onto me but the fact is that much more time is spent simply looking. Most of the thinking comes in when I apparently feel the need to talk about it. There's an interesting dynamic going on in this forum, at least it's interesting to me because I have an insatiable curiosity about how things work. This is not something that's struggled with so that I can obliterate it in order to accomplish something else. It just is what it is. Some here will perceive judgment where there is none. These are ego projections and are understandable, but seemingly out of place on a forum where the participants are presumably seeking awakening and are beyond such ego work. Others will consistently make derogatory remarks and cover the obvious ego struggles with declarations that it's just the plain truth that all others are in denial of. Perhaps a little less focus on the denial of others, and a bit more on our own, will result in some genuine awareness. We are all giving incorrect versions of Truth here and we already know that. It's possible to actually get over that and just allow it to be what it is, unless of course we think we're here to cause enlightenment to occur for somebody else. All explorations are self explorations. That's why I'm here. I'm left wondering why some others are here. While I'm on the subject, the seeming process of working toward the recognition of our own divinity must be a joyful one, or it must be clear that it will not occur at all. We cannot recognize our divine nature while struggling with our human nature. This is so because the focus remains on struggling to destroy that which we don't want, and this focus will remain trapped in that struggle and never recognize the love, joy, peace that we pretend to be seeking. The whole idea is to release the struggle. I know many who have never given God a second thought who don't struggle as much as some of those on this forum. I find that odd. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2005 Report Share Posted October 30, 2005 On Oct 29, 2005, at 10:20 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > Yes, all concepts must ultimately be abandoned, desires surrendered and > thinkingness stopped. All in good time. > > Phil P: I was going to ask you if that time has come for you, but I see that in an answer to Toomb you said you are not ready yet. Of course, you understand, that what has to be abandon is the belief that concepts, or thinking will deliver, find, or portray reality. Thinking will then be used only when needed , it won't be used to feel alive or real. We will always have needs as long as we live, and some of those must be satisfied to go on living. The important thing is to acquire the knack to stop when activity is not need and just be. Why can't we stop? We know how to stop our car when we get to our destination. So why can't we stop our mind? Because the feeling of arriving has not yet downed. The feeling of arriving is tied up to the feeling of going somewhere. When we realize there is nowhere to go, then the mind stops. > 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.