Present awareness

misecmisc1

hi all,

i was browsing internet today and came across this web-page on present awareness. read it and found it both interesting and insightful. http://buddha-inside.blogspot.in/2008/03/sustaining-present-awareness.html

so thought of sharing with you all.

pegembara

The actual word Buddha means Awakened. It’s a “wake-up” teaching. Somebody asked me one time, “Could you describe Buddhism in one sentence?” And I said, “I can do it in one word.” He said, “What’s that?” “Wake-up!”

There’s this awareness that includes the whole gamut, the whole range of conditioned phenomena. It’s also seeing conditioned phenomena no longer in the critical way, but in the discerning: “All conditions are impermanent, sabbe sankhārā anicca.”

That which knows conditions are impermanent is not a condition.

In this way, awakenedness, mindfulness, and wisdom, is within the potential of human individuals. This is not a teaching for specially refined types of human beings, but it’s based on the most common experience of any human being; suffering, dukkha, the First Noble Truth. There’s nothing esoteric or subtle about it. It’s a common experience that every human being can recognize, whether you’re rich or poor, male or female, European, Asian, African; there’s nobody that gets away from it.

But what doesn’t change? That which isn’t changeable—consciousness—remains the same all the time. That you can’t find; you recognize it. That’s what awareness is, you suddenly recognize: this is it. It’s not an object that you can get by getting rid of the conditioned realm, or by blindfolding yourself and plugging up your ears, or sensory deprivation. Consciousness is now. It’s not created out of ignorance, it’s not cultural, it’s not male or female, and it’s not good or bad. But it is real.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/233724-awakened-consciousness-ajahn-sumedho-on-the-conditioned-self/

lobster

So that's why I feel it is very important these days that we create a functional, family-like, Buddhist sangha, not a dysfunctional sangha. It must be warm and welcoming, with a lot of genuine friendship and easy entrance to those who are drawn to it. Not everybody looking up at some high guru and looking down their nose at everybody else, stepping on each other's head, pushing them out of the way, with all the women in love with the male guru and all the men trying to be the guru's main assistant. Is that what we joined, to become the main assistant of the boss? Or to become a walking encyclopedia of esoteric, Oriental information?

Many great stories, examples and useful insights. Many thanks. There is even something there for the druggies . . . for the stupid and of course for the hopeless family members like me . . . :clap:

zenff

“With constant, vigilant mindfulness, sustain this recognition of empty, open, brilliant awareness.
Cultivate nothing else.
There is nothing else to do, or to undo.
Let it remain naturally.
Don't spoil it by manipulating, by controlling, by tampering with it, and worrying about whether you are right or wrong, or having a good meditation or a bad meditation.
Leave it as it is, and rest your weary heart and mind.”

“Recognize this innate awareness, this renowned Rigpa, which is always with us no matter how far we may feel from it-this total presence, our primordial being, this untrammeled, never limited freedom-our true nature.”

Thanks.
I like what I read but my mistake is that I start thinking about it.

Where is this empty, open, brilliant awareness when I’m in deep sleep? Where is it when I am in a coma? Where was it before I was born? Where will it go when I die?

misecmisc1

i have some other questions - it says that present awareness is already present all the time, so we do not have to do anything, rather we have to just being in the here and now. - but my question is why i do not feel it in normal daily actions like saying watching TV - not getting engrossed in TV contents like say watching news - just seeing TV and not doing anything special - it is just an example - there are so many examples - like whenever i try to just relax and not do anything, but just stay there either sitting or standing in a relaxed manner, then in these cases why i do not feel this thing about present awareness. it seems that there was nothing special in it - so is there something really special which i did not noticed.

i have read it is said about eternal now - there are some occasions in which i try to relax, but somehow after that duration goes by, it feels nothing to me, rather some experiences occurred and time went by - so what was that thing which is said as eternal about now?

may be stupid questions but somehow i am not able to figure out these questions. any suggestions, please. thanks in advance.

pegembara

zenff said:

“With constant, vigilant mindfulness, sustain this recognition of empty, open, brilliant awareness.
Cultivate nothing else.
There is nothing else to do, or to undo.
Let it remain naturally.
Don't spoil it by manipulating, by controlling, by tampering with it, and worrying about whether you are right or wrong, or having a good meditation or a bad meditation.
Leave it as it is, and rest your weary heart and mind.”

“Recognize this innate awareness, this renowned Rigpa, which is always with us no matter how far we may feel from it-this total presence, our primordial being, this untrammeled, never limited freedom-our true nature.”

Thanks.
I like what I read but my mistake is that I start thinking about it.

Where is this empty, open, brilliant awareness when I’m in deep sleep? Where is it when I am in a coma? Where was it before I was born? Where will it go when I die?


Sustain this awareness that is present. Questions come and go but the awareness remains. Your refuge is in the awareness, not hoping for answers.

Ever wondered what would life be like without all such questions?

The young Sheng-yen was on a brief sabbatical from the military, visiting local Ch'an teachers when, while up late one night meditating, he found himself sitting near an older man, also a guest of the monastery, who impressed Sheng-yen with his steady and peaceful demeanor. Asking the elderly monk if he would answer a question or two, Sheng-yen proceeded to pour out his heart for two hours, giving voice to all of the questions that no one had been able to help him with during his many years of spiritual practice. And at the end of each question, the monk, whom Sheng-yen would later find out was actually a revered Ch'an master, would simply ask, "Is that all?" Finally, Sheng-yen had exhausted his litany of questions and, in a moment of confusion, hesitated, not knowing what to do. Bang! The monk struck the platform they were sitting on and roared, "Take all of your questions and put them down! Who has all of these questions?" The effect on Sheng-yen was immediate and profound. "In that instant all of my questions were gone," he writes. "The whole world had changed. My body ran with perspiration but felt extraordinarily light. The person I had been was laughable. I felt like I had dropped a thousand-pound burden." The words of the Buddhist sutras [scriptures], which once seemed foreign and impenetrable, now came alive as Sheng-yen's own experience. "I understood them immediately, without explanation," he writes. "I felt as if they were my own words.

pegembara

misecmisc1 said:

i have some other questions - it says that present awareness is already present all the time, so we do not have to do anything, rather we have to just being in the here and now. - but my question is why i do not feel it in normal daily actions like saying watching TV - not getting engrossed in TV contents like say watching news - just seeing TV and not doing anything special - it is just an example - there are so many examples - like whenever i try to just relax and not do anything, but just stay there either sitting or standing in a relaxed manner, then in these cases why i do not feel this thing about present awareness. it seems that there was nothing special in it - so is there something really special which i did not noticed.

i have read it is said about eternal now - there are some occasions in which i try to relax, but somehow after that duration goes by, it feels nothing to me, rather some experiences occurred and time went by - so what was that thing which is said as eternal about now?

may be stupid questions but somehow i am not able to figure out these questions. any suggestions, please. thanks in advance.

The reason is that you ( and I) lack mindfulness and awareness (sati sampajanna) which is to be maintained at all times.

Verse 21. Freedom Is Difficult

Heedfulness is the Deathless path,
heedlessness, the path to death.
Those who are heedful do not die,
heedless are like the dead.

Explanation: The path to the Deathless is the perpetual awareness of experience. The deathless does not imply a physical state where the body does not die. When an individual becomes totally aware of the process of experiencing, he is freed from the continuity of existence. Those who do not have that awareness are like the dead, even if they are physically alive.

They meditate persistently,
constantly they firmly strive,
the steadfast to Nibbana reach,
the Unexcelled Secure from bonds.

Explanation: Those wise individuals who steadfastly practice meditation, reach a level of understanding that enables them to experience Nibbana. Those wise individuals who unceasingly continue in their meditation, firmly and steadfastly, experience Nibbana, which is the supreme release from all bonds.


http://www.buddhanet.net/dhammapada/d_heed.htm

zenff

@pegembara who said: “Questions come and go but the awareness remains.”

No the awareness doesn’t remain; that was my point.

When I’m in deep sleep or in a coma and also before I was born, there is/was no awareness.

Citta

According to the Dzogchen view ( once more I feel like the Lone Ranger minus Tonto . On other forums what I am saying is a mainstream view ) you certainly have the potential to be aware in deep sleep, or dreams, or while in a coma.

However you cannot connect to that facility by your own unaided efforts or by trial and error.

zenff

I’m sure it is the view. I’ll believe that people can convince themselves that they are “aware” in their deep sleep or their coma. And actually I met a guy who thought he witnessed his own conception. It was horrible he told me.

I take the liberty to question these observations. Consciousness is fragile and limited and it can be switched off. That’s my experience anyways.

Citta

Then we must honour your experience.

zenff

It is always a pleasure talking to you.

pegembara

zenff said:

@pegembara who said: “Questions come and go but the awareness remains.”

No the awareness doesn’t remain; that was my point.

When I’m in deep sleep or in a coma and also before I was born, there is/was no awareness.

As stated by Citta, there is still "awareness" even in deep(dreamless) sleep or else the alarm clock would be useless or one wouldn't wake up if the house was on fire.
Even a comatose person can respond to pain although he may not be aware of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale
This awareness is only gone in the deepest state of meditation or perhaps the deepest coma.

A person who is in "nirodha" (cessation of perception & feeling) is as if dead, the only difference being that there is still life in him.

This was the question asked by Visakha (an anagamin) to Dhammadinna (arahant).

"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."

"When a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, verbal fabrications cease first, then bodily fabrications, then mental fabrications."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html

misecmisc1

yesterday when i was browsing internet, i saw this video:



so thought of sharing with all.

Citta

misecmisc1 said:

yesterday when i was browsing internet, i saw this video:



so thought of sharing with all.

Thats not a mistake. Thats what we are. If you want a more detailed and specific look then google ' the skandhas in Buddhism ' There is nothing else that we are. We have no hidden soul.
Thats one of the main differences between Buddhadharma and Hindudharma.

misecmisc1

Citta said:

Thats not a mistake. Thats what we are. If you want a more detailed and specific look then google ' the skandhas in Buddhism ' There is nothing else that we are. We have no hidden soul.
Thats one of the main differences between Buddhadharma and Hindudharma.

i would say (based on my theoretical readings) - what i am - i do not know, but this i know that i am not what i think i am. this is from theoretical readings, nothing from my meditation as there is no calm in my meditation, but still i just sit.

Citta

It is important to see what the Buddha (in the words attributed to him ) is saying.
I have already quoted this analogy but it bears repeating.
In conventional language we say that a leaf which is green in summer turns red in autumn.
This linguistic convention is posited on the existence of a leaf, which exists beyond its qualities.
In other words if you take away the shape and weight and length and width and colour of the leaf there is still a leaf.
This is of course not actually true. The is no 'leaf' in abstract.
What we call a leaf is the sum total of its changing qualities as found at any given moment.
There is no leaf apart from what the medieval scholars called its 'accidents.'
Those medieval scholars believed that their was an essence which existed in isolation from the accidents.
The Buddha says no, there is no essence ( atta ) apart from the accidents, the qualities.
They are anatta.
This is true of a leaf. It is also true of you and me.

David

The individual self is more of a by-product of the skandhas than the skandhas themselves. There is no true entity there.

Seeing through that delusion, we can then start to catch glimpses of the true self. That which wakes and is not subject to birth and death.

Compassion is only logical when we see how we are all just the same process but when we miss that part and only see what the self is not, Buddhism can be mistaken for a nihilistic approach when it most certainly is not.

Citta

ourself said:

The individual self is more of a by-product of the skandhas than the skandhas themselves. There is no true entity there.

Seeing through that delusion, we can then start to catch glimpses of the true self. That which wakes and is not subject to birth and death.

Compassion is only logical when we see how we are all just the same process but when we miss that part and only see what the self is not, Buddhism can be mistaken for a nihilistic approach when it most certainly is not.

That is Eternalism.
You have seen the limits of annihilationism..but you need to take the next step.
The idea of a true self is not sustainable in light of the Buddhas teaching.
He says so specifically and often.
According to the Buddha there is neither annihilation at death, nor is there an atta. And a true self would be an atta.

Citta

ourself said:

The individual self is more of a by-product of the skandhas than the skandhas themselves. There is no true entity there.

Seeing through that delusion, we can then start to catch glimpses of the true self. That which wakes and is not subject to birth and death.

Compassion is only logical when we see how we are all just the same process but when we miss that part and only see what the self is not, Buddhism can be mistaken for a nihilistic approach when it most certainly is not.

That is Eternalism.
You have seen the limits of annihilationism..but you need to take the next step.
The idea of a true self is not sustainable in light of the Buddhas teaching.
He says so specifically and often.
According to the Buddha there is neither annihilation at death, nor is there an atta. And a true self would be an atta.
His teaching is truly radical and cuts through both those alternatives.

David

Citta said:

ourself said:

The individual self is more of a by-product of the skandhas than the skandhas themselves. There is no true entity there.

Seeing through that delusion, we can then start to catch glimpses of the true self. That which wakes and is not subject to birth and death.

Compassion is only logical when we see how we are all just the same process but when we miss that part and only see what the self is not, Buddhism can be mistaken for a nihilistic approach when it most certainly is not.

That is Eternalism.
You have seen the limits of annihilationism..but you need to take the next step.
The idea of a true self is not sustainable in light of the Buddhas teaching.
He says so specifically and often.
According to the Buddha there is neither annihilation at death, nor is there an atta. And a true self would be an atta.

An atta would be the individual self though. This is not what I mean. This ego will not survive death. I am talking about that which is awake (as a buddha)

I don't lay claims to being awake, I'm just illustrating my point...

Citta

So a 'true self' would not be individual ?
That leads to the idea of the Oneness of all things or an Oversoul or Brahma...What does the Buddha say about that concept..
In the Mahanidana Sutra the Buddha is reported as saying that there is no unchanging individual self, neither is there an unchanging overarching Self, neither is the truth both, neither is it neither.
He says it cant be reduced to a verbal formula.
That the truth of the matter can only be known in states of meditative absorption.
He then gives detailed instructions about how to achieve those states.

David

I agree with all of that but I just wish the Buddha lived in a time when verbal formulas were more advanced, lol.

Words may not be able to convey direct experience but we still seem to think it worthy of trying.

I think the Zen koans are good for training the mind to see past seeming contradictions such as the teachings on no-self.

There is no self but there is no no-self either.

Nouns are misleading because they are just actions in a bigger flow.

Buddha lived in a state of meditative absorption, didn't he?

David

It's only these pesky brains that make us think we are separate. A blade of grass doesn't distinguish itself from the rest.

We'd be pretty bad at exploring if we didn't develop brains though.

That is why I don't mind going to the grave curious and full of wonder.

misecmisc1

Hsin Hsin Ming says:
Those who do not understand the Way
will assert or deny the reality of things.
Deny the reality of things, you miss its deeper reality;
Assert the reality of things, you miss the emptiness of all things.
The more you think about it,
the further you are from the truth.
Cease all thinking,
and there is nothing that will not be revealed to you.

i think Dogen said in Uji that - we are time-being meaning self is time and time is self in each moment. we share it with everything in each moment. each moment is complete in and of itself.

i think Suzuki Roshi said in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind or in a talk(i don't remember exactly where) that - the problem is we get lost in our small self which we create, and miss the bigger self in which everything is interdependent. we are both independent and interdependent at the same time.

zenff

@pegembara who said:

“As stated by Citta, there is still "awareness" even in deep (dreamless) sleep or else the alarm clock would be useless or one wouldn't wake up if the house was on fire.
Even a comatose person can respond to pain although he may not be aware of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale
This awareness is only gone in the deepest state of meditation or perhaps the deepest coma.

A person who is in "nirodha" (cessation of perception & feeling) is as if dead, the only difference being that there is still life in him.”

It could be a question of definition of words. I don’t think I can be “aware” of something without being aware of it. In deep sleep I’m not aware of anything, trust me.
Still the alarm clock does the trick, but that’s not because I have some subtle awareness. It’s just that my brain can function very well without involving conscious processes. The brain has access to the information and will activate conscious processes or not. “I” don’t wake up; the brain just switches to another mode.
The brain can be shut down on various levels. The alarm clock will not get me out of a coma. Again that has nothing to do with awareness; it’s the brain being able to do its thing (or not).

The question when a person is dead is complicated. I understand that there’s a substantial grey area. For organ-donation a person needs to be dead but for the organ to be of any use it needs to be functioning. How dead are you when your organs are working fine?
Suspended animation is a reversible state and there are enough of the life-processes remaining to prevent the body decaying. But there’s no “awareness” during such states; no conscious processes going on.

“But what doesn’t change? That which isn’t changeable—consciousness—remains the same all the time.”

I know that when I question religious beliefs I’m bound for trouble. But the way I see it consciousness changes quite a bit; it began, it grew, it comes and goes and it will end.

pegembara

But the way I see it consciousness changes quite a bit; it began, it grew, it comes and goes and it will end.

Actually questioning beliefs is the right way to go. After all the Dhamma is to be seen by the wise for themselves and no one else.

I suspect the confusion is in the terminology.

I don’t think I can be “aware” of something without being aware of it.

There is no free floating consciousness. All consciousness is dependently coarisen. There is no consciousness that exist apart from its object.

Put in another way - To be aware/conscious, one has to be aware/conscious of something! Without the object, there is no subject.

Yet "you" can be breathing without being aware of it. (Are you breathing or are you being breathed?)

Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
Sheaves of Reed
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html

“Good, bhikkhus. It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me thus. For in many ways I have stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness.

“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose and odours, [260] it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness.

http://www.palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pitaka/majjhima-nikaya/643-mn38-mahatan-hasankhaya-sutta-the-greater-discourse-on-the-destruction-of-craving

misecmisc1

So a question arises: if consciousness, as explained in Dependent Origination, arises when there is a sense-organ and a sense object, then when in sitting meditation, theoretically it is said that after the breath disappears, there is no thought in mind, then nimitta arises which is said as pure radiant luminous light of mind, then what is that thing which knows nimitta? also theoretically it is said that while doing sitting meditation, when both body and mind disappears, then a person enters first jhana - then what is that thing which knows or is aware about the experience of first jhana? please suggest.

also this present awareness or just awareness which helps in making us aware of the experience - where does this present awareness come in Dependent Origination? please suggest. thanks in advance.

pegembara

So a question arises: if consciousness, as explained in Dependent Origination, arises when there is a sense-organ and a sense object, then when in sitting meditation, theoretically it is said that after the breath disappears, there is no thought in mind, then nimitta arises which is said as pure radiant luminous light of mind, then what is that thing which knows nimitta?

There is just the knowing of the nimitta. That knowing is not a "thing".

also theoretically it is said that while doing sitting meditation, when both body and mind disappears, then a person enters first jhana - then what is that thing which knows or is aware about the experience of first jhana? please suggest.

What about that "thing" that talks of that which knows? In which case which one is the "real" knower? This knowing can go into infinite regress like putting 2 mirrors facing each other.

also this present awareness or just awareness which helps in making us aware of the experience - where does this present awareness come in Dependent Origination? please suggest. thanks in advance.

In the same way, from name-&-form(experiences) as a requisite condition comes consciousness (awareness), from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.........feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, aging, sorrow, lamentation, despair.

"Then, Malunkyaputta, with regard to phenomena to be seen, heard, sensed, or cognized: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.095.than.html

In other words with regard to experiences, there is only experiencing(or hearing, touching, smelling etc)- the experiencer (hearer) is a false imputation.

Citta

Nothing to add..except that the desire for there to be an experiencer at the end of all this is eventually another cause of dukkha.

Once more.

' We see ourselves Enlightened, on a brightly lit stage, with adoring devotees at our feet.
There is just one problem with this little scenario...when Enlightenment happens you wont be there.'

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

karmablues

pegembara said:

There’s this awareness that includes the whole gamut, the whole range of conditioned phenomena. It’s also seeing conditioned phenomena no longer in the critical way, but in the discerning: “All conditions are impermanent, sabbe sankhārā anicca.”

That which knows conditions are impermanent is not a condition.

In this way, awakenedness, mindfulness, and wisdom, is within the potential of human individuals.....

But what doesn’t change? That which isn’t changeable—consciousness—remains the same all the time. That you can’t find; you recognize it. That’s what awareness is, you suddenly recognize: this is it. It’s not an object that you can get by getting rid of the conditioned realm, or by blindfolding yourself and plugging up your ears, or sensory deprivation. Consciousness is now. It’s not created out of ignorance, it’s not cultural, it’s not male or female, and it’s not good or bad. But it is real.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/233724-awakened-consciousness-ajahn-sumedho-on-the-conditioned-self/

I just want to add that I think the "awareness" and "consciousness" that Ajahn Sumedho is referring to here is not the same kind of consciousness (aka sense-consciousness) which is a discriminative type of consciousness arising co-dependently upon contact between the six sense-doors (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind) and the six objects (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch and idea). But Ajahn Sumedho has pointed out that there is a different type of awareness/consciousness that is "unattached, the unlimited". He has also described it as "primal, non-discriminative consciousness."

Ajahn Sumedho has explained it in this way:

Sometimes we think of consciousness in a very limited way, just as arising through contact via the eye, ear, nose, etc — just in terms of sensory consciousness. In this case consciousness is very much limited to perceiving through the senses. But it is possible to begin to recognize consciousness that is nonattached to the senses, which is what I point to when I refer to the sound of silence. When you begin to notice that sound, then, there is consciousness that is unattached. As you sustain awareness with the sound of silence then you find you can begin to reflect and get perspective on your thoughts, emotions, feelings, sense activity and experience which all arise in consciousness in the present.

Ajahn Sumedho's teachings and that of his disciple, Ajahn Amaro point to this type of consciousness as being an intrinsic awareness, a kind of "objectless and subjectless awareness", also described as "open, spacious knowing" and also referred to as "Buddha-mind". Ajahn Chah has described this awareness as being "radiant, pure and peaceful".

This type of consciousness/awareness/mind is one that can be separated from the mind-objects as explained by Ajahn Amaro as follows:

There’s the awareness, the Buddha-mind, and the impressions of thought, the sensory world, and all other patterns of consciousness. The two naturally separate out from each other; we don’t have to do a thing to make it happen. Intrinsically, they are not mixed. They will separate themselves out if we let them.

At this point, we can truly can see that the mind is one thing and the mind-objects are another. We can see the true nature of mind, mind-essence, which knows experience and in which all of life happens; and we can see that that transcendent quality is devoid of relationship to individuality, space, time, and movement. All of the objects of the world—its people, our routines and mind states—appear and disappear within that space.

........

I mentioned the insight that Ajahn Chah had in studying with Ajahn Mun when he spent a few days with him: there is the mind and there are its objects, and the two are intrinsically separate from each other. In Theravada phraseology, this is the way it’s put: mind with a big “m,” Mind, and mind-objects. The Dzogchen tradition has a similar way of addressing this same insight: there is mind (small “m”) and there is mind-essence. The word “mind” is used here as meaning the conditioned mind, the dualistic mind, and the term “mind-essence” is used for the unconditioned mind. There is the conditioned and the unconditioned. As you can see, a powerful resonance exists between the two practices even though they might use the same words in different ways.

pegembara

Consciousness without feature,[1]
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
Kevatta Sutta

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16082&start=60#p258189

DairyLama

pegembara said:

Put in another way - To be aware/conscious, one has to be aware/conscious of something! Without the object, there is no subject.

Yes, though one can be aware of the absence of an object, eg physical space being empty or the gap between thoughts.

pegembara

The "absence" is also an object! Think of the pauses in a piece of music or song and how important they are in the piece. How about the phrase, "The silence is deafening."

All of the objects of the world—its people, our routines and mind states—appear and disappear within that space.

Consciousness is still there. See karmablue post above.

Citta

pegembara said:

The "absence" is also an object! Think of the pauses in a piece of music or song and how important they are in the piece. How about the phrase, "The silence is deafening."

All of the objects of the world—its people, our routines and mind states—appear and disappear within that space.

Consciousness is still there. See karmablue post above.


This.