dwai

Words we use and what they mean to us

Recommended Posts

In the spiritual world, there are many "buzz words" and most people use them quite profusely. I propose that we try to do an exercise where we compile a list of common terms and see if our understanding of these words match. Let me start with three words we use very freely and what they mean to me. Doing exercises like this may help us avoid unnecessary arguments over misunderstandings vis-a-vis jargon and syntax and work on creating better understanding/more meaningful discourses. 

 

  • Awareness¬†
  • Consciousness
  • Mind

 

On the surface these three words seem to be synonyms (or at least seem to be referring to the same thing). However, if we dig a bit deeper, our personal understanding of might be more nuanced. For instance, my understanding of the words have evolved over the years from roughly meaning the same thing to meaning more specific and different "things".

 

  • Awareness - This to me means the primary quality that allows one to know. This can be used synonymously, imho, with Pure Awareness or Pure Objectless Consciousness.
  • Consciousness - This to me means awareness in conjunction with any object. Or "objective consciousness". If there are no objects (ie empty), then I call it "Pure Objectless Consciousness" and can use it synonymously with "awareness".
  • Mind - This is a field of objects or a stream of objective consciousness. To me, Mind doesn't mean "awareness" or even consciousness, per se. It is the stream of consciousness, basically the incessant¬†knowing of objects.¬†

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

  • Awareness¬†
  • Consciousness
  • Mind

 

Awareness - To me, this is bio-chemical - like neurotransmitter hormones determining awareness On or Off.

 

Consciousness - To me, this is one effect of the above.

Mind - This to me is what the above two things are connecting with, and this is always present and existing beyond any individual "awareness" or "consciousness". 

 

None of these seem to mean or require any "ideas" at all.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

Awareness - To me, this is bio-chemical - like neurotransmitter hormones determining awareness On or Off.

 

Consciousness - To me, this is one effect of the above.

Mind - This to me is what the above two things are connecting with, and this is always present and existing beyond any individual "awareness" or "consciousness". 

 

None of these seem to mean or require any "ideas" at all.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

That is a materialistic perspective. Thanks for sharing. So if you read someone like me stating that "awareness" is the basis of all existence, would that sound ridiculous to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dwai said:

That is a materialistic perspective. Thanks for sharing. So if you read someone like me stating that "awareness" is the basis of all existence, would that sound ridiculous to you?

 

"Spiritual" is a material perspective.

 

Spiritual and Physical arise at same time - like Movement reveals or establishes Stasis.

 

What is connecting to Spirit?

 

What is it that has "perspective"?

 

Isn't it you and others? Are you not physical?

 

No physical = No Spiritual.

 

Thought is Yang.

 

Mind is Yin.

 

All movement is Yang.

 

How did Physical happen?

 

A Thought appeared in Mind.

 

By what mechanisms do you think?

 

Objects move in the Physical, as described - your physical "functioning".

 

"You" built the structures that are doing this.

 

"You" are just a crystallization of overall Environment.

 

"You" built yourself, from yourself.

 

You are a thought that appeared in Mind.

 

Physical and Spiritual are not separate or "standalone".

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awareness - Conscious focus in mind, as there are tons of things happening that are subconscious or you are unaware of.

Consciousness - Same as mind. 

Mind - Same as consciousness, but can often be thought of as sort of "local" mind and more universal mind/consciousness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

"Spiritual" is a material perspective.

 

Spiritual and Physical arise at same time - like Movement reveals or establishes Stasis.

 

What is connecting to Spirit?

 

What is it that has "perspective"?

 

Isn't it you and others? Are you not physical?

 

No physical = No Spiritual.

 

Thought is Yang.

 

Mind is Yin.

 

All movement is Yang.

 

How did Physical happen?

 

A Thought appeared in Mind.

 

By what mechanisms do you think?

 

Objects move in the Physical, as described - your physical "functioning".

 

"You" built the structures that are doing this.

 

"You" are just a crystallization of overall Environment.

 

"You" built yourself, from yourself.

 

You are a thought that appeared in Mind.

 

Physical and Spiritual are not separate or "standalone".

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

They are all thoughts in my experience :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on¬†your aim in using terminology really. If you‚Äôre trying to acertain some sort of ‚Äėtruth‚Äô or just have a creative or poetic brainstorming session (along the lines of Everything‚Äôs posts) - then using your own terminology and using your own meanings is the way to go.

 

If you‚Äôre exploring ‚Äėprocedural‚Äô instructions - how to do something to achieve some aim. Then I think it‚Äôs best to use the language of the tradition that spawned this procedure. Otherwise you‚Äôre just making things up.

 

I think it’s mostly a bad idea to mix the two.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, freeform said:

Depends on¬†your aim in using terminology really. If you‚Äôre trying to acertain some sort of ‚Äėtruth‚Äô or just have a creative or poetic brainstorming session (along the lines of Everything‚Äôs posts) - then using your own terminology and using your own meanings is the way to go.

 

If you‚Äôre exploring ‚Äėprocedural‚Äô instructions - how to do something to achieve some aim. Then I think it‚Äôs best to use the language of the tradition that spawned this procedure. Otherwise you‚Äôre just making things up.

 

I think it’s mostly a bad idea to mix the two.

I'm using the terminology per Advaita Vedanta/Vedantic framework. The fact of the matter is, people from different backgrounds come and interact on the basis of often conditioned understandings of these type of words (so we already see multiple different ideas about what these words mean).

 

With that in mind, what it would mean to someone with a Daoist or a dualistic background to hear "Awareness is the basis of existence. All existence appears and disappears in awareness"?  And what quality of discourse would we have, if we cannot get beyond the preliminary differences in understanding how these words are used?


I'm suggesting that behind these words (and their meanings ascribed based on tradition/background etc),  there is a "reality" that transcends all words (Dao that can be named is not the real dao, brahman is silence, etc etc). While words are a means to get to an intellectual understanding from where one can plunge into the unknown, so to speak; the reality is ineffable, indescribable, ungraspable (by the senses), can be known without employing the mind (as a realization alone)!

 

Introspecting on the quality of exchanges (not just here but over the years on various fora), it seems the root cause of "conflict" (as opposed to meaningful discourse) is the presumption implicit in our mental filters, as to what someone means when they use "x, y or z" to convey their ideas.  

 

Let me add an example. I say "All existence is due to the light of awareness". Someone with a taoist alchemical background would might immediately pounce upon it and claim "light is a phenomenon and there is white light and golden light and so on and so forth". But that is a complete misunderstanding of the term "light of awareness" as it has been used here. By "light of awareness" what I mean is "the illumination that facilitates knowing", and not some psychic or physical light (like white light/energy or golden light/energy).  

 

Edited by dwai
more context
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s a good idea to try and synchronise on meanings. But it will be difficult. Because as you point out there are a number irrconcileable differences between approaches.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dwai said:

I'm using the terminology per Advaita Vedanta/Vedantic framework. The fact of the matter is, people from different backgrounds come and interact on the basis of often conditioned understandings of these type of words (so we already see multiple different ideas about what these words mean).

 

With that in mind, what it would mean to someone with a Daoist or a dualistic background to hear "Awareness is the basis of existence. All existence appears and disappears in awareness"?  And what quality of discourse would we have, if we cannot get beyond the preliminary differences in understanding how these words are used?


I'm suggesting that behind these words (and their meanings ascribed based on tradition/background etc),  there is a "reality" that transcends all words (Dao that can be named is not the real dao, brahman is silence, etc etc). While words are a means to get to an intellectual understanding from where one can plunge into the unknown, so to speak; the reality is ineffable, indescribable, ungraspable (by the senses), can be known without employing the mind (as a realization alone)!

 

Introspecting on the quality of exchanges (not just here but over the years on various fora), it seems the root cause of "conflict" (as opposed to meaningful discourse) is the presumption implicit in our mental filters, as to what someone means when they use "x, y or z" to convey their ideas.  

 

Let me add an example. I say "All existence is due to the light of awareness". Someone with a taoist alchemical background would might immediately pounce upon it and claim "light is a phenomenon and there is white light and golden light and so on and so forth". But that is a complete misunderstanding of the term "light of awareness" as it has been used here. By "light of awareness" what I mean is "the illumination that facilitates knowing", and not some psychic or physical light (like white light/energy or golden light/energy).  

 

 

I am a huge supporter of the concept of having an agreed upon nomenclature for such discussions. But, the challenge is even broader than the words themselves, as each experience is different and hence the nature of the use of the word can be dramatically different even if one agrees to the meaning.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awareness to me states the lucidity of the experience. Vividness. Amount of color and light. Intensity of all the senses, the feelings and amplitutde of them. Also sense of smell. And taste. All of them. 

 

Consciousness is a more flexible, sometimes more underlying, more changable of form awareness. The awareness that is so flexible, it can even experience your life, but backwards in time for example. The experiences that a consciousness is a state of being that is aware of itself as a different thing unto itself seperate from other thing(s) . Can be endless varrying state of consciousnesses that need no sense whatsoever. 

 

The mind ofcourse related to the physical brain and eyes and nervous system, state of this nervous system, which is even literally transformable for people with multiple personality disorder or actors with multi personality order. Even cases where eye colors have changed, during the personality shift. 

 

The mind can actually co-create a scenario that can become the subtle energy motional frequential harmonic patternal alignment, where everything comes together, everything is absolutely identical to the desired or non desired or intended or non intended scenario that is being summoned and channeled, inter-dimensionally so to speak.

This phenomena has caused actors to become their character. Even when the scene was over. The scene was so perfect. They literally took the character with them outside of that scene. Intended or not. 

 

On the other hand, one can also enter the scene, and come out on the other end as an actor. As confused as the character may be in the life of an actor. So confused the actor can be in the life of the character. 

 

Quantum leaps are often thought to be very desirable. But in reality, very uncomfortable. 

Edited by Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

I am a huge supporter of the concept of having an agreed upon nomenclature for such discussions. But, the challenge is even broader than the words themselves, as each experience is different and hence the nature of the use of the word can be dramatically different even if one agrees to the meaning.  

Agreed. But it at least lets us go deeper into the "mystery", so to speak than if we just stayed on the surface where people used the same words but seem to contradict each other :) 

 

I don't know if there's going to be any solution to this besides as freeform suggested - immerse oneself in the tradition of choice and remain within that context. But is that going to be too limiting beyond a point? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dwai said:

But is that going to be too limiting beyond a point? 

 

Depends if that tradition has a ‚Äėglass ceiling‚Äô or not :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites