An interesting discussion arose over in comments on Takuins blog on his post The Road to Enlightenment. It was a podcast response to a question about a progression to Enlightenment. We both did some musing which led to something useful to share. Edited a bit for this format.
What I’ve found is that it’s not the person who awakens. So this goal of “becoming enlightened” will always fail. Yet it’s still a worthwhile intention or goal. What occurs is that the Self, that inner wakefulness, wakes up to Itself. That Self may thus arrange for the person to have some practices or some experiences to prepare the way. Or the person may do some things themselves. Which is it going on? If you grok that it’s all Self, then there is no real difference in who appears to be doing. You just go with it. Then one day, it happens. Why did it happen? We could point to this or that, but again because it’s not the field of doing that first awakens (that’s later), there is often no obvious relationship.
I would say there is a process to awakening but it’s not really linear. Mind likes linear models but growth is more a spiral than a line. We might use puberty as an example. We can point to norms and a typical process, but each person will experience it a little differently with a little different timing. There is a series of shifts, each followed by a time of adaptation.
I used to debate what was arising from self and what was from Self until I realized the idea that there was 2 things was the only thing keeping them separate. It is all just Self. The small self only exists as a concept and we thus credit things to it that are not of it. This may not be true for everyone but I don’t know that changes what seems to be happening.
It seems that the untrustworthy nature of apparent self is in its mis-crediting the source of the impulse. When we think “I did this”, we get messed up expecting certain results. But we don’t get the results because we mistook the actual source of the impulse. Self-honesty is the issue, as you mention. The linear aspect is the way it is being perceived, not the actual nature of what is occurring.
On Intention:
To me, intention is the impulse to express. The self may take credit for it, so it seems to be “self-driven” or it may simply arise due to the nature of action, one thing driving the next. It may arise as a consequence of being – for us to continue to be, this intention must be sustained. And it may arise from a sense of something “new” to occur, as in now let’s have a party.
If we take it that everything is consciousness or that which is conscious, then everything we experience, think about, sense, or desire is intended. So yeah, not much to do with anything a me might seem to think about. (laughs)
On Space-time
The way I model it is that lines going out in every direction are space. The incremental (linear) experience of changes in space is time. We experience events incrementally due to the way we are experiencing. In other words, it’s entirely perceptual.
More deeply, the principle of space arises when Self recognizes Itself and thus perceives a “distance”. (an infinity within an infinity) The process of experiencing Itself leads to the principle of time. Time and space are enlivened by the mode of perception. The way we experience the world. When people experience subtler values (internally usually at first), one can have experiences of timelessness and unboundedness, essentially pre-space-time.
Put another way, space-time is contained within perception and thus within consciousness. Even if people don’t recognize this perceptually, they’ve probably had the direct experience. We’ve all been beyond the universe, beyond space-time, because we are the container.
Without a person at the center, however cosmic we perceive ourselves to be, there is no space-time. Again, it is the act of perception that causes it.
There is a right here, right now. Everything happens within that. Because we usually perceive the expression of intention incrementally, change seems to occur in linear steps and we perceive unique spaces and times. Essentially its like we have our head in a bag, totally focused on what’s happening inside the bag. If we can relax that focus, we can see the bag, then that we’re holding the bag. (laughs)
And that bag is space-time. What some call the gap. We are the container of that, in consciousness.
Davidya
Hi Davidya!
You wrote…
“It is all just Self. The small self only exists as a concept and we thus credit things to it that are not of it.”
Yes first sentence. Everything is of it, even those that appear that they are not?
It all just IS. Is it not? (maddening statement) Even before we say it, it IS…. It is like selling water by the water cooler. Awakeness IS. It may not be realized in the container as in self aware which I think is your point? o.k. I am stopping now. ;o)
Hi Ben
Yes. We could call Self several things. Being, Consciousness, Knowledge, Tao, Brahman, etc. These are not exactly the same things but are rather ideas that point to the subtle values of who we are, under the cover of mind, body and emotions.
Being or existence is a curious thing. We cannot be said to exist or not exist until we are aware of our existence. This is true on a much deeper value as well. Until consciousness curves back on itself and becomes aware of itself, nothing has arisen. Nothing can be said to exist. But in the same way its not that it doesn’t exist either.
As we go more deeply into this, we find that mind, intellect, and emotions are nothing but values of consciousness. And then we discover that the world itself is structured in consciousness. It is none other that That, which we are.
To come back to your comment, That or It exists before existence. Before it neither is nor isn’t. Of course, to say something exists before it exists is the limit of the language to describe it. But there is no limit on our ability to experience it.
When awareness is aware of itself then it can be said to be. Look not only to the experience but look to what is doing the experiencing.
Because awareness becomes aware of itself at every point, we can be aware even of that which is before awareness.
Perhaps that adds a smidgen of clarity? 😉
Yes! It helps more than a smidge! I am feeling something very close to this. Some follow ups please…
So could we call this that exists before it exists priorness? It seems like it can be sensed or am I just imagining? There is the sense of beforeness, but it is nothing of substance. Can it be palpable?
When you say look to what is doing the experiencing, are you asking me to put my attention on awareness or sense awareness?
Does this palpable sense of priorness sound like what you call being aware of that which is even before awareness… but then isn’t that being aware of it? I’ll stop again. ;o)
Hi Ben
Priorness is a word that could be used. But it’s not really prior as it is omnipresent, infusing everything. I used to use the phrase “behind the sky” as it has a behind or priorness. But when it becomes more intimate, it is no longer before or behind.
It can be sensed or observed, yes. But what is being sensed is the “edge” or surface of it, not That itself. We can sense That itself but not in the way we sense the world. It is without qualities but as we are That, we can still be aware of it. Awareness can be aware even of that which is prior to itself because it happens continuously.
As it is reality, it is more palpable and more intimate than what you hold in your hand. More intimate than the thoughts in your head.
Yes, put your attention on what is experiencing, what is aware. That is what you are. When you know this fully, you will come to find it in everything.
Priorness is an earlier stage of the experience. Being aware of that which is before awareness is very subtle. This becomes clearer after unity. Before that, simply being aware that we are aware is the more direct approach.
One aspect is what is aware. Then, what is aware aware of. Awakening is the discovery we are the first, then that we are the second. Then its all awareness being aware, of or not. (laughs)