Questions about levels of consciousness

[Naturalist]

Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form (Something is Nothing, Nothing is Something)

Let’s see the illustrations below: -

Microscopic Analysis Of The Object (Solid Ball)

By zooming in, you could see what was in the core of the solid ball, the atoms.  But there was nothing to discover apart from the vibrant space.  In the end, this observation would give way to the emptiness of the substance.

Macroscopic Analysis Of The Object (Solid Ball)

As you zoom out, the solid ball seems to shrink to the smallest possible size.  In the end, such a finding would also give way to the emptiness of the substance.

Given this, it is legitimate to conclude that the form is empty since no substance is stationary.  This means that it exists only in relation to each other as appearances which, in turn, vary according to viewers’ perceptions.  Ultimately, appearance has a deceptive nature that is lacking in intrinsic presence and varies with conditional phenomena.

The above analysis has also revealed that the emptiness of phenomena is the cause and consequence of the dependent nature of phenomena.  After all, emptiness is the primary source of perceptible realities.  This is the inherent nature of existence and is seen as the ultimate reality because it exists inherently right as it is perceived directly by the enlightened mind.

 

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, Arugoel said:

@RMQualtrough That's one way of putting it and perfectly valid if it's what resonates for you, but @GreenWoods intuitions are also valid.  By your own logic, the most you can definitively say is that you aren't an object, because as you so nicely explained, you'll never find yourself as an object.  However, whether or not you therefore conclude yourself to be nothingness is another matter.  

You're asking others to see your view, but can you step outside your paradigm and see their view too?  This captures one of the classic debates between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.  One claims nothingness (no-self), the other claims fullness (ultimate Self).  A difference in linguistic taste, but not much more than that, no?  

It's not something I heard that resonates, it happened first hand. The other idea would not be accurate to that... It's not like a scientific theory where people debate. Like if a professor says "you're not conscious" there's no view there to consider as you know what you are.

I could never be found as an object but it was like, by the very nature of it, it couldn't even feasibly be anything. Unlike physical eyes where it's like, maybe if I turn them round 180 degrees or grab a mirror I'll see them. The very nature of what that "I" is, is that it alone can never have any form whatsoever... Never... And inherently there is simply nothing there. You are it, and to think it would not be possible for nothingness to be aware is, I think, just a misunderstanding of what nothingness truly is.

Logically, all things have limit. For something to be a thing it HAS to have a boundary. E.g. the color red is a something. It is limited in that it must be red and NOT blue. There is a finitude to ALL things without exception. There is feasibly only one thing which could ever have no limitation at all, and be completely infinite without boundary: Nothingness. Even logically this makes sense. And experientially, there was no way I could say that what was "back there" so to speak was anything other than nothing... Which is me, which is without limit.

You mention Advaita. And I see many of them say awareness knows itself even in deep sleep. It may do so, but it is nothingness knowing nothingness. And when nothingness appears without any limited forms, it is like a general anaesthetic gap. 10, 9, 8... Recovery room post surgery...... No gap... Nothingness by itself skips like a camcorder that pauses then restarts. Play back the tape and the gap never happens on that recording.

[Arugoel]

@RMQualtrough Nicely stated.  I get where you're coming from.  I have a few thoughts as I consider your words.  

I see that you're referring to a past experience and then suggesting that inherent in the experience was the understanding that you now speak of.  But would you not agree that your experience simply was what it was?  And your words that now describe the insight you gained could be tweaked depending on the nature of your intellectual state at any given moment?  Would you speak of it in the exact same way had you not been literate?

What I'm getting at is, it's possible to distinguish between the experience and the way in which you choose to speak about the experience.  What makes this all so tricky is that we can't be absolutely sure of what each other has experienced, we can only feel into the words one chooses to use, and it seems worth recognizing that our narratives can come in many forms while referring to the same target.  

So when I said "That's one way of putting it and perfectly valid if it's what resonates for you," I was referring to the words you are choosing to use in your current state.  Of course, your experience happened first hand and cannot be denied.  But is the linguistic interpretation not up for negotiation?  

The "other idea" you say would not be accurate, but you may consider if that is only the case because the words don't resonate with your particular disposition, for they may refer back to the same first hand happening.

Here's an example.  You mention the blankness of anesthesia.  In Advaita Vedanta the blankness of anesthesia is considered the veiling power of Maya and therefore deemed a form, the form of blankness.  It seems blank because the projecting power of Maya is absent, but ignorance of one's true nature remains.  For them, when all forms are removed, you don't end up in anesthesia, but rather Nirvikalpa Samadhi.  Instead of labeling this formless state as shunyam (emptiness), some call it purnam (completely full).  Different words but perhaps valid descriptors of the same target.

[RMQualtrough]

@Arugoel I don't think the insight could be tweaked based on intellectual state, as it wasn't an insight so much as a direct recognition. The words might shift marginally.

Experientially, what I speak of happened by the pushing back of awareness from all form. All form remained in the foreground. Any form at all, no matter what it was, any limited thing, any something even a sound or physical touch, became the foreground. And I went backwards away in towards myself.

Imagine watching a movie at the theater, being engrossed in that film, then recognizing you are sitting in the chair and recognizing the movie to be playing to you while you are sat there all along. Like the physical eyes, the difference again is that when you experience this shift, there isn't a body on a seat. You are what's on the seat but you have no form whatsoever. None. If something has any form it is in the foreground like the movie at the theatre. You never leave the seat. You are completely and entirely without thingness. You're just a disembodied nothing...

You are there, like you are when at the theatre. But the you that is there has nothing at all to it. There is nothing at or behind it. All something is always foreground. You are the background, you have no form or thingness. Consciousness should be considered a synonym of nothingness. All forms arise from nothingness, and vanish back into nothingness. As these things are synonymous, they arise from consciousness, appear to it, then retract back into it.

Basically, the wording I don't think can be altered while retaining the meaning. Any word other than nothing will always subtley suggest a something to a typical person. No-thing even, it sounds like it's just a strange something. But it literally is not a thing. It is nothing. And it is the most obvious word for it to use AFAIK.

[Arugoel]

@RMQualtrough Nicely put.  Thanks for speaking with me, I enjoyed it.

[WelcometoReality]

On 2022-05-26 at 0:16 AM, Arugoel said:

@WelcometoReality Yes, I read your posts and respect your position.  Thank you for offering your view, I felt you were clear and articulate.  It's worth considering what Shambhu was saying too.  When understood correctly, there is no subtle separation, or any separation for that matter.  Similar to how a pot cannot be separated from the clay that was used to form the pot.  Nonetheless, a distinction can be made in one's understanding between the form and the substance that pervades the form.  As such, non-duality insofar as it pertains to Advaita Vedanta is with regard to ontology, but this doesn't mean that it's invalid or without reason to draw certain distinctions in one's understanding.

I see, so these distinctions are purely in the understanding and the error I made was to mix the understanding that @Shambhu was explaining with his actual experience.

If so, as a follow up question I'd like to ask is:

Is it experienced that form is the formlessness, that both are essentially the same, and not only an "appearance" within it?

And I understand that from an advaita vedanta POV this does not make sense but can you intuit what I mean with the question?

If not perhaps the better question is, how has this realization manifested in the world?

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by WelcometoReality

[Arugoel]

@WelcometoReality I can't speak for @Shambhu, and I can't be certain that he'd agree with the assertion I made in that quote.  However, I'm interested in taking a stab at your question.

Sorry if this is an indirect way of answering, but consider the following:

When walking between rooms at your home, has the form of a spider (or some other bug) ever caught your attention, but when you focused your gaze you came to realize that it was in fact just a natural dark spot on your wooden floor?

If you can't experientially relate to the above scenario, I'm sure at least you can imagine this happening to someone.

Now the question is, would you consider the false appearance of the spider to be "essentially the same" as the natural dark spot?

Advaita Vedanta would suggest that there is no ontological separation, after all the false spider is non-other than the dark spot.  However, clearly there is an important distinction to be made between the two.  One has genuine realness, the other merely a mirage.

  

Edited May 27, 2022 by Arugoel

[WelcometoReality]

2 hours ago, Arugoel said:

Now the question is, would you consider the false appearance of the spider to be "essentially the same" as the natural dark spot?

Yes, it is the same thing, only perceived in different ways.

2 hours ago, Arugoel said:

Advaita Vedanta would suggest that although there is no ontological separation, after all the false spider is non-other than the dark spot.  However, clearly there is an important distinction to be made between the two.  One has genuine realness, the other merely a mirage.

Yes, the mirage would be the world with all it's separate "things". It is in fact consciousness.

[Arugoel]

@WelcometoReality Yup, that's it.  And if we want to add further clarity, we can say that not only is the spider and the spot the same thing perceived in different ways, but that one way is correct perception, and the other is false.  Furthermore, we can specify that although the mirage is not independent from consciousness, consciousness is never limited by any particular mirage.  The appearances come and go, but consciousness remains unchanged.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Arugoel

[WelcometoReality]

5 hours ago, Arugoel said:

@WelcometoReality Yup, that's it.  And if we want to add further clarity, we can say that not only is the spider and the spot the same thing perceived in different ways, but that one way is correct perception, and the other is false.  Furthermore, we can specify that although the mirage is not independent from consciousness, consciousness is never limited by any particular mirage.  The appearances come and go, but consciousness remains unchanged.

 I agree. Thank you for the clarification.

Edited May 27, 2022 by WelcometoReality

[GreenWoods]

On 5/26/2022 at 2:18 AM, RMQualtrough said:

It's not a something. Consider this... You have eyes, everything you could ever possibly see is in front of your eyes. You can never get behind your eyes. Your eyes we know are "somethings" because we can find them as objects, e.g. you can touch them (srs, it feels weird to do but used to do it as kids to freak each other out lolz), or see them in a mirror, dissect them etc.

Things in your mind as you may know are themselves not made of "things", they are mirages, so if you imagine a castle in a dream, that castle is not really there made out of stones and elemental particles (etc). It's all a mirage.

In your mind you have something like your eyes, except never observerable and never graspable, you can only "be it", and you are it and you call it "I". Everything that you are ever aware of is, like what you see with your eyes, appearing to it. If it is an object in any way whatsoever, it is something appearing to awareness. Awareness isolated by itself is never something. If it was something, it would have a quality to it, and you could observe it. And if you could observe it, it would be appearing to you, so could not then be it as the "I" would then be farther behind it, and it always regresses and hides farther back behind anything that ever becomes an object of awareness...... You can never see your mind-eye with your mind-eye, like you can't see your physical eyes with your physical eyes, or touch your fingertip with the same fingertip.

When you experience BEING it, which is the only way to know that nothingness, you will definitely understand that what you are is absolutely nothing. You mever observe it, you are it. ALL things that could ever even conceivably be observed are not what I'm talking about. Your true self is the ONLY thing that in no way could be observed. You can be it and that's it... And via the knowing of somethings, recognize that the thing which knows that something is, literally, NOTHING. Nonexistence.

So you are saying there exists a major duality?

The you, the NOTHING.

And objects. Things you are conscious of.

 

Most people here on the forum would probably say that there is no difference between these two. There is only one 'substance'. Objects are not observed by a subject. Everyhing is Consciousness and therefore, objects = subject.

On 5/26/2022 at 2:18 AM, RMQualtrough said:

. What you refer to as your consciousness and nonexistence are the same..... Interchangeable terms. Nothingness exists and it's you. Weird huh?

Therefore I wouldn't call it non-existence. 

[RMQualtrough]

2 hours ago, GreenWoods said:

So you are saying there exists a major duality?

The you, the NOTHING.

And objects. Things you are conscious of.

 

Most people here on the forum would probably say that there is no difference between these two. There is only one 'substance'. Objects are not observed by a subject. Everyhing is Consciousness and therefore, objects = subject.

Therefore I wouldn't call it non-existence. 

Yeah well the "most people" say that because they saw it on Reddit or in a book lol.

Appearances aren't made of anything and there is nothing behind them, the substance of appearances is nothing. The substance of nothing is nothing.

This is far clearer, explainable, and intuitive than the "is-ness" semantic choice.

Something is nothing appearing limited. All limit creates thingness. Limit disappears, bubble bursts. No bubble of consciousness, bubbles of limitation.

[GreenWoods]

4 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

Appearances aren't made of anything and there is nothing behind them, the substance of appearances is nothing. The substance of nothing is nothing.

This is far clearer, explainable, and intuitive than the "is-ness" semantic choice

I think our understandings are not too much apart.