What Happened? Nothing!

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I think it points to a different "you". You ARE water itself. The drop is just a case of relative/mistaken identification as being a drop. 

What does speech have to do with awareness? We can simply be happy being aware (drop this or that and description of this or that). 

Speech was just a handy  example of a distinction. Any example would have been fine. 

[rene]

6 hours ago, dwai said:

Point being, how then do you say, Awareness needs phenomena to exist? Do you think it's not possible to be simply aware without any objects of awareness?

 

If there were no phenomena for awareness to be aware of - wouldn't awareness be undefined?

 

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by rene
pose question

[dwai]

17 minutes ago, rene said:

 

If there were no phenomena for awareness to be aware of - wouldn't awareness be undefined?

 

 

Would it? Awareness seems quite happy and fulfilled by itself.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

In my view, this is only half the story... 

 

Nothing happens and everything happens.

It is not that nothing happens or nothing exists, it is more that the way things happen and the manner in which they exist is not quite what it appears to be from the relative perspective.

It seems to me this refusal to accept the truth of our relative experience, side by side with the truth of absolute perspective, is a form of nihilism.

 

Just my perspective...

[rene]

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

Would it? Awareness seems quite happy and fulfilled by itself.

How would it know without phenomena to compare to?

[liminal_luke]

50 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Nothing happens and everything happens.

It is not that nothing happens or nothing exists, it is more that the way things happen and the manner in which they exist is not quite what it appears to be from the relative perspective.

It seems to me this refusal to accept the truth of our relative experience, side by side with the truth of absolute perspective, is a form of nihilism.

 

 

 

I like Steve`s idea of simultaneously embracing the relative and the absolute.  Maybe these two views are like pedals on a bike and we need both to ride.  

 

Let`s just suppose it`s true in an absolute sense that people "create" their own reality and are 100% responsible for their experience.  Many people believe this.  Now imagine someone close to you gets cancer.  From a very expanded point of view there`s nothing "wrong" with having cancer.  Having cancer might in fact be a perfect expression of an inherently compassionate universe.  However, not everyone with cancer will enjoy hearing this.  An exculsively focus on the absolute can appear to lack compassion.

 

And yet compassionate action is also hindered when our consciousness is narrowly bound exclusively to relative reality.  We need the openness and expansion that comes with absolute consciousness to put relative experience into a compassionate context.  Otherwise all we`ve got is "life sucks and then you die."  Our hypothetical cancer patient might not want to hear this, either.  Without the absolute, our experience seems to lack meaning and possibility.  

 

Kindness happens when we can hold these two views together, the relative and the absolute, without disparaging either understanding.  Our relative experience is true and valid, and we can experience it within the larger field of absolute reality.  In this way pain can be understood, validated, and transformed.

 

 

[3bob]

 

[doc benway]

10 hours ago, rene said:

How would it know without phenomena to compare to?

 

In the practice of sleep yoga, the objective is to enter into sleep in such a way that full awareness is present in deep sleep in the absence of dream. This is referred to as the clear light of sleep - pure awareness resting in the absence of external or internal phenomena. I had the same question during retreat - how could there be awareness or memory of awareness in the absence of phenomena as a frame of reference? How would one know it had occurred? How would a memory be created out of an experience of nothing? My teacher's answer was - practice enough and perhaps you will see for yourself. The truth is that it simply is. Awareness of nothing is not nothing, it is awareness of openness. In Bön dzogchen terminology it is referred to as the inseparability of emptiness and clarity. In the experience of the clear light of sleep there is clear awareness present in boundless openness - life a spark of light floating in infinite space. 

[doc benway]

12 hours ago, dwai said:

I think it points to a different "you". You ARE water itself. The drop is just a case of relative/mistaken identification as being a drop. 

 

I see it is as the very same you, just described from a shift in perspective. Being water, you are still the drop. Being a drop, you are still water. We over-identify with the drop because that is the truth of inhabiting a bag of skin and specialized sensory antennae which extract a particular view of the world from infinite possibility. We are never other than that infinite possibility but our direct sensory experience of this life is linked to that particular spectrum of sensory input. Failing to embrace the relative perspective and all of the pain, joy, and potential is throwing away the rare and beautiful opportunity of fully inhabiting this human life. 

 

 

[Stosh]

51 minutes ago, steve said:

 

In the practice of sleep yoga, the objective is to enter into sleep in such a way that full awareness is present in deep sleep in the absence of dream. This is referred to as the clear light of sleep - pure awareness resting in the absence of external or internal phenomena. I had the same question during retreat - how could there be awareness or memory of awareness in the absence of phenomena as a frame of reference? How would one know it had occurred? How would a memory be created out of an experience of nothing? My teacher's answer was - practice enough and perhaps you will see for yourself. The truth is that it simply is. Awareness of nothing is not nothing, it is awareness of openness. In Bön dzogchen terminology it is referred to as the inseparability of emptiness and clarity. In the experience of the clear light of sleep there is clear awareness present in boundless openness - life a spark of light floating in infinite space. 

A spark of light in endless space is still a dualistic differentiation , although it is your analogy for awareness.

So your awareness, in this case, is still a duality, you've described it as such.  

Same goes for awareness of openness, its comparative to closed-ness, resting vs activity, sleep undreaming vs that with dreams.

Out of respect for your teacher , you just now define these dualisms as experience of monism ,and relieve the cognitive dissonance.

Ze Problim is sol-ved. Clouseau 1975 

   

 

 

[rene]

yeah....that cognitive dissonance always has been a bugger..

🌲🦋🌲

[dwai]

12 hours ago, rene said:

How would it know without phenomena to compare to?

Huh? What does happiness and fulfillment have to do with phenomena? 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

In the practice of sleep yoga, the objective is to enter into sleep in such a way that full awareness is present in deep sleep in the absence of dream. This is referred to as the clear light of sleep - pure awareness resting in the absence of external or internal phenomena. I had the same question during retreat - how could there be awareness or memory of awareness in the absence of phenomena as a frame of reference? How would one know it had occurred? How would a memory be created out of an experience of nothing? My teacher's answer was - practice enough and perhaps you will see for yourself. The truth is that it simply is. Awareness of nothing is not nothing, it is awareness of openness. In Bön dzogchen terminology it is referred to as the inseparability of emptiness and clarity. In the experience of the clear light of sleep there is clear awareness present in boundless openness - life a spark of light floating in infinite space. 

There is clear awareness continuing through all three states (waking/dreaming/deep sleep). 

[dwai]

13 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I like Steve`s idea of simultaneously embracing the relative and the absolute.  Maybe these two views are like pedals on a bike and we need both to ride.  

 

Let`s just suppose it`s true in an absolute sense that people "create" their own reality and are 100% responsible for their experience.  Many people believe this.  Now imagine someone close to you gets cancer.  From a very expanded point of view there`s nothing "wrong" with having cancer.  Having cancer might in fact be a perfect expression of an inherently compassionate universe.  However, not everyone with cancer will enjoy hearing this.  An exculsively focus on the absolute can appear to lack compassion.

 

And yet compassionate action is also hindered when our consciousness is narrowly bound exclusively to relative reality.  We need the openness and expansion that comes with absolute consciousness to put relative experience into a compassionate context.  Otherwise all we`ve got is "life sucks and then you die."  Our hypothetical cancer patient might not want to hear this, either.  Without the absolute, our experience seems to lack meaning and possibility.  

 

Kindness happens when we can hold these two views together, the relative and the absolute, without disparaging either understanding.  Our relative experience is true and valid, and we can experience it within the larger field of absolute reality.  In this way pain can be understood, validated, and transformed.

 

 

You won't find any disagreement from me there. We have to understand that the position articulated in the OP is a very specific one, and in the old days, it was meant for only people with the proper "adhikāra" or "right to know". What it is predicated on is to go beyond the intellect and directly know what is being referred to as beyond birth and death, and in whose perspective nothing ever happens. 

 

For most people, the knee-jerk reaction to reading something like this, is one of the ego flaring up, as it threatens our normal sense of self. It does so even with seasoned practitioners. If we are ready however, that very flaring up of the ego leads to an unraveling of concepts that we didn't even know we held as being so precious to us. That results in deepening relaxation. 

 

Also by no means am I suggesting that I am free of concepts. I recently discovered some deep attachment/hence tendency to defend, a concept of myself as being an "exceptional engineer". I was subconsciously holding on to the view that I can't possibly make mistakes, and if someone calls it out, I feel like I have to defend myself.

 

@Jeff is right in that, there is much crud that covers our light and there is work to be done to uncover that.

 

However, I find that knowing an extreme position such as articulated in the OP helps put things in perspective, if we approach it from the point of view of "Why did they say it like that? I don't know". But this calls for an inherent respect for the views of the person(s) we are studying. If we come from a perspective of "I'm right/my view is right and others can't possibly be right", we will try to caricature or put down the one that is different from ours. 

 

 

 

[Limahong]

On 8/16/2018 at 1:05 AM, dwai said:

Shakti is not separate from Shiva (1).

 

Like Yin is not separate(d) from Yang?

Edited August 17, 2018 by Limahong

[dwai]

6 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Like Yin is not separate(d) from Yang?

Not like that. More like sunlight not separate from the Sun. 

[Limahong]

21 minutes ago, dwai said:

Not like that. More like sunlight not separate from the Sun (1).

 

To me the Sun is Yang. And Yin is not separate(d) from the Sun (Yang).

Edited August 17, 2018 by Limahong

[doc benway]

4 hours ago, Stosh said:

A spark of light in endless space is still a dualistic differentiation , although it is your analogy for awareness.

So your awareness, in this case, is still a duality, you've described it as such.  

Same goes for awareness of openness, its comparative to closed-ness, resting vs activity, sleep undreaming vs that with dreams.

Out of respect for your teacher , you just now define these dualisms as experience of monism ,and relieve the cognitive dissonance.

Ze Problim is sol-ved. Clouseau 1975 

   

 

 

Agreed, I was not conflating the experience of clear light with non-duality or non-dual experience. I used that experience to address rene’s question about awareness in the absence of phenomena.

[doc benway]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

There is clear awareness continuing through all three states (waking/dreaming/deep sleep). 

Agreed 

[Limahong]

30 minutes ago, dwai said:

Not like that. More like sunlight not separate from the Sun (2).

 

Please enlighten on how the Sun and sunlight are linked to Shakti and Shiva thus...

 

On 8/16/2018 at 1:05 AM, dwai said:

Shakti is not separate from Shiva (2).

 

 

[dwai]

9 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Please enlighten on how the Sun and sunlight are linked to Shakti and Shiva thus...

 

 

 

It's an example. Not to be taken literally. Just like Sunlight is a property of the Sun, similarly Shakti (Creative power) is a property of Shiva (Consciousness). So, There is no Shakti separate from Shiva. Yin and Yang are more "meta" conceptions, imho. One could make a mental stretch and say that Consciousness (Shiva) is Yin and Shakti (Energy) is Yang. But Consciousness and Energy are not separate really...where consciousness is, there is energy. Where there is no consciousness, there is no energy. As such, we have no way to know what is there, when there is no consciousness. Because knowing is predicated upon consciousness. So, in a way, 'knowing' IS energy (creating appearances). 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

It's an example. Not to be taken literally.

 

Hi dwai,

 

I am not taking things literally but philosophically as a budding Taoist.

I am not critical but trying to be inclusive as a human being.

 

Just like Sunlight is a property of the Sun, similarly Shakti (Creative power) is a property of Shiva (Consciousness).

Does Shiva precedes Shakti? Or are they into the same moment?

 

So, There is no Shakti separate from Shiva. Yin and Yang are more "meta" conceptions, imho.

Can I embrace both Shakti/Shiva and Yin/Yang together in a same moment - as a Taoist?

 

One could make a mental stretch and say that Consciousness (Shiva) is Yin and Shakti (Energy) is Yang.

Consciousness ~ Shiva <=> Yin.

Energy ~ Shakti <=> Yang.

Interesting.

 

But Consciousness and Energy are not separate really...where consciousness is, there is energy.

So Consciousness and Energy are into the same moment?

If so, Shakti/Shiva and Yin/Yang are also into the same moment - philosophically?

 

Where there is no consciousness, there is no energy. As such, we have no way to know what is there, when there is no consciousness.

Consciousness is always there - for as long as I can breathe?

"We have no way to know what is there, when there is no consciousness" - I can accept this if I am not breathing.

But if I am breathing and I don't know what I don't know - is there Consciousness?

 

Because knowing is predicated upon consciousness.

... what if I don't know what I don't know and I am still breathing - in relation to Consciousness?

 

So, in a way, 'knowing' IS energy (creating appearances). 

... what is "not knowing" - in relation to conscious lifelong learning?

 

- Anand

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Limahong

[dwai]

51 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi dwai,

 

I am not taking things literally but philosophically as a budding Taoist.

I am not critical but trying to be inclusive as a human being.

That's the best way to be.

51 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Just like Sunlight is a property of the Sun, similarly Shakti (Creative power) is a property of Shiva (Consciousness).

Does Shiva precedes Shakti? Or are they into the same moment?

 

Does the flame precede the light? 

51 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

So, There is no Shakti separate from Shiva. Yin and Yang are more "meta" conceptions, imho.

Can I embrace both Shakti/Shiva and Yin/Yang together in a same moment - as a Taoist?

 

Why not?

51 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

One could make a mental stretch and say that Consciousness (Shiva) is Yin and Shakti (Energy) is Yang.

Consciousness ~ Shiva <=> Yin.

Energy ~ Shakti <=> Yang.

Interesting.

 

But Consciousness and Energy are not separate really...where consciousness is, there is energy.

So Consciousness and Energy are into the same moment?

If so, Shakti/Shiva and Yin/Yang are also into the same moment - philosophically?

 

The Shiva-Shakti duality is an erroneous one, just as the subject-object duality is. It is always subject-object. Just like it is never "yin" or "Yang" but Yin-Yang. 

51 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Where there is no consciousness, there is no energy. As such, we have no way to know what is there, when there is no consciousness.

Consciousness is always there - for as long as I can breathe?

"We have no way to know what is there, when there is no consciousness" - I can accept this if I am not breathing.

But if I am breathing and I don't know what I don't know - is there Consciousness?

 

Have you ever gone into a natural state of breath retention? It used to happen to me a lot during Sudarshan kriya practice. The breath would cease for 3-4 minutes (kevala kumbhaka) and there were no thoughts, but there was pure consciousness. When the first thought arose, the breathing started. Of course we can also be in a  thoughtless state by simply watching intently for the next thought to arise. 

51 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Because knowing is predicated upon consciousness.

... what if I don't know what I don't know and I am still breathing - in relation to Consciousness?

Knowing is dependent on Consciousness. Not the other way round. It is perfectly normal to be aware (Pure Consciousness) without any thoughts (hence knowing). 

51 minutes ago, Limahong said:

So, in a way, 'knowing' IS energy (creating appearances). 

... what is "not knowing" - in relation to conscious lifelong learning?

 

- Anand

 

Not knowing is just the absence of subject-object duality, in relation to conscious lifelong learning. 

[Limahong]

35 minutes ago, dwai said:

The Shiva-Shakti duality is an erroneous one, just as the subject-object duality is. It is always subject-object. Just like it is never "yin" or "Yang" but Yin-Yang. 

 

 

      

 

 

                                                                 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Limahong

[Marblehead]

One thing I have always appreciated about Hindu art is that they had no phobias about displaying human sexuality.  Well, sure, I always looked at the women.