How do I know myself as Consciousness?

[Goldcup7]

Enjoying the thread here. Thanks all. I believe the knowing that JASG refers to is that basic (also supreme) awareness. Knowing this experience is the awareness of it. This knowing can be considered as the heart and whole of the senses. It is not intellectual or learnt. It is experiencing.

Intellect and learning can point us to it. But it is right here all along.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The knowing you are talking about is a mix of #3-postulation or presumption and #5 non-apprehension or non-recognition or non-perception. One way of knowing is not any worse or better than any other way of knowing.

From a direct experience perspective it's # 5 alone - Advaita non-apprehension or non-recognition or non-perception, also known as anupalabdhi, is a concept in Indian philosophy, particularly in Advaita Vedanta and Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā. It refers to the knowledge or perception of the absence or non-existence of something.

In deep meditation and deep sleep when mind, time and space drop out it's knowledge of absence of things.

While fully awake it's knowledge of the non-existent nature of things.

Body & mind are also things.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

From a direct experience perspective it's # 5 alone
While fully awake it's

By all the quotes you post that came from someone else, I highly doubt you got it from #5 alone. Heck you even quoted someone else about knowing. You also got knowing from # 3 because you assume or believe the person you quoted about knowing is honest enough to believe what the person says and is correct about knowing

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

There are 2 things here .
First you seem to think that non-duality is a 24X7 365 days same levels of awareness state. This is incorrect.

Just because it in incorrect for you or from your point of view and experience, does not mean it is not correct for me or for anyone else. Non- duality should always be included in your awareness and perception 24x7x365, not just when you want during meditation or daydreaming. Otherwise, what is the point?

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

2nd You think non-duality is a bias of seekers like us and is a construct of our mind .

You are putting illusory words into my mouth. What I ment is the bias for non-duality infinite against the finite, while all finite things are non-duality infinite is a construct of your mind. In other words the seperation of the finite from the infinite is the construct of your mind.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

By all the quotes you post that came from someone else, I highly doubt you got it from #5 alone.

1 - 4 are ways of knowing in, of and by mind.
5 is a way of knowing beyond mind.

Concerning 1 - 4 where the philosophies, quotes, metaphors and analogies come into play, why not stand on the shoulders of giants like Adi Shankaracharya, Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, etc? Even if from that vantage my sight isn't as keen as theirs it will surely be keener than if I was standing on the ground.

Originally Posted by MikeS80

In other words the seperation of the finite from the infinite is the construct of your mind.

And of all minds. It's all mind has to work with and it's because of this that mind cannot know the Infinite, but only the religions, philosophies, quotes, metaphors and analogies pointing to It.

[Goldcup7]

Hmm, yes, so we see the difference between human knowledge and pure knowing. Human knowledge is the knowledge of things. Pure knowing is a deeper knowing, which is the innate intelligence of being.

Human knowledge of a tree is about what it has been called, how it is different to others, and how it works. Pure knowing of the tree does not see a separate tree.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

Why not stand on the shoulders of giants like Adi Shankaracharya, Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, etc?

My point exactly!

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Goldcup7

Human knowledge of a tree is about what it has been called, how it is different to others, and how it works. Pure knowing of the tree does not see a separate tree.

Exactly right you get it! Thanks for this! To expand on the tree example, you gave. The tree is not the illusion, ignorance, not real etc etc. The thoughts, one has that separates the tree ( from ultimate reality or all that is), is the illusion, ignorance, a dream, not real (in this context, not real, means not true) etc. Seeing the tree as not seperate, is non-duality in your awareness and perception. It is ignorance, misses the point, and makes zero sense for a person to say that seeing the tree as not being seperate is of the ego, intellect, materialism, of the mind etc, which people have been implying or said to me, ever since I joined this forum.

The point and goal of non-duality and it's teachings, is to not create duality in one's mind. The tree does not create duality in a persons mind just by the tree being a tree. Illusion, maya, ignorance, not real, a dream and all the other related words and labels are to be used in the context of all the thoughts that seperate any thing from ultimate reality, the thoughts that seperate a thing from ultimate reality is the thing that creates duality of the thing, in the person's mind.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by Goldcup7

Human knowledge is the knowledge of things. Pure knowing is a deeper knowing, which is the innate intelligence of being.

Like that innate feeling we are exactly the same throughout our lives regardless of all the changes the years have brought to body and mind. It might seem ordinary but is it, or is it the Extraordinary masquerading as the ordinary?

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

My point exactly!

For clarity's sake my point is many of the quotes, metaphors and analogies I use are from those giants and other masters. Incorporating them into my understanding and psyche and using them to convey a point is standing on their shoulders. Why reinvent the wheel?