I Exist

[Lennyrizzo]

Matt wrote:

Neuroscientists currently believe the brain holds our memories in the form of electrochemical states. I don't know anything about it, I just know I can remember things.

Well, I know this much, memory encoding does not take place as commonly believed, within the brains cells themselves, but at the junction of neurons, in fact within the gaps between them, called synapes, where messages pass between neurons.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, hello again, Lennyrizzo! Where the heck have you been?

Thats an interesting use of the word, what do you think enlightenment is, how are you using it here, defining it?

When I say "enlightened 'I'" I am referring to pure awareness: which I would further define as being absence of ego.

Can one flip-flop to and fro enlightenment as awareness comes and goes, is that it?

Yes. There can be "moments of enlightenment" until the ego is completely eliminated, I reckon.

What about during sleep/unconsciousnesss? Are there two I's in your scheme?

Well, there are as many I's as you care to dream or imagine.

Sorry but I'm confused!

That's alright! I would be, too, if I had multiple personalities. I mean, between "I" the mother, "I" the sister, "I" the employee and "I" the every-other-name-I've-been-called-under-the-sun, "I" can relate -- you know?

[Lennyrizzo]

Leyla quoted a book:

When I die and my own construction vanishes, the observable universe will live on in the minds of others. And should the human race and all conscious life on earth become extinct, well then, existence will have to wait until new sentient beings evolve - keeping in mind, of course, that concepts such as "waiting" and "time elapsing" and "existence" and "nothingness" have no meaning outside of consciousness.

This isn't necessarily true though, as it's likely that planets other than earth do indeed support life.

[AryReisin]

In my view, the only thing that needs to be done is thinking. Anything else follows from that. Conversely, certain things follow from not thinking, also. Like more not-thinking.

If this is, in fact, what you mean -- then I agree with you.

Well, I have to say I disagree. In my view, the only thing that needs to be done is to abide in one's awareness, better said, to remain in Awareness, to become conscious of what is conscious, to observe everything but most importantly observe oneself (being oneself that which is the "doer"). To me this is the absence of thought (in it's different levels). I don't consider "thinking" to be the case here. To observe causality in all things, to be without centre, to not be identified with Any Thing is the absence of thought, or better said, the cessation of one identifying oneself with thought. The only place where thought is worth is when one is to look at oneself asking questions like: what is it that's observing, what am I, where am I, what is Real? To think in Causality is "good" but not necessary.
Observation in the sense of Awareness (opposed to observing from a centre like being attentive but with an intention) is not thinking, and that naturally includes seeing there is no doer, seeing causality, etc.
The interesting thing is, that everything one says Belongs to the person talking, the personality. Not to Awareness, since Awareness has not attributes. Anyway, I still suspect that Awareness is not the same as Consciousness.
Greetings, Ary.

[Lennyrizzo]

Well, hello again, Lennyrizzo! Where the heck have you been?
Mostly working, but also working some, and when i had the chance a bit of work, too. Break time!
Quote:
Thats an interesting use of the word, what do you think enlightenment is, how are you using it here, defining it?


When I say "enlightened 'I'" I am referring to pure awareness: which I would further define as being absence of ego.

Oh, ok, however one can't really talk about "relationships" in such a case, even to suggest "awareness" is stretching it when it comes to the Absolute. I reckon you may follow this. Though I've dropped in sideways and therefore probably not up to speed with this particular topic.
Pure awareness is normally Newager lingo, and these folks don't even know what an ego is, let alone it's absence.

[Lennyrizzo]

Anyway, I still suspect that Awareness is not the same as Consciousness.
Greetings, Ary.

Normally, consciousness is the imaginary stage upon and within which awareness occurs.

[AryReisin]

Normally, consciousness is the imaginary stage upon and within which awareness occurs.

Imaginary? It would be like selflessness, it seems imaginary to that one who is selfish and think that's all there is.
The thing about Reality, is that for those of us who only see appearences, it's hard to imagine something prior to appearences. That doesn't mean appearences are real or that there's nothing prior to appearences.

[David Quinn]

The idea that "nothing existed before consciousness and appearances" is also an appearance and should be dismissed as well. It is just as false to imagine this as it is to imagine there was existence before the arisal of consciousness.

DQ: If by "I" you mean subjective awareness, then the "I" doesn't appear to be on during sleep.

Ary: What would be objective awareness?

It is conventional to distinguish between objective consciousness (i.e. consciousness of objects) and subjective consciousness (i.e. consciousness of oneself as the observer). Such a distinction ultimately breaks down because we can only be conscious of ourselves as an observer by making ourselves an object of consciousness. In other words, the "I" is just another object of consciousness in the end.

In any case, both objective and subjective consciousness appear to be switched off during deep sleep.

DQ: If you mean the body itself, then the "I" does remain on during sleep.

If you mean the brain, then the "I" does remain on during sleep.

It all comes down to what we mean by "I". From what you have written above in your long post, it's not entirely clear what you mean by it.

Ary: Maybe you could describe what Awareness is for you, and if there is anything permanent that remains during the 3 states while not being the brain, nor the body, nor the subjective awareness as you call it?

Awareness, for me, is simply consciousness of objects, or finite forms. There cannot be awareness without finite forms, nor can there be finite forms without awareness. The two arise together.

Awareness seems to disappear with the onset of deep sleep. Only in wakeful life and dreams do awareness and finite forms seem to arise.

DQ: From my perspective, the "I" is nothing more than a conceptual construct, and thus the idea that we really do have an "I" is an illusion. The "I" exists in the same way that the lines of longitude and latitude exist - as a kind of arbitrary demarcation that we project onto reality. The seperation between ourselves and the rest of the world is not really there, and so any pursuit of the "I" will always end in failure. It is like chasing a mirage.

Ary: Agreed, the separation is not really there, but one feels like it, so it IS there. It is like being afraid of a fake snake (plastic snake for example). The fear IS real until one discovers the fear has no grounds to exist, therefore the fear dissapears. What wasn't true was the grounds, the thought of the snake being real, but the fear was indeed felt.

Yes, as long as we are conscious and having thoughts, we will always perceive seperation between things. Thought is divisive by nature. It naturally creates seperation, and this, in turn, lays the foundation for consciousness to arise.

It is important to realize that we can never escape this seperation and still remain conscious. It is impossible for consciousness to arise in the absence of seperation. But what we can do is free ourselves from the illusions which this seperating process generates. The enlightened person is someone who no longer believes in the finite forms which he experiences in his consciousness. His consciousness continues to create them, but he sees them for the illusions that they are. That is his liberation.


-

[David Quinn]

Lennyrizzo wrote:

Leyla quoted a book:

DQ's Wisdom of the Infinite: When I die and my own construction vanishes, the observable universe will live on in the minds of others. And should the human race and all conscious life on earth become extinct, well then, existence will have to wait until new sentient beings evolve - keeping in mind, of course, that concepts such as "waiting" and "time elapsing" and "existence" and "nothingness" have no meaning outside of consciousness.

L: This isn't necessarily true though, as it's likely that planets other than earth do indeed support life.

That doesn't make any difference to the point I was making - namely, that when all consciousness of the universe vanishes, concepts such as "waiting" and "time elapsing" and "existence" and "nothingness" have no meaning.

-

[Lennyrizzo]

Don't be a baby!

[AryReisin]

The idea that "nothing existed before consciousness and appearances" is also an appearance and should be dismissed as well. It is just as false to imagine this as it is to imagine there was existence before the arisal of consciousness.

I see your point. So, (if my memory is somewhat fresh) to you Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, etc, are all New Age gurus?

It is conventional to distinguish between objective consciousness (i.e. consciousness of objects) and subjective consciousness (i.e. consciousness of oneself as the observer). Such a distinction ultimately breaks down because we can only be conscious of ourselves as an observer by making ourselves an object of consciousness. In other words, the "I" is just another object of consciousness in the end.

I see your view on this.

In any case, both objective and subjective consciousness appear to be switched off during deep sleep.

Still the body is on, but that is not awareness according to you then?. If the alarm goes off, one wakes up, but that's the body reacting, not something being aware?

Awareness, for me, is simply consciousness of objects, or finite forms. There cannot be awareness without finite forms, nor can there be finite forms without awareness. The two arise together.

Awareness seems to disappear with the onset of deep sleep. Only in wakeful life and dreams do awareness and finite forms seem to arise.

So, if "I" is an object, "I" only exists when being aware. And if Awareness depends on objects to exist, it only exists while not sleeping. That's as far as goes according to you, I see.

Yes, as long as we are conscious and having thoughts, we will always perceive seperation between things. Thought is divisive by nature. It naturally creates seperation, and this, in turn, lays the foundation for consciousness to arise.

It is important to realize that we can never escape this seperation and still remain conscious. It is impossible for consciousness to arise in the absence of seperation. But what we can do is free ourselves from the illusions which this seperating process generates. The enlightened person is someone who no longer believes in the finite forms which he experiences in his consciousness. His consciousness continues to create them, but he sees them for the illusions that they are. That is his liberation.

-

Well, I suppose that the not believing in the finite forms must change his physical experience of things: emotions, sensations, thoughts. Now, what would Nothingness or the Empty or the Void (I don't remember what name you called it) be? Would that also be an object of consciousness? Or would it be a "formless" object (which by definition contradicts itself, since it's very existence denotes it has a form, even if it is abstract or invisible)?. If there was something common to all objects perceived, or something "beneath" all those objects, like the empty that sustains the space of things, would that be perceived as another object?
It's interesting that you say that the "Enlightened" one, still remains in duality, but not believing what it has to offer. Is there such thing as becoming One, to dissolve duality, while being aware? Or is that just something that happens in inexistence, while sleeping or not being aware?
You express yourself very clearly, so it is "easy" to understand you. Greetings, Ary.

[David Quinn]

Ary wrote:

DQ: The idea that "nothing existed before consciousness and appearances" is also an appearance and should be dismissed as well. It is just as false to imagine this as it is to imagine there was existence before the arisal of consciousness.

Ary: I see your point. So, (if my memory is somewhat fresh) to you Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, etc, are all New Age gurus?

Well, I consider those two at least to be traditional Hindu teachers, rather than New Age gurus - although, admittedly, there is often a strong connection between New Age teachings and Hinduism. My attitude towards their teachings is pretty lukewarm. I consider them to be fairly one-dimensional, as they tend to focus almost exclusively on a particular line of reasoning concerning the "I". While this can be stimulating and helpful to some extent - mainly for beginners - the novelty soon fades and their abilty to stimulate quickly dries up.

I usually prefer teachers who know how approach the Truth in a variety of different ways and have the courage to attack people's attachments and society's taboos without fear. Hindu teachers tend to shy away from this sort of thing.

DQ: In any case, both objective and subjective consciousness appear to be switched off during deep sleep.

Still the body is on, but that is not awareness according to you then?. If the alarm goes off, one wakes up, but that's the body reacting, not something being aware?

I think so. The sleeping body remains alert to sudden environmental changes and potential threats, even though consciousness as we normally know it is absent.

This also occurs in wakeful life. For example, when our hand accidently touches a burning stove, the instinct to immediately pull the hand away is generated purely by the body's sense of alertness. This enables us to pull away our hand away instantanteously, without having to wait for the slow process of our consciousness becoming aware of the situation (which, according to scientific research, takes nearly half a second).

Sleep-walking is another interesting phenomenon. Here the sleeping body is able to walk around, pick up objects, climb up ladders, and interact with the environment with a sense of purpose - even though the subjective awareness of the sleep-walker is still switched off.

DQ: Awareness, for me, is simply consciousness of objects, or finite forms. There cannot be awareness without finite forms, nor can there be finite forms without awareness. The two arise together.

Awareness seems to disappear with the onset of deep sleep. Only in wakeful life and dreams do awareness and finite forms seem to arise.

Ary: So, if "I" is an object, "I" only exists when being aware. And if Awareness depends on objects to exist, it only exists while not sleeping. That's as far as goes according to you, I see.

That's right. I know that some Hindus like to claim that the "I" is contantly present behind all experiences, including sleep - e.g. existing as a kind of "overself" - but that is merely a product of their imagination. It is an expression of their ego's desire for permanency.

DQ: Yes, as long as we are conscious and having thoughts, we will always perceive seperation between things. Thought is divisive by nature. It naturally creates seperation, and this, in turn, lays the foundation for consciousness to arise.

It is important to realize that we can never escape this seperation and still remain conscious. It is impossible for consciousness to arise in the absence of seperation. But what we can do is free ourselves from the illusions which this seperating process generates. The enlightened person is someone who no longer believes in the finite forms which he experiences in his consciousness. His consciousness continues to create them, but he sees them for the illusions that they are. That is his liberation.

Ary: Well, I suppose that the not believing in the finite forms must change his physical experience of things: emotions, sensations, thoughts. Now, what would Nothingness or the Empty or the Void (I don't remember what name you called it) be? Would that also be an object of consciousness? Or would it be a "formless" object (which by definition contradicts itself, since it's very existence denotes it has a form, even if it is abstract or invisible)?.

Well, let's be clear about this. Emptiness doesn't have any form, it can never be an object of consciousness, and it cannot be experienced in the way that we normally experience things. It is so formless that it doesn't even have the form of formlessness. Nor does it have the form of a Void, or Nothingness, or even Emptiness.

At the same time, there is never a time when we don't experience Emptiness. It is right before our eyes in every single moment.

It's interesting that you say that the "Enlightened" one, still remains in duality, but not believing what it has to offer. Is there such thing as becoming One, to dissolve duality, while being aware?

Any attempt on our parts to dissolve duality and become "one" with Reality will only plunge us even more deeply into duality.

I wrote this in my introduction to "Wisdom of the Infinite":

The biggest obstacle for the serious student seeking to become enlightened is his natural habit of trying to grasp at Reality as though it were a "thing" of some kind, as though it were a limited phenomenon separated from himself. He might be aware that he is unenlightened, it might deeply dissatisfy him and strongly motivate him to want to rectify the situation. But because he does not yet comprehend the nature of Reality, he is hampered by his flawed understanding and wrongly interprets Reality to be a realm which needs to be mentally reached in some way.

He might think of it as a state of mind, for example, which needs to be brought into his consciousness; or as a hidden essence which has to be uncovered; or as a kind of spiritual realm which he can open himself up to by breaking out of his web of delusions, much like a young bird breaking out of its egg. All of these conceptions are fundamentally deluded because they are rooted in the illusion of duality. They are based in a division of Nature into two arbitrary realms - that of enlightenment and ignorance, or Reality and non-Reality - which is itself a creation of ignorance. Such a division automatically traps one in a dualistic prison and prevents one from realizing the Infinite Reality in which one is already immersed.
Thus, the first and most crucial step towards becoming enlightened is the perfecting of one’s intellectual understanding of Reality. I really can't stress this enough. It is absolutely paramount. Nothing of any real significance can be achieved without it. It is the basis for all wisdom in the Universe. Without it, there is nothing but blindness and stupidity.

To the degree that one’s understanding of Reality remains flawed, one will only continue to chase spiritual phantoms. There is a story in Zen which describes how a madman in the mountains used to desperately search for the source of piercing sounds that he regularly heard, not realizing they were echoes caused by his own shrieks. This is exactly how the deluded spiritual seeker behaves. He creates mirages of enlightenment with his dualistic thinking and then chases after them, not realizing they are merely illusions of his own making. It is only by removing the flaws in one’s intellectual thinking that one can finally lay these illusions and phantoms to rest. Only then can one discern the true nature of Reality and the fundamental dynamic of the spiritual path.

-

[Leyla Shen]

Lennyrizzo wrote:

Pure awareness is normally Newager lingo,...

Yes, and I did hestitate! Obviously not for long enough. :)

...and these folks don't even know what an ego is, let alone it's absence.

You know, at the conclusion of a rather long discussion, someone asked me quite recently, "How do you start thinking?"

For the first time, I reckon, the reality of that condition hit me square in the face.

[Lennyrizzo]

David Quinn wrote:

The sleeping body remains alert to sudden environmental changes and potential threats, even though consciousness as we normally know it is absent.

This also occurs in wakeful life. For example, when our hand accidently touches a burning stove, the instinct to immediately pull the hand away is generated purely by the body's sense of alertness. This enables us to pull away our hand away instantanteously, without having to wait for the slow process of our consciousness becoming aware of the situation (which, according to scientific research, takes nearly half a second).

That's right, for the most part. Another example could be the response to a snake. Here visual stimuli first enter the thalamus which then passes basic information to the amygdala in only 12 milliseconds-- permitting an almost immediate response to the possible danger-- while also signaling the visual cortex which then determines, with more sophistication and in about 36 milliseconds, that a snake is indeed present; this information is also forwarded to the amygdala which invokes the appropriate physical response.

[Bondi]

DQ: Well, I consider those two - Sri Ramana Maharsi and Nisargadatta Maharaj - at least to be traditional Hindu teachers, rather than New Age gurus - although, admittedly, there is often a strong connection between New Age teachings and Hinduism. My attitude towards their teachings is pretty lukewarm. I consider them to be fairly one-dimensional, as they tend to focus almost exclusively on a particular line of reasoning concerning the "I". While this can be stimulating and helpful to some extent - mainly for beginners - the novelty soon fades and their abilty to stimulate quickly dries up.

I usually prefer teachers who know how approach the Truth in a variety of different ways and have the courage to attack people's attachments and society's taboos without fear. Hindu teachers tend to shy away from this sort of thing.

I think you just miss the point. Hindu teachings have no proselytism in mind, i.e. attacking false beliefs and society's taboos. (Needless to say, I speak of authentic Hindu teachings here, such as Sri Ramana Maharsi's, not those of wholly modern inventions, such as "Krsna Consciousness", to name a more dangerously deviant of them.) That does not mean that you can't "attack" and easily dismantle modern beliefs from a Hindu perspective without losing that very perspective. The forum's topic on racism is a good example. Racism is a real taboo nowadays, people use "racism" as a negative label, you obviously can't proclaim yourself a racist without losing your social status. However, when you examine this, so to say, bugbear of racism, you only find some despicable suggestions that are aimed to blur an idea, a conception, which has nothing in common with those things people automatically envision when they hear the word "racism". Without going into useless debates on that, you just have to pose the question in the right phrasing. The rest is obvious to those "who have ears to hear".

Ary: So, if "I" is an object, "I" only exists when being aware. And if Awareness depends on objects to exist, it only exists while not sleeping. That's as far as goes according to you, I see.

DQ: That's right. I know that some Hindus like to claim that the "I" is constantly present behind all experiences, including sleep - e.g. existing as a kind of "overself" - but that is merely a product of their imagination. It is an expression of their ego's desire for permanency.

In Hindu teachings, "I" (Atma) is not an object but the subject. The true translation of Atma would be myself, not "I" (though, unfortunately, it usually have to be translated as "I" to fit in the context).

Apart from that: "It is an expression of their ego's desire for permanency." - then you can't escape holding the ego permanent.

[AryReisin]

Apart from that: "It is an expression of their ego's desire for permanency." - then you can't escape holding the ego permanent.

Could you rephrase that? I didn't understand it, my english still is not good enough. Thanks

[Bondi]

Apart from that: "It is an expression of their ego's desire for permanency." - then you can't escape holding the ego permanent.

Could you rephrase that? I didn't understand it, my english still is not good enough. Thanks

If one holds that "The 'I' is constantly present etc." is "an expression of the ego's desire for permanency", then one inescapably holds the ego permanent. (I can call this "the trap of relativity".)

[Lennyrizzo]

Next time ask for an explanation, not to rephrase!

[AryReisin]

If one holds that "The 'I' is constantly present etc." is "an expression of the ego's desire for permanency", then one inescapably holds the ego permanent. (I can call this "the trap of relativity".)

Now I understand what you say, but I still don't get it. You mean that what makes the ego be permanent, is its desire for permanency? So that would mean, only egoless people don't have a permanent "I"?
I really don't think the Maharshi and Nisargadatta were egotistical after they were enlightened. I doubt what they said about the I being permanent was an expression of their ego. That's not new, the idea of the Brahman or the Self being permanent and above all things (permanent over the body even, so when it dies, Consciousness continues). I think it comes from either the Upanishads, or the old Vedantas or Hinduism or something like that. To me that's still a mistery, however I really think that they indeed were conscious while dreaming and probably while sleeping. I think they managed to become aware or conscious 24hs a day, this according to what I have read. But well, for anyone believing that a pure consciousness experience is impossible (being conscious without objects) this is just an idea. I haven't experienced it yet.

[Bondi]

If one holds that "The 'I' is constantly present etc." is "an expression of the ego's desire for permanency", then one inescapably holds the ego permanent. (I can call this "the trap of relativity".)

Now I understand what you say, but I still don't get it. You mean that what makes the ego be permanent, is its desire for permanency? So that would mean, only egoless people don't have a permanent "I"?

That's not the whole point. He wrote that "it is an expression of the ego's desire for permanency", which statement necessarily implies that "the ego is permanent". I understand what he meant, but I think it is totally wrong to set the Buddhist perpective against the Hindu perspective - or at least his phrasing was inadequate. (It wasn't, though, I just write that for the sake of being polite. :) I could quote a number of similar ones that show the same misunderstanding of the Hindu perpective.)


Apart from that:

I really think that they indeed were conscious while dreaming and probably while sleeping. I think they managed to become aware or conscious 24hs a day, this according to what I have read. But well, for anyone believing that a pure consciousness experience is impossible (being conscious without objects) this is just an idea. I haven't experienced it yet.

Ramaṇa Maharṣi was indeed asked by someone if a sage had dreams. He answered that a jñāni (sage) would dispassionately contemplate the changes of the three states of being awaken, in sleep or in deep sleep, and would remain untouched by those changes.

[David Quinn]

Bondi,

He wrote that "it is an expression of the ego's desire for permanency", which statement necessarily implies that "the ego is permanent".

It actually implies the opposite. The only reason why the ego would desire permanency is because it knows deep down that it doesn't have any.

It is the Hinduist's feeling of insecurity and lack of philosophic skill which causes him to imagine a permanent "I" existing behind all experiences and able to survive death.

I understand what he meant, but I think it is totally wrong to set the Buddhist perpective against the Hindu perspective - or at least his phrasing was inadequate.

I don't think in terms of "Buddhist" or "Hindu" perspectives - that's just window dressing. At root, there is only truth and ignorance, and that is what we need to focus on.

A truly wise Hindu and a truly wise Buddhist would natually be in complete agreement with one another - both of them being conscious of truth. But, of course, what they affirm to be true has little to do with what mainstream Hindus or Buddhists affirm as being true.

I could quote a number of similar ones that show the same misunderstanding of the Hindu perpective.

There are many different varieties of Hinduism, and each of them have their own perspective. The only perspective that counts is the true one, which I openly affirm.


-

[Bondi]

David,

He wrote that "it is an expression of the ego's desire for permanency", which statement necessarily implies that "the ego is permanent".

It actually implies the opposite. The only reason why the ego would desire permanency is because it knows deep down that it doesn't have any.

I think it is only a question of what we mean by permanency. 'Permanency' cannot be separated from time. The correct name should be 'eternity', which is a true liberation from the condition of time. A sage would rather "desire" eternity. (The same as he "desires" to achieve enlightenment.)

It is the Hinduist's feeling of insecurity and lack of philosophic skill which causes him to imagine a permanent "I" existing behind all experiences and able to survive death.

For a Hindu, every experience is only an illusion of not realising (my) true self (Atma), thus there is nothing to survive. Not "I" (myself) is the imagination but death, and the same stands for every experience.
There are many different varieties of Hinduism indeed, and Buddhism too, but those varieties have common basis: Hinduism puts an emphasis on Atma, while Buddhism puts an emphasis on non-Atma. On the surface, it is an antagonism. Ultimately, there is no conflict as they both aim at the same direction: truth.