Responses to "Consciousness and Primordial Awareness"

I do not observe that consciousness is present or can be said to be a condition discerned during cessation. I do not consider momentary cessation of conditions directly equatable to nibbana. Fully overcoming ignorance regarding conditions and the cessation of all desire for conditions is nibbana. The overcoming of ignorance includes penetrating insight and understanding of the 3 characteristics of consciousness and it also includes penetrating insight into the unconditional nature of cessation and so also includes the cessation of desire for consciousness. Without the overcoming of ignorance in these admittedly subtlest of respects, it is not possible for dispassion to arise and mature in relation to consciousness and it's qualities.

I apologize for the length and shortcomings in my effort to contrast my observations with the statements in the original essay. My presentation is not based on theoretical speculation or philosophical rhetoric. The understanding that I have presented is the product of insight practice in concert with concentration practice and is derived from my analysis of direct observations. I didn't offer it to serve as a basis for contentious debate but with the hope that it will serve as an indication of what can become understandable through direct insight into the qualities of the various forms of concentrated consciousness and the various qualitative functions of consciousness in relation to it's own conditionality. It is my hope that as a result meditators will be encouraged to do likewise, to replicate, surpass and correct my observations, insights and understanding. I do not think the potential for vipassana and samatha jhana can be easily overestimated and I think that these avenues to greater realizations and understandings should be vigorously pursued. I would like to encourage all to do so and to similarly freely share their observations for the benefit of everyone.

fin (honest)

Hi Nathan (it's Nathan, right? I haven't talked with you since the days of the old DhO and DhU).

I really appreciate your critique, as it is clear that you have a great deal more experience than me when it comes to Visuddhimagga style hard jhana and post-8th jhana cessation. There's no question in my mind as to whether what your describing is based on your own extensive experience, as I can surely see that it is. If I disagree with your critique in any way, it is due to the framework of the practice rather than your experience.

I do, in fact, take issue with framing this discussion within the Visuddhimagga jhana system. My reason being that the jhana system as described in the Visuddhimagga seems to occur within a narrow, self-contained vacuum. Bringing the mind to a state where all relative conditions cease, causing a total blackout (much like taking a hit to the head by a blunt object) does not, in my opinion, discredit the view or the experience of a primordial awareness that is distinguishable quality of, but not separate from, the unconditioned (or Absolute, if I may use that term). It is the non-duality of Emptiness (the Absolute) and form that makes recognition and knowledge of this primordial awareness possible.

(continued below)

(continued from above)

To use a simple, but rather imperfect analogy, a television that is unplugged from its power source no longer receives, transmits, and displays data coming from the broadcast waves. But does that mean the waves have ceased as well? No. In a similar way, when the conditions for individual consciousness cease, it in no way affects the primordial awareness which makes consciousness possible in the first place. And this awareness can be distinguished from relative consciousness in real-time, while one's individual conscious is on-line. At least that's what I'm proposing.

Anyway, I realize that this "Hinayana vs. Mahayana/Vajrayana" debate precedes us both by centuries and millennia. Still, it's one worth having. And again, I appreciate your thoughtful and informed comments.

~Jackson

hi Jackson

Yes, it is the same Nathan.
Again, I didn't intend my posts as a critique of other perspectives or as a Theravada rhetoric. My experience with hard Jhana and cessation predates my knowledge of the Vis. and Theravada doctrines by almost twenty years. In my case I turned to referencing both because it so faithfully matched what I had already encountered and provided indications of new avenues to pursue. Apart from that many people can refer to these sources as a common frame of reference. Imho many of the narrow interpretations of the core sutta teachings in the Vis. and other commentaries, old and new are flawed for various reasons. Similar things could be said about many things in the most Abhidhamma systems and so on. So I have a very open mind in regards to these kinds of highly defined systematic views on things and this goes far beyond Theravada.

I mention all this as a preface to saying that I don't take a traditionally systematic or model based kind of approach to examining consciousness. I have observed a lot of consciousness phenomena and this includes many of the kinds of consciousness that are described by others here in a variety of ways as non-dual consciousness, primordial consciousness and so on. So when I focus my concentrated consciousness in order for consciousness to examine its own qualities, I don't see this as occurring in any sort of a vacuum. There is a narrowing of focus in order to fully attend to the given qualities or conditions which I've recounted but it is not because my consciousness is not also capable of functioning and reflecting in most all of the other ways that people are describing.

cont.

When I focus attention on the transition from eighth jhana to cessation and back it is not at all the same as a blackout. In that respect you would be in agreement with the bhavanga interpretation proposed by Theravada Abidhamma and my observations do not concur with either presentation of this view. During cessation there is what might be loosely called a realization that consciousness has is in fact ceased to function in a conditional manner or have any conditional qualities. This would entirely support your view that if that there is some kind of unconditional consciousness. Still if that unconditional consciousness can then be made to function in some way in tandem with the other functional qualities of conditioned consciousness the unconditioned quality is still no more detectable by means of any quality in a conditional consciousness.

That may well be so despite the incapacity of conditioned consciousness to objectify the unconditional and it would explain what you and I and many others here experience. What I have presented are my findings, in an effort to focus my attentive and concentrated consciousness in order to find these things out. So far, I have consistently observed and re-observed everything to be specifically as I have reported. This is why I have presented my findings and what I think the findings indicate. I will continue to make every effort to observe anything which could indicate that there is some way that an unconditioned quality of consciousness can be consciously observed by consciousness in any way. But so far, no, I have not discerned it.

cont.

I can infer that the unconditioned or the absolute is the primordial source of all conditions. That not only consciousness in it's conditioned form but all other forms as well are all emergent conditions of that same unconditioned absolute. But apart from the abandoning of all conditions I find no other way to directly (and this term is again misleading) 'know' the unconditional. So, this is why I don't hold to any particular school of thought. I can entirely understand why people have the various perspectives that can be had on this. I would like to see more people like Ken and others with the capability bring more specific attention to the observable relationships between the conditional qualities and the unconditional absolute. I like you, Kenneth and many others have the sense of a vast unconditional 'presence' if you will. I don't disagree about this sense of the absolute nature of things. What I am reporting is what it has been possible to observe and report in these regards and not what it is not possible to observe or to report.

So if there is a contrast between our presentations it is the attention to precise detail and the resulting analysis and not for any other reason. My approach is, screw the Hinayana Mahayana debates and all the bs metaphysics. I ask what can we actually do and know with consciousness? This is what I have done with consciousness via concentration and detailed investigation and this is what I have observed and know so far.

I don't want to debate you Jackson or anyone but I deeply appreciate the everyone's participation in open discussions of our actual experience. Thank you
-nathan

Hi Nathan,

I apologize if it seemed as though I was trying to stuff your observations in to a box labeled "Visuddhimagga only." I did not intend to do so.

Your description of post-8th jhana cessation is fascinating to me, if I understand you correctly. You're saying it's not a total blackout - that there is, to some degree (however refined), of knowing. I'd love to hear more about your experience in this regard.

~Jackson

hi Jackson
No problem. These are the usual problems because these are the common references available. My hope is that what people like Daniel and Kenneth are facilitating is the basis for all of us to together develop more suitable frames of reference.

The transition from what I would call the arising of the primary qualitative condition of consciousness to no arising conditions and back again is something I have examined again and again. Everything else that we can infer about a dualistic or non-dualistic or any other representation of reality we might conceptualize is developed out from what is observable right at that point.

How I see this is that knowing is inadequate just as all terms are for describing what it is like when no conditions with no qualities whatsoever are arising and passing. There simply are no conditions or qualities. We are completely screwed by trying to define it or describe it. The unconditional defies that in every way.

Probably my best attempt to explain this is that the entire conditional universe from the microcosmic to the macrocosmic is the entire explanation. So we are screwed again when we try to take, as Cmarti would say, the long way around to right back where we are.

During cessation for however long this is in real time, there is no sense of knowing or known or time or space and so on. I find the same if I look for the unconditional expressed as conditions, there is no way to connect with it, as all non-dualists are saying, there are no absolute distinctions possible.

What I think is happening either way is that the unconditioned truly is the flipside of all things and so we don't have any way to apprehend it in any sense that could be called direct except for during a consciously premeditated cessation and that is very difficult for most of us to accomplish. But because it is the real nature of things, we can all sense the truth of it.

Maybe the best way I have found to think about it is that the unconditional knows the unconditional. In cessation it is absolute and obvious because all of the diversity expressed as conditions are gone. Conversely in the presence of conditions the unconditional is completely obscured. Somehow, someway, what all of us is variously working towards, be it in terms of awakening or communion with God or nibbana or AF or whatever is some kind of an awareness that incorporates a balanced sense of both the conditional expressions and the unconditional absolute. But can you see how all this talk contrasts with the kinds of specific observations I am trying to make? It is those more precise observations that I think can really lead to the kind of hard data that real scientists and the like could actually work with.

I think it is different during cessation than during unconsciousness because cessation has, again in a maddeningly indescribable way, something like an intensely pure kind of self consciousness. But again to say this in a way that only has real meaning for us in conditional terms creates completely misleading conceptualizations. It can't really be said that the unconditional has awareness of itself or anything else.

When I go to sleep I usually drift rapidly in the direction of what is easiest to refer to as a soft seventh jhana or absorption in no-thing-ness or what I would call the consciousness expressed as the quality of that primary volition to know absorbed in the quality of negation of all other potential objectifications. I usually don't dream or spend much time letting my consciousness screw around however it wants to. I lay down, get the resting done and then I get up and on with it. I suppose I could get someone to knock me out and really examine that carefully but I think it would be very similar but very hard on me. You have to hit me really hard to knock me out. So, probably not advisable. : )

-nathan

I think the same "things" are happening to people in all lineages and all traditions and we all interpret those things through the lens and concepts we happen to know. The results seem to be the same and it is the results that matter.

That said, you guys are talking the cool, big time.

(Excuse me for cross-posting this but the first response went to the wrong thread)

It looks like I arrived at the discussion a little late (I hope this is not the last word). I used the term "primordial awareness" in another forum, and was curious whether it was an actual phrase in common use. I'm not surprised to find that it is Buddhists who are using it.

I really don't see the distinction that is being made about regular consciousness having an object (via the senses) and primordial awareness being conscious of itself. To me it is one and the same process or mechanism. The primordial awareness is basically consciousness/awareness in a resting mode. The same consciousness, once active, has an object as a reference. This is not a philosophical point, but an observational one. Primordial awareness is the common denominator of humanity before culture and conditioning takes hold. Unfortunately, most are not able to rest in that awareness and must constantly engage the mind or senses in an orgy of activity.

Davalaw,

Do you think it is it possible for this awareness to be aware without an object?

From my limited understanding of Buddhism, I think "just sitting" (shikantaza) represents that simple primordial awareness where sense impressions just pass through and are not attended to. This is the resting state. Attending to a sense impression is then to focus on an object.

Fine, but without sense impressions occurring, where is it?

For example in Nirodha Samapatti, where is it? Where was it before you were born?

www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nirodha_samaapatti.htm

The Norodha Samapatti falls outside of my experience. It appears to be a goal of monks to attain and the Buddhist scholars to analyze. The issue, as I see it, is the attending or non-attending of sense impressions. Sense impressions occur whether we are aware of them or not and are processed in the absence of any awareness of them. For instance, while asleep, a loud noise will cause a measurable physiological response but we are not consciously aware of it. The ability to attend to sense impressions seems to be tied to a waking state. Whether this primordial awareness is the "always on" automatic response of the body or the conscious attention to sensory stimuli is certainly a debatable point. Perhaps it is both.

"The Norodha Samapatti falls outside of my experience. It appears to be a goal of monks to attain and the Buddhist scholars to analyze. The issue, as I see it, is the attending or non-attending of sense impressions. Sense impressions occur whether we are aware of them or not and are processed in the absence of any awareness of them. For instance, while asleep, a loud noise will cause a measurable physiological response but we are not consciously aware of it. The ability to attend to sense impressions seems to be tied to a waking state. Whether this primordial awareness is the "always on" automatic response of the body or the conscious attention to sensory stimuli is certainly a debatable point. Perhaps it is both."

The issue is indeed the attending or non attending of sense impressions. Nice!

Nirodha, upon taking as a means for insight and not a nice "side effect", has begun to teach the mind as it realizes those sensate impressions you refer to or as I am now calling tensions (or factors that condition the very state in the moment), that letting go is bliss. And that even consciousness is a subtle form of dukkha that when let go reveals the ultimate bliss of non-experience.

So, is this awareness an active agent in the activity of a bacteria then?

Seemingly the effect of a loud noise on a sleeping person can be explained in the same way that a hand can be pulled away from a hot flame before we are aware that we have put our hand there.

Would it be a plausible assumption that this feeling of being aware is intimately tied with the arising of consciousness (contact at the sense gates) and that in the absence of this contact there is no awareness.