I resonate whole-heartedly with almost all of this. I did question the paragraph about Alzheimer’s and Ronald Regan's inability to recognize a model of the White House in his aquarium. It seems to me that he was still aware of the model and the aquarium, meaning that he was still perceiving them as shapes and colors, but he was simply no longer able to correctly remember and identify what the model represented. In other words, his memory was damaged, and his ability to put things into the conceptual categories that thought creates, but not his basic awareness. No?
I think the word awareness gets used in several different ways. Sometimes it is simply a synonym for consciousness (whatever that is). In that sense, it is the common factor in every different experience, like the screen that is present in every scene of the movie. Some traditions elevate that to a kind of primordial unchanging ever-present ground of being , as in Awareness with a capitol 'A', and then assume it was here before the material universe and the brain. I think this is the version to which you are objecting, yes? And I agree. While it's true that no brain ever appears outside of consciousness (or awareness, or experience), as far as I can see, that doesn't prove that the brain is not somehow generating consciousness and awareness.
Sometimes awareness is also used to mean the capacity that allows us to SEE thoughts AS thoughts, to "be aware" of when we are being triggered, or what we are feeling, to self-reflect in the best sense. In this sense, it can be cultivated and expanded, as you describe happening visually through photography, or as can happen through somatic work such as Feldenkrais, or through meditation or psychotherapy, etc. I don't know if awareness itself is expanding, but certainly more and more subtleties are being noticed in each of these examples that were not noticed before.
Sometimes I feel awareness is confused with attention, which in my lexicon refers to the FOCUS of awareness, as in paying attention to my left foot--like the lens of a camera or the beam of a flashlight.
Zen teacher (and psychoanalyst) Barry Magid, whom I know you like, gave a talk recently on the Heart Sutra and the meaning of the word emptiness in Buddhism. In Barry's view, Buddhism sees emptiness as non-essentialism, impermanence, and interconnectedness--not as some Empty Aware Ground that contains everything. I think this talk is right up your alley. It's about 30 min long. You can hear it here if you're interested:
Greetings, dear Joan. Thanks for your comment. I am always pleased to hear from you.
Yes, we agree on most of this. I will address Alzheimer's, but first, let me deal with "It's true that no brain ever appears outside of consciousness (or awareness, or experience)." I know you see the flaw in that logic, but for those who don't:
This is an argument used by advocates for the "nothing 'really' exists but consciousness" school. In my view, it's entirely specious. "Nothing appears outside of consciousness" says nothing about consciousness because it is a tautology. Obviously, nothing appears outside of experience because experience--or call it what you will--is all we have. No one ever has a "non-experience." Non-experiences do not exist.
So not only do brains never appear outside of consciousness (awareness), but nothing else does either. However, this does not mean that consciousness precedes the material world, which is the intended point of that argument, only that without being conscious, we human animals would not have experiences of the material world or anything else, such as thoughts and feelings, etc. This says nothing about the source of consciousness. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it is such a weak argument that I wonder about the motives of those who still resort to it.
On to Ronald Reagan. You say his memory was damaged, but not his "basic awareness." I'm not entirely clear on why the word basic comes into it unless there is an awareness that is not basic. But I'll assume that what you meant is that Reagan's damaged brain was not so damaged that he lacked all awareness of anything at all. But what if it were that damaged? What if he lapsed into a vegetative state in which he was kept alive by breathing machines while the doctors attempted to get permission to harvest his organs? Would awareness still be there or not?
The problem here, it seems to me, is that we use the word awareness to mean two different things entirely. The idealists--Bernardo Kastrup, for example--see awareness as a kind of energetic field in which biological awareness, such as that of humans and other animals, is:
"merely the image of a self-localization process of mind, analogously to how a whirlpool is the image of a self-localization process of water." So, for Kastrup, death is only the "unclenching" of that self-localization process. That is an ancient view of the matter and one that should not be dismissed out of hand. Still, I believe Kastrup loses credibility by giving his books tendentious titles such as "Why Materialism Is Baloney." Really? And you know that how, Bernardo?
Another meaning of awareness is the ability to notice. For example, "I am aware of a headache or bird singing outside my window." While idealism cannot be disproven, I think this naturalistic meaning gets us much farther into an awakened view of the human condition than anything Kastrup says, but that's just my opinion. Awareness, in this use of the word, can, I agree with you, be focused and deepened through training and other experiences that are helpful in fostering attention, which is--we agree here--not the same as awareness. This is why I say my present awareness is not what I had seventy years ago. I was aware back then and am aware right now, but I would not say that those two awarenesses are identical, unless this is the "basic awareness" to which you referred. If so, then yes, I noticed the world and myself when I was nine, and I notice it now. However, that observation begs the question; it does nothing to heal the split between consciousness and the supposed objects in or of consciousness.
As I see this, what we see, feel, think, or otherwise experience is all we ever know or can know. People speak of so-called "pure awareness," but I doubt such a thing can ever be experienced. In my experience, awareness and the objects "in" awareness are one and the same. That is my actual experience. I might be mistaken on a metaphysical level, but if I were, how could I ever know that?
That is why I say what "I" am is a mystery.
p.s. I do like Barry's view of these matters and will follow the link.
It seems we are entirely in agreement, Robert. Like you, I find no boundary between awareness and experience. I think that what Vedanta and folks like Kastrup and Rupert Spira propose is certainly possible, I can't rule it out, but it's equally possible that Tim Freke has it right, or that materialist scientists have it right. It all seems speculative to me. I don't see the world as "unreal" or merely a dream, although I can certainly see it as dream-like, and I can certainly see the ephemeral nature of it.
I can tune into an EXPERIENCE that might be described as "pure awareness" — a kind of empty, spacious, open quality of mind that feels boundless. But I don't want to jump from that EXPERIENCE to the BELIEF or certainty or conclusion that "pure awareness" exists as some kind of Immutable Unchanging Reality. It may, but it may not. I don't expect to still be conscious and aware after death, although I might be surprised, but I doubt it.
As for whether someone who is in a vegetative state being kept alive by breathing machines has awareness, I simply don't know. I suspect not. There does seem to be evidence that people in comas have some level of awareness, but as far as I know, not people in vegetative states. But the way you described the incident with Reagan, he was clearly aware that there was an object that he thought had something to do with him, but he simply couldn't recall what the connection was. Memory was damaged. I suppose you could say that there were things he had previously been aware of that he was no longer aware of (the reverse of what happens with photography, somatic work, therapy, meditation, etc), but it still seems to me that memory is what has shrunk. But, of course, all these words ("memory," "consciousness," "thought," "awareness," etc) conceptually carve out and draw artificial lines around "parts" of this indivisible flow of experiencing. In a way, none of it really holds up.
So yes, I'm with you 100% that we don't know what this is, or why it is, or anything else other than THAT it is. And in my view, that's enough. Simply being alive.
I’m somewhat surprised to see you say that you doubt any form of awareness persists after death -- curious what has led you to that?
My experiences (and I believe ~most of the ancient great traditions/sects) suggest that nothing stops at death
Perhaps most compelling for me have been several experiences with 5-MeO-DMT in which I experienced a ‘universe death’ -- or total dissolution of all form and everything I had ever known or taken myself to be -- and was brought to a space of Infinite Formless Light-Love-Power that was ‘more Real’ than waking life
These and many other experiences -- both sober and entheogenic -- have strongly suggested to me that the Heart of God Burns Eternally... and that we are Emanations of that Fire and shall return Home to that Fire, discovering then that we never truly left
Joan merely expressed an opinion about whether selfhood survives the death of the physical body. She doesn't know--she may be a Zen master, but she is not a dead Zen master--but her working attitude is that it probably doesn't, although it could.
I wonder why you find that surprising. Is that so bizarre a notion that to express it evokes surprise? I wouldn't think so.
Picture a human death. A woman falls ill and takes her last gasping death. Her body is brought to the river and put on a raft, which is set aflame and burns until even her bones turn to charcoal. Are you saying that something that is aware survives that? If you are, you may be right. That is, as you say, an ancient belief, so you are not alone in believing it. Nor am I saying you are wrong to regard your experiences, both stoned and straight, as suggestive. They're your experiences, and you will make of them what you do.
I am saying first that ancient is not the same as true, and second, that experiences are not proof because experience and the experiencer are the same inexplicable happening. If you understand this, you will admit that you are not in any sense an objective observer who can fairly judge where experiences come from or what they mean. We human beings do not KNOW what any of this is, how it got here, where it's headed--none of that.
You have your beliefs and your experiences, which for you are convincing. I suspect that you had the beliefs before you had all those experiences since that is the usual course of events, but even if you approached these matters without any spiritual/religious baggage, why is it surprising that Joan doesn't see things as you do?
Please consider this. Joan is not you. She does not have your background; she has hers. Your experiences are yours, not hers. You can put your experiences in words but cannot make Joan experience them. So why, in Heaven's name (sorry), should she see ANY of this as you do?
Robert, for someone who is convinced that we know absolutely nothing, you seem quite certain that you know a lot about me and my intentions here
I was surprised simply because in my experience, ancient and modern sages tend to affirm that the heart of reality is deathless. I was just curious to hear more about Joan’s perspective
I don’t agree with you that we can’t know anything about God (or whatever name you give to the heart of reality). God can reveal Divine Nature to us
Hi, Jordan. I know nothing about your intentions and I never said I did. I found your disappointment in Joan's point of view curious. You have every right to your beliefs but not to expect that others will share them, which is what I said.
12 hrs ago·edited 11 hrs agoLiked by Robert Saltzman
Hi Jordon,
Robert alerted me to your comment. In my most recent Substack article (https://joantollifson.substack.com/p/not-clinging-to-ideas), I expand a bit on what I said to Robert in my responses above to his article. I wrote: "I can tune into an EXPERIENCE that might be called pure consciousness, boundless awareness or God, but I endeavor to avoid turning any such experience into a metaphysical certainty or belief about the nature of reality. I don’t claim to know the Truth about how the universe works. In my own direct experience, I can observe certain things about how it seems to be, and I often share these observations in my writing, but ultimately, I’m clueless about what this whole happening is, why it’s here or how it all works. And it doesn’t seem like I need to know any of that. What matters most to me is simply being alive, finding the beauty in ordinary life, enjoying what is, and beholding it all (when possible) from the perspective of wholeness or unconditional love, seeing that it all belongs, that it all goes together, that it cannot be otherwise in each moment from how it is."
I can easily imagine having a powerful experience of the kind you and many others report having on 5-MeO-DMT. I simply don't leap from the experience to the metaphysical certainty you seem to have about the nature of reality.
I looked into this question of life after death in my most recent book, Death: The End of Self-Improvement. You can read my introduction to the book here: https://www.joantollifson.com/writing45.html — this will offer a glimpse into how I see it, which is more aligned with the Buddhist perspective than the Advaita one. Whatever this whole happening is, I see it as ever-changing and without beginning or end. Yes, in our everyday experience, apparently definable "things" (such as people, trees, chairs, events, emotions, etc) all SEEM to have definitive beginnings and endings, and to deny this is foolish, but the more closely we look (think of Peter Brown's work), no such clear boundary lines can be found. It is one seamless flow that never departs from the immediacy of here and now. It shows up in many different ways, including the sometimes powerful visions that humans can have on drugs or in meditation or at any moment.
Thank you, Joan! Deeply appreciate hearing more from you on this. I like your perspective. If you see THIS as having no beginning or end, then that implies it fundamentally is without birth or death, correct?
So perhaps your original statement about not expecting an afterlife referred specifically to your sense of being Joan.
I also do not know what will happen when we die. Like you I also see reality as without beginning and end. For me I do strongly intuit that there are more ‘adventures’ on the other side of physical ‘death,’ but I guess we will have to wait and find out 🙏🏼💙
Yes, fundamentally birthless and deathless. But I don't expect to be there as Joan. Life goes on...awareness, energy, etc will arise in and as other life forms, yes. But I don't imagine "more ‘adventures’ on the other side of physical ‘death'" for me.
I always enjoyed the image of the boat and rowing away from the concept of an ego left holding on to a decrepit shell of existence.
Recently my views on non-duality and spirituality have shifted. I see in myself and others that these concepts and beliefs are landing points that humans want to subscribe to and feel a sense of certainty. It seems to be a natural part of human existence to be curious and seek out existential and spiritual avenues.
However, without words and concepts life continues on. It is palpable through the aliveness we experience moment-to-moment. It does not need to be defined, explained, or justified. It simply is as it is. Spirituality, beliefs, and concepts can become an addiction which contributes to a sense of seeking and longing that results in unnecessary suffering and neuroticism. Claiming certainty to a thought or belief system is to fall into the trap of thoughts. Stating there is a self or no-self is a subscription to just another belief system.
Dearest Robert - love the photo of you as a young man.
You spelled Ronald Reagan's name wrong. ;-)
All I know is that my life seems to be flowing more and things are not so difficult and there is way more 'awareness' of things to see in the natural world....being as I have (like Joan) perhaps more than the average bear in the trauma department....it's interesting to note....my mind says "uh-oh, look out - things are too good, nothing is going wrong...." Anyhow love you and love Joan and your back and forth. Not as afraid of death as before as well. Which is a good thing. I attribute it to reading both of your substacks.
It’s refreshing to read your description (here and elsewhere) of awareness as a natural phenomenon and not something that is somehow prior to existence.
Thank you, dear Catherine. I always love hearing from you. When you wrote (in your foreword to Depending On No-thing) that I was arrogantly humble, I felt seen, heard, and understood.
What a spectacular post. I have discovered your writing through the new Oliver Burkeman audio-book Meditations for Mortals and he quoted you, which made me discover your book The Ten Thousand Things and then of course this Substack. I subscribed immediately. I think your writing is going to be a huge contribution to me. Thank you.
I rather enjoy not reaching any type of conclusions about things like "(A)awareness", that have no definitive meaning anyway.
The Buddhist word emptiness also has a lot of concepts attached to it, which either Joan or Barry or both prefers to refer to as boundlessness, which feels more accurate to me and better points to this openness, indescribability, unresolvability of whatever "what" is.
When I read Robert's and Joan's words, I feel boundlessness is built right in and really can be sensed that way. It's pretty uncanny.
This doesn't stop me from exploring theories from Tibetan Buddhism and quantum physics about so called "afterlife", especially in the light of phenomenon like master meditators who remain alive and sitting up in posture long after they are pronounced clinically dead, as in the film Tukdam.
Robert. I tend to view awareness somewhat differently; and I would also bring consciousness into the equation. I don’t feel that awareness changes throughout one’s lifetime. Awareness certainly appears to change though such an appearance is more likely to be a change in the contents of consciousness. Consciousness to me is its contents; in my view it is the contents that constantly change from moment to moment whereas awareness of the contents remains the same – as just awareness.
You ask: - “Is your present awareness really the same as your awareness as a child?” Well, I’d say yes. What one was aware of as a child was the sum total of all the information that had been acquired up until that time; as the years passed more information is accumulated (and some lost or dropped) but the awareness of the ever-changing and ever-arising information remains the same.
It seems to me that the information or contents is the changing factor while the awareness remains the same. Memory accesses the information via the brain’s network of neurons and synapses and applies the relevant information to the arising situation(s). All this, contents or consciousness, memory or retrieval is a natural occurrence and I believe can be verified. Awareness on the other hand doesn’t fit in our usual interpretation of biological.
You say: - “As far as I know, awareness--the faculty of being able to notice things--is biological: a quality of living nervous systems. Animals have it, but rocks don't.” I would say then, that noticing things or awareness seems to be built into more than animals. Plants have been shown to have awareness in that they respond and interact with their environment. Rocks, inorganic material are different, although at a stretch one could say that they are aware of their environment in that they grow, decay and die – and some studies suggest that minerals evolve – but that is a leap to far!
To recap, I understand consciousness as being the property of biological processes dependent on memory, thinking etc. and generally, the organism’s ability to access and act on its accrued information – the storehouse of what we call ‘me’. Awareness on the other hand doesn’t seem to require ‘me’. It does seem to be just ‘there’ – when ‘I’ am not. But yes, no one knows what awareness is. What I have wrote here re awareness are just my ideas.
Thanks for the comment, Ron. I found it puzzling throughout. For example, you say, "Awareness on the other hand doesn’t seem to require ‘me’. It does seem to be just ‘there’ – when ‘I’ am not." If you are not there, then can you say that awareness is? How would you know anything about an occasion in which you are not present?
The fact that plants move as the light changes does not mean that they are conscious any more than bacteria are conscious because they move in response to chemical changes. Of course, that does depend on what is meant by "conscious."
Hi again Robert. Thanks for your reply. To clarify as best as I can, I did write tentatively about plants being aware, there is a lot of research on this subject. Plants seem to me to exhibit an awareness of their environment and needs – but as I said, I understand consciousness as being the property of biological processes dependent on memory, thinking etc. which is (as far as we know) only the domain of humans and some animals.
As far as my take on awareness goes, I wouldn’t have the temerity to say what it is. All I can say is that the ‘me’, the self structure being a product of my experiences, is the information that constantly (and naturally) comes to the fore in every activity in life. On the rare occasion, perhaps what is sometimes referred to as present moment awareness, this moment or now, the moment, instead of being overlain with self or mind created concepts is just there as it is.
I think that most people have such happenings from time to time, perhaps when listening to a piece of music, dancing or seeing a friend or loved one as though for the first time. Immediately afterwards the mind/self/me comes in to judge and analyse. It is these brief moments that the me/self is quiescent., only to arise after to recognise a moment of stillness. I wonder if part of the ‘search’ we engage in is to recapture such moments.
I believe that the terms consciousness and awareness are always confused and used in many different ways, but it seems to me that consciousness is biological and confined to animals that have a certain evolutionary advanced brain/neurological structure, while awareness is, well, a bit of a mystery – and I’m happy with that.
Just to end, I like what J. Krishnamurti and Nisargadata say although it explains nothing: - J. Krishnamurti spoke of consciousness as being its contents and Nisargadata also remarked that “There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent.”
To me the question "goes off the rails" with the assumption that awareness is "just aware." At that point, what awareness is has already been (to use your terminology) split away from the experience of being aware. There is a seeming split, obviously, but it is not an actual one. To me that's the difference between knowledge and ignorance.
I like and use the word 'noticing' also. I'm comfortable with the word awareness as "me," but only because my definition of what that means could be described as "limitless noticing and the absence of noticing." That's just "what is," which is what I mean by the word awareness. It has to be "me" in that sense, not because that "me" is some split out non-physical non-appearing no-thing, but precisely because there is no actual splitting.
If awareness was "just aware," it would have no seeming capacity to know it was awareness. It's only the evolution of a complex enough vehicle (the brains of human primates) that made/makes self reflection possible due to the appearance of "ego" in the equation. The appearance of ego, in conjunction with an intellect that has the capacity for scientific, logical inquiry and inference, is the only reason that a SEEMINGLY separate factor called awareness can be inferred in the first place. animals cannot infer it, because they have neither the ego nor the intellect to do so. Without both, there is not even a subject/object experience they're just is aliveness.
Hello dear Robert,
I resonate whole-heartedly with almost all of this. I did question the paragraph about Alzheimer’s and Ronald Regan's inability to recognize a model of the White House in his aquarium. It seems to me that he was still aware of the model and the aquarium, meaning that he was still perceiving them as shapes and colors, but he was simply no longer able to correctly remember and identify what the model represented. In other words, his memory was damaged, and his ability to put things into the conceptual categories that thought creates, but not his basic awareness. No?
I think the word awareness gets used in several different ways. Sometimes it is simply a synonym for consciousness (whatever that is). In that sense, it is the common factor in every different experience, like the screen that is present in every scene of the movie. Some traditions elevate that to a kind of primordial unchanging ever-present ground of being , as in Awareness with a capitol 'A', and then assume it was here before the material universe and the brain. I think this is the version to which you are objecting, yes? And I agree. While it's true that no brain ever appears outside of consciousness (or awareness, or experience), as far as I can see, that doesn't prove that the brain is not somehow generating consciousness and awareness.
Sometimes awareness is also used to mean the capacity that allows us to SEE thoughts AS thoughts, to "be aware" of when we are being triggered, or what we are feeling, to self-reflect in the best sense. In this sense, it can be cultivated and expanded, as you describe happening visually through photography, or as can happen through somatic work such as Feldenkrais, or through meditation or psychotherapy, etc. I don't know if awareness itself is expanding, but certainly more and more subtleties are being noticed in each of these examples that were not noticed before.
Sometimes I feel awareness is confused with attention, which in my lexicon refers to the FOCUS of awareness, as in paying attention to my left foot--like the lens of a camera or the beam of a flashlight.
Zen teacher (and psychoanalyst) Barry Magid, whom I know you like, gave a talk recently on the Heart Sutra and the meaning of the word emptiness in Buddhism. In Barry's view, Buddhism sees emptiness as non-essentialism, impermanence, and interconnectedness--not as some Empty Aware Ground that contains everything. I think this talk is right up your alley. It's about 30 min long. You can hear it here if you're interested:
https://ordinarymind.s3.amazonaws.com/public/file_assets/463/Barry_Magid_-_Dharma_Talk_-_2024-09-14.m4a?1726608077.
Much Love,
joan
Greetings, dear Joan. Thanks for your comment. I am always pleased to hear from you.
Yes, we agree on most of this. I will address Alzheimer's, but first, let me deal with "It's true that no brain ever appears outside of consciousness (or awareness, or experience)." I know you see the flaw in that logic, but for those who don't:
This is an argument used by advocates for the "nothing 'really' exists but consciousness" school. In my view, it's entirely specious. "Nothing appears outside of consciousness" says nothing about consciousness because it is a tautology. Obviously, nothing appears outside of experience because experience--or call it what you will--is all we have. No one ever has a "non-experience." Non-experiences do not exist.
So not only do brains never appear outside of consciousness (awareness), but nothing else does either. However, this does not mean that consciousness precedes the material world, which is the intended point of that argument, only that without being conscious, we human animals would not have experiences of the material world or anything else, such as thoughts and feelings, etc. This says nothing about the source of consciousness. Absolutely nothing. In fact, it is such a weak argument that I wonder about the motives of those who still resort to it.
On to Ronald Reagan. You say his memory was damaged, but not his "basic awareness." I'm not entirely clear on why the word basic comes into it unless there is an awareness that is not basic. But I'll assume that what you meant is that Reagan's damaged brain was not so damaged that he lacked all awareness of anything at all. But what if it were that damaged? What if he lapsed into a vegetative state in which he was kept alive by breathing machines while the doctors attempted to get permission to harvest his organs? Would awareness still be there or not?
The problem here, it seems to me, is that we use the word awareness to mean two different things entirely. The idealists--Bernardo Kastrup, for example--see awareness as a kind of energetic field in which biological awareness, such as that of humans and other animals, is:
"merely the image of a self-localization process of mind, analogously to how a whirlpool is the image of a self-localization process of water." So, for Kastrup, death is only the "unclenching" of that self-localization process. That is an ancient view of the matter and one that should not be dismissed out of hand. Still, I believe Kastrup loses credibility by giving his books tendentious titles such as "Why Materialism Is Baloney." Really? And you know that how, Bernardo?
Another meaning of awareness is the ability to notice. For example, "I am aware of a headache or bird singing outside my window." While idealism cannot be disproven, I think this naturalistic meaning gets us much farther into an awakened view of the human condition than anything Kastrup says, but that's just my opinion. Awareness, in this use of the word, can, I agree with you, be focused and deepened through training and other experiences that are helpful in fostering attention, which is--we agree here--not the same as awareness. This is why I say my present awareness is not what I had seventy years ago. I was aware back then and am aware right now, but I would not say that those two awarenesses are identical, unless this is the "basic awareness" to which you referred. If so, then yes, I noticed the world and myself when I was nine, and I notice it now. However, that observation begs the question; it does nothing to heal the split between consciousness and the supposed objects in or of consciousness.
As I see this, what we see, feel, think, or otherwise experience is all we ever know or can know. People speak of so-called "pure awareness," but I doubt such a thing can ever be experienced. In my experience, awareness and the objects "in" awareness are one and the same. That is my actual experience. I might be mistaken on a metaphysical level, but if I were, how could I ever know that?
That is why I say what "I" am is a mystery.
p.s. I do like Barry's view of these matters and will follow the link.
It seems we are entirely in agreement, Robert. Like you, I find no boundary between awareness and experience. I think that what Vedanta and folks like Kastrup and Rupert Spira propose is certainly possible, I can't rule it out, but it's equally possible that Tim Freke has it right, or that materialist scientists have it right. It all seems speculative to me. I don't see the world as "unreal" or merely a dream, although I can certainly see it as dream-like, and I can certainly see the ephemeral nature of it.
I can tune into an EXPERIENCE that might be described as "pure awareness" — a kind of empty, spacious, open quality of mind that feels boundless. But I don't want to jump from that EXPERIENCE to the BELIEF or certainty or conclusion that "pure awareness" exists as some kind of Immutable Unchanging Reality. It may, but it may not. I don't expect to still be conscious and aware after death, although I might be surprised, but I doubt it.
As for whether someone who is in a vegetative state being kept alive by breathing machines has awareness, I simply don't know. I suspect not. There does seem to be evidence that people in comas have some level of awareness, but as far as I know, not people in vegetative states. But the way you described the incident with Reagan, he was clearly aware that there was an object that he thought had something to do with him, but he simply couldn't recall what the connection was. Memory was damaged. I suppose you could say that there were things he had previously been aware of that he was no longer aware of (the reverse of what happens with photography, somatic work, therapy, meditation, etc), but it still seems to me that memory is what has shrunk. But, of course, all these words ("memory," "consciousness," "thought," "awareness," etc) conceptually carve out and draw artificial lines around "parts" of this indivisible flow of experiencing. In a way, none of it really holds up.
So yes, I'm with you 100% that we don't know what this is, or why it is, or anything else other than THAT it is. And in my view, that's enough. Simply being alive.
Much Love,
❤️🙏😎
Fascinating reflections, Joan, thank you 🙏🏼💙
I’m somewhat surprised to see you say that you doubt any form of awareness persists after death -- curious what has led you to that?
My experiences (and I believe ~most of the ancient great traditions/sects) suggest that nothing stops at death
Perhaps most compelling for me have been several experiences with 5-MeO-DMT in which I experienced a ‘universe death’ -- or total dissolution of all form and everything I had ever known or taken myself to be -- and was brought to a space of Infinite Formless Light-Love-Power that was ‘more Real’ than waking life
These and many other experiences -- both sober and entheogenic -- have strongly suggested to me that the Heart of God Burns Eternally... and that we are Emanations of that Fire and shall return Home to that Fire, discovering then that we never truly left
God Bless,
J ❤️🔥
Hello, Jordan--Joan has not replied, but I will.
Joan merely expressed an opinion about whether selfhood survives the death of the physical body. She doesn't know--she may be a Zen master, but she is not a dead Zen master--but her working attitude is that it probably doesn't, although it could.
I wonder why you find that surprising. Is that so bizarre a notion that to express it evokes surprise? I wouldn't think so.
Picture a human death. A woman falls ill and takes her last gasping death. Her body is brought to the river and put on a raft, which is set aflame and burns until even her bones turn to charcoal. Are you saying that something that is aware survives that? If you are, you may be right. That is, as you say, an ancient belief, so you are not alone in believing it. Nor am I saying you are wrong to regard your experiences, both stoned and straight, as suggestive. They're your experiences, and you will make of them what you do.
I am saying first that ancient is not the same as true, and second, that experiences are not proof because experience and the experiencer are the same inexplicable happening. If you understand this, you will admit that you are not in any sense an objective observer who can fairly judge where experiences come from or what they mean. We human beings do not KNOW what any of this is, how it got here, where it's headed--none of that.
You have your beliefs and your experiences, which for you are convincing. I suspect that you had the beliefs before you had all those experiences since that is the usual course of events, but even if you approached these matters without any spiritual/religious baggage, why is it surprising that Joan doesn't see things as you do?
Please consider this. Joan is not you. She does not have your background; she has hers. Your experiences are yours, not hers. You can put your experiences in words but cannot make Joan experience them. So why, in Heaven's name (sorry), should she see ANY of this as you do?
Robert, for someone who is convinced that we know absolutely nothing, you seem quite certain that you know a lot about me and my intentions here
I was surprised simply because in my experience, ancient and modern sages tend to affirm that the heart of reality is deathless. I was just curious to hear more about Joan’s perspective
I don’t agree with you that we can’t know anything about God (or whatever name you give to the heart of reality). God can reveal Divine Nature to us
Happy to agree to disagree. Take care
Hi, Jordan. I know nothing about your intentions and I never said I did. I found your disappointment in Joan's point of view curious. You have every right to your beliefs but not to expect that others will share them, which is what I said.
I wish you well.
Hi Jordon,
Robert alerted me to your comment. In my most recent Substack article (https://joantollifson.substack.com/p/not-clinging-to-ideas), I expand a bit on what I said to Robert in my responses above to his article. I wrote: "I can tune into an EXPERIENCE that might be called pure consciousness, boundless awareness or God, but I endeavor to avoid turning any such experience into a metaphysical certainty or belief about the nature of reality. I don’t claim to know the Truth about how the universe works. In my own direct experience, I can observe certain things about how it seems to be, and I often share these observations in my writing, but ultimately, I’m clueless about what this whole happening is, why it’s here or how it all works. And it doesn’t seem like I need to know any of that. What matters most to me is simply being alive, finding the beauty in ordinary life, enjoying what is, and beholding it all (when possible) from the perspective of wholeness or unconditional love, seeing that it all belongs, that it all goes together, that it cannot be otherwise in each moment from how it is."
I can easily imagine having a powerful experience of the kind you and many others report having on 5-MeO-DMT. I simply don't leap from the experience to the metaphysical certainty you seem to have about the nature of reality.
I looked into this question of life after death in my most recent book, Death: The End of Self-Improvement. You can read my introduction to the book here: https://www.joantollifson.com/writing45.html — this will offer a glimpse into how I see it, which is more aligned with the Buddhist perspective than the Advaita one. Whatever this whole happening is, I see it as ever-changing and without beginning or end. Yes, in our everyday experience, apparently definable "things" (such as people, trees, chairs, events, emotions, etc) all SEEM to have definitive beginnings and endings, and to deny this is foolish, but the more closely we look (think of Peter Brown's work), no such clear boundary lines can be found. It is one seamless flow that never departs from the immediacy of here and now. It shows up in many different ways, including the sometimes powerful visions that humans can have on drugs or in meditation or at any moment.
Always good to hear from you, Jordon. Love, joan
Thank you, Joan! Deeply appreciate hearing more from you on this. I like your perspective. If you see THIS as having no beginning or end, then that implies it fundamentally is without birth or death, correct?
So perhaps your original statement about not expecting an afterlife referred specifically to your sense of being Joan.
I also do not know what will happen when we die. Like you I also see reality as without beginning and end. For me I do strongly intuit that there are more ‘adventures’ on the other side of physical ‘death,’ but I guess we will have to wait and find out 🙏🏼💙
Yes, fundamentally birthless and deathless. But I don't expect to be there as Joan. Life goes on...awareness, energy, etc will arise in and as other life forms, yes. But I don't imagine "more ‘adventures’ on the other side of physical ‘death'" for me.
I always enjoyed the image of the boat and rowing away from the concept of an ego left holding on to a decrepit shell of existence.
Recently my views on non-duality and spirituality have shifted. I see in myself and others that these concepts and beliefs are landing points that humans want to subscribe to and feel a sense of certainty. It seems to be a natural part of human existence to be curious and seek out existential and spiritual avenues.
However, without words and concepts life continues on. It is palpable through the aliveness we experience moment-to-moment. It does not need to be defined, explained, or justified. It simply is as it is. Spirituality, beliefs, and concepts can become an addiction which contributes to a sense of seeking and longing that results in unnecessary suffering and neuroticism. Claiming certainty to a thought or belief system is to fall into the trap of thoughts. Stating there is a self or no-self is a subscription to just another belief system.
Dearest Robert - love the photo of you as a young man.
You spelled Ronald Reagan's name wrong. ;-)
All I know is that my life seems to be flowing more and things are not so difficult and there is way more 'awareness' of things to see in the natural world....being as I have (like Joan) perhaps more than the average bear in the trauma department....it's interesting to note....my mind says "uh-oh, look out - things are too good, nothing is going wrong...." Anyhow love you and love Joan and your back and forth. Not as afraid of death as before as well. Which is a good thing. I attribute it to reading both of your substacks.
Thanks, Sharon. I'll fix the typo.
All the best.
It’s refreshing to read your description (here and elsewhere) of awareness as a natural phenomenon and not something that is somehow prior to existence.
1984 - an interesting Orwellian year! I almost felt that I was experiencing the dream about which you write, so thank you for that, dear Robert.
ps The word 'awareness' is so used, abused and put to inappropriate duties, that I no longer use it :)
Thank you, dear Catherine. I always love hearing from you. When you wrote (in your foreword to Depending On No-thing) that I was arrogantly humble, I felt seen, heard, and understood.
What a spectacular post. I have discovered your writing through the new Oliver Burkeman audio-book Meditations for Mortals and he quoted you, which made me discover your book The Ten Thousand Things and then of course this Substack. I subscribed immediately. I think your writing is going to be a huge contribution to me. Thank you.
You are most welcome, Scott.
Walk on.
I rather enjoy not reaching any type of conclusions about things like "(A)awareness", that have no definitive meaning anyway.
The Buddhist word emptiness also has a lot of concepts attached to it, which either Joan or Barry or both prefers to refer to as boundlessness, which feels more accurate to me and better points to this openness, indescribability, unresolvability of whatever "what" is.
When I read Robert's and Joan's words, I feel boundlessness is built right in and really can be sensed that way. It's pretty uncanny.
This doesn't stop me from exploring theories from Tibetan Buddhism and quantum physics about so called "afterlife", especially in the light of phenomenon like master meditators who remain alive and sitting up in posture long after they are pronounced clinically dead, as in the film Tukdam.
https://youtu.be/dDBEl9bSGMQ?si=E76jmAwoK59wBJEM
However, as both say, nothing can be reached conclusively.
So, to me, the best is natural relaxation and openness, as far as it's possible, without making that another spiritual goal.
Everything is just totally astonishingly amazing and mindblowing.
Thank you!
Robert. I tend to view awareness somewhat differently; and I would also bring consciousness into the equation. I don’t feel that awareness changes throughout one’s lifetime. Awareness certainly appears to change though such an appearance is more likely to be a change in the contents of consciousness. Consciousness to me is its contents; in my view it is the contents that constantly change from moment to moment whereas awareness of the contents remains the same – as just awareness.
You ask: - “Is your present awareness really the same as your awareness as a child?” Well, I’d say yes. What one was aware of as a child was the sum total of all the information that had been acquired up until that time; as the years passed more information is accumulated (and some lost or dropped) but the awareness of the ever-changing and ever-arising information remains the same.
It seems to me that the information or contents is the changing factor while the awareness remains the same. Memory accesses the information via the brain’s network of neurons and synapses and applies the relevant information to the arising situation(s). All this, contents or consciousness, memory or retrieval is a natural occurrence and I believe can be verified. Awareness on the other hand doesn’t fit in our usual interpretation of biological.
You say: - “As far as I know, awareness--the faculty of being able to notice things--is biological: a quality of living nervous systems. Animals have it, but rocks don't.” I would say then, that noticing things or awareness seems to be built into more than animals. Plants have been shown to have awareness in that they respond and interact with their environment. Rocks, inorganic material are different, although at a stretch one could say that they are aware of their environment in that they grow, decay and die – and some studies suggest that minerals evolve – but that is a leap to far!
To recap, I understand consciousness as being the property of biological processes dependent on memory, thinking etc. and generally, the organism’s ability to access and act on its accrued information – the storehouse of what we call ‘me’. Awareness on the other hand doesn’t seem to require ‘me’. It does seem to be just ‘there’ – when ‘I’ am not. But yes, no one knows what awareness is. What I have wrote here re awareness are just my ideas.
Ron Elloway.
Thanks for the comment, Ron. I found it puzzling throughout. For example, you say, "Awareness on the other hand doesn’t seem to require ‘me’. It does seem to be just ‘there’ – when ‘I’ am not." If you are not there, then can you say that awareness is? How would you know anything about an occasion in which you are not present?
The fact that plants move as the light changes does not mean that they are conscious any more than bacteria are conscious because they move in response to chemical changes. Of course, that does depend on what is meant by "conscious."
Hi again Robert. Thanks for your reply. To clarify as best as I can, I did write tentatively about plants being aware, there is a lot of research on this subject. Plants seem to me to exhibit an awareness of their environment and needs – but as I said, I understand consciousness as being the property of biological processes dependent on memory, thinking etc. which is (as far as we know) only the domain of humans and some animals.
As far as my take on awareness goes, I wouldn’t have the temerity to say what it is. All I can say is that the ‘me’, the self structure being a product of my experiences, is the information that constantly (and naturally) comes to the fore in every activity in life. On the rare occasion, perhaps what is sometimes referred to as present moment awareness, this moment or now, the moment, instead of being overlain with self or mind created concepts is just there as it is.
I think that most people have such happenings from time to time, perhaps when listening to a piece of music, dancing or seeing a friend or loved one as though for the first time. Immediately afterwards the mind/self/me comes in to judge and analyse. It is these brief moments that the me/self is quiescent., only to arise after to recognise a moment of stillness. I wonder if part of the ‘search’ we engage in is to recapture such moments.
I believe that the terms consciousness and awareness are always confused and used in many different ways, but it seems to me that consciousness is biological and confined to animals that have a certain evolutionary advanced brain/neurological structure, while awareness is, well, a bit of a mystery – and I’m happy with that.
Just to end, I like what J. Krishnamurti and Nisargadata say although it explains nothing: - J. Krishnamurti spoke of consciousness as being its contents and Nisargadata also remarked that “There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent.”
Ron Elloway.
Thank you for clarifying, Ron. What you called "present moment awareness" is what I mean when I say that I am awake.
Walk on.
Seemingly aware of "you." But it might just be a part of my Awareness awaring....
Love your answer Robert ☀️❤️
To me the question "goes off the rails" with the assumption that awareness is "just aware." At that point, what awareness is has already been (to use your terminology) split away from the experience of being aware. There is a seeming split, obviously, but it is not an actual one. To me that's the difference between knowledge and ignorance.
I like and use the word 'noticing' also. I'm comfortable with the word awareness as "me," but only because my definition of what that means could be described as "limitless noticing and the absence of noticing." That's just "what is," which is what I mean by the word awareness. It has to be "me" in that sense, not because that "me" is some split out non-physical non-appearing no-thing, but precisely because there is no actual splitting.
If awareness was "just aware," it would have no seeming capacity to know it was awareness. It's only the evolution of a complex enough vehicle (the brains of human primates) that made/makes self reflection possible due to the appearance of "ego" in the equation. The appearance of ego, in conjunction with an intellect that has the capacity for scientific, logical inquiry and inference, is the only reason that a SEEMINGLY separate factor called awareness can be inferred in the first place. animals cannot infer it, because they have neither the ego nor the intellect to do so. Without both, there is not even a subject/object experience they're just is aliveness.
Hope you're well 🙏🏻
I know my Knowing is to know my core, my soul. “Alma” means “soul”.