Awareness of awareness

[Paul]

Actually Pauls link to A Lamp To Dispel Darkness pretty much answered 100% what I was wondering..about the method for knowing the difference between distinguishing alaya from rigpa, what an awesome text..thanks again!

I was taught that in a retreat run by Tsoknyi Rinpoche. I highly recommend getting teachings on it as there are various meditation exercises a teacher can show you that precisely deal with what you ask based on this text. It's very good & useful for finding the dividing line between proper and improper meditation.

[Concordiadiscordi]

Perhaps second-order cybernetics might have something to offer in relation to the capacity for self-reflexive awareness and the host of analytical conundrums posed by it. The cognitive enactivist school (Maturana, Varela, Thompson, Rosch, Damasio, et al) might also have much to offer in this respect.

[monktastic]

I was taught that in a retreat run by Tsoknyi Rinpoche. I highly recommend getting teachings on it as there are various meditation exercises a teacher can show you that precisely deal with what you ask based on this text. It's very good & useful for finding the dividing line between proper and improper meditation.

Was this some time ago? Last year he gave a short (weekend) Dzogchen retreat where he gave DI and recommended we read Ju Mipham, but did not mention this text specifically. I decided he meant it anyway and gleefully re-read it. It really is one of the best.

There are supposedly a few good commentaries, but I can't seem to get my hands on any of them. Maybe I'll fold and purchase the huge Collected Works of Dilgo Khyentse vol 3 one of these days.

[Paul]

Was this some time ago? Last year he gave a short (weekend) Dzogchen retreat where he gave DI and recommended we read Ju Mipham, but did not mention this text specifically. I decided he meant it anyway and gleefully re-read it. It really is one of the best.

2012 I think.

[LastLegend]

The natural state is no dwelling anywhere in whatsoever, wherever you are, you are there. You are everywhere. Don't beat me up y'all. Not trying to troll, just being joyful that's all. I might be wrong and don't know what I say.

[odysseus]

The natural state is no dwelling anywhere in whatsoever, wherever you are, you are there. You are everywhere. Don't beat me up y'all. Not trying to troll, just being joyful that's all. I might be wrong and don't know what I say.

This sounds proper to me.

[oldbob]

The natural state is no dwelling anywhere in whatsoever, wherever you are, you are there. You are everywhere. Don't beat me up y'all. Not trying to troll, just being joyful that's all. I might be wrong and don't know what I say.

Joy is good. Lots to be thankful for.

http://www.pbase.com/1heart/at_the_playground" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Makes my arm hairs stand on end and brings tears to my eyes.

Like listening to ChNNR this morning.

I also don't know what to say.

[lorem]

Rest like a mountain, steady and immutable.
Rest like the ocean, still and clear.
Rest like space, infinite in breadth.

[dzogchungpa]

I was taught that in a retreat run by Tsoknyi Rinpoche. I highly recommend getting teachings on it as there are various meditation exercises a teacher can show you that precisely deal with what you ask based on this text. It's very good & useful for finding the dividing line between proper and improper meditation.

Was this some time ago? Last year he gave a short (weekend) Dzogchen retreat where he gave DI and recommended we read Ju Mipham, but did not mention this text specifically. I decided he meant it anyway and gleefully re-read it. It really is one of the best.

There are supposedly a few good commentaries, but I can't seem to get my hands on any of them. Maybe I'll fold and purchase the huge Collected Works of Dilgo Khyentse vol 3 one of these days.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/249313267

[Tara White]

From what I've read and heard, the core activity of Dogzen is becoming directly aware of awareness.

But this doesn't make sense to me. Pure awareness, as I understand it, sees (hears, observes, etc.) objects (gross and subtle) as they arise, without any interpretation.

For example: Pure awareness sees objects in the visual field; it doesn't interpret these as: tree. It hears an object in the aural field; it doesn't interpret it as: bird chirping.

So, how can seeing see seeing, with both seeings (the original and the "meta") happening in the same exact moment?

Like I said, it just doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that seeing (awareness) sees the thought/memory of the original seeing a fraction of a second after this original seeing has occurred.

Can anyone help me fathom what Dzogchen then means by: awareness of awareness?

You're right, it's not happening in the same exact moment. A moment of awareness is watching the previous moment of awareness. This is not a Dzogchen practice unless there is realization of emptiness of the observer. Regarding the "Pure awareness that sees objects" that you're talking about, it is mere mindfulness of perceptions of the sensory fields, in a deeper level you realize a particular sense consciousness it's arising simultaneously with it's object of perception, they are non-dual.

[Rick]

Thanks, Tara.

Another reason awareness awaring awareness doesn't make sense to me is that awareness awares objects, gross and subtle, but awareness itself is not an object* ... therefore cannot be awared (except as an object of memory).

* Or is it, perhaps, in Buddhist thinking? I know that consciousness is considered to be a skandha ... and skandhas are subtle (mental) objects. So does Buddhism consider awareness to be an object?

[monktastic]

Thrangu RInpoche, Pointing Out The Dharmakaya p103

If you have studied a great deal, and in particular have studied the Madhya-
makavatara by Chandrakirti and the Bodhicharyavatara by Shantideva, such
as the ninth chapter in [the latter] text on prajna, then you will have encoun-
tered the statement that it is impossible for the mind to be aware of itself.
This is taught in the Madhyamaka system in these texts, and many reasons
are given for this statement. This would cause someone who has studied a
great deal, or who was learned in the doctrine, to wonder, because in the
context of mahamudra, we say that the mind is aware of itself. Then again,
if you have studied valid cognition, and, in particular, the explanation of
valid cognition composed by Dharmakirti, you will have found the statement
that there is such a thing as self-awareness of the mind, because it is one
of the four types of direct valid cognition that are taught in the study of valid
cognition. If you operate under the assumption that the self-awareness
spoken of in mahamudra, the self-awareness spoken of in valid cognition, and
the self-awareness refuted in Madhyamaka are all the same, then you will
definitely perceive a contradiction. However, the term self-awareness is used
differently in each of these three contexts.

First of all, in the Madhyamaka context the self-awareness that is refuted
is the mind being aware of itself as a substantial thing, that is to say, the mind
as an appearance having true existence and being able to directly experience
or be aware of its own truly existent characteristics. From among the two
categories of things, cognitions and inert matter, mind of course is cognition,
and as a cognition it is aware. What is refuted in the Madhyamaka context
is that that cognition has a true or absolute existence and could, therefore, be
aware of its own substantial or absolute existence. The mind is empty of substantial
existence and is therefore not aware of any substantial existence
within itself. In short, the mind does not see itself, or is not aware of itself,
in the sense of seeing a thing.

In the mahamudra context, when we say that the mind can be aware of its
own nature, we mean that the mind is aware of its own nature, which is
emptiness. Of course, all things are empty, but among all things, mind is
manifestly empty. When you look at your mind in the mahamudra practice
you observe that there is no shape, no color, no substantial characteristic of
any kind, that the mind has no true origination, abiding, or cessation. If the
mind had substantial existence, it would possess these characteristics, it would
come into being, it would abide, and it would cease. What the mind sees
when the mind looks at its own nature is its own absence of true existence.
What is refuted in the Middle Way school is the mind seeing its own presence
of true existence, since it does not have any. Therefore, in the mahamudra
context, the use of self-awareness is quite different from the way it is
used in the Madhyamaka context.

On the other hand, in the context of valid cognition we find the statement
that all mind is self-aware, which seems to be a complete contradiction of the
Madhyamaka refutation of self-awareness. However, in the context of valid
cognition, self-awareness has yet a third meaning. It means that you are aware
of your own experience, that which is experienced by your mind is not hidden
from you, is obvious to you. Therefore, if your mind was not self-aware
in that way, then you would have no way of knowing what you were thinkng.
You would have no way of knowing what you were seeing, what you were
hearing, what you were smelling, and so forth. In short, the capacity for all
the experiences of the five sense consciousnesses and the sixth, the mental
consciousness, is based upon self-awareness. However, this awareness of your
own experience, which is called self-awareness in the context of valid cognition, is
not an awareness that has a separate subject and object. On the other
hand, it is still a relative truth form of self-awareness, and therefore it is different
from the self-awareness spoken of in mahamudra, because the self-awareness
in mahamudra is aware of absolute truth.

Thus in the mahamudra context, when we say that the mind can see itself,
this is not at all like an eye seeing itself. Rather, the mind, being awareness,
can experience its own awareness. In fact, this is not difficult to do at all
because the mind is not looking for something far away. It’s right here.

You might ask then, if it’s right here, and it’s always been right here, why
have you never seen it? The reason is that, throughout beginningless time, we
have been afflicted by ignorance and, under the sway of ignorance, we have
never looked. If you look, then you can recognize the mind’s true nature,
which is that it has no substantial existence whatsoever and yet is not a mere
nothingness or static emptiness. It is pure awareness. This is something that
you can experience directly in meditation.

[heart]

Thanks, Tara.

Another reason awareness awaring awareness doesn't make sense to me is that awareness awares objects, gross and subtle, but awareness itself is not an object* ... therefore cannot be awared (except as an object of memory).

* Or is it, perhaps, in Buddhist thinking? I know that consciousness is considered to be a skandha ... and skandhas are subtle (mental) objects. So does Buddhism consider awareness to be an object?

In Dzogchen awareness and consciousness are not equivalents. You want to understand Dzogchen you have to study it with a qualified master.

/magnus

[anjali]

Another reason awareness awaring awareness doesn't make sense to me is that awareness awares objects, gross and subtle, but awareness itself is not an object* ... therefore cannot be awared (except as an object of memory).

One of my favorite quotes by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche: "Emptiness is awareness and awareness is emptiness, and emptiness understands itself by its own awareness."

[Rick]

Awareness is one of those terms -- like truth, or ground of being -- that means nontrivially different things in different traditions, including the western traditions of psychology and neuroscience.

The more I learn about awareness and experience it consciously, the richer it grows.

For someone who likes to pin things down, this is a challenge ... awareness seems to resist all manner of down-pinning.

[odysseus]

Awareness of being aware is the same as constituting a Self.

[muni]

Here Patrul Rinpoche regarding nondual awareness-emptiness, or nondual stilness-movement. Then there is no thought 'aware' of whatever but you could say awareness of awareness is.

http://belgium.patrulrinpoche.net/en/friday-webcast

[Kaccāni]

Perhaps second-order cybernetics might have something to offer in relation to the capacity for self-reflexive awareness and the host of analytical conundrums posed by it. The cognitive enactivist school (Maturana, Varela, Thompson, Rosch, Damasio, et al) might also have much to offer in this respect.

If you think constructivism and second-order cybernetics through to the end then you will probably come up with a hierarchy of cognitive bracketing that goes along these lines: http://www.psycheleon.com/2015/01/the-c ... egral.html (Section "The conscious hierarchy"). That's not far from what Yogas and Buddhism have to offer, at least message and epistemologies are similar. However, they appeared in a completely different time, exist in a different culture, and come along with a different culture.

Best wishes
Kc

[oldbob]

Perhaps second-order cybernetics might have something to offer in relation to the capacity for self-reflexive awareness and the host of analytical conundrums posed by it. The cognitive enactivist school (Maturana, Varela, Thompson, Rosch, Damasio, et al) might also have much to offer in this respect.

If you think constructivism and second-order cybernetics through to the end then you will probably come up with a hierarchy of cognitive bracketing that goes along these lines: http://www.psycheleon.com/2015/01/the-c ... egral.html (Section "The conscious hierarchy"). That's not far from what Yogas and Buddhism have to offer, at least message and epistemologies are similar. However, they appeared in a completely different time, exist in a different culture, and come along with a different culture.

Best wishes
Kc

Good posts all -

Perhaps words about awareness of awareness are different than awareness of awareness.

Certainly the pointing out - direct introduction, as given by the Master ChNNR today - introduces, and sets up, this awareness of awareness.

Also, perhaps if you rest your eyes on the wall across the room from you, and then drop your focus back a little, and stay with the non-focused clarity - perhaps it is a little like this.

You can also do this outside with the horizon, or a distant landscape, or any limit of vision, or the sky itself.

When you are distracted - gently - bring yourself back to awareness of awareness.

Then you do your best to practice / integrate with this 24/7.

All the 120 (means a lot of) secondary practices exist to support this non-dual awareness of awareness.

[WeiHan]

From what I've read and heard, the core activity of Dogzen is becoming directly aware of awareness.

But this doesn't make sense to me. Pure awareness, as I understand it, sees (hears, observes, etc.) objects (gross and subtle) as they arise, without any interpretation.

For example: Pure awareness sees objects in the visual field; it doesn't interpret these as: tree. It hears an object in the aural field; it doesn't interpret it as: bird chirping.

So, how can seeing see seeing, with both seeings (the original and the "meta") happening in the same exact moment?

Like I said, it just doesn't make sense.

What does make sense is that seeing (awareness) sees the thought/memory of the original seeing a fraction of a second after this original seeing has occurred.

Can anyone help me fathom what Dzogchen then means by: awareness of awareness?

I am not sure if it is appropriate for me to say such thing here.

"Awareness of awareness" in Dzogchen means trying to find the seer and simply rest at what you find or not find. It is a state of non-seeing. In Dzogchen practice, this meditation is prefered to be done with the eye open and gazing at a clear, cloudless open sky. The experience of "awareness of awareness" is a state that your mind merge with the entire sky. The sky is your awareness and the awareness is the sky. There is no more a sensation of a little perceiver behind the eyes which is observing the outer world. When this happened, according to Khenpo Tsultrim Lodro of Sethar Larung, one is said to have realised the luminosity of mind or in other words, it is Rigpa.