Sleep = Nonexistence

[OldManCorcoran]

56 minutes ago, Ima Freeman said:

So, you say awareness ultimately does not need an object, sensation, etc.?

I have a sense of being, because I'm aware of sensations, thoughts, feelings.
Without them nothing would exist.
No awareness = no being
 

I think he means that the objects literally ARE what we term as consciousness. It is VERY different from objects being observed by consciousness, to be literally MADE of the thing in the absolute absence of a being which views these images.

Unfortunately consciousness as a word implies the act of observing things or some sort of definite link to "subjective experience" which is probably not necessarily the case.

Even if people say the object and subject are one, it is a conceptual framework which is not really prompting recognition of unity. As moreso people imagine two things swimming around each other, when actually it is JUST the thing itself. So rather than a seer swirling around within red, it is literally JUST red. JUST that.

Like making origami shapes, every shape within the result literally IS paper. You can't actually take apart the shape and paper the shape literally is made of paper. So sights sounds and whatever else, are literally made of consciousness just like that. And when it is experienced by "you" (seemingly, that is, the character I'm speaking to), the shape happens to be the experience of your life... But there's ultimately just paper, just consciousness. No "I" element within the appearances.

[Moksha]

8 hours ago, Ima Freeman said:

So, you say awareness ultimately does not need an object, sensation, etc.?

I have a sense of being, because I'm aware of sensations, thoughts, feelings.
Without them nothing would exist.
No awareness = no being
 

@OldManCorcoran explained it well. In meditation, you reach the realization where dualities dissolve and there is only pure awareness.

Who is the I that is aware of sensations, thoughts, and feelings? What happens when sensations, thoughts, and feelings recede? Does absolute awareness suddenly stop in the absence of apparent objects?

When you wake up from a dream, you don't have to perceive anything to realize you are awake. It is an effortless, obvious realization.

Spiritual awakening is the absolute directly realizing itself, which is not only the essence of every apparent object, but is beyond the material cosmos. The apparent separation of the seer and the seen dissolves into seamless awareness.

[Yimpa]

1 hour ago, Moksha said:

 

Spiritual awakening is the absolute directly realizing itself, which is not only the essence of every apparent object, but is beyond the material cosmos. The apparent separation of the seer and the seen dissolves into seamless awareness.

That’s the beauty of Awakening. You realize that Reality can’t be one particular way or shape, since nothing can contain Consciousness 

[Ima Freeman]

Ok I can can comprehend that monism intellectually. Consciousness is the substance of everything.
The threat deals with the unconsciousness of deep sleep though.

To the questions: 
Who is the I that is aware of sensations, thoughts, and feelings? Consciousness itself

What happens when sensations, thoughts, and feelings recede? New ones arise, or better they flow into each other like waves. 

Does absolute awareness suddenly stop in the absence of apparent objects? In my humble opinion yes, because it is anchored in sensations.
No sensations, no consciousness, no being

[Water by the River]

2 hours ago, Ima Freeman said:

Does absolute awareness suddenly stop in the absence of apparent objects? In my humble opinion yes, because it is anchored in sensations.
No sensations, no consciousness, no being

Hi Ima Freeman,

maybe you find that helpful:

Awareness OF something stops. But not the potential for Awareness/sentience, or "Pure" Awareness, or however you want to call it. That can't go "anywhere" or stop. "It" is always right here.

"IT" doesn't have a name here, it is beyond duality, nothing can describe it. It is the Absolute, or True You. You can call it of Awareness, but not Awareness OF, since there is no of then. It is void, empty, silent, infinite, and can only be described in negative terms. Yet, It manifests the potential of all possible worlds.

quote from the link:

You (capital Y) are the whole Infinite Reality (imagined body, imagined appearances, imagined everything n+1). With nothing outside of it, because that would be an imagined arising too. Any boundary separiting IT from an imagined other IT would be an imagined arising, an appearing phenomenon. Infinite.

Try to imagine everything gone, including thinking: NOTHINGNESS. Not big, not small, just NOTHINGNESS. A vast infinite Nothingness, that is not even vast, because there is no 3D-space or anything (no objects/arisings). Similiar to Deep Sleep. YOU are still there. YOU awake every morning after having been there. You already know that you can be totally something/somebody else in dreams, and have totally forgotten all the past you imagine right now to be your "real" human self.

But IT is not Nothingness like nothing there at all, but Nothingness with the POTENTIAL for sentience as soon as anything is imagined, and with Infinite Potential to imagine ANYTHING within it, n+1.

Imagine a water pistol pops up in this Nothingness (see example Massaro, Conversations with a Skepctic):

• Then you have a) an imagined appearance (water pistol) and b) "something" perceiving it, the subject.
• Or just the perceptions of the water pistal in case no separates self is imagined/arises. 
• Just the waterpistol perceiving itself, perceptions perceiving themselves. Impersonal.
• Then you have a "world", and subject/object.

So what are you then?

• a) The Infinite Field  with anything that can possibly be imagined? Yes. Nondual/Totality/Oneness. The manifest/imagined side of Infinite Consciousness. Always changing, never stable, since no appearance/form lasts. NONE. But there is a constant:
• b) But even more so, you are that Nothingness that can be unaware of itself, Infinite Consciousness initially unaware of itself, but with the potential for sentience if something arises. The unmanifest side of Infinite Consciousness. The unchanging, Unborn and constant core of the True You/Reality itself. So empty that IT is the Abyss, Impersonal. NOTHINGNESS. But also Infinite Potential, since IT can imagine anything.
• and "Both"a) and b) is indivisible, nondual. Totally the same essence, ONE Reality. The Nothingness or the True You is already the essence/"substance" of every imagined arisings/phenomenon, including the water pistol, or all separate self arisings (they are all appearances within you).
• a nice book about that is Szyper, "Infinite Consciousness"

Any name for it brings some problems with it, because Reality contains all pointers/words, and a word/concept only has meaning in terms of its opposite. But nice pointers are Absolute/Pure Awareness, or even better (in my opinion) Nothingness. Because IT is not the everyday Awareness with subject/object (Awareness "OF) duality. Of course, it is the same Pure Awareness throughout, but when containing the illusion arisings of a separate-self, Its true Nature is covered by clouds and can not be realized.

And it can not be realized by thinking about it, only by waking up. But nice pointers give the space to practice, and practice makes ripe for the grace of crossing over or realizing IT, passing the Gateless Gate.

Selling Water by the River

Edited June 5, 2023 by Water by the River

[Moksha]

1 hour ago, Ima Freeman said:

Ok I can can comprehend that monism intellectually. Consciousness is the substance of everything.
The threat deals with the unconsciousness of deep sleep though.

To the questions: 
Who is the I that is aware of sensations, thoughts, and feelings? Consciousness itself

What happens when sensations, thoughts, and feelings recede? New ones arise, or better they flow into each other like waves. 

Does absolute awareness suddenly stop in the absence of apparent objects? In my humble opinion yes, because it is anchored in sensations.
No sensations, no consciousness, no being

Awakening is awareness realizing itself. It sees that it is timeless, changeless, and seamless. This realization is direct and beyond doubt, entirely non-conceptual.

The answers to the above questions flow from this realization.

Since awareness is seamless, anything it seems to aware of (sensations, thoughts, feelings) cannot be absolutely real.

Since awareness is timeless, the appearance of sensations, thoughts, and feelings receding over time cannot be absolutely real.

Since awareness is changeless, the appearance of its cessation cannot be absolutely real.

Even if you haven't awoken yet, you can test the boundaries of your assumptions about time, change, and separation by studying astrophysics and quantum physics. These are the sciences of extremes, i.e., the largest and smallest observable phenomena within the cosmos. In the narrow band of ordinary life, it's easy to delude ourselves that time, change, and separation are objectively real.

It's only when we study the heights and depths of the cosmos that apparent reality begins to fray at the edges. You realize that these dimensions are not objective, but are relative. For example, time passes more quickly for an object moving faster than a slower moving object. It doesn't just reach point a to point b quicker, but time itself actually dilates for the faster object. Therefore, time is relative and cannot be absolute. The same is true for mass and energy. The entire cosmos is relatively, but not absolutely, real.

Direct self-inquiry will reveal this to you. The essence of the absolute is within you, and it has the capacity to awaken to itself.

 

[OldManCorcoran]

16 hours ago, Ima Freeman said:

Ok I can can comprehend that monism intellectually. Consciousness is the substance of everything.
The threat deals with the unconsciousness of deep sleep though.

To the questions: 
Who is the I that is aware of sensations, thoughts, and feelings? Consciousness itself

What happens when sensations, thoughts, and feelings recede? New ones arise, or better they flow into each other like waves. 

Does absolute awareness suddenly stop in the absence of apparent objects? In my humble opinion yes, because it is anchored in sensations.
No sensations, no consciousness, no being

Specifically regarding the "unconsciousness" and "I" claims, I think this is probably not be a correct grasping of monism. Deep sleep, coma, death, various other supposed unconscious states don't exist or even happen at all.

If you go see the Eiffel tower today you can tell me about it, and say that you saw it. Now if I go see it the day after while you stay home and I'm stood in front of it telling you about the sight, you will think you aren't seeing it because you will say that you are viewing some other sight like maybe your living room wall.

If you remove the idea whereby there are experiencers to experiences, then on BOTH days there exists the sight of the Eiffel Tower. And it ends there, the sight exists and that's it. Irrespective of which body is stood in front of it looking at it... Because nobody ever sees anything, there exists sights and sounds etc and they exist all by themselves in absence of anything viewing them. The state of your body is irrelevant to this because the body is dead matter like everything else. Experiences happen and they happen by themselves ALWAYS in your total absence.

Basically, that idea is that sights see themselves and sounds hear themselves, and that nobody has ever existed, does not exist right now, and never will.

And with that also consciousness stops having anything to do with qualitative experiences. There does not necessarily need to be any qualitative experiences happening, they can stop for millenia then just randomly happen again. There isn't any substantive difference between unconscious objects and conscious phenomena, they can all just come and go. And each time they come they will exist precisely the same... If someone in 10,000 years stands in front of the Eiffel tower in the same exact spot and looks at it, it is identical to when you were stood there looking at it yourself. As mentioned the sight is all that exists, so the sight existed 10,000 years prior when the body with your name stood there, and the sight exists again with this future person's body there. Nobody saw it then and nobody sees it now, rather, the "shape" of paper by which the sight exists simply formed again.

That's the style of monism I think is being discussed.

[WeCome1]

@OldManCorcoran , I find your way of explaining the no-self/non-duality paradigm very refreshing, precise and uncompromising. But I've wanted to specify one thing about it for a while, if you don't mind. You often say things like "if I hear a piece of music, see the color red, feel the feeling of Christmas, behold the sight of a Grand Canyon etc. today - and you hear/see/feel/experience those same phenomena tomorrow - then, on both occasions, it will be the exact same phenomena arising and being self-apparent, without the need for a "somebody" to "experience" them.

I'm totally with you on the "self-apparent/no need for a subject" part, no questions there. However, the "exact same phenomena" part seems a bit imprecise - in the sense that it contradicts the ol' "impermanence" thing that appears to be the case here. Music can hardly be heard the same exact way twice due to different atmospheric conditions and constructions of the bodies hearing it, much the same with the color red; the Grand Canyon sight changes all the time due to erosion and weather; the Eiffel tower gets rustier by the day and then gets repainted; and the feeling of Christmas isn't what it used to be... It's difficult to imagine that "the exact same phenomenon or the exact same collection of phenomena" could be experienced twice.

So, my question is: do you use this as a purely hypothetical rhetorical device to illustrate the point that there is no need for a perceiver/subject - or do you mean it more or less literally? In case if it's the latter - could you maybe elaborate?

Edited June 6, 2023 by WeCome1

[OldManCorcoran]

3 hours ago, WeCome1 said:

@OldManCorcoran , I find your way of explaining the no-self/non-duality paradigm very refreshing, precise and uncompromising. But I've wanted to specify one thing about it for a while, if you don't mind. You often say things like "if I hear a piece of music, see the color red, feel the feeling of Christmas, behold the sight of a Grand Canyon etc. today - and you hear/see/feel/experience those same phenomena tomorrow - then, on both occasions, it will be the exact same phenomena arising and being self-apparent, without the need for a "somebody" to "experience" them.

I'm totally with you on the "self-apparent/no need for a subject" part, no questions there. However, the "exact same phenomena" part seems a bit imprecise - in the sense that it contradicts the ol' "impermanence" thing that appears to be the case here. Music can hardly be heard the same exact way twice due to different atmospheric conditions and constructions of the bodies hearing it, much the same with the color red; the Grand Canyon sight changes all the time due to erosion and weather; the Eiffel tower gets rustier by the day and then gets repainted; and the feeling of Christmas isn't what it used to be... It's difficult to imagine that "the exact same phenomenon or the exact same collection of phenomena" could be experienced twice.

So, my question is: do you use this as a purely hypothetical rhetorical device to illustrate the point that there is no need for a perceiver/subject - or do you mean it more or less literally? In case if it's the latter - could you maybe elaborate?

Well you are unlikely to ever see the EXACT same sight again (because different lighting or weather, etc), but I mean for example there's no difference between you going to see the grand canyon two days in a row, vs you seeing it one day and me the next while you stayed home. It is the same apart from inconsequential oddities (oddities like say one of us is colorblind etc etc.) I just mean that it does not matter which dead matter "living body" happens to be beside a thing.

I forgot the ego death event entirely now so I don't remember anymore how I am sure this is the case (though at the time it was a serious thing). But I can explain that paradigm and implications.

[Moksha]

22 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

I just mean that it does not matter which dead matter "living body" happens to be beside a thing.

The form has phenomenal characteristics, including the state of absolute clarity within it, which affect the perception of other apparent forms.

[WeCome1]

32 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

Well you are unlikely to ever see the EXACT same sight again (because different lighting or weather, etc), but I mean for example there's no difference between you going to see the grand canyon two days in a row, vs you seeing it one day and me the next while you stayed home.

Ok, I see what you mean. Thank you for the clarification!

[Ima Freeman]

Thanks, that's a lot to chew on.