The Body is Not You

Yep, space is not the same as awareness (which really and truly just IS) and is only a useful concept we use to compare this thing to that thing location-wise. So space, like time, is relative.

"... a model that isn't big enough and from trying to see everything through the lens of time."

Oh man, that's such a great way to describe that error, Kenneth. Thanks!

"
"... a model that isn't big enough and from trying to see everything through the lens of time."

Oh man, that's such a great way to describe that error, Kenneth. Thanks!

"

Is the awareness happening over here with me right now the same or related in any way to the awareness over there going on with you?

To Kenneth and those who engage in 3rd gear:
Can that be going on while you're doing something or does it only happen once you're not doing anything (in the physical world)?

You limited awareness again! Fifty lashes with a wet noodle from SFZC for you, Mike.

"
You limited awareness again! Fifty lashes with a wet noodle from SFZC for you, Mike.

"

I don't get it.

"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."

The lion roars!

"Is the awareness happening over here with me right now the same or related in any way to the awareness over there going on with you? "

"Me" and "you"?

""Me" and "you"?"

yes me says to you

"I don't get it.
"

Right after I hit "post" I regreted asking the question because I knew that whatever response I got would be incomprehensible to me.
I'm really still at that point where I think what is seen is seen from a combination of senses within this body right here because at this point nothing else seems possible. But I have no, absolutely NO attachment to that view -- it's just what seems right at this moment. I'm fascinated by the idea that there is something called "promordial awareness" and hope I do understand it someday.

...

I know that it really isn't space cos I dont know how to describe it but for me and my limited vocabulary, like Tilopa, you try and explain it to as close as possible. I dont think ti is really something you could get an exact definition for. But when it clicks over, when the Witness drops away, it seems , and again I am using words that dont really explain it well, awareness or whatever it is pervades everything. And remembering it after the fact, I feel like aewarenss is ...well just IS like you all say. I shall refrain from talking about 3rd gear as it is something I could not describe well.

"Words, concepts and explanations are at best, indirect and inaccurate pointers to the Absolute. At the worst, they are misleading - leaving the yogi completely embedded in phenomena.

You cannot think your way to Awakening, Self-realization or Enlightenment.

Practice."

Now THAT sounds correct. Absolutely.

Mike, I was joking. I certainly didn't mean to embarrass or upset you. I'm sorry.

"
Mike, I was joking. I certainly didn't mean to embarrass or upset you. I'm sorry.

"

Dude.
No embarass, no upset.
No nothing but appreciation for you.

Disclaimer: the following argument is academic and not relevant to practice. It is intended for people like me without the common sense to enjoy their retirement.

Awareness is not upstream or downstream from anything. That is totally nonsensical. It is not at the beginning of the line, or somewhere out of site. It is not anywhere at all. There's nothing of the sort to look for, not because it is un-graspable, but because there's simply nothing of the sort to look for. In the seen is just the seen. In the self is just the self. Awareness is not other than awareness of.

Fixing Awareness at an inconceivable distance from conceptualization is still fixing Awareness. It is a safe-house for the ego, which finds permanence by conceptualizing a place beyond conceptualization. How convenient. And how ironic. What kind of truth is it that ignores the basis of truth: reason? How could such willfully blind reasoning be taken seriously? It is an affront to the perfectly conceived philosophy of Emptiness.

Mike - thanks.

"You cannot think your way to Awakening, Self-realization or Enlightenment."

I guess this attitude explains why enlightened people so often say stupid things.

Skillful contemplation is the most important part of the spiritual path. What do you think vipassana is, if not thinking?

"I guess this attitude explains why enlightened people so often say stupid things.

Skillful contemplation is the most important part of the spiritual path. What do you think vipassana is, if not thinking?"

That's not really true, O.M.H., though it is a common misconception.

Vipassana is about noticing, not thinking. Wisdom arises naturally as we pay attention to what occurs in each passing moment. If you spend your practice time actively contemplating concepts and philosophizing, you're not going to get anywhere. That's the honest truth.

Skillful contemplation occurs when one lets their own basic nature do the work. If you're think you're doing it, you're standing in your own way.

"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."

I would have left out the "not sure" bit. To re-state what Kenneth wrote.
In the manner space is a conceptual place holder so are all things. Space IS defined by its objects. The so called borders between space and objects are the exact same borders.

There is a saying that I maynot have exact, so I might be corrected on the wording.

"Most understand a drop of water merges with the ocean,
what should be understood is the ocean merging with the drop."

We naturally focus on objects but it is only a slight shift to focus on space and see it to be the same as its objects.

"There's nothing of the sort to look for, not because it is un-graspable, but because there's simply nothing of the sort to look for. In the seen is just the seen."-overmyhead

Hmmm...

Superficially plausible and you are on safe ground philosophically by repeating conservative Theravada doctrine. It does not, however, fit with observable reality (unless you limit observation to a particular mode). In other words, you can't find awareness because you are looking for it. It's a circular affair. But to assert that it doesn't exist is to reify the one who asserts.

All I can do is encourage you to keep practicing and never assume that you have the final answer, especially when vast contemplative traditions are built upon the very understanding that you deny. Maybe they know something you don't. It's worth knowing in advance that it is not you who will find awareness. When you go away, awareness is what is left. (If you don't go away, awareness is here anyway, but you are distracted.)

"What do you think vipassana is, if not thinking?""
Ooops! (what is that buzzer on jepoardy when you get a wrong answer?)
That is, to be blunt, so wrong.
I can think of a couple of ways in which thinking is a part of vipassana:
When one reads or hears the instructions and then endeavors to follow them; and,
when one notes that one is thinking.
(and not all vipassana involves mental noting, there have been a lot of vipassana masters who think mental noting is incorrect and ineffective)
But the moment(s) of insight that vipassana brings come when an object is seen in just the right way to be disembedded from it. And the moment occurs in a place at least temporarily not touched by thought.
And I don't think this process (the basic awakening process) is limited to vipassana -- it is also what is going on in zazen, in koan study, or many other forms of buddhist practices.

""What do you think vipassana is, if not thinking?""
Ooops! (what is that buzzer on jepoardy when you get a wrong answer?)
That is, to be blunt, so wrong.
I can think of a couple of ways in which thinking is a part of vipassana:
When one reads or hears the instructions and then endeavors to follow them; and,
when one notes that one is thinking.
(and not all vipassana involves mental noting, there have been a lot of vipassana masters who think mental noting is incorrect and ineffective)
But the moment(s) of insight that vipassana brings come when an object is seen in just the right way to be disembedded from it. And the moment occurs in a place at least temporarily not touched by thought. "

Wonderfully put, Mike.

And read Krishnamurti. Closely. His "choiceless awarenss" and "learning how to look" was always an attempt, I think, to help people learn how to create that non-verbal awareness insight moment as well.

Vipassana is all about doing. It requires a doer. But there is a bigger picture, a much richer picture, that is inclusive of that doer. It's really important to find that other perspective. Critical, I think. Without that larger context we can't benefit from the truly authentic heart-based part of the practice. That is where the Mahayana comes from. It's all good, and it all works together, which is why, overmyhead, from my angle on things it's better to have an open mind about other perspectives than to debate them as if practice was just philosophy. It is so much more than that.

JMHO