What is Awareness?

[rickScott]

I was attending a Buddhist retreat a while back and noticed the teacher, Anam Thubten, shaking with intensity (from all appearances) during meditation. I remember being surprised by that, and also impressed that the act of meditation could be so intense and focused. When I say active attention I mean what Anam Thubten was doing (or at least seemed to me to be doing).

[danmcderm]

@rickScott

I was attending a Buddhist retreat a while back and noticed the teacher, Anam Thubten, shaking with intensity (from all appearances) during meditation.

Maybe he was ‘trying’ too hard…I’ve had that experience.

[rickScott]

Maybe. Maybe it’s just his body’s neurophysical response to meditation. Usually we think of skilled meditators being still and silent. But maybe there are fidgety heavy-breathing exceptions?

[WimOpdam]

@James

While most people are vaguely aware of their feelings and thoughts, clearly there are only very few (relatively speaking) who are willing or able to pay close attention to their inner state (i.e. in the sense of being sensitively, choicelessly, passively, nonjudgmentally aware, in the present moment).

Yes and an incident like the one I described give you the chance to take seriously something you had brushed aside as inferior and that in turn has to do with infinite potentiality that is apparently also present in everything.

[Sean]

@rickScott

When the attending is done with a heavy hand, it can really mess with your flow and spontaneity. I think it’s best done lightly, sensitively, though not superficially.

Hi Rick and all. I’d say that some situations lend themselves more than others to the kind of flowing awareness and observation I understand you’re talking about. Walking in the countryside or by the sea seem to be moments, at least for me, when it’s perhaps more natural to be aware of what’s going on both externally and internally. Having said that, I’d say that any moment when one becomes attentive opens a door to observation. However, as James has pointed out, K seemed to uncover many things that are somehow hidden from the rest of us in the depths of a most profound silence.

[macdougdoug]

@Sean

Having said that, I’d say that any moment when one becomes attentive opens a door to observation.

What do you mean? This sounds like an invitation to sit quietly - a bit like encouraging the habit (sorry, trigger word for some people) of awareness?

I often wonder whether the non-special sense of spaciousness of zazen or sunsets in nature is at all sufficient to transform the dictat of self. In fact, our relationship to traditional, magical meditation can often become part of the burden (of self and progress) - especially for those who become “skilled” at it.

Insight seems key - and a non-negligeable insight that is difficult to deny - where is insight in all this?

[macdougdoug]

@rickScott

When I ‘do’ mindfulness I sometimes feel like someone’s sitting on my shoulder critically observing me, like I was being evaluated at a job. I hate it! Perils of self-checking?

How many observers does it take to become one (with the lightbulb)?

[Sean]

@macdougdoug

What do you mean? This sounds like an invitation to sit quietly - a bit like encouraging the habit (sorry, trigger word for some people) of awareness?

I’ve been going hiking every weekend for many years Douglas. When you’re surrounded by nature, there are so many sights, sounds and smells to connect to. You may find yourself listening or observing more attentively, or not. One can always give it a try and see what happens. I think it beats endless theorising (not directed at you Douglas).

[rickScott]

@macdougdoug

How many observers does it take to become one (with the lightbulb)?

I’ve wondered why it seems to stop at the shoulder observer, rather than go on to the shoulder observer’s observer, shoulder observer’s observer’s observer, usw. a la regressus in infinitum.

[rickScott]

@Sean

I’d say that some situations lend themselves more than others to the kind of flowing awareness and observation I understand you’re talking about. Walking in the countryside or by the sea seem to be moments, at least for me, when it’s perhaps more natural to be aware of what’s going on both externally and internally.

Nature seems flowing-awareness friendly to lots of people, which makes sense, since we come from and are nature. The exigencies (real and imagined) of the ‘real world’ tend to leave little room for relaxed flow.

[Inquiry]

@rickScott

I’ve wondered why it seems to stop at the shoulder observer, rather than go on to the shoulder observer’s observer, shoulder observer’s observer’s observer, usw. a la regressus in infinitum.

Observers all the way down…

[Inquiry]

@Sean

when it’s perhaps more natural to be aware of what’s going on both externally and internally.

…than aware of my reaction to what’s going on?

There’s no escaping the brain’s conditioned response/reaction to the brain’s awareness of what’s going on, so as much as I want pure, naked, choiceless awareness, I have to face the fact that my content is polluting my awareness.

I can commune with nature and get some relief from the brain’s attachment to its precious identity, but why settle for occasional relief if it’s possible to free of personal identity and be nothing more than human?

[Sean]

@Inquiry

than aware of my reaction to what’s going on?

That would be part of the “internal” I spoke about. I was saying that being in nature can sometimes be conducive to becoming more aware both externally and internally. However, this can also happen in a lo laundrette or a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. Attention to in inattention can occur anywhere, can’t it?

[James]

@Inquiry

I have to face the fact that my content is polluting my awareness

How does one face this fact?

Mustn’t it be an immediate, present moment ‘facing’ of the content?

[Inquiry]

@James

Mustn’t it be an immediate, present moment ‘facing’ of the content?

That would be best, and quite often I don’t carry out the conditioned response I’m aware of. More often, when I realize I was reacting conditionally and not responding appropriately, all I have is the evidence of content pollution.

[James]

This was posted on another thread, but it is probably more relevant here:

There is a view - shared by some Tibetan Buddhists, some Chan and Zen Buddhists, by the Advaita tradition, and others - that awareness (or attention, Mind with a capital ‘M’) is primordially pure and self-existent, the ground of all that exists.

Mary Oliver wrote that,

This is the first, the wildest and the wisest thing I know: that the soul exists and is built entirely out of attentiveness.

In Dzogchen they call this Rigpa, Dharmakaya, Buddha-jnana (Buddha mind) or nirvanic consciousness. And they distinguish this from Sems (meaning the thought-made mind), or the alaya-vijnana (the thought polluted mind).

Similarly in Chan and Zen - e.g. in Huangbo, Zongmi and Bankei - they speak of a universal Mind, an Unborn mind, a luminous tranquil awareness, which is limited and distorted by the presence of conceptual thought.

While in Advaita - for example the Ashtavakra Gita and Ramana Maharishi - they speak of a pure Awareness that is our true nature, and that this Awareness is all that exists.

Both in Dzogchen, Chan/Zen and Advaita they say that this Awareness (with a capital ‘A’) is always present, and that one only has to live ‘within’ it (as it were), remain ‘inside’ it, and continually dis-indentify oneself from the various contents of consciousness/thought that arise.

Krishnamurti doesn’t exactly deny this view - by his language he often seems to point to the primacy of awareness/attention/Intelligence/insight/Mind - but he does caution against too much faith or belief in this Unborn mind, because it may be just an idea (which it usually is for most of us).

That is, rather than focussing on the Unborn mind (or Awareness with a capital ‘A’), Krishnamurti instead seems to focus on what prevents this intelligence/insight/attention from operating: i.e. thought and the thought-created contents of consciousness (our conditioning).

The implication (it seems to me) is that by giving attention/awareness to our psychological conditioning, our (psychological) thinking and reacting first, the other thing - i.e. intelligence, compassion, universal Mind - will be there. But to want it to be there just because we desire it is the wrong approach. We have to do the ‘hard work’ of actually being aware of our conditioning first.