What if THIS is all there is?

"My last post..."

So if I at some time experience something which makes me conclude that I had an awareness before my birth, that is all going on inside my skull, and may in fact not be actual. If this ever-present Witness that I can clearly feel, ever dissolves into non-dual awareness (I so wanted to write perception instead of awareness, but that implies a dualistic split) and I feel as one with everything I look at, I might conclude that I actually AM one with everything I look at. But my opinion still stands; even though I might not realize this at that time, it is all happening within the confinements of my skull.

bemoan said: "Do you take yourselves to be that Awareness, or the awareness of your body to be that Awareness?"

I do not, currently, but I see a development trajectory leading to such a place where this would be the case. And despite the experience of being something that is larger than the body, I currently believe that such an experience is created within the confinements of the skull.

This is my opinion. It should be treated as an opinion. And it is, importantly, an opinion informed by a dualistic perspective (seriously, that is important)

"(...) This is not unlike 'Emptiness', which can be spoken about by anyone but only comprehended by those who have realized it. Without the experience, one's mind has to come up with the closest available alternative (e.g. frozenness). But then we're talking apples and oranges. Getting a good taste of both clears up the confusion."

Ah yes. I should say that I do not consider myself having realized emptiness. My mentioning above, as far as I know, is purely conceptual. Which is to say, it's useless xD

*sniff, sniff* I smell some confusion coming up...

Is there a useful distinction between a human with a self and Awareness as Self? Yes, I think so.

Does that necessarily make it so, in the absolutest of ways? Not that I have experienced (yet?).

Then what exactly is the usefulness of such a distinction? Reduction and eventual eradication of suffering for that same human.

Glad you like the convo, awouldbehipster! Let me try to address your points.

I posit that, even in this realization of timelessness, cause and effect is still 'unidirectional'. Meaning, things still happen Now (and it is always Now). I don't think one can escape the fact that it is always Now. And this seems to be what cmarti means by timelessness.

'Linear time', the way you are using it, seems to be a concept... one that is just a myth, as you say. People think time moves linearly.

I'm saying that time does not move linearly, just that things are moving, some of which we can use as reference points (such as earth going around the sun) since it is practically useful.

What kind of cause and effect is there, except for one that happens Now, as a result of the immediately preceding moment?

A practical experiment: Any state that can be reached, in which cause and effect is seen to either not be there ('no causality') or not be unidirectional (not sure what other direction you mean): get in that state while staring at a clock, with a second hand. Does the second hand move? If so, why? Why in that direction and not another?

(BTW, thank you for offering actual practice advice on how to go about examining these things for one's self =). That is indeed the way to do it. I think the only way to know things, btw, is the 'higher way of knowing', which one gets by paying attention. The rational stuff can precede it (to incline the mind to seeing something) and follow it (to explain it to others), but the important part is the seeing.)

"I do not, currently, but I see a development trajectory leading to such a place where this would be the case. And despite the experience of being something that is larger than the body, I currently believe that such an experience is created within the confinements of the skull."

Right! I think so too. Physicality precedes mentality. The mind (along with consciousness/awareness/Awareness) depends on the physical (the body and the brain and the senses). So when the body withers - what happens to that Awareness-that-is-the-universe-that-has-no-beginning-and-no-end?

"So when the body withers - what happens to that Awareness-that-is-the-universe-that-has-no-beginning-and-no-end?"

There is no use in answering that question. For one to make use of such a development trajectory as previously mentioned one would have to indulge/believe in it.

If one is not moving along that trajectory, it will not make sense, and questions like that would come up.

If you want to find the answer to your question, you would have to suspend your disbelief and experience the answer yourself.

I'm not saying that you are currently deluded because you ask this question, only that it's meaning is only apparent to one who has already experienced it. At least this is my opinion.

I feel like I'm repeating myself. That's always a sign that I've stayed my welcome on the particular topic for the time being. I shall end my post here.


(Hehe, language is fun. That last sentence is so incongruous with my persona it's hysterical xD)

"If you want to find the answer to your question, you would have to suspend your disbelief and experience the answer yourself."

Yes, I will find out when this body dies. At that point I doubt it will matter whether I am suspending disbelief or not =P. This isn't very practical advice, though...

Haha, I didn't mean that you should go about dying and find out!

I mean that if you chose to develop along this particular trajectory, I think the answer would reveal itself to you. It would probably be something along "Awareness pervades the universe, this human is but an expression/manifestation of that Awareness, and I AM that Awareness". Something like that. But I don't really know, because I haven't been there. I am interested in this particular practice though.

I notice that there is a background belief at play here:

Any and all who seek freedom from suffering is seeking to transcend their innate understanding that they are going to die. We humans are clever, so clever in fact that we can predict our own death. This "cleverness" combined with our biological programming of survival and replication don't play well together.

There are many approaches to the solution of this problem. The solution itself: Anatta. The approach to this solution varies in the thousands.

That is as pragmatic as I can be.

$0.2

StianGH: "I mean that if you chose to develop along this particular trajectory, I think the answer would reveal itself to you. It would probably be something along "Awareness pervades the universe, this human is but an expression/manifestation of that Awareness".

Well this is exactly what I am wondering. What are the views of the people on this trajectory?

StianGH: "Any and all who seek freedom from suffering is seeking to transcend their innate understanding that they are going to die."

I suppose I'll just state my point of view.

I don't think you can have an experience that lets you know (instead of believing or conceiving) what happens after the body dies. I think it can seem that way, but it is just a belief/concept, just like it can seem that I am a separate self.

I think awareness entirely depends on the body. When the physical body dies, so too, does awareness. What remains? Absolute nothingness. Nirodha, except no coming out of it to see the entrance and exit. Just a complete total blank slate of absolutely nothing else happening whatsoever. Oblivion!

I see talk of "Awareness pervades the universe, this human is but an expression/manifestation of that Awareness", especially if it involves belief that the Awareness continues after death (thus somehow the awareness of this body will continue after the body passes) is belief in an afterlife, desire for rebirth, belief in some kind of Self that is permanent... to avoid the unpleasantness of knowing that you will die, that cruel reminder of one's own mortality, that there will be nothing after death.

But, if you don't conceive about what might come after, and accept it, then you come to see that nothing you do really matters, cause you will die, and everything you do will also eventually pass and be forgotten.

This leads to not placing an importance of things, not forming attachments. One can make the best use of this time, to see what the only thing that would really matter is to make the best use of one's time - cause, why not? It is not what happens to you this lifetime, but perhaps how you influence everything else, for the sake of those that think things do matter, so they have a better life on this earth as well, out of sympathy for living beings.

Thus it is wonderful to realize that you will die. It is the key to eliminating your suffering, the key to caring about other human beings. The utter permanence of death means everything is impermanent. Thus one can make the best of one's time on earth.

It seems to me that talk of Undying Awareness is just attempting to avoid the inevitable. (Not saying anybody in particular in this convo has this belief, as I haven't gotten a direct answer to those questions, yet.)

I think we're deviating from the topic of this post, but I'll keep going until someone points their finger at me and makes me feel bad

Anyway, Right View, right? What isn't a view if not a belief? Where is the distinction between a "view" and a "belief"? By having right view, suffering born of ignorance of right views, by having wrong views, is removed. That means the same as "by believing the right things, one is freed from the worries of wrong views", doesn't it? Am I being too cynical here? Or am I just downright ignorant?

bemoan said: "What are the views of the people on this trajectory?"

People more familiar with this path should answer this, not me. But I will say this:

That path has been tread by countless people. They have found out that by setting up certain causes, certain effects follow. The result of those effects are a human that doesn't suffer. The I AM matures and dissolves into non-dual awareness. Non-dual awareness matures and dissolves into shunyata (This is an oh-so simplified version, the Mahayanists would hang me, and keep in mind that I do not claim to know much about these things). Each stage reduces suffering, one way or the other.

People who still believe in Undying Awareness are not there yet. They have dissociated from their little self and now identify with big Self. They will die happily and their existential angst has effectively gone away. But they are still deluded.

Aiming for identifying with Undying Awareness would be a sensible thing to do, considering the alternative being identifying with this human. One would just suffer less!

Oh my... I'm rambling. I'll be participating more later on, after some fresh air to clear my mind

"Awareness continues after death (thus somehow the awareness of this body will continue after the body passes)"

About this quote:

I see awareness as something which doesn't need objects. If awareness is something that continues after death, it would not be awareness of any of the senses. Have you had such an experience? Where "you" were clearly aware, but of nothing in particular? I have...

Of course, I might be wrong that awareness can exist objectlessly and when I say "nothing in particular" that might just be a something which I cannot identify. And that something might also go away at death and so there will not even be blank awareness after death.

Not something that bothers me much. I have very little invested in those views.

Stian: "Anyway, Right View, right? What isn't a view if not a belief? Where is the distinction between a "view" and a "belief"? By believing the right things, one is freed from the worries of wrong views. That means the same as "by having right view, one is freed from the worries of wrong views", doesn't it? Am I being too cynical here? Or am I just downright ignorant?"

A view is a belief. I think ultimately, Right View is no view. No beliefs. Didn't the Buddha say not to believe him?

Also check out MN.001:

""The Tathagata '” a worthy one, rightly self-awakened '” directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he **does not conceive things about** earth, **does not conceive things in** earth, **does not conceive things coming out of** earth, **does not conceive earth as** 'mine,' **does not delight in** earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you." (Same for the rest.) I take not conceiving to mean not having views about.

here's an interesting way to consider the whole question of after death stuff:

if i believe that there is an element of current experience exempt from death, and therefore, a potential for some sort(s) of experience to continue after this body stops functioning, depending on what sorts of experiences i suppose may occur then this belief could be far from comforting and hardly an escape from feelings of mortality but rather a profound challenge to understand suffering and freedom as much as possible while here in this form in which practice is possible.

likewise, if i believe that "nothing" happens after death, a "blank slate", "oblivion", i could quite easily conclude that there is nothing to worry about in death and therefor this belief about what happens after death could be quite comforting, since there will be no way to experience any suffering after death there's no use suffering about it now.

given the fact that i simply *don't yet know* which of these or other possibilities is actually going to be true, *any* belief about the afterlife (or lack thereof) could be either a comfort or a terror, and any belief about the afterlife or lack thereof could be an occasion for hope or fear. pretty wild, huh?

"I see awareness as something which doesn't need objects. If awareness is something that continues after death, it would not be awareness of any of the senses."

"But how, friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"

"Once, friend Ananda, when I was staying right here in Savatthi in the Blind Man's Grove, I reached concentration in such a way that I was neither percipient of earth with regard to earth... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet I was still percipient."

"But what, friend Sariputta, were you percipient of at that time?"

"'The cessation of becoming '” Unbinding '” the cessation of becoming '” Unbinding': One perception arose in me, friend Ananda, as another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, 'The cessation of becoming '” Unbinding '” the cessation of becoming '” Unbinding': One perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of 'The cessation of becoming '” Unbinding.'"

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.007.than.html

"pretty wild, huh? "

Hehe. What about the aspect of craving/grasping?

EDIT:

EiS. What does that quote mean? I must say I feel pretty reduced right now, and I don't think I'm going to participate more until I feel more clear-minded. But do you mind explaining me that quote?

"EiS. What does that quote mean? I must say I feel pretty reduced right now, and I don't think I'm going to participate more until I feel more clear-minded. But do you mind explaining me that quote?"

I have some theories, but ultimately am not sure, and so will decline to speculate.

However, insofar as this discussion is concerned, Sariputta is claiming that it is possible for there to be perception (of nibbana / "unbinding") without any sense-objects whatsoever.

"Hehe. What about the aspect of craving/grasping?

"

right-- that's where the hope and fear come in i guess stian