« Critics are our best spiritual friends | Main | I know I’m right about uncertainty »

May 05, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian wrote:
"Each of us has to start from somewhere. Awareness. Whether we ever can move from this place is exceedingly unlikely. In fact, impossible."
My comment:
If I fill my body with barbiturates, my awareness is likely to be diminished. If I fill my mind with............., my awareness is likely to be augmented.
Most of us are filling in the dots with something or another, so we may not consider the likelihood of moving from this place to be impossible. Anyhow - exploring the possibilities remains my gameplan. I'm not ready to accept impossibilities quite yet, even if like Rene, I am aware of not being sure about anything.

Brian, now you're talkin!

Now here is a Blog article that I can really get behind.

When all is said and done, it finally comes down to just one thing:

awareness

For without awareness first, nothing else can be said... or thought, or perceived, or known, or done, or believed, or questioned, or whatever.

What is awareness? What is aware-ness? I could not tell you. I have no idea. All I have is... awareness.

Do I really need anything else... you know like ideas, beliefs, etc?

Awareness is the same as existence... for without awareness, how would anyone know or feel that they exist, or that anything exists, or even that there is awareness or that there is existence?


We can say that we are aware..
But we can't be aware about everything iside of us ,at the same time.
There is so much inside what we can't be aware of.
But awareness is beautiful,difinitely.
But..
I am happy in surgery for instance that I am not aware although I am still alive..WONDER also..
We must have faith at times,we can't be aware of everything all the time also.

Ooh well it sounds sort of silly what I said about awareness,but what I mean is that one can be in awareness...
But there is much more..then what we can be aware of..and that is beauty too..

last night laying in bed, I had a hard time sleeping. I closed my eyes, and thought to myself, where am I? I visualized my grey brain, my bones, my heart, my blood. I watched my thoughts. I felt the falafel sandwich sitting unfomfortably in my stomach (maybe why I couldn't sleep). I felt other emotions lingering in my body. But I was nowhere to be found...

It is possible, now that I consider the thing directly, that I am not aware. Like a mound building termite, I take the available crap that is around me and build useable structures. If the good Sri is correct, all I have in front of me is a fabrication of my mind, which is inseparable from the organic ground from which it is borne.

There doesn’t seem to be any reflection, which would entail duality, and a possible location for awareness. And there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of consciousness: my actions are rote, predictable; my words all learned; and there is no growth other than the organic, which is indistinguishable from decay. Convention would assign thought and feeling to some of my physiological activities, but I have no proof of that.

Obviously, I am a complex organism. To say that I am aware of being an organism is an unjustified leap.

Dear All,
I found this book by Charles Eisenstein here

http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/introduction.php.

The book has much to say on this business of
living in the moment.
Here is a very small sample of what his book is about.
"I have spent the last ten years trying to understand what keeps us—and what keeps me—from the better world that our hearts tell us must exist. To my endless amazement, I keep discovering a common root underneath all the diverse crises of the modern age. Underlying the vast swath of ruin our civilization has carved is not human nature, but the opposite: human nature denied. This denial of human nature rests in turn upon an illusion, a misconception of self and world. We have defined ourselves as other than what we are, as discrete subjects separate from each other and separate from the world around us. In a way this is good news: in this book I will describe the profound changes that will flow—and are already flowing—from the reconception of the self that is underway. The bad news is that our present conception of self is so deeply woven into our civilization—into our technology and culture—that its abandonment can only come with the collapse of much that is familiar."

Enjoy

Link I gave above doesnt seem to work.
Please try this one
http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/text.php

poohbear, what I was getting at, as tAo said, is that without awareness we're not aware of anything. Obvious, of course. But sometimes what's obvious is the most difficult to see.

Yes, drugs and a whole lot of other stuff (like my morning cup of coffee) do change how awareness operates. Most religions and spiritual paths put a big emphasis on keeping awareness/consciousness clear and pure.

But those same religions and spiritual paths usually say that consciousness (or "soul") is a spark of God, indestructible, unchangeable, eternal. So how can it be made impure?

The notion of a quest for a state of pure awareness is appealing, for sure. But it also seems to be never-ending, something the Buddha pointed out nicely. One more desire; the desire that ends all desires; awareness of wonderful objects of awareness.

Maybe that's possible. But here we are, right now, aware of something or other. Maybe through a haze of barbiturates. Maybe through a haze of caffeine. Maybe through a haze of fervent religious belief.

Do the hazes ever go away? Or do they just change their spots? Are we going to rely on a future promise of a pristine awareness, or rest on the awareness that we are now?

Sometimes awareness becomes subtle,then one feels, that there is much more then the material life.
One can feel more ,then what fits in the body.

Brian wrote: "Yes, drugs and a whole lot of other stuff (like my morning cup of coffee) do change how awareness operates."

--How about this... Coffee changes how our brain chemistry works and thus our biological alertness, rapidity of thought and so forth, but it has no affect on awareness which you said yourself.."So how can it be made impure?".

All this is appearance on/in/within/of the 'screen' of awareness which is "indestructible, unchangeable, eternal." ??

I agree with Brian, but I don't necessariy think as he implied that drugs (etc) "change how awareness operates".

I don't see awareness as changing, or being either impure or pure. I only see that the STATE of one's consciousness changes... like how liquid water changes to other FORMS of water such as into frozen ice or into gaseous vapor. I think this aspect confuses some people with regard to the subject of the nature of awareness.

In any case, I definitely do NOT subscribe to that idea that awareness can be more pure or less pure.... regardless of what "most religions and spiritual paths" believe. Awareness is simply awareness, not pure nor impure.

So I don't agree with the "quest for a state of pure awareness". To me, ordinary awareness is pure awareness. And so I don't need to add on "pure" to it.

Thus I agree that the search for "pure" is never-ending.

Brian said: "here we are, right now, aware...."

That's it. So there is no need "to rely on a future promise of a pristine awareness"... for we are already "the awareness that we are now".


Brian,
I'm not disagreeing with what you have said, but I am qualifying it by saying that surely there can be degrees of awareness? An example: Part of my day consists of random periods of going about my business in a very low level of awareness. If I organise myself well, there may be time to take a walk, sit on a grassy verge, and just soak up everything around me - open up the senses to nature and let it flow through me - become part of it for a little while - uncomplicated being. The other part of my day when I sit in structured meditation above the eyes and the senses temporarily closed down, the awareness changes again. The individual self lessens its grip, and the awareness takes in subtleties that it doesn't while the senses are turned up full volume.
So none of the above has any connection with waiting for some 'future promise of pristine awareness' as you put it. They are just degrees of comparison that the individual can find itself in, or place itself in during daily life.

poohbear, I hear you. I just got back from a walk with the dog. Through the woods, across a creek, around the lake, and home again.

Life, existence, reality -- whatever you want to call it, it seemed a whole lot clearer and simpler on the walk, out in nature.

So, yes, awareness may be single, one. But it sure does seem that what appears in awareness makes a big difference in how the world feels to us.

Brian - And I'd take a guess that your dog's awareness was fairly acute.

"...what appears in awareness makes a big difference in how the world feels to us."

Like cause and effect? So let's look at it this way: I am more aware of the sun, the coffee, my fingers while I'm typing; I am less aware of the family members moving in the house, the birds calling, the outside air temperature. I am not aware at all of what those people across the street are doing. But I feel, when I check, most profoundly tired.

There may be a list of reasons for that. the first one is that I woke up about 20 minutes ago. Do I simply know that, or am I importantly aware of that? I was not particularly aware of anything 30 minutes ago.

Come to think of it, I can't recall feeling tired. But there was a dream in which all my teeth were breaking and I was frustrated by that and a little scared.

Oop -- I had feelings, while I was asleep. And I would hazard a guess that these feelings were related to something about which I am unaware, or one might argue, vaguely aware.

Now what?

There is one awareness, and one of the qualitites of awareness is an operating range of weak to strong. My senses are a poor gauge of this spectrum. It is therefore possible that I was aware while asleep. I may be aware while I am unaware of being aware.

Gah.

Brian wrote

But it sure does seem that what appears in awareness makes a big difference to how the world feels to us.

I think this point is at the crux of the debate between tAo, Tuscon, and those like me who believe in doing sitting meditation. tAo has written that there is no point in trying to modulate experience, because it is all awareness anyway. And this point resonates with me, because I don't think that awareness´can be fundamentally altered, so why not just truly let go? Another part of me chime in though, telling me that all the crap sticking to the windshield may be able to be cleaned...so why not do something to get up and wipe it off?

Adam,I still feel that sit meditation is a good thing to do..
I feel it as a cleaning to do that.
Being in a 'stillpoint' is something very beneficial..

Adam,

You are a ittle confused about my own views. I have no argument that "what appears in awareness makes a big difference to how the world feels to us". That's because what appears in awareness IS the world. The world IS what appears in awareness. For where else could it appear, and how else could we perceive it if not within our awareness?

So this point is NOT "at the crux of the debate between myself and those like you "who believe in doing sitting meditation". As I told you yesterday (but perhaps you may have missed it), I am NOT particularly opposed to sitting meditation. So please don't continue thinking or saying otherwise. All I said was that imo doing formal sitting meditation gives no more advantage to consciously abiding in ever-fresh awareness, than it does at any other time or place. Doing formal sitting meditation is simply a personal choice, but it carries no more advantage to abiding as awareness, in 'instant presence', than does natural and spontaneous non-sitting meditation done in ordinary circumstances.

Adam said: "I don't think that awareness´can be fundamentally altered, so why not just truly let go? Another part of me chime in though, telling me that all the crap sticking to the windshield may be able to be cleaned...so why not do something to get up and wipe it off?"

-- But what is that "other part" of you? It is just a thought, an idea... and what is it referring to? Where is this "crap sticking to the windshied"? What crap? What needs to be cleaned, and cleaned off of what? Cleaned off of awareness? Awareness has nothing sticking to it. Awareness is immaculate. Awareness does not need to be cleaned, nor is there anything stuck to awareness ("crap") that needs to be cleaned off. Just try to find something, some "crap", that is stuck to awareness. And when you do, please tell me what it is - show it to me. I'd really be interested if you can find anything ingering around that needs to be "cleaned off".

You will se that there is nothing there that needs to be cleaned off. You will find awareness has no impediment, nor any obstruction. The world is spontaneously arising - being perceived - in the present moment of awareness. The world that appears in our awareness is not a problem. There is nothing that needs to be done. To abide simply as awareness is effortless. It is always happening spontanelusly. And so there is no obstuction in awareness that needs to be "cleaned". There is nothing that needs to be altered, changed, or improved. Simply be aware and remain aware, of awareness. Whatever the so-called "content" is, or the world that is perceived by the senses is irrelevant and transitory. Sort of like sitting on the banks of a river and watching and listening to the river flow by. There is no need to do anything.


Questions to Tao:

Tao: "You will se that there is nothing there that needs to be cleaned off"
Who and when 'will' he see that? What will happen between now and then that will make him see—since you implicitly recognize by your statement that right now Adam does not see it?

Tao: "To abide simply as awareness is effortless. It is always happening spontanelusly."
The question is not about effort, it is instead: why does the actuality of what you describe elude to about 99.9998 (disclaimer: figurative statistic) percent of mankind? It is always happening and yet it cannot be experienced or achieved. Moreover, it eludes most of mankind. What is the point to ‘hammer’ and repeat that claim then since it does not point to something that ‘can be achieved or done’? Let’s say someone experiences suffering (anxiety, fear or like Tucson, ‘irritations’) why would someone you bring that point up, or the immutability of awareness for that matter, if bringing it up seems irrelevant, i.e. it cannot be useful or beneficial for anybody? Or could it be? In such case, it would mean that “there is a need to do something” which would contrast with your statement that “There is no need to do anything”.

The question is why are we repeatedly told that “Awareness has nothing sticking to it. Awareness is immaculate” if (i) the reality you point to does elude to people (at least to Adam according to your own admission); and (ii) there is nothing that can be done to break the veil of that elusiveness? Is there any necessity to your message?

Tao: "Simply be aware and remain aware, of awareness."
Since later you add “There is no need to do anything” is that prescription something to do or not? Why do you say that is there is nothing to do? Is being aware OF awareness is tantamount to make something of awareness—like when I am aware of the TV? Looking people around me I do not see that this simple dynamic or panacea is a common experienced actuality? The expression ‘simply’ suggests something natural—why is its recognition so rare if it is so simple? It sounds to me more like a vacuous advice than anything else; and it is why I am asking for clarifications. Again, the issue is not for most people about being "Simply be aware and remain aware, of awareness." but why are they not experiencing what is pointed by Tao's expression "Simply be aware and remain aware, of awareness" (if there is such actuality)?

“The world that appears in our awareness is not a problem.”
How would you know that for sure? Is it your belief? If not what is it? Suffering produces its own necessity—and not just for the human beings. The direction of life’s unfolding is often determined the dynamic that consist in shunning away from suffering—any activity associated with this dynamic is by itself the expression of a ‘problem’—at least for the being/organism that experiences such suffering. A cockroach will flee on that principle. I still have to meet a cockroach that has ‘no problem’. Unless you deny suffering? But how could you, as a particular being, deny the suffering of someone else? What make you the ultimate judge of that? Yes the experience of suffering is a reality like anything else. No one would ever deny that. But repeating--or any paraphrasing of it--such message to someone who suffers is simply missing the point--and a fundamental dynamic inherent to life.

Finally, do you think that it is easy for some people to understand this affirmation [“The world that appears in our awareness is not a problem.”
] which articulates an ‘impossible’—i.e. one that cannot by nature be articulated—standpoint (which is that of the immutability of awareness) and shuffles it into the realm of the relative (identified by the expressions ‘appears’ and ‘world’). Don’t you think that it might be a little confusing for some people? What are you trying to tell us here? That all the suckers that suffer should just suck it up and stop whining because there is some kind of awareness they never heard—at least in the way you are presenting it—about and which just does not give a sh*t—so to speak—about their ‘appearing’ and fleeting sufferings? But then we are back to one of my question:

The question is why are we repeatedly told that “Awareness has nothing sticking to it. Awareness is immaculate” if (i) the reality you point to does elude to people (at least to Adam according to your own admission); and (ii) there is nothing that can be done to break the veil of that elusiveness? Is there any necessity to your message?

elephant,

I enjoyed reading your above post. Sounds like some honest questions to ask the many.
You seem honest and sincere.

My question.

Have you asked these questions of the leader of your religious or spiritual group? I'm guessing, you belong to a group. No big deal, I don't belong to any group. However, If your a follower of santmat, how would Gurinder answer.

I'm not attacking you, your questions are honest and proper.

Roger

to Roger,
I read in a couple of posts back that you had not heard of chakras. It made me think that perhaps you do and perhaps you do not understand what the SM meditation is for. As Tuscon pointed out, chakras are energy centers in the body. They are not symbolic, and the third eye is not symbolic either, but a name for a specific chakra. Feeling these chakras requires nothing other than simple noticing. The chakras in the body, if I remember right, are located near the rectum, the genitals, the navel, the heart, the throat, and the forehead respectively. When one is sexually active, for example, energy accumulates at the sexual center. People often feel emotions in the heart center. The idea of SM meditation is to focus all of the body's attention at the energy center in the forehead, thus "dying while living." That is the first stage of SM meditation. I will not elaborate further now, but just wanted to clarify that, because when you talk of a meditation that involves just being in the ------, for me a problem arises. The closest thing to that is what tAo descirbes as just being aware of awareness now, but in most sitting meditations, one points the attention at something. Otherwise, the attention can continually run throughout the body.

Adam,

Thanks for the comment,

You mentioned,

"The chakras in the body, if I remember right, are located near the rectum, the genitals, the navel, the heart, the throat, and the forehead respectively. When one is sexually active, for example, energy accumulates at the sexual center. People often feel emotions in the heart center. The idea of SM meditation is to focus all of the body's attention at the energy center in the forehead, thus "dying while living." That is the first stage of SM meditation."

----Don't forget, it's not important if I'm confused or not. This is a hobby for me.

Ones meditations, IMO, should be simple and easy to do. Meditation should be available for everyone. Sitting down is simple and easy. Nothing wrong with sitting, while meditating. The chakras, IMO, are a side show. I'm no meditation expert, however, I don't see the need to study these chakras. The third eye is the name for the area above the eyes. That's ok. However, IMO, thats just geography. Why does the third eye need to be located anywhere? If this third eye is spiritual, then where are the 1st and 2nd spiritual eyes located? If the 1st and 2nd eyes are actually our two physical eyes, the spiritual eye should stand alone and just be the, "Single Eye." Again, I'm not preaching or claiming to be any expert. It's not important what I think. In my simple thinking, I can see how this Third Eye can be converted into a Symbol. Example, the red marking that appears on someones forehead.
Again, no big deal, everyone should follow their own thinking. I'm not attacking anyone.

Roger,

Why do keep reminding everyone that you are not attacking anyone? I never thought you were in the first place, but the more you tell me you are not attacking me, the more nervous I get!

Also, you keep saying your opinions are not important, and this is a hobby, and you are studying others' answers. I don't like this dynamic, because I want to converse with others, not be studied.

Elephant,

It's obvious to me that you are back again and that you are back up to your same old tricks... your same old game.

As I mentioned to someone else recently, I've grown weary of the question-answer business, and I've said pretty much all I want or need to say about awareness and instant presence.

So baiting me with further vague questions is not going to change what I have already said, and which I have said as simply as I can articulate it.

But unlike Roger (who plays his own kind of questioning games, albeit more sincerely), I don't feel that you or your questions are sincere at all. Your questions are too vague, and are based on distortions and misrepreentations, and they don't have any ring of honesty or truth to them, imo.

Your comments and questions have an unnessary yet distinctly challenging vibe to them, and you also deliberately distort, misinterpret, and misrepresent almost all what I have said previously about awareness, simply to try and bait and challenge me.

Nevertheless, I will respond to your recent and somewhat vague questions as best I can, for one last time. But be informed that beyond that, you'll just have to go back and read what I have said previously about the matter of effortless awareness and instant presence. [And you can also go study the core of Dzogchen if you like, and perhaps that may help to elaborate upon what I have already shared (but in a much simpler fashion) here.

Here below are my final responses to your rather disingenuous questions and comments:


Tao said: "You will see that there is nothing there that needs to be cleaned off"

Elephant asked: "Who and when 'will' he see that?

-- I don't know. Who is "he", and what is "that"? Because what I said above was quite self-explanatory.

Elephant asked: "What will happen between now and then that will make him see—since you implicitly recognize by your statement that right now Adam does not see it?

-- I do not know "what will happen", nor do I "implicitly recognize" what he sees or does not see. You'll have to ask Adam yourself about that. Your question is not clear. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Tao: "To abide simply as awareness is effortless. It is always happening spontaneously."

Elephant asked: "The question is not about effort, it is instead: why does the actuality of what you describe elude to about 99.9998 ... percent of mankind?

-- I don't know that it does "elude to" anyone. Why should awareness "elude" anyone? Everyone is aware, and they know that they are aware, and their awareness is effortless. So again, your issue/question is not clear. And did you mean to say "elude to", or "allude to"?

Elephant said: "It is always happening and yet it cannot be experienced or achieved."

-- What "cannot be experienced or achieved"? I never said anything like "it could not be experienced". So then, why do YOU say that?

Elephant said: "Moreover, it eludes most of mankind."

-- What "eludes most of mankind"? Are you referring to awareness? If so, then why do you say that awareness "eludes most of mankind"? Maybe you think so, but I don't see that it "eludes" anyone.

Elephant said: "What is the point to ‘hammer’ and repeat that claim then since it does not point to something that ‘can be achieved or done’?

-- What claim is that? And what "does not point to", and what can not "be achieved or done"? What exactly is there to be "achieved or done"? So what exactly are you referring to? What I have said is simply that awareness and instant presence is effortless. So therefore, just what are YOU trying to say here?

Elephant said: "Let’s say someone experiences suffering (anxiety, fear or ‘irritations’) why would someone you bring that point up, or the immutability of awareness for that matter, if bringing it up seems irrelevant, i.e. it cannot be useful or beneficial for anybody?

-- Bring what point up? And what is it that "seems irrelevant" to you? And why would awareness not "be useful or beneficial for anybody"? Again, your statements are too vague and make little or no sense to me, so perhaps you could explain yourself better and more clearly.

Elephant said: "Or could it be? In such case, it would mean that “there is a need to do something” which would contrast with your statement that “There is no need to do anything”."

-- Do you mean "could it be" "useful and beneficial"? If so, then it is your mistaken assumption that there is a need to do something. So what do you mean by "useful and beneficia"? There is no need to do anything. Awareness/Existence is always already the case. Again, awareness is effortless. So what's your point?

Elephant said: "The question is why are we repeatedly told that “Awareness has nothing sticking to it. Awareness is immaculate” if (i) the reality you point to does elude to people (at least to Adam according to your own admission); and (ii) there is nothing that can be done to break the veil of that elusiveness?"

-- I have never said or implied that it 'eludes' anyone, nor did I say or make any "admission" that it 'eludes' Adam either. There is nothing that is "elusive", and there is also no "veil" to "break". All these notions are YOUR ideas, not mine. I never said these things, nor did I imply any of these things that you assert.

Elephant said: "Is there any necessity to your message?"

-- Necessity? I don't know. That's entirely up to others to determine if they so choose. I myself don't have a "message", and I also don't feel any "necessity" either. I am merely sharing my own view and insight.

Tao wrote: "Simply be aware and remain aware, of awareness."

Elephant asked: "Since later you add “There is no need to do anything”, is that prescription something to do or not?"

-- There was no such "prescription", and there is nothing "to do". It is a simple fact. Everyone is already effortless ly aware - already are awareness - and thus they can be, and they ARE, aware of awareness.

Elephant asked: "Why do you say that is there is nothing to do?

-- Because awareness already IS, and awareness is also effortless.

Elephant asked: "Is being aware OF awareness tantamount to make something of awareness—like when I am aware of the TV?"

-- You are simply aware. It does not matter what you may be aware OF. And there is no "making something" of anything. You are the one who is making the fuss.

Elephant said: "Looking people around me I do not see that this simple dynamic or panacea is a common experienced actuality"

-- But what "panacea" is that? ... And what are you referring to by saying not a "common experienced actuality"? Awareness is something that all people both have and experience. Awareness is something that all people have and ARE.

Elephant said: "The expression ‘simply’ suggests something natural—why is its recognition so rare if it is so simple?

-- Why is it "rare"? Who (besides youself) says that it is "rare"? I don't say that it is 'rare". I say that it is simple, and it is natural and effortless.

Elephant said: "It sounds to me more like a vacuous advice than anything else"

-- Well then that's your own opinion. But it's not "advice", it's simply my own view and insight.

Elephant said: "Again, the issue is not for most people about being 'Simply be aware and remain aware, of awareness' but why are they not experiencing what is pointed by Tao's expression 'Simply be aware and remain aware, of awareness' (if there is such actuality)?"

-- Who is "not experiencing"? Why do you say that people are not "experiencing" awareness? I don't see that there is any such "issue", and I don't see that "they not experiencing" either. And in fact, what you are saying here really makes no sense at all. It even appears to be nothing more than pointless word games. Awareness is a very very simple matter, and I have spoken in very simple terms. But you are obviously attempting to confound it and convolute it to unnecessarily challenge me and create pointless debate.


Tao said: “The world that appears in our awareness is not a problem.”

Elephant responded: "How would you know that for sure? Is it your belief? If not what is it?

-- I simply know this for myself. For me, the world that appears in awareness is not a problem. So it is not any "belief", it is simply just not a problem for me. Beief has nothing to do with it. Awareness is effortless. And phenomena (the world), which appear in awareness, are obviously transitory. So Awareness is the important thing, and not phenomena.

Elephant said: "Suffering produces its own necessity—and not just for the human beings. The direction of life’s unfolding is often determined the dynamic that consist in shunning away from suffering—any activity associated with this dynamic is by itself the expression of a ‘problem’—at least for the being/organism that experiences such suffering. ... Unless you deny suffering?"

-- Suffering is not the issue here. Awareness is the issue. Suffering and pain do happen, just like happiness and pleasure ahppen....and both occur in awareness. But so what? There is nothing to deny. So I think you are 'barking up the wrong tree'.

Elephant said: "But how could you, as a particular being, deny the suffering of someone else?"

-- I don't. That's your assumption. I don't deny anything.

Elephant asked: "What make you the ultimate judge of that?"

-- Judge of what? I haven't judged anything. I have simply shared my insight and view about awareness and instant presence. So again, your conclusions are quite mistaken.

Elephant said: "the experience of suffering is a reality like anything else. ... But repeating--or any paraphrasing of it--such message to someone who suffers is simply missing the point"

-- On the contrary, it is clear that YOU are the one who is missing the point. I gave no such message to "someone who suffers". I have only been speaking of effortless awareness and instant presence. I have in NO way denied that people experience suffering. So your entire base premise here is fundamentally mistaken and faulty.

Elephant said: "do you think that it is easy for some people to understand this affirmation [“The world that appears in our awareness is not a problem.”]..."

-- First of all, it is not an "affirmation".

Elephant then said: "...one that cannot by nature be articulated ... and shuffles it into the realm of the relative (identified by the expressions ‘appears’ and ‘world’). Don’t you think that it might be a little confusing for some people?"

-- I don't know what you are referring to by "cannot be articulated". My previous insights which I have expressed on this blog about awareness and instant presence have been quite simple and very direct and unencumbered, and have not been confusing at all. So your confusion about what I have shared regarding awareness and instant presence, and about this subject matter in general, is really your own confusion.

It also remains to be seen whether or not other people are confused. I don't think they are confused. No one (besides yourself) has indicated any confusion so far. However, I am beginning to conclued that you are deliberately trying to confuse this issue for other purposes that are related to your own less than sincere agenda.

Elephant said: "What are you trying to tell us here? That all the suckers that suffer should just suck it up and stop whining because there is some kind of awareness they never heard—at least in the way you are presenting it—about and which just does not give a sh*t—so to speak—about their ‘appearing’ and fleeting sufferings?"

-- Unfortunately for YOU, that is NOT what I have said at all. In fact, clearly, you are very grossly misinterpreting and distorting almost everything that I have said regarding awareness.

I have NEVER indicated anything even remotely like or concerning as you say: "some kind of awareness they never heard ... about and which just does not give a sh*t ... about their ‘appearing’ and fleeting sufferings?".

Your assertion is totally and absolutely unfounded, and it is an extremely gross and dishonest misrepresentatation of my previous comments regarding awareness and instant presence.

Therefore it is obvious that your comments here (on this particular issue) are, at worst extremely dishonest and deceiptful, and at best nothing but a bunch of confused, misguided, and fabricated rubbish.

In fact, as I have alluded to before, most of your recent questions and comments indicate a rather significant divergence from fact, and attempts to mislead by falsehood, and they are mendacious because they more than suggest that you have a chronic inclination toward distortion and untruth, in particular when it comes to my own comments and views and what I have shared regarding awareness and instant presence in this forum.

So therfore, be it now known that I have nothing further to say TO YOU, or to discuss WITH YOU, after this final response and comment.

Elephant said: "The question is why are we repeatedly told that “Awareness has nothing sticking to it. Awareness is immaculate” ... Is there any necessity to your message?"

-- Those statements ["Awareness has nothing sticking to it." -and- "Awareness is immaculate."] were both made specifically in response to something which Adam had brought up specifically to ME. They were not any sort of "message" in general (as you are trying to make them out to be), nor did they indicate any so-called "necessity".

So again, in order to undermine that which I HAVE SAID, you are obviously fabricating nonsense and grasping for straws where there are none. You are obviously trying to challenge me by foolishly making something out of nothing. And that is entirely YOUR ego trip, not mine.

I have simply shared some of my own insights and conclusions about awareness and what I call instant presence with others who asked me to do so. So by challeging and attacking me, based entirely upon gross distortions and deceiptful misrepresentations, you are only making a fool of yourself.

And if you really wish to understand what I have said previously in other comments about awareness, then just go back and re-read them. I really have nothing else that I need to say about that subject at this point. It is not a complicated thing as you are so disingenuously attempting to turn it into.

As far as my making any futher responses TO YOU, and any responses to any of YOUR present (or future) misrepresentations and distortions of what I have said previously regarding awareness, NO MORE comments will be forthcoming from me to you. Simply because I do not feel that you are at all a sincere or honest person in your comments to me, or about me and what I have said previously.


Roger,

I definitely agree with Adam, who said to you (to Roger):

"Why do (you) keep reminding everyone that you are not attacking anyone? I never thought you were in the first place, but the more you tell me you are not attacking me, the more nervous I get!"

...and...

"Also, you keep saying your opinions are not important, and this is a hobby, and you are studying others' answers. I don't like this dynamic, because I want to converse with others, not be studied."

Why do you feel such a need to repeatedly (far more than once or twice) keep assuring others that you are not attacking and that its no big deal?

And if your casual investigtion of spiritualty is a hobby, then thats fine... but it also seems that you are "studying" people in a weird sort of way. If you are doing that, then thats your business, but it makes people uncomfortable to tbe told that you are "studying" them as objects. It does not make people feel that you are asking genuine questions, but rather that you are just baiting people to get a response. That feels disingenuous, and like Adam indicated it feels rather odd and a little uncomfortable to be "studied".



Dear Tao.

You responded:
=======================
-- I don't know. Who is "he", and what is "that"? Because what I said above was quite self-explanatory.

Elephant asked: "What will happen between now and then that will make him see—since you implicitly recognize by your statement that right now Adam does not see it?

-- I do not know "what will happen", nor do I "implicitly recognize" what he sees or does not see. You'll have to ask Adam yourself about that. Your question is not clear. I have no idea what you are talking about.
===============


You initial wrote in response to Adams' comment: "You will see that there is nothing there that needs to be cleaned off"

Although I am not a native english speaker I do not see how someone cannot but interpret this sentence as refering to a future--due to the presence of the verbal expression 'will see'. A natural interpretation of 'will see' implicitly entails that Adams does not see right now--which interpretations seems to be confirmed by the fact that your affirmation came in response to his comment that he still feel like doing something, i.e. cleaning off. Your statement implicity entails or recognize the fact that Adams does not see yet that nothing needs to be cleaned off ...
That is what some would call plain english I believe ...

I am not sure what is 'vague' or not clear in these few questions. What is clear however is your evasiness--despite the lenght of your post--and defensiveness on something so simple as your sentence "You will see that there is nothing there that needs to be cleaned off", particularly when we try to understand it in the context your exchange with Adams.

And similar observations could be made for much of the rest of your responses ... Thank you nevertheless.

----

P.S. Tao wrote: "Because what I said above was quite self-explanatory."
For whoever else: would anyone be kind enough to explain what I am missing--I would refer you to my previous questions--about Tao's affirmation "You will see that there is nothing there that needs to be cleaned off"

I initially wrote to Adam: "You will see that there is nothing there that needs to be cleaned off"

Elephant then said: "I am not a native english speaker"

-- That no doubt may be the part of the reason that you have tended to misinterpret. But it is not the whole reason. The other larger reason is that you were and are looking to challenge me and thus you are grasping to find some fault in the phrasing of my statement. But there was no fault. What I said had a very simple meaning, but which you have attempted to distort into something quite different. You have deliberately misconstrued and misinterpreted, and then have misrepresented the very point and thrust of my statement to Adam.

Elephant then said: "I do not see how someone cannot but interpret this sentence as refering to a future--due to the presence of the verbal expression 'will see'"

-- My point had nothing to do with "a future". My point was simply that there is nothing about awareness that needs cleaning, and there is nothing to be "cleaned off" of awareness. My use of the phrase "you will see" and especially "will" was not used or meant to imply anything "future". It simply meant that, upon examination, there is nothing about awareness that needs to be "cleaned off". I could have just as easily used the term "can see" instead of "will see". You are obviously attempting to make an entirely unnecessary fuss over my use of the word "will" instead of "can". However in this case the intended meaning is virtually the same. So perhaps your lesser familiarity with casual english language usage than I myself (I am over 60 years old and english is my native language), is indeed part of the problem here. Because no one else has voiced any problem in understanding the actual point of what I was saying and communcating, and no one else has bothered to object to my casual use of the phrase "you will" instead of "you can". But beyond all that, it is quite obvious, and I am quite certain, that your real agenda here is different than just a minor quibble over english language usage.

Elephant then further said: "...interpretation of 'will see' implicitly entails that Adam does not see right now ... Your statement implicity entails or recognize the fact that Adams does not see yet that nothing needs to be cleaned off"

-- No, it definitely does NOT "implicitly entail" ... "the fact that Adams does not see yet". That is your false interpretation. Because that is NOT at all what I attempted to say or meant. I was never saying or implying that Adam does not see, or that Adam "does not see yet", but will see in the future. I was merely trying to say that upon close examination, one CAN in fact see, and that one IS ABLE TO SEE, that awareness needs no cleaning off, and that there is nothing there to clean off. And I have also indicated in other comments elsewhere, that there is no future, that there is only always the ever-fresh present. So there was no literal implication in my phrase pointing to some future.

Elephant then said: "I am not sure what is 'vague' or not clear in these few questions."

-- What was "vague" was the point of, and the reason behind, your arguement, a bogus arguement which you have used in an attempt to challenge and distort my real meaning.

Elephant then said: "What is clear however is your evasiness ... and defensiveness on something so simple as your sentence "You will see that there is nothing there that needs to be cleaned off"

-- Yes, my "sentece' was very simple, and so was its meaning. There was never any "evasiveness" on my part. You are distorting facts, and you are clearly making an enormous fuss over nothing. And you are doing that not because your english usage is a alight bit different than mine (or vice versa), but rather because your real agenda has been to challenge me from the get-go in any way or nonsense that you can dig up. People like you are fundamentally disingenuous, and so are not worth interacting with.

Elephant then said: "particularly when we try to understand it in the context your exchange with Adams"

-- You don't fool me one bit. You are not trying to understand anything. If you were, you would have understood the very simple point of what I had said in the very beginning, when I made my first initial statement to Adam, and then when I clarified it again later.

"...And similar observations could be made for much of the rest of your responses"

-- You are clearly the one who has been disingenuous and evasive here all along. Your comments to me are all a testimony to that. And I am sure that I not the only one who can see that.

And this is my last and final response to all of this pointless nonsense that has been perpetrated by Elephant.


-----------------------------------------

Tao initially wrote:

"You will see that there is nothing there [in awareness] that needs to be cleaned off."

...and then later...

"what I said above was quite self-explanatory."


And then finally Elephant asks: "would anyone be kind enough to explain what I am missing"


May I suggest to the Elephant that he listen to the 'spirit' of the words and not over-analyze the words themselves. He tends to miss the forest for the trees, it seems, almost deliberately.

Perhaps tAo you could have used this quote from
The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck.Just replace the
"soul" with "awareness" and one gets my meaning

"Well, maybe it's like Casey says. A fella ain't got a soul of his own, just a little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to ever'body. I'll be all around in the dark. I'll be ever'where, wherever you can look. Wherever there's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the ways guys yell when they're mad, and I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise, livin' in the houses they build, I'll be there too.'

You are welcome trying to infer my intentions. I don’t mind being ‘studied’ and ‘analyzed’ beyond my words. But this seems to affect your ability and willingness to answer my questions. Fine.

When you wrote: "I was merely trying to say that upon close examination, one CAN in fact see, and that one IS ABLE TO SEE, that awareness needs no cleaning off, and that there is nothing there to clean off."

You seem to be saying that you were referring to some sort of distinction of ‘possibility’ as opposed to ‘temporal distinction’. No problem. But my original questions and points are still relevant. What is relevant to the ‘spirit’ of my questions was the distinction that the sentence entails.

And we finally got a bit further here since you mention the happening of a ‘close examination’. We could have started with my ‘what happens’ question? You say: a close examination … ok. I may try to go see in your previous comments what does that mean.

Dear Tucson:
It is not because someone wishes to explore and know some details about the forest that she/he necessarily is unaware of the forest. For instance, in all my exchanges, at no time did I felt ‘being in lost’ in a big whole forest and stuck in a small region of it—I am simply walking peacefully in that small region :)



tAo and Elephant,

I would like to stay on this debate a little longer, because I find it interesting. If I may summarize what I found interesting in Elephant's question:

the statement, 'there is no need to do anything' can create a baffling response, in the form of reaction, 'how do I not do anything?' It is confusing, because I assume that tAo means that there is no 'HOW' involved, but calling attention to the idea implies that perhaps some change is necessary, some new type of noticing.

Perhaps one of the insights tAo points to is that awareness requires no egoic striving. That who we are fundamentally requires no effort. I agree. But I also agree that knowing this doesn't change the fact of suffering , nor does it necessarily change the thoughts around the suffering, which can create mental suffering. It is difficult not to interpret suffering as a problem. Simply noticing both pain and joy, and how we interpret all of these, can bring in the 'fourth dimesnion of awareness' (the other three dimensions being thought, feeling, and sensation).

Just some thoughts.

Dear Tucson:

May I add that in light of Adam and Roger’s comments, while reading back some of my stuff some phrases were not as clearly stated as I would like them to be, my questions nevertheless evoked a ‘spirit’ and a bigger picture (=forest) that you may have yourself missed and others seem to have in the own ways perceived ...

Tao and Adam,

I don't like analyzing people. I like analyzing comments and answers. Try to trust me, I'm not interested in analyzing people. The "I'm not attacking you" line, I like to use, because of the perceived caustic tone that sometimes exists in these threads. I like my hobby, and it's my hobby for me to hobby with. I just don't make a BIG DEAL out of much dogma that is supposedly set in concrete. However, I will set my own concrete, regarding my own business. Don't forget, just don't answer my questions, when I write a comment.

Finally, Tao and Adam, do I have your permissions for me to continue for you two to continue to write and ask your questions , as you so desire? I want you two to write in any manner you so choose. Is it all right for me to think this way?
Thanks for your permissions,
Roger

Roger is correct about about casual remarks being misunderstood as attacks. When set in print they have more 'weight' than intended. I retract my remark to the Elephant about forests and trees. I'm getting sick of this crap.

Dogs wag their tails when they are open to greeting, cats wag their tails when they are frightened and closed.

So my son picks up the phone and just starts talking, and later I tell him, "Say hello first," and he wants to know why, whats the big deal, is it some kind of rule?

Awareness? Clarity? Anyone?

Adam,

Regarding your comment: I myself do not find that my clear and unabiguous statement - "there is no need to do anything" - elicts or causes any sort of "baffling response" or reaction, such as the question that you postulated of "how do I not do anything?".

There is simply no big mystery to this, and it does no mean anything more than it what it simply says. It says: "there is no NEED to...".

So I must conclude that you find this confusing only because you are automatically assuming that "not doing anything" is some kind of an action, some kind of 'doing', a 'something' that you need to 'do'. But that is not the case.

I simply said there is no NEED... no "need" to DO anything. This means that no action or 'doing' is necessary (or fruitful)... Why? Because awareness is always effortless, and awareness is always PRIOR to any and all action or 'doing'.

So I think that, in your desire and urge to turn this into something "to do", you are complicating this far beyond the very simple fact that Awareness is already effortless, and it is prior, innate, inherent, intrinsic... and so requires no action whatsoever.

You said: "that tAo means that there is no 'HOW' involved, but calling attention to the idea implies that perhaps some change is necessary, some new type of noticing."

-- No, I was not saying or implying "there is no HOW". Nor was I calling attention to any idea of "some change" being "necessary" or "some new type of noticing". It appears that you are basically doing the same thing here as well. You are looking, searching for some kind of action to take, some new kind of "noticing" as you say, or some type of approach. I was not implying anything of the sort. Actually, what I was saying was just the opposite. No action, no doing, no change, no new noticing, no different approach, no gesture of any kind at all. Your awareness is always already the case. Your awareness is effortless. Therfore is there is nothing that you have to do. The very fact that you are looking for, trying to DO somehting, is itsef the fundamental mistake. Simply abandon your search for some action to take, some "change", some "new noticing", some sort of appraoch, something to grasp, something to "DO". It is these very impulses that are obscuring the primordial reality of effortless awareness.

Adam said: "Perhaps one of the insights tAo points to is that awareness requires no egoic striving. That who we are fundamentally requires no effort. I agree."

Adam then said: "But I also agree that knowing this doesn't change the fact of suffering, nor does it necessarily change the thoughts around the suffering, which can create mental suffering."

-- I never said anything about "knowing this", or about knowing it as being able to "change the fact of suffering". That was someone else's idea entirely, and it is not at all related to what I was saying about awareness.

But since you seem to be confusing that idea - the issue of suffering, with the issue of awareness that I was discussing, I will say this: "Knowing", or rather the self-perfected self-liberated state of primordial and effortless awareness, aka instant presence, does not change the nature of suffering, but it changes the perception of suffering.

Suffering and pain are two separate and distinct things. "Suffering" is entirely mental and emotional, and is reaction and recoil to various phenomena.

On the other hand, "pain" is a physical, sensory, neurological activity confined to the physical body, nerves, and brain.

However, since you have used the term "suffering", I must necessarily assume that you mean "suffering" as opposed to pain.

So in this case, one's orientation in and as the self-perfected self-liberated sate of effortless primordial awareness - in and as 'instant presence'- most certainly DOES determine HOW, and even whether or not, one perceives, feels, and experiences "suffering".

Therefore this also most certainly "changes", as you say "the thoughts around the suffering"... because these "thoughts" do no not so much "create" the suffering, but rather which in fact ARE themselves the "mental suffering". So one's orientation to awareness and instant presence can in fact alter the dynamic of experience and perception of suffering... as well as can definitely change "the thoughts around the suffering". But this is something that can really only be known via direct experience. I can tell you, and you can believe or not believe what I say, but in the end, you can only know and prove this for yourself directly. Which is why I am not interested in engaging in further debate on the matter.

Adam said: "It is difficult not to interpret suffering as a problem."

-- I do not deny, and do not "not interpret suffering as a problem". So please don't assume otherwise.

Adama said: "Simply noticing both pain and joy ... can bring in the 'fourth dimesnion of awareness'"

-- Yes, but try not to differentiate awareness into "dimensions". Awareness is simply awareness. On the other hand, it is 'perception' that is differentiated along the lines of mental (thought), emotional (feeling), and physical (the senses).


tAo,
Thanks for your response to all of my points.

to Roger,
I apologize if I offended you. I don`t mean to infringe on your hobby. I think in a forum like this where we only have words, without facial expressions and other clues of communication, the meaning of what someone says is harderto decipher. From my perspective, I don`t mind being praised of attacked or whatever, but I do like to know what the gesture means. If I am being attacked, I want to know that I am being attacked. This is just my perception, but with your style, I simply get confused as to whether you are criticizing or not, and your intentions seem less clear to me. This is MY problem, I admit. I just personally think that if aou are not attacking, there is no need to claim that you are not.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.