Totality-awareness / nothing

August 29, 2009

A person intuits that there is a totality involved in being.

And the person senses that the field of perception isn't showing that totality

and wonders is it possible to know/be this?

The spiritual search is on.

And it can only ever lead " home " - back to square one.

In terms of one's attention and field of perception, it makes sense

to say that one has more sense of totality if one is not focused on

something.

Yet, even with a diffuse even sense of being aware of one's body-mind and

surrounding, we are discussing a subjective sense or feeling of totality within

one's perceptual field of the moment.

However, that certainly is not totality, as in totality. It's just

the subjective sense of totality within a limited field of perception.

Even if one is in a relaxed yet aware state, and pretty much open

equally to one's field of perception, one might currently be aware of the room,

the feelings in the body, breathing, the computer screen, how the chair feels,

words that appear, the color of the desk.

But that hardly is totality.

Totality is everything that happened in the last trillion years, and

prior to that, and everything that will happen in the next zillion

years, and everything in every solar system, and all the dimensions

that we don't have senses developed with which to be aware of.

(And everything else I forgot to mention.)

So, the totality of what is, is totality.

" What does this have to do with awareness?, " might be a fitting

question.

The bodily awareness that tends to get focused through the brain as if

operating from behind the eyes is just a minute portion of the

awareness that is.

It keeps the body-mind around for a period of time, so we tend to

identify with it, because the survival of the body-mind generates a

feeling of self, and a body-focused " consciousness " according to Nisargadatta.

This feels very real for the time it is operating that way, as if a

subjective being is situated, is located, and is aware through a set

of eyes, a pair of hands, a thinking brain, a feeling butt that sits

in a chair - and can focus on one thing, or relax and be more open -

but still to the " immediate vicinity. "

So, what separates this body-mind centered portion of awareness, and

the awareness of the rest of totality?

How did the focus of the totality awareness get seemingly located and

separated from the awareness of everything else?

One looks into this and finds: fear, desire, relations with objects

that either protect survival, are dangerous to survival, or enhance

survival. Powerful stuff.

It's understandable, and one sees why and how this sense of a division

happens across cultures and across different generations.

One could write a book, or several books about this topic.

But what is the bottom-line?

The bottom line is the totality awareness has never actually divided,

is not divided now.

There is nothing manifesting anywhere apart from this awareness.

Some people don't like the term " awareness. "

It could be called " nothing " because it isn't a perceptual object, nor

a feeling, nor any state of being.

When anything manifests, that is, when anything of any dimensionality

is able to be apprehended in some way by some sentient being, it has

formed how? Through this awareness, this nothing, this matrix of

possibility, if you'd like to call it that. Physicists call it the

collapse of the wave function. Although I'm not a physicist, I like

the sound of that one, as a lay person.

Advaita is the fact of nonseparation of this matrix, this awareness,

this nothing - such that any manifestation includes every other

manifestation. In Buddhism this is called " interdependent co-

origination. "

What this means in terms of one's awareness as one is sitting in a

chair looking at a computer is that this manifestation is not

occurring separately from manifestations a hundred thousand years ago

or ahead or on Planet X of System Y.

It is one thing to say this as theory.

But how is it known, understood, clear - first-hand?

One could rather ask the reverse question: what is the impediment,

how is it that it is not clear?

If the awareness is indivisible, how is it missed?

The bottom-line to this question is that it is not missed. It is not

lacking. There is no impediment.

Yet, there is a belief in lack, there is a sense of separation, there

is the feeling of a barrier.

One sees this throughout the world in many different ways.

Incredibly, as distorted as awareness is in this world, as divided off

as people sense their awareness to be, there actually is no division.

One clear on this has a sense of amazement, perhaps awe.

And one knows that nothing is arising out of place. As crazy and

destructive as human relationships have been and are being, this crazy

destructiveness is not out of place, is not occurring in some divided

off way.

Ramana, when asked why there is evil in the world (which certainly is

one of the perennial questions in philosophy and religion) said: to

make the drama more interesting (or words to that effect).

I see it in a more technical way, in terms of possibility: " What

is " (the nothing the matrix of possibility) necessarily includes every

possible possibility simultaneously. It includes every possible

configuration of time/space/awareness/relationship. (I'm convinced

that what we consider the way life and awareness must form, to be a

very very tiny slice of an infinite pie - but this version of

manifested life/awareness makes sense to us based on our version of

" the past " - which some people explain in terms of reincarnation).

So, everything that can manifest, does, and manifests in relation to

everything else.

If there can be great good, there will be great evil. If there can be

life-giving care, there can be life-terminating destructiveness.

There is no way out of this.

And that is why there seems to be impediments to awareness, and

barriers, when there aren't.

One who is able to accept life as it is, can be life as it is, and

will understand that awareness never is segmented, regardless of how

much hatred, anxiety, mistrust, etc. people depend on for their sense

of identity and being.

And this awareness does not change what it is because an individual's

focus changed. It can't. It's like saying did the sun's energy

change because a cloud came over my house and I can't see the sun

now? Did the sun's energy change, or the sun stop being what it must

be?

Regardless of whether I am seeing the sun or not seeing the sun, the

sun is the sun.

This awareness/nothing is a little different than the sun, though,

because it has no outside to it.

- Dan -

August 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> A person intuits that there is a totality involved in being.

>

> And the person senses that the field of perception isn't showing that totality

and wonders is it possible to know/be this?

>

> The spiritual search is on.

>

> And it can only ever lead " home " - back to square one.

>

> In terms of one's attention and field of perception, it makes sense

> to say that one has more sense of totality if one is not focused on

> something.

>

> Yet, even with a diffuse even sense of being aware of one's body-mind and

surrounding, we are discussing a subjective sense or feeling of totality within

one's perceptual field of the moment.

>

> However, that certainly is not totality, as in totality. It's just

> the subjective sense of totality within a limited field of perception.

>

> Even if one is in a relaxed yet aware state, and pretty much open

> equally to one's field of perception, one might currently be aware of the

room, the feelings in the body, breathing, the computer screen, how the chair

feels, words that appear, the color of the desk.

>

> But that hardly is totality.

>

> Totality is everything that happened in the last trillion years, and

> prior to that, and everything that will happen in the next zillion

> years, and everything in every solar system, and all the dimensions

> that we don't have senses developed with which to be aware of.

> (And everything else I forgot to mention.)

>

> So, the totality of what is, is totality.

>

> " What does this have to do with awareness?, " might be a fitting

> question.

>

> The bodily awareness that tends to get focused through the brain as if

> operating from behind the eyes is just a minute portion of the

> awareness that is.

>

> It keeps the body-mind around for a period of time, so we tend to

> identify with it, because the survival of the body-mind generates a

> feeling of self, and a body-focused " consciousness " according to Nisargadatta.

>

> This feels very real for the time it is operating that way, as if a

> subjective being is situated, is located, and is aware through a set

> of eyes, a pair of hands, a thinking brain, a feeling butt that sits

> in a chair - and can focus on one thing, or relax and be more open -

> but still to the " immediate vicinity. "

>

> So, what separates this body-mind centered portion of awareness, and

> the awareness of the rest of totality?

>

> How did the focus of the totality awareness get seemingly located and

> separated from the awareness of everything else?

>

> One looks into this and finds: fear, desire, relations with objects

> that either protect survival, are dangerous to survival, or enhance

> survival. Powerful stuff.

>

> It's understandable, and one sees why and how this sense of a division

> happens across cultures and across different generations.

>

> One could write a book, or several books about this topic.

>

> But what is the bottom-line?

>

> The bottom line is the totality awareness has never actually divided,

> is not divided now.

>

> There is nothing manifesting anywhere apart from this awareness.

>

> Some people don't like the term " awareness. "

>

> It could be called " nothing " because it isn't a perceptual object, nor

> a feeling, nor any state of being.

>

> When anything manifests, that is, when anything of any dimensionality

> is able to be apprehended in some way by some sentient being, it has

> formed how? Through this awareness, this nothing, this matrix of

> possibility, if you'd like to call it that. Physicists call it the

> collapse of the wave function. Although I'm not a physicist, I like

> the sound of that one, as a lay person.

>

> Advaita is the fact of nonseparation of this matrix, this awareness,

> this nothing - such that any manifestation includes every other

> manifestation. In Buddhism this is called " interdependent co-

> origination. "

>

> What this means in terms of one's awareness as one is sitting in a

> chair looking at a computer is that this manifestation is not

> occurring separately from manifestations a hundred thousand years ago

> or ahead or on Planet X of System Y.

>

> It is one thing to say this as theory.

>

> But how is it known, understood, clear - first-hand?

>

> One could rather ask the reverse question: what is the impediment,

> how is it that it is not clear?

>

> If the awareness is indivisible, how is it missed?

>

> The bottom-line to this question is that it is not missed. It is not

> lacking. There is no impediment.

>

> Yet, there is a belief in lack, there is a sense of separation, there

> is the feeling of a barrier.

>

> One sees this throughout the world in many different ways.

>

> Incredibly, as distorted as awareness is in this world, as divided off

> as people sense their awareness to be, there actually is no division.

>

> One clear on this has a sense of amazement, perhaps awe.

>

> And one knows that nothing is arising out of place. As crazy and

> destructive as human relationships have been and are being, this crazy

> destructiveness is not out of place, is not occurring in some divided

> off way.

>

> Ramana, when asked why there is evil in the world (which certainly is

> one of the perennial questions in philosophy and religion) said: to

> make the drama more interesting (or words to that effect).

>

> I see it in a more technical way, in terms of possibility: " What

> is " (the nothing the matrix of possibility) necessarily includes every

> possible possibility simultaneously. It includes every possible

> configuration of time/space/awareness/relationship. (I'm convinced

> that what we consider the way life and awareness must form, to be a

> very very tiny slice of an infinite pie - but this version of

> manifested life/awareness makes sense to us based on our version of

> " the past " - which some people explain in terms of reincarnation).

>

> So, everything that can manifest, does, and manifests in relation to

> everything else.

>

> If there can be great good, there will be great evil. If there can be

> life-giving care, there can be life-terminating destructiveness.

>

> There is no way out of this.

>

> And that is why there seems to be impediments to awareness, and

> barriers, when there aren't.

>

> One who is able to accept life as it is, can be life as it is, and

> will understand that awareness never is segmented, regardless of how

> much hatred, anxiety, mistrust, etc. people depend on for their sense

> of identity and being.

>

> And this awareness does not change what it is because an individual's

> focus changed. It can't. It's like saying did the sun's energy

> change because a cloud came over my house and I can't see the sun

> now? Did the sun's energy change, or the sun stop being what it must

> be?

>

> Regardless of whether I am seeing the sun or not seeing the sun, the

> sun is the sun.

>

> This awareness/nothing is a little different than the sun, though,

> because it has no outside to it.

>

> - Dan -

Watchoo talkin' bout, daaad? ;-).

August 29, 2009

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> But that hardly is totality.

>

> Totality is everything that happened in the last trillion years, and

> prior to that, and everything that will happen in the next zillion

> years, and everything in every solar system, and all the dimensions

> that we don't have senses developed with which to be aware of.

> (And everything else I forgot to mention.)

BTW, if we're talking about totality as " all " , as the sum of all parts, I'd

rather say there is no totality.

Thought divides into ten gazillion parts, then seeks to sum them all up and call

them " totality " .

There is no such entity.

That's why you " forgot to mention " so much.

But it was an interesting article ;-).

August 31, 2009