Consciousness and Science

[thuscomeone]

Dwai, I just want to ask you something. Two things in fact. Does your awareness change? Does it arise dependently from certain conditions and causes? If not, where is this unchanging and independent awareness? Point it out for me.

Edited January 15, 2010 by thuscomeone

[dwai]

Dwai, I just want to ask you something. Two things in fact. Does your awareness change? Does it arise dependently from certain conditions and causes? If not, where is this unchanging and independent awareness? Point it out for me.

 

Pure Consciousness is in the gap between thoughts. Consciousness and Awareness are not the same thing. Awareness is of objects/phenomena, and a result of consciousness with objects.

[C T]

Pure Consciousness is in the gap between thoughts.

The gap between 2 thoughts... excellent example! Absolute spaciousness, boundless emptiness, yet unbounded potential exists in that gap! The wider this gap in Being, the closer one 'gets' to the realization of inseparability, or Absolute Selflessness. In that little gap beyond forms, or bardo, is found the deathless nature of enlightenment!!!

 

This 'space without thoughts' is the meeting place of the Groundless Mother and the Unconditioned Child, and when one can rest pervasively and limitlessly in this state beyond all names, then it is here that re-Union is reached. All the saints and boddhisattvas reside in this gap, also known as Transcendent Wisdom, or Prajnaparamita. Practicing the correct meditations gives us opportunities to get a 'taste' of this re-union, to feel what ultimate freedom is, and eventually, after such feelings become a part of our habit, we too, can begin to rest in this unbounded spaceless space, and attain to abiding Transcendent Wisdom. In this abiding, all notions of Samsara and Nirvana are seen thru as existing without any basis.

 

What the Taoists call Immortality exists in this gap - it is here where Heaven and Earth merge. The sole purpose of the Taoist Emptiness Meditation is to help the practitioner establish a familiarity with this 'deathless' and 'birthless' yet nameless state of Being. The 'Wu' i think, made known to me by Marblehead .

 

 

Disclaimer: Just my personal opinion here. Does not reflect whatsoever the views of any other system.

[rex]

Charles T. Tart has some interesting things to say:

 

States of Consciousness & State-Specific Sciences

Edited January 15, 2010 by rex

[Marblehead]

The 'Wu' i think, made known to me by Marblehead .

Disclaimer: Just my personal opinion here. Does not reflect whatsoever the views of any other system.

 

Yeah. I'm reading the thread. Just nothing to say at the moment.

 

Peace & Love!

[thuscomeone]

Pure Consciousness is in the gap between thoughts. Consciousness and Awareness are not the same thing. Awareness is of objects/phenomena, and a result of consciousness with objects.

Why isn't pure consciousness thoughts themselves? Aren't thoughts part of consciousness?

 

Both Thusness and Longchen have stucked at the I AM stage of experience for 15 years since their teenage years before realising Anatta and Emptiness. The I AM is experienced as not limited, but all pervading, timeless and spaceless. So obviously they knew what the I AM is through their experience and meditation. But this is not the final realisation. For Longchen he only realised Anatta in 2006 after a series of conversations with Thusness. He was very grateful and said he would be stuck at 'I AM' stage 'forever' if he did not met Thusness.

 

As Longchen put in his own words in some of his many posts on my Buddhist forum after his realisation of Anatta:

 

In an experience of 'no thought' and 'no sense impressions', the Presence will be felt as all-pervading. It is not vast, but all pervading. There is a difference here. Vast denotes great distance. All-pervading denotes infinity... no border... no center.

 

Further insight of this infinity may allow you to understanding why space, location and distance are merely impressions.

 

.......

 

Just my opinion only,

 

I think Eckhart Tolle may have been suffering alot and suddenly he 'let go' of trying to work out his problems. This results in a dissociation from thoughts which give rise to the experience of Presence.

 

To me, 'I AM' is an experience of Presence, it is just that only one aspect of Presence is experienced which is the 'all-pervading' aspect. The non-dual and emptiness aspect are not experienced.. Because non-dual is not realised (at I AM stage), a person may still use effort in an attempt to 'enter' the Presence. This is because, at the I AM stage, there is an erroneous concept that there is a relative world make up of thoughts AND there is an 'absolute source' that is watching it. The I AM stage person will make attempts to 'dissociated from the relative world' in order to enter the 'absolute source'.

 

However, at Non-dual (& further..) stage understanding, one have understood that the division into a relative world and an absolute source has NEVER occcured and cannot be... Thus no attempt/effort is truly required.

 

.......

 

Thanks for the interesting article. It really contain many useful insights.

 

Just a sharing...

 

The author say that thought is a problem. It may not be entirely accurate.

 

IMO, when visual vision and thought imagery arise, there is a tendency to compartmentalise certain sections as entities, focus or objects. Next, there is a desire to modify that section. For example, in the visual sense, from the environment you are engaging a conversation with someone. The mind desires to change the 'person' into what it imagines will be the desired outcome. Example, you want to make the person think the way you think and so on so forth. The mind fails to see that this is 'hit and miss' and that the changes is really not dependent on the desire to modify the subject. Rather, it has got to do with the 'person' own willing or not.

 

So... to me, thought is the not the problem. Instead, the desire to modify and change 'what is' is the cause of suffering.

 

Also, when we say that we are not the thoughts or the body, unconsciously we have separated 'phemonena' from a 'untouchable' portion of ourself.

 

The difference at the non-duality stage is that, no attempt is made... Sensations are left as they are...

 

At the I AM/eternal witness stage, there is a seeking for the place beyond thoughts.

 

Also, at the I AM/eternal witness, no-suffering is preferred over suffering. There is no understanding that there is really NO blissful place that is beyond pain. When there is pain, there is nothing beyond it too.

 

So at the I AM/eternal witness stage, attempts may be employed by the mind to get rid of the pain... to go a place beyond the pain. The understanding that 'sensation and pain' is inseparable from Presence/Buddha Nature is not there yet.

This is a beautiful insight and one I didn't even think of.

Edited January 15, 2010 by thuscomeone

[dwai]

Why isn't pure consciousness thoughts themselves? Aren't thoughts part of consciousness?

This is a beautiful insight and one I didn't even think of.

 

Thoughts are objects in consciousness. Think of Light and how it illuminates objects. Pure consciousness is like the Light and thoughts are like those objects, illuminated by consciousness. Like the article mentions, objects can be in both space and time or only time. Thoughts are objects/phenomena in time.

[voidisyinyang]

If you read Ramana Maharshi's actually words -- he differentiates the typical "Neti neti" teaching and instead emphasizes AFFIRMING the SELF -- through logical inference. "Talks with Ramana Maharshi" -- that book -- gives more details I think. Anyway here's one example where he gives the difference between his teaching and the "neti, neti" approach:

 

Question : Is not discarding of the sheaths (neti-neti) mentioned in the sastras?

Ramana Maharshi: After the rise of the `I'-thought there is the false identification of the `I' with the body, the senses, the mind, etc. `I' is wrongly associated with them and the true `I' is lost sight of. In order to sift the pure `I' from the contaminated `I', this discarding is mentioned.

 

But it does not mean exactly discarding of the non - Self, it means the finding of the real Self. The real Self is the infinite `I'. That `I' is perfection. It is eternal. It has no origin and no end. The other `I' is born and also dies. It is impermanent. See to whom the changing thoughts belong. They will be found to arise after the `I'-thought. Hold the `I'-thought and they subside. Trace back the source of the `I'-thought. The Self alone will remain.

 

Question : It is difficult to follow. I understand the theory. But what is the practice?

Ramana Maharshi: The other methods are meant for those who cannot take to the investigation of the Self. Even to repeat aham Brahmasmi or think of it, a doer is necessary. Who is it? It is `I'. Be that `I'. It is the direct method. The other methods also will ultimately lead everyone to this method of the investigation of the Self.

 

Question : I am aware of the `I'. Yet my troubles are not ended.

Ramana Maharshi : This `I'-thought is not pure. It is contaminated with the association of the body and senses. See to whom the trouble is. It is to the `I'-thought. Hold it. Then the other thoughts vanish.

 

Question : Yes. How to do it? That is the whole trouble.

Ramana Maharshi : Think `I, I', and hold to that one thought to the exclusion of all others.

 

Ramana Maharishi taught using the process of "Neti-Neti" or "Not-this, Not-this" to arrive at what this "I" is. That is a standard Advaita Vedantic practice. It applies logic to strip away all that is "Not" I...it doesn't do anything with the "I" itself. In other words, it strips away the predicates till pure subject remains.

 

That is also the purpose of Yoga...where Chitta Vritti (or Modifications in the field of Consciousness or Mind) is stopped so that Pure Subject remains (Turiya).

[dwai]

If you read Ramana Maharshi's actually words -- he differentiates the typical "Neti neti" teaching and instead emphasizes AFFIRMING the SELF -- through logical inference. "Talks with Ramana Maharshi" -- that book -- gives more details I think. Anyway here's one example where he gives the difference between his teaching and the "neti, neti" approach:

 

Question : Is not discarding of the sheaths (neti-neti) mentioned in the sastras?

Ramana Maharshi: After the rise of the `I'-thought there is the false identification of the `I' with the body, the senses, the mind, etc. `I' is wrongly associated with them and the true `I' is lost sight of. In order to sift the pure `I' from the contaminated `I', this discarding is mentioned.

 

But it does not mean exactly discarding of the non - Self, it means the finding of the real Self. The real Self is the infinite `I'. That `I' is perfection. It is eternal. It has no origin and no end. The other `I' is born and also dies. It is impermanent. See to whom the changing thoughts belong. They will be found to arise after the `I'-thought. Hold the `I'-thought and they subside. Trace back the source of the `I'-thought. The Self alone will remain.

 

Question : It is difficult to follow. I understand the theory. But what is the practice?

Ramana Maharshi: The other methods are meant for those who cannot take to the investigation of the Self. Even to repeat aham Brahmasmi or think of it, a doer is necessary. Who is it? It is `I'. Be that `I'. It is the direct method. The other methods also will ultimately lead everyone to this method of the investigation of the Self.

 

Question : I am aware of the `I'. Yet my troubles are not ended.

Ramana Maharshi : This `I'-thought is not pure. It is contaminated with the association of the body and senses. See to whom the trouble is. It is to the `I'-thought. Hold it. Then the other thoughts vanish.

 

Question : Yes. How to do it? That is the whole trouble.

Ramana Maharshi : Think `I, I', and hold to that one thought to the exclusion of all others.

 

there is no discarding of the "non-Self", there is only realization of the distinction between not-self and self by stripping away all those false identifications. Even to contemplate I, first the Not-I needs to be identified, because such identification is natural in all human beings.

[voidisyinyang]

Sri Ramana's teachings and the traditional Advaitic school of thought pioneered by Sri Sankaracharya have many things in common. Sri Ramana often mentioned and is known to have encouraged study of the following classical works: Ashtavakra Gita, Ribhu Gita and Essence of Ribhu Gita, Yoga Vasista Sara,[40] Tripura Rahasya[[41]], Kaivalya Navaneetam,[42] Advaita Bodha Deepika,[43] and Ellam Ondre.[44] However, there are some practical differences with the traditional Advaitic school, which recommends a negationist neti, neti (Sanskrit, "not this", "not this") path, or mental affirmations that the Self was the only reality, such as "I am Brahman" or "I am He", while Sri Ramana advocates the enquiry "Nan Yar" (Tamil, "Who am I").

 

there is no discarding of the "non-Self", there is only realization of the distinction between not-self and self by stripping away all those false identifications. Even to contemplate I, first the Not-I needs to be identified, because such identification is natural in all human beings.

[rain]

If you read Ramana Maharshi's actually words -- he differentiates the typical "Neti neti" teaching and instead emphasizes AFFIRMING the SELF -- through logical inference. "Talks with Ramana Maharshi" -- that book -- gives more details I think. Anyway here's one example where he gives the difference between his teaching and the "neti, neti" approach:

 

Question : Is not discarding of the sheaths (neti-neti) mentioned in the sastras?

Ramana Maharshi: After the rise of the `I'-thought there is the false identification of the `I' with the body, the senses, the mind, etc. `I' is wrongly associated with them and the true `I' is lost sight of. In order to sift the pure `I' from the contaminated `I', this discarding is mentioned.

 

But it does not mean exactly discarding of the non - Self, it means the finding of the real Self. The real Self is the infinite `I'. That `I' is perfection. It is eternal. It has no origin and no end. The other `I' is born and also dies. It is impermanent. See to whom the changing thoughts belong. They will be found to arise after the `I'-thought. Hold the `I'-thought and they subside. Trace back the source of the `I'-thought. The Self alone will remain.

 

Question : It is difficult to follow. I understand the theory. But what is the practice?

Ramana Maharshi: The other methods are meant for those who cannot take to the investigation of the Self. Even to repeat aham Brahmasmi or think of it, a doer is necessary. Who is it? It is `I'. Be that `I'. It is the direct method. The other methods also will ultimately lead everyone to this method of the investigation of the Self.

 

Question : I am aware of the `I'. Yet my troubles are not ended.

Ramana Maharshi : This `I'-thought is not pure. It is contaminated with the association of the body and senses. See to whom the trouble is. It is to the `I'-thought. Hold it. Then the other thoughts vanish.

 

Question : Yes. How to do it? That is the whole trouble.

Ramana Maharshi : Think `I, I', and hold to that one thought to the exclusion of all others.

 

 

 

You have no idea of what is not you in everything so you have to do away with all

and just listen to the light move when you move

 

[C T]

Think of Pure Consciousness as boundless potential existing as a continuum of understanding, knowing and realization.

 

What has been understood, known and realized, if one clings on to these as though they were substantially real and concrete, will eventually permeate into the realm of self-consciousness where intellectual foundations and values get ascribed, and will therefore take on a reflective past and a projected future. The process of ascribing values and judgements based on the understood, the known and the realized creates clinging, and sows the seeds of future karmic consequences. Where there is clinging, dualistic views are unavoidable. Hence the allusion that if a person wants to attain total freedom, there has to be an equally total abandonment of all acquired knowledge, and all past experiences, good or bad, have to be seen thru as empty - without any power over the present.

 

Pure Consciousness on the other hand, i believe, exists always as the potential of Nowness, and therefore can never be a "known" phenomena. It is like an ongoing presence of Being. Every moment we can choose our thoughts and directions, IF we are mindful of mind. Positive, negative or neutral intent, emotions, thoughts and feelings can all be liberated only in this one present moment, never in the past or at some time in the future. These two states are the illusional glue that keeps one bound to the wheel of samsara.

[goldisheavy]

http://medhajournal.com/resident-philosoph...c-analysis.html

 

In light of so much confusion about what Consciousness is and whether it is a phenomenon or not, here's a masterful article written by a prof of Philosophy and of Physics.

 

A brief intro:

 

That's a long quote. I say it like this "awareness cannot be described in terms of its artifacts." But some people have trouble with abstract thought and can't comprehend this idea. This includes some Buddhists who insist on incorrectly reifying abstract. To those Buddhists, any noun whatsoever is a reification, thus a thing, thus something to negate, etc... It's basically a deficiency in the reasoning faculty due to not having enough contemplation under their belts.

Edited January 15, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Marblehead]

Thoughts are objects in consciousness. Think of Light and how it illuminates objects. Pure consciousness is like the Light and thoughts are like those objects, illuminated by consciousness. Like the article mentions, objects can be in both space and time or only time. Thoughts are objects/phenomena in time.

 

That is truely beautiful so I am repeating it.

 

Peace & Love!

[thuscomeone]

Thoughts are objects in consciousness. Think of Light and how it illuminates objects. Pure consciousness is like the Light and thoughts are like those objects, illuminated by consciousness. Like the article mentions, objects can be in both space and time or only time. Thoughts are objects/phenomena in time.

I'm still curious as to why you would divide the light which illuminates and the objects which are illuminated. It seems to me that they are the same thing.

[goldisheavy]

I'm still curious as to why you would divide the light which illuminates and the objects which are illuminated. It seems to me that they are the same thing.

 

Not same, not different. Old Zen Koan. If you say the same, I smack you 40 times. If you say different, I smack you 40 times. Haven't you heard it?

[dwai]

I'm still curious as to why you would divide the light which illuminates and the objects which are illuminated. It seems to me that they are the same thing.

 

Because there is a false identification with the objects, while forgetting about the light. The light can stand on it's own without any objects. Why? Because it is so. Objects are objects only because they are in the light. Otherwise they don't exist. I understand your line of questioning, but I think they are based on the mistaken premise that the Light and Objects don't have value without each other.

 

The objects don't have value without the light, but the light being self-existent and self-conscious (I'm not literally talking about Light here but consciousness), is perfectly happy to be it self (this is called Sat Chit Ananda of Existent Consciousness Bliss)

 

I know what your next question might be (potentially), as in, if Consciousness is self-existent and self-conscious, then why the need for this "ignorance"? Why are the objects needed at all?

 

Advaita's answer is that since Consciousness (Pure) cannot be categorized into a name of form, it cannot be objectively analyzed to find out the "Why". When one is stable in Objectless Consciousness, then neither the questions matter, nor any answers.

 

Sri Ramana's teachings and the traditional Advaitic school of thought pioneered by Sri Sankaracharya have many things in common. Sri Ramana often mentioned and is known to have encouraged study of the following classical works: Ashtavakra Gita, Ribhu Gita and Essence of Ribhu Gita, Yoga Vasista Sara,[40] Tripura Rahasya[[41]], Kaivalya Navaneetam,[42] Advaita Bodha Deepika,[43] and Ellam Ondre.[44] However, there are some practical differences with the traditional Advaitic school, which recommends a negationist neti, neti (Sanskrit, "not this", "not this") path, or mental affirmations that the Self was the only reality, such as "I am Brahman" or "I am He", while Sri Ramana advocates the enquiry "Nan Yar" (Tamil, "Who am I").

 

Drew, please read this article, written by another experienced scholar:

 

The Four Mahavakyas (Great Statements)

Edited January 15, 2010 by dwai

[Apech]

Interestingly, well interesting to me anyway, both words 'consciousness' and 'science' come from a root L. scire 'to know' which in turn comes from words which mean to 'cut through' hence decide. Science analytically cuts the world up to categorise and identify the objective world with the ultimate objective of being able to manipulate and control through technology (unless you are a pure scientist who might cut just to know). Science is successful because of its objectivity and its drive to break things down to their constituents to see how they work. But it is not great at reflexivity and it stumbles when it comes to the end points of the very big and the very small where the objective world gets a little elusive.

 

Consciousness then means 'con' - together/with, cutting to know - ability. Consciousness is that which knows. That which observes the cutting process. Like when we say "there's a tree over there" we divide our environmental continuum into parts in order to identify their form and function. The tree is the object, the observed, and the consciousness is the observer. You can look for any form or function from the grossest, densest stone to the most subtle form of energy and identify it. Give it a name, state its function and form. These are the apparent objects which we observe but what you can't do is make consciousness into an object. The observer is not the observed ... save that you might say that they both arise from a non-dual unconditionality which is beyond both.

 

Science has a problem with consciousness because it wants it to be an object. Or perhaps an effect arising from the interaction of objects ... like brain chemistry for instance or electrical nerve impulses. But this brings about all sorts of conceptual anomalies ... like how does something insensate become sentient through complexity and at what point does this happen. So although science can describe many processes in the body which relate to our awareness/consciousness it cannot explain how or why we are conscious in the first place (or at least I haven't read anything that successfully does this).

 

There also seems to be a confusion in mystical schools between those who use the term consciousness as being synonymous with the non-dual source (for want of a better term) and those which address the skhanda of consciousness which is as an attribute of the perception of objects does not exist in any sense independent of those supposed objects. I think this is just a kind terminological dispute and nothing more.

[voidisyinyang]

Dwai -- this amazing analysis of Ramana Maharshi quotes gives very detailed difference about "light" "sound" and "consciousness" -- also based on the Tamil versus the Sanskrit.

 

http://davidgodman.org/rteach/iandii1.shtml

 

Because there is a false identification with the objects, while forgetting about the light. The light can stand on it's own without any objects. Why? Because it is so. Objects are objects only because they are in the light. Otherwise they don't exist. I understand your line of questioning, but I think they are based on the mistaken premise that the Light and Objects don't have value without each other.

 

The objects don't have value without the light, but the light being self-existent and self-conscious (I'm not literally talking about Light here but consciousness), is perfectly happy to be it self (this is called Sat Chit Ananda of Existent Consciousness Bliss)

 

I know what your next question might be (potentially), as in, if Consciousness is self-existent and self-conscious, then why the need for this "ignorance"? Why are the objects needed at all?

 

Advaita's answer is that since Consciousness (Pure) cannot be categorized into a name of form, it cannot be objectively analyzed to find out the "Why". When one is stable in Objectless Consciousness, then neither the questions matter, nor any answers.

Drew, please read this article, written by another experienced scholar:

 

The Four Mahavakyas (Great Statements)

[thuscomeone]

Not same, not different. Old Zen Koan. If you say the same, I smack you 40 times. If you say different, I smack you 40 times. Haven't you heard it?

Oh cut that out. This is one reason I sometimes don't like zen. These little games and ambiguous sayings rather than just getting down to business and cutting through the bullshit. I'm not interested in that anymore. I'm interested in clear distinctions between right knowledge and wrong knowledge. I certainly have heard this koan. And It doesn't mean that there are no correct conceptual answers, if that is what you are implying. Ever heard of "right view?" You think Zen masters don't believe in right and wrong answers? Read some dogen and get back to me. What happened to concepts are no different than non conceptuality?

 

Because there is a false identification with the objects, while forgetting about the light. The light can stand on it's own without any objects. Why? Because it is so. Objects are objects only because they are in the light. Otherwise they don't exist. I understand your line of questioning, but I think they are based on the mistaken premise that the Light and Objects don't have value without each other.

 

The objects don't have value without the light, but the light being self-existent and self-conscious (I'm not literally talking about Light here but consciousness), is perfectly happy to be it self (this is called Sat Chit Ananda of Existent Consciousness Bliss)

 

I know what your next question might be (potentially), as in, if Consciousness is self-existent and self-conscious, then why the need for this "ignorance"? Why are the objects needed at all?

 

Advaita's answer is that since Consciousness (Pure) cannot be categorized into a name of form, it cannot be objectively analyzed to find out the "Why". When one is stable in Objectless Consciousness, then neither the questions matter, nor any answers.

Drew, please read this article, written by another experienced scholar:

 

The Four Mahavakyas (Great Statements)

Ok, from my experience and study there are The 5 sensory consciousness', the thinking/ideation consciousness and the alaya. None of these are self existent/independent or unchanging. Try as I may, I can't find this self existent consciousness that you are talking about here. And I can't find any sort of watcher or pure subject which is witnessing the thoughts and which stands apart from the thoughts. That is you seem to be saying that there is consciousness as a light which illuminates and then there is a thought. So if I have a thought at this moment, that means there are two things involved, the light and the thought. Yet all I find from moment to moment is thought/thinking, hearing, seeing, etc. going by in rapid succession. If one were to presume that there is this light which is behind thoughts, I could only say that it couldn't be other than the thoughts themselves because the thoughts are all I can find! So then for me, there are not two things - the light/subject and the thought/object. In a moment of thinking, these two are completely one/inseparable/undivided in my own experience.

Edited January 16, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh cut that out. This is one reason I sometimes don't like zen. These little games and ambiguous sayings rather than just getting down to business and cutting through the bullshit. I'm not interested in that anymore. I'm interested in clear distinctions between right knowledge and wrong knowledge. I certainly have heard this koan. And It doesn't mean that there are no correct conceptual answers, if that is what you are implying. Ever heard of "right view?" You think Zen masters don't believe in right and wrong answers? Read some dogen and get back to me. What happened to concepts are no different than non conceptuality?

No the koans are there to destroy your established ways of conceptualization, of the meaning of "being one" or "being two" and apply it to experiential insight.

 

Ok, from my experience and study there are The 5 sensory consciousness', the thinking/ideation consciousness and the alaya. None of these are self existent/independent or unchanging. Try as I may, I can't find this self existent consciousness that you are talking about here. And I can't find any sort of watcher or pure subject which is witnessing the thoughts and which stands apart from the thoughts. That is you seem to be saying that there is consciousness as a light which illuminates and then there is a thought. So if I have a thought at this moment, that means there are two things involved, the light and the thought. Yet all I find from moment to moment is thought/thinking, hearing, seeing, etc. going by in rapid succession. If one were to presume that there is this light which is behind thoughts, I could only say that it couldn't be other than the thoughts themselves because the thoughts are all I can find! So then for me, there are not two things - the light/subject and the thought/object. In a moment of thinking, these two are completely one/inseparable/undivided in my own experience.

 

Space and the object within that space are not one, not two. Time and events that take place in time are not one, not two. Existence and awareness of existence is not one, not two.

 

Space is not limited to a particular object, but necessitates "objectness" or absence of "objectness," time is not limited to a particular event, but necessitates "eventness" or "eventlessness,"

 

Same applies to existence.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited January 16, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Lucky7Strike: You have a false understanding of what 'Awareness' is. Awareness is not attention.

 

Without thought, nor any intention to fixate your attention anywhere, just pause (relax without 'doing') for a moment... in that gap, just a luminous but formless sense of Being and Presence.

 

When you look at a thought, a form, you discover that it is the same vivid presence and empty, but the difference is that it is not experience as a moment of thoughtless Being/I AM. It is just pure sound, pure sight, pure thought. The sheer presence does not have a subject/object duality, it just IS.

 

You just have to practice and experience, more posts by me would be useless. All the enlightened masters, not just a few, have said the same things, and you wouldn't listen. Just be more open minded and investigate further, don't stop at any conclusions.

 

 

p.s. the Mahamudra instructions of Pointing Out Innate Mind (which leads to I AM insight), and then the Pointing Out Innate Thought and Pointing Out Innate (sensory) Perceptions, both which leads to non-dual anatta and emptiness insights, is quite useful and I believe something similar to what I said above.

 

I highly recommend 'Clarifying the Natural State' by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal to those interested. Good and not too lengthy Mahamudra guide.

Edited January 16, 2010 by xabir2005

[dwai]

Oh cut that out. This is one reason I sometimes don't like zen. These little games and ambiguous sayings rather than just getting down to business and cutting through the bullshit. I'm not interested in that anymore. I'm interested in clear distinctions between right knowledge and wrong knowledge. I certainly have heard this koan. And It doesn't mean that there are no correct conceptual answers, if that is what you are implying. Ever heard of "right view?" You think Zen masters don't believe in right and wrong answers? Read some dogen and get back to me. What happened to concepts are no different than non conceptuality?

Ok, from my experience and study there are The 5 sensory consciousness', the thinking/ideation consciousness and the alaya. None of these are self existent/independent or unchanging. Try as I may, I can't find this self existent consciousness that you are talking about here. And I can't find any sort of watcher or pure subject which is witnessing the thoughts and which stands apart from the thoughts. That is you seem to be saying that there is consciousness as a light which illuminates and then there is a thought. So if I have a thought at this moment, that means there are two things involved, the light and the thought. Yet all I find from moment to moment is thought/thinking, hearing, seeing, etc. going by in rapid succession. If one were to presume that there is this light which is behind thoughts, I could only say that it couldn't be other than the thoughts themselves because the thoughts are all I can find! So then for me, there are not two things - the light/subject and the thought/object. In a moment of thinking, these two are completely one/inseparable/undivided in my own experience.

 

Meditate on the gap between thoughts. No fancy techniques are needed...just some good Yoga/pranayama and lie in shavasana till it happens. It will happen and will happen in sudden jumps and each jump takes you deeper into the gap. All this Alaya etc is simply a bunch of words being retrofitted to explain something that is inexplicable. Shankaracharya's critique on Alaya Vijnana is a very useful read. He showed that Alaya Vijnana is simply an elaborate effort to try and prove the concept of Anatta, while in reality there is an Atta (or Atman).

 

This elaborate construct of what is beyond Consciousness etc is simply more categorical framework, albeit under the false assumption that it is a "dissolver of all frameworks".

Edited January 16, 2010 by dwai