Why “Beyond consciousness” is a misunderstanding

[dwai]

55 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

Btw, when does one school of Hinduism call or imply that another school of Hinduism  is "absurd" ?  With such a case going beyond civil disagreement by demeaning another either bluntly or in a condescending way.  (thus breaking a central percept of Hinduism)

Not sure what you mean. Whom did I demean? Absurd means something that doesn’t make sense/is illogical. I have explained what I find to be that way, and why. 
 

To have common purpose of understanding we can’t be talking past each other — we are not talking about “other schools of Hinduism” here, we are conversing about Advaita principles - siddhanta.
 

If someone came from dvaita/vishisthadvaita school, I’ll say, I don’t want to comment on it, as I don’t subscribe to it. More power to you if you do, but we don’t have anything to talk about in this context.  

[old3bob]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

Not sure what you mean. Whom did I demean? Absurd means something that doesn’t make sense/is illogical. I have explained what I find to be that way, and why. 
 

To have common purpose of understanding we can’t be talking past each other — we are not talking about “other schools of Hinduism” here, we are conversing about Advaita principles - siddhanta.
 

If someone came from dvaita/vishisthadvaita school, I’ll say, I don’t want to comment on it, as I don’t subscribe to it. More power to you if you do, but we don’t have anything to talk about in this context.  

 

and you also said this:  "When someone doesn't understand this contextually and takes "parabrahman" to literally be a thing beyond "brahman" (which is already considered infinite, unknowable, and so on), it is simply absurd." 

(and I'd say it is not a matter of a thing as you are labeling)

Edited February 28, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

16 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

and you also said this:  "When someone doesn't understand this contextually and takes "parabrahman" to literally be a thing beyond "brahman" (which is already considered infinite, unknowable, and so on), it is simply absurd." 

(and I'd say it is not a matter of a thing as you are labeling)

To state that the claim is absurd, doesn’t not necessarily mean the person is too.
 

The role of incorrect/incomplete information in forming erroneous opinions is well known.

 

I don’t understand what your issue is. Is that an opinion you too hold personally? In the context of nondual principles? Is that what is the problem here?  Or is it a misunderstanding on your part as to what I found as being absurd? If so, then it is simply the conclusion drawn by the person, and not the person themselves. 
 

I noticed that you edited the quoted text and added this in parentheses that I didn’t actually type — “ (and I'd say it is not a matter of a thing as you are labeling)“

 

Is it safe to assume that you didn’t actually mean to modify what I wrote? 

Edited February 28, 2022 by dwai

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

To state that the claim is absurd, doesn’t not necessarily mean the person is too.
 

The role of incorrect/incomplete information in forming erroneous opinions is well known.

 

I don’t understand what your issue is. Is that an opinion you too hold personally? In the context of nondual principles? Is that what is the problem here?  Or is it a misunderstanding on your part as to what I found as being absurd? If so, then it is simply the conclusion drawn by the person, and not the person themselves. 
 

I noticed that you edited the quoted text and added this in parentheses that I didn’t actually type — “ (and I'd say it is not a matter of a thing as you are labeling)“

 

Is it safe to assume that you didn’t actually mean to modify what I wrote? 

 

note the last quotation mark after absurd which I quoted, for there are no quotation marks around my parentheses which has the statement of I for me. 

[Cleansox]

On 2022-02-28 at 7:49 PM, dwai said:

I think the challenge lies in a basic difference in how "awareness" or "consciousness" is being positioned.

Which makes discussions frustrating, because (as you write below) the usage of terms differ between teachers, between systems, and then there are translational aspects slapped on that. 

 

So, unless one agrees to discuss a topic using defined terms from a specific system, we are likely to refer to different things using the same terms. 

 

In western psychology, it is usually the other way around: Two or three different terms are used to describe the same phenomenon. 

Quite a mess, actually. 

 

On 2022-02-28 at 7:49 PM, dwai said:

 

But according to Advaita traditions, awareness is unbounded/infinite/everpresent already. 

 

 

I would not argue with you about the Advaita perspective. 

 

Yet, other hindu traditions seems to have slightly different takes on the subject, including how one might reach the deepest realization. 

Just like traditions from other cultures. 

[Cleansox]

On 2022-03-01 at 12:08 AM, dwai said:

 

To have common purpose of understanding we can’t be talking past each other — we are not talking about “other schools of Hinduism” here, we are conversing about Advaita principles - siddhanta.

If I had seen that the first thread was about that, you wouldn't have seen a post by me in this thread or in the thread that inspired to this. 

[dwai]

27 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Which makes discussions frustrating, because (as you write below) the usage of terms differ between teachers, between systems, and then there are translational aspects slapped on that. 

 

So, unless one agrees to discuss a topic using defined terms from a specific system, we are likely to refer to different things using the same terms. 

That should be the norm in such discussions. We agree on a definition, learn the other side's perspective and then discuss/discourse. It is germane to the topic in hand because we are discussing nondual principles and using terminology used in Advaita Vedanta (and Vedanta in general).

One can't use Brahman and Atman outside the scope of Vedanta. If one is discussing non-duality using said terminology, it is Advaita Vedanta, not any other school of Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, and so on. So then, one should either use the correct definition/syntax or stop borrowing/mistranslating, so as to not mislead people into thinking they are actually learning Vedanta or Advaita Vedanta. 

Quote

 

In western psychology, it is usually the other way around: Two or three different terms are used to describe the same phenomenon. 

That is true for Indic spiritual traditions too. For instance, Consciousness is also called "Purusha". But specifically, Purusha is primarily used in Samkhya, not so much in Vedanta. Shiva is also used in Vedanta, but to mean "auspicious", not how Shiva is used in Kashmir Shaivism, for instance. 

 

Both Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism use "Chaitanyam" and "Atma" in a similar way. So in discussions between those traditions, that could be used as mutually agreed upon terminology. This process of agreeing upon definitions and understanding the other's perspective is called 'purva paksha' -- without which, discourse is meaningless. 

Quote

Quite a mess, actually. 

 

I would not argue with you about the Advaita perspective. 

That is fair. 

Quote

 

Yet, other hindu traditions seems to have slightly different takes on the subject, including how one might reach the deepest realization. 

Just like traditions from other cultures. 

Leaving aside dualist systems for the topic at hand, what actually IS nondual can't be different between traditions. Concepts and theories can be different, language can be different. Experiences can be different too...but none of them actually are "Nondual" in nature. They can only be pointers to the nondual reality that is being alluded to. That is what I mean by nondual principles or "siddhanta". 

 

So, it is very important, IMHO to reconcile terminology before discussing these topics. I always try to do so, otherwise, we will end up constantly shouting/talking past each other. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by dwai

[Cleansox]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

If one is discussing non-duality, it is Advaita Vedanta, not any other school of Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, 

Is that generally agreed upon? 

Really, you cannot open a book about Kashmir Shaivism without seeing that it claims to be a non-dual tradition. 

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

Leaving aside dualist systems for the topic at hand, what actually IS nondual can't be different between traditions. 

Unfortunately, I cannot find the relevant quote just by leefing through the book, otherwise I would use one that state differently, based on the author's study of Kashmir Shaivism. 

[dwai]

26 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Is that generally agreed upon? 

Really, you cannot open a book about Kashmir Shaivism without seeing that it claims to be a non-dual tradition. 

I am not saying Kashmir Shaivism is not an Advaita (Nondual) tradition. I am saying, Kashmir Shaivism doesn't use Brahman/Atman terminology.

Quote

Unfortunately, I cannot find the relevant quote just by leefing through the book, otherwise I would use one that state differently, based on the author's study of Kashmir Shaivism. 

There are certainly differences in perspective between Advaita Vedanta and KS, and certainly, there is some bickering between the two as well (but not a huge dispute). The differences are in the description of the Ultimate State. Such differences are also there between Buddhism, Daoism, and so on. But these are still, in the domain of duality (description). 

 

AV says Brahman is ultimately changeless (satyam), and all changes occurring are appearances only (mithya). But also says, the appearance is none other than Brahman itself, as is the individual being (Jiva).

 

KS says, Shiva's bliss manifests as vibration (spanda) and the material universe is a result of that spanda. Coming out of Shiva, it is also real, since how can something unreal come out of something real? 

But KS also says that the Individual being (Jiva) is none other than Shiva. 

 

There is not much difference as it pertains to Brahman or Shiva being Consciousness. 

AV - Prajnanam Brahma (Brahman is Consciousness)

KS - Shuddha Savmit (Pure Consciousness)

Edited March 2, 2022 by dwai

[Cleansox]

15 minutes ago, dwai said:

I am not saying Kashmir Shaivism is not an Advaita (Nondual) tradition. I am saying, Kashmir Shaivism doesn't use Brahman/Atman terminology.

My bad, didn't read the entire sentence. 

But I managed to to the dishes and wipe my youngest daughter while trying to read and write. 😁 

[forestofclarity]

On 2/28/2022 at 1:49 PM, dwai said:

 

 

 

His take on the Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, outlining the Kagyu Shentong position, is pretty interesting.

 

 

[SAMANTABHADRA]

On 3/25/2022 at 6:16 PM, forestofemptiness said:

 

His take on the Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, outlining the Kagyu Shentong position, is pretty interesting.

 

 

 

Is that in this video?  Don't have time to check out the whole thing but would consider checking this section out if you have a timestamp.

[forestofclarity]

4 hours ago, SAMANTABHADRA said:

 

Is that in this video?  Don't have time to check out the whole thing but would consider checking this section out if you have a timestamp.

 

Around 51:40 he segues into it. 

[SAMANTABHADRA]

Thanks!

[old3bob]

From the Katha Upanishad speaking of that beyond consciousness or its Source:

 

from part 3 #10 &11

 

"10. The senses derive from objects of sense-perception,
Sense objects from mind, mind from intellect.
And intellect from ego;
11. Ego from undifferentiated consciousness,
And consciousness from Brahman.
Brahman is the first cause and last refuge..."

[Lairg]

Are there any women taking part in this thread?

 

Has no one mentioned the heart? 

 

Is the heart greater than the mind?   

 

Men (mental) may not think so, but perhaps women can get to the heart of the matter 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Lairg

[MIchael80]

On 26.2.2022 at 11:39 PM, dwai said:

All the references to scripture I’ve seen are also misunderstood/mistranslated. Read Ramana Maharishi’s response to this “turiyatita” business — he explains it as simply the recognition that turiya is not the “fourth” state but the ever-present consciousness in all experiences. 

This absence of knowing is an intermediate state, and is nirvikalpa samadhi. It is a precursor to sahaja samadhi, which is not in an absent mind, but rather a non-grasping, non-agitated mind. In fact, we go into this absence state every night in deep sleep. Only difference is, “ordinary” people don’t retain awareness of this absence (of objects) as their awareness is covers by tamas. 
 

BTW, FWIW, I’ve spent many months in that “absence” state — where I was completely aware in deep sleep, only there were no objects present - only presence. This presence continues through waking, dreaming and deep sleep. It’s hard to describe what that deep sleep is like - but seems like you’ve been there too, based on your description. This state became natural and I stopped paying any special attention/consideration to it. 

It’s not a matter of me knowing “better” — I’ve seen way too much “mystification” of the process and of “enlightenment” itself, so this is my way to help people  (anyone who cares to heed my words) to investigate for themselves. I didn’t ridicule anyone, just find the the premise of “beyond awareness” ludicrous, based on my own realization.
 

Please feel free to ignore this topic if it upsets you. 
 

Hi! 

Somehow missed that answer? 🤔

 

Anyway.... you say "from your own realization " ... and i say that there is just more than your realization.

 

You do not read the sources i gave you ... even though the people there explicitly!!!! state that it is beyond absolute awareness/consciousness (not individual)... that is what i do not like! You claim something you have no own realization off and something you do not understand yet are totally resistent to look into it.

 

And though i do not feel comfortable with saying that... i speak not from book knowledge... i just quote sources from several Teachers because i am a nobody on the Internet. 

 

I work with one teacher who had also realized that Joel Richards from fulldawncircle. 

 

Short Interview 

 

 

The absence beyond  consciousness is not presence... presence in deep sleep is still presence/pure awareness.  Beyond that there is nothing...literally a no thing ness...it cannot be experienced...because consciousness as the silent source is needed for experience... the absence of it is very strange at first. 

Even that no thing ness is not the end.... it is swallowed by pure divinity... and it is hidden by pure consciousness. 

Has nothing to do with mystification... just that there is more than pure eternal awareness. 

 

Here a leading by Andrew Hewson from I Am.. through pure awareness  ..beyond it. 

 

Since you shifted to pure awareness...that leading can take you maybe beyond it. 

It would be wonderful if you could see that for yourself... but since you say that is ridiculous... that could be a block.

😊

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by MIchael80

[dwai]

46 minutes ago, MIchael80 said:

Hi! 

Somehow missed that answer? 🤔

 

Anyway.... you say "from your own realization " ... and i say that there is just more than your realization.

I also have the testimony of very reliable sources - basically all of the advaita vedanta tradition and teachers , upanishads, etc. I don’t like to  appeal to authority because I find speaking about direct experience far more powerful. 

Quote

 

You do not read the sources i gave you ... even though the people there explicitly!!!! state that it is beyond absolute awareness/consciousness (not individual)... that is what i do not like! You claim something you have no own realization off and something you do not understand yet are totally resistent to look into it.

I actually did. I don’t agree with them for precisely the very logical reason I provided in the OP (for example davidya’s articles on the subject). 

Quote

 

And though i do not feel comfortable with saying that... i speak not from book knowledge... i just quote sources from several Teachers because i am a nobody on the Internet. 

 

I work with one teacher who had also realized that Joel Richards from fulldawncircle. 

 

Short Interview 

 

The absence beyond  consciousness is not presence... presence in deep sleep is still presence/pure awareness.  Beyond that there is nothing...literally a no thing ness...it cannot be experienced...because consciousness as the silent source is needed for experience... the absence of it is very strange at first. 

Even that no thing ness is not the end.... it is swallowed by pure divinity... and it is hidden by pure consciousness. 

Has nothing to do with mystification... just that there is more than pure eternal awareness. 

 

Here a leading by Andrew Hewson from I Am.. through pure awareness  ..beyond it. 

 

Since you shifted to pure awareness...that leading can take you maybe beyond it. 

It would be wonderful if you could see that for yourself... but since you say that is ridiculous... that could be a block.

😊

 

I will certainly check these out. 
 

Fwiw, I’m not being adamant for the sake of argumentation - I’ve given this topic enough time and effort and then arrived at my conclusion. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by dwai

[forestofclarity]

Presence and absence are not consciousness, but states of consciousness. From a Vedantic POV, consciousness is not a state, but is common to all states (much as being is not a thing but is common to all things). Accordingly, when you type "the absence of it is very strange at first" means that it was arising in consciousness. 

 

This is the problem with non-traditional teachers. They only have their own experience to draw upon, whereas established traditions have the collective experiences of thousands of high level practitioners. 

 

On 11/25/2022 at 2:52 PM, MIchael80 said:

The absence beyond  consciousness is not presence... presence in deep sleep is still presence/pure awareness.  Beyond that there is nothing...literally a no thing ness...it cannot be experienced...because consciousness as the silent source is needed for experience... the absence of it is very strange at first. 

Even that no thing ness is not the end.... it is swallowed by pure divinity... and it is hidden by pure consciousness. 

Has nothing to do with mystification... just that there is more than pure eternal awareness.

 

[MIchael80]

4 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

Presence and absence are not consciousness, but states of consciousness. From a Vedantic POV, consciousness is not a state, but is common to all states (much as being is not a thing but is common to all things). Accordingly, when you type "the absence of it is very strange at first" means that it was arising in consciousness. 

 

This is the problem with non-traditional teachers. They only have their own experience to draw upon, whereas established traditions have the collective experiences of thousands of high level practitioners. 

 

 

Sigh.... 😔

In that quote i used presence and awareness as synonymous.... but you are right presence is not pure consciousness. 

 

I thought i made that clear that i , and the teachers i quoted (most come from a tradition) talk about beyond consciousness...beyond that basic fundamental consciousness which as you stated is "common to all states and things".

 

https://www.lucialorn.net/states-of-consciousness

 

This talkes about that....from presence to pure consciousness to beyond. 

I had already posted that. 

[forestofclarity]

It is not clear to me. The title of the link is "states of consciousness" and even the state "beyond consciousness" is described as a "perspective" and an "experience of Reality." These are all within consciousness. 

 

The idea that a state, experience, feeling, or some X beyond consciousness is incoherent. Even if it existed, it would be absolutely unknowable as any knowing or knowledge is consciousness. It would have no relation to consciousness, because any relation is joining or uniting with consciousness. Accordingly, it would be impossible to even consider, think about, discuss, write about, or point to. 

 

If I were being generous, I would say that they may be pointing to subtler and subtler objects of consciousness that are often mistaken for consciousness. For example, the feeling of presence, the feeling  I am, the sense of infinite space, etc.  

 

3 hours ago, MIchael80 said:

I thought i made that clear that i , and the teachers i quoted (most come from a tradition) talk about beyond consciousness...beyond that basic fundamental consciousness which as you stated is "common to all states and things".

 

https://www.lucialorn.net/states-of-consciousness

 

[Creation]

11 hours ago, MIchael80 said:

I thought i made that clear that i , and the teachers i quoted (most come from a tradition) talk about beyond consciousness...beyond that basic fundamental consciousness which as you stated is "common to all states and things".

 

7 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

It would have no relation to consciousness, because any relation is joining or uniting with consciousness. Accordingly, it would be impossible to even consider, think about, discuss, write about, or point to. 

The people I talk to that speak of a realization "beyond" the realization of consciousness are not talking about a "thing", level, or stratum of reality beyond consciousness. Instead, it is a realization that consciousness is not beyond, outside of, or in any way prior to the rest of experience, but is dependently originated just like everything else. Even more ironically, they say that this realization is what makes the experience of pure consciousness (pure knowingness/beingness) spontaneously present in all experience, rather than something you must withdraw into. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Creation

[Lairg]

Is it presumptuous to discuss the nature of consciousness while being confined to the mental and emotional planes?

 

Perhaps an experience beyond consciousness might assist.  Consider the experience of intuition - as compared to instinct.

 

  

Edited November 29, 2022 by Lairg

[MIchael80]

14 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

It is not clear to me. The title of the link is "states of consciousness" and even the state "beyond consciousness" is described as a "perspective" and an "experience of Reality." These are all within consciousness. 

 

The idea that a state, experience, feeling, or some X beyond consciousness is incoherent. Even if it existed, it would be absolutely unknowable as any knowing or knowledge is consciousness. It would have no relation to consciousness, because any relation is joining or uniting with consciousness. Accordingly, it would be impossible to even consider, think about, discuss, write about, or point to. 

 

If I were being generous, I would say that they may be pointing to subtler and subtler objects of consciousness that are often mistaken for consciousness. For example, the feeling of presence, the feeling  I am, the sense of infinite space, etc.  

 

 

You cling to words where they cannot reach. But we have to use them in a conversation, right?

They use "reality" because reality is "bigger" than pure awareness (you seem to use it as unbounded awareness). Maybe you want to listen to the Interview of Joel Richards i posted above (he describes these shifts)

 

They very clearly state that they do not talk about states of individual consciousness but of shifts in being itself. 

Quote "consciousness is an unbounded field of pure awareness ".

And beyond consciousness is "prior to..etc.etc." 

 

Your thought process goes into the right direction. 😊 ... it could seem like subtler and subtler forms of awareness and some become these subtler and subtler forms before the beyond shift.

 

For some who make that shift it feels like a loosing of the enlightenment (unbounded source awareness) as it is ending a paradigm of perception/existence. However once it gets clear the mechanics of how pure unbounded consciousness is created are understood which is quite a revelation.

😊

 

[MIchael80]

8 hours ago, Creation said:

 

The people I talk to that speak of a realization "beyond" the realization of consciousness are not talking about a "thing", level, or stratum of reality beyond consciousness. Instead, it is a realization that consciousness is not beyond, outside of, or in any way prior to the rest of experience, but is dependently originated just like everything else. Even more ironically, they say that this realization is what makes the experience of pure consciousness (pure knowingness/beingness) spontaneously present in all experience, rather than something you must withdraw into. 

Hi creation! 

 

Well i would not call that beyond consciousness...as it is, as you described so well the recognition that this pure consciousness is always there and no withdrawing is needed. (Before that realization withdrawing is needed up to a certain point). 

 

But as this pure consciousness is always present there is a "level " that is prior to that even though it apears as the most fundamental "thing" and at the same time only "thing"that there is.