unconsciousness

This is the place to post whatever questions you have related to the teachings of Eckhart Tolle. The rest of us will do whatever we can to help you achieve a better understanding :)
arel
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: unconsciousness

Post by arel » Thu May 24, 2012 7:26 pm

Kutso wrote:If awareness went during deep sleep, then it would make no sense for you to say that you have no memory, since you would not recognise that fact if awareness ceased.
This argument does not make sense to me. I went to bed, there was memory of time saying 10pm and that it was dark, I wake up, look at the time, and that it's light out, I conclude I slept. All this happens in mind when awareness is there watching all these conclusions. No awareness otherwise. You die and are born again every night.
johahr wrote:How do you know if you were aware before you were born? Does awareness stop when you die?
Before you were born, in deep sleep, and after you die, can you conceive that the present moment is always there througout all that? No, really, can you? Well... you are that. Don't take my word for it though, see if you can see that right now.
Kutso wrote:When a person says 'I was born', he is either identiying himself as the body or he thinks that awareness arises with the birth of the body. But this is not so.
I would say awareness does arise only with the body/mind/sense perceptions. But what you are, the present moment, depends on none of that.
What I say is only my viewpoint.

User avatar
rideforever
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: unconsciousness

Post by rideforever » Thu May 24, 2012 8:31 pm

I have been thinking about this a lot.

The question is analogous to the question : "How can creation exist ?" .. how can it exist when all is one.

Or, "When all is one, how come there are two ?"

You can't say 'there is no two', because there is. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying anything.

Basically some underlying property of this reality must be "although it is one, it is also not-one".

This doesn't work in my 'mind'. And I think my 'mind' is the problem. Or, although we think that we think rationally -rationally meaning in accordance with underlying reality, that is not true.

The mind is crazy. Although it appears to solve problems, it only does some work on them and never solves them. Who's mind is crazy ? Yours. Actually, it does not know.

How is it that mind that does not know exists ?

I don't know.

[ I hope that's clear ! ]
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small

User avatar
Kutso
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: unconsciousness

Post by Kutso » Thu May 24, 2012 8:59 pm

arel wrote:I went to bed, there was memory of time saying 10pm and that it was dark, I wake up, look at the time, and that it's light out, I conclude I slept. All this happens in mind when awareness is there watching all these conclusions. No awareness otherwise.
All this does not happen in the mind. All this happens in YOU, the mind and it's conclusions as well.
arel wrote:You die and are born again every night.
If this were true, then there is an end and a beginning to YOU every night. And as I said before to johahr:
When something begins or ends it does so with reference to a factor independent of the series. A constant. That which connects the beginning with the ending also existed prior to the beginning, and after the ending. Otherwise, nobody can establish the beginning of phenomena, or their cessation.
arel wrote:I would say awareness does arise only with the body/mind/sense perceptions. But what you are, the present moment, depends on none of that.
Well, I define that which you are as 'awareness'. What you are refering to that is arising is 'awareness of' something.
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.

User avatar
Kutso
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: unconsciousness

Post by Kutso » Thu May 24, 2012 9:03 pm

rideforever wrote: "When all is one, how come there are two ?"
All is not one. All is just not-two. I makes no sense talking of "One" when there is no separation. "One" is always in relation to "Two".
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.

User avatar
rideforever
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: unconsciousness

Post by rideforever » Thu May 24, 2012 9:08 pm

There is separation. How can the word separation exist if there is no separation.
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small

User avatar
Kutso
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: unconsciousness

Post by Kutso » Thu May 24, 2012 9:22 pm

rideforever wrote:There is separation. How can the word separation exist if there is no separation.
When you say "separation", what do you mean by that? What is separate from what?
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.

User avatar
rideforever
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: unconsciousness

Post by rideforever » Thu May 24, 2012 9:56 pm

Creation is separation.

My left thumb is separate from my right thumb.

I am separate from you.

Also, none of the above is true.

For there to be anything beyond the absolute there must be separation, even though there is no separation. How is this possible, I don't know.
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small

User avatar
Kutso
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: unconsciousness

Post by Kutso » Thu May 24, 2012 10:01 pm

rideforever wrote:My left thumb is separate from my right thumb.
When you say "my", what are you referring to?
rideforever wrote:I am separate from you.
When you say "I", what are you referring to?
rideforever wrote:For there to be anything beyond the absolute there must be separation, even though there is no separation. How is this possible, I don't know.
Why do you assume there is something "beyond"?
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.

User avatar
rideforever
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: unconsciousness

Post by rideforever » Thu May 24, 2012 10:11 pm

Kutso wrote:
rideforever wrote:My left thumb is separate from my right thumb.
When you say "my", what are you referring to?
It doesn't matter. All that matters is that it is possible to use the word "my" at all. Separation has occurred. Even though there is none.
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small

johahr
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: unconsciousness

Post by johahr » Thu May 24, 2012 10:27 pm

Kutso wrote:
johahr wrote:How do you know if you were aware before you were born? Does awareness stop when you die?
Shankara says: "the Self (you, awareness) is permanent, because impermanence can never be established".

When a person says 'I was born', he is either identiying himself as the body or he thinks that awareness arises with the birth of the body. But this is not so. When something begins or ends it does so with reference to a factor independent of the series. A constant. That which connects the beginning with the ending also existed prior to the beginning, and after the ending. Otherwise, nobody can establish the beginning of phenomena, or their cessation.
How is this an argument against ME being born again every morning? Lets imagine such reference, my heartbeats would work nicely for reference?

User avatar
rideforever
Posts: 1513
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:32 pm
Location: Hove

Re: unconsciousness

Post by rideforever » Thu May 24, 2012 10:59 pm

johahr wrote:Shankara says: "the Self (you, awareness) is permanent, because impermanence can never be established".
This isn't an adequate explanation, because :
(a) even if you can demonstrate that impermanence can never be established, it doesn't mean the opposite is true,
(a.2) perhaps something other than you can demonstrate impermanence,
(b) we can't be sure opposites are ... opposite,
(c) we can't be sure the mind isn't totally deluded and insane,
(d) even if this was true - is this really the 'problem' ?

Ultimately the only way to know, is to know. There is no evidence. No ?

This is a really stupid game, and what's even more stupid is that I am good at it !!!!!!

No, the mind can only demonstrate it's own craziness - that's it's pinnacle.
I was proud, and I demanded the finest teacher
.. .. and when he appeared
.. .. .. .. I was so small

arel
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: unconsciousness

Post by arel » Fri May 25, 2012 2:38 pm

Kutso wrote:
arel wrote:You die and are born again every night.
If this were true, then there is an end and a beginning to YOU every night.
It looks like we can refer to "I" or "you" (our identity) in these three "deepening" ways - "I am a body/mind", "I am a witnessing consciousness/ attention of all that happens", "I am the present moment that never dies and is never born". To me noticing experientially the truth of the 2nd statement reveals the mistake of 1st and insight of 3rd. Pretty cool.
What I say is only my viewpoint.

User avatar
Kutso
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: unconsciousness

Post by Kutso » Fri May 25, 2012 7:36 pm

rideforever wrote:It doesn't matter. All that matters is that it is possible to use the word "my" at all. Separation has occurred. Even though there is none.
It does matter. When you say "my (something)", a concept is being used to separate what you refer to as "I" and "not 'I'". The concept seems to separate reality into bits and pieces. But really, it's just illusion. Like the magic trick of sawing the lady in half.

There is no separation between "I" and phenomena. If you don't believe this to be true, I invite you to please find the border between "I" and phenomena. Can you find a clear border?
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.

User avatar
Kutso
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: unconsciousness

Post by Kutso » Fri May 25, 2012 7:41 pm

johahr wrote:How is this an argument against ME being born again every morning? Lets imagine such reference, my heartbeats would work nicely for reference?
If you refer to ME as the thinking mind and the body, then sure, you are being born again every morning. But my argument clearly shows that you are not the mind and the body. You are the constant to which the mind and body appears and disappears. You are the constant to which the heartbeats appear and disappear.
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.

User avatar
Kutso
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: unconsciousness

Post by Kutso » Fri May 25, 2012 7:46 pm

rideforever wrote:(a.2) perhaps something other than you can demonstrate impermanence,
If you were able to demonstrate impermanence, it would have to be done against a background of permanence. Otherwise, how would you even know of impermanence? If everything was changing all the time, how could change even be recognized?
rideforever wrote:Ultimately the only way to know, is to know. There is no evidence. No ?
The question is, who is it that needs evidence? The knower, or the mind?
Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that. Not that.

Post Reply