The Body is Not You

...

What happens when awareness sees all objects (sensations, feelings, mind states, thoughts/images, the sense of existence) as "not me" ?

I used to think something like this, agreeing with your every sentence. Nowadays, I doubt that the last is true. There is no awareness "where" things occur. There are just things occurring, and that's it. Of course, this is just the "no-self versus true-self" all over again But if there is no awareness, then you could very well say, if anything is you, it is your body and brain, and indeed perceptions really do occur, rather than "seem" to occur.

Daniel Ingram has a great chapter on this in his book, with title "No-self versus True-self". He basically suggests keeping both perspectives in hand for whenever necessary. I like that.

"I used to think something like this, agreeing with your every sentence. Nowadays, I doubt that the last is true. There is no awareness "where" things occur. There are just things occurring, and that's it. Of course, this is just the "no-self versus true-self" all over again But if there is no awareness, then you could very well say, if anything is you, it is your body and brain, and indeed perceptions really do occur, rather than "seem" to occur.

Daniel Ingram has a great chapter on this in his book, with the same title."

BrunoLoff -- I t hink in the last sentence "You are the awareness in which these perceptions 'seem' to occur" Leo is saying that the perception of "I" or that all the objects are "you" only seems to occur, not all the perceptions themselves. So possibly you do agree.

"There is no awareness "where" things occur. There are just things occurring, and that's it. "

There is more to it than that, because there are natural groupings for the occurrence of things. Let's take as an example Feeling 1, Feeling 2, Feeling 3. I experience Feeling 1 and 2, and you experience Feeling 3. What does that mean? Somehow Feeling 1 and 2 are in the same group, which is a different group from the one Feeling 3 belongs to.

What is it that makes a group what it is? Feeling 1 and 2 belong to the same group because they are experienced by the same subject. Feeling 3 is in a different group because it is experienced by a different subject. These distinct subjects could be called distinct awarenesses "where" things occur.

...

...

...

"Bruno,

Don't trust me, don't trust Kenneth, don't trust Daniel. It's easily verifiable. Let go of concepts and practice. Then you'll know.

Out."

Michael, this is hilarious, because I was just thinking of posting this:

"Bruno, don't trust me, don't trust Michael, don't trust Daniel, and above all don't trust your own thoughts. Just continue to practice and all will be revealed."

"Michael, this is hilarious, because I was just thinking of posting this:

"Bruno, don't trust me, don't trust Michael, don't trust Daniel, and above all don't trust your own thoughts. Just continue to practice and all will be revealed."

"

That's funny, because I was just gonna post:
"Bruno, How can you know? I dunno, but I don't really trust my opinion on this, i'm waiting for it to be revealed"

ha ha

" there's a comfortable distance between awareness and all that you formerly thought was 'you" - the choice of perspective."

There is no distance at all. Awareness is not anything, nor is it other than anything. Awareness which is other is not Awareness. Awareness which is a thing is not Awareness. Awareness is not a ground. Awareness is not a transpersonal witness. Emptiness is the embodiment of Awareness. But what can be said of Awareness itself...?

When I am a body, I am a body.
When I am a sensation, I am a sensation.
When I am a feeling, I am a feeling.
When I am a state of mind, I am a state of mind.
When I am thoughts and images, I am thoughts and images.
I am not other than the sense of existence, of "I". I am I.
When I am not, I am not.
When I neither am nor am not - what can be said?

There are no mistakes of perception. Perception is reality, and reality is without flaw. Things are not other than as they are.

But there is confusion. There is dukkha.

"These are just mistakes of perception.
"

If it is perceived it is not you, therefore there can be no mistakes in perception.

But I think I got your meaning, perception is just perception.

[edit] added word.

...

Interesting. You reject the formulation, "when A is B, then A is B".

August have you really investigated this "being awareness" thing? Are you sure it is not just another sensation (specifically, if you do vipassana on it, note, note, note, will it eventually vibrate??

...

...

"Yes."

How is that answer, related to questioning everything, believing nothing and practicing?

No answer required!

Sorry, yes you are sure, or yes it vibrates?

...

"August have you really investigated this "being awareness" thing? Are you sure it is not just another sensation (specifically, if you do vipassana on it, note, note, note, will it eventually vibrate??"

Awareness come prior to that which engages in noting, or any other volitional activity for that matter. This is why Kenneth places the 2nd and 3rd gears "upstream" from first gear (vipassana).

To suppose that primordial awareness is just another sensation, and thus should be penetrated via the noting technique, is a classic example of a pre/trans-fallacy. As Alan Watts so often said, it's like trying to bite your own teeth, taste your own tongue, or touch the tip of your finger with the tip of the same finger. And this is why the hardcore materialist vipassana-only practitioners get stuck so often. They can't see the forest for the trees.

~Jackson

Yes, this is something I am starting to experience more regularly nowdays. When you peel back all the layers, even the layers of "I"/ the Witness, there is only space and awareness, awareness and space. I'm loving it!! Within/from/out of it is where everything seems to arise and pass away. The cup that holds all the water. But that cup is just pervading through everything and everywhere. I'm a 3rd gear convert!!

Edited to include: From there everything is seen to arise and pass away. Even the sense of Witness. This quote by Tilopa just rings so true to my experience now.

"The mind's original nature is like space; It pervades and embraces all things under the sun. Be still and stay relaxed in genuine ease. Be quiet and let sound reverberate as an echo. Keep your mind silent and watch the ending of all worlds..." Tilopa's Mahamudra Instruction to Naropa

"To suppose that primordial awareness is just another sensation, and thus should be penetrated via the noting technique, is a classic example of a pre/trans-fallacy... This is why the hardcore materialist vipassana-only practitioners get stuck so often. They can't see the forest for the trees."-Jackson

Right. Awareness cannot be taken as object, so it can't be investigated. Who would investigate it? Awareness is the source, all the way upstream, before the river diverges into forks and deltas. Awareness is prior to the arising of time, so it can't be said to change. Primordial awareness is known, but not by you. Awareness knows awareness. Whenever you are not distracted by subject or object there is still awareness. And since primordial awareness has not yet differentiated into subject and object, it is not other than all of manifestation.

The desire to "be at your own funeral" (Ram Dass) is what causes the confusion. If I think I can investigate awareness, as though I could somehow stand aside from reality and dispassionately observe it, I'll never recognize this most fundamental of realities. And if I insist upon a model of reality that isn't big enough, I'll keep making the mistake of shoe-horning primordial awareness back into some lower level of development. This is what is happening, for example, when Daniel insists that all talk of awareness is the province of anagamis and is seen through at arahatship. This is an example of the pre-trans fallacy Jackson mentions above. In order to subscribe to this theory, we would have to relegate the most essential teachings of Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Advaita Vedanta into the realm of the perpetually unenlightened. It makes no sense whatsoever. But it all results, predictably, from a model that isn't big enough and from trying to see everything through the lens of time.

Nick, you are right that there is awareness. Not so sure about space. Space doesn't really exist apart from the objects in it. Space is nothing. We can use the word, but it's a conceptual place holder. Tilopa uses the word "space" metaphorically.