That which awakens, is already awake - An experiment

[dwai]

32 minutes ago, joeblast said:

in the maths, there's no time component to consciousness/awareness

Interesting. How can that be? No time?

[Marblehead]

I don't have a problem.  My ego always keeps me aware of itself.

 

[dwai]

 

49 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

Q : How can the Upanishads be wrong ?
A : Read Astavakra.   He makes it clear that the state of awakening is rare even for monks.

 

 

Q : Are we not "the one Brahman" ?
A : The point of the invocation "You are The Brahman" ... is to encourage you to feel inside you for the One, and in so doing it activates and grows that part of you that would otherwise remain dormant.   This invocation is not a statement of fact, but a practice.

 

Setting aside the opinions on Papaji, From the Ashtavakra Samhita, I get what this thread indicates. It is not a rant against the "foolish unawakened" masses...it is a pointer to what already is

 

WRT "Tat Tvam Asi", is it not an encouragement. It is an exhortation to the individual -- Don't think for one moment that you are NOT the Brahman. You Are That! The Practice is not chanting "I am Brahman", but after realizing what IS Brahman, abiding in continuously.

 

[joeblast]

11 minutes ago, dwai said:

Interesting. How can that be? No time?

everything's happening right now, last I checked   its the darndest thing - every time something happens, it happens right now

 

the observing, is all done right now...

 

the doing, is all done right now...

 

that which sees only experiences right now

Edited August 27, 2018 by joeblast

[Jonesboy]

10 minutes ago, dwai said:

but after realizing what IS Brahman, abiding in continuously.

 

 

Isn't part of the problem in realizing what Brahman is?

 

With your original question most will experience a moment of silence. Is that Brahman?

 

Does not the "abiding in" indicate ever changing states of being more so than a true change in ones being so that the definition of Brahman therefore would change as ones clarity changes?

Edited August 27, 2018 by Jonesboy

[Marblehead]

6 minutes ago, joeblast said:

everything's happening right now, last I checked   its the darndest thing - every time something happens, it happens right now

 

the observing, is all done right now...

 

the doing, is all done right now...

 

that which sees only experiences right now

You wouldn't believe how difficult it was for me to accept that concept.

 

[silent thunder]

before the 'i' thought kicks in

there is no distinguishing me from other

 

there just is what is and i am this

 

i am

[Marblehead]

Yep.  You am what you am.  

[Cheshire Cat]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Very nice, albeit it'd be good if you were able to narrow down a reason why you can't find the identity. What DO YOU/CAN YOU know about that which you can't identify? 

 

Identity is the business of conceptual thinking and it takes a fraction of time to give birth to conceptual understanding.

All that I can know is that perception comes first and concepts develop shortly thereafter: identity does not perceive.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Cheshire Cat

[dwai]

26 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Isn't part of the problem in realizing what Brahman is?

 

With your original question most will experience a moment of silence. Is that Brahman?

Is it merely silence and is that an experience? 

26 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Does not the "abiding in" indicate ever changing states of being more so than a true change in ones being so that the definition of Brahman therefore would change as ones clarity changes?

I will not answer this question at this stage of the thread  

[dwai]

19 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Identity is the business of conceptual thinking and it takes a fraction of time to give birth to conceptual understanding.

All that I can know is that perception comes first and concepts develop shortly thereafter: identity does not perceive.

Perception. What comprises perception?

[Cheshire Cat]

15 minutes ago, dwai said:

Perception. What comprises perception?

 

We haven't the tools to get to a definitive answer. 

We can just speculate. 

[dwai]

27 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

We haven't the tools to get to a definitive answer. 

We can just speculate. 

Why do we need to speculate? I'm not interested in the physiological process. At a high level, can we say one perceives because one has sense organs? 

[joeblast]

8 minutes ago, dwai said:

Why do we need to speculate? I'm not interested in the physiological process. At a high level, can we say one perceives because one has sense organs? 

sense organs relay information

 

per·ceive

pərˈsēv/

verb

verb: perceive; 3rd person present: perceives; past tense: perceived; past participle: perceived; gerund or present participle: perceiving

1. 1.

   become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.

   "his mouth fell open as he perceived the truth"

   synonyms:

   discern, recognize, become aware of, see, distinguish, realize, grasp, understand, take in, make out, find, identify, hit on, comprehend, apprehend, appreciate, sense, divine; More informalfigure out; informaltwig; formalbecome cognizant of "I immediately perceived the flaws in her story"

   • become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses, especially that of sight.

     "he perceived the faintest of flushes creeping up her neck"

     synonyms:

     see, discern, detect, catch sight of, spot, observe, notice "she perceived a twitch in his nose whenever he lied"

2. 2.

   interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as.

 

 

 

his mouth did not come to realize or understand, sense organs are a proxy

 

 

[Lost in Translation]

5 hours ago, dwai said:

What? No takers?

 

I get a microsecond of perception followed by a fleeting sense of loss as my consciousness rushes in to fill the void.

[dwai]

44 minutes ago, joeblast said:

sense organs relay information

 

per·ceive

pərˈsēv/

verb

verb: perceive; 3rd person present: perceives; past tense: perceived; past participle: perceived; gerund or present participle: perceiving

1. 1.

   become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.

   "his mouth fell open as he perceived the truth"

   synonyms:

   discern, recognize, become aware of, see, distinguish, realize, grasp, understand, take in, make out, find, identify, hit on, comprehend, apprehend, appreciate, sense, divine; More informalfigure out; informaltwig; formalbecome cognizant of "I immediately perceived the flaws in her story"

   • become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses, especially that of sight.

     "he perceived the faintest of flushes creeping up her neck"

     synonyms:

     see, discern, detect, catch sight of, spot, observe, notice "she perceived a twitch in his nose whenever he lied"

2. 2.

   interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as.

 

 

 

his mouth did not come to realize or understand, sense organs are a proxy

 

 

So would it be fair to say that the sense organs gather sensory input, and that gets processed by the mind in form of objects and something (consciousness) makes sense of these thought objects by pattern matching and labeling them as x, y or z?

 

[dwai]

3 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I get a microsecond of perception followed by a fleeting sense of loss as my consciousness rushes in to fill the void.

Is it the consciousness that rushes in to fill the void or is it your mind?

[Lost in Translation]

Just now, dwai said:

Is it the consciousness that rushes in to fill the void or is it your mind?

 

... I don't know. That's a funny feeling. It's "me" but in order to define "me" I need to pull out to another level and when I do that... poof, it's gone!

[dwai]

4 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

... I don't know. That's a funny feeling. It's "me" but in order to define "me" I need to pull out to another level and when I do that... poof, it's gone!

Is it gone or just hidden behind the "definitions"?

[Lost in Translation]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

Is it gone or just hidden behind the "definitions"?

 

I'm sure it's not gone. Now I've gone and thought about it way too much and I can't seem to get back there. I've "wised up" to the trick. We'll have a wait a while and I'll try again to see what I can see.

[rene]

8 hours ago, dwai said:

What do you get?

 

There's nothing there.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, rene said:

 

There's nothing there.

Any sense that you exist at all there? Just existence? Being? 

[rene]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

Any sense that you exist at all there? Just existence? Being? 

Not even that.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, rene said:

Not even that.

Who observes that? 

[Cheshire Cat]

8 hours ago, dwai said:

Why do we need to speculate? I'm not interested in the physiological process. At a high level, can we say one perceives because one has sense organs? 

 

I think that we should consider a few possibilities. 

Given that as individuals who study themselves in the realm of subjective perception, we feel to be "observers" at the most fundamental level, we should consider that:

1- identity of the one who perceives could be a cognitive process generated by the mere activity and existence of the sensory organs. To support this thesis we have the fact that we can't shut down perception and when there's no perception there's no identity. 

2- it could be a mental trick, a false perception like a mirage or those images that the brain can interpret as different representation simultaneously. There are are a lot of perceptual tricks that our mind produces and we can study them trough popular images ready available online. 

3-there might be a Self that observes, but we don't know any of its qualities. It could be something that dies daily, or it could be immortal. It could be supported by physiology... or not. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Cheshire Cat