Todd

but not as tasty but I think that's how it is but did I taste it?

Our stories are different, but there is enough similarity that I want to share something that helped me. "You can hold yourself back from the sufferings of the world: this is something you are free to do and is in accord with your nature, but perhaps precisely this holding back is the only suffering that you might be able to avoid." --Kafka It isn't easy when almost no one seems to share your perspective. Things that seem obvious to you, they deny, even as it hurts them. Over time it is easy to get discouraged. Getting discouraged is missing the point though. Getting discouraged is arguing with how things are and that always hurts. You know too deeply that the way that you used to do things does not lead where you want it to. Something in you knows this so deeply that you literally cannot do it any more. But you have also lost faith in the new way that has opened before you. How do we lose faith? We ask for too much. We stop noticing what is right before our eyes. We ignore what we can do to focus on what we can't. Everything that you need is right before you. If you feel like you can't move, notice that. Notice the thoughts that create that feeling. Or if no thoughts are running, notice the feeling, the tension-- notice the not wanting the feeling. That is literally all that you need to do. You will know that you are doing it right because there will be a sense of peace, even in difficulty. There will be a taste of ease, however slight. Until then, there is something that you aren't letting in. It is good that you are interested in helping yourself, but what is it that helps the most? What is it like to turn the unconditional acceptance that you felt flowing toward the world back toward yourself? If you can do this, then meeting the world will no longer be a problem. The funny thing is that we can't do this. This is not something that we can muster up and make happen. But we can notice it and make a little space, give it a little attention, a little devotion. And as far as practical concerns go-- just do the next most obvious thing. You will find your way.

Also, if you learn Chinese characters, especially if you break them down into component parts with their own meanings (which, in my opinion, is the best way to learn them), then there is a lot to be explored there.

@ HE and Wuji: You're welcome! HE, The only book that comes to mind at the moment is Rooted in Spirit. It is a discussion of Chapter 8 of the Lingshu (Spiritual Pivot), which is one of two main parts of the Huangdi Neijing, which is the foundational text for Chinese medicine. The Lingshu deals mostly with acupuncture. Chapter 8 of the Lingshu speaks of the 5 spirits and how they relate to well-being and health. I have only read the translation of Chapter 8 in it and not the commentary, so can't comment on that. The translation, as with all translations, is not perfect. For example, "Qi" is pretty consistently translated as "Breath", and if you do not know what this refers to, then a layer of depth can be lost. There is a cool glossary in the back though, that seems to relate key terms back to the Chinese characters. Where did I learn this? I can't say that I really did. I learned the names of the 5 spirits and some of their functions in TCM school. I also learned a whole net of associations there: for example, "po" is associated with the lung, which is associated with white, metal, downward and dispersing, 3-5am, pungent/spicy, the nose, smell, the skin, the meridians, harvest, fall, dryness, sorrow, etc... Most TCM texts will have lists like this. They may not make a lot of sense at first, or may seem very surface, but spending time with an awareness of them in life can reveal more depth. The 5 spirits are intimately related to the 5 elements, and I met a Dr. in China who used a system rooted in this, and associated them strongly with movements of Qi. He also made a whole host of other associations, so my viewpoint has been strongly influenced by my experience with him. The nature of Spirit itself is more of a personal experience thing, combined with some explorations of the Dao De Jing (love Red Pine's translation), lots of things here and there that I can't really recall specifically at the moment (though I am sure that Taomeow's sharings in the past have influenced me to some degree), and the teachings of Adyashanti as they relate to my experience. What I shared was just a kind've playing with all this stuff evolving in my head and body, and spirit. Have fun with it, and never forget your direct experience. Its all there for us to play with, and there are whole other systems of ideas, so no need to take it too seriously. It can be a lot of fun though, and reveal neat stuff if we are interested.

Ok, story time. I'm gonna use some technical jargon, but in no way is this meant to be construed as coming from any great authority or depth of scholarship. I am only playing with some things in my head and in my body, and with anyone who happens to read this. There are a couple characters in Chinese that are commonly associated with the English word "Spirit". The first is 靈. It is pronounced "ling" with a rising tone. This is the modern traditional character, and it has three main parts. The top part, with the four horizontal lines at the bottom is the radical for rain. The three boxes in the middle indicate three open mouths. The bottom part is the character for shaman. I think of it as two shamans dancing to accomplish some "work", since it is made up of two people characters inside the character for "work" or "public". Overall the image is of shamans calling down the rain. Spirit in this case is the medium by which form influences the formless, and by which the formless in turn influences form, or perhaps more accurately, manifests as form. It speaks to resonance and response. It also speaks to something passing between worlds, as it is used in words for things like coffins and funerals. It also has a very lively character, and often is used to mean intelligence or cleverness, and is also used in the word for pliability and flexibility. Combined with a different character, it can mean "fairy, sprite, elf". The second character, which is more commonly known here, is 神. Pronounced "shen", also with a rising tone. On the left side of the character is radical for an altar/ancestors/religion. On the right is the character for the 9th of the 12 earthly branches, which is where the 12 signs of the Chinese Zodiac come from. This branch is the "monkey" branch, which I find strangely appropriate. We have a monkey before an altar, and this expresses "spirit". So here we also have some of the meaning of communion with "unseen" forces. The "monkey" character also can mean "to stretch, extend, or express", so there is also an indication of the expression of spiritual force. Since the characters for "monkey" and "express" are the same, then monkey in a strange way, IS this expression, even as it engages in a mystery that is in many ways beyond it. Common translations for this character are "God", "spirit", "miracle/miraculous", and in day to day usage, "general expression or appearance". Another character that I have seen used here in reference to "spirit" is 魂. Pronounced "hun", also with a rising tone. In Chinese medical thought, the hun is one of the 5 "little shen" or "little spirits", that are each associated with one of the 5 viscera or solid organs. I feel that a better translation for this character than "spirit", which just confuses it with the two "spirits" above, is "ethereal soul". This is contrasted with 魄, "po" (with a falling tone), which can be translated as "corporeal soul". Both characters have the "ghost" radical on the right side of the character. On the left side of "hun" is the "cloud" radical, giving the association with both rising and heaven. On the left side of "po" is the "white" radical, which is the color associated with metal, whose movement is down, and which is associated with taking distinct form. Together, these two "souls" balance one another out. The "hun" rises up, while the "po" descends. The "hun" partakes of the freedom of the more formless aspects of existence. It has a rather dreamy aspect, spinning images of possibility and potential, pulling stories out of the undifferentiated mass of potential to experience. It is associated with the ability to map out a "life story", and some say it is the part that continues to generate subsequent incarnations if such a thing occurs. The "po" has no desire other than to be in form. It is what brings us into the here and now and allows the intimate, concrete experience of form. There is a way that it brings the energy of heaven down to love itself as form. There is the idea that this "soul" dies with the body, though I would suggest that this potential within the larger "spirit" is inherent. Now there is a funny way that the "po" exists within the "hun" and the "hun" exists within the "po". The "hun" is constantly spinning images out of the formless, and in this way it manifests form. The more fully it dreams, the more real the forms appear. So the more fully in dances its freedom, the more it ties itself into the sort of form that we would expect the "po" to cling to. The "po" on the other hand constantly brings us to what is here. It does not shy away. This might seem to offer no freedom, but the more fully we arrive here, the more we encounter the true nature of form, which is "spirit". As we truly arrive here, all things regain their true freedom. It is as if as we enter more and more fully into here, we pop right into its nothingness. So those are two of the five "little shen". There is a similar dynamic between "little spirit" (as opposed to "big spirit") and "will". And weaving its tendrils throughout it all is "intent". I won't get into that, since this is already a long post, but it is an important point that even though there are these sorts of divisions of "shen" into "little shen", that there is a way in which even the "little shen", with all of their peculiar and particular characteristics, are whole. The whole of the "big shen" can be found within any of them. We cannot truly know this until we have encountered the "big shen", which is possible through any of the "little shen", or just through allowing the "big shen" to reveal itself. The tremendous wonder of the "big shen" is its intimacy with all of the "little shen". The "big shen" has so few qualities that it cannot even really be said to be the substance of the "little shen", and yet its character and the little shens' character is exactly the same. There is no "thing" there, and yet it allows, it IS, every possible "little shen", through and through. Thus, encountering the "big shen" is in many ways synonymous with encountering all of the "little shen". It happens in an instant, and it happens for eternity, as each "little shen" arises and passes away, and thus the question, "What is Shen?" never truly ends, even as it can be immediately answered without moving a finger or even thinking a thought, or through moving your finger and thinking a thought! Of course, the five "little shen" is just one of infinite possible divisions of "big shen". Is it the mind or imagination that makes these divisions? In a way, but often they are also as real as the division between our hand and a cup that we are holding. Not ultimately real, but real enough to explore and enjoy and pay attention to. Also "big shen" is really is misnomer. It might be better expressed as "most essential shen".

Hangzhou was a capital too. Beautiful city.

You can also look at the LDT having a outer energy of fire, and an inner energy of space. The UDT can have an outer energy of space and an inner energy of fire? In such a model, the heart is the fulcrum either way. Just playing.

There are things that I like about your interpretation of Yin and Yang. I like that you see past the common association of Yin with matter and Yang with energy. I like the Yin=space/Tao and Yang=form (which includes matter and energy) way of looking at things. To me, this is an inner meaning of Yin and Yang. It doesn't negate the outer meanings of Yin and Yang though, it is just what is inside of them. My view is actually very much like what anamatva has expressed. There are infinite levels of complexity and Yin and Yang can never really be separated. This leads us to your concept of Yin and Yang forces. You say that the Yin force is centrifugal (pushing away from the center) and the Yang force is centripetal (pushing toward the center). You also say that the shape of Yin is a torus (donut shaped), and the shape of Yang is a sphere. These shapes make sense, since if you elongate them, they form something like a vagina and a penis respectively. I have a few questions for you, however: Would something that is more Yin not also express more of the Yin force? And would something that is more Yang not also express more of the Yang force? If this is the case, the wider the torus became, the further and faster it would spread, and the tighter and denser the sphere became, the faster it would contract. Is this a situation in which manifestation would have any degree of balance? Would not Yin and Yang separate quicker than you could blink? Perhaps you have misnamed the Yin and Yang forces within your system? Or do you see the inherent nature of all things to separate and not to interact?

You sound pretty sane to me. As my teacher's teacher said, "That's the whole point!" Yes, I appreciate the irony of that statement.

How so? I see it as operating on the same spectrum. There is recognition of true nature, which is a way of seeing things, or a way of being. There are many ways of being that can be highlighted within such a broader way of being, and that is the realm of lineage-related energies as far as I am concerned. So, a teacher may recognize true nature in himself and hence in others, and there will be a natural transmission of this to others, just as any state of consciousness is transmitted. The transmission is not so much a transference as a highlighting or a resonance. Teachers do not only experience a recognition of true nature though. They also have histories and conditioning. A part of their experience is an imprint of the ways that they came to this recognition, and if they had teachers, the way their teachers came to this recognition. This is where the lineage energies come from, in my opinion. It is not all historical, though, since they may be tapping into present influences that tend toward recognition of true nature, or other unfoldings, and this tapping in can be evoked and perhaps directly transferred. It gets kinda complicated if you think about it, but I'm not sure that it is much different from learning any skill, or the transmission of emotional tendencies, viewpoints, etc... One can see these things as being present influences, which one taps into. I am curious on your viewpoint, since I am sure that mine is not really complete. As an aside, I applaud your inclination to value current experience over metaphysical explanation in cultivation, especially where metaphysical explanation would seem to discount or bypass current experience.

And it doesn't have to just be seeing beings as powerful. Even just seeing that others are allowed to be as they are has a tremendous impact. Perhaps even greater than seeing them as powerful. Meditation practices tend to develop this quality of seeing in people, even if unconsciously, since trying to control things can get so painful in them.

In my experience, the radiation effect is a result of seeing the world in a different way. So the source of the radiation is a way of seeing. This is in no way restricted to practitioners of spiritual systems. It happens naturally between all humans, and probably other beings (such as trees, dogs, cats, insects, etc...). If we spend time around people who see something as possible, then it becomes more possible, or even probable for us. Even just hearing such a person talk can affect the way that we perceive things, and hence our experience. Experience is not separate from energy, so it can be experienced as energetic effects of interacting (however indirectly) with beings who see things in certain ways. It can work negatively as well, though perhaps the positive radiation is many times more powerful than the negative. The negative just happens to be more common in many respects. Common to many paths, the more developed practitioners tend to see an aspect of all beings that they interact with as inherently positive and powerful. For example, they tend to know that every being has the potential and the reality of affecting both themselves and the world around them. So they are not so much transmitting the positive qualities that they see, but more highlighting them, which has a definite impact. A million dollars that you know you have will have a much greater impact on your life than a million dollars that you have forgotten about and never think to access, to use a fairly crude analogy.

Ok.

I don't agree with a lot of what he says. However, he never said that only he knows what buddhism truly is. You used this as a reason for your actions toward him. Just pointing out that you are making up reasons. Buddhist lineages, even all buddhist lineages, are not everybody. Even saying they are polluted is not saying that no one in them truly knows buddhism. Actually, you did want to engage, until I made some points that you could not easily respond to, then you started with the pattern. If you don't believe me, then ask a few other people if they notice such a pattern, of not responding to points but attacking the messenger when you disagree and things get even slightly heated. This is a tremendous exaggeration. Nobody is a pretty strong word. He is pretty darn ungraceful in his communication style, but nobody? There sure seemed to be a lot of people conversing with him, for somebody that nobody wants to converse with. Perhaps you could show me this obsession? That is your judgement and it has its outcomes. This conversation is one of those outcomes. My point is that there is a better way. There is no should here. I can't control you, nor would I like to. I would like you to see things clearly, and to express that which is best in you as much as possible, but that's just a preference, and my idea of best could be very different from yours. I don't even want your idea to match mine, but I thought you could benefit from another perspective, especially given the fact that we started this conversation with you refusing to even see your actions with regard to Vmarco as an attack on another human being. To you they were justified, he is not really much of a human being, but a loon, and it isn't an attack when those things are true.

I read the whole thread. I might have skipped some posts, but I'm pretty sure I read most if not all of his posts. Does discounting certain lineages equal saying "only he understands what buddhism is truly about"? I was just wondering where he said this, if he said it. I was hoping you would see a pattern and hence have an opportunity to change it, if you so desired. One of the key patterns is not engaging the ideas that people present to you if you disagree with them, but making personal comments in an attempt to discredit them. For example, "You're getting a bit obsessive here." I don't have to look far to find examples. It is in practically every post in this thread, and I find it really interesting that you don't see it. If you have no interest in seeing such a pattern, and only want to see things as winning and losing, then that's fine. It is your right.

Ok, calling someone a loon isn't an insult. Asking if someone does drugs with the implication that their thoughts are suspect is not an insult. Calling someone's ideas paranoid isn't an insult. Lets go with personal attack. Personal means relating to a particular person. Attack has a definition "to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse." It seems that the emphasis is on intent. What was your intent in making your statements? Were you not trying to discredit him, and by extension what he was saying? Where did he say this? He treated me with respect and I consistently disagreed with him. How he acted was not your fault. How he acted was influenced by you. Was it influenced for the better or for the worse?

Ok, so classifying the man as a loon, is an empirical observation, not a sweeping judgement or an insult. Its one of those self-evident truths. And besides, even if its an insult, its alright, because the guy is already gone, and you never insulted him before (except by calling him a troll, which he self-evidently was). Hmmm.... In your second post to Vmarco, before he had said anything directly to you, you said: "You seem very intelligent, but you're very off the mark about a lot of things, and some of your ideas sound paranoid. No offense, but have you/do you do drugs?" Calling someone's idea's paranoid, without mentioning specifics, and then asking if they do/have done drugs is pretty insulting. The implication is that the man's ideas are all questionable, since his brain is affected by past/present drug use. Prefacing it with "You seem very intelligent" and "No offence" does not change that. What kind of a tone does this set for an interaction? Does continuing to respond when you predictably get a negative response to this way of introducing yourself, and then calling for the man's removal from the forum, based on his negative response to you, not constitute an attack? Of course not. He actually was all of the things that you accused him of, self-evidently so, especially since he accused you of some things too. Is this really how you think? And even if you are right, and he really is those things that you choose to see him as, is it a compassionate response to stick him with those labels and basically try to rob him of all value in your mind and in the minds of others?

I guess this isn't an attack? Just a statement of absolute, self-evident (at least to anyone with half a brain and an an ounce of compassion) truth?

Really? He supports you attacking another with personal insults so he is able to see things clearly? To my mind, this is like making calls for a witch hunt, and then congratulating all those who join one for their level headedness and general good nature. We could add to the "Time for some shit !" thread: "Witch Hunter: As long as you join me in violence, then your shit smells good to me!" I have interacted with Vmarco on this forum in a relatively in-depth manner, and though his views are rather different from mine in several areas, and though he has his own sort of unrecognized or justified violence, he also has something to share, however ungracefully. When people jump on the bandwagon in an attempt to completely marginalize him, I find this ugly. To attempt to completely marginalize those who disagree with us is just a really old social trick, and it doesn't matter what ideology is being used to support it. I am engaging in a bit of this, by joining my voice with 5ET, in an attempt to give more support for the view that it is not good to form cliques and to strong arm dissenting voices instead of engaging them or ignoring them (which is the best option in my mind, when engagement has no satisfactory conclusion). We could be perceived as forming a clique to quiet this sort of activity. However, I do not view CaoTao or Sunya or others who have joined in the attack as inherently bad people, who should be marginalized or considered less that worthy. I am not calling for their ouster, though I feel that in the context of how this forum has been moderated, that there should be consequences to CaoTao's hateful personal insults directed toward Simplicity Rules. Going back to a less hands on moderation approach, allowing the members to handle things themselves (hopefully via engagement and ignoring, but not through hateful violence) might be great, but to have inconsistent moderation is much worse, in my mind, than more, but consistent moderation. I mainly hope that we can stop seeing ourselves as above simple social dynamics, because our philosophy and practice is so subtle and so profound, so that we recognize impulses to engage in this sort of animalistic (with the very human twist of concepts and language) violence and perhaps let it go to allow something unexpected and helpful to flower.

Are you talking about more than the quote I included when you say that the reply isn't mine but Adyashanti's? If so, what do you mean by when you say "Adyashanti's" and what would make my reply "mine"? There are a lot things that you could mean by this, so I can't really respond well without knowing what you mean. Yeah, I like that too. It's so easy to get tunnel vision with regard to paths. You're welcome! I enjoyed the link. Nice to have something on topic in a post, I guess.

Hi -K-. Sorry for the long delay in responding. Did you edit this post? It reads very differently now than when I first read it. I realized that a major unresolved aspect of my incarnation is distrust, so it is not surprising that I sometimes have quite a negative reaction to distrust in others, especially when in any way directed at me. Of course, there is a good aspect of distrust, but when it just runs, to both my detriment and benefit, then it is good to recognize it and meet it. I think these are good questions. I think a huge part of life is coming to know what you can and can't trust, both in oneself and in others. Another huge part is how to meet that which is "untrustable", both in oneself and in others, since it comes up often enough and can't really be avoided. Its hard to do the second without a good feel for the first, however. At the risk of making an absurdly long post that most people will skip over, I came across this part of a response from Adya to a student in a recording from a recent retreat, recently, and I want to share it with you. Might seem only tangentially related, but fwiw. (I left in all the false starts of speech, and tried to retain some of the emphasis, for better or worse): "In my own search, when it really, actually took off in a really, real way was when I just severed my relationship to anybody else's experience, and I just thought 'I don't give a damn what anybody else is experiencing. I'm not gonna chase what they are experiencing. Why would I chase something that I don't even know if it's real or exists? How could I know if it's real or not until I've experienced it?' Right? And I was all… you know, only then do we realize, 'I'm chasing an idea. And the idea came from somebody else. I wasn't born with this idea.' And the best thing I ever did was just take like a sword out and just sever the idea, and then I was left with what was intimately so, here—intimately so. And at that moment I realized two things, andthey don't sound like big realizations, but they were. Is the one thing I wanted was truth; I wanted reality. I didn't want to feel better. I didn't want to end up blissed out. I did want to.. I didn't care what I experienced. I didn't care if thetruth was lovely or terrible. If.. I didn't care what if it was. If it was heaven or hell, it didn't matter. I wanted the truth. I didn't even know why I wanted the truth. I didn't even know why. And that was a really useful thing to know, because nobody gave that to me. And the second thing that I knew was I had no idea what that was. And if I could stay with those two things,those were mine, those weren't given to me by somebody, or a book, or an image to chase, or somebody else's story. Those were mine. This desire for truth, for reality, and the knowledge that I didn't know what it was. And I was gonna stay with what was true until I knew. You see what I mean? And that's.. so what.. that doesn't mean that's what you'll find, when you look inside, but it's when we really intimately find out, 'What belongs to me?' It's what I'm always asking people, 'What is this about for you?" You see? You know? Not what you were promised would happen, if you did the spiritual things right. You see? If you do this, you'll end up like this. That's.. that's the sales plan for enlightenment, and it's basically abunch of nonsense. And it's not yours and it's not intimate. But each person comes with something that is very unique to them, that draws them. It is what it really is about for them, 'for me'. And like I said on the first night, I've met people doing this forty years, and they've never really, really looked at what this is about 'for me'.They're chasing somebody else's experience. No matter who the somebody else.. some guru's experience, something somebody else said, and when they finally connect in: 'What's mine? What's this about for me? Something that's in me, in my blood and in my bones, that thing that drives me tofind out what it is, that one thing, not the top two, that one thing, that is the most important thing, that if I go to my grave unresolved, I will have not been completely true to my own incarnation.' That thing. See what I mean? You get the feel of it? Nobody can give us that. That's the beauty of it. Nobody can give you that. You have that. You.. everybody in here comes with that. And when you really tap into that,then what you hear from the outside serves that. It's not a stand in for that. It's not a surrogate for that. It then serves your intention. Then the teachings can serve your intention. Then you can hear them in such a way that they serve you, rather than make you chase your tail indefinitely."

I get what you are saying here, but you could define other words similarly to the way that you have defined awareness. For example, light is also darkness. The light blinds one to the dark, and so it is a kind of dark, and the dark reveals the dark and so it is a type of light. Hence all is a form of light. The true light is beyond all appearances of light and dark. It is what makes those appearances possible. I could do the same thing with dark. I like this. I was referring a large portion of humanity, including myself. I was especially referring to Western culture, in particular during the dark and middle ages, though I think that this tendency plays out in most people and cultures to one degree or another. Has it never played out in you? Yeah, I can see how you have included the matter-like aspects of existence via your view of beliefs/habits. I think that can be a very useful way of seeing things. I am glad that you have a good relationship with science, despite its failings. I think our view in this area is quite similar. I don't really have a view that I hold to be true. They are all provisional, potentially useful, and potentially harmful, but not true to me. I might take the list of possible views that I made above and make a brief statement of what I see as their advantages and disadvantages, or uses and contradictions, to use more medical language. I might flesh out a somewhat more inclusive view of awareness as source of matter and matter as source of awareness, though it might end up looking remarkably similar to your views, as yet unexpressed. It would have to do with a broader, or more fundamental awareness, which manifests matter as an aspect of itself, out of which arise individual awarenesses, which participate in this more fundamental awareness and are never truly separate from it. I'd only do it as a story though, like a very rough hypothesis. It will be several days before I am back on the forum, however.

I agree. Thats why I have never claimed proof for my position. I am not trying to make the position of non-awareness source of awareness win out over awareness as all. I am only trying to open up the conversation a bit. Having explored your view more thoroughly, I agree that it is more elegant and fun (for me at least), and if I had to choose one or the other, then I would choose something similar to yours, but luckily I do not have to choose. To me views are like tools, since none is actually complete, and there is a time and a place for different tools. I am referring to my niece, who just recently turned two. She doesn't only go around calling things, "Baby", but she does it often enough that I have noticed. I can't speak for what she is thinking, when she says this, but it intriguing to me. Part of the reason that you may not remember this, is that it likely happens before we start retaining conscious memories that persist into adulthood. Are you saying that you never had the feeling that your intent should be able to change things as a kid? Many people who believe in God have an experience/experiences of God, that they refer to along with whatever other reasons they have for believing. I don't believe this and I don't use it as a proof for anything. Speaking about a possibility and the potential that might lay in considering this possibility is a very different thing from belief. As I said, I have not experienced the creation of awareness as you have defined it. As a concept or an experience, I have. Awareness as an experience can have different qualities, but the one I was referring to is awareness as a field, a kind've diffuse observer, permeating everything. This is a division from what you are calling awareness, in that there is a presence of a field that is experiencing everything, as opposed to a lack of such presence. If I no longer make this division, then the field disappears. There is also no non-field, really. Its just not an aspect of experience. If I make the division again, then it reappears. Its not at all dissimilar to no longer generating the experience of "I". All sorts of other stuff can go on in the absence of that experience. Conceptually this doesn't make sense ("How can you experience anything without an 'I'!?"). Awareness as a concept or experience is just another aspect of existence and can be experienced or not. There might be something to this. Kids do appear to develop more context and to be able to understand more things as they have more experiences though. Perhaps.

Lucky, I know it might seem that I am arguing for non-awareness being the source of awareness, but this isn't my main argument. My main argument is that it is a possibility, and that allowing this possibility has the potential to inform our experience in interesting ways (such as for example, considering the way that a third thing, which you gave the name "awareness" might have different densities, as you hinted, and that those denser aspects might have intimate relation with awareness, and perhaps even give rise to particular of its forms). Probably most people who are attracted to a point of view beyond, "brain is the source and location of awareness", would not be inclined to reinclude this view as a possiblity, within a field of possibilities, but for better or worse, this is what I am suggesting. At the very least, I am suggesting that one not declare proof for things by means that do not actually provide proof, but are actually just very well reasoned preferences. With regard to, "Even the experience of non-aware matter is just a further division of awareness"... maybe so.