Pure Consciousness

[n2mec]

Conceptual thinking cease to exist and all IS. No contender for the push or pull, being steps forward, regains a dominant hold over mind, ever so brief.

[SecretDreams333]

its exciting isn't it ! :-)

[Ground]

Conceptual thinking cease to exist and all IS. No contender for the push or pull, being steps forward, regains a dominant hold over mind, ever so brief.
Well yes conceptual thinking and even perception may cease, but that is just another mode of consciousness, why "pure"?

[A human Being]

'Pure consciousness' is an interesting expression - my initial reaction is to think, 'Well, consciousness is always pure, isn't it?' It may seem that it's tainted by anger, sadness, regret, guilt, etc., (etc., etc...), but in truth it's eternally untouched by all of its manifestations - all forms are subject to birth and death, but consciousness alone remains.

Though I still consider myself to be a bit of a noob when it comes to non-duality, even though I've been chewing it over for at least a couple of years. Still kinda baffles me, tbh, because it appears that there is duality - the creator and the created, the permanent and the impermanent. I think (well, I hope) that it's slowly starting to sink in that true understanding doesn't happen on the level of conceptual thinking, though I don't mean to suggest that it's wrong to attempt to conceptualise this understanding, to try to communicate it to others by way of conceptual thinking. It's just important to recognise its limits, I feel.

[FallingLeaves]

'Pure consciousness' is an interesting expression - my initial reaction is to think, 'Well, consciousness is always pure, isn't it?' It may seem that it's tainted by anger, sadness, regret, guilt, etc., (etc., etc...), but in truth it's eternally untouched by all of its manifestations - all forms are subject to birth and death, but consciousness alone remains.

Though I still consider myself to be a bit of a noob when it comes to non-duality, even though I've been chewing it over for at least a couple of years. Still kinda baffles me, tbh, because it appears that there is duality - the creator and the created, the permanent and the impermanent. I think (well, I hope) that it's slowly starting to sink in that true understanding doesn't happen on the level of conceptual thinking, though I don't mean to suggest that it's wrong to attempt to conceptualise this understanding, to try to communicate it to others by way of conceptual thinking. It's just important to recognise its limits, I feel.

while there may be a creator and a created, a permanent and an impermanent... the map you draw of it is something you create, in your own mind. It is a part of your perception. For you, whether you perceive the difference between things depends on whether you have a map that describes the difference between things. That is to say, to be dualistic you just draw a line in the sand and say 'this is one thing and this is another'. Then you have something akin to a map, with some terrain indicated on it.

Sometimes, at that point you will also be engaged in choosing one side over the other in some ways, for example most people would think a creator 'superior' to the created, or the permanent 'superior' to the impermanent.
you might also start thinking that 'up and down' were opposites, for example.

But if you didn't have a map that indicated the two things were different to begin with, you also wouldn't need to start annotating it with choices about how you like or dislike each of the two things relative to the other, and then starting to go to the effort of learning how to attract the one you like and get rid of the one you don't.

So anyway in my mind, if you wanted to be nondualistic it isn't a matter of nondualism being a learned behavior, you simply unlearn the idea of drawing lines in the sand.

[wstein]

Conceptual thinking cease to exist and all IS. No contender for the push or pull, being steps forward, regains a dominant hold over mind, ever so brief. It doesn't have to be 'so brief'. One can learn to lengthen those periods or even make them last for extended periods.

[Shivani Devi]

Conceptual thinking cease to exist and all IS. No contender for the push or pull, being steps forward, regains a dominant hold over mind, ever so brief.Yes, it is the total awareness of the whole mechanism of perception, going from a subjective to a relative state. There is no existence, neither internal nor external - no karma, no dharma and not even moksha (liberation) - there is no experience because there's no experience-er. I, too only feel the joy, love and bliss briefly because I tend to flick the whole 'off switch' when I need to focus on 'life things' and it's a habit I am trying to get out of.

[Ground]

'Pure consciousness' is an interesting expression - my initial reaction is to think, 'Well, consciousness is always pure, isn't it?' It may seem that it's tainted by anger, sadness, regret, guilt, etc., (etc., etc...), but in truth it's eternally untouched by all of its manifestations - all forms are subject to birth and death, but consciousness alone remains.
I think 'pure consciousness' may express 2 views:
Either a dualism, i.e. 'pure' in contrast to 'impure' and that seems to be the sense that is expressed here since conceptual thinking is explicitly excluded Or
'purity' being the property of consciousness like wetness is the property of water.
In the latter case conceptual thinking is just an aspect of purity and nothing, not even anger, sadness, regret, guilt, etc, is excluded from the sphere of purity.


Though I still consider myself to be a bit of a noob when it comes to non-duality, even though I've been chewing it over for at least a couple of years. Still kinda baffles me, tbh, because it appears that there is duality - the creator and the created, the permanent and the impermanent. I think (well, I hope) that it's slowly starting to sink in that true understanding doesn't happen on the level of conceptual thinking, though I don't mean to suggest that it's wrong to attempt to conceptualise this understanding, to try to communicate it to others by way of conceptual thinking. It's just important to recognise its limits, I feel.
The problem arises when non-dualism is asserted to be 'truth' or 'truer' than dualism because it is not. Non-dualism is just an alternative to dualism, an alternative mode of consciousness. It is uncommon and not useful in certain contexts where dualism is useful. The non-dualistic mode is useful in rest and/or to detach from 'the world around oneself' because it disappears and the 'purity' can experience itself.

[A human Being]

Thanks for your feedback, FallingLeaves and Ground, I do see where you're coming from :smile:

(... I think :laughing11:)

[Starman]

The problem arises when non-dualism is asserted to be 'truth' or 'truer' than dualism because it is not. Non-dualism is just an alternative to dualism, an alternative mode of consciousness. It is uncommon and not useful in certain contexts where dualism is useful. The non-dualistic mode is useful in rest and/or to detach from 'the world around oneself' because it disappears and the 'purity' can experience itself.
The non-dualistic mode is often said to be "truer" because oneness is perceived more readily and many, if not most, feel that oneness is our truest state of being, and it is considered pure because it is viewed as a solitary flow or vibration and not a combination or variation of vibrations.

In this world the primordial vibration manifests in various different ways giving the illusion of duality, and as duality is frequently perceived as an "illusion" some see it as "less true." Although illusion does not mean it is not real, or true, it just means that it is illusive and highly changeable. The actual spiritual foundation of our being is much more steady, stable, an solid, than that which is on the surface.

[Ground]

The non-dualistic mode is often said to be "truer" because oneness is perceived more readily and many, if not most, feel that oneness is our truest state of being, and it is considered pure because it is viewed as a solitary flow or vibration and not a combination or variation of vibrations.
From my perspective non-dualistic mode excludes oneness as it excludes manyness because 'one' depends on 'many'.

In this world the primordial vibration manifests in various different ways giving the illusion of duality, and as duality is frequently perceived as an "illusion" some see it as "less true." Although illusion does not mean it is not real, or true, it just means that it is illusive and highly changeable. The actual spiritual foundation of our being is much more steady, stable, an solid, than that which is on the surface.
From my perspective duality is not illusion. What is similar to an illusion however is the way phenomena appear to be real or true or to exist from their own side.

[Starman]

From my perspective non-dualistic mode excludes oneness as it excludes manyness because 'one' depends on 'many'.

From my perspective duality is not illusion. What is similar to an illusion however is the way phenomena appear to be real or true or to exist from their own side.
I respect that different people have different perspectives on this. The words which we use and how we
understand those words, in my opinion, has a lot to do with how we see things. I do not embrace that the
concept of one can not exist without the concept of many. One can exist without two but two can not
exist without one. Divine truth is singular and not dependent on anything else. Actually the words which we
use are inadequate to describe non-duality. Regardless, non-duality does not exist because of duality and
that is one reason why I reject that one-ness can not exist without many-ness. Often I use synonyms to
better understand words related to a concept. For instance here are some synonyms for the concept of
one-ness.

Connective-ness
Union
Harmony
Joined
Attunement
Unification
Atonement
Wholeness
Love
Cooperation
Holiness
Agreement
Concordance
Symmetry
Combination
Singleness
Accord
Radius of a circle
Continuity
Balance
Consistency
Totality
Solidarity
Oneness

There are written and spoken languages which have no concept, translation, or a similar word to the words
which we use who speak English. The more we elaborate on something, or interpret something, the further
away from that something we get. We can get to a point where all we have is our concept, or interpretation,
of that something and not that something itself. Higher truths exist in silence as they transcend thoughts and
words; yet verbal discussion and mental speculation on these truths can be useful. :smile:

[Ground]

...Actually the words which we
use are inadequate to describe non-duality.
As soon as language is applied there is necessarily duality. Every name assigned necessarily implies its opposite because what called X is necessarily different from non-X.


Regardless, non-duality does not exist because of duality ...
Here I cannot agree because non-X obviously depends on X.

[A human Being]

Here I cannot agree because non-X obviously depends on X.
But isn't that the illusion of duality? That there's a distinction between X and non-X, when in fact they're one and the same?

From my perspective non-dualistic mode excludes oneness as it excludes manyness because 'one' depends on 'many'.
I'm also curious as to how you've arrived at this conclusion? I might be missing something, I thought non-dualism and oneness were synonymous.

[Ground]

But isn't that the illusion of duality? That there's a distinction between X and non-X, when in fact they're one and the same?
Well, you may of course reject all language conventions and e.g. call a car 'apple' although an apple is not a car and a car is not an apple. But I would not call it an illusion that you can drive a car but not an apple and eat an apple but not a car.

I'm also curious as to how you've arrived at this conclusion? I might be missing something, I thought non-dualism and oneness were synonymous.
According to my experience 'oneness' isn't the appropriate expression because it affirms what isn't in non-duality. 'Oneness' from my perspective refers to an imagination of something which contradicts the fact that there is no 'something' in non-duality because any 'something' would refer to an object. Some call it 'ineffable' but then they make many words about it as if what they can imagine and express with words would be rightly called 'ineffable'.

[Starman]

As soon as language is applied there is necessarily duality. Every name assigned necessarily implies its opposite because what called X is necessarily different from non-X. Here I cannot agree because non-X obviously depends on X.

X and non-x are mathematical concepts, non-duality is not a concept. Concepts are mental constructs with borders, a mental framework. Non-duality is an experience which has no opposite, no framework, no borders, etc. Non-duality is not objective; in fact it is all encompassing. I am expressing here as best I can what I have experienced of non-duality, so this is my truth as best I can explain it. The finite may be dependent on the infinite but the infinite can exist without the finite. Opposites can only exist in duality; they do not exist in non-duality. Non-duality is not the opposite of duality rather duality is contained within non-duality and not along side, or opposite of it; in my humble opinion. But regardless of our differing points of view I do thank you for the discussion.

[Ground]

non-duality is not a concept.
you cannot apply a concept and say that it isn't a concept. A concept is the meaning concomittant to a linguistic expression applied.


Non-duality is an experience which has no opposite
Non-duality is not duality. That is the meaning of 'non-duality'. In that sense is what is non-X the opposite or - maybe better - negation of X.
X here is just a variable standing for any designator/name.

[Starman]

you cannot apply a concept and say that it isn't a concept.
Yes I can, because the word "non-duality" may be a concept, but me sharing of my experience of what I call non-duality is not.:smile:

[Moonglow]

Hello,

I just have a curiosity.

What is with in Oneness? Is all inclusive in this?
If so then would think would be inclusive of both the dualities and non-duality and there is neither, just what is.
If not then would think there is no Oneness, but individual expression.

Will admit though, that this is a bit of a mind game. For it is attempting to disguise between multiple perspectives of things and the connections found/ observed/realized or not.

In living life notice there is both the individual expression and connections with in these. It may be all stems from a common source, but in their expressions and one perspectives of such there appears to be diversity. All, becoming and within the consciousness, IMO.

If not all with in the consciousness, then would anyone be aware of such in order to point out there is or isn't this or that/ this and that?

[Starman]

I agree Moonglow, it is a bit of a mind game.:D

[Ground]

Yes I can, because the word "non-duality" may be a concept, but me sharing of my experience of what I call non-duality is not.:smile:
Of course you can use language as you like.

[Starman]

Of course you can use language as you like.
"Nothing in the universe is what we call it here on Earth."
The Tao

[Ground]

I'd say one may apply language rationally, i.e. consistently, or irrationally, i.e. inconsistently ... here on earth, among humans :wink:

[Starman]

I'd say one may apply language rationally or irrationally :wink:
I perceive God, or the universe, as transcending reason or rationality. To me God is unreasonable; that is to say beyond human reasoning.
What humans call "rational" or "irrational" depends on perspectives and personal opinions.:wink:

[Ground]

Rationality is divine. :smile:

[Starman]

Rationality is divine. :smile:
Rationality is rationality, and divine is divine.:smile:

[Ground]

Rationality is rationality and divine is divine.:smile:
This is not wrong and does not contradict that rationality is divine. Why?
Because what is divine is not necessarily rationality.
However what is rationality is necessarily divine.
So 'rationality' and 'divine' are not mutually inclusive.

[Starman]

This is not wrong and does not contradict that rationality is divine. Why?
Because what is divine is not necessarily rationality.
However what is rationality is necessarily divine.
So 'rationality' and 'divine' are not mutually inclusive.
There are those who think it is rational to kill people; one person's freedom fighter (rational) is another persons' terrorist (irrational).
Rationality is often a rationalization, and rationalizations are often ego defense mechanisms. A lot of people do things on impulse, without
a rationale, and then rationalize what they did later. In my opinion rationality belongs to the human mind and not the divine spirit. But that's
just my opinion.:smile:

[Starman]

Merry Christmas to you Ground. It's after 7:am here and I need to get away from this computer. God's Speed my friend.:smile:

[Ground]

There are those who think it is rational to kill people; one person's freedom fighter (rational) is another persons' terrorist (irrational).
Now you are changing the context. Of course there are numerous instances of rationality since there are numerous goals. One instance of rationality is always linked to one goal or one set of goals.
The original context was language and its use. Rational use of language implies that the goal is that language is used consistently. One aspect of linguistic consistency is that a designator X excludes all designators non-X, i.e. an object is identified through excluding what it is not.
So this is the philosophical analytical approach which according to my experience entails clarity and removes confusion. Of course you are free to use language as you like. However at some point our communication necessarily becomes impossible since we are applying different rules or standards to the words we are using.


Rationality is often a rationalization, and rationalizations are often ego defense mechanisms. A lot of people do things on impulse, without
a rationale, and then rationalize what they did later.
No, here you are confusing 'rationality' and 'rationalization'. At the beginning of any instance of rationality there is necessarily 'setting the goal'. Once the goal is set it is determined what is considered to be rationality and what is not to be considered rationality.



In my opinion rationality belongs to the human mind and not the divine spirit. But that's just my opinion.:smile:
you are coming from a different direction, i.e. your concept to the word 'divine' is obviously different from mine.

Merry Christmas to you Ground.
Thanks. The same to you.

[FallingLeaves]

it seems there may be some confusion between the concept 'what things are' and the concept 'what one perceives them to be'.

[Ground]

it seems there may be some confusion between the concept 'what things are' and the concept 'what one perceives them to be'.
you are assuming that 'what things are' is independent of 'what one perceives them to be'?

[FallingLeaves]

you are assuming that 'what things are' is independent of 'what one perceives them to be'?

you have me laughing, what a good question! Because obviously I made a dualistic statement there :smile: But I guess in response I would have to say, if you don't study the tangled yarn you may not be able to see to untangle it :smile:

[A human Being]

Yeah, this is why I generally steer clear of this sub-forum.

Baffling, truly baffling.

[Ground]

But I guess in response I would have to say, if you don't study the tangled yarn you may not be able to see to untangle it :smile:
Maybe the yarn isn't inherently tangled from the outset?

[FallingLeaves]

yeah on the one hand maybe the yarn isn't inherently tangled and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, on the other hand maybe it is tangled worse than even I think and I'm making it look prettier than it is to be vain. Do you have a way for me to know the difference?

[Ground]

yeah on the one hand maybe the yarn isn't inherently tangled and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, on the other hand maybe it is tangled worse than even I think and I'm making it look prettier than it is to be vain. Do you have a way for me to know the difference?
Knowledge can be transferred by means of linguistic expressions. E.g. if you throw a stone it will - sooner or later - fall to the ground. This is knowledge, verifiable by everybody.
Then there is belief. Belief cannot be transferred by means of linguistic expressions because the linguistic expressions of belief are not verifiable by everybody.
Then there is certainty. Certainty also cannot be transferred by means of linguistic expressions because the linguistic expressions of certainty are not verifiable by everybody.
So it seems that I do not have a way to transfer knowledge about the difference to you.
I can only express my certainty that the yarn and all its characteristics are (exist) dependent only on conceptual imputation.

[FallingLeaves]

Knowledge can be transferred by means of linguistic expressions. E.g. if you throw a stone it will - sooner or later - fall to the ground. This is knowledge, verifiable by everybody.
Then there is belief. Belief cannot be transferred by means of linguistic expressions because the linguistic expressions of belief are not verifiable by everybody.
Then there is certainty. Certainty also cannot be transferred by means of linguistic expressions because the linguistic expressions of certainty are not verifiable by everybody.
So it seems that I do not have a way to transfer knowledge about the difference to you.
I can only express my certainty that the yarn and all its characteristics are (exist) dependent only on conceptual imputation.


certainly 'yarn' is a metaphor for something else... I in no means intended to impart that there is either a physical or symbolic yarn that you would actually untangle in the same way that real yarn gets tangled. But yes I would agree, whatever I might think of the 'yarn' and where it comes from and what to do with it is full of me just fantasizing about what I see, and trying to make meanings out of nothing. I wish sometimes I could just calm down :smile:

[Ground]

I wish sometimes I could just calm down :smile:
yeah being conscious may be troubling or annoying sometimes, but that's the way it is. So called 'pure' consciousness, i.e. non-duality, on the other hand is an ideal 'place' of rest. It is different from a merely calm state since a calm state can be achieved by means of concentrating on an object (shamatha meditation), i.e. a dual approach. I do consider non-duality a reset of consciousness, back to zero, providing the opportunity to newly set out for a different kind of duality.

[Starman]

This morning in quiet meditation I disappeared or at least it felt like I did not exist, yet I did exist,
because I was still observing the world around me. I say I disappeared because I could not feel my
physical body or anything else; all I could feel was an incredible sense of peace and that peace was
full, thick, deep, and encompassed all of my being. An extremely comfortable and deeply silent peace
was the only thing which existed. No thoughts, no words, just a very deep inner silence which has
lasted throughout my day. For me this was a wonderful experience of "pure consciousness." A
consciousness not cluttered with words, thoughts, or boxed feelings, an incredibly wonderful and
freeing experience. That silent peace within is so sweet and that sweetness is a prelude to the
experience of intoxicating, overwhelming, divine love, an overwhelming silent love washing over me
from within my own being. All of us have so much that is available to us if we so desired to embrace it.
Observing life, without interpretation, can be a very beautiful experience. :biggrin:

[ajay00]

Conceptual thinking cease to exist and all IS. No contender for the push or pull, being steps forward, regains a dominant hold over mind, ever so brief.

This is very well put. :smile:

No pushes or pulls, likes or dislikes, cravings and aversions to create turbulence and create duality at the expense of the unitary consciousness which sees unity in diversity.

[jimrich]

Still kinda baffles me, tbh, because it appears that there is duality - the creator and the created, the permanent and the impermanent.
I see non-duality as saying thee is only the creator or Awareness and the "created" is just an aspect of the creator - there are not two - a creator and it's creations. It's all the creator or Awareness (and it's objects which are also Awareness.) Same with permanent. It is and it isn't!
My current "grasp" of non-duality is that everything is both real and unreal, permanent and impermanent, here and not here and it seems like a paradox that my limited mind/imagination simply cannot "get" other than to use space as a pointer.

[wstein]

I see non-duality as saying thee is only the creator or Awareness and the "created" is just an aspect of the creator - there are not two - a creator and it's creations. It's all the creator or Awareness (and it's objects which are also Awareness.) Same with permanent. It is and it isn't!
My current "grasp" of non-duality is that everything is both real and unreal, permanent and impermanent, here and not here and it seems like a paradox that my limited mind/imagination simply cannot "get" other than to use space as a pointer. As a more concrete example of the above, consider a coin as an analogy. One might say a coin is dualistic as it has a heads side and a tails side. Someone else may see a coin as tri-listic, having a heads, tails, and edge. But those designations are only in your/their consciousness/mind. The actuality of the coin is that it is just one (unified) coin. The coin's nature is not defined by the labels you assign to it.

[Singum]

Everything is dependent on everything in some way. If we anchor our world view to a belief that something won't change and is independent of other phenomena, our world becomes very unstable because we are anchoring to something that definitely will change.
A non-dualistic view avoids this because it just plainly see's the interdependence without grasping at this or that.
We should avoid having a view of consciousness that forgets its interdependence that, for me, is pure.