dwai

Think about it this way. If something is not even real in the first place, what good does it do to talk about whether it disappears or not? For instance, we all know that mirages are unreal. However, knowing a mirage is a mirage doesn't make the mirage disappear. What is dispelled is the misunderstanding in our minds that it is a mirage, so we don't running into the desert to quench our thirst thinking there is water there...

Yes. However there are two aspects imho . One is the direct apperception. This comes in an instant when one is ready (various means). The other is reconciling the local mind to that direct apperception (contemplation, meditation and releasing old patterns of conditioning).

Why do cowboys have sad sad songs?

Yet, the way to directly experience is paved by contemplation and meditation

By "meta conceptions" I mean they are generic labels for the duality of substantial and insubstantial. Different from Shiva and Shakti, who represent a specific type of substantiality-insubstantiality.

MH wasn't specifically talking about the anatomical layout...more a supra-mental condition.

Once we transcend our limited identities, we are both male as well as female (or neither uniquely male or female).

That's the best way to be. Does the flame precede the light? Why not? The Shiva-Shakti duality is an erroneous one, just as the subject-object duality is. It is always subject-object. Just like it is never "yin" or "Yang" but Yin-Yang. Have you ever gone into a natural state of breath retention? It used to happen to me a lot during Sudarshan kriya practice. The breath would cease for 3-4 minutes (kevala kumbhaka) and there were no thoughts, but there was pure consciousness. When the first thought arose, the breathing started. Of course we can also be in a thoughtless state by simply watching intently for the next thought to arise. Knowing is dependent on Consciousness. Not the other way round. It is perfectly normal to be aware (Pure Consciousness) without any thoughts (hence knowing). Not knowing is just the absence of subject-object duality, in relation to conscious lifelong learning.

It's an example. Not to be taken literally. Just like Sunlight is a property of the Sun, similarly Shakti (Creative power) is a property of Shiva (Consciousness). So, There is no Shakti separate from Shiva. Yin and Yang are more "meta" conceptions, imho. One could make a mental stretch and say that Consciousness (Shiva) is Yin and Shakti (Energy) is Yang. But Consciousness and Energy are not separate really...where consciousness is, there is energy. Where there is no consciousness, there is no energy. As such, we have no way to know what is there, when there is no consciousness. Because knowing is predicated upon consciousness. So, in a way, 'knowing' IS energy (creating appearances).

Not like that. More like sunlight not separate from the Sun.

You won't find any disagreement from me there. We have to understand that the position articulated in the OP is a very specific one, and in the old days, it was meant for only people with the proper "adhikāra" or "right to know". What it is predicated on is to go beyond the intellect and directly know what is being referred to as beyond birth and death, and in whose perspective nothing ever happens. For most people, the knee-jerk reaction to reading something like this, is one of the ego flaring up, as it threatens our normal sense of self. It does so even with seasoned practitioners. If we are ready however, that very flaring up of the ego leads to an unraveling of concepts that we didn't even know we held as being so precious to us. That results in deepening relaxation. Also by no means am I suggesting that I am free of concepts. I recently discovered some deep attachment/hence tendency to defend, a concept of myself as being an "exceptional engineer". I was subconsciously holding on to the view that I can't possibly make mistakes, and if someone calls it out, I feel like I have to defend myself. @Jeff is right in that, there is much crud that covers our light and there is work to be done to uncover that. However, I find that knowing an extreme position such as articulated in the OP helps put things in perspective, if we approach it from the point of view of "Why did they say it like that? I don't know". But this calls for an inherent respect for the views of the person(s) we are studying. If we come from a perspective of "I'm right/my view is right and others can't possibly be right", we will try to caricature or put down the one that is different from ours.

There is clear awareness continuing through all three states (waking/dreaming/deep sleep).

Huh? What does happiness and fulfillment have to do with phenomena?

Would it? Awareness seems quite happy and fulfilled by itself.

I think it points to a different "you". You ARE water itself. The drop is just a case of relative/mistaken identification as being a drop. What does speech have to do with awareness? We can simply be happy being aware (drop this or that and description of this or that).

Point being, how then do you say, Awareness needs phenomena to exist? Do you think it's not possible to be simply aware without any objects of awareness?

For all that to happen, and in fact any mode of knowing (Direct, Indirect or inferential), you need consciousness/awareness. Again I ask you, can you know anything without being conscious/aware?

I didn't say anything about the accuracy of the knowing. I just pointed out that knowing can be in one of the three ways The validity of the knowing is a different matter altogether. So if you read certain things in a text book, you assume that it is right, until proven otherwise. Certain things we have to take on authority of the messenger (ergo reliable witness) So you mean to say when you see smoke you don't infer there might be a fire? Maybe it was not smoke at all, but dust...or water being sprayed in the air and reflecting light in a certain way...

The problems with syntax. The big question to answer would be - Is consciousness a property of my brain or is the brain a receptacle for consciousness? There are three valid ways to know. Direct Experience -- there's a fire in the neighborhood and you see it burning Testimony of a reliable witness -- Bob tells you that there is a fire in the neighborhood Inference -- you see smoke and infer there's a fire somewhere All three require consciousness/awareness to know. Can you know anything without Consciousness/awareness? Again, by Consciousness I mean the basic quality that makes knowing possible. This is not something that can be observed or studied objectively. You know you have it because you know. In scientific circles today, Consciousness is called the "Hard Problem".

What do you use to infer? Can you infer anything without awareness? If you don't like the word awareness, use Consciousness. And any knowing that occurs to YOU, is predicated on your awareness/consciousness. Can you ever know anything without being aware/conscious?

tell me when have you ever known phenomena to exist without being aware? Remember second hand knowledge is also predicated on awareness.

Good and Evil are relative values we ascribe to things in the dualistic mode. You eating chicken might be good (food) for you. Is it good for the chicken? Good and Evil are always in context of a perspective, a vantage point.

What is this "soul"? Is that something separate from your awareness? Also your mind is not real...it is just modification of awareness. How can something that is not real die?

You my friend are always welcome on any thread, as far as I am concerned