What does awareness mean?

[thelerner]

Pure awareness isn't a thing. Miraculously aware, the selfless is nonoriginated, what could remain?

Awareness has no direction. It has never moved. There is no relative aspect.

No inside, nor outside.

There is no distance. It has never begun.

There is no substance or inclination to the formless; it has no name.

Chi has already fallen into the created.

It cannot be named. It is your own mind right now.

 

What is it?

 

 

 

I don't know how else to say this but I have NO IDEA what the flying fuck you are saying.

and that is why,

it is such a perfect koan.

[Marblehead]

What object?

But anyway , if there is differentiation between awareness and unawareness , then which would be which, is a matter of perspective ,, ( as in being a man dreaming he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was a man)

Your turn.

But Stosh, both the man and the butterfly exist objectively. Their state of awareness is subjective.

[Marblehead]

I recall reading Sartre who replaced Descartes "I think, therefore I am", with : "I am a thinking thing... I am a substance whose nature is to think, and that my principal attribute is thinking".

 

Replacing duality with another duality may improve the philosophical position for some but it nonetheless makes one less aware; they are clearly just hostage to the framework of the mind.

But we cannot escape duality. There is what is and there is what is not. It will always be this way as long as we are a living, thinking being.

 

I think that merging dualities into oneness as much as we can is the best we can do.

 

Ya Mu's horses is a perfect example. Same horse, different states of existence. Yo vs wu.

[Marblehead]

The chi remains white, non-descript and formless.

That caused me to think of Vmarco's undivided light.

[Brian]

@decibelle

I don't know how else to say this but I have NO IDEA what the flying fuck you are saying 99% of the time.

 

Perhaps one day you will.

[Jetsun]

I don't think even the greatest masters who have ever lived can adequately describe what awareness is. Any definition arises within it and therefore can't possibly fully define it.

[Stosh]

But Stosh, both the man and the butterfly exist objectively. Their state of awareness is subjective.

Well Mh, since the thing says, when he's dreaming about being the butterfly , he is , as I see it , taking the position that from his perspective that the butterfly state is not , objectively true , that it is but a dream. And vice versa if he looks at the situation from being a butterfly.

From a third person philosophical perspective , you or me , we could deny the verifiable factualness of both , or neither , or either. . but as it seems to me ,, the butterfly is what would normally be considered to be a subjective stance , since it has no material substance , and objectively , he was a man , since he was material , provable because he could write about it and therefore has opposable thumbs.

Im just using conventional standards for the meanings of the words to say something about the importance of perspective as relates to what gets called REAL. Youre already aware that any evidence that we have about things we consider real , requires a concession to our subjective state - essentially that we infer based on our senses , senses which are limited.

The only thing we directly know as real - is the I part - and thats subjective. Hence.. the paradox of the parable.

[Marblehead]

Perhaps one day you will.

And then you will be really sorry.

[Marblehead]

Well Mh, since the thing says, when he's dreaming about being the butterfly , he is , as I see it , taking the position that from his perspective that the butterfly state is not , objectively true , that it is but a dream. And vice versa if he looks at the situation from being a butterfly.

But his awareness happened after he woke up.

 

From a third person philosophical perspective , you or me , we could deny the verifiable factualness of both , or neither , or either. . but as it seems to me ,, the butterfly is what would normally be considered to be a subjective stance , since it has no material substance , and objectively , he was a man , since he was material , provable because he could write about it and therefore has opposable thumbs.

Yes, in this story this is true. But if he truely is a butterfly then it is thinking that he is Chuang Tzu that is the dream.

 

Im just using conventional standards for the meanings of the words to say something about the importance of perspective as relates to what gets called REAL. Youre already aware that any evidence that we have about things we consider real , requires a concession to our subjective state - essentially that we infer based on our senses , senses which are limited.

But then this all is based on what limits we have placed on our senses.

 

The only thing we directly know as real - is the I part - and thats subjective. Hence.. the paradox of the parable.

True. However, there are objective truths. There are subjective assumptions. I assume that the tree is a tree because it fits the criteria that I have been told what a tree is. The word "tree" has nothing to do with the objectivity of the tree.

[Boy]

...

Edited April 6, 2014 by Boy

[Stosh]

But his awareness happened after he woke up.

Thats just the other side of the coin which I already conceeded was just an inverse perspective.

 

 

Yes, in this story this is true. But if he truely is a butterfly then it is thinking that he is Chuang Tzu that is the dream.

Yes again , its just the inverse perspective again.

 

 

 

But then this all is based on what limits we have placed on our senses.

Im not sure if either experience itself , nor inferential conjecture itself , are clearly 'senses' or not -by definition.

Im meaning senses in the vein of organs of data collection - sources of data.

Nor do I think that the limitations of our sense organs are correctly said to be limitations of our own devise.. they merely ARE limited , you cant see ultraviolet nor the dark side of the moon , it has nothing to do with attitude or decision.

 

 

True. However, there are objective truths. There are subjective assumptions. I assume that the tree is a tree because it fits the criteria that I have been told what a tree is. The word "tree" has nothing to do with the objectivity of the tree.

I basically agree with that but the twist is that , the I ( in I think therefore I am) is a subjective truth from the perspective of direct experience , and objective truth as a matter of conjcture by someone else.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Im not sure if either experience itself , nor inferential conjecture itself , are clearly 'senses' or not -by definition.

Im meaning senses in the vein of organs of data collection - sources of data.

Nor do I think that the limitations of our sense organs are correctly said to be limitations of our own devise.. they merely ARE limited , you cant see ultraviolet nor the dark side of the moon , it has nothing to do with attitude or decision.

True. But I suggest that there are subjective limits as well as the objective limits you mentioned.

 

Anything else I might say would take this thread too far off topic so I will hold anything further for a thread where it would fit better.

 

I basically agree with that but the twist is that , the I ( in I think therefore I am) is a subjective truth from the perspective of direct experience , and objective truth as a matter of conjcture by someone else.

No. "I" am (and so are you) an objective thing (and therefore a truth). One of the Ten Thousand (manifest) Things.

 

And no again. We each validate our own objective thusness. If we take up space we exist. We don't need anyone else verification that we exist.

[dee]

'

Edited March 23, 2014 by dee

[Marblehead]

Well, Dee, I accept the first two but not the third unless it is clarified.

[Stosh]

True. But I suggest that there are subjective limits as well as the objective limits you mentioned.

Ok , yes, If you want to include some of the subjective aspect of experience to sensation fine , Im just saying we rely on our data collection as a basis for coming to conclusions about matter energy etc.

 

but,, there are two platforms from which one can point at things (figuratively) and say that the target is "real" or 'unreal"

One can start from the idea that experience of the thing is directly 'known' , and all the other stuff relies on non-direct suppositions, inference , and fault ridden data gathering. ( so that would be unreal in comparison)

Or one can start from the platform that what is real , is the inferential , supposition based , stuff that can be corroborated by someone else.

 

So we really arent far from the awareness subject, since awareness plays a role in both platforms for deciding what is real OR the reality of awareness is being investigated.

 

 

No. "I" am (and so are you) an objective thing (and therefore a truth). One of the Ten Thousand (manifest) Things.

You are speaking from the platform which relies on corroboration and inference to determine what is 'real' here.

Its not incorrect except for the first word rejecting the reality of subjective phenomena. Normal speech tends to presuppose this very platform.

So , I pose directly at you what I mentioned elsewhere,,

If a baby is in misery , (say ,,,Momma went away) , is his misery 'real' ? It takes up no space. You do not feel it directly. Would you not try to mitigate the sorrow and fear?

My guess is youd say of course youd try to do something about the situation so , WHY? if it isnt 'real'

and folowing up ....WHY does the baby cry at all if his misery is not real to him?.

 

 

And no again. We each validate our own objective thusness. If we take up space we exist. We don't need anyone else verification that we exist.

This is from the standpoint of direct personal experience as self validating ones existance.

 

Notice if you will , that you are bouncing around between the platforms which describe what you are calling real.. and I am saying they both constitute a format for considering reality and they individually are perspective based.

[Marblehead]

Ok , yes, If you want to include some of the subjective aspect of experience to sensation fine , Im just saying we rely on our data collection as a basis for coming to conclusions about matter energy etc.

 

but,, there are two platforms from which one can point at things (figuratively) and say that the target is "real" or 'unreal"

One can start from the idea that experience of the thing is directly 'known' , and all the other stuff relies on non-direct suppositions, inference , and fault ridden data gathering. ( so that would be unreal in comparison)

Or one can start from the platform that what is real , is the inferential , supposition based , stuff that can be corroborated by someone else.

 

So we really arent far from the awareness subject, since awareness plays a role in both platforms for deciding what is real OR the reality of awareness is being investigated.

Agree with the first paragraph.

 

Agree with the first part of the second paragraph but not the second part. I don't need anyone else to verify that I exist or that my chair exists.

 

Third paragraph, yes, we are talking about awareness including self-awareness.

 

You are speaking from the platform which relies on corroboration and inference to determine what is 'real' here.

Its not incorrect except for the first word rejecting the reality of subjective phenomena. Normal speech tends to presuppose this very platform.

So , I pose directly at you what I mentioned elsewhere,,

 

If a baby is in misery , (say ,,,Momma went away) , is his misery 'real' ? It takes up no space. You do not feel it directly. Would you not try to mitigate the sorrow and fear?

My guess is youd say of course youd try to do something about the situation so , WHY? if it isnt 'real'

and folowing up ....WHY does the baby cry at all if his misery is not real to him?.

First paragraph, no, I really think that I need no second-hand opinion of what I consider to be objectively true because doing so would take the objective to the subjective level.

 

No, I'm not rejecting subjective phenomena. I am just suggesting that it may not be objectively true.

 

Second paragraph: The baby cries because it has lost its security - its mom has disappeared. Everything is lost because it has yet not experienced self-awareness. The loss is real in the mind of the baby. Yes, of course, this is subjective but it is real in the unaware mind.

 

I would leave so I couldn't hear the baby cry.

 

This is from the standpoint of direct personal experience as self validating ones existance.

 

Notice if you will , that you are bouncing around between the platforms which describe what you are calling real.. and I am saying they both constitute a format for considering reality and they individually are perspective based.

Yeah, I bounce around a lot. You arleady know that. Yes, there is objective reality and subjective reality. Sometimes the two are the same, other times they are contradictioy. All illusions and delusions are subjective but they are not objectively true.

[deci belle]

It seems the recreational philosophers could not stand the tension and gave in to their penchant for their predilection…

 

The ability of those who have the affinity for the inconceivable depends on the capacity to sustain the tension in the midst of ordinary affairs, without succumbing to intellectualization.

 

Chan states that it is a matter of holding fast, then releasing. The recreationalists always come too soon…

 

Subtle operation isn't a matter of talking, much less understanding. The predilection of recreational philosophers is simply using wisdom to fuel a cheap pastime. Talk is a running sore releasing the tension required to set up the unanticipated burst of energy that breaks through into true wonder.

 

Thetaoiseasy arrived at an abstraction, a singularity— an impersonal resonance …but it still had direction.

 

This direction is due to momentum. True spontaneity is a result of stillness. True stillness. Great power of spontaneous action is the result of great stillness void of intellectualization.

 

It is possible to view this thread as an actual process in terms of a meditation event.

 

There are documents in the taoist and buddhist canons that are guides to arrival of the unattributable light of awareness by going through a process of elimination.

 

As you can see, the intellectual aspect is hard to calm down. It entertains itself much in the same way that our recreational philosophers do on this thread. It is a very difficult habit to eliminate. Yet there is nothing wrong with its activity; just its application. It loves to bounce around and until it is sublimated, it will break the continuity of built-up tension.

 

This habit is an ego-device preventing the organism's entering into enlightening being, the organism's true function. Ego's true function is valid, it just has usurped the identity, which belongs to awareness.

 

The only reason people cannot see their own minds accurately is the fact that ego has taken over the true identity and has obscured the real human by a very simple and effective trick.

 

One must endeavor to see through this.

 

In terms of arriving at a working relationship with awareness, one must a priori, recognize it for what it is.

 

Through a meditative process of elimination, one sees a singularity much the same as that moving chi thetaoiseasy spoke of.

 

When one gets here, one just waits for it to stop on its own.

 

When it does, one gains a bit of space in terms of adapting to ordinary situations without habituation to involving the thinking apparatus in the course of events. After a long time, one's working relationship with awareness reverts to a realization of one's essential totality that pervades both conceivable and inconceivable reality. These are one and the same, yet even after realization, it is a further stage of gradual practice which arrives at its viable expression in the aftermath of seeing essence.

 

This is called "entering the tao in reality".

 

Though awareness does not mean anything; it is our direct link with selfless unity, because it is the uncreate itself. This is the aperture enabling working with essence directly with no intermediary.

 

Since just this is already our capacity, and enlightening activity is just a matter of recognizing and accepting this capacity, the development of a real working relationship with awareness in terms of abiding in our own inherent nonpsychological unity within reality is our purpose within aware being. It is none other than your own mind right now.

 

The only reason to avoid dwelling in philosophical dialectics concerning awareness is that it is not logical to approach true unity by an inadequate means.

 

To ask a question like "What does awareness mean" is really the reason for all the authentic teachings this planet has ever known. Awareness in ts guise as Universal Good is itself the source of religion.

 

If one can recognize what amounts to a bit of wonder that does not wander, this is the real potential that arises in the course of ordinary events, as well as deep meditation states. Forgetting the scattered mind, one awaits the shining mind. This is also a level of meaning in the alchemic term, Refine the self, then await the time.

 

The reason I do not espouse pursuing meditation states (unless they are events of spontaneous samadi), is that reality is not to be sought divorced from ordinary situations in the hustle and bustle of the marketplace. This is where one must be able to avail oneself of real power to match one's potential to creation in the course of everyday life.

 

Even if one knows, if one cannot act on that knowledge, it is as if one had no knowledge.

 

 

 

 

ed note: add "without succumbing to intellectualization" in 2nd paragraph; add 10th paragraph; typo, 17th paragraph

Edited March 20, 2014 by deci belle

[Marblehead]

The ability of those who have the affinity for the inconceivable depends on the capacity to sustain the tension in the midst of ordinary affairs, without succumbing to intellectualization.

This seems to be defining those with great illusions and delusions.

[Marblehead]

It seems the recreational philosophers could not stand the tension and gave in to their penchant for their predilection…

Or maybe they just couldn't put up with the illusions and delusions anymore.

[Marblehead]

Subtle operation isn't a matter of talking,

How many words did that post consist of?

[Marblehead]

True spontaneity is a result of stillness.

Ah!, something I can agree with.

[Marblehead]

As you can see, the intellectual aspect is hard to calm down.

Only for those who have a troubled mind.

[Marblehead]

The only reason to avoid dwelling in philosophical dialectics concerning awareness is that it is not logical to approach true unity by an inadequate means.

But on the other hand, if one is not thinking then they are empty-minded and nothing is ever gained even though it is true that it may be that nothing is lost.

[Marblehead]

Even if one knows, if one cannot act on that knowledge, it is as if one had no knowledge.

But even if one acts intuitively without knowing one has followed their true nature.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Marblehead

[dee]

'

Edited March 23, 2014 by dee