GENIUS FORUMS

Average wrote:

Because I stopped identifying with transient phenomena that come and go, that are dependent and empty.

If only that were true. At the moment, you are firmly identifying with a mindset which mixes postmodernist relativism and Hindu mysticism.

All that remains is that which always was, that which is aware of the change. I call it pure consciousness, others call it no-self.

Alas, that too is a transient phenomenon, which you are mistaking to be eternally real. There is still far too much self wrapped up in there.

-

"The Buddha's teachings having nothing to do with transcendence in that sense. It has nothing to do with transcending this world and going somewhere else. Rather, it is about dismantling samsara, the realm of illusion and falseness. Rather than transcending the world, the enlightened Buddha leaves behind all of his illusions and becomes fully immersed in the reality of the world."

I am pretty ignorant of Buddhist writings, though the ones I have read have always impressed me. I think I like the ring of what you are writing, though it sounds similarly grandiose, if I may say, to the similar transcendental notion of leaving this realm of misery and death, as is a focus in some Hindu religious systems. In a sort of linguistic sense, a semantic sense, it is interesting that you propose to speak for the Buddha, as if you know his mind and can relay his message. Please don't take this the wrong way, I just find it interesting that you use that construction. I have no idea what anyone else thinks or thought, and it seems I can onlt speak for myself, hence I am puzzled. Have you died and do you want to die to 'what is human'? What do non-human humans do anyway?

;-)

There is a nice sobriety though in the answer 'he does not obscure it'.

I must take a stand adamantly in opposition to such absolutism that we, you, or the Buddha should or can hope for or attain a 'death...of everything human'. I would (pleasantly but with a bit of irony) point back at my earlier comparison" that Buddhism arose from an Indian strata, and has perhaps reconfigured or reexplained some of the original ideas of the Vedas. But just as it seems erroneous to propose that we can or should leave this world, so to it seems grandiose that we can or should die to what is human. Well, I just don't think it is possible. And so maybe humankind recoils from this project for good reason?

So, while I have engaged you with a little well-meant irony, I do think I grasp some of what you mean, but I couldn't imagine how you could stand by the idea that we should become un-human, and I take it to mean that the project of disassembling illusions is a very demanding one. That I can buy.

David Quinn wrote:Average wrote:

Because I stopped identifying with transient phenomena that come and go, that are dependent and empty.

If only that were true. At the moment, you are firmly identifying with a mindset which mixes postmodernist relativism and Hindu mysticism.

All that remains is that which always was, that which is aware of the change. I call it pure consciousness, others call it no-self.

Alas, that too is a transient phenomenon, which you are mistaking to be eternally real. There is still far too much self wrapped up in there.

-

It can't be transient or a phenomena.

It can't be a phenomena of any sort because it can not be perceived in any sense.
It can't be transient because it is always present, it has no conditions no dependencies.

Alex,

DQ: "The Buddha's teachings having nothing to do with transcendence in that sense. It has nothing to do with transcending this world and going somewhere else. Rather, it is about dismantling samsara, the realm of illusion and falseness. Rather than transcending the world, the enlightened Buddha leaves behind all of his illusions and becomes fully immersed in the reality of the world."

Alex: I am pretty ignorant of Buddhist writings, though the ones I have read have always impressed me. I think I like the ring of what you are writing, though it sounds similarly grandiose, if I may say, to the similar transcendental notion of leaving this realm of misery and death, as is a focus in some Hindu religious systems.

It just means giving up all delusion. This is as grand, or as mundane, as you want to make it.

In a sort of linguistic sense, a semantic sense, it is interesting that you propose to speak for the Buddha, as if you know his mind and can relay his message. Please don't take this the wrong way, I just find it interesting that you use that construction. I have no idea what anyone else thinks or thought, and it seems I can onlt speak for myself, hence I am puzzled.

Well, because the Truth is so unique and singular, and because it is always the same in all times and places, it becomes possible to tell whether another person is conscious of it and is expressing it in his speech and actions. If you understand the Truth yourself, you also understand the outer signs and symptoms that are necessarily involved in knowing it.

Have you died and do you want to die to 'what is human'?

I'm not dead yet, but it's not from a want of trying!

What do non-human humans do anyway?

They spontaneously do God's will.

I must take a stand adamantly in opposition to such absolutism that we, you, or the Buddha should or can hope for or attain a 'death...of everything human'. I would (pleasantly but with a bit of irony) point back at my earlier comparison" that Buddhism arose from an Indian strata, and has perhaps reconfigured or reexplained some of the original ideas of the Vedas.

In some ways that's true. Wise Buddhism is essentially identical to wise Hinduism, but expressions of wise Buddhism and wise Hinduism are very rare in this world. Usually, whenever there is Buddhism or Hinduism occurring in the world, it is of a very deluded form.

When the Buddha was formulating his teachings, he was breaking away from the deluded form of Hinduism which was predominant in his time. He wasn't really creating a new teaching as such. Rather, he was restoring the wise Hinduism that had long been forgotten.

But just as it seems erroneous to propose that we can or should leave this world, so to it seems grandiose that we can or should die to what is human. Well, I just don't think it is possible. And so maybe humankind recoils from this project for good reason?

Only in the sense that a drug-addict recoils from giving up his drugs for "good reason". He doesn't want to suffer the pains of withdrawal. He thinks life would be meaningless and joyless without his drugs.

In the same way, people essentially recoil from truth because they are too attached to their illusions and comfortable, mindless lives. A life of truth isn't really repulsive; it just seems that way to those who are steeped in falseness.

-

average,

A: All that remains is that which always was, that which is aware of the change. I call it pure consciousness, others call it no-self.

DQ: Alas, that too is a transient phenomenon, which you are mistaking to be eternally real. There is still far too much self wrapped up in there.

A: It can't be transient or a phenomena.

It can't be a phenomena of any sort because it can not be perceived in any sense.
It can't be transient because it is always present, it has no conditions no dependencies.

The only thing that is always present, never changes and doesn't depend on any conditions is Nature itself, the Totality.

Your "pure consciousness" is something which you have delineated within the Totality, which automatically makes it a transient phenomenon.

It can't be a phenomena of any sort because it can not be perceived in any sense.

If it cannot be perceived in any sense, then how are you able to talk about it?

All that remains is that which always was, that which is aware of the change. I call it pure consciousness, others call it no-self.

What happens to it when you go to sleep?

-

David Quinn wrote: The only thing that is always present, never changes and doesn't depend on any conditions is Nature itself, the Totality.

Your "pure consciousness" is something which you have delineated within the Totality, which automatically makes it a transient phenomenon.

You can call it what you like, but self discovery leads to the same conclusion.

Alternatively, I am in all things, and all things are in me. There is no separation between you and Totality.

If it cannot be perceived in any sense, then how are you able to talk about it?

That which perceives is not perceivable, but since there is perception there is that which perceives, and since there is that which perceives I am that. So it can be said that everything is myself, or alternatively from the buddhist frame of reference, nothing is myself. Both are equally true and facilitate the removal of false notions, and when all false notions are gone, what is left? That which is aware of the removal of false notions, that which always was.

What happens to it when you go to sleep?

-

Good question.

The pure consciousness is aware of change constantly. Dreams occur when the right conditions are in place, similar to other transient phenomena, pure consciousness is aware of this change but itself does not change, it does not turn on or off and does not go here or there.
While the objects may change, they come and go, the perceiver remains constant - constantly perceiving change.

Rebirth occurs when one identifies with a particular object of perception, be it the body, or the mind and its thoughts. And most likely suffering will follow due to the empty nature of the object of perception. The body will grow old, become diseased and transform to mud, the mind will become crippled, intelligence will crumble and its thoughts will become corrupt the moment dementia or other mental diseases take root - but pure awareness is never tainted, never defiled.

As Poe would say "All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream."

Average,

DQ: The only thing that is always present, never changes and doesn't depend on any conditions is Nature itself, the Totality.

Your "pure consciousness" is something which you have delineated within the Totality, which automatically makes it a transient phenomenon.

A: You can call it what you like, but self discovery leads to the same conclusion.

Alternatively, I am in all things, and all things are in me. There is no separation between you and Totality.

Sure, but the Totality doesn't have any kind of form, not even the form of consciousness.

Like anything else, consciousness is a dualistic phenomenon which can only find its existence and meaning in contrast to what is not it - i.e. non-consciousness. Because of this, it can never constitute the Totality.

DQ: If it cannot be perceived in any sense, then how are you able to talk about it?

A: That which perceives is not perceivable, but since there is perception there is that which perceives, and since there is that which perceives I am that.

So you are able to perceive it after all - even if only indirectly, by inference.

So it can be said that everything is myself, or alternatively from the buddhist frame of reference, nothing is myself. Both are equally true and facilitate the removal of false notions, and when all false notions are gone, what is left? That which is aware of the removal of false notions, that which always was.

Is the notion of consciousness that you have here a false notion?

DQ: What happens to it when you go to sleep?

A: Good question.

The pure consciousness is aware of change constantly. Dreams occur when the right conditions are in place, similar to other transient phenomena, pure consciousness is aware of this change but itself does not change, it does not turn on or off and does not go here or there.
While the objects may change, they come and go, the perceiver remains constant - constantly perceiving change.

What about in deep sleep, when there are no dreams and consciousness is entirely switched off?

-

David Quinn wrote: They spontaneously do God's will.

When you use the word 'God' i presume you mean 'Totality'

I can't see how one logically deduces that the Totality can have a will- it implies design,cognisance, a being.It seems to me the wrong word to use for someone maintaining the QSR philosophy.

Can you logically show the universe's(multiverses,whatever) 'will' to me?

Insha'Allah.

Ataraxia,

When you use the word 'God' i presume you mean 'Totality'

Not exactly. I'm referring more to the idea that the fully-enlightened person behaves truthfully and spreads wisdom in a spontaneous, effortless manner. "God", in the sense, means the ultimate truth of the Totality.

Of course, God does indeed constitute everything, but only enlightened people experience everything as God. They are the only ones who are aware that the Totality is God. For everyone else, it is just an objective, materialistic universe.

When you become fully aware of God, you naturally start doing God's will - that is, you naturally start promoting wisdom in a spontaneous, incisive manner.

I can't see how one logically deduces that the Totality can have a will- it implies design,cognisance, a being.It seems to me the wrong word to use for someone maintaining the QSR philosophy.

Can you logically show the universe's(multiverses,whatever) 'will' to me?

It is just a bit of poetry, really. You're right in saying that Totality doesn't really have a will. It is all just cause and effect.

However, it is useful to talk about "doing God's will" - in the way I explain above - as it describes the way in which the will of the enlightened person becomes perfectly aligned with the values of wisdom.

-

David Quinn wrote:
Sure, but the Totality doesn't have any kind of form, not even the form of consciousness.

Consciousness is not itself a form, no more than the form of Totality.

Like anything else, consciousness is a dualistic phenomenon which can only find its existence and meaning in contrast to what is not it - i.e. non-consciousness. Because of this, it can never constitute the Totality.

consciousness is dualistic linguistically, but not in itself, and it is not a phenomena.
non-consciousness would be like implying non-Totality. It is merely a convention of language.

So you are able to perceive it after all - even if only indirectly, by inference.

Yes and no, I can reason about it indirectly, like we can about Totality.
But it is also a brute fact to me that there is awareness, there is beingness, or however we can describe it. But this can not be said about Totality, since it is not a brute self-evident fact, like the fact of being. The fact of awareness.

What about in deep sleep, when there are no dreams and consciousness is entirely switched off?

-

The awareness is constant, the only thing that changes is what objects are being perceived.
If you happen to be perceiving null, void, black space, in deep sleep - then so be it. It will pass. If you are perceiving an orgasm, so be it, it will also pass. Awareness does not pass.

average wrote:Alternatively, I am in all things, and all things are in me. There is no separation between you and Totality.

average;

Is there a separation between you and me, between your awareness and my awareness?

clyde

Cylde, yes and no, there is relative separation by definition because of how your question is formed.
So any sort of answer that advocates conscious equivalence within the context of your question will seem confusing.

Ultimately there is no self and other, thus if there is no self and other, how can there be a mine and yours?

And also, awareness is not a thing we own, it is a that which we ultimately are. I am that, and you are that...

Average,

DQ: Sure, but the Totality doesn't have any kind of form, not even the form of consciousness.

A: Consciousness is not itself a form, no more than the form of Totality.

All along in this thread, you have been giving consciousness a form by describing it as an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena.

You can't have it both ways. Either it really doesn't have a form, in which case it cannot have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, or else it does have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, in which case it cannot constitute the Totality.

DQ: Like anything else, consciousness is a dualistic phenomenon which can only find its existence and meaning in contrast to what is not it - i.e. non-consciousness. Because of this, it can never constitute the Totality.

A: consciousness is dualistic linguistically, but not in itself, and it is not a phenomena.
non-consciousness would be like implying non-Totality. It is merely a convention of language.

You're basically trying to say that consciousness is everything that exists. However, at the same time, you are trying to imply that it is more than everything that exists, that there is an extra quality which is beyond everything that exists that everything that exists somehow possesses. This doesn't make any sense to me.

DQ: So you are able to perceive it after all - even if only indirectly, by inference.

A: Yes and no, I can reason about it indirectly, like we can about Totality.
But it is also a brute fact to me that there is awareness, there is beingness, or however we can describe it. But this can not be said about Totality, since it is not a brute self-evident fact, like the fact of being. The fact of awareness.

The Totality is indeed a brute fact of existence, since it necessarily the case that where there is existence, there is a sum total of existence.

A person's own awareness is certainly a brute fact to him who is aware, but it isn't a brute fact that awareness constitutes the Totality of all there is. That is more a case of inference and projection.

DQ: What about in deep sleep, when there are no dreams and consciousness is entirely switched off?

A: The awareness is constant, the only thing that changes is what objects are being perceived.
If you happen to be perceiving null, void, black space, in deep sleep - then so be it. It will pass. If you are perceiving an orgasm, so be it, it will also pass. Awareness does not pass.

So do you spend a number of hours each night consciously observing a black void? That must be pretty tedious.

It is my own experience that consciousness is switched off altogether during deep sleep. That is why there is no sense of time passing during that period. The hours of deep sleep seem to pass by instantaneously.

So for me at least, awareness does indeed pass away each night. It isn't constant and ever-present.

-

David Quinn wrote: All along in this thread, you have been giving consciousness a form by describing it as an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena.

You can't have it both ways. Either it really doesn't have a form, in which case it cannot have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, or else it does have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, in which case it cannot constitute the Totality.

When I say form, I mean boundaries or limit.
Being non-changing, unchanging, is not a limit or a even a form, it is the lack of one.
Similarly, being limitless is not a limit in itself, it is the lack of a limit - or all limits.

You're basically trying to say that consciousness is everything that exists. However, at the same time, you are trying to imply that it is more than everything that exists, that there is an extra quality which is beyond everything that exists that everything that exists somehow possesses. This doesn't make any sense to me.

Well let me make a very gross and crude analogy, since all analogies regarding consciousness will be like this.
Imagine a mirror reflecting several objects. In a sense the mirror is a part of every object, it is one with them, but at the same time it stretches beyond them. And although the objects come and go, the mirror is still present, always ready to reflect.

So in a sense, consciousness is within every thing and beyond everything, since it contains all transient phenomena.

The Totality is indeed a brute fact of existence, since it necessarily the case that where there is existence, there is a sum total of existence.

A person's own awareness is certainly a brute fact to him who is aware, but it isn't a brute fact that awareness constitutes the Totality of all there is. That is more a case of inference and projection.

Totality is the sum of all illusions. So in a sense it is the greatest Illusion. :)


Consciousness on the other hand, is far more fundamental than this notion, since totality is a concept and/or phenomena and/or sum of all phenomena that is contained within consciousness which is not a phenomena.

So do you spend a number of hours each night consciously observing a black void? That must be pretty tedious.

Thats not really an argument, just a negative point of view.
One could claim reading this forum and posting is tedious.
/shrug

It is my own experience that consciousness is switched off altogether during deep sleep. That is why there is no sense of time passing during that period. The hours of deep sleep seem to pass by instantaneously.

So for me at least, awareness does indeed pass away each night. It isn't constant and ever-present.

-

I could give some explanations.

Objectless awareness passes by very fast, since you do not have a temporal frame of reference by which to identify each moment that passes, so it seems like one single instantaneous moment.

You are aware, you have dreams, but you forget them as you wake up, and it seems like your consciousness shut off for an amount of time.

David Quin wrote:

All along in this thread, you have been giving consciousness a form by describing it as an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena.

You can't have it both ways. Either it really doesn't have a form, in which case it cannot have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, or else it does have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, in which case it cannot constitute the Totality.

There seems to be some confusion as to precisely what the term ‘form’ means. When average says that reality is without form, a think that he means it is without any recognizable appearance; like empty space for example, which is all encompassing, independent and immutable; but which cannot be perceived by the senses.

average wrote:And also, awareness is not a thing we own, it is a that which we ultimately are. I am that, and you are that...

average;

If you are that (consciousness) and I am that (consciousness) and there is no separation,
then are you aware of what I am experiencing now? If so, please tell me. If not, why not?

clyde

clyde you are aware of emptiness, as I am.

average; You missed. clyde

and so did you.
:)

Jehu wrote:

DQ: All along in this thread, you have been giving consciousness a form by describing it as an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena.

You can't have it both ways. Either it really doesn't have a form, in which case it cannot have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, or else it does have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, in which case it cannot constitute the Totality.

J: There seems to be some confusion as to precisely what the term ‘form’ means. When average says that reality is without form, a think that he means it is without any recognizable appearance; like empty space for example, which is all encompassing, independent and immutable; but which cannot be perceived by the senses.

The trouble is, we can perceive space with our senses and it does have a form. Indeed, it is the very form of space which allows us to distinguish it from other forms.

If we say that consciousness is formless in the sense that it constitutes Nature itself - the nothing which is everything - then that would make some sense. But we would then have to question why the label of "consciousness" should be used in this instance at all. It would be a superfluous action, a case of redundantly draping Nature with an extra conceptual layer. It would be better to recognize and accept that Nature literally has no form at all and leave it at that.

However, draping Nature with a layer called "consciousness" does give people's egos a sense of ownership and control over Nature. It is a way of shying away from the starkness of truth and gaining comfort in the idea that Nature is really just an extension of our own little selves. It is not unlike how Christians drape everything with the concept of "God".

-

average,

DQ: All along in this thread, you have been giving consciousness a form by describing it as an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena.

You can't have it both ways. Either it really doesn't have a form, in which case it cannot have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, or else it does have the form of an unchanging something or other which observes changing phenomena, in which case it cannot constitute the Totality.

A: When I say form, I mean boundaries or limit.
Being non-changing, unchanging, is not a limit or a even a form, it is the lack of one.
Similarly, being limitless is not a limit in itself, it is the lack of a limit - or all limits.

And yet you often project limits onto consciousness by distinguishing it from perceived objects and declaring it to be an imperceptible observer.

DQ: You're basically trying to say that consciousness is everything that exists. However, at the same time, you are trying to imply that it is more than everything that exists, that there is an extra quality which is beyond everything that exists that everything that exists somehow possesses. This doesn't make any sense to me.

A: Well let me make a very gross and crude analogy, since all analogies regarding consciousness will be like this.
Imagine a mirror reflecting several objects. In a sense the mirror is a part of every object, it is one with them, but at the same time it stretches beyond them. And although the objects come and go, the mirror is still present, always ready to reflect.

So in a sense, consciousness is within every thing and beyond everything, since it contains all transient phenomena.

Given that consciousness cannot occur without the existence of perceived phenomena - that observer and observed are like two sides of the same coin, arising and falling away together - the mirror analogy doesn't really work.

I agree that consciousness is at the heart of everything that we experience and perceive, but to imagine that consciousness can continue on in the absence of perceived phenomena is a delusion. It is like arguing that a triangle can continue existing in the absence of its three sides.

DQ: The Totality is indeed a brute fact of existence, since it necessarily the case that where there is existence, there is a sum total of existence.

A person's own awareness is certainly a brute fact to him who is aware, but it isn't a brute fact that awareness constitutes the Totality of all there is. That is more a case of inference and projection.

A: Totality is the sum of all illusions. So in a sense it is the greatest Illusion. :)

Well, things are neither real nor illusory, at bottom. The Totality is simply the sum of all existences.

Consciousness on the other hand, is far more fundamental than this notion, since totality is a concept and/or phenomena and/or sum of all phenomena that is contained within consciousness which is not a phenomena.

So you're projecting, yes.

DQ: It is my own experience that consciousness is switched off altogether during deep sleep. That is why there is no sense of time passing during that period. The hours of deep sleep seem to pass by instantaneously.

So for me at least, awareness does indeed pass away each night. It isn't constant and ever-present.

A: I could give some explanations.

Objectless awareness passes by very fast, since you do not have a temporal frame of reference by which to identify each moment that passes, so it seems like one single instantaneous moment.

"Objectless awareness" is simply a euphemism for complete unconsciousness. There is no consciousness of anything.

You are aware, you have dreams, but you forget them as you wake up, and it seems like your consciousness shut off for an amount of time.

And that is because in deep sleep, in between the dreaming states, it is shut off. Or at least the higher functioning parts of the brain, the parts which are integral to the generation of consciousness as we know it, are shut down.

-

It would be better to recognize and accept that Nature literally has no form at all and leave it at that.

If Nature, as a totality, has no form, then how can any ultimate wisdom at all be generated and communicated to others. Wisdom cannot be applied to something that has no form.

You are really talking about instilling a freedom from set physical forms, so that one can see what is common about all things. All your ultimate truths however still retain the form that is process orientated. "Everything is caused and interconnected", is process related form.

If you actually believe The Totality has no set process, then you are delusional.

David wrote:

The trouble is, we can perceive space with our senses and it does have a form. Indeed, it is the very form of space which allows us to distinguish it from other forms.

I’m afraid you are mistaken here, for we cannot perceive empty space with any of our senses; and it is the formlessness (nothingness) of space that distinguishes it from other forms (things).

If we say that consciousness is formless in the sense that it constitutes Nature itself - the nothing which is everything - then that would make some sense. But we would then have to question why the label of "consciousness" should be used in this instance at all. It would be a superfluous action, a case of redundantly draping Nature with an extra conceptual layer. It would be better to recognize and accept that Nature literally has no form at all and leave it at that.

Perhaps consciousness is not the appropriate term, for consciousness is a function of the sentient mind, and like all things, partakes of only a relative existence. I would prefer to say that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, and that it comprises two interdependent and complementary aspects: awareness, which partakes of an absolute and necessary existence, and knowledge, which partakes of a relative and merely contingent existence. Awareness and knowledge are like a container and its content, however only the container is real, while all its content is mere appearance. So you see, that which we consider to be nothing (empty space), is the true reality, while everything else is little more that an illusion.

I’m afraid you are mistaken here, for we cannot perceive empty space with any of our senses; and it is the formlessness (nothingness) of space that distinguishes it from other forms (things).

No David is correct here. You actually partly explain its form in the later part of that sentence. Nothingness would also be a type of form.

Space is not nothingness however, it is the form that provides the basis for physical dimensions and the foundation upon which movement can occur within - this is form. We perceive things like distance and movement with our senses - it is just that we take this type of form completely for granted because it is always there from the moment we are conscious.

The whole idea that nothingness can exist is a delusion. It cannot as nothingness cannot be caused, nor could it act as a causal agent. If space was nothingness then nothing would be able to travel throught it, nor could it hold anything within it, nor could material form exist, as material form requires internal spatial segregation of its parts.

So you see, that which we consider to be nothing (empty space), is the true reality, while everything else is little more than an illusion.

Everything is a true reality, there are just different persectives of this reality. Empty space is in the same category as everything else - it is not the totality and thus not the whole realness/truth, but it is still nothing but the truth/realness.

For the record though, from the normal material perspective, Space is never ever actually empty, while from another perspective it is completely empty. It is filled with things in the electromagnetic spectrum and gravity, but as it is not self-caused, then it also can be considered empty - only what causes it is "full". It only has it's own nature after it has been caused, not before (by this I mean, that which causes the form of space, continues to create subsequent form after it has created space, form that is the originating cause of space AND space AND subsequent form, and what it creates after space rests within space).

I doubt you'll have a clue what I'm getting at here, but if you ask for clarification, I'm not likely to feel the desire to explain further.

David Quinn wrote:average,


And yet you often project limits onto consciousness by distinguishing it from perceived objects and declaring it to be an imperceptible observer.

You are still stuck on the idea that being limitless is itself a limit.
When I say consciousness is not like perceived objects, which are limited and finite, that is to say consciousness is not limited and finite. So making the distinction is simply a way to communicate, it does not limit consciousness.
So there is no problem here.

Given that consciousness cannot occur without the existence of perceived phenomena - that observer and observed are like two sides of the same coin, arising and falling away together - the mirror analogy doesn't really work.

I agree that consciousness is at the heart of everything that we experience and perceive, but to imagine that consciousness can continue on in the absence of perceived phenomena is a delusion. It is like arguing that a triangle can continue existing in the absence of its three sides.

Perceived phenomena come and go all the time, yet consciousness still remains, witnessing this change.
The mirror analogy works in the sense that consciousness is within all things and also beyond them, and as the reflections come and go, the mirror remains. In other senses it doesn't work, nothing works, because we are trying to describe a non-dual thing, and language and logic is quite dualistic. So, perhaps I'm pointing to an intuitive understanding here that you are not seeing.

Well, things are neither real nor illusory, at bottom. The Totality is simply the sum of all existences.

Totality is the concept or the "actual" sum of all phenomena, "existences" - which are all illusions - including the notion of a "sum" - so it is the greatest illusion of them all, yes.
As such it belongs within Consciousness - as do all things, non-things, existing or not, or neither.
Consciousness stretches far beyond your conceptual grasp, far beyond whatever you think totality ought to be, whether its a sum or a subtraction or a fraction or multiplication of all existences....

"Objectless awareness" is simply a euphemism for complete unconsciousness. There is no consciousness of anything...in deep sleep, in between the dreaming states, it is shut off. Or at least the higher functioning parts of the brain, the parts which are integral to the generation of consciousness as we know it, are shut down.

If ever there was a time you were truly unaware, then you would not be aware of such a time at all, by definition.
Since you are somehow, perhaps intuitively aware of your deep deep dream states, and you are telling me about them, its quite simple to tell, that in fact, you are aware of such states.

Thus, what you are referring to is a clear and distinct time you were aware of, but you have forgotten the objects you were aware of, the dreams or images or feelings...it is a matter of memory failing you. Not consciousness. This can happen any time, not only while dreaming. Lack of memories does not imply lack of awareness. So what is left for you to say in this case?