What non dual Awareness mean to me?

I thought it would be good to share views on non dual awareness and its meaning. I think this is a very dynamic thing that will vary greatly between individuals. And therefore it is my hope in this thread is that others will share that we may all benefit from each other. So I'll kick off ...

For myself the recognition of non dual AWARENESS comes largely from how the senses present with the qualities they do. I think this observation is an insight into the illusion of experience. Why or how does the colour blue, an audible tone or touch present to awareness in the manner they do? ( If you do know, please tell!) I am not considering photons or sound waves rather the quality of the presenation to consciousness. No doubt there many other sense qualities unknown to homo sapien, I often wonder how these can present. If thought is considered a sense, it is the only sense we have a hope of explaining. Thought with memory and pattern recognition operates in a manner we can "comprehend". And it is with this simpler thought sense, Awareness is denied by limiting the richness of experience into the logistic realm of thought. The recognition of Awareness is an acceptance that all these presentations of experience are just that. That these experiential presentaions cannot be isloated when they all put in an "appearence" in the same "space". It is the focusing on experiences that denies this "space" or Awareness and its majesty. A Majesty beyond explanation.

[edited - added lots of words]

Hey Gary!

Nice topic. I won't address the topic directly at this time, as I have made several presentations on the other thread. I would like to address it from the other side of the coin - from the perspective of Arhat.

"That you see realizing this natural, luminous, integrated field as some sort of body building exercise rather than the simple truth of things seen as they are is interesting. Tell me more about how you view that as body building rather than things as they are at their most basic and simple. I am not talking about method, which is another topic, but result, which is simply the way things are if seen clearly as they are." - Daniel Ingram.

I would love to hear from Dan and Kenneth as to their phenomenological experience of Arhat-hood. Specifically, I am interested in, as Dan has described above, if he ever gets distracted from this view? His view/experience sounds like non-dual awareness and Rigpa and I am wondering on what basis it would be excluded as an example of not being Rigpa. I guess that falls to Kenneth. Is it because there is no direct realization of the luminous, empty nature of cognizance or awareness itself? Rather, it is a realization of the emptiness of phenomena. Perhaps both emptiness and cognizance are seen to be inseparable - non-dual - so there is no need to point out luminous cognizance as the empty nature of all things / phenomena? We need more information from all parties to move forward.

[cont.] edited for clarity

It would seem we have a definition of Arhat as the completion of the four-path model defined as the completion of the energetic circuit and permanent access to corresponding strata of mind and emptiness in real-time. Does this necessitate access to permanent non-dual awareness, with intermittent, temporary distraction from this view and realization in real time? Permanent no-self - just empty luminous cognizance?

Seeing reality without a center presumably follows from completion of the circuit, is this the same as non-dual awareness and Rigpa? When I realize Rigpa, luminous cognizance is its dominant feature and all is an empty phenomenological presentation of that luminosity or basic awareness. There is pristine clarity with no center and there is phenomenology with no-thing; all is just Isness or suchness - inseparable and non-dual. From what Dan has been saying in the above quote and others earlier in the other thread, it is looking like he is speaking of the same thing.

Is this the same for the phenomenology of Arhat?

It seems we have a lot of ambiguity with all of the definitions. Can we resolve this?

In kind regards,

Adam.

Then there is the question of suffering. Not pain of course, but the experience of rejecting, resisting and judging one's experience, and the suffering that follows this. This is not possible in Rigpa - all is simply experienced in its perfect suchness that is fully cognizant of its particularity and uniqueness; and as such there is no struggle to push it away or to grasp after something else - there is perfect ease in simply what is; and an intrinsic joy and perfection of 'being'. Is this found to be present as the 'mostly permanent' condition of the Arhat? It would seem not according to off-the-cuff statements made by both Dan and Kenneth. Rigpa as so defined might be considered a limited emotional range model by some; as when in Rigpa proper, this is not possible. One can and does fall into distraction, however. Which is to say, when one has fallen into distraction, one is not in Rigpa, and so may suffer due to aversion and grasping. One later returns to Rigpa. Is this true for the realization of Arhat too?

So, here we can see it is a question of result / fruit / realization - are they the same? Not a question of process, methods, path and development. Are they both non-dual awareness? Are they both the 'same' non-dual awareness?

In kind regards,

Adam.