Can there be recognition of what is - beyond any and all experiencing?

a reply to: bb23108

Good questions. It is akin to unqualified awareness, yet this type of awareness does not entertain particulars; it can absorb any information without prejudice and let go of it without clinging, so it is like cosmic mind. What would pure consciousness be ? To me consciousness denotes a particular set of subjects and objects being used to create a moment to moment experience.

originally posted by: preludefanguyWhat would pure consciousness be ? To me consciousness denotes a particular set of subjects and objects being used to create a moment to moment experience.

I am distinguishing consciousness from the conscious mind. When I say consciousness, it is the same to me as Unqualified Awareness. So consciousness is the unqualified indivisible living conscious Light-Energy that all forms are a modification of. It is unlimited and self-aware, the "medium" in which all arises.

Consciousness is inherently not separate from any form. It simply is the witness of all modifications, but never separate from any forms. It needs no mechanism of attention because it is not separate from any forms. Only that which is separate from form would need a mechanism to perceive with.

Just like our own awareness - we are self-aware, so we don't need to, nor can we ever, observe awareness, because that is who we are.

a reply to: bb23108

perhaps it is helpful at this time to define these concepts and how the words are being used in conjunction with the language which we are currently employing.

Here is how it makes sense to me:

Radiant mind -> unqualified awareness -> total attention -> consciousness

The radiant mind is the unlimited potential, in which all things arise, you could call it cosmic mind; all things exist within it, but it is not subjected by anything, and it is aware of the impermanence of all things. With this ability to zoom out indefinitely and zoom in, it can define anything, create anything, and in a way is a supreme intelligence. It seems to be that in this radiant mind exists the unconditioned and the conditioned. There is self and no-self; perception and non-perception, form and formlessness. After all, duality and non-duality are just ideas that fit within the whole of pure potentiality.

Unqualified awareness is a quality of the radiant mind, in which it perceives the happenings of reality as they are appearing, it does not cling to any particular thing, therefore does not become any particular thing, but it is a state arising out of radiant mind in order to 'see' what is.

total attention is a direction applied by unqualified awareness, it is a bit more pointed in an energetic state by applying concentration into understanding what is happening, it does not necessarily get caught up in what is happening, but can grab and let go of things with the act of concentrating on a particular subject. It is mindful of the constant changes that are taking place in reality, but the filter is a little tighter, perceiving more things and their particular components.

Consciousness is the experiencing, it is what is actively sifting through memories and information to develop a mode of workable thought constructs where we can apply ourselves to a task, such as conversation, creation, contemplation and so on.

a reply to: bb23108

I have come to conclude in the most simplest manner, that all that exists and all that can ever exist is; quantity and quality.

Substance/material.

Which can be related to what we know of as geometry.

Which moves and interacts.

And it might even be that quality is 'nothing but quantity'.

So perhaps I conclude that; all that exists is quantity, of substance.

Empty space in between matter is just as important and necessary to the potential orientations of matter, as in if all matter was intimately touching all matter, then there is not much potential for movement, and complexity.

originally posted by: bb23108

Let me restate the question then. Can we recognize the true nature of any object without cognition?

Cognizing is knowing - and knowing is ever present.
Is it possible for any appearance to appear without knowing?

What is being witnessed is not a thing - it is this present light image that is filling awareness (it gets divided into sound, sight, taste, touch). There is only awareness (cognizing) - all that appears is the content of awareness.

What is the nature of 'things'?
There are no things - there is just what is happening - a happening is not a 'thing'.
Nothing is happening.

a reply to: bb23108

Okay, so when you look so fully at an object, beyond its conceptual description and all the rest of it, what is it? Can the mind ever know? Wouldn't you have to see it beyond any and every point-of-view? Would that even do it?

Dear Rotter

The mind can observe and gain further understanding of said thing ... through observation and experiment ... to glean how something can be used or manipulated into a better a way of being ... for the benefit of all or not ... depending on one's intention

It would "Do it" if it worked ... but I agree that there are aspects of Reality that may never be fully understood ... but that does not mean we should not try if new ways of understanding come to light ... as is their wont

originally posted by: preludefanguy
Radiant mind -> unqualified awareness -> total attention -> consciousness

Your descriptions are very thought-provoking. When you speak of radiant mind, do you equate radiant mind as absolute reality?
How does it associate with the body-mind?

Also, you said it creates forms. Is it the medium in which all forms are created?

You also indicate that radiant mind can zoom in and out, but still does not affect any forms? Is radiant mind non-separate from all forms? Does it know what they are in reality?

Relative to consciousness - would you equate it with the conscious mind, the observer, and/or some other aspect or function of the individuated brain-mind?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I have come to conclude in the most simplest manner, that all that exists and all that can ever exist is; quantity and quality.

So you attribute your most fundamental being with quantity? What is that?

Does unqualified awareness have quantity? Isn't quantity what conditions have, but what about what is beyond the conditional?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
What is the nature of 'things'?
There are no things - there is just what is happening - a happening is not a 'thing'.
Nothing is happening.

So what are forms? What is the computer in front of you?

Obviously at some level every perception is an "object of knowledge". And even if you do not agree with that, by saying perceptions are just happening, all perceptions are a qualification of consciousness and therefore conditional.

originally posted by: artistpoet... but I agree that there are aspects of Reality that may never be fully understood ... but that does not mean we should not try if new ways of understanding come to light ... as is their wont

I am not presuming there are aspects of Reality that cannot be understood - this is what we are considering with this thread. And, of course, whatever helps with this, by all means.

It seems clear that no limited point-of-view will ever know what even a single object is, in reality. But can one know what an object is, by going beyond all points-of-view? If so, what "position" would one have to be in?

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I have come to conclude in the most simplest manner, that all that exists and all that can ever exist is; quantity and quality.

So you attribute your most fundamental being with quantity? What is that?

Does unqualified awareness have quantity? Isn't quantity what conditions have, but what about what is beyond the conditional?

My most fundamental being is a relationship between substances, I being a particular system of substances in a particular system of substances.

By substance I mean; the absolute opposite of nothing.

Reality consists of; a lot of amount (quantity) of opposite of nothings, or may I just say substance if you get what I mean by it now, which exists and which is all that can ever exist (substance, and the relations between it), amidst absolute nothingness.

Nothing, is the lack of existence, but it exists as real distance between substances.

Nothing does not exist; as the term exist is expressive of; that which is not nothing.

But because there is a real difference between two particles in space being an inch apart, and a mile apart, in that sense, apartness exists, in that sense and only that sense, nothing exists.

Nothing exists, only in the sense that, what does exist, substance, has distances between it which is not full of substance.

My awareness only exists because of extremely complex systems of substance.

Now I just recently tried to read Jean Paul Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness', which may be all about this topic, I tried listening to the audio book on youtube, 5 parts about 9 hours each part, but I only barely made it past the first part, and almost lost my mind, but did gain some insights, and was inspired and made some nice connections and grasped some of his points. Maybe I will try to finish the rest some day, he uses some annoying and awkward terminology ('being' where I would use substance/quantity, he uses the term 'being' to mean, objective reality, object, that which is, is being (so its a bit confusing when we normally think of being as the term for a conscious being, further he refers to this also as 'in itself', as that which is, in and of itself, that which is, and he refers to 'for itself' as consciousness, or that which exists for itself therefore the means of how and what it does and exist are conditional on this need that it needs to exist for itself).

He says something like, consciousness is only ever aware of itself, but that it is essentially nothing, and it requires that which is not nothing, to come into its awareness, so that it may be aware of all that which it is not, so that it may be able to utilize those things to extend its existence...or something.

I think one shouldnt fall into the trap of thinking consciousness is a simple 1 dimensional point of exactness, and therefore it could be a very intricate system of many different kinds of points, which make up various screens and chambers which are interconnected and subtle and sophisticated, and that there is multi 4 dimensional mechanisms which interplay to create the constant stream of consciousness, not to mention the close proximity of these parts in the brain, the fact there are billions of parts, and that some aspects of these parts interact close to the speed of light, and this scales up to our 'sum of parts' acknowledgement, or cognition, or recognition, or experience, of the internal and externals of ourselves and environment, which I think is a lag of information compared to the quantity of information, the parts of information we are aware of in the rates of time, compared to the material foundations and the speeds at which they operate.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: artistpoet... but I agree that there are aspects of Reality that may never be fully understood ... but that does not mean we should not try if new ways of understanding come to light ... as is their wont

I am not presuming there are aspects of Reality that cannot be understood - this is what we are considering with this thread. And, of course, whatever helps with this, by all means.

It seems clear that no limited point-of-view will ever know what even a single object is, in reality. But can one know what an object is, by going beyond all points-of-view? If so, what "position" would one have to be in?

There are probably billions of planets that exist right now with life on them, think of how hard it is to know of everything that occurs on just this one, and so we must assume that it is likely impossible to know of things that occur on a planet, to some form of life... though we can compare and relate. But there is a lot of exactness that exists and occurs, that we will never know the exactness of.

a reply to: bb23108

So what are forms? What is the computer in front of you?

The inherent Intelligence of Reality has the property of being able to interpret its radiant energies as patterns, and has the further ability to imagine hypothetical interpretations regarding what these imagined patterns might consist of: e.g. beings, entities, situations, etc.

It can happen that these hypothetical interpretations might include the idea that these patterns actually inherently exist as entities in themselves, that they might be actual independently existing individualities that have coherent identities that persist in time; and are more than just the instantaneous Radiance of Reality, as they actually are.

Further, the Intelligence can identify itself in imagination with various sets of these imagined patterns, while disidentifying itself from others, creating the fantasy of a "self", an embodiment, and an "objective environment". Through this possibility an apparent entity that exists in an apparent world can seem to exist, leading to the possibility of further elaborations in imagination on that theme, resulting in the apparent situation that you may seem to be finding yourself in at this moment. This is the case when one finds oneself lost in a dream, thinking that it is an actual objectively existing environment and events.

BUT the possibility of seeing the non-actual nature of this complex situationality is ever-present, since the entire confused scenario actually exists only in imagination and consists of nothing other than the inherent functioning of Reality itself. And all the apparent elements of this elaboration turn out to be substantially made of nothing other than Reality itself, so nothing other than the actual nature of Reality is perceivable the whole time.

Since Reality is always and eternally perfect and complete, in its constant final condition, and since "our" relationship to it, to consciousness / intelligence / energy, is already and eternally in a state of perfect fruition, our only "spiritual" task is to NOTICE this actual state of affairs; AND IT HAPPENS THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE.

theopendoorway.org...

a reply to: bb23108

You have to be careful when talking about absolute reality. There is also conventional reality. The truth is found in their interconnection. Our discernment comes from understanding how they both work together.

The radiant mind comes before form, but yet all forms arise within it. The body and mind are artifacts that come up out of the absolute by conditioned things, impermanent things. It is not so much a medium as it is pure potential, or emptiness, by way of not being anything particular, yet being all things. When we say medium, we think of space of some sort, space seems to be an emergent property of our universe. Yet this is not space. It is not, yet all things come from it. The space and time we see around us are the branches or roots that are needed for particulars to be expressed out from the infinite potential. We are literally the roads of creation being laid down piece by piece according to cause and effect, yet all these things are expressions which lay dormant unmanifest in emptiness/pure potentiality.

Does it know forms? That is the conditional perceptions built from the states which arise from radiant mind, going back to awareness, attention, concentration, consciousness. These things arise from radiant mind by way of clinging to a certain part of the phenomena interacting. It is a continual wheel that keeps turning.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Thanks for both those links. The second one by Peter Brown seems to attribute Reality with various properties of mind - e.g., "of being able to interpret its radiant energies as patterns, and has the further ability to imagine hypothetical interpretations regarding what these imagined patterns might consist of: e.g. beings, entities, situations, etc."

Peter Brown also seeminly speaks in terms of conditionality when he ascribes Reality with "radiant energies". I am wondering if this description is due to the limits of the conditional mind and language when explaining these matters.

Whereas, what Adi Da Samraj speaks of in the video you posted, is that Reality is simply the Witness, the non-separate Conscious Light of Reality Itself, if I am remembering his exact words correctly. And in the example of the room, he concludes that the room in Reality is Radiance, not what all the limited points-of-view the conditional mind and attention can have of what the room looks like, etc.

In both cases, what objects are, is fundamentally defined as the Radiance of Reality, Light itself. In that "knowing" all separate points-of-view are necessarily vanished. This makes the most sense to me.

Of course, the actual complete and full realization of this is another matter - it requires a great undoing of the patterns of egoity (point-of-view) in every aspect of the body-mind, gross, subtle, and causal.

So even the cosmic mind above the crown of the head, and the root mechanism of attention in the heart on the right, must be gone beyond - for all are modifications of Reality, not absolute acausal Reality itself, but a conditional pattern of That. This is a most profound realization, and very rare from what I have determined in my long examination of various teachings, teachers, and also practices.

However, one can immediately enjoy a tacit recognition of this truth, because it is who we actually are - self-aware conscious Light, beyond all conditionality, but not separate from anything whatsoever. This is unqualified awareness which has apparently identified with a body-mind and all of its patterns, thus giving us the illusions of things and others. This unqualified Awareness is the Witness.

I have noticed that many people understand the Witness aspect of non-dualism, but what is clear particularly in what Adi Da speaks of, is that the Witness (Reality Itself) is non-separate from all modifications - not "somewhere" or "somehow" witnessing or perceiving everything.

Given the Witness is not separate from any modifications, It perfectly Knows everything inherently, most directly - because Reality is not separate from Its own Light or Radiance Itself.

On this basis, to simply be the Witness where we stand, necessarily yields an embrace of all arising fully and whole bodily - not with just the mind in terms of perception - but with the whole being, full of feeling, love, energy, life (radiant form) and consciousness.

The traditional error is to equate the Witness or Absolute Consciousness with the observer function of mind - separate from what is arising or just apart from it, simply observing it from "somewhere" else. This error often motivates the seeker to introvert upon the core "I-thought" apart from life, etc. to identify with the Self within.

But the Witness is brilliant Radiance as well - not just an abstracted observer or the Consciousness aspect only. Consciousness is not apart from Light or Radiance. It is Brilliant. That Radiance manifests in the body-mind of the practitioner more and more - in all aspects, apparently high and apparently low, as unqualified radiant love; and there is no need to seek, for it always is the case - it simply must be noticed in each and every moment.

Thanks again, itsnowagain.

a reply to: preludefanguy
I like your perspectives about these matters. You also are talking about Radiance when you speak of the highest form of consciousness, so that is most interesting to me.

I understand what you are getting at when you say "infinite potential" and why you don't like the use of the word "medium". I usually put it in quotes as a way to indicate that I am not referring to it as something conditional, i.e., with substance and/or spatiality in that conditional sense.

I personally prefer the use of term Consciousness in the traditional way of non-dualism, rather than "Emptiness" such as in the way the Buddhists use it.

I am glad we clarified our terms. It made communicating on these already difficult matters, at least a possiblity!

I also think Radiance should always be included when defining Consciousness. This is something found throughout Adi Da's teachings on these matters. He never assumed Consciousness was apart from Life (the radiant expression of Consciousness), and this always rings true to me. Peter Brown seems to speak along these lines too, but I am less familiar with his work.

a reply to: ImaFungi
Your description of conditional consciousness was fascinating.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
My awareness only exists because of extremely complex systems of substance.

Yes, this is where we greatly differ in our consideration. You equate awareness as an emergent property of substance, whereas I consider Consciousness (Awareness) as the "medium" in which all substance (conditions) appear.

I notice that fundamental awareness (who I am, being itself) never changes, whereas all conditional substances are constantly changing, disappearing, etc. So I cannot assume that fundamental unchanging awareness is an emergent property of what is always changing and disappearing.

How do you reconcile this?

My awareness only exists because of extremely complex systems of substance.

originally posted by: bb23108

Yes, this is where we greatly differ in our consideration. You equate awareness as an emergent property of substance, whereas I consider Consciousness (Awareness) as the "medium" in which all substance (conditions) appear.

I notice that fundamental awareness (who I am, being itself) never changes, whereas all conditional substances are constantly changing, disappearing, etc. So I cannot assume that fundamental unchanging awareness is an emergent property of what is always changing and disappearing.

How do you reconcile this?

Are you sure who you are never changes, your thoughts are exactly the same as they were when you were 13 and when you were 3?

Or ok, if you mean just the fact that you are aware that sensual data enters your eyes, and you are aware of sensation of materials on your skin and chemicals of food on your tongue, that you have always been fed information, yes perhaps in that sense 'there is no change'.

But too me I can just analogize that as being like how once a TV is bought and set up, if it was aware of the images broadcast on it, it could say the fundamental fact that images consistently appear on/in me has never changed since I was first plugged in. Sure I am not always on, we can say I go to sleep.

The fact your awareness consistently functions, has no power to suppose that relations of and between substance or mechanisms are not why and how it consistently functions.

So you think, as there are mediums for various substance (electron, light, quark, or even say something like water medium, gravity medium) there is an awareness medium; and it is one pure awareness, as yours is one pure awareness, but when substantial bodies are built up, until they finally place that right piece, like an antenna in the right spot, they steal or capture or break off that whole pure absolute lonesome medium of awareness, and splinter it into a separate from the all else, and so all conscious beings are a single piece of the whole of awareness, which are all related as all electrons are related?

Interesting idea, will need to contemplate it some more.