What spans between two thoughts?
What spans between two events? What spans between two thoughts?
Is it not consciousness?
From the perspective of the imagined separate me, the span between events is imagined to be a person. Me as a person. Me as a body mind. Me the mortal human. That is what the limited mind (thought) says. That is how the separate mind maintains itself.
But when you take a closer look, do you find a person between two events, between two thoughts, or do you find awareness?
Take a look. A close look.
Where do you go to look? Do you go anywhere? Do you not go to awareness/Presence, without going anywhere at all?
P.B. : Take a look. A close look. Where do you go to look? Do you go anywhere? Do you not go to awareness/Presence, without going anywhere at all? Wow, good questions! I don’t go anywhere to look, awareness is already the case, always knowing.
C.S. : I do not find consciousness or awareness spanning two thoughts.
There are only the thoughts themselves, or the lack of the thoughts themselves.
Z.P. : not to butt in, but that, that is aware of this “nothing” between the two thoughts, is the awareness. it is just hard to get a grip on, because our minds are use to only seeing what can be explained or held, or touched. this awareness pervades everything. it is the emptiness, out of which all things are. weird stuff!
Magdi: It as quite wondrous isn’t it ZP? Awareness aware of the openness that is is. Awareness aware of itself as no-form as well as form.
The lovely part of this revelation is in the dissolution of the separation, the dissolution of the angst of the separate self and the revelation of causeless peace and happiness; that is undisturbed and undisturbable.
C.S. , the limited mind does not find awareness since the limited mind is programmed to perceive objects. It is a ‘higher mind’ of sort that realizes that all along, awareness IS. By ‘higher mind’ I refer to a mind that has relaxed its old beliefs of separation and me-identification. A mind that, rather than looking outwardly, looks inwardly. Turns to the source.
If there is nothing between thought A and thought B, you would be a mess since your mind will look like this: ThoughtAThoughtBThoughtCThoughtDThoughtE…. Without any break.
It is like saying that all there is are clouds and no sky. In fact, all there is is the eternity and infinity of sky. The clouds are permeated by the sky. The mind perceives the clouds and does not perceive the sky.
C.S. : The Advaita ‘You are awareness’ approach has never resonated here. I have no clue what ‘awareness’ is (other than just an idea of what it is, of course). I cannot find it outside of thought. To me, it’s just an idea.
Conventionally I can say that there is awareness of the thoughts, and awareness of the gap where there is no thought. But this is an obvious duality. Nor do I find ‘awareness’ responsible. It’s not a thing that can be found that does stuff or exists as some-sort of mechanism. Examining things directly, I do not find two things – The ‘thought’ and the ‘awareness of the thought’ – There is just the thought itself. ‘I am awareness’ seems to be just a new belief to replace ‘I am a separate body/mind’. A new landing place for the mind. A new attachment. The limited mind does not find awareness, since the mind itself states that there is awareness. If the mind rests, then it does not state anything. A mind that has relinquished all attachments surely would not accept ‘awareness’ as an attachment.
Magdi: C.S., You say: “Examining things directly, I do not find two things – The ‘thought’ and the ‘awareness of the thought’ – There is just the thought itself.”
I say: Examining things directly, I do not find two things – The ‘thought’ and the ‘awareness of the thought’ –
There is just awareness.
You see, thoughts keep changing. Perceptions, sensations as well. But awareness does not. It is the same awareness that takes on the form of a tree or the form of an image. I know that as soon as we speak things take on the impression of duality. But it is possible to use language metaphorically and not make the language an end in itself.
The limited mind cannot know awareness. It dissolves in it. What ‘remains’ is what has always been: Awareness.
By the way, it is not the mind that says there is awareness. The mind knows awareness as a concept but not as an experience since the experience of awareness is wholeness while the mind is segmented. The segmented cannot know wholeness and thus cannot state anything true about what it does not know.
C.S. : I profoundly disagree with this. Awareness is a concept. It is the mind that says ‘there is awareness’ in exactly the same way it would say ‘I am a separate self’. It is the mind saying ‘It dissolves in awareness’ and it is the mind saying ‘What remains is awareness’.
It is also the mind that says ‘awareness is experienced’. 100% mental thought activity. All these statements are simply beliefs you have . . . that you hold as being true. You say awareness does not change. Sure, that could be said if time were real . . . if it existed outside of thought. Change is, yet again, an idea – A thought. It could also be said if awareness was existent – Like some sort of object that could be examined to see how it changed over time.
Have you ever . . . I mean EVER . . . found ‘awareness not changing’? ‘Awareness does not change’ is just a belief you have. You believe there is some real ‘thing’ which is ‘awareness’, and it doesn’t change. It is also the mind that says ‘It’s all one’ or ‘wholeness’.
The ancient masters knew this, which is why it is named ‘Advaita’, ‘Non-duality’, ‘Not two’. They were not stating there was ‘one’. They knew these claims were all from the mind.
Magdi: Awareness is a concept that points to a reality that is beyond the concept.
Like for example the concept tree points to a reality that is beyond the label tree.
Awareness is one and not two. If you know awareness to change, you are still on the surface and you are deluded by impressions of change.
Awareness is not a thing. Not a real or unreal thing. It is the reality of all seeming things. One reality. Although awareness is the reality of seeming things it is not a thing and thus all seeming things are in fact no-thing.
Time is a thought impression. Only the seamless Self is real. There is no independent reality to time.
B.R. : CS, I don’t get that Magdi is asking you to swallow anything. For me there is a stark difference between mutual exploring and the assertions we make, such as on the editorial page. I love editorials, but that’s not what’s going on here, I’m thinking. For me, what Magdi writes is often so contrary to what is presumed to be reality that I can’t help but wonder, could it be true?