Just as a follow on thought to the awareness of a cloud the question arose as to where is awareness?
More specifically, is it limited to the cognitive ability to experience something as something?
Or is it an all encompassing?
If you see it as all encompassing then the question must then be asked "what is awareness"?
Enjoy
Hello Abby......you ask the simplest most profound questions.
""what is awareness"? If it is all emcompassing then the question cannot be asked as it doesn't apply. The question, by it's very nature assumes the questioner does not have the experience of awareness, hence making it limited,yet to ask the question proves the questioner is aware. Heheh. Convoluted isn't it?
There being only awareness there is not "other" to give contrast and hence definition to awareness.
Then there is another question, which just lately occurred to me...what is the nature of awareness, which is a whole DIFFERENT animal then asking what it is.
By the way Abby it's good to see you again...i suspect your questions are rhetorical and that's cool too.
hey gang...
who is asking these questions? even the one that says I am only awareness...is an after thought of thought...same thing of the one asking what is the nature of awareness...who is this I that claims it is not?
"lo Star.....
" who is asking these questions? " There is no difference between what Abby asked and what you asked about what Abby asked, or my comments.
And yet...if there is to be conversation, we play the game, just as we play it when we read, eat, sleep.
so.....what is awareness? Is it a stretch to think the nature of awaeness determines the game?
Hey guys,
It's no1...old log in did'nt work.
Chip, Star and abstract...everyone good?
No1!!! i am wonder-filled!!! and u?
chip...awareness is the magic of the real...it is life...it is everything...it is mystery...it is knowing...being...dancing in joy...living outloud...emptiness that dances...not limited by an I...but dancing free in it's universe...
Hello no1....like the rest of us, you check back here occassionaly no?
I am as I am, (chuckle )and know you are the same.
And Star dances, and i enjoy her dancing.
But lovie, that tells us what consciousness does, what is it's nature? I don't claim to know, i only suspect and so looking for feedback, a nut for this little community chew on.
chip, whatever you suspect the essence of consciousness is, comes from consciousness itself and so how can u ever expect to stand outside of what is to describe what is? that would be other...it's like the age old question of where did god stand when he created the earth...
the essence is the dance of being...it is everything and nothing...you cannot speak the Tao...or it is not the Tao...
like a scientist that tries to figure out how he came to his own conclusions, we get stuck in mind and stop being...human...we wish to be enlightened or awakened to something other than what we are...cuz we think we b all that and so spiritual and godly or buddhalicious...gol (giggling out loud)...
mucho amore to mio bella amicos!!!
p.s. i would still love to hear your suspicions...gol*****
Hey chip!
Nature of consciousness? There is no separation between nature as essence and what it does or is doing...just different expressions as apparently viewed and which are all fundamentally connected, be it through transient observation (intellect, ego) or through non-judgment or non-position.
It is the very same thing... Yet because we attempt to understand it.. it disappears beyond our grasp because our expectation of a "result" should back track to a cause. We think purpose and meaning in a state which is just being. Being expresses itself in this or that as a doing with out position, yet we put that there and play out our own roles on top of it all. If a beautiful poem is written where everything just effortlessly flows (as I'm sure star can relate too), one knows that there was no boundaries or limitation in that expression. That is consciousness right there. The only time you can separate or fragment that quality of expression is by not recognizing the oness in it and assuming an experiencer experiencing something as a separate and linier event or "result".
Rain falls. Is the nature the falling part or the rain itself?
What's the difference between a hundred year old oak tree and the seed which proceeded it.
Nothing.
The nature is in the "growth" (the doing) of the tree as well as well as in the seed itself. The nature of consciousness is growth, doing, falling, rising, painting, writing, running, dancing, being born and dieing
oohhlala...goddess star b inlove with no1...maybe u b star's HOT GOD...ROTFLMAO...
puuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrfecto...bella no1...
i ends up where it never began...there is no longer a seeking...but a knowing...and what to do? experiencing the joy of being in this wonder-filled human dance...live outloud!!!
Hello again kiddos....
would like to point out asking a question has no more difference then offering an answer...thoughts are also something to be played with.
Star, your joy is evident. The quote about the Tao tho never fails to amuse me, because many scholars have used it just before they write a huge book on the subject of the Tao, which is why i get amused. i pay more attention when someone like you, playing with the Tao, uses it.
No1 you said "The nature of consciousness is growth, doing, falling, rising, painting, writing, running, dancing, being born and dieing "
Yes, now distill that to the one principle underlying all you mentioned and you have the nature of consciousness.
If, and a big if, that is the principle, then consciusness must be what it must be, and i find a beautiful symetry in that. I haven't mentioned what i think the principle is, because one's own discovery is better. It is an ultra simple thing, therefore so easy to overlook, and yet, it also sets blessing and approval on all phenomena because by it's essence cannot be other then what it is. Some call it god, some call it Tao. That also is of it's principle.
Chip,
Yes...agreed. One source in all expressions always expressing the same source in a differrent yet same)way.
who the fuck is messing with us???
man...get a fucking life whoever you are...please go take your shit elsewhere...PLEASE...*
Hi all,
Good to see some nice healthy discussion. Have been super busy this week so no time to respond. :o)
Hi chip
Thanks for the ego massage. Is always nice coming from someone whose opinion you value. :o)
So in a sense could it be possible to assume that the nature of awareness is not to be aware of itself, but to be aware of what it is not? (The initial thought was that the nature of awareness is to be aware of itself - lol)
I don't think this is dead bang on what you are implying but it was an interesting thought that arose and I was compelled to share when I read your post a moment ago.
When I looked at this not long after you posted thoughts arose that the nature of awareness was to create and destroy. Which boiled down implied change following the train I was on - lol. Can't really remember much else of that train ride though.
Just on this thought is it the nature of awareness to attach itself to what could never be attached? haha
BTW, I never did understand what a rhetorical question was/is and I still don't after looking up its meaning again. haha. As for the reasons to the questions as I am sure you are aware they simply arise and I am compelled to share them. :o)
Also, the principal that you talk about surely can not be defined or labeled even though it is every label and definition without being any of them. *shrugs* hehe
Hi star
I love the idea of dancing freely within a universe, whether as an I or not.
A question though: If you consider thoughts are limitless by there very nature (and I am not suggesting you do but for the purpose of this question put that hat on if you are not already wearing it - lol) do they not also limit us by their implications?
I like your mention of the Tao also and when I discovered it found it rather freeing in itself when knowing is seen as unknowing. This is just another web designed to entangle us though isn't it? After all in defining oneself are we not guilty of focussing to much on the beauty of the bird and missing the beauty of the tree, let alone the forest that the tree rests in.
Loving your input as always. :o)
Hi no1
I am breathing so thankful thank you. Its funny but the question of everyone good made me wonder what my life would be like if it had always been good, if all were always good. Sure sounds utopian but perhaps a little boring and restricted. It made me think of the film Logans Run. :o)
I have always loved your simple way of explaining your understanding. I am curious though do you think the nature of conciousness is limited by the nature of how we experience it? After all we are merely a speck of dust in a vast universe relative to our experience, or aren't we?
Hello abstract...hey brother,
"I am curious though do you think the nature of conciousness is limited by the nature of how we experience it."
How you "experience" is a reflection of where you are unconsciously. If it is unconsciously, filled with an identity, a solid self going through what it it has determined for itself as "experience", as a time bounded occurance, then yes, the nature of consciousness is not only limited but completely camouflaged. There is no nature of consciousness that can be realized. Even though it is all around, everywhere..
When we use the term experience, it becomes something tangible for the mind to own. Although words can never accurately convey this quality, experience, as an intellectual happening is definately not how I would refer to it ( the nature of consciousness). A knowing without position, individuality or a me is the closest i can get to it with words. If there is experience, then there must be time, if there is time then there is a sense of space, a sense of space brings fourth a sense of separation which must then result in position. Position and experience go hand-n- hand..
If you enter awareness or the "gap" by any of multiple ways, even for a few moments, then an awareness off nothingness will arrise. And the ONLY way to put that initial awareness into perspective is to turn it into an experience once back in the conceptual mind... when in fact, no such experience "happened". If one was able to stay and endure in this awareness then it would expand, just like a dimmer switch being turned up. Of course there are recognitions that take place in order for this to happen but once that awareness reaches a threshold, one either retreats or comfronts everything that he or she has believed themselves to be. If one retreats then it back to the mind and its role/occupation. If one confronts and recognizing fully the awesome misrepresentation of identity and exisitence, then that nothingness becomes everything and the vastness of it all uncomprehensibley beautiful.
And once fully in that quality, there is no experience anywhere. There is only THIS. This moment void a future or past which, as previously mentioned the other day, expresses itself in multiple ways.
Beautifully clear as always mate, thanks.
A couple of thoughts though...
I agree that identity can be a hindrance to "realising" and "releasing" oneself into the "nothing" however, should one deny identity as THIS? As you suggest THIS is experienced by a multiplicity of occurences in this instance that goes beyond the linear construct of time isn't it? (And I am not suggesting this is what you are doing, just asking a question in general)
I like the idea that experience implies an identity although I am yet to be convinced that this will always imply that the mind dictates ownership of the experience as part of the identity. Sure at first glance this may appear so but isn't this the point, it never does own it?
I agree the awareness of nothingness arises once entered, but the awareness only ever arises after the switch has been flicked. As you say because Nothing Actually happened. This is telling isn't it and reveals a lot. A lot about what though? Nothing? LOL - Very amusing stuff isn't it. Can you or I be certain that this Is It beyond all else? Well of course it couldn't be, or could it?
Sure in completeness there can be no begining and end, no future or past, yet I am still going to be finished work in 45 minutes and I will still look forward to seeing the smiling faces of my children and partner as I sit back on my deck, surrounded by trees, enjoying an end of week beer as the afternoon breeze cools me.
Anyways, speaking of work I have to get back to it.
Looking forward to your response.
Abstract,
"I agree that identity can be a hindrance to "realising" and "releasing" oneself into the "nothing" however, should one deny identity as THIS?
Experience, as I believe we are referring to it here, is not experience on the surface without one there to have it. This is the individual which dictates it's life through a collection of experiences (a sense of time) which then defines it's life as better, worse, worthy, successful and so on...
"This" is not "this" to the mind...it's an idea, an interpretation from an inner knowing that is within all of us. We are always trying to reach this knowing in different ways yet find that we return to the same port for it's delivery.
Who would be denying or accepting that which they already are fully? Who would have too? This act perpetually obstructs a union (a recognition of a primary oness) and solidifies separation simultaneously.
"As you suggest THIS is experienced by a multiplicity of occurences in this instance that goes beyond the linear construct of time isn't it? (And I am not suggesting this is what you are doing, just asking a question in general)"
No,,,it simply happening (there is no time in this happening) irrelevant to ownership. Experience is for the one who has claimed it. I know this is absurd to think of it in linear terms. Expression is expression. "Being" in that expression, or a multiple of, has no room for someone to later define it. For the mind, defining experience as a meaning to add to my life is a linear act and demands time. If you could not define experience then there would be no experience...what's left?
"I like the idea that experience implies an identity although I am yet to be convinced that this will always imply that the mind dictates ownership of the experience as part of the identity. Sure at first glance this may appear so but isn't this the point, it never does own it?"
Yes! It never did own it because it was never a part of the mind and it's process...which is illusion.
If we were to use the brain as the organ it was meant to be, everything would be fine. Instead man has identified with it and made it "mind". Something that says "me" was developed and completely took over.
"I agree the awareness of nothingness arises once entered, but the awareness only ever arises after the switch has been flicked. As you say because Nothing Actually happened. This is telling isn't it and reveals a lot. A lot about what though? Nothing? LOL - Very amusing stuff isn't it. Can you or I be certain that this Is It beyond all else? Well of course it couldn't be, or could it?"
This is initial awareness that I have written about before (not so much on this forum).It's what many refer to as the "gap". It's initial because this state is not yet fully recognized. That is, the part of you which is eternal, limitless and without identity does not fully recognize itself as consciousness, as one and the same with this source. We can definitely taste that which is timeless and boundless but to give up that smaller portion with the biggest anchor within all of us is a whole other issue. One would have to give up that which is time, is boundary. Not those things themselves but the grandfather of it all...your identity or strong sense of self.
When you child is off in dream land,whether having a beautiful dream or a nightmare, you know as a parent that he/she will eventually wake up and come back to reality. It just a dream after all. When we have lucid dreams (when you know you are in fact dreaming while in the dream)that is like initial awareness..you become aware of the fact that you are thinking...where you become the observer.Yet you are still in the dream and can get sucked right back into it. However, when the dream state is completely over,the "experience" you were dependent upon is replaced by the "nature of consciousness" itself.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. NIV
or try this...
"All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men."
William Tyndale, Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus that was direct from Hebrew text.
Hi all,
Sure glad the topic is a simple one. If we instigate an initial consideration that the domain of God remains or "IS" without past/future what we might call an unconscious state/place or being... yet one that fully "IS". Whereby all manner of things animating outside or directed from this initial state, a process that enacts, without enacting, but with full anticipation behind this process... could we or could we not point toward that as the nature of consciousness? From this (him/it) is the light that "is" (consciousness) that is the light within man.
I tried in quotations of the "IS" or "is" to define what is whole (absolute) from what is partial. Yet, in this we could even venture to say... they are one in the same.
Even thou regarding the small "is" the consciousness could be rational or irrational, natural or unnatural... no doubt where most of us come in. (smile)
chip, you said ap asks the most daunting questions... enjoyed this please continue.
ray
To return to the original question ...
Awareness is ... reacting or responding to what is happening. IOW, it is not something we have but something we do. We don't have awareness, we exhibit awareness to a greater or lesser degree.
The universe is aware because e.g. planets, moons, asteroids respond to what is around them. Plants and animals are more aware because the repertoire of responses is greater. Human beings are even more aware, at least they should be.
Cognitive ability enhances but is not necessary. Even single cell organisms exhibit 'intelligent' behaviour.
hi no1 :o)
“"This" is not "this" to the mind...it's an idea, an interpretation from an inner knowing that is within all of us. We are always trying to reach this knowing in different ways yet find that we return to the same port for it's delivery.”
Is that in part due to the fact that the mind is too preoccupied with what is going on around it? Isn’t this in itself a great clue and revealer to the connection that exists as All, that could never be a connection?
From the perspective that the mind reveals the connection then wouldn’t it at times be obvious for the mind to draw the conclusion that “this” is “This” to the mind as easily as it draws the conclusion that “This” is “not-this” to the mind? After all what is “This” other than a way to understand and experience “this” as experienced as “not-this” or “this”? What is different here in how we “experience”?
Isn’t it this very idea of “difference” and “uniqueness’ in views that creates the barrier and casts the veil between what-I-perceive and what-you-perceive, even though beyond the implementation of an identity the experience is one and the same, although it is just as accurate to say that it is “not-one” and it is “not-the-same”?
“Who would be denying or accepting that which they already are fully? Who would have too? This act perpetually obstructs a union (a recognition of a primary oness) and solidifies separation simultaneously.”
Wouldn’t it be those that deny or accept that which they perceive themself to be fully or not? Isn’t it this very idea that an obstruction is in place that obstructs a union as much as it is the idea that there is a union in place in the “first” instance? What if one was to consider that it is only through this recognition of “primary oneness” that separation is solidified?
Personally, of late (I am sure it will pass – haha), thoughts have been {occurring} that question whether or not it is this idea of bondage and suffering that is what creates bondage and suffering, so that it is through seeing that this person or group of people is suffering one is actually creating a {space} for the {object} of suffering to {exist}. What if {one} or {many} were to see that {suffering} did not exist at all? Of course there is no definite answer here beyond the meanderings of a mind as this is not {in-fact-a-reality}?
“No,,,it simply happening (there is no time in this happening) irrelevant to ownership.”
Why so certain? Does not the potential exist for any-one (or no-one) to see and experience both sides of an apparent coin? Why does this {dual-identity} exist? And what are the implications of it completely and utterly eroding? Can you answer these questions with any real certainty? And if so {What} makes you so certain?
“If we were to use the brain as the organ it was meant to be, everything would be fine. Instead man has identified with it and made it "mind". Something that says "me" was developed and completely took over.”
Who is saying this? Who is deciding that this is {correct}? Who is deciding what is {illusion} and what is {not-illusion}? What is it that draws this line in the sand and gathers “This” opposed to “this”?
In all this how can you be certain {where} I am positioned within this discourse? Am I playing devils advocate laughing all the way? Am I a lost lamb making no sense of non sense? Am I a part of you talking to you? Am I “This”? Am I “this”? From where does the certainty arise? And why does it arise?
Brother, it is always a pleasure.
Be Well
Hi gates
Good to see you mate.
Do you think {THIS_STATE_THAT_IS}, once if recognised as God is the end of the road?
I am fascinated by the idea of Gods and Godesses as living entities and wonder if they have form like you and I whether or not they also share our perceived flaws?
I don't know but much like chip I do enjoy having ideas play with me and lead me through the labaryrnth.
I also would be pleased if she shared some more within this discourse.
Niceness
gday shin
I very much like this idea that Awareness is the reaction or the response in relation to something other than itself, although I am not convinced either way that there is an absolute seperateness or oneness in place beyond a reasonable doubt.
thinking of our ancestors...the reptiles, their killer instinct...had they not had it, maybe we humans would not have evolved...
then, our two-legged ancestors...whose brain saw in still pictures maybe at first, then like unto a movie picture camera...brain recording everything through the senses...but eventually learning through trial and error to make sense of it...connecting...maybe not understanding why the day became night...one with the land...this is how they experienced life...connected to nature...then...along came language...while Latin lacked consonants, and required active participation in the creation of it's words and meanings, Greek language did not...and began to limit in one way but opening in another...allowing for man to reflect and live in his own head...now we have come full circle...we can allow language to open up beyond the limits we have given it...and maybe we can discover new ways of being...new ways of knowing...new ways of using words and language to open us up beyond our own ideas of absolutes...this creative energy that is alive...in us, through us, and in and through all things and no things...seems to limited to only call it awareness...
much love and joy*
hi star, some nice thoughts, thanks for sharing.
Have been having some similar thoughts about awareness this morning as the thought arose that awareness is always something that arises {within} an {object}. Yet it appears that it is only in relation to {something-other-than-itself} that awareness appears to be triggered. This led to the thought arising that {awareness} by its nature arising {within} relative to {without} is limited in its nature so that as you say it is limited to refer to ( ) as awareness even though awareness is ( ).
I don't know, I would be interested on further thoughts around this.
Enjoy
You must log in to post.
Collection of Thoughts is proudly sponsored by GiftShoppingZone.com and powered by bbPress.