Awareness Of Being Aware.

Originally Posted by Gem

Maybe ask one to clear up this little conundrum us humans are having here.

That's really not a bad idea Gem. I'll try and find a rock tomorrow to have a conversation with (as I am walking the trail to the lighthouse on the beach)

Originally Posted by arive nan

I would describe rocks as passive. They take in whatever energy happens to come their way, without actively seeking more energy or particular kinds of energy or trying to repel any of it. And whatever happens to the energy that touches them or goes through them happens due to the physical properties of the rock. It is nothing they 'do' with intent. Unlike living biological organisms, a rock does not react in significantly different ways when a conscious being focuses attention on the rock. That energy is of equal value to it as the energy that happens to come into contact with it from sources that are not focusing attention on the rock. I bring this up because when going into plants I noticed that they do have a reaction when someone focuses the attention of their thoughts on them. It matters to plants if something is focusing attention specifically on it. This does not matter to a rock, in my experiments with them.

I have these impressions because of the times that I sort of went remote viewing/astral projecting or whatever to call it inside the rock. I moved my conscious awareness inside the rock to experience things from its POV and did my best to focus attention on what the rock itself experiences without being influenced or biased by my own feelings or assumptions. There's no way to get solid evidence of any of my observations during these trips inside inanimate objects.

Well said, nan. This is what I was getting at with the denseness thing, a plant is less dense than a rock, it is affected by light at a higher rate than a rock, and humans are at a higher rate than a rock as well.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Enlightener

That's really not a bad idea Gem. I'll try and find a rock tomorrow to have a conversation with (as I am walking the trail to the lighthouse on the beach)

Yes, talk to the rocks, they're very old and wise.

PS... walking is wonderful.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Enlightener

Yes, I would say. It surrounds it, and flows through it. The only difference is that the level of vibration of awareness in a rock is much lower than a human.

Blessings

Yes, I agree.

Ive just seen the conversation about vibration and Im not sure which I would say is higher/lower so I will pass on that.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by andrew g

Yes, I agree.

Ive just seen the conversation about vibration and Im not sure which I would say is higher/lower so I will pass on that.

A very hot rock vibrates faster than a cold one.

[sound]

Rocks also gather together to form a mountain ... and as far as i know they dont jostle for the best position ...

Originally Posted by hybrid

maybe consciousness needs nervous systems to have experience, which in the case of rocks, none. try it on plants, you'll see,

I have tried it with plants. Both the rock and the plant have subjective POVs as far as I can tell in my experiments. There is something that it is like to be a rock, in other words. The subjective experience of being a rock is different from that of being a plant. And being a rock is subjectively different from being a piece of paper.

Originally Posted by Enlightener

Well said, nan. This is what I was getting at with the denseness thing, a plant is less dense than a rock, it is affected by light at a higher rate than a rock, and humans are at a higher rate than a rock as well.

I don't see this as due to any difference in denseness. Awareness is different for different POVs because different POVs are aware of different things and they receive or gather information in different ways. It doesn't make one awareness higher or lower than another. They are just different due to being aware of different things in different ways. In a way, the states of mind that people aim to have by doing certain meditations to quiet the mind and experience choiceless awareness is like trying to have an awareness that is more similar to a rock's. When people achieve this, some consider it to be an accomplishment of spiritual advancement and some say that the more a person can do this the better. But the rocks are in a state like that all the time. They can't be any other way.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

I have described my understanding of mind.. as the common element/medium through which experience is 'made known', any experience.. the mind can be still and translucent, such that the experience is made known clearly.. so, is the medium through which experience is made known, prior to, or within experience? does it matter?

Does it matter? Not really. I know neither "why" nor "how" consciousness came to be. And when working with a layer of abstraction, why and how doesn't matter unless the abstraction is needing repair. I couldn't fix my car if my life depended on it, but I know how to use the car to get around. In this regard I find the zero-point of awareness, what you're referring to as a still mind, to be a very useful landmark for navigating the internal landscape.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

I don't follow the logic, here.. it is said that awareness is aware of itself, and so is not a "zero term".. disregarding the logical fallacy of awareness being aware of itself, the application of 'zero term' as a descriptor for awareness seems like an arbitrary application to support a preferred perspective.. i disagree that there is no experience in dreamless sleep, as hypnosis reveals there is.. dreamless sleep is often an issue of recollection. The awareness of undifferentiated consciousness, is aware of consciousness, consciousness is 'self-aware'.. the still and translucent mind is the capacity for structure, structure that 'blips on and off' inspiring the capacity for its awareness to be applied or dormant..

Anything being aware of itself is a logical fallacy, and yet something has to be self-aware, call it whatever you want. I call it awareness. So do many people. Many people also call it something different, mind, consciousness. That's why we have to learn each other's languaging to communicate effectively with each other.

Logic is limited as logic requires the choosing of axioms and terms which is prior to the application of logic.

You lost me with the part in bold. what do you mean by applied or dormant, what is blipping on and off? What is aware of the blipping?

hypnosis also reveals non-existent child abuses... I'm not prepared to take the output of hypnosis as something relevant beyond tuning into subconscious white-noise in the individual or mass-psyche.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Agreed, but not an absence of experience or 'mind' itself, only the mind's movement.. Clarity, allows the actuality of experience to overlay the structure of belief while it is inactive and non-resistant, such that the first response is always relative to the actuality of what is, but the active mind quickly invokes the structure of belief and preference..

I can only speak to how things appear or seem to me. "I" seem to be looking through the mind into the world and other subjective phenomena within consciousness. The dense and heavy mind feels like an intermediary, a resistance. A foggy or groggy mind is itself muddy, however the experience of fogginess is quite clear and distinct. A clear and translucent mind does not interfere with the clarity of the awareness that is distinctly aware of the fogginess of the mind. What I am saying is that the clarity within the mind has to be judged and measured from a point which functions as an absolute frame of reference for the quality of clarity. I call that frame of reference Awareness, the Eye, which is always clear and it is the mind which is muddy.

If there is no awareness outside of the mind, then how does the mind discern between clarity and lack of clarity? How does the mind know itself? I find the content of mind, i.e. mind-stuff, to be quite inert and unconsciousness, unaware.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

I cannot agree to an arbitrary scale where 'awareness' is is a "zero term".. i can agree that both mind and awareness are capable of pure clarity, what you seem to referring to as a "zero term".. again, invoking Occam's Razor as cause for eliminating 'mind' from your definition of "zero term", seems arbitrary.. mind is a magnificent interface, with its thinking process suspended it is as transparent as the the "zero term".. awareness is no more than the mind's ability to sense its environment, inferring a mutually arising relationship with no superior or dominate characteristic, as each serves the other in some capacity..

Be well..

As for zero points, I think what Arive Nan has to say about it in this thread is quite profound. Zero is not nothing, merely the balance point between 1 and -1. 0 = 1 + -1. 0 = infinity + -infinity. Zero is potential for creation. Zero surrounds everything. 5 = 0 + 5 + 0; 5 = 5 +1 -1. Zero is a blank page, an empty stage, capacity to be filled.


I agree with the bolded that the mind has no ability to sense anything except through awareness. If there is mind that exists outside of awareness, we are unaware of it and by occam's razor it must be chopped from our ontology. In order for anything to survive occam's razor, we must be aware of its existence, it must have quality in our experience. It is awareness, not the mind, which enables Occam's Razor to exist as a tool and this is why I place awareness as superior, prior to the mind. The mind can only operated on the product of awareness.

I am intentionally placing the faculty of awareness outside the mind because every other faculty within the mind is dependent on awareness. I could do as you do and place awareness within the mind, But then the question arises of what exists outside of awareness but within the mind? And I have no answer, no idea, no understanding, no knowledge, no experience of it because if it does exist, I am unaware of it, *chop* there goes Occam's Razor, and everything within mind is also within awareness.

Originally Posted by sound

Rocks also gather together to form a mountain ... and as far as i know they dont jostle for the best position ...

Earthquakes, land-slides, rocks settling in riverbeds, "move over guys, I want that spot."