This looks like a great post and I will read it as I do all of them, however I could not get past the first sentence without wanting to convey something that helped me more than can be described - far more than any other experience ever did, and as much as any teaching instruction.
There are exquisite experiences where the "I sense" goes away. They are genuinely beautiful, and one could comment not untruthfully that they are "more true to what is" than when the "I sense" is present.
However, THAT is not IT. This is! Meaning, whatever you are experiencing right now, *you* are whole and complete. There isn't anything missing, nor is it possible for there to be. If we contemplate (when our mind is calm ideally, unburdened by wants, needs, or clocks) about how it would be possible for anything to be missing from this whole and complete "is-ness," it's not too difficult to glimpse that it isn't.
"Holding" that glimpse is neither easy nor necessary, any more than it's necessary to learn more than once not to touch a hot stove. It may take a little time to gain full confidence in that insight, but so what, it's well worth it. Giving up just because there is a doubt is the same as wanting to learn the art of playing piano and giving up after one day of practice because you haven't achieved that.
The idea that the "I sense" needs to be gone in order to be "awake" (as Robert describes it) is completely false. Forget for now about its origins, there are many factors, but it is just plain wrong. The presence or absence of an "I sense" or I thought" is not the point, the point is simply to see that the person represented by the "I sense" is illusory in nature.
Not "an illusion," but illusory, meaning having no substance. how can we call the entirety of the experience of what we are while we are "here" an illusion? Only through a form of insanity called "the normal way of thinking." Calling life an illusion means missing out on the majesty of it, which is only found in the experience of it exactly as it is.
Some people talk about the "I sense" disappearing and not coming back, and maybe that happens. Why not? However, the "I sense" is as good as disappeared when you know that IT is not you, because then it is no different than a cloud which you would obviously not think shouldn't be there.
I was just thinking about this very same thing this morning. I've heard so many teachers explain that "I" am the aware witness. That leaves me feeling very divided and separate from my experiences. I understand that experiences come and go but unless I'm sleeping, I feel like I can't NOT experience...
I resonate completely with the essential message here, Robert. I will say that some of the phrases you dismiss as nonsense (e.g., nothing is born, nothing dies) are quite true when deeply understood, which in no way denies our experience of birth and death (children arriving and loved ones departing), but simply recognizes the absence of separate, independent "things" with clearly defined beginnings and endings. And of course, from the perspective that "all is One" or "everything is a dream," being kicked in the shins and the subsequent feeling of pain are simply aspects of the One or the dream. BUT....that said...I resonate completely with the heart of your message here.
You and I have been hashing this out for years now. Our main point of agreement seems to be that the human experience comes down to here and now--this unique moment and all it contains. Our main point of disagreement appears to center on the hypothesis that the human experience is a "dream" but that there is something that is not a dream. Correct me if you think I have misunderstood you on this last point.
Assuming you agree with the above, I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I cannot stand outside of my experience—which consists entirely of human primate animal perceptions, feelings, and thoughts—to make such a determination with any certainty.
However, I can say that any feeling of oneness, like all feelings, is a human feeling, not some overarching truth about reality, unless "reality" is defined as what humans perceive, feel, and think. Since I am not willing to characterize reality that way, any statements about the Absolute, etcetera, are a bridge too far for me. You have crossed that bridge, so it's little wonder that you sometimes find my reluctance to cross it annoying.
I think maybe you've misunderstood my perspective. I've never landed on the view that "Consciousness (or Mind) is all there is," and I've certainly never subscribed to "life is just a dream and therefore unreal." I DO notice that nothing is ever experienced outside of consciousness, but I am not convinced there might not be something outside of consciousness. I find the theory of evolution, evolving nervous systems, brains, etc. to be a very convincing theory, so like you, I come down on "not knowing." But I can also really feel into the Consciousness only theory, and can easily see how that might be true. But I haven't landed on either one. I see that life is in many ways dream-like (not a dream, but dream-like), and I'm not alone in noticing that (row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream...merrily, merrily merrily merrily, life is but a dream). I also notice through direct seeing that all forms are impermanent and that everything appears in the immediacy of here-now as one seamless happening. Could that be nothing more than a brain experience? Sure. Again, I don't know. But from my own direct experience, I can say that experientially, no-thing is born and no-thing ever dies, but as I think you know, in saying that, I'm not in any way denying the everyday experience of individual people being born and dying. Both perspectives feel true to me in my actual experience. In saying what I did about your kicked in the shins story, I was simply pointing out that it doesn't disprove or nullify the perspective you seem to assume it nullifies, because from that perspective, all of that is included.
Well, Joan, I still enjoy batting these matters around with you. You know the background and bring a sharp wit to the conversation. So, I will comment on your comment.
I hear "Nothing is ever experienced outside of consciousness" as a meaningless tautology.
Some people visualize consciousness as an empty container or field where experiences arise (the old movie screen analogy), but I do not see it that way. As far as I know, consciousness and experience are two names for the same thing. If you are unconscious, there is no experience; you know you are conscious because there is experience, i.e., you are aware of perceptions, feelings, and thoughts. No awareness, no consciousness.
I do not understand what you mean by "nothing more than a brain experience." Of course, perceptions, feelings, and thoughts--the totality, that is, of experience--are "brain experiences." The evidence for that is overwhelming. But the way you put it seems dismissive, as if "brain experiences" are a lesser order of experience. There is no evidence for that, as far as I know.
The point of the kick-in-the-shins story is not to prove or disprove anything. As I see it, nothing about ultimate matters can be proven or disproven. The story's point is that theorizing about metaphysics is a dead end. Meanwhile, life goes on.
Life may be like a dream in some aspects, but it is not at all like a dream in one crucial way. If I dream that I just had back surgery and am in pain, when I awaken, there is no pain. After actual surgery, on the other hand, one cannot "awaken" from the pain but only live with it until it subsides. That is my current situation and I am NOT dreaming it.
Nothing is ever experienced outside of consciousness is a fact. Everything else is theoretical. That doesn't make it wrong, but it is always second-hand theory. In no way was I intending to be dismissive of the brain, but there is no proof that any of this is a brain experience--correlation is not causation. Regarding the dream analogy, the best versions I've heard say we don't wake up FROM the dream but rather IN the dream. The dream ends every night in deep sleep, and finally, at death. Again, I'm not asserting this as The Truth, only explaining it since you seem to repeatedly misunderstand and thus mischaracterize it. But the MAIN POINT in my initial comment was that I resonated with your post. As I think you probably know, my main focus is not on philosophy or metaphysics, but on direct present moment experiencing. And in no way do I devalue everyday life.
Yess, I appreciated you initial comment, Joan, as I said. It's always good to hear from you.
It may be a flaw of mine, but I cannot help but criticize the false logic that passes for teaching among the nonduality crowd. To wit:
"Nothing is ever experienced outside of consciousness."
Yes, that is a fact, but only because experience and consciousness are the same thing. That statement is completely circular--a tautology--and so entirely meaningless. Not only does it not PROVE anything, it does not even SAY anything. This is an argument Rupert Spira uses. If you want to see it deconstructed, Tim Freke's interview with Rupert does it well.
Yes, I've seen that video and many more and I know Tim and he and I are friends and have talked. And, of course, I was raised in the materialist perspective. I used to be a solid materialist, but the more openly I listened to Steve Hagen, Rupert Spira, Bernardo Kastrup, Peter Brown, Huang Po, and others both new and ancient, the more I began to see the Consciousness Only perspective. I still don't land there. I can see both sides of this argument. And I hear voices that find a middle ground or no ground like Trungpa and Nagarjuna. And maybe that's where I mostly come down, if I come down anywhere. (And you seem to sometimes be there as well). I see consciousness and experience as "not one, not two." But however you label THIS here and now, we cannot know with certainty anything other than THIS present conscious experiencing. The rest is ALWAYS theoretical, abstract, conceptual, and subject to doubt. That doesn't make it untrue or useless--it's gotten us to the moon and to the top of the food chain after all--at least, so it would appear (in the dream-like movie of waking life)! But I have the sense your mind is made up and you've taken your stand, so you cannot really listen openly to anything that might contradict or shift your view. But sometimes, you actually do come from that place of not knowing, and I would just urge you to keep an open, curious mind. We really don't know much, imho.
This looks like a great post and I will read it as I do all of them, however I could not get past the first sentence without wanting to convey something that helped me more than can be described - far more than any other experience ever did, and as much as any teaching instruction.
There are exquisite experiences where the "I sense" goes away. They are genuinely beautiful, and one could comment not untruthfully that they are "more true to what is" than when the "I sense" is present.
However, THAT is not IT. This is! Meaning, whatever you are experiencing right now, *you* are whole and complete. There isn't anything missing, nor is it possible for there to be. If we contemplate (when our mind is calm ideally, unburdened by wants, needs, or clocks) about how it would be possible for anything to be missing from this whole and complete "is-ness," it's not too difficult to glimpse that it isn't.
"Holding" that glimpse is neither easy nor necessary, any more than it's necessary to learn more than once not to touch a hot stove. It may take a little time to gain full confidence in that insight, but so what, it's well worth it. Giving up just because there is a doubt is the same as wanting to learn the art of playing piano and giving up after one day of practice because you haven't achieved that.
The idea that the "I sense" needs to be gone in order to be "awake" (as Robert describes it) is completely false. Forget for now about its origins, there are many factors, but it is just plain wrong. The presence or absence of an "I sense" or I thought" is not the point, the point is simply to see that the person represented by the "I sense" is illusory in nature.
Not "an illusion," but illusory, meaning having no substance. how can we call the entirety of the experience of what we are while we are "here" an illusion? Only through a form of insanity called "the normal way of thinking." Calling life an illusion means missing out on the majesty of it, which is only found in the experience of it exactly as it is.
Some people talk about the "I sense" disappearing and not coming back, and maybe that happens. Why not? However, the "I sense" is as good as disappeared when you know that IT is not you, because then it is no different than a cloud which you would obviously not think shouldn't be there.
I was just thinking about this very same thing this morning. I've heard so many teachers explain that "I" am the aware witness. That leaves me feeling very divided and separate from my experiences. I understand that experiences come and go but unless I'm sleeping, I feel like I can't NOT experience...
I resonate completely with the essential message here, Robert. I will say that some of the phrases you dismiss as nonsense (e.g., nothing is born, nothing dies) are quite true when deeply understood, which in no way denies our experience of birth and death (children arriving and loved ones departing), but simply recognizes the absence of separate, independent "things" with clearly defined beginnings and endings. And of course, from the perspective that "all is One" or "everything is a dream," being kicked in the shins and the subsequent feeling of pain are simply aspects of the One or the dream. BUT....that said...I resonate completely with the heart of your message here.
Thanks, Joan. I appreciate your comment.
You and I have been hashing this out for years now. Our main point of agreement seems to be that the human experience comes down to here and now--this unique moment and all it contains. Our main point of disagreement appears to center on the hypothesis that the human experience is a "dream" but that there is something that is not a dream. Correct me if you think I have misunderstood you on this last point.
Assuming you agree with the above, I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I cannot stand outside of my experience—which consists entirely of human primate animal perceptions, feelings, and thoughts—to make such a determination with any certainty.
However, I can say that any feeling of oneness, like all feelings, is a human feeling, not some overarching truth about reality, unless "reality" is defined as what humans perceive, feel, and think. Since I am not willing to characterize reality that way, any statements about the Absolute, etcetera, are a bridge too far for me. You have crossed that bridge, so it's little wonder that you sometimes find my reluctance to cross it annoying.
With love,
R.
I think maybe you've misunderstood my perspective. I've never landed on the view that "Consciousness (or Mind) is all there is," and I've certainly never subscribed to "life is just a dream and therefore unreal." I DO notice that nothing is ever experienced outside of consciousness, but I am not convinced there might not be something outside of consciousness. I find the theory of evolution, evolving nervous systems, brains, etc. to be a very convincing theory, so like you, I come down on "not knowing." But I can also really feel into the Consciousness only theory, and can easily see how that might be true. But I haven't landed on either one. I see that life is in many ways dream-like (not a dream, but dream-like), and I'm not alone in noticing that (row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream...merrily, merrily merrily merrily, life is but a dream). I also notice through direct seeing that all forms are impermanent and that everything appears in the immediacy of here-now as one seamless happening. Could that be nothing more than a brain experience? Sure. Again, I don't know. But from my own direct experience, I can say that experientially, no-thing is born and no-thing ever dies, but as I think you know, in saying that, I'm not in any way denying the everyday experience of individual people being born and dying. Both perspectives feel true to me in my actual experience. In saying what I did about your kicked in the shins story, I was simply pointing out that it doesn't disprove or nullify the perspective you seem to assume it nullifies, because from that perspective, all of that is included.
Well, Joan, I still enjoy batting these matters around with you. You know the background and bring a sharp wit to the conversation. So, I will comment on your comment.
I hear "Nothing is ever experienced outside of consciousness" as a meaningless tautology.
Some people visualize consciousness as an empty container or field where experiences arise (the old movie screen analogy), but I do not see it that way. As far as I know, consciousness and experience are two names for the same thing. If you are unconscious, there is no experience; you know you are conscious because there is experience, i.e., you are aware of perceptions, feelings, and thoughts. No awareness, no consciousness.
I do not understand what you mean by "nothing more than a brain experience." Of course, perceptions, feelings, and thoughts--the totality, that is, of experience--are "brain experiences." The evidence for that is overwhelming. But the way you put it seems dismissive, as if "brain experiences" are a lesser order of experience. There is no evidence for that, as far as I know.
The point of the kick-in-the-shins story is not to prove or disprove anything. As I see it, nothing about ultimate matters can be proven or disproven. The story's point is that theorizing about metaphysics is a dead end. Meanwhile, life goes on.
Life may be like a dream in some aspects, but it is not at all like a dream in one crucial way. If I dream that I just had back surgery and am in pain, when I awaken, there is no pain. After actual surgery, on the other hand, one cannot "awaken" from the pain but only live with it until it subsides. That is my current situation and I am NOT dreaming it.
Nothing is ever experienced outside of consciousness is a fact. Everything else is theoretical. That doesn't make it wrong, but it is always second-hand theory. In no way was I intending to be dismissive of the brain, but there is no proof that any of this is a brain experience--correlation is not causation. Regarding the dream analogy, the best versions I've heard say we don't wake up FROM the dream but rather IN the dream. The dream ends every night in deep sleep, and finally, at death. Again, I'm not asserting this as The Truth, only explaining it since you seem to repeatedly misunderstand and thus mischaracterize it. But the MAIN POINT in my initial comment was that I resonated with your post. As I think you probably know, my main focus is not on philosophy or metaphysics, but on direct present moment experiencing. And in no way do I devalue everyday life.
Yess, I appreciated you initial comment, Joan, as I said. It's always good to hear from you.
It may be a flaw of mine, but I cannot help but criticize the false logic that passes for teaching among the nonduality crowd. To wit:
"Nothing is ever experienced outside of consciousness."
Yes, that is a fact, but only because experience and consciousness are the same thing. That statement is completely circular--a tautology--and so entirely meaningless. Not only does it not PROVE anything, it does not even SAY anything. This is an argument Rupert Spira uses. If you want to see it deconstructed, Tim Freke's interview with Rupert does it well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKAD5fVy6oY&t=1527s
I wish you well.
Yes, I've seen that video and many more and I know Tim and he and I are friends and have talked. And, of course, I was raised in the materialist perspective. I used to be a solid materialist, but the more openly I listened to Steve Hagen, Rupert Spira, Bernardo Kastrup, Peter Brown, Huang Po, and others both new and ancient, the more I began to see the Consciousness Only perspective. I still don't land there. I can see both sides of this argument. And I hear voices that find a middle ground or no ground like Trungpa and Nagarjuna. And maybe that's where I mostly come down, if I come down anywhere. (And you seem to sometimes be there as well). I see consciousness and experience as "not one, not two." But however you label THIS here and now, we cannot know with certainty anything other than THIS present conscious experiencing. The rest is ALWAYS theoretical, abstract, conceptual, and subject to doubt. That doesn't make it untrue or useless--it's gotten us to the moon and to the top of the food chain after all--at least, so it would appear (in the dream-like movie of waking life)! But I have the sense your mind is made up and you've taken your stand, so you cannot really listen openly to anything that might contradict or shift your view. But sometimes, you actually do come from that place of not knowing, and I would just urge you to keep an open, curious mind. We really don't know much, imho.
Thank you for this, Robert...
Thanks Robert and Joan!
“But we must know first that our acts are useless and yet we must proceed as if we didn’t know it. That’s a sorcerer’s controlled folly.”
— Carlos Castaneda