Problems with the Study of Objectless Consciousness

[三江源]

You may think that you where not insisting ... while insisiting :-) you see I had already told you that I erroneously used one word instead of another ... in my mind when you insist that I say 'dew' instead of 'due' for a poetic or some other reason rather than recognize what I intended to say 'due' and just correct the error I see that you insist on maintaining what you think to be rather than what happened to be... I even agree with you that the erroneous use happens to be somewhat poetic, unintentionally so but none the less useful....

 

I used the word 'brat' because I consider that it portrays the idea I want to convey...

Yea it could be a bit abrasive terminology or just a descriptive terminology ... I see it similar to the word 'stubborn'...

I think you and I and others would agree to the notion that spoiled brats sometimes are quite stubborn :-) Yea I am adding a bit more adjectives...

 

By they better behave to get what they want ... I just mean that humans learn different behaviors as means to get what they want ... first they just cry and expect others to attend to them... latter they realize that other schemes work better... for example some may realize that some others do not attend to them and even avoid them because of the shows they put... so they better learn to talk and ask and all sort of other actions... if they want others to help them ...

 

the key resides in validating if what one thinks and wonders to be corresponds to what append to be... are you suggesting that one has to check everything all the time in case one is getting it wrong? TBH, I would far rather speak to people with whom I have a rapport, then communication flows unimpeded. Well personally if I want to actually get it and understand the others I have to ensure and validate it... Yea most people rather speak to people with whom they have a rapport and agrees with their ways... Sometimes its more enriching to discover the truth than remain in fantasy world...

Hi et. to be honest I have lost any idea what you are talking about and lost any hope or desire to attempt clarity with you. Your polarity of 'the truth' and 'fantasy world' thrown in at the end of your post just makes me want to go do something I find more interesting to me. No offence, like.

[gatito]

"Exist" and "real" are just categories in the object oriented mind. In direct experience, right now, I experience no line.

 

Re: Rupert Spira: listen to his interviews. He's a master in dialogue.

 

Yes. I cannot find a line either (and I've yet to come across anyone who can ).

 

I'd agree with what you say about Rupert - although he does have his off-days. So if anyone else wants to see him on-form, I'd agree that interviews are a good place to start and I'd also suggest having a look at his video interview by Chris Hebbard "The Transparency of Things" (as opposed to his book of the same title). You'll find some clips on the Stillness Speaks website if you don't want to buy the DVDs.

 

It doesn't. That's because Objectless consciousness is precisely that -- Consciousness without objects in it's field. Where it stands apart from objects? It doesn't because it never was part of the objects. It's role is like that of light -- it illuminates.

 

I'd disagree slightly with your explanation here because if Consciousness never stands apart from objects (which is accurate), it cannot be said to have a role of illuminating (or doing anything else). I think that "in its field" may also be a bit misleading (as it implies that there may be something outside of its field).

 

What do you think?

[MERCELESS ONE]

what is the purpose of objectless consciousness??

[gatito]

what is the purpose of objectless consciousness??

 

Good question but I'm going to leave this thread for a while.

 

I will come back and answer it though - as soon as the off-topic interuptions have died out.

[MERCELESS ONE]

no need to answer my post.that was my only reason for asking the question! exactly what happened to you. to get ppl to think about why they started practicing this. more than likley it was personal. a way to have peace from the rat race. then techniques got confused with dogma. were human we need objeces just not so much! plain and simple! just use and obtain what you need. or else you will continue to have these meaningless conversations. dont mean to offend anyone if i do!! you can be a millionair and live simple...or a hermit. its up to you!!

[gatito]

no need to answer my post.that was my only reason for asking the question! exactly what happened to you. to get ppl to think about why they started practicing this. more than likley it was personal. a way to have peace from the rat race. then techniques got confused with dogma. were human we need objeces just not so much! plain and simple! just use and obtain what you need. or else you will continue to have these meaningless conversations. dont mean to offend anyone if i do!! you can be a millionair and live simple...or a hermit. its up to you!!

 

So you were just trolling.

 

Nevertheless. it's an interesting question and I'll answer it later - for the vanishiongly few who are are interested in discussing advaita.

[Apech]

I'll discuss advaita.

 

I would suggest that objectless consciousness is an abstraction. I mean this in the sense that consciousness, which means something like that which divides itself, is never without objects. Object meaning that which thrown forward into the field of view. That is not to say that consciousness does not have this quality or nature of emptiness or voidity, in that it is itself formless, but it does not depend on the presence or otherwise of objects for this. Conscious is itself AND its predicated objects. They are non-different.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Boy]

...

Edited November 5, 2012 by Boy

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well, excuse me again for posting a Buddhist quote in a Vedanta subfolder, but I thought I'd point out that studying objectless consciousness is precisely what some Buddhists do:

 

link: http://www.khandro.net/meditation_garuda.htm

 

Flight of the Garuda (Song 6 by Shabkar Tsokdrug Rangdrol)

 

E-ma-ho!

Listen again, fortunate heart-children!

That which is widely renowned as mind, does anyone have it? No one has it!

What is it the source of? It is the source of samsara and nirvana and their myriad joys and sorrows.

 

What is it believed to be? There are many beliefs according to the various vehicles.

What is it called? It is named in countless different ways.

All ordinary people call it I.

Some non-Buddhists call it Self.

Shravakas call it "individual egolessness."

The Mind Only School label it Mind.

Some call it Prajnaparamita, [that is,] "transcendent knowledge."

 

Some label it Sugatagarbha, [that is,] Buddha-nature.

Some name it Mahamudra.

Some give it the name Madhyamika.

Some say "the single sphere."

Some name it Dharmadhatu, [that is,] realm of phenomena.

Some call it the name alaya, "ground of all."

Some call it "ordinary mind."

 

Despite the innumerable names that are tagged onto it,

Know that the real meaning is as follows:

Let your mind spontaneously relax and rest.

When left to itself, ordinary mind is fresh and naked.

If observed, it is a vivid clarity without anything to see,

A direct awareness, sharp and awake.

Possessing no existence, it is empty and pure,

A clear openness of non-dual luminosity and emptiness.

 

It is not permanent, since it does not exist at all.

It is not nothingness, since it is vividly clear and awake.

It is not oneness, since many things are cognised and known.

It is not plurality, since the many things known are inseparable in one taste.

It is not somewhere else; it is your own awareness itself.

The face of this Primordial Protector, dwelling in your heart,

Can be directly perceived in this very instant.

Never be separated from it, children of my heart!

 

If you want to find something greater than this in another place,

It’s like going off searching for footprints although the elephant is right there.

You may scan the entire three-thousand-fold universe,

But it is impossible that you will find more than the mere name of Buddha.

 

 

Ok, back to vedanta and this topic.

The word 'study' implies the use of the conceptual mind in order to analize. In my experience, the conceptual mind cannot be used to study objectless consciousness because the true knowing of objectless consciousness occurs after the conceptual mind has subsided. As Nisargadatta would put it, being aware that one is aware is very easy. To remain in that state is the hard part.

 

In vedanta, I would say that samadhi, as in the dissolution of the subject and object, is the only time you are going to see objectless consciousness, bright, shining, aware, luminous and extremely bliss-full. And by then, the conceptual mind is far gone.

 

TI

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Tibetan_Ice]

does that then allow for the mind to become aware of the mind?

 

Hi et-thoughts

Your question implies that the mind is somehow split and then becomes aware of the part that split out.

 

If you are from the school that "it is all mind", I suppose that works but then you can't discuss the more refined jhanic states of neither perception or non-perception, or even what Nisargadatta called going beyond the "I AM".

 

For me, the conceptual mind is what tries to rush into a samadhic moment. It veils the essence of pure consciousness. Pure consciousness can be broken down into awareness, luminosity, transparency, vividness and the feeling that you "are" this infinite expanse of something. These parts make up the whole.

 

So, in my vocabulary, even though the conceptual mind is gone, there remains a clear, transparent luminous field of awareness which neither averts nor grasps. I wouldn't call it "mind". But I suppose you could.

 

TI

[dwai]

 

 

Hi et-thoughts

Your question implies that the mind is somehow split and then becomes aware of the part that split out.

 

If you are from the school that "it is all mind", I suppose that works but then you can't discuss the more refined jhanic states of neither perception or non-perception, or even what Nisargadatta called going beyond the "I AM".

 

For me, the conceptual mind is what tries to rush into a samadhic moment. It veils the essence of pure consciousness. Pure consciousness can be broken down into awareness, luminosity, transparency, vividness and the feeling that you "are" this infinite expanse of something. These parts make up the whole.

 

So, in my vocabulary, even though the conceptual mind is gone, there remains a clear, transparent luminous field of awareness which neither averts nor grasps. I wouldn't call it "mind". But I suppose you could.

 

TI

 

Maybe it's my conditioned response but I wince everytime I read luminous this, Jhanic that...

 

Also I see mind as a field of objects...thoughts....

 

When these thoughts disappear, the object less consciousness is evident. When thoughts start again, oc is hidden.

 

IMHO it isn't possible to completely stay in oc because all the things that this physical body needs to do has to happen with thoughts.

 

Eg body needs food or water and a thought "I'm hungry or I'm thirsty" pops up. So much as we have to live within the limitations of our physical shells we can't be naive and expect a dreamy-eyed utopia.

[Jeff]

Maybe it's my conditioned response but I wince everytime I read luminous this, Jhanic that...

 

Also I see mind as a field of objects...thoughts....

 

When these thoughts disappear, the object less consciousness is evident. When thoughts start again, oc is hidden.

 

IMHO it isn't possible to completely stay in oc because all the things that this physical body needs to do has to happen with thoughts.

 

Eg body needs food or water and a thought "I'm hungry or I'm thirsty" pops up. So much as we have to live within the limitations of our physical shells we can't be naive and expect a dreamy-eyed utopia.

 

You imply that OC is a "state" that comes and goes (or is seen). OC is the "field of awareness/consciousness". Thoughts like "I am hungry" are attention (or identification) with the body. Noticing things (objects) in the field of awareness does not necessarily imply that one is not "residing" in the field of awareness/consciousness.

 

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[dwai]

 

 

You imply that OC is a "state" that comes and goes (or is seen). OC is the "field of awareness/consciousness". Thoughts like "I am hungry" are attention (or identification) with the body. Noticing things (objects) in the field of awareness does not necessarily imply that one is not "residing" in the field of awareness/consciousness.

 

 

Au contraire ... I'm saying that oc is ever present. Due to the effects of our limitations we do not always experience it as such. What this also implies is that oc is the underlying "reality" - that mundane reality is superimposed upon - technical term being adhyasa.

[Jeff]

Au contraire ... I'm saying that oc is ever present. Due to the effects of our limitations we do not always experience it as such. What this also implies is that oc is the underlying "reality" - that mundane reality is superimposed upon - technical term being adhyasa.

 

OK, sorry if I misinterpreted your statements. It all seems to be where the perspective (or attention) is focused.

 

[forestofclarity]

This is an important point, and a key dispute between Buddhists and Advaitins, and sharpens when we discuss deep sleep. I feel that deep sleep can be interpreted in one of several ways:

 

1) the cessation of consciousness altogether. This is more of a (non-Mahayana) Buddhist view. However, consciousness feels continuous. I feel as though I am "me" in the morning as the night before. Further, deep sleep can be interrupted at any time, and the mind springs forth (literally). If consciousness ceased, then why should it be reborn at all, much less feel as though it is the same?

 

2) a modern Advaitin view, that we remember having slept well which means we were conscious. I don't think this is satisfying, because memory occurs now and tells us nothing of the state then.

 

3) deep sleep is consciousness without objects. Typically, one may expect a blank nothing. However, a blank nothing would have both space and time. Without objects, there is no space and time. This strikes me, as of right now, to be more of a satisfying view. However, there is an aspect of ignorance in deep sleep.

 

It is difficult because the waking mind isn't there in deep sleep to inquire about it.

 

 

I would suggest that objectless consciousness is an abstraction. I mean this in the sense that consciousness, which means something like that which divides itself, is never without objects.

[dwai]

This is an important point, and a key dispute between Buddhists and Advaitins, and sharpens when we discuss deep sleep. I feel that deep sleep can be interpreted in one of several ways:

 

1) the cessation of consciousness altogether. This is more of a (non-Mahayana) Buddhist view. However, consciousness feels continuous. I feel as though I am "me" in the morning as the night before. Further, deep sleep can be interrupted at any time, and the mind springs forth (literally). If consciousness ceased, then why should it be reborn at all, much less feel as though it is the same?

 

2) a modern Advaitin view, that we remember having slept well which means we were conscious. I don't think this is satisfying, because memory occurs now and tells us nothing of the state then.

 

3) deep sleep is consciousness without objects. Typically, one may expect a blank nothing. However, a blank nothing would have both space and time. Without objects, there is no space and time. This strikes me, as of right now, to be more of a satisfying view. However, there is an aspect of ignorance in deep sleep.

 

It is difficult because the waking mind isn't there in deep sleep to inquire about it.

 

It is a general agreement that Deep sleep is not Turiya. It is similar in that there is no memories formed, but in Turiya there is awareness none-the-less...

 

After the fact descriptions can be attempted of Turiya, albeit they are futile, but an instinctual cognizance of that state (Turiya) is there. There isn't such a thing in deep sleep.

Although it is recorded that Yogis have the ability to enter what seems like deep-sleep and yet retain their awareness of everything that happens around them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga-nidra).

 

I post the wikipedia article, specifically wrt Swami Rama because I did extensive book research on the Menninger Foundation studies with Swami Rama in the past...

 

From personal experience I can say that the transition to Turiya-like state is very interesting (especially for me in context of shavasana meditation). As I lay on the floor, slowly my muscles seem to melt like butter on a hot pan. As the muscles relaxed so deeply the chi/prana became pervasive (ie slowly integrated my whole body). And the mind slowed down gradually, with the thoughts becoming distant chatter, until i could discern the underlying consciousness upon which this chatter floated like debris on a flowing river. After a point, there was no chatter any more, no thoughts only clear consciousness (and time stopped, space didn't exist anymore). Until the the thoughts kicked in again.

 

This is a repeatable process I have practiced. The key is to not "try" to get there. Just being patient, letting it rise on it's own. Fixating on this is counter-productive. But it is clear that a cognizance of the objectless consciousness remains albeit it is all after-the-fact.

[gatito]

...

Edited July 17, 2015 by gatito

[Tibetan_Ice]

Maybe it's my conditioned response but I wince everytime I read luminous this, Jhanic that...

 

Also I see mind as a field of objects...thoughts....

 

When these thoughts disappear, the object less consciousness is evident. When thoughts start again, oc is hidden.

Hi Dwai

Let's define "object". Because, in your definition, when thoughts disappear, the field or space that the thoughts exist in is an object. It can be perceived. It has characteristics. Each one of those characteristics is an 'object'.

I would say, you cannot have consciousness without an object, something that is moving. Objects are motions. If you freeze consciousness, it does not work anymore. It cannot be 'conscious' of anything.. Then something else takes over.

An object (or form) is a thought, a vision, a sensation, a material object -like a cup, a space, an absence of an object, a non-perception, anything that is realized by consciousness moving. You need the movement, the grasping or aversion in order for consciousness to work.

 

 

IMHO it isn't possible to completely stay in oc because all the things that this physical body needs to do has to happen with thoughts.

 

Eg body needs food or water and a thought "I'm hungry or I'm thirsty" pops up. So much as we have to live within the limitations of our physical shells we can't be naive and expect a dreamy-eyed utopia.

 

I agree. You cannot stay in OC as long as there is something to perceive, something moving. But lack of thought is not OC. Everything that is perceivable must have a background that is motionless, utimately stable, in order for consciousness to perceive it.

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

It is a general agreement that Deep sleep is not Turiya. It is similar in that there is no memories formed, but in Turiya there is awareness none-the-less...

 

After the fact descriptions can be attempted of Turiya, albeit they are futile, but an instinctual cognizance of that state (Turiya) is there. There isn't such a thing in deep sleep.

Although it is recorded that Yogis have the ability to enter what seems like deep-sleep and yet retain their awareness of everything that happens around them (http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Yoga-nidra).

 

I post the wikipedia article, specifically wrt Swami Rama because I did extensive book research on the Menninger Foundation studies with Swami Rama in the past...

 

From personal experience I can say that the transition to Turiya-like state is very interesting (especially for me in context of shavasana meditation). As I lay on the floor, slowly my muscles seem to melt like butter on a hot pan. As the muscles relaxed so deeply the chi/prana became pervasive (ie slowly integrated my whole body). And the mind slowed down gradually, with the thoughts becoming distant chatter, until i could discern the underlying consciousness upon which this chatter floated like debris on a flowing river. After a point, there was no chatter any more, no thoughts only clear consciousness (and time stopped, space didn't exist anymore). Until the the thoughts kicked in again.

 

This is a repeatable process I have practiced. The key is to not "try" to get there. Just being patient, letting it rise on it's own. Fixating on this is counter-productive. But it is clear that a cognizance of the objectless consciousness remains albeit it is all after-the-fact.

 

Hi implicate_order

That is an interesting experience..

When I've sat in meditation, neither grasping or averting thoughts/visions/sensations, eventually the thoughts/visions/sensations abated leaving clear bright transparent consciousness. But what happened next is something that you didn't describe in your experience. The whole space of clear consciousness turned into golden light, and shrank down and started to collapse downwards into the heart. It felt like I was dying and I was filled with terror and fear.

After some research I learned that passing through that phase is passing through the abyss which mind cannot cross. The mind, the small self must be left behind. I wonder why your experience does not reflect that state or transition...

 

TI

[gatito]

Everything that is perceivable must have a background that is motionless, utimately stable, in order for consciousness to perceive it.

 

TI

 

The "background that is motionless,utimately stable" is Consciousness.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well, after all this discussion, let's leave it to the pro.

Nisargadatta..

From "I AM THAT"..

 

Q: You use the words 'aware' and 'conscious'. Are they not the same?

M: Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.

 

Q: How does one go beyond consciousness into awareness?

M: Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is awareness in every state of consciousness. Therefore the very consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in awareness. Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It is not a new state. It is at once recognised as the original, basic existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy.

...

Q: What then is in the centre of consciousness?

M: That which cannot be given name and form, for it is without quality and beyond consciousness. You may say it is a point in consciousness, which is beyond consciousness. Like a hole in the paper is both in the paper and yet not of paper, so is the supreme state in the very centre of consciousness, and yet beyond consciousness. It is as if an opening in the mind through which the mind is flooded with light. The opening is not even the light. It is just an opening.

Q: An opening is just void, absence.

M: Quite so. From the mind's point of view, it is but an opening for the light of awareness to enter the mental space. By itself the light can only be compared to a solid, dense, rocklike, homogeneous and changeless mass of pure awareness, free from the mental patterns of name and shape.

...

Q: The fully realised man, spontaneously abiding in the supreme state, appears to eat, drink and so on. Is he aware of it, or not?

M: That in which consciousness happens, the universal consciousness or mind, we call the ether of consciousness. All the objects of consciousness form the universe. What is beyond both, supporting both, is the supreme state, a state of utter stillness and silence. Whoever goes there, disappears. It is unreachable by words, or mind. You may call it God, or Parabrahman, or Supreme Reality, but these are names given by the mind. It is the nameless, contentless, effortless and spontaneous state, beyond being and not being.

Q: But does one remain conscious?

M: As the universe is the body of the mind, so is consciousness the body of the supreme. It is not conscious, but it gives rise to consciousness.

...

Q: Is the Supreme conscious?

M: Neither conscious nor unconscious, I am telling you from experience.

Q: Pragnanam Brahma. What is this Pragna?

M: It is the un-selfconscious knowledge of life itself.

Q: Is it vitality, the energy of life, livingness?

M: Energy comes first. For everything is a form of energy. Consciousness is most differentiated in the waking state. Less so in dream. Still less in sleep. Homogeneous -- in the fourth state. Beyond is the inexpressible monolithic reality, the abode of the jnani.

Q: I have cut my hand. It healed. By what power did it heal?

M: By the power of life.

Q: What is that power?

M: It is consciousness. AII is conscious.

Q: What is the source of consciousness?

M: Consciousness itself is the source of everything.

Q: Can there be life without consciousness?

M: No, nor consciousness without life. They are both one. But in reality only the Ultimate is. The rest is a matter of name and form. And as long as you cling to the idea that only what has name and shape exists, the Supreme will appear to you nonexisting.

When you understand that names and shapes are hollow shells without any content whatsoever, and what is real is nameless and formless, pure energy of life and light of consciousness, you will be at peace -- immersed in the deep silence of reality.

...

Q: Is the witness-consciousness the real Self?

M: It is the reflection of the real in the mind (buddhi). The real is beyond. The witness is the door through which you pass beyond.

...

Q: How can I see the world as God? What does it mean to see the world as God?

M: It is like entering a dark room. You see nothing -- you may touch, but you do not see -- no colours, no outlines. The window opens and the room is flooded with light. Colours and shapes come into being. The window is the giver of light, but not the source of it. The sun is the source. Similarly, matter is like the dark room; consciousness -- the window -- flooding matter with sensations and perceptions, and the Supreme is the sun the source both of matter and of light. The window may be closed, or open, the sun shines all the time. It makes all the difference to the room, but none to the sun. Yet all this is secondary to the tiny little thing which is the 'I am'. Without the 'I am' there is nothing. All knowledge is about the 'I am'. False ideas about this 'I am' lead to bondage, right knowledge leads to freedom and happiness.

...

Q: I am just trying to understand. You are telling us of the Person, the Self and the Supreme. (vyakti, vyakta, avyakta). The light of Pure Awareness (pragna), focussed as 'I am' in the Self (jivatma), as consciousness (chetana) illumines the mind (antahkarana) and as life (prana) vitalises the body (deha). All this is fine as far as the words go. But when it comes to distinguishing in myself the person from the Self and the Self from the Supreme, I get mixed up.

M: The person is never the subject. You can see a person, but you are not the person. You are always the Supreme which appears at a given point of time and space as the witness, a bridge between the pure awareness of the Supreme and the manifold consciousness of the person.

...

Q: I can now understand that I am not the person, but that which, when reflected in the person, gives it a sense of being. Now, about the Supreme? In what way do I know myself as the Supreme?

M: The source of consciousness cannot be an object in consciousness. To know the source is to be the source. When you realise that you are not the person, but the pure and calm witness, and that fearless awareness is your very being, you are the being. It is the source, the Inexhaustible Possibility.

Q: Are there many sources or one for all?

M: It depends how you look at it, from which end. The objects in the world are many, but the eye that sees them is one. The higher always appears as one to the lower and the lower as many to the higher.

...

Q: How is the Absolute experienced?

M: It is not an object to be recognised and stored up in memory. It is in the present and in feeling rather. It has more to do with the 'how' than with the 'what'. It is in the quality, in the value; being the source of everything, it is in everything.

Q: If it is the source, why and how does it manifest itself?

M: It gives birth to consciousness. All else is in consciousness.

Q: Why are there so many centres of consciousness?

M: The objective universe (mahadakash) is in constant movement, projecting and dissolving innumerable forms. Whenever a form is infused with life (prana), consciousness (chetana) appears by reflection of awareness in matter.

 

...

Q: Can I say that I am not what I am conscious of, nor am I consciousness itself?

M: As long as you are a seeker, better cling to the idea that you are pure consciousness, free from all content. To go beyond consciousness is the supreme state.

Q: The desire for realisation, does it originate in consciousness or beyond?

M: In consciousness, of course. All desire is born from memory and is within the realm of consciousness. What is beyond is clear of all striving. The very desire to go beyond consciousness is still in consciousness.

Q: Is there any trace, or imprint, of the beyond on consciousness?

M: No, there cannot be.

Q: Then, what is the link between the two? How can a passage be found between two states which have nothing in common? Is not pure awareness the link between the two?

M: Even pure awareness is a form of consciousness.

Q: Then what is beyond? Emptiness?

M: Emptiness again refers only to consciousness. Fullness and emptiness are relative terms. The Real is really beyond -- beyond not in relation to consciousness, but beyond all relations of whatever kind. The difficulty comes with the word 'state'. The Real is not a state of something else -- it is not a state of mind or consciousness or psyche -- nor is it something that has a beginning and an end, being and not being. All opposites are contained in it -- but it is not in the play of opposites. You must not take it to be the end of a transition. It is itself, after the consciousness as such is no more. Then words 'I am man', or 'I am God' have no meaning. Only in silence and in darkness can it be heard and seen.

...

Q: You say the jnani is beyond. Beyond what? Beyond knowledge?

M: Knowledge has its rising and setting. Consciousness comes into being and goes out of being. It is a matter of daily occurrence and observation. We all know that sometimes we are conscious and sometimes not. When we are not conscious, it appears to us as a darkness or a blank. But a jnani is aware of himself as neither conscious nor unconscious, but purely aware, a witness to the three

states of the mind and their contents.

...

Q: Let me put it differently. After all, consciousness becomes a problem only when it is painful. An ever-blissful state does not give rise to questions. We find all consciousness to be a mixture of the pleasant and the painful. Why?

M: All consciousness is limited and therefore painful. At the root of consciousness lies desire, the urge to experience.

Q: Do you mean to say that without desire there can be no consciousness? And what is the advantage of being unconscious? If I have to forego pleasure for the freedom from pain, I better keep both.

M: Beyond pain and pleasure there is bliss.

Q: Unconscious bliss, of what use is it?

M: Neither conscious nor unconscious. Real.

Q: What is your objection to consciousness?

M: It is a burden. Body means burden. Sensations, desires, thoughts -- these are all burdens. All consciousness is of conflict.

Q: Reality is described as true being, pure consciousness, infinite bliss. What has pain to do with it?

M: Pain and pleasure happen, but pain is the price of pleasure, pleasure is the reward of pain. In life too you often please by hurting and hurt by pleasing. To know that pain and pleasure are one is peace.

Q: All this is very interesting, no doubt, but my goal is more simple. I want more pleasure and less pain in life. What am I to do?

M: As long as there is consciousness, there must be pleasure and pain. It is in the nature of the 'I am', of consciousness, to identify itself with the opposites.

...

Q: To do what you tell me I must be ceaselessly aware.

M: To be aware is to be awake. Unaware means asleep. You are aware anyhow, you need not try to be. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious.

Q: As I can make out, you give distinct meanings to the words 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'awareness'.

M: Look at it this way. The mind produces thoughts ceaselessly, even when you do not look at them. When you know what is going on in your mind, you call it consciousness. This is your waking state -- your consciousness shifts from sensation to sensation, from perception to perception, from idea to idea, in endless succession. Then comes awareness, the direct insight into the whole of consciousness, the totality of the mind. The mind is like a river, flowing ceaselessly in the bed of the body; you identify yourself for a moment with some particular ripple and call it: 'my thought'. All you are conscious of is your mind; awareness is the cognisance of consciousness as a whole.

...

Q: What comes first: consciousness or awareness?

M: Awareness becomes consciousness when it has an object. The object changes all the time. In consciousness there is movement; awareness by itself is motionless and timeless, here and now.

 

TI

Edited November 6, 2012 by Tibetan_Ice

[Tibetan_Ice]

The "background that is motionless,utimately stable" is Consciousness.

 

Hi Gatito

Or perhaps, as Nisargadatta says, the background is awareness..

 

TI