Running into walls again....ARGH!

[xabir2005]

SELF-INQUIRY!!! .

Depending on what you mean by self inquiry, if you are talking about Advaitic sense a la Ramana Maharshi, then self inquiry easily leads to the I AM realisation than to the No-Self realisation.

 

The No-Self realisation is gained through contemplating vipassanically on these verses....

 

#

There is thinking, no thinker

There is hearing, no hearer

There is seeing, no seer

 

#

 

In thinking, just thoughts

In hearing, just sounds

In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.

Or simply the Bahiya Sutta.

 

This is not to say that self inquiry in the vedantic sense is not precious, because it can give a powerful realisation of one's luminous nature of mind (as pure aliveness, consciousness), a powerful conviction that you are not a machine, or a corpse or a lifeless body -- the nature of mind is luminous, clear, alive as pure presence, imbued with clear knowingness. My friend Thusness has instructed a number of friends on self inquiry in the Vedantic sense, knowing that it will not lead all the way but can be an important tool.

 

However its empty (of self and inherent existence) nature will be evasive until further insights but it is nevertheless it can still serve as an important foundation or condition for further insights (though those who follow the traditional Mahasi Sayadaw Theravadin Vipassana path like Daniel Ingram may not emphasize this stage).

 

It is this experience of the pure I AMness that becomes mistaken as an Atman or Eternal Witness.

 

Another piece of the puzzle just fell into place with that statement! Thank you Xabir!

Great.

 

I have to add on something...

 

Rangtong seems to skew towards emptiness to the point of nihilism.

 

Shentong seems to skew towards luminosity to the point of eternalism.

 

When one realises the union of luminosity and emptiness, one goes beyond extremes.

 

Luminosity is the very magical and dream-like display of appearances... vivid and clear but empty. Focus on the luminosity but also realise it's empty, dependently originated, and impermanent nature.

Edited October 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited October 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

 

Norbu teaches that "emptiness" in the Prasangika paradigm that is Rangtong perspective. If one listens to the discourses of Norbu and reads his books, one knows this.

No, I believed Namdrol has stated that ChNNR does not hold onto the rangtong perspective, nor shentong. He further explained how rantong and shentong are coarse views and extremes, one nihilism, the other eternalism. He then further states that ChNNR's view not different from Prasanga Madhyamaka except that the view derived from Prasanga Madhyamaka is by analysis while the view derived by Dzogchen is not. Nevertheless philosophically, they are the same, free of extremes.

 

You may want to clarify with him when e-sangha returns.

[JustARandomPanda]

No, I believed Namdrol has stated that ChNNR does not hold onto the rangtong perspective, nor shentong. He further explained how rantong and shentong are coarse views and extremes, one nihilism, the other eternalism. He then further states that ChNNR's view not different from Prasanga Madhyamaka except that the view derived from Prasanga Madhyamaka is by analysis while the view derived by Dzogchen is not. Nevertheless philosophically, they are the same, free of extremes.

 

You may want to clarify with him when e-sangha returns.

 

I could not find a Prasanga Madhyamak at Wikipedia though I did find this entry.

 

I don't understand why a complimentary (i.e. co-operative) view of both is still considered coarse and extreme.

 

What would a refined and unextreme view be experienced or viewed as?

 

I have come to see life and mind as operating like a rainbow. There is no substance called rainbow. It's like an illusion brought about by the interplay of light rays through the atmosphere. The rainbow "exists" - we do see it. Nevertheless it is illusion-like. The difference with it though is that the rainbow resolves back to light rays and atmosphere. Which materialists will point to as that being a substance.

 

In D.O. I realized that not even the illusion-like beings and mindstream and processes (example: yin/yang and chi) resolve back to 'something'. It has this 'illusion-like' coming together always. It's never-ending. Try as I can to find a place to slice it with a knife and say "ah hah...here is the end". I can't. I can't find it.

 

There is nothing that stops D.O. from the possibility of being true all the way through no matter where or at what "I" look at/perceive/experience, etc. Throw everything at it - D.O. dissolves it all...including Mind and Divinity. "I" exist only because every other being/mind-stream is acting as the light-rays and atmospheric dust for me to be. "I" come together in the same way as a rainbow does. And I'm just as inherently empty of self-substance like the rainbow. And likewise "I" do the same for them. And it all resolves...all these mindstreams acting as each other's light-rays/dust...to...emptiness.

 

When I first 'got' this understanding a tidal wave of gratitude to all beings and the universe seemed to well up in me out of nowhere. Very freaky! Go figure...

 

This is my understanding right now. If that is coarse and extreme so be it. I'll get to the right view eventually in my own good time.

[xabir2005]

Edited October 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[JustARandomPanda]

You know something else I've been contemplating recently when thinking on D.O.?

 

How it has some strange parallels to modern physics. I am no physicist or mathematician. What little I understand comes from "science-for-the-layman" type books. But it's my current understanding that physicists can't see the tiny sub-particles/waves or whatever their experiments are with. They can only infer these sub-particle/waves existence by the side-effects.

 

In other words...if they actually stopped looking for an ultimate whatever and just examined what they actually find...they'd see it's exhibiting some behavior that strangely corresponds to my understanding of D.O.! No ultimate substance! Can only be 'detected' via side-effects!

 

I've also found D.O. to be a good antidote for my own Ego and Narcissism.

 

No Allah, Yahweh, Jesus Christ, Brahman, Supreme Creator, etc...all the preceding is unnecessary (Occam's Razor). If I must thank someone for my life and being then I must give that thanks to those to whom it properly belongs...which means...

 

 

All of YOU.

 

And every sentient being that has ever existed or ever will besides.

 

So I would submit that understanding of D.O. doesn't necessarily always lead to nihilism. Just because we may all come together like a rainbow (or sub-atomic, unfindable wave-particles!) doesn't mean our being has no meaning or value.

[xabir2005]

You know something else I've been contemplating recently when thinking on D.O.?

 

How it has some strange parallels to modern physics. I am no physicist or mathematician. What little I understand comes from "science-for-the-layman" type books. But it's my current understanding that physicists can't see the tiny sub-particles/waves or whatever their experiments are with. They can only infer these sub-particle/waves existence by the side-effects.

 

In other words...if they actually stopped looking for an ultimate whatever and just examined what they actually find...they'd see it's exhibiting some behavior that strangely corresponds to my understanding of D.O.! No ultimate substance! Can only be 'detected' via side-effects!

 

I've also found D.O. to be a good antidote for my own Ego and Narcissism.

 

No Allah, Yahweh, Jesus Christ, Brahman, Supreme Creator, etc...all the preceding is unnecessary (Occam's Razor). If I must thank someone for my life and being then I must give that thanks to those to whom it properly belongs...which means...

All of YOU.

 

And every sentient being that has ever existed or ever will besides.

 

So I would submit that understanding of D.O. doesn't necessarily always lead to nihilism. Just because we may all come together like a rainbow (or sub-atomic, unfindable wave-particles!) doesn't mean our being has no meaning or value.

I agree with what you said and like what you said about the sub particles, even they dependently originate without a substance Actually D.O. is the only understanding that is beyond the extremes of nihilism and eternalism. It is just some of the interpretations of emptiness (either intrinsic or extrinsic) we need to be careful about. Edited October 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[JustARandomPanda]

Something else besides....

 

 

My understanding of the Alaya consciousness.

 

It also originates dependently. The only reason it continues before and after death is that all these infinity of sentient beings continue being the light-rays and atmospheric dust that reflects "my" alaya consciousness. This "D.O.-ing" operates whether I 'understand' it or not. Understanding isn't necessary for it to keep working (just like how modern physics doesn't need my understanding it for it to keep reality working).

 

And of course one's alaya consciousness does it's share of reflecting D.O. back to everyone else. Including - freakily I concluded - to 'ITSELF' as well! Maybe this is what is meant by luminosity?.

 

So again...no substance was logically necessary (as in the sense of necessary and sufficient cause). I couldn't even use the "eternal continuity" of the seedbed consciousness to slay D.O.

 

 

Man...how disturbing is that?!

[Enishi]

Better understanding of D.O. definitely leads to greater compassion. Even with people that I might not like on a surface level due to their having lower IQs or poor behavior, I think of D.O. and realize that they to, even in their current state, are an important aspect of the whole without which I couldn't exist.

[Vajrahridaya]

Here's my POV and correct me if you don't understand it the same way:

 

Luminosity is present even in the ignorant state, just temporarily obscured.

 

Ok, I wonder what the original word from the pali is for these translations? Just wondering. I think of luminosity as the conscious awareness of emptiness, then everything is experienced as luminous.

 

That's why I said that. I think of emptiness as being present, but it's recognition is defiled by our clinging to appearances as being stable and true in and of themselves, even our inner interpretations of the experienced.

 

No, I believed Namdrol has stated that ChNNR does not hold onto the rangtong perspective, nor shentong. He further explained how rantong and shentong are coarse views and extremes, one nihilism, the other eternalism. He then further states that ChNNR's view not different from Prasanga Madhyamaka except that the view derived from Prasanga Madhyamaka is by analysis while the view derived by Dzogchen is not. Nevertheless philosophically, they are the same, free of extremes.

 

You may want to clarify with him when e-sangha returns.

 

Ok, yes that can make sense. I'm not that up to par on the scholarly background for the two traditions of interpretation of Rangtong and Shentong.

 

So yes... I wouldn't mind getting some Namdrol in here.

 

...

 

Nagarjuna's refutation of rang stong [instrinsic emptiness]:

 

If there something subtle not empty,

there would be something subtle to be empty;

as there is nothing not empty,

where is there something to be empty?

 

And his refutation of gzhan stong [extrinsic emptiness]:

 

Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,

the conditioned is not established;

since the conditioned is never established,

how can the unconditioned be established?[/i]

There's nothing wrong with prasangika madhyamika, it is the view that leads to liberation - what Namdrol is criticizing is the rangtong and shentong views which he explains are extremes.

 

Ah... ok. This is what Michaelz was saying too at some point in a historical post.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

Hmm...

 

What about what I concluded?

 

And of course one's alaya consciousness does it's share of reflecting D.O. back to everyone else. Including - freakily I concluded - to 'ITSELF' as well! Maybe this is what is meant by luminosity?.

 

Might it be that D.O. has a recursive quality to it as well for each mind stream and this is the luminosity?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So I would submit that understanding of D.O. doesn't necessarily always lead to nihilism. Just because we may all come together like a rainbow (or sub-atomic, unfindable wave-particles!) doesn't mean our being has no meaning or value.

 

Thank you Serene!

 

My girlfriend needs to read this post.

 

Thanks Serene. I try to explain that to her. She's like.. "NO GOD!! NO MEANING!!" Ahhhh... she goes on to say... so this is just a purposeless cycle? I explain that no... since you are connected to everyone, your purpose is to realize how you are connected to everyone and how best to serve this interconnectivity through the uniqueness of your own appearance.

 

She's struggling with purpose right now.

 

edit: I am kind of retarded when it comes to grammar. It's like a science I don't get. I find English to be the most tedious language, though it's the only one I really know. Spanish makes more sense to me though. English is so not phonetic. I say this because I had to edit some things on this post and I find I'm always having to do that.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Better understanding of D.O. definitely leads to greater compassion. Even with people that I might not like on a surface level due to their having lower IQs or poor behavior, I think of D.O. and realize that they to, even in their current state, are an important aspect of the whole without which I couldn't exist.

 

Indeed! This is why the Dalai Lama say's, treat all beings as if they have been at some point your mother or father, because indeed, they have.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Something else besides....

My understanding of the Alaya consciousness.

 

It also originates dependently. The only reason it continues before and after death is that all these infinity of sentient beings continue being the light-rays and atmospheric dust that reflects "my" alaya consciousness. This "D.O.-ing" operates whether I 'understand' it or not. Understanding isn't necessary for it to keep working (just like how modern physics doesn't need my understanding it for it to keep reality working).

 

And of course one's alaya consciousness does it's share of reflecting D.O. back to everyone else. Including - freakily I concluded - to 'ITSELF' as well! Maybe this is what is meant by luminosity?.

 

So again...no substance was logically necessary (as in the sense of necessary and sufficient cause). I couldn't even use the "eternal continuity" of the seedbed consciousness to slay D.O.

Man...how disturbing is that?!

 

They reflect only because you have made the distinction of "other" and "I" real. There are no set causes and conditions, the difference is made and therefore you suffer from it.

 

D.O. is simply the function of the Luminosity, and yes you can say Luminosity is dependent on its content (NOT originated, because that tends to point to the birth. Existence cannot be born, it cannot come from non-existence, or it wouldn't be existence.) , but that's like saying a person is dependent on being a person.

 

"You," the true Self/Luminosity/Awareness" are not originated from anything, because you yourself is the whole of phenomena. Only the way in which it operated tends to mirror other Mind systems. Like being on a same frequency of sorts.

 

I really liked your rainbow example above! .

 

Thanks Serene. I try to explain that to her. She's like.. "NO GOD!! NO MEANING!!" Ahhhh... she goes on to say... so this is just a purposeless cycle? I explain that no... since you are connected to everyone, your purpose is to realize how you are connected to everyone and how best to serve this interconnectivity through the uniqueness of your own appearance.

 

She's struggling with purpose right now.

 

Lol. .

 

Your girlfriend might as well be right in your view!

 

To say that Awareness and intent are dependently originated and chained by true causes and conditions asserts fatalism. No purpose! Haha! .

[Vajrahridaya]

 

"You," the true Self/Luminosity/Awareness" are not originated from anything, because you yourself is the whole of phenomena. Only the way in which it operated tends to mirror other Mind systems. Like being on a same frequency of sorts.

 

I really liked your rainbow example above! .

 

It doesn't seem that you are understanding madhyamaka prasangika.

 

You are identifying with the entire cosmos now as your true Self? That would be eternalism. This is not dependent origination.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It doesn't seem that you are understanding madhyamaka prasangika.

 

You are identifying with the entire cosmos now as your true Self? That would be eternalism. This is not dependent origination.

 

There is no such thing as an entire cosmos, except that which I am experiencing right now. Have you known the world without being Aware?

 

It is not eternalism, because there is no distinct "I" in experience. Experience itself is the I. And its quality is of dependent origination, for Awareness cannot be without a reflective subject/object established. There cannot be total subject.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Your girlfriend might as well be right in your view!

 

To say that Awareness and intent are dependently originated and chained by true causes and conditions asserts fatalism. No purpose! Haha! .

 

No, you are not understanding me or the Buddha for that matter.

 

You are simplifying and not seeing the organic-ness. As long as consciousness is not aware of it's emptiness/D.O. it is chained by it's history and interpretation of this history. Thats why the more selfless actions you have the more you experience emptiness, because the recognition of emptiness due to seeing the Buddhas teaching is the liberating factor. Because before the experience is contextualized and interpreted clearly, it's ultimated, so one is clinging to featureless awareness as a universal Self. As the Buddha said, before him on Earth, there were only Pratyekabuddhas, and the conditions for their level of liberation arose due to past life influence. I find that you are not seeing directly beyond the mere concepts on paper, meaning of dependent origination. It's much more subtle and far reaching than you seem to be proposing as an interpretation of it.

 

Your interpretation of my understanding is a misinterpretation. You are ultimating awareness as some universal substance. Then when does this awareness become bound? You might as well be an Advaitin. I think you've read to much Ramana Maharishi.

 

 

 

There is no such thing as an entire cosmos, except that which I am experiencing right now. Have you known the world without being Aware?

 

One can be aware of beyond the world. Awareness is due to seeing, one can experience nothingness, and no awareness, then later be aware that this happened. You can experience beyond being an experiencer through meditation.

 

I doubt you have experienced full on the formless Jhanas. Your interpretation seems merely to be a mental projection.

 

It is not eternalism, because there is no distinct "I" in experience. Experience itself is the I. And its quality is of dependent origination, for Awareness cannot be without a reflective subject/object established. There cannot be total subject.

 

You should study more Nagarjuna and not think that it's merely applying to the things of awareness and not awareness as well.

 

But... do as you wish. I feel that you are not understanding me at all. Which honestly, should not bother me...

 

I just understand how not fatalistic my interpretation is. Maybe I'm not expressing it in a way that you can glean this understanding. But... all things and non-things are empty all the way through, and thus emptiness is empty because it's merely a condition of things and non-things which are empty. So not even awareness is established. You are liberated from this as an identity as well.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, you are not understanding me or the Buddha for that matter.

 

You are simplifying and not seeing the organic-ness. As long as consciousness is not aware of it's emptiness/D.O. it is chained by it's history and interpretation of this history. Thats why the more selfless actions you have the more you experience emptiness, because the recognition of emptiness due to seeing the Buddhas teaching is the liberating factor. As the Buddha said, before him on Earth, there were only Pratyekabuddhas, and the conditions for their level of liberation arose due to past life influence. I find that you are not seeing directly beyond the mere concepts on paper, meaning of dependent origination. It's much more subtle and far reaching than you seem to be proposing as an interpretation of it.

 

Your interpretation of my understanding is a misinterpretation. You are ultimating awareness as some universal substance. Then when does this awareness become bound? You might as well be an Advaitin. I think you've read to much Ramana Maharishi.

 

Consciousness, as in "Consciousness "of"" is dependently originated by the content. Awareness is not chained by history or interpretation of history, because it sees that all distinctions and discrimination of cause/effect/subject/object are false. There is only the quality of dependent origination, but nothing that is actually originated from one to another.

 

Awareness is not a universal substance.

 

Awareness becomes bound when it falsely identifies with the content of creation, such as the body, and imagines itself suffering through a world actually separated by discrimination of time and space.

 

One can be aware of beyond the world. Awareness is due to seeing, one can experience nothingness, and no awareness, then later be aware that this happened. You can experience beyond being an experiencer through meditation.

 

I doubt you have experienced full on the formless Jhanas. Your interpretation seems merely to be a mental projection.

You should study more Nagarjuna and not think that it's merely applying to the things of awareness and not awareness as well.

 

But... do as you wish. I feel that you are not understanding me at all.

 

There is no world beyond. When you are in world beyond, are you out of Awareness? That's ridiculous.

 

Yes, later you become what has happened. It is inevitable for you to recognize that there was the experience of nothing, hence the discrimination of a state "before" and "after" are made. Thus, the bliss heavens of complete non-dual Awareness yogis achieve eventually end.

 

I think you are clinging too much to your experiences of meditative states. Truth should be applicable to all conditions and experiences. .

Edited October 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[JustARandomPanda]

I disagree Lucky.

 

Look at that statement again >

 

"You," the true Self/Luminosity/Awareness" are not originated from anything, because you yourself is the whole of phenomena. Only the way in which it operated tends to mirror other Mind systems. Like being on a same frequency of sorts.

 

and this:

 

There is no world beyond. When you are in world beyond, are you out of Awareness? That's ridiculous.

 

Do you see why VH has a problem with your interpretation? Spin it all you want - those statements are a dead give away to a Solipsist view.

 

In other words...that statement above falls prey to the exact same problems all critiques for Solipsism do. Your interpretation of Dependent Origination falls prey to the Brain in a Vat dilemma.

 

VH can sense it. That's why he keeps telling you you (and me too!!) should go read more Nagarajuna.

 

 

Edit: I see you've answered further.. Perhaps you've clarified it. It's just that from the point I've read so far your arguments fall prey to the Brain in a Vat problem of philosophy.

 

But...will go check out the rest of what you've written.

Edited October 20, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Lucky7Strikes]

I just understand how not fatalistic my interpretation is. Maybe I'm not expressing it in a way that you can glean this understanding. But... all things and non-things are empty all the way through, and thus emptiness is empty because it's merely a condition of things and non-things which are empty. So not even awareness is established. You are liberated from this as an identity as well.

 

Hrm...sounds similar to what I wrote above.

 

"And its quality is of dependent origination, for Awareness cannot be without a reflective subject/object established. There cannot be total subject."

 

 

Do you see why VH has a problem with your interpretation? Spin it all you want - those statements are a dead give away to a Solipsist view.

 

In other words...that statement above falls prey to the exact same problems all critiques for Solipsism do. Your interpretation of Dependent Origination falls prey to the Brain in a Vat dilemma.

 

VH can sense it. That's why he keeps telling you you (and me too!!) should go read more Nagarajuna.

 

What are the critiques for Solipsism? I am not very knowledgeable of it.

 

Uh, Brain in a Vat?

[Vajrahridaya]

Consciousness, as in "Consciousness "of"" is dependently originated by the content. Awareness is not chained by history or interpretation of history, because it sees that all distinctions and discrimination of cause/effect/subject/object are false. There is only the quality of dependent origination, but nothing that is actually originated from one to another.

 

Consciousness arises in each moment along with the relativity, it is the relativity and the relativity is consciousness in and through a sentient being that is. Consciousness being aware of itself see's it's luminosity. It's not that consciousness and awareness are describing the same function.

 

Awareness is not a universal substance.

 

Awareness is just consciousness that is aware. The consciousness of a beetle has hardly any awareness if any at all... it's at the mercy of factors that it does not have the capacity to be aware of. In Buddhahood it's consciousness transcending itself and seeing the luminosity of things by seeing emptiness, the non-inherent nature of all things and itself. Then the elements are seen as lights and rays, and the world is as if a rainbow, one see's how the elements blend. You become aware of how all sentient beings are just an infinite mass of co-creation, from universe to universe on an infinite paradigm.

Awareness becomes bound when it falsely identifies with the content of creation, such as the body, and imagines itself suffering through a world actually separated by discrimination of time and space.

 

No, see that's consciousness which is already a product of this cycle that is simultaneous and progressing. Awareness becomes aware as it starts to have the capacity of expansion. So different bodies of consciousness, human, monkey, etc. are all conscious, but not aware to the same degree, and don't have the capacity to be aware to the same degree through the body, not that a monkey's hidden unconscious doesn't have a human future in karmic progression or even a human past.

 

I don't think we are on the same page on how we are defining awareness is what the problem is here Lucky.

 

 

There is no world beyond. When you are in world beyond, are you out of Awareness? That's ridiculous.

 

No, awareness beyond this world. Yes you can suppress the experience of awareness into a state of nothingness, so one is not aware anymore.

 

Yes, later you become what has happened. It is inevitable for you to recognize that there was the experience of nothing, hence the discrimination of a state "before" and "after" are made. Thus, the bliss heavens of complete non-dual Awareness yogis achieve eventually end.

 

Yes, but they are not aware of this, it's a state of consciousness where activity of all types is suppressed into potentiality.

 

I think you are clinging too much to your experiences of meditative states. Truth should be applicable to all conditions and experiences. .

 

Of course, but what this means for a person is as deep as it has been applied or as aware the being is of the fact of emptiness as it is applied to as deep as one has reached experientially. Does that make sense?

 

 

Hrm...sounds similar to what I wrote above.

 

"And its quality is of dependent origination, for Awareness cannot be without a reflective subject/object established. There cannot be total subject."

 

Established? Relatively though... I know you mean this.

 

What are the critiques for Solipsism? I am not very knowledgeable of it.

 

Uh, Brain in a Vat?

 

The critiques are that it's self centered without recognizing that your experience is originating dependent with all other beings.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

Consciousness arises in each moment along with the relativity, it is the relativity and the relativity is consciousness in and through a sentient being that is. Consciousness being aware of itself see's it's luminosity. It's not that consciousness and awareness are describing the same function.

 

Ok. I too am mixing up illusioned body bound consciousness, and phenomena non-dual Awareness.

 

Awareness = Relativity/Dependent Origination. No disagreements there.

 

Awareness is just consciousness that is aware. The consciousness of a beetle has hardly any awareness if any at all... it's at the mercy of factors that it does not have the capacity to be aware of. In Buddhahood it's consciousness transcending itself and seeing the luminosity of things by seeing emptiness, the non-inherent nature of all things and itself. Then the elements are seen as lights and rays, and the world is as if a rainbow, one see's how the elements blend. You become aware of how all sentient beings are just an infinite mass of co-creation, from universe to universe on an infinite paradigm.

 

Again, no disagreements here, except that the Beetle is Aware, or it wouldn't have existence in its own consciousness. Yes, the Buddha sees into all causes and effects simultaneously with the delusion of them.

 

No, see that's consciousness which is already a product of this cycle that is simultaneous and progressing. Awareness becomes aware as it starts to have the capacity of expansion. So different bodies of consciousness, human, monkey, etc. are all conscious, but not aware to the same degree, and don't have the capacity to be aware to the same degree through the body, not that a monkey's hidden unconscious doesn't have a human future in karmic progression or even a human past.

 

Yup. Awareness becomes bound by defining itself as a life form within an environment. It can become imprisoned into a limited conscious being like a beetle you mentioned above. The beetle can only act according to its created nature and instincts.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Yup. Awareness becomes bound by defining itself as a life form within an environment. It can become imprisoned into a limited conscious being like a beetle you mentioned above. The beetle can only act according to its created nature and instincts.

 

Yes, but that mind stream might not have ever been aware.

 

Awareness is not a given, it's a learned ability. It's a product of progression and personal evolution.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes, but they are not aware of this, it's a state of consciousness where activity of all types is suppressed into potentiality.

Yes, but that state cannot be eternal. For that state to be recognized as something that has occured, you must reflect on its existence. Otherwise, it cannot be said to have happened.

 

Established? Relatively though... I know you mean this.

 

The critiques are that it's self centered without recognizing that your experience is originating dependent with all other beings.

Yes, there is no denial that my experience, its contents and discrimination, are dependently originated by the paradigm of creation shared by other mind streams. Awareness's nature is to establish, for it cannot be purely subjective. It becomes-self aware (Path to liberation), or suffers (Samsara, by the dual contents (relativity, D.O.) of creation.

 

Yes, but that mind stream might not have ever been aware.

 

Awareness is not a given, it's a learned ability. It's a product of progression and personal evolution.

 

Awareness is phenomena...it can't be learned. You are talking about the state of luminosity which makes the truth of Awareness = phenomena clear.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, but that state cannot be eternal. For that state to be recognized as something that has occured, you must reflect on its existence. Otherwise, it cannot be said to have happened.

 

Right, but only if you are aware of it. One can become aware of things that one was not aware of. Like dreams still happen even if when we awake our consciousness is unaware of the fact of the activity. One can train consciousness to be aware as the impressions are still accessible. Because the habit of identifying is unconscious, the experience is still accessible. The experience was clung to on an unconscious level so is stored in the mind stream. As when you were dreaming, you were clinging to this as I and mine, even though when you awoke, because the identity with physicality is so strong, the paradigm shift broke the awareness. So, one doesn't remember the dream experience because of a lack of awareness, not a lack of consciousness. It's that dream consciousness and waking consciousness identities are too separated by a sense of duality.

 

Ok... I'm really tired, I only got a few hours sleep today due to typing and work. I'm going to step off. Whew.

 

Yes, there is no denial that my experience, its contents and discrimination, are dependently originated by the paradigm of creation shared by other mind streams. Awareness's nature is to establish, for it cannot be purely subjective. It becomes-self aware (Path to liberation), or suffers (Samsara, by the dual contents (relativity, D.O.) of creation.

Awareness is phenomena...it can't be learned. You are talking about the state of luminosity which makes the truth of Awareness = phenomena clear.

 

Eh ok... maybe semantics.

 

p.s. Nice debating with you Lucky.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya