Can you be aware without thought ?

Originally Posted by saurab

you are talking in well worn analogies and i asked you an English question. what is the relationship between memory (not mind) and consciousness ?

I suppose it depends on the tradition. I'm coming at it from the perspective of Advaita and from that perspective chitta, buddhi, manas and ahamkara are all things, temporary appearances of and within Chit. Chit (Consciousness) is not something and it's not nothing. It's No Thing.

As I understand even dualist systems like Yoga have this same understanding, the main difference being Yoga subscribes to many Chits while Advaita subscribes to one without a second.

[saurab]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I suppose it depends on the tradition. I'm coming at it from the perspective of Advaita and from that perspective chitta, buddhi, manas and ahamkara are all things, temporary appearances of and within Chit. Chit (Consciousness) is not something and it's not nothing. It's No Thing.

As I understand even dualist systems like Yoga have this same understanding, the main difference being Yoga subscribes to many Chits while Advaita subscribes to one without a second.

ok. let us clarify what is meant by each of these traditional terms and their inter-relationship in common english.

I googled for these terms and came across something interesting:

I quote from this webpage:
-----------------------------------------
1) Manas is your Conscious Mind and Buddhi is your Wisdom Faculty (saurab: i agree with this terminology)

2) Chitta is Subconscious Mind (saurab: let us take it as this but I dont know. Anyone reading this thread may please elaborate if he knows the meaning of the word chitta)

3) On the floor of Chitta, are stored Samskaras (memories, likes, dislikes,desires, habits) in dormant form (saurab: yes then chitta is subconscious mind)

4) Whenever any Samskaras get triggered, they become Vrittis (Subconscious thoughts). Samskaras get triggered due to Ahamkara

5) Ahamkara is false knowledge of self i.e. when we keep considering ourselves other than Atman (true self)

6) In this state of Ahamkara, Manas (Conscious mind) keeps continuously running under control of Vrittis (Subconscious Thoughts)

7) Both Conscious and Subconscious thoughts reflect as Emotions. Emotions block flow of Prana (life energy) which in long term causes diseases in Physical Body.

8) Manas keeps trying to calm down Emotions, by bringing solutions from external world through Sensory Pleasures.

9) Manas also runs to increase clarity of Buddhi. When you know something with utmost clarity, that means there is no further requirement to run conscious mind on that knowledge. That means clear knowledge brings Manas at peace. So whenever Subconscious pushes a confused knowledge to the screen of Manas, it starts running to remove that confusion.

10) Clear knowledge without confusion becomes Wisdom of Buddhi. Wisdom takes you towards ultimate freedom i.e. True knowledge of self. So Wisdom washes away Ahamkara (false knowledge of self)
-----------------------------------------------

okay, so memory itself is both peripheral and deeper in the various layers of the mind. also there are two things awareness and consciousness for lack of better words. focus not on the meaning of consciousness and awareness, but that there are two kinds of observing. One kind of observing is free from the mind and body, where as the other kind of observing is entangled in the mind and body/. I think this is fairly obvious.

At the lowest level of consciousness, we have the survival instinct. That survival instinct makes certain kinds of animals treat everyone as either a friend or an enemy, and every situation as a safe situation or a threat.

The second center is the sexual center. etc etc etc.

So, at every "level" of consciousness, we have a different way of looking at the world. And what is the relationship between awareness and survival consciousness ?

Survival consciousness is like looking with coloured glasses at the world. So awareness is still the substratum, but it is filtered down and corrupted by the time it "reaches" the survival consciousness way of looking at the world.

Now what is the relationship between memory and awareness ? There is no relationship between the two for awareness, but for memory there is a one-way relationship: namely, that memory is the by-product of awareness in the mind.

And what is the relationship between memory and consciousness ? Consciousness is made up of memory, which is the by-product of awareness in the mind.

-

You're still talking about mind and equating Consciousness to just another function of mind. It's like saying your reflection in a mirror is actually you.

What I'm saying is what you label consciousness is Consciousness illumining mind and then Ahamkara appropriating it as its own. I posses Consciousness. Consciousness is mine (the individual mind, the ego-self). It's like shining a flashlight on a surface in a dark room and then attributing the light to the surface and not the flashlight.

[saurab]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

You're still talking about mind and equating Consciousness to just another function of mind. What I'm saying is what you label consciousness is Consciousness illumining mind and then Ahamkara appropriating it as its own.

I think you are caught up in words and cannot look beyond them. I explicitly wrote that you dont have to consider the meaning of consciousness and awareness, but just consider that there are two ways of observing, one which is free from the body and mind, and the other which is not. But you are so attached to the meaning of the word consciousness from your tradition that even when told about the two ways of observing whatever you call them, consciousness or awareness, that you cant let go of the word.

The word is not the thing. The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon. the word "consciousness" is not consciousness. agreed we have to use words, but I explained that we dont have to consider the words consciousness and awareness too rigidly, but just consider that there are two ways of observing.

Also, I agree what you wrote that consciousness illuminates the mind.

I also wrote that consciousness is made up of mmory.

If you consider the two ways of observing, you will be able to know that the above two sentences are not contradictory. the word consciousness has been used in two different ways here (as I pointed out about the two ways of observing)

[saurab]

I think from your recent post that you have no deep understanding about consciousness and it's relationship to memory. You only have words gleaned from your tradition, and cannot look beyond the words even when explicitly stated that i am using the words consciousness and awareness loosely. If you really understood these things (beyond the words and their definitions) you would immediately be able to figure out what I MEAN when i use the word awareness or consciousness in one way of observing and when I mean it in another way of observing (which two ways of observing I explained through the example of survival consciousness and it's relationship to awareness)

Are you talking about the direct experience of a clap of hands vs. thinking about it after the fact? If so isn't the thinking about it after the fact directly experienced just like the actual clap of hands? That which "knows" a clap of hands also "knows" the after the fact thinking about a clap of hands. From my perspective the subtle objects (thoughts) are no different than gross objects (vision, sound, smell, taste, tactile).

What is the "knower" of mind? The Mind of the mind, Eye of the eye, Ear of the ear? From my perspective Chit, Consciousness, Awareness are That by different labels.

[saurab]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Are you talking about the direct experience of a clap of hands vs. thinking about it after the fact? If so isn't the thinking about it after the fact directly experienced just like the actual clap of hands?

of course. both are experienced directly. but thought obscures the awareness to some extent. For the Higher Self or atman, awareness is constant. but for us who are at a lower level, thought obscures awareness to some extent, even though even thought is directly observed.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

What is the "knower" of mind?

Interesting question. The mind is known by different subjects (not really but read on) at the same time. The mind can be an object of knowledge as well as the subject. So the mind can also know the mind. Then, the atman knows the mind, but the atman itself is unknowable. The atman can never be an object of knowledge. it is the subject.

also, by saying the the mind and atman both know the mind, i am not really positing two subjects, but two different modes of awareness, one clear, and the other muddy.

Take the case of taking a stroll in the park. your skin, which has some (borrowed) awareness KNOWS the park by the breeze that blows against it. your eyes experience the park in a different way. same with your ears and so on. None of these are the subject. The atman is the subject. But simultaneously with the atman, the skin, eyes, ears etc all of them are like pseudo-subjects because each of them are endowed with some awareness. The mind also has some borrowed awareness / consciousness and so it too experiences the park in it's own way just like a (pseudo)subject.

The whole point is to reach a level of awareness that is free from the body and the mind, and hence is free from all these pseudo subjects.

Getting back to "Can you be aware without thought?"

Yes, and I would say a careful examination of experience indicates we're always Aware regardless of mind state (waking, dreaming & deep sleep).

I notice it with particularly deep sittings in choiceless awareness. That's what Jiddu Krishnamurti called it but it's basically Shikantaza (just sitting), resting in awareness, do-nothing, effortless, etc... when the timer goes off seemingly just after starting. It's almost as if it was a blink of the eyes yet 30, 45 or more minutes transpired and there is a "knowing" of continuity of awareness, even when the mind was (mostly?) offline. Call it an experience of absence (of mind).

[Unseeking Seeker]

I’d like to present my personal view on this -

Without stressing on definitions, labels and interpretations, based on the gradual shifts within, of our innate aliveness, I’ll say, yes, it is indeed possible to abide in thought rested stillness, not only in meditation but in fact, as our ever present orientation.

Initially, what is called as meditation, is actually concentration. We focus on an object, real or abstract, doesn’t matter, a candle, a mantra, the breath perhaps ~ the common link is it’s repetitive nature. We may attain a hypnotic rhythm maybe, with a soothing, calming effect of well being. But it’s all concentration. There’s a subject and an object.

The transition from concentration (doer-centric) to meditation (void-centric) requires release, surrender, a letting go of mind-body impulse. Attention is poised, peaked, animated in vibrant is-ness of the linear time continuum, effortlessly and agendalessly, in an aspect of embrace and release, automatically. This requires our melding with, merging with, the omnipresent life current, which we need not label, although if the urge is compelling, we can call it Holy Spirit or kundalini or Chi or whatever.

The thinking process, which is important for our functioning in the external world is relegated to its position as an instrument of our being* (*I’m refraining from using terms like consciousness or awareness, since the idea is to cognise rather than debate). The instrument is used when needed, not otherwise.

Our presence accepts occupation of mind-body and the limitations imposed to feel earth life contrast fully. However, it also recognises it’s self-illumined boundaryless essence as a given, of what it is, of what we are.

So yes, we are in thought rested aliveness humming potentiality, connected with universal wisdom-mind singularity and also simultaneously experiencing duality through the body vessel, which too we are, for the moment.

There is no contradiction. We are where our attention is at. Our emptiness is vivified by bliss and peace, spacial and dimensionless, as an attribute in permanence. Likewise, we oscillate too, descending into stupor, into trance, to feel fully, the dance of polarities.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by saurab

i asked you an English question. what is the relationship between memory (not mind) and consciousness ?

seems to me like when I decide to 'forget', what I'm 'forgetting' is invisible pictures I've gotten use to drawing on my energy fields. The pictures are about my relationship to things and how I must act around them. Trying to breath without them was quite novel at first!