Consciousness is Not Eternal

[Lucky7Strikes]

In Thusness's words, there is no ultimate reality, but the ultimate truth in buddhism is emptiness. Everything is realized to be empty, including consciousness. There isn't even dependent origination (dependent origination is empty). Thusness: "No body, no mind, no dependent origination, no nothing, no something, no birth, no death. Profoundly deconstructed and emptied! Just vivid shimmering appearances as Primordial Suchness in one whole seamless unobstructed-interpenetration."

What do you classify as beyond physical realm? I think in Buddhism only the 4 formless jhanas are considered beyond physical, (I am thinking that perhaps samadhi/absorption in oceanic I AM and in nothingness would correspond to jhana of infinite consciousness and nothingness) as well as utter cessation of nirodha samadhi. In these states, there can be utter oblivion of the body, the five senses may be shut, and yet there it is - infinite consciousness, nothingness, etc. Also he has plenty of experiences, including visiting other planes/realms, seeing Buddhas, etc, do you consider these beyond body and mind? Again he does not reveal too much to me, and even if he does, I cannot reveal too much as well.

Let me put it this way: Anatta as a realization clears up all delusions, grasping, projection, confusion, views, etc... that which obscures the effortless, total, seamless experience of Presence.

 

For, as long as there is the slightest view of duality, of inherency, there will be no seamless, effortless and liberating experience of Presence.

 

Just an example: the holding on to a Self, a background (which is only a dead image of a previous non-dual experience being reified), prevents effortless experience of Presence as foreground sensations. (and this is only part of it, not all)

 

Being very clear, luminous, present, may not necessarily lead to anatta realization... it also requires a certain form of investigation and contemplation.

 

Non-conceptual presence isn't all there is to the path... even a conceptual right view can also help, in fact it is a good 'raft'.

Is Thusness omniscient? If not how can he conclude about reality. I always thought Thusness was just sharing his experiences and what he has seen, not making a claim about the nature of everything. At least I've never seen a post of his saying that the world is like that or like this. It's always centered around experience. No?

 

Can you share what Thusness has shared about other planes and realms and the Buddhas? I don't see why you can't share them. Also if he sees the deconstruction of things, can he also reconstruct from what he sees?

 

From my perspective, anatta is the deepening of the direct experience of presence. As long as you don't conceptualize presence, it naturally obliterates the sense of individual self or objective selves. Also isnt being in presence contemplation? Or do you contemplate by thinking? So imo non-conceptual presence is probably all there is to the path. Everything goes from there. You can conceptualize all you want for a million years. But it won't get you anywhere. You conceptualize so that you no longer conceptualize. Realization doesn't happen in the head does it?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[gatito]

You have different terminology of 'mind'.

 

What I said is just a statement "Consciousness is all there is." "Consciousness alone is".

 

i.e. Everything is only Consciousness, which isn't many.

 

Advaita is reducing everything to Self.

 

OK - but if we're going to discuss this we need to agree our terms.

 

There are (apparently ) many minds.

 

"One Mind" is not advaita and mind is not Knowing/Being or Consciousness.

[gatito]

Excellent point of consideration. I am reminded to keep that in mind every now and again.

 

Proof is with the beholder, isn't it?

 

Spot on!!

[xabir2005]

It's always centered around experience. No?

Yes it is about discovering the nature of mind.

Can you share what Thusness has shared about other planes and realms and the Buddhas? I don't see why you can't share them. Also if he sees the deconstruction of things, can he also reconstruct from what he sees?

He does not want to talk about these things for some reason. Especially to me. (he actually told others more than he told me, lol) Though I briefly heard a bit.

 

I don't understand what you mean by reconstruct from what one sees... reconstruct = forming a coherent image of things?

 

I think the point in deconstruction is more about seeing through the falsehood of something... for example what was thought to be self, solid, is upon investigation a coreless aggregate, just like Vajira Sutta

 

"What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?

Do you take a position?

This is purely a pile of fabrications.

Here no living being

can be pinned down.

 

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,

there's the word,

chariot,

even so when aggregates are present,

there's the convention of

living being.

 

For only stress is what comes to be;

stress, what remains & falls away.

Nothing but stress comes to be.

Nothing ceases but stress."

 

 

.... now of course, knowing that there is no 'core' of the 'assemblage of parts' does not prevent us from knowing the names, conventions, and using them.

From my perspective, anatta is the deepening of the direct experience of presence. As long as you don't conceptualize presence, it naturally obliterates the sense of individual self or objective selves. Also isnt being in presence contemplation? Or do you contemplate by thinking? So imo non-conceptual presence is probably all there is to the path. Everything goes from there. You can conceptualize all you want for a million years. But it won't get you anywhere. You conceptualize so that you no longer conceptualize. Realization doesn't happen in the head does it?

At the peak of presence, there is no sense of self/Self, and this is similar to what AF calls PCE.

 

But PCE does not necessarily result in insight of anatta.

 

Insight of anatta requires you to 'see', to 'realize' the falsehood of an observer, a medium of agent, that is behind perception... it requires you to realize the truth of what is stated in Thusness's two stanzas of anatta.

 

It requires you to see through the false constructs and views of an inherent self or subject in a moment of realization.

 

Otherwise, PCEs can just come and go... as it had for many people (and arguably according to Richard, everyone has it before). Then it becomes a mere state or experience that one seeks to achieve, and nothing is realized, the false view of self continues.

 

But after insight of anatta, PCE becomes natural, effortless, seamless. That is why Thusness gave me an advise years back, not to over-focus on the effect (PCE), but on the 'cause' - the insight (of anatta). A lot of people are cultivating the PCE/No Mind experience via non-conceptuality and being naked in awareness, but they overlook the 'cause' which leads to effortlessness and seamlessness.

 

'Anatta' is not realized through a purely conceptual process... it is not about 'figuring things out intellectually', but it does require a kind of experiential investigation that challenges the view of a self.

 

As Thusness said a long long time ago:

 

(9:12 PM) Thusness: no mind is an experience, it is not an insight

(9:14 PM) Thusness: ppl that have experienced no-mind knows there is such experience and aims towards achieving it again.

(9:14 PM) Thusness: but insight is different...it is a direct experiential realization.

(9:14 PM) Thusness: that all along it is so.

Edited July 23, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

OK - but if we're going to discuss this we need to agree our terms.

 

There are (apparently ) many minds.

 

"One Mind" is not advaita and mind is not Knowing/Being or Consciousness.

I use mind/consciousness synonymously but I do understand your terms and distinctions.

[dwai]

I use mind/consciousness synonymously but I do understand your terms and distinctions.

What many folks call mind/consciousness is actually a field of thoughts in consciousness....a stream of objects actually. It is akin to debris floating on water, not the water itslf. The water is Consciousness, which exists irrespective of the mind (ie whether you are in mind-state or in no-mind state).

 

The biggest problem of translating untranslatables of sanskrit into english is the fact that there isnt really an equivalent in english...so we end up relying on approximations...

[dwai]

To respond to a few points raised:

 

What is consciousness? I'm taking consciousness to mean awareness, sentience, knowing. I'm open to other definitions.

 

Do I have an experience of deep sleep? I do not. Do others?

 

For me, sleeping is full of various states of consciousness, but at some point, all awareness disappears. The feeling of continuity of sleep is caused, perhaps, by forgotten states of consciousness (dreams, quasi-waking, etc.) than by a continuity of awareness. This also happens at a certain point during certain meditations. Awareness becomes so attenuated, then it is gone.

 

I understand the gaps between thoughts. But what about the gaps between consciousness?

 

My waking consciousness appears to be the same--- the subject appears to be the same each day. Yet I cannot say it is continuous.

 

In turiya, ie state of no thoughts, you are essentially awake with no mind objects. There are no objects but there is awareness...it is not a dead void but emptiness that is alive. It s difficult to find words to express...it simply is.

 

Gaps between consciousness? You mean memory of being being conscious, right?

 

The knowlege of whether you feel you are consious or not, is an intellectual analysis. so gaps in consiousness are only gaps in remembrance...imho, there never is a gap in consciousness. Even so called deep sleep...there have been eperiments done in which subjects are awakened from deep sleep and they remember dreams.

 

So deep sleep is not even turiya...as o why we dont remember? I cant say....

[Fū Yue]

 

So deep sleep is not even turiya...as o why we dont remember? I cant say....

 

Everyone remembers deep sleep IMO, they just don't do anything while in that very subtle state of consciousness so it leaves little impression, or a feeling of there being a 'gap'. Actually that gap was what their awareness was engrossed in at that point in time (ignorance of light or nurturing darkness). I've tracked awareness into the deep sleep state, and have found that there is still form (sound, color) and emptiness (bindu), you are just inside of the heart rather than having pierced it, so if you make a noise (thought, memory, music) it bounces off of all directions and returns back to itself, causing bliss.

[gatito]

What many folks call mind/consciousness is actually a field of thoughts in consciousness....a stream of objects actually. It is akin to debris floating on water, not the water itslf. The water is Consciousness, which exists irrespective of the mind (ie whether you are in mind-state or in no-mind state).

 

The biggest problem of translating untranslatables of sanskrit into english is the fact that there isnt really an equivalent in english...so we end up relying on approximations...

 

Yes. "Mind" is just the present thought appearing in Consciousness.

 

And when it's examined even more closely, there's no evidence found that there was ever anything but the present thought.

[Seth Ananda]

I see consciousness as ongoing myself, as nothing interupts it. A pause in thinking, falling asleep, getting put under anesthetic, eating breakfast, beating off in front of a pegasus or anything you can name.

 

Consciousness was there before it began, was there during it, and is there when it ends...

 

Tibetan Buddhism calls it the Alaya vijnana, and has many ways of describing how a Yogi might get stuck there, as it feels and seems eternal, which it pretty much is. It is with you from life to life, and contains all previous memories and if full of bliss and beingness and so on. That all makes it pretty easy to get there and go Wow! I Made it!

 

One of the ways they get around this fact is with decontruction {a thought process within awareness} of awareness/consciousness. they come up with complex arguments, showing that hearing awareness is different to seeing awareness, and that each moment of awareness is karmicly tied to whatever it is percieving, and thus awareness is not 'really' ongoing, but as each moment passess it seamlessly flows into a new 'moment' of awareness, and thus seems to be ongoing.

 

I personally don't think it really matters if you see awareness as really ongoing and eternal, or if you see it as being an ongoing eternal string of Impermanent moments of awareness [that lasts forever lol].

 

For me the Important thing is to not set up camp there with a "WooHoo! Now I have got it!" but if you do have it, thats exellent work so far by the way, so Gratz!

 

 

That awareness is actually part of our Buddha mind. Rigpa for instance is described as 'Seeing the Inseperability of Awareness, Emptiness and Luminosity.

 

Buddha Mind is not destroyed by Death. One is now Immortal. free to send out emenations, into different realms to help ease the suffering of sentient beings everywhere...

[gatito]

Everyone remembers deep sleep IMO, they just don't do anything while in that very subtle state of consciousness so it leaves little impression, or a feeling of there being a 'gap'. Actually that gap was what their awareness was engrossed in at that point in time (ignorance of light or nurturing darkness). I've tracked awareness into the deep sleep state, and have found that there is still form (sound, color) and emptiness (bindu), you are just inside of the heart rather than having pierced it, so if you make a noise (thought, memory, music) it bounces off of all directions and returns back to itself, causing bliss.

 

At the risk of being boring and repetitive I'm going to repost the link to what Rupert Spira says about this question. Here he deals with the question both from a provisional acceptance of a seeker's belief that time exists and from a deeper perspective. IMO he really nails it!! :-

 

http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/read/the_experience_of_deep_sleep

 

You could easily spend a few years contemplating this.

 

It would not be wasted time!!!

[deci belle]

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes it is about discovering the nature of mind.

That sounds a bit limiting. Once you figure out the mind, you will be satisfied?

 

I don't understand what you mean by reconstruct from what one sees... reconstruct = forming a coherent image of things?

Deconstruction of your entire karmic conditioning and the ability to reconstruct one's actions. Like how they say bodhisattvas can choose where to be born, or some able to construct their entire bodies for a certain purpose.

[dwai]

I see consciousness as ongoing myself, as nothing interupts it. A pause in thinking, falling asleep, getting put under anesthetic, eating breakfast, beating off in front of a pegasus or anything you can name.

 

Consciousness was there before it began, was there during it, and is there when it ends...

 

Tibetan Buddhism calls it the Alaya vijnana, and has many ways of describing how a Yogi might get stuck there, as it feels and seems eternal, which it pretty much is. It is with you from life to life, and contains all previous memories and if full of bliss and beingness and so on. That all makes it pretty easy to get there and go Wow! I Made it!

 

One of the ways they get around this fact is with decontruction {a thought process within awareness} of awareness/consciousness. they come up with complex arguments, showing that hearing awareness is different to seeing awareness, and that each moment of awareness is karmicly tied to whatever it is percieving, and thus awareness is not 'really' ongoing, but as each moment passess it seamlessly flows into a new 'moment' of awareness, and thus seems to be ongoing.

 

I personally don't think it really matters if you see awareness as really ongoing and eternal, or if you see it as being an ongoing eternal string of Impermanent moments of awareness [that lasts forever lol].

 

For me the Important thing is to not set up camp there with a "WooHoo! Now I have got it!" but if you do have it, thats exellent work so far by the way, so Gratz!

 

 

That awareness is actually part of our Buddha mind. Rigpa for instance is described as 'Seeing the Inseperability of Awareness, Emptiness and Luminosity.

 

Buddha Mind is not destroyed by Death. One is now Immortal. free to send out emenations, into different realms to help ease the suffering of sentient beings everywhere...

 

Alaya vijnana is a clever way to try and fit a round peg in a square hole

It explains nothing, only muddies the water. I find infinite streams of eternally flowing consciousness interconnected with each other a far more complicated and therefore inadequate explanation of the eternal consciousness experienced, that is simple in its solitariness

[Birch]

Alaya vijnana is a clever way to try and fit a round peg in a square hole

It explains nothing, only muddies the water. I find infinite streams of eternally flowing consciousness interconnected with each other a far more complicated and therefore inadequate explanation of the eternal consciousness experienced, that is simple in its solitariness

10,000 things and (although it's not and as much as it is 'both') Tao?

[Marblehead]

... would it be acceptable to posit the essential living aware vital energy of human being as coeval with the unborn undying tao?

No.

 

Hehehe.

 

You really don't want me to expound on that answer, I'm sure.

[Marblehead]

10,000 things and (although it's not and as much as it is 'both') Tao?

But between the two there needed be the energies of the universe.

 

We can call it Chi or we can call it, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnatism, and gravity.

 

Personally, I like Chi better.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Alaya vijnana is a clever way to try and fit a round peg in a square hole

It explains nothing, only muddies the water. I find infinite streams of eternally flowing consciousness interconnected with each other a far more complicated and therefore inadequate explanation of the eternal consciousness experienced, that is simple in its solitariness

It only muddies the water of your beliefs. In the end to you or me at this point neither the idea that there are streams of flowing consciousness or one eternal consciousness mean nothing but theories, because we don't have the means to prove sufficiently to ourselves their reality. Theses ideas mean just as much as believing in a spaghetti monster or a man with a beard who made each one of us. Have any such theory only appeases our past upbringings or identification with a religion/belief system. That's what the mind does most of the time anyway: make imaginary alliances and problems only to struggle to justify itself and finally appease a self-made burden.

 

To have a strict idea of the world, as you might believe there is an eternal consciousness, is a great hindrance to direct seeing of reality.

[Fū Yue]

we don't have the means to prove sufficiently to ourselves their reality.

 

That's not true. You have the light as your constant, faithful companion. The illumination of day-to-day life is the greatest and most powerful tool.

[Lucky7Strikes]

That's not true. You have the light as your constant, faithful companion. The illumination of day-to-day life is the greatest and most powerful tool.

I said "at this point."

 

And no, day to day life just shows day to day life, it doesn't show that consciousness is eternal. Mundane day to day awareness of mind, body, and inner energies should be seen for what it is and nothing more or less. It surely doesn't tell you that consciousness is eternal.

 

Whether or not it can be illuminated or expanded to a greater degree to reveal ourselves is a different question. It's like if you have a binocular you shouldn't conclude from what you see of the stars their reality just by pointing the lens at the sky. But it doesn't mean there isn't a possibility to improve it to a telescope from the principle of the lens construction.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

What many folks call mind/consciousness is actually a field of thoughts in consciousness....a stream of objects actually. It is akin to debris floating on water, not the water itslf. The water is Consciousness, which exists irrespective of the mind (ie whether you are in mind-state or in no-mind state).

 

The biggest problem of translating untranslatables of sanskrit into english is the fact that there isnt really an equivalent in english...so we end up relying on approximations...

I understand, but I am not the 'many folks'.

 

When I say mind, I mean absolutely, consciousness. I don't mean a thought or idea in your head.

Edited July 24, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Yes. "Mind" is just the present thought appearing in Consciousness.

 

And when it's examined even more closely, there's no evidence found that there was ever anything but the present thought.

That 'appearing in Consciousness' is eventually seen through. Consciousness, once taken to be a substance and substratum of all things, is discovered to be just this present thought. Even the non-conceptual pure sense of beingness, consciousness and presence prior to senses or concepts, once reified into a background Self, that too is discovered to be a non-conceptual thought manifestation. In other words always only (foreground) manifestation, including seeing, hearing, etc. This is anatta. There is no agent, no background, no observer behind perception and thoughts.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html

 

"When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence."

Edited July 24, 2012 by xabir2005

[dwai]

I understand, but I am not the 'many folks'.

 

When I say mind, I mean absolutely, consciousness. I don't mean a thought or idea in your head.

Well then you ARE one of the 'many'.

[dwai]

It only muddies the water of your beliefs. In the end to you or me at this point neither the idea that there are streams of flowing consciousness or one eternal consciousness mean nothing but theories, because we don't have the means to prove sufficiently to ourselves their reality. Theses ideas mean just as much as believing in a spaghetti monster or a man with a beard who made each one of us. Have any such theory only appeases our past upbringings or identification with a religion/belief system. That's what the mind does most of the time anyway: make imaginary alliances and problems only to struggle to justify itself and finally appease a self-made burden.

 

To have a strict idea of the world, as you might believe there is an eternal consciousness, is a great hindrance to direct seeing of reality.

 

I dont know why i must partake in your self-inflicted starvation...

[dwai]

10,000 things and (although it's not and as much as it is 'both') Tao?

No...they are not the same, imho.