I don’t think contents are aware of anything. The question is whether the brain is aware of its contents and questions their practicality or necessity. Some reasonable assumptions and expectations seem necessary, but there’s no need for any of them to become beliefs.
If there is an obstacle to the discovery of “silent passive awareness”, it has to be in the belief that I am already aware; the feeling of ‘me-ness’ is mistaken for awareness?
1 Like
Awareness is altered to be my awareness, and my awareness has no choice but to continue with self-deception until it isn’t possible anymore, if ever.
The translator is the translation. The brain’s content, its conclusions, beliefs, and tendencies preclude choiceless awareness. It is not grounded in what it cannot deny, distort, or dismiss, because fear of what it doesn’t know (freedom) has greater force than desire for more knowledge.
Are will, control, fear, anger, desire and failure illusions? Are they not observed, experienced in the moment? To me, the thinker is THE illusion, the thinker separate from thought. The illusory thinker is put together by the natural process of conditioning which takes place in the brain. Conditioning is necessary. Without it, we could not move or act as needed through life. We catch a glimpse of this in children who have been caged, isolated, tortured, raised by dogs, and so on. They are even more limited in their movements, actions and relationships. The thinker - each one of us - thinks he “possesses” some degree of will, superiority and control over himself and others, or he might think he is a failure because he desires control but lacks that quality of control, fame, admiration, success, superiority, and so on.
This thinker is the illusion in question. Illusion itself is a mental process or movement of the brain. The illusory oasis in the desert, the schizophrenic voices that are heard, are not actually real, but they are actually seen but not by others. There is an actual movement going on in the brain creating the illusion of a separate self, analogous to the visible separate, distinguishable physical self. In that sense, the illusion is as real as a shadow that we see. All these mental cerebral mental processes or movements, material movements, movements of brain matter, are a part of human conditioning, one of the natural, inevitable, necessary processes beginning with fertilization of the egg and fetal development. We do not come out fully functioning or completed.
This human development is also a part of the Great Unknowable Mystery of Life, of existence, creation, Creator, of the unknowable source of everything known, knowable and unknowable, of infinite space, eternity, matter, life, beauty, suffering, love … Everything. Mankind has been grappling with this as far back as our ancient texts reveal. We, the created, are part of this Unknowable Mystery. Creation CANNOT be explained by the created. Creation is not put together from what already exists. That is, it is timeless, outside of time and knowledge, beyond explanation. It is not based on precedent, on the past. We, the created, encounter reason, love, curiosity, questions. That is our nature and we cannot go beyond our created nature, just as no other living beings can go beyond its given nature. That is our common, natural limitation, the ultimate fact, as I see it. Take it how you will. It’s my understanding. I’m not saying I’m right. It’s part of my nature to question it.
The greatest human minds who have had such wonderful, promising theories in this regard have not been able to pierce the Mystery of the source. Not Buddha, not K, not the other great philosophers, scientists, psychiatrists, educators, enquirers of all kinds. Just look at the chaos, the ever increasing darkness of ignorance. As I see it, the theory of evolution remains a theory, and the theory of everything can only remain a theory. Belief and dogma are not fact. Ideals and will are not virtue. Opinions and conviction are not Truth (not talking about the truth of did you break the lamp or not, are you lying to me or not, or are you using “alternative facts” or not). Glimpses or insights are not complete answers and they fade away.
Maybe nothing can break the shackles of ignorance, of mental conditioning, of the illusion of self-control, of suffering, injustice, sorrow and so on. No one can lead another to freedom. “I once was blind and now I see” but how does seeing, understanding come about? I don’t know. I don’t dispute that K and others had glimpses, true insights into the human condition and existence. But I don’t see that Man is free and I don’t know anything about freedom except to realize that I am not free, not moving through life spontaneously, joyously, kindly, generously, and so on, although there are moments of that.
It does SEEM perfectly clear (I could be delusional) that thought - conditioned as it is and can only be - is a natural brain movement and process, just like blood circulation, breathing, digesting, and all the other bodily functions, movements, processes. Mankind has nothing to do with setting any of that in motion. As marvelous as thought is, as necessary as it is for moving about and acting in the world, for being in relationship with everyone and everything, thought is by nature limited and keeps splitting off in an apparently unstoppable and irresistible trajectory. You might agree or disagree, that is what I see, just as each of you sees what he sees. To me, this is perception, not idea, not thought, but I won’t argue it.
I’m not saying I’m right. There is no true answer that thought can put together to the fundamental human question, is there? The man or woman or child in whom the questioning arises cannot help it, cannot wilfully end it, as I see it. There are also those - perhaps or certainly - in whom questioning does not arise. There is evil, brutality, great suffering, injustice. This is an immovable and irresistible fact, isn’t it. We clearly are unable to do anything about it through effort, will, ideology, belief, plans of action, politics or war. We, the created, cannot control, decide, change, manipulate, explain the Unknowable source of everything, the eternal, infinite whole.
The illusory self put together by thought is all “sound and fury, signifying nothing”. NOTHING. This is not to dismiss insight. There has been and there is such a thing as insight — but it seems to be irresistibly polluted by thought and, so, lost to sight.
I do feel a bit shy speaking like this. I’m too am lost, not knowing what to do.
2 Likes
Thinker or self might believe it is aware, but is it? How aware is a mind caught in habit. A person who is overeating or deliberately starves himself will not be sensitive to his or her body. When I read the news I don’t see much awareness or sensitivity. There is war, where is the awareness that all human beings are really just human beings. Thought is basically unaware and believes its projected images are truth. Thinker is unaware. That is also obvious in a discussion. If thought is active, it is unable to listen. To listen to another completely, there should be a pause, a silence. If awareness is not thought, then awareness will not move into area of thinker as thinker is basically unawareness. Thinker is reaction of thought. Of course awareness can use words to communicate, but it is like someone who expresses after listening, not just interferes without listening. So if we discover an awareness which is not thinker (which is basically awareness, as thinker is unaware), then that awareness is without division, conflict, it is in itself silent and listening, perceiving. It is not thought
1 Like
Thank you for putting it into words.
Modesty is a great good which, in my humble opinion, is not so often demonstrated on this forum, which often consist of assertions, statements that in their wording bearing more in the nature of knowing than seeking.
1 Like
I don’t get what the shyness is about (you don’t seem to have said anything foolish) To be (overly) simplistic, I think you are saying that the universe is as it is, and we can only be as we are, and that no one has been able to make it all make sense (by coming up with an acceptable explanation/story)
If I’ve really misunderstood you - I’d like to know. And when you say you don’t know what to do - are you referring to the discomfort of not knowing? (ie. what to do in order to put an end to my discomfort faced with the mystery)
Being aware of thoughts that arise in a mind that is already filled with thought is not easy - or shall we say impossible. When there is no space to discriminate between thought and experience, thoughts just look like the world.
You say I depend on thoughts, but it feels like I am seeing reality.
In order to notice the thoughts, there must be some space. To see a thought arise, there must first be a moment of calm and silence. If not all I see is my reality.
Hi Wim, it’s good to hear from you after so long.
Doug, I think you’ve understood, more or less. I’m not sure I truly understand “it”, so I don’t know what to do except what comes naturally, spontaneously. Is it natural, spontaneous action. I’m not sure. Is lost the right word? I’m not sure.
Yes, belief itself needs to be questioned, examined, observed. As I see it, it is clear that belief is not Truth. It is the brain’s accepted or chosen idea of truth. For example, I can know that yesterday I believed in the need for honesty for a just society and that today I believe in deceit and don’t care about justice; that yesterday I believed in violent action to transform society and that today I believe in peaceful action; that yesterday I believed in Buddhism and today I believe in Catholicism; and so on. I know, I remember my changing beliefs. In these instances, belief is a choice between alternatives.
For me, the belief that “I am aware” or that “I am” is more difficult to perceive. The difficulty is that it is not a choice between alternatives, between “me” or “no me”. It seems to me that this belief (that “I am”, that I exist independently of thought) underlies all the other beliefs. But if it is the thinker “being aware” - then it is still the movement of belief, not the action of awareness. Is this so? Is there an actual thinker who is aware and separate from thought ? Or, is awareness something which goes beyond mere sensory awareness? Is awareness beyond “me”, beyond all belief, thought, idea, beyond matter?
Is belief or idea or thought the same thing as understanding or awareness? If yes, no distinction can be made between them. If they are NOT the same thing, can the conditioned brain totally free itself from belief so that awareness can act unimpeded? Is there a true distinction between belief and awareness? Can the distinction be simply and truly seen and understood without the involvement of thought? K and others suggest starting the enquiry into awareness with clearly observable, simple, automatic physical perceptions. To me, it Is a good suggestion,
Can there be sensory perception without spontaneous, choiceless awareness? Or does sensory perception demand the operation of thought? For example, out of the corner (or the front) of “my” eye or other sensory organ, I perceive something - a movement, an object, a colour, my breathing, my tongue in my mouth, various physical body sensations. It is simple, organic, sensory, spontaneous awareness. Isn’t it clear then that sensations are not thoughts? Here, the words “my” and “I” do not designate the presence of the thinker. Here, “I” and “my” are a limitation of speech, of thought, as I see it.
How else can one express the fact that something can be and is seen or perceived by the human organism without the thinker being involved in the perception? To me, sensory perception is preceded by sensory movement. Of course, I’m not a scientist. Isn’t sensory perception spontaneous, free of thought, such that it is not “I” perceiving but: there is perception? Is the distinction between sensory perception and belief a fact, or is there no such a thing as actual sensory perception which is not belief? If one concludes that “no”, there is no distinction between sensory perception and belief, then there can be no awareness without the thinker, then there can be no freedom from the thinker, as I see it.
“The thinker” can believe “he” is Napoleon, Cleopatra, intelligent, superior, inferior, special, kind, generous, a nobody, and so on, but does belief make it so? Each of these ideas or beliefs is produced by the movement of thought in the brain, which is indicative of the operation of a biological process, like pain, vision, blood circulation, and so on. Any biological or technological process necessarily involves movement of some sort, doesn’t it?
Belief is a product of thought, in this case specifically, resulting in the illusory division between thought and thinker. Isn’t it? To see, understand, observe that fact is also awareness, isn’t it? Is awareness restricted to physical, biological processes or movements of the brain? Or does awareness include Everything, or does it exclude nothing, so that awareness is not limited to the brain? Who or what can or does ask and answer that question?
Is the thinker “present” at every moment? Is “he” a constant presence at every breath of life? Does “he” manifest in the very moment “he” feels a gentle summer breeze on his face or extreme physical pain? Or is there a gap, an actual distinction between actual perception or awareness and the entrance of the thinker?
1 Like
The science of neurology tells us that we are not actually aware of what is perceived.
We are only presented with a projection of how the brain has interpreted the signals it has received.
Also freedom is a relationship with, not necessarily an absence of.
Although some say there is in fact an absence of thinker. There is relationship, but there might not be a slave (nor any prison)
Doug,
Does this scientific conclusion solve the problem of who and what the “we” is who is not actually aware? How does the scientist observe and measure this? Is he aware of not being aware? Is it still merely an idea? I’m not saying yes or no. I do love science, technology, thought, reason, and so on. I see the marvels scientists come up with. But to me, they are all limited, ultimately unable to present us or formulate the Truth about life and its significance. The scientists also are fragmented psychologically. Even what I see as the most brilliant minds are limited. I see their brilliance, competence and abilities, but I cannot rely on or accept the conclusions of science (i.e. of the scientists who are also confused human beings like me) to clear up the fundamental mystery of everything for me.
You say we are only presented with a projection of the brain’s interpretation of signals. Signals? Thoughts? Ideas and so on? I don’t see that as “we are only presented with”. Again, who is the “we” being presented with it?
I also see it like you, that real relationship demands freedom. But what do you mean by “not necessarily absence of”? Are you saying that the illusory thinker CAN be in true relationship with life, with everything that life puts in his path? There might not be a slave or prison, you say. There might not be questioning, suffering, fear, compulsion, and so on. Is there or isn’t there? No one can tell me/you whether or not we are free, can they? Are we free to act spontaneously, without conflict or fear and so on, or not? How do you perceive it?
The thinker is absent at times, but as this absence is nothing to do with memory, there is perhaps no remembrance of the absence. For example if there is silence, listening there is no remembrance. Perhaps deep sleep also might be same (no idea, perhaps, cannot say).
When the brain is interested in its thoughts, none of them escape notice.
To see a thought arise, there must first be a moment of calm and silence. If not all I see is my reality.
That would mean the brain knows when a thought is forming, but more likely, it’s not aware of a thought until it is formed.
…all I see is my reality.
I see myself reflected in everything I see.
Inner thought seems to be indistinguishable from outer thought like here on the forum. All thought is one stream of consciousness as K said, not inner and outer. The more we engage in outer thought, the more we are disconnected from nature.
I will be taking a digital break for a few weeks, if not a few months. I plan to participate in the zoom dialogues but otherwise take a digital break. Bye.
The conditioned brain is the thinker because thinking is its constant feature, its identity. The proof of this is that the conditioned brain cannot stop thinking. For the conditioned brain thinking never stops because for thinking to stop is to allow for silence, emptiness, and infinity, i.e., the end of its identity, the condition of being somebody.
The free, empty, unlimited brain uses thought only for practical purposes: problem solving, organizing, calculating, evaluating, examining, questioning, etc. It is not the thinker any more than a tool user is the tool.
I’d just like to present the basic nuts and bolts biological facts again (neurology can be of interest to those inquiring into the workings of the brain - asking for the philosophical opinions of neurologists about the meaning of life might be a step too far - although they might say that the projections provided by the brain are presented in what we colloquially call our “consciousness” - and there are still many philosophical questions as to what those words mean too)
How what is perceived enters our consciousness, using the example of hearing :
-
Vibrations in the air resonate with the sensitive apparatus in our ears.
-
These vibrations cause electrical impulses to be sent to the brain
-
The brain collates this data with memory and any other data it is receiving, and provides a best guess which appears as an interpretation, for example : I hear a Rubbish truck passing by (because any loud rumbling on a wednesday morning is most probably that - but it could be wrong : I once saw a washing machine switch on and start rumbling automatically, which was a better guess than the truth : I was experiencing my first earthquake).
The ears and eyes are not actually windows onto the world, my brain is not actually a truth detector looking out through little holes in my skull (according to Buddha, K and basic neurology).
What I am hearing is not the Rubbish truck passing by, I am hearing a projection of my brains best guess. And I am completely unaware of the sound waves in the air, the vibrating eardrum, the electrical impulses, the data that the brain is collating, I am only aware of the objects projected into my consciousness;
As an ex smoker, what constitutes freedom from cigarettes? The absence of cigarettes?
Freedom pertains to an experiential relationship, not to the objects themselves.
I don’t think it matters that direct perception is not truth detection, but is the brain’s best guess because the guess work of the conditioned brain is too limited and restricted by its beliefs and prejudices to be reliable or trustworthy, whereas a brain unburdened with that kind of content will make guesses good enough to avoid serious mistakes.
1 Like