What is the source of experience?

[dwai]

http://naturalresona...ole-lasers.html

 

existence is the source of experience

[Marblehead]

existence is the source of experience

 

That is a very deep statement but I must agree with it. Of course, I would place my limits on it. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[Brian]

...

[Marblehead]

I am, therefore I think.

 

And sometimes I don't think but I still am.

 

Peace & Love!

[Brian]

...

[Vajrahridaya]

Awareness..

 

But what causes awareness?

[Vajrahridaya]

I agree. Although we may have the concept of "infinite regress" or "cause and conditions" it is impossible to know the entire matrix of the interwoven events that bring about the present. Since we are a part of it, we can never step out of it objectively and see what it is.

 

You can through realizing emptiness, but only internally, not externally in ones expression of the insight. Expression will always be subjective, even though this experience helps gain detachment and more objectivity in ones expression. This is known as the Brahma Siddhi, the super power of being able to talk directly to different people at the same time, directly to their level of comprehension. This is considered one of a Buddhas super natural powers.

[Lucky7Strikes]

You can through realizing emptiness, but only internally, not externally in ones expression of the insight. Expression will always be subjective, even though this experience helps gain detachment and more objectivity in ones expression.

If you mean internally--as in the insight comes effortlessly and not analytically, then I agree. But I don't think one would sit there and see the entire interconnected matrix of the universe, that would mean one is somehow viewing the universe separately...only knowledge one has is of his own path and history, own way of liberation, and the teaching is, I believe, simply another practice. I don't think teaching others and self-mastery is that different.

 

This is known as the Brahma Siddhi, the super power of being able to talk directly to different people at the same time, directly to their level of comprehension. This is considered one of a Buddhas super natural powers.

That Siddhi sounds like spontaneous perfection. When one's energies and actions continuously transform to harmonize with whatever he faces. I've heard of masters who have openly demonstrated this on an energetic level. .

[goldisheavy]

Has Awareness always existed! Without beginning and without cause? How can you know this?

 

You can infer it, reliably. How? All you have to do is examine the edges, namely start and finish. Does awareness have a start? That would imply that without any context an experience appears. And what do we know about all experiences? All experiences are contextualized and only have meaning within some specific context. Thus awareness can't have a start, because for a start to be recognized as a start, it would need to be experientially preceded by something. For example, if I click a start button on my stop-watch, there is obviously a time before the click, thus "start" makes sense. If a human is born, there is life before that birth, from the point of view of parents. So from POV of parents, birth is a start, since there is "before birth" context. Thus, awareness ultimately cannot come ex-nihilo (from nothing). It need context to pre-exist the starting point in order for starting point to make sense.

 

The end can be analyzed similarly.

 

Thus awareness has neither start nor end. Only particular objects within awareness have start and end, but not awareness itself. This is a reliable inference. You can take it to the bank.

 

In general, edge and boundary analysis is one of the strongest tools in the toolbox to demolish pretty much any erroneous view.

Edited August 11, 2010 by goldisheavy

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

You can infer it, reliably. How? All you have to do is examine the edges, namely start and finish. Does awareness have a start? That would imply that without any context an experience appears. And what do we know about all experiences? All experiences are contextualized and only have meaning within some specific context. Thus awareness can't have a start, because for a start to be recognized as a start, it would need to be experientially preceded by something. For example, if I click a start button on my stop-watch, there is obviously a time before the click, thus "start" makes sense. If a human is born, there is life before that birth, from the point of view of parents. So from POV of parents, birth is a start, since there is "before birth" context. Thus, awareness ultimately cannot come ex-nihilo (from nothing). It need context to pre-exist the starting point in order for starting point to make sense.

 

The end can be analyzed similarly.

 

Thus awareness has neither start nor end. Only particular objects within awareness have start and end, but not awareness itself. This is a reliable inference. You can take it to the bank.

 

In general, edge and boundary analysis is one of the strongest tools in the toolbox to demolish pretty much any erroneous view.

Sorry, but this is only an inference, GIH. Awareness could come from Divine Spark. It is more reasonable to take on your argument, but you cannot rule out God as source of awareness.

 

By your reasoning, the Big Bang would could not have happened. It too, is a start, but was not experientially preceded by anything.

Edited August 11, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Lucky7Strikes]

You can infer it, reliably. How? All you have to do is examine the edges, namely start and finish. Does awareness have a start? That would imply that without any context an experience appears. And what do we know about all experiences? All experiences are contextualized and only have meaning within some specific context. Thus awareness can't have a start, because for a start to be recognized as a start, it would need to be experientially preceded by something. For example, if I click a start button on my stop-watch, there is obviously a time before the click, thus "start" makes sense. If a human is born, there is life before that birth, from the point of view of parents. So from POV of parents, birth is a start, since there is "before birth" context. Thus, awareness ultimately cannot come ex-nihilo (from nothing). It need context to pre-exist the starting point in order for starting point to make sense.

 

The end can be analyzed similarly.

 

Thus awareness has neither start nor end. Only particular objects within awareness have start and end, but not awareness itself. This is a reliable inference. You can take it to the bank.

 

In general, edge and boundary analysis is one of the strongest tools in the toolbox to demolish pretty much any erroneous view.

So since awareness has its context by its objects...

 

Or how do we know awareness? By itself? But then that also wouldn't make sense...

 

Then can we say awareness is a thing apart from the objects?

 

Is it a thing? A non-thing?

 

Perhaps a characteristic.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

That Siddhi sounds like spontaneous perfection. When one's energies and actions continuously transform to harmonize with whatever he faces. I've heard of masters who have openly demonstrated this on an energetic level. .

 

It has a lot to do with seeing directly from the point of view of the big bang of this particular universe that one physically inhabits. One can see the beginning of everyone inhabiting this particular universe through seeing with the Brahma eye.

[Marblehead]

You can infer it, reliably. How?

 

I'm reading but will remain silent.

 

Peace & Love!

[dwai]

You can infer it, reliably. How? All you have to do is examine the edges, namely start and finish. Does awareness have a start? That would imply that without any context an experience appears. And what do we know about all experiences? All experiences are contextualized and only have meaning within some specific context. Thus awareness can't have a start, because for a start to be recognized as a start, it would need to be experientially preceded by something. For example, if I click a start button on my stop-watch, there is obviously a time before the click, thus "start" makes sense. If a human is born, there is life before that birth, from the point of view of parents. So from POV of parents, birth is a start, since there is "before birth" context. Thus, awareness ultimately cannot come ex-nihilo (from nothing). It need context to pre-exist the starting point in order for starting point to make sense.

 

The end can be analyzed similarly.

 

Thus awareness has neither start nor end. Only particular objects within awareness have start and end, but not awareness itself. This is a reliable inference. You can take it to the bank.

 

In general, edge and boundary analysis is one of the strongest tools in the toolbox to demolish pretty much any erroneous view.

 

I would only change the word Awareness with Consciousness...but this is perfect!

[Lucky7Strikes]

It has a lot to do with seeing directly from the point of view of the big bang of this particular universe that one physically inhabits. One can see the beginning of everyone inhabiting this particular universe through seeing with the Brahma eye.

Ok well, I'll believe it when I see it!

[gendao]

Duality creates the 2-sided separation known as "experience & experiencer."

Without duality, this distinguishment ceases into a 0-sided coin.

[Marblehead]

Duality creates the 2-sided separation known as "experience & experiencer."

Without duality, this distinguishment ceases into a 0-sided coin.

 

This is true, I think. But then I doubt that any of us can live our life in a non-dualistic state. Our brain doesn't work that way.

 

Peace & Love!

[zurdoki]

Gravity .. then the space in the middle when a dog is chasing its tail. Umm The Tao or if its the divine spark which part? There is the part that comes from the divine, the part that returns to the divine and the part that connects us others. Maybe just the essence of the spark. Divine Love.

[Mark Foote]

 

Still, if your current experience is based on a previous one then the gap for error must be pretty large. Better to just look at what's going on in front of you I guess.

 

 

 

Interesting. The door to unknowing, the true person going in and out of the holes in our face. It may be that there's a mobius strip in thought that turns to the experience of mind rather than the content. The source of experience, the source of action beyond doubt. Not the same as "do, or not do; no try"; action beyond doubt has no point of reference, it's not that there is no practice and verification, only that practice and verification are undefiled!

 

Chocolate chip, use Gittard chips, rapadura sugar, and substitute 1/8 cup brandy for the vanilla.

[innerspace_cadet]

What is the source of experience?

 

Stimuli making contact with conscious awareness. Mountains do not feel the wind, let alone "experience" it because they are inanimate objects. So I would say life is the source of experience.

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok well, I'll believe it when I see it!

 

I wouldn't think otherwise. Just be open to the possibility. I didn't have to try... it all unfolded naturally for me. Though, I don't often have the brahma siddhi working in my favor. I have lots of purification to do first.

[Vajrahridaya]

View Postgoldisheavy, on 10 August 2010 - 08:44 PM, said:

You can infer it, reliably. How? All you have to do is examine the edges, namely start and finish. Does awareness have a start? That would imply that without any context an experience appears. And what do we know about all experiences? All experiences are contextualized and only have meaning within some specific context. Thus awareness can't have a start, because for a start to be recognized as a start, it would need to be experientially preceded by something. For example, if I click a start button on my stop-watch, there is obviously a time before the click, thus "start" makes sense. If a human is born, there is life before that birth, from the point of view of parents. So from POV of parents, birth is a start, since there is "before birth" context. Thus, awareness ultimately cannot come ex-nihilo (from nothing). It need context to pre-exist the starting point in order for starting point to make sense.

 

The end can be analyzed similarly.

 

Thus awareness has neither start nor end. Only particular objects within awareness have start and end, but not awareness itself. This is a reliable inference. You can take it to the bank.

 

In general, edge and boundary analysis is one of the strongest tools in the toolbox to demolish pretty much any erroneous view.

 

All of this is spoken about in the formless jhanas by the Buddha which of course can be directly experienced. You are talking about the Jhana of infinite consciousness, where one has awareness free of boundaries. It's the oceanic bliss experience seeing all from a very deep birds eye view, including ones own karmic shell. This still arises dependently and is not the source of experience. Though the endless coming together of elements in a particular way giving rise to an individual conscious sentient mind stream since beginningless time would be more close to an observation of a source of experience within the scope of infinite regress. This has to do with seeing the 12 links directly.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

This is true, I think. But then I doubt that any of us can live our life in a non-dualistic state. Our brain doesn't work that way.

 

Peace & Love!

Don't let speculations bind you and go for direct experience/realization.

 

I can assure you life goes on quite well in recognition of non-duality.

 

Actions arise, without doer.

 

Seeing happens, without seer.

 

Hearing happens, without hearer.

[Marblehead]

Don't let speculations bind you and go for direct experience/realization.

 

I can assure you life goes on quite well in recognition of non-duality.

 

I actually agree with you here although the condition is very difficult to attain and maintain.

 

Actions arise, without doer.

 

Seeing happens, without seer.

 

Hearing happens, without hearer.

 

Now you know that I cannot agree with this. Hehehe.

 

I do understand what you are pointing at, it is just that I am a holder of the concept of 'cause and effect'.

 

If there is an effect, there was a cause. Things don't just happen spontaniously.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Now you know that I cannot agree with this. Hehehe.

 

I do understand what you are pointing at, it is just that I am a holder of the concept of 'cause and effect'.

 

If there is an effect, there was a cause. Things don't just happen spontaniously.

 

Peace & Love!

 

He does as well. He's just saying that because your idea of self is merely a coagulated affair in each moment of aggregated conditions that there is no real and true self to be found, just a relative self that ceases to bind one's experience when awareness is expanded beyond itself.