Problems with the Study of Objectless Consciousness

[gatito]

Hi Gatito

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

 

TI

 

Hi TI

 

Quote Wars.

 

I'm defining Consciousness/Awareness is "that which is reading these words", as, I hope, are a few of the other people on this thead because if they aren't, they're wasting their time with jnana yoga.

Edited November 6, 2012 by gatito

[dwai]

 

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.

 

not sure you understood what i was saying. Please read again...

I say you are mistaken in saying there cant be consciousness without objects.

 

 

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.

 

Consciousness is the background.

 

I think there is a fundamental difference in how you and i know consciousness.

[gatito]

And this seems to be an appropriate point to answer the earlier question "what is the purpose of objectless consciousness?:-

 

1) It is exactly the same as the "purpose" of Happiness/Peace.

 

2) Furthermore At the relative level, the enquiry into Objectless Consciousness can unveil the ever-present (timeless) Happiness/Peace of Your True Self, so that it shines in your life most of the (apparent) time.

 

The only benchmark of "sucess" is Happiness/Peace (and, incidentally, there are Paths to that other than jnana yoga).

 

Edit: -

 

To clarify: can it be said that Happiness/Peace has a purpose? It simply Is.

Edited November 6, 2012 by gatito

[Ish]

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

 

I second that. Can you point me in the direction where you read more about this experience? It was incredibly powerful.

[Tibetan_Ice]

not sure you understood what i was saying. Please read again...

I say you are mistaken in saying there cant be consciousness without objects.

 

Hi Dwai

 

Ok. I will re-read...

You said:

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.

 

In keeping with how Nisargadatta speaks about it, when there are no more objects of consciousness, what remains is awareness. If you want to call it consciousness without objects, that's not a problem. However, you might want to ask, who or what is it that is aware that there are no objects in consciousness? In my mind (pun intended), if "you" are noticing something, in this case, the lack of objects in consciousness, then there is still the object (lack of objects in consciousness) and the perceiver (subject/witness).

 

And like Nisargadatta says:

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.

 

That is all that I'm saying..

 

And, as far as the capacity to remain in objectless consciousness goes because sooner or later thoughts arise, I would say that as long as you are in the world, that you are congnizant of the body regardless of the fact that there are thoughts or not, you are still in consciousness. When consciousness or objectless consciousness disappears, the world disappears..

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

I second that. Can you point me in the direction where you read more about this experience? It was incredibly powerful.

 

Hi Ish

Actually, I did post about it here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/23952-feels-like-death-shamatha-before-bed/

 

Part of what I learned about the process is listed here:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/23952-feels-like-death-shamatha-before-bed/#entry345196

 

Even Ramana described the 'death of the ego' as a passage through something:

http://thetaobums.com/topic/23952-feels-like-death-shamatha-before-bed/page__st__32#entry348085

 

TI

[deci belle]

Understood in this way, most questions/problems turn OC into an object.

 

Awareness itself is what turns into illusion. Awareness itself is your objectless nature. It is the act of asking which makes it wrong. There is no different consciousness.

[gatito]

There seems to be considerable confusion about Sri Ramana (as well as about Nisargadatta).

 

Perhaps, for anyone who who enjoys lenghty quotes, this will help to clear that confusion: -

 

Throughout this period (1925-50) the centre of ashram life was the small hall where Sri Ramana lived, slept and held

court. He spent most of his day sitting in one corner radiating his silent power and simultaneously fielding questions

from the constant flow of visitors who descended on him from every corner of the globe. He rarely committed his

ideas to paper and so the verbal replies given out during this period (by far the most well-documented of his life)

represent the largest surviving source of his teachings.

These verbal teachings flowed authoritatively from his direct knowledge that consciousness was the only existing

reality. Consequently, all his explanations and instructions were geared to convincing his followers that this was their

true and natural state. Few of his followers were capable of assimilating this truth in its highest and most undiluted

form and so he often adapted his teachings to conform to the limited understanding of the people who came to him for

advice.

Because of this tendency it is possible to distinguish many different levels of his teachings. At the highest level that

could be expressed in words he would say that consciousness alone exists. If this was received with skepticism he

would say that awareness of this truth is obscured by the self- limiting ideas of the mind and that if these ideas were

abandoned then the reality of consciousness would be revealed. Most of his followers found this high-level approach a

little too theoretical -they were so immersed in the self-limiting ideas that Sri Ramana was encouraging them to drop

that they felt that the truth about consciousness would only be revealed to them if they underwent a long period of

spiritual practice. To satisfy such people Sri Ramana prescribed an innovative method of self-attention which he

called self-enquiry. He recommended this technique so often and so vigorously that it was regarded by many people

as the most distinctive motif in his teachings.

Even then, many people were not satisfied and they would continue to ask for advice about other methods or try to

engage him in theoretical philosophical discussions. With such people Sri Ramana would temporarily abandon his

absolute standpoint and give appropriate advice on whatever level it was asked. If he appeared on these occasions to

accept and endorse many of the misconceptions which his visitors had about themselves it was only to draw their

attention to some aspect of his teachings that he felt would help them to better understand his real views.

Inevitably, this policy of modifying his teachings to meet the needs of different people led to many contradictions. He

might, for example, tell one person that the individual self is non-existent and then turn to another person and give a

detailed description of how the individual self functions, accumulates karma and reincarnates. It is possible for an

observer to say that such opposing statements may both be true when seen from different standpoints, but the former

statement clearly has more validity when it is viewed from the absolute standpoint of Sri Ramana’s own experience.

This standpoint, summarised by his statement that consciousness alone exists, is ultimately the only yardstick by

which one can realistically assess the relative truth of his widely differing and contradictory statements. To whatever

extent his other statements deviate from this it may be assumed that to that extent they are dilutions of the truth.

 

Be As You Are - The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi

Edited by David Godman

 

 

Perhaps Sri Ramana would suggest that the best thing to do when one is living in ignorance is to spend a lot of "face-time" with a competent Teacher?

 

I do hope that's cleared any remaing confusion about Consciousnes/Awareness now.

[dwai]

 

 

Hi Dwai

 

Ok. I will re-read...

You said:

 

 

In keeping with how Nisargadatta speaks about it, when there are no more objects of consciousness, what remains is awareness. If you want to call it consciousness without objects, that's not a problem. However, you might want to ask, who or what is it that is aware that there are no objects in consciousness? In my mind (pun intended), if "you" are noticing something, in this case, the lack of objects in consciousness, then there is still the object (lack of objects in consciousness) and the perceiver (subject/witness).

 

And like Nisargadatta says:

 

 

That is all that I'm saying..

 

And, as far as the capacity to remain in objectless consciousness goes because sooner or later thoughts arise, I would say that as long as you are in the world, that you are congnizant of the body regardless of the fact that there are thoughts or not, you are still in consciousness. When consciousness or objectless consciousness disappears, the world disappears..

 

TI

 

Nisargadatta maharaj did not know english, so he would not have differentiated between consciousness and awareness. In indian languages they are not different words, one is root for another. And in english even they on have different meaning or implication, afaik.

 

In fact one is a root for another In sanskrit-based languages - chitta (consciousness),chaitanya (being aware or conscious, a function of chitta).

 

 

May i ask Why are you getting caught up on semantics?

 

[3bob]

pure consciousness and also dirt exist because they are both connected to the absolute

[gatito]

pure consciousness and also dirt exist because they are both connected to the absolute

 

That's a fundamental misunderstanding.

[3bob]

"That's a fundamental misunderstanding" According to whom or what doctrine? Where is Om not, or not connected so to speak? Where is Sat not, or not connected so to speak, etc..

 

Or in Taoist terms the "Tao gave birth to the One" (and on to the ten thousand) and you can bet your bottom dollar that is a connection.

Edited November 9, 2012 by 3bob

[gatito]

According to whom or what doctrine?

 

Other than first-hand direct Knowledge?

 

Try the "doctrine" of Advaita Vedanta

 

Where is Om not, or not connected so to speak? Where is Sat not, or not connected so to speak, etc..

 

Is that a question? If so, would you kindly reformulate it clearly and succinctly?

 

Thank you in anticipation.

 

Or in Taoist terms the "Tao gave birth to the One" (and on to the ten thousand) and you can bet your bottom dollar that is a connection.

 

Wrong again 3bob.

 

Reread Verse 1

Edited June 6, 2015 by gatito

[Tibetan_Ice]

Nisargadatta maharaj did not know english, so he would not have differentiated between consciousness and awareness. In indian languages they are not different words, one is root for another. And in english even they on have different meaning or implication, afaik.

 

In fact one is a root for another In sanskrit-based languages - chitta (consciousness),chaitanya (being aware or conscious, a function of chitta).

 

 

May i ask Why are you getting caught up on semantics?

 

Hi Dwai

Well now you have me wondering. You are saying that the entire book by Nisargadatta is misleading because Nisargadatta wouldn't have distinquished between consciousness and awaress? Did you read the quotes from "I AM THAT" that I posted previously in this thread? Yes, Nisargadatta does say that awareness is part of consciousness, but it sure sounded like consciousness does not stand on it's own like awareness can.

 

 

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.

 

So, who then wrote the response by M: (Maharishi Nisargadatta)? It sounded pretty clear to me.

 

In fact, you have just said that the term "chitta" in Sanskrit is "consciousness". Yet, when I look that term up at this link, it says that the definition of chitta is "the organ (part) of mind responsible for memory. See antakarana, ahankara, buddhi, manas."

 

http://www.advaita.org.uk/sanskrit/terms_cd.htm

 

And then, you have said that chaitanya is "being aware or conscious".. In that same link it says that chaitanya is "consciousness, universal soul or spirit."

 

And did the author have knowledge of the terms, and did Nisargadatta?

Here is another quote from "I AM THAT":

Q: How do you see things?

M: One and all are the same to me. The same consciousness (chit) appears as being (sat) and as bliss (ananda): Chit in movement is Ananda; Chit motionless is being.

 

Q: Still you are making a distinction between motion and motionlessness.

M: Non-distinction speaks in silence. Words carry distinctions. The unmanifested (nirguna) has no name, all names refer to the manifested (saguna). It is useless to struggle with words to express what is beyond words. Consciousness (chidananda) is spirit (purusha), consciousness is matter (prakriti). Imperfect spirit is matter, perfect matter is spirit. In the beginning as in the end, all is one.

All division is in the mind (chitta); there is none in reality (chit). Movement and rest are states of mind and cannot be without their opposites. By itself nothing moves, nothing rests. It is a grievous mistake to attribute to mental constructs absolute existence. Nothing exists by itself.

 

Q: You seem to identify rest with the Supreme State?

M: There is rest as a state of mind (chidaram) and there is rest as a state of being (atmaram). The former comes and goes, while the true rest is the very heart of action. Unfortunately, language is a mental tool and works only in opposites.

 

So it would seem that Nisargadatta has drawn many distinctions in these quotes.. Are they not accurate?

 

Yes, you've identified one problem with the study of objectless consciousness.. Semantics.. We are probably both wasting our precious time.

 

The reason that I am very interested in all of this is because many times, in the morning, I find myself lying in bed and all that I am aware of is a tiny point that simply feels like 'me'. There are no thoughts, no visions, nothing to do or see. It is a very simple state. Then, my alarm goes off and then everything whooshes by and reality is created once again. I can detect thoughts, the sensations of the body, see the bedroom.. I was thinking that the tiny point that feels like 'me' could be called awareness, and that from it consciousness came back to life and the world appeared.. For what it is worth, that tiny point has no object, at least there is no witness, the only thing it has is the 'feeling of me'. I was reading in some Buddhist texts that the eighth level of consciousness is the one before the last level; the eighth level is the level of consciousness that contains the 'feeling of self'. I was wondering if that is the state of the tiny point..

 

It is not a big deal. It is very hard to describe experiences in words, especially hard with people whom have different vocabularies and culture.. I'm not sure I like the idea that the book "I AM THAT" may be invalid.

 

TI

[3bob]

"Wrong again 3bob" I see that as your interpreptation of the resources mentioned, or as the worded interpreptation given by such schools, thus what may be cozy for you and your concepts is nothing to hung about...

 

btw, when one follows (so to speak) Om all the way then one finds out what another can not tell them in words, even the ones wise in words.

 

Om

 

p.s. the earlier question was clear enough imo...

[gatito]

"Wrong again 3bob" I see that as your interpreptation of the resources mentioned, or as the worded interpreptation given by such schools, thus what may be cozy for you and your concepts is nothing to hung about...

 

btw, when one follows (so to speak) Om all the way then one finds out what another can not tell them in words, even the ones wise in words.

 

Om

 

p.s. the earlier question was clear enough imo...

 

???????????

[3bob]

(the resources you mentioned)

 

Also, read the first line of chapter 42 of the TTC, John Wu translation; and maybe now someone will say that was a poor translation and on and on... (or that I added a "the" to the line - which is no biggy)

[gatito]

(the resources you mentioned)

 

Also, read the first line of chapter 42 of the TTC, John Wu translation; and maybe now someone will say that was a poor translation and on and on... (or that I added a "the" to the line - which is no biggy)

 

3bob

 

I find you confused and confusing.

 

Regarding objectless consciousnes (nirvikalpa samadhi) the relevant part of the Tao Te Ching seems to be Verse 1 (Line 1) but as this is the vedanta discussion forum, perhaps we could stick with Advaita Vedanta rather than Taoism, which is well catered for on other forums here?

Edited November 9, 2012 by gatito

[dwai]

 

 

Hi Dwai

Well now you have me wondering. You are saying that the entire book by Nisargadatta is misleading because Nisargadatta wouldn't have distinquished between consciousness and awaress? Did you read the quotes from "I AM THAT" that I posted previously in this thread? Yes, Nisargadatta does say that awareness is part of consciousness, but it sure sounded like consciousness does not stand on it's own like awareness can.

 

 

 

So, who then wrote the response by M: (Maharishi Nisargadatta)? It sounded pretty clear to me.

 

In fact, you have just said that the term "chitta" in Sanskrit is "consciousness". Yet, when I look that term up at this link, it says that the definition of chitta is "the organ (part) of mind responsible for memory. See antakarana, ahankara, buddhi, manas."

 

http://www.advaita.org.uk/sanskrit/terms_cd.htm

 

And then, you have said that chaitanya is "being aware or conscious".. In that same link it says that chaitanya is "consciousness, universal soul or spirit."

 

And did the author have knowledge of the terms, and did Nisargadatta?

Here is another quote from "I AM THAT":

 

 

So it would seem that Nisargadatta has drawn many distinctions in these quotes.. Are they not accurate?

 

Yes, you've identified one problem with the study of objectless consciousness.. Semantics.. We are probably both wasting our precious time.

 

The reason that I am very interested in all of this is because many times, in the morning, I find myself lying in bed and all that I am aware of is a tiny point that simply feels like 'me'. There are no thoughts, no visions, nothing to do or see. It is a very simple state. Then, my alarm goes off and then everything whooshes by and reality is created once again. I can detect thoughts, the sensations of the body, see the bedroom.. I was thinking that the tiny point that feels like 'me' could be called awareness, and that from it consciousness came back to life and the world appeared.. For what it is worth, that tiny point has no object, at least there is no witness, the only thing it has is the 'feeling of me'. I was reading in some Buddhist texts that the eighth level of consciousness is the one before the last level; the eighth level is the level of consciousness that contains the 'feeling of self'. I was wondering if that is the state of the tiny point..

 

It is not a big deal. It is very hard to describe experiences in words, especially hard with people whom have different vocabularies and culture.. I'm not sure I like the idea that the book "I AM THAT" may be invalid.

 

TI

 

Whats important is what you think about this? There is no need to convince me of one thing or another. I know what i know and am comfortable with both what i knw and what my sources will teach me.

 

I did not complete reading "i am that" because it got really terse for me, i guess i'm not smart enough to read it yet :\

 

Although i doubt whether the author of that book did not color nsdm's teaching with some of there own commentary....

 

And as far as buddhist teachings are concerned...i find all these layers of differentiations, distinctions, hair-splittingly tedious, im afraid. Why not just be, and know without "knowing"?

Edited November 9, 2012 by dwai

[gatito]

I did not complete reading "i am that" because it got really terse for me, i guess i'm not smart enough to read it yet :\

 

 

I guess that we'll both just have to wallow in our own ignorance until we've read some more books.

 

Edit:-

 

PS there are not two words for Consciousness/Awareness in French either - just "Conscience".

Edited November 9, 2012 by gatito

[Tibetan_Ice]

PS there are not two words for Consciousness/Awareness in French either - just "Conscience".

 

Hi Gatito,

Conscience in French, means Conscience in English, which is the little voice in your head that says "Bad Gatito... shouldn't have done that". But "Conscience" in French is also "to know", like "je suis content de faire ton conscience" , c'est la meme chose, comme connaitre. Est'ce que tu parles Francais, Gatito?

 

TI

[gatito]

Hi Gatito,

Conscience in French, means Conscience in English, which is the little voice in your head that says "Bad Gatito... shouldn't have done that". But "Conscience" in French is also "to know", like "je suis content de faire ton conscience" , c'est la meme chose, comme connaitre. Est'ce que tu parles Francais, Gatito?

 

TI

 

Oui, un peu - et ca m'amuse beaucoup parce que le train de tes insultes roule sur les rails de mon indifference.

 

Tu comprends?

Edited June 6, 2015 by gatito

[Tibetan_Ice]

...

I did not complete reading "i am that" because it got really terse for me, i guess i'm not smart enough to read it yet :\

...

 

Hi Dwai,

Gee, you are much too modest..

I can see where you are coming from, after reading this article on "Consciousness, Cosmology, and Science: An Advaitic Analysis" from your website:

 

link: http://www.medhajournal.com/resident-philosopher/951-consciousness-cosmology-and-science-an-advaitic-analysis.html

Ātman is pure, objectless consciousness and is not to be mistaken for the ego (jīva). The ego is an object -- a psycho-physiological composite. Sensations, perceptions, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc., are all objects of consciousness (phenomena). They constantly arise and pass away, but consciousness remains the same. No one can perceive consciousness as an object; one can only notice changes in the objects of consciousness but never in consciousness itself. Consciousness (Ātman), like Brahman, is formless and nameless. Hence, no one can picture or visualize consciousness.

 

So, yes, there is no distinction between consciousness and awareness in that article.. The word "awareness" isn't used.

And, it is interesting that in that quote, he says that "no one can picture or visualize consciousness", yet, it is the easiest thing in the world to know that one is conscious.

 

I'll quit bothering you..

Thanks for the discussion.

All the best..

TI

[3bob]

niether the title of this sub-forum nor the string of these particular posts only fall under school(s) of "Advaita Vedanta", btw Vedanta was long before the time of the teachers you've mentioned (even the great ! one of long ago), thus it seems your confusion arises because of the limits you prefer to have as a framework to argue within... (as also demonstrated in your tossing out of chapter 42 and implying that chapter 1 is best or most fitting, even though chp 1 was not where my earlier quote first came from) Granted parts of my post #115 could have, should have been clearer but what the hell...

 

your two cents is noted

Edited November 10, 2012 by 3bob

[gatito]

niether the title of this sub-forum nor the string of these particular posts only fall under school(s) of "Advaita Vedanta", btw Vedanta was long before the time of the teachers you've mentioned (even the great ! one of long ago), thus it seems your confusion arises because of the limits you prefer to have as a framework to argue within... (as also demonstrated in your tossing out of chapter 42 and implying that chapter 1 is best or most fitting, even though chp 1 was not where my earlier quote first came from) Granted parts of my post #115 could have, should have been clearer but what the hell...

 

your two cents is noted

 

According to one of my teachers, Sri Shankaracharya revivified Advaita Vedanta and I have every reason to trust him on that but it's especially irrelevant in this thread.

 

However, this definitely is not a Taoist forum and unless you're a bilingual, culturally aware self-realised Chinese man (or woman) I'll have to assume that you know even less about the Tao Te Ching than you do about Advaita, which is the subject of this thread.

 

If you'd care to point out my confusion in plain english (or french :-)), I'd be very happy to address your concerns.

Edited November 10, 2012 by gatito