Consciousness/Awareness, Mind, No Mind

My perspective is simple. For the purpose of analysis let's say there's consciousness/awareness and there's mind. I suppose we can say there's consciousness, mind and consciousness + mind (call it reflected consciousness or mind illumined by consciousness) .

But is this really accurate? That is mind is only mind in the sense we perceive because it's movements are illumined by consciousness and then Ahamkara - which is just more movements - appropriates it as its own, saying "I am conscious/aware".

An experience I can relate is that of deep effortless meditation such as choicelss awareness/just sitting where when the timer goes off it seems like the sitting just began. From mind's perspective it's like a blink of the eyes because movements cease, however there's an absolute "knowing" of continuity of consciousness even though there's no actual memory of "inside" the sitting as indicated by it seeming like a blink of the eyes. It's what Advaita would say of deep and dreamless sleep - an experience of absence - only it's very apparent, much more than knowing you slept like a log.

So it seems to me that "knowing" always is, regardless of mind or no-mind. This is where language just doesn't cut it and why I put "knowing" in quotes, and I tend to use both consciousness and awareness to refer to that "knowing". Is there mind without consciousness? Is there consciousness with or without mind? I would say No and Yes respectively.

In closing I suppose I'm interested in That "knowing" present regardless of mind/no-mind and the tricky thing is to Realize it's the exact same "knowing" in both cases. Of being able to "taste" that "knowing" in the presence of mind .

Anyway at this point in time and considering the above I conclude there's only Consciousness. Call it Chit and Sat & Ananda are not seconds.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

So it seems to me that "knowing" always is, regardless of mind or no-mind. This is where language just doesn't cut it and why I put "knowing" in quotes, and I tend to use both consciousness and awareness to refer to that "knowing".

The problem with the mind is that it's binary and that doesn't help. So it's either 'this' or 'that', signal or no signal but it can't be both nor neither. 'No-mind' is mind posing non-existence so you're still in the same mibd-based paradigm.

We've discussed this before and the word you're looking for is Gnosis, which is knowing without knowing how you know. And there's also an Advaita equivalent that I can't remember the name of. You can have the 'normal' mind processes going on while, in parallel, you can have the Gnosis that is beyond the mind. There is no either/or, there is just focus on one or the other.

Anyway, who says that consciousness can't be fundamental and emergent at the same time? What are the reasons that consciousness can't encompass - good word that, 'encompass' - the consciousness of mind and the consciousness of no-mind? Past the differentiated consciousness of the ego/Ahamkara it's all consciousness just the same.

"Sat denotes being beyond Sat and Asat. That is, Reality denotes being
beyond Reality and Unreality.
Chit denotes being beyond Chit and Achit. That is, Consciousness denotes
beyond Consciousness and Insentience.
Ananda denotes being beyond Ananda and Ananandha. That is, Bliss
denotes beyond Bliss and Unhappiness."

If you want to understand Brahman you have to think like Brahman. Metaphorically. Or change the words, change the paradigm. There is no 'That' knowing presence there is only 'This' knowing presence.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Anyway, who says that consciousness can't be fundamental and emergent at the same time? What are the reasons that consciousness can't encompass - good word that, 'encompass' - the consciousness of mind and the consciousness of no-mind? Past the differentiated consciousness of the ego/Ahamkara it's all consciousness just the same.

That's exactly what I'm saying except the emergent is no thing other than the fundamental illumining vritti (modification of mind). Ahamkara (also vritti) creates the emergent by appropriating the fundamental as its own. "I am conscious".

In the presence of vritt we have mind. In the absence of vritti we have no mind. In both states there's Consciousness of presence and absence of vritti.

[saurab]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

In the presence of vritti we have mind. In the absence of vritti we have no mind. In both states there's Consciousness of presence and absence of vritti.

You are right, but to say there is no mind when there is no vritti is not exactly accurate. One can say that in the absence of vritti there is no mental activity (but vritti IS mental activity in some sense).

Even the body has a mind of it's own, in the sense that it remembers traumatic physical occurrences. The body is also intelligent so it can heal from those traumatic occurrences given some time and care.

Now, awareness is who we really are, and consciousness is progressive, in the sense that even animals have some consciousness. every living thing has consciousness,. but only enlightened people have raised their consciousness to the level of Pure Awareness. (forgive me for using the word consciousness and the word awareness in this way. you can
reverse the usage of the two words).

so, kundalini is the potential energy and the chakra upto which it rises determines the kind of consciousness the person has or is capable of at this moment.

Originally Posted by saurab

You are right, but to say there is no mind when there is no vritti is not exactly accurate. One can say that in the absence of vritti there is no mental activity (but vritti IS mental activity in some sense).

In the absence of vritti mind retreats into its seed state, i.e. its causal state. The causal body. A good analogy would be potential energy (no vritti) vs. kinetic energy (vritti).

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

In the presence of vritt we have mind. In the absence of vritti we have no mind. In both states there's Consciousness of presence and absence of vritti.

In the presence of Gnosis - or whatever you want to call it - then there's consciousness. And I'm being careful here because 'conscious of' implies the Duality of consciousness and 'object', but then the 'presence' of Gnosis also implies an 'object'. It's more to do with focus rather than 'swopping out' one or the other, because we have both mind and no-mind 'active' at the same time. What does happen is that one or the other becomes more predominant depending on the attention we pay to it.

The mental activity never really stops, the human brain is 'designed' the be constantly processing information so we don't get munched on by lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Humans are 'designed' for survival because if we didn't survive there would be no Spirituality. Spirituality is a 'by-product'.

And is the absence of vritti not vritti? If there was no vritti we couldn't think "Ok look, no vritti."

While in the context of a Spiritual ideology it can be cool, but often for getting around daily it's space cadet stuff. As Groucho Marx said, "I don't like reality very much but it's the only place I can get a decent meal." Yeah, that Groucho Marx. I think this is where a lot of Spirituality falls over, because in so many states - no vritti, non-Duality, egoless... - there is no perception of being in any of those states because 'I am' isn't present. If there is no 'I am' then there is no "I am vritti-less."

So while you're focussing on the subject of mind vs no-mind, is there something beyond that?

Is this thread vritti?

Originally Posted by Greenslade

So while you're focussing on the subject of mind vs no-mind, is there something beyond that?

Yes, That which "knows" mind and no-mind. The difficulty is defining "knows" because It can't be objectified. The eye trying to see itself, so to speak. It "knows" it is by the very nature of seeing. The implication is both mind and no-mind can be objectified else no-mind would be non-existent. Then again that's a question of level of reality. LOL!

It is said Maya cannot be said to be unreal because it appears, yet it cannot be said to be real because it's destroyed by knowledge. No-mind falls squarely under Maya.

[hazada guess]

I'm glad you said that JASG.*That which "knows" mind and no-mind.* That is the main thing I'm concerned with. What is that which know's and where does it come from?

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

...The implication is both mind and no-mind can be objectified else no-mind would be non-existent. ... No-mind falls squarely under Maya.

It would help if you clarify what you mean by no-mind.

Do you mean the state of having an empty mind, the absence of thoughts arising? This still pertains to the worlds of form.

Or do you mean the state of Being beyond mind, that state of formlessness before mind comes into existence. Formlessness is not the same as non-existent.

Peace

Originally Posted by iamthat

Do you mean the state of having an empty mind, the absence of thoughts arising?

I mean the seed or causal mind state as in deep and dreamless sleep and I'm also using the Vedantic understanding of mind: Buddhi, Manas, Chiita & Ahamkara.