Awareness of awareness
Awareness of awareness
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?
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?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Awareness of awareness
Anything and everything is Rigpa. I just prosed the first part but everything in Dzogchen that I've read or heard points to Rigpa.
I should be meditating.
Re: Awareness of awareness
I have also heard many people say this, but I really don't like it. I don't think it properly explains the practice of trekcho. I'd personally say it was resting uncontrived in the direct experience of the nature of mind. The nature of mind is not just 'awareness' - it is the non-duality of clarity and emptiness.rachmiel wrote: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.
This kind of issue is explained well in Bonpo Dzogchen teachings in chapter 4 and chapter 6 when talking about the chittamatra view of things.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.
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
Re: Awareness of awareness
Any chance you could sum the Bonpo explanation up in terms I can fathom? My concern is that, if I read the Bonpo original, I might well end up more confused than ever.Paul wrote:This kind of issue is explained well in Bonpo Dzogchen teachings in chapter 4 and chapter 6 when talking about the chittamatra view of things.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.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Awareness of awareness
Another way to look at my confusion around awareness awaring awareness:
Awareness awares objects, gross or subtle. But awareness itself is not an object, at least as far as I understand it.
So how can something that awares objects aware a non-object?
(Hopefully you can all stomach my using "aware" as a verb. It makes it feel more accurate to me.)
Awareness awares objects, gross or subtle. But awareness itself is not an object, at least as far as I understand it.
So how can something that awares objects aware a non-object?
(Hopefully you can all stomach my using "aware" as a verb. It makes it feel more accurate to me.)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Awareness of awareness
Is a mirror doing something when it reflects?
Vajra fangs deliver vajra venom to your Mara body.
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Awareness of awareness
I know nothing of Dzogchen but would like to say that when there is subject and object, there is a division and seperation. Mind is aware of object because it sees object seperate from it. What if mind is the object itself?
Don't mind me if I am wrong.
Don't mind me if I am wrong.
It’s eye blinking.
Re: Awareness of awareness
Dogzen?rachmiel wrote:From what I've read and heard, the core activity of Dogzen is becoming directly aware of awareness.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Awareness of awareness
It’s eye blinking.
Re: Awareness of awareness
Sherab that!
Look into the eyes of a true Lama and the wisdom mind would tell.
Look into the eyes of a true Lama and the wisdom mind would tell.
I should be meditating.
Re: Awareness of awareness
Not sure I'm not going to butcher it, to be honest, but... it is related to the fact that in chittamatra there is a mind that knows objects and also knows itself. The emptiness in this system is that this experienced object is dependent on the observation by the mind - and therefore empty. But Lopon Rinpoche says that this awareness is being explained in chittamatra as existing inherently.rachmiel wrote:Any chance you could sum the Bonpo explanation up in terms I can fathom? My concern is that, if I read the Bonpo original, I might well end up more confused than ever.Paul wrote:This kind of issue is explained well in Bonpo Dzogchen teachings in chapter 4 and chapter 6 when talking about the chittamatra view of things.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.
Conventional awareness does act like that - actively knows objects. The nature of mind is inseparably clear and empty. The natural state is not actively knowing another object, it is knowing its own empty nature. It is self-illuminated, so doesn't need to actively be aware of itself in the verb meaning of the term. It is naturally being what it already is, not a subject holding another object. When the mind does go around holding objects (in the active, verb type way) it has bifurcated into subject and object and so is in the confused state and conditioned.rachmiel wrote:Another way to look at my confusion around awareness awaring awareness:
Awareness awares objects, gross or subtle. But awareness itself is not an object, at least as far as I understand it.
So how can something that awares objects aware a non-object?
(Hopefully you can all stomach my using "aware" as a verb. It makes it feel more accurate to me.)
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
Re: Awareness of awareness
Hah! Good catch. Freudian slip? (I love dogs!) Maybe my unconscious found MY PATH. Woof woof.Sherab Dorje wrote:Dogzen?rachmiel wrote:From what I've read and heard, the core activity of Dogzen is becoming directly aware of awareness.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Awareness of awareness
Hmm ... doesn't quite compute for me. I'll check out the source and see what I can make of it.Paul wrote:Not sure I'm not going to butcher it, to be honest, but... it is related to the fact that in chittamatra there is a mind that knows objects and also knows itself. The emptiness in this system is that this experienced object is dependent on the observation by the mind - and therefore empty. But Lopon Rinpoche says that this awareness is being explained in chittamatra as existing inherently.rachmiel wrote:Any chance you could sum the Bonpo explanation up in terms I can fathom? My concern is that, if I read the Bonpo original, I might well end up more confused than ever.
That's helpful. To know that the awareness being spoken of in Dzogchen is not conventional awareness. That said,Conventional awareness does act like that - actively knows objects. The nature of mind is inseparably clear and empty. The natural state is not actively knowing another object, it is knowing its own empty nature. It is self-illuminated, so doesn't need to actively be aware of itself in the verb meaning of the term. It is naturally being what it already is, not a subject holding another object. When the mind does go around holding objects (in the active, verb type way) it has bifurcated into subject and object and so is in the confused state and conditioned.Awareness awares objects, gross or subtle. But awareness itself is not an object, at least as far as I understand it. / So how can something that awares objects aware a non-object?
"The natural state is not actively knowing another object, it is knowing its own empty nature."
To know one's own empty nature is (I think) to know -- be aware of -- a subtle object: that one's nature is empty.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Awareness of awareness
In both the natural state and the conventional samsaric state there is always a knowing of what is going on. You can't get rid of this knowing as it's part of you. The difference is does whether or not the clear aspect knows its own nature as being empty - if it is not in a state of directly experiencing this it will get busy grasping at things and creating an 'I' or 'other' out of everything it comes across. This 'I' and 'other' then provides the framework for accepting and rejecting and therefore suffering.rachmiel wrote:That's helpful. To know that the awareness being spoken of in Dzogchen is not conventional awareness.Paul wrote: Conventional awareness does act like that - actively knows objects. The nature of mind is inseparably clear and empty. The natural state is not actively knowing another object, it is knowing its own empty nature. It is self-illuminated, so doesn't need to actively be aware of itself in the verb meaning of the term. It is naturally being what it already is, not a subject holding another object. When the mind does go around holding objects (in the active, verb type way) it has bifurcated into subject and object and so is in the confused state and conditioned.
In the natural state the mind isn't taking itself as a self, so it's not positing objects. That subject looking at an object framework isn't there. Kind of like an understanding without an understander.To know one's own empty nature is (I think) to know -- be aware of -- a subtle object: that one's nature is empty.
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
Re: Awareness of awareness
If by "awareness without an awarer" you mean awareness without an I/ego ... it makes sense to me, because I grok that I is a story, fictional, conceptual.Paul wrote:In the natural state the mind isn't taking itself as a self, so it's not positing objects. That subject looking at an object framework isn't there. Kind of like an understanding without an understander.rachmiel wrote:To know one's own empty nature is (I think) to know -- be aware of -- a subtle object: that one's nature is empty.
But if you mean that there is *nothing* that awares ... it doesn't play. The organism awares ... the body, brain, nervous system. Remove that, and the awareness ceases.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Awareness of awareness
What about the formless realms? The bardo of dharmata?rachmiel wrote:But if you mean that there is *nothing* that awares ... it doesn't play. The organism awares ... the body, brain, nervous system. Remove that, and the awareness ceases.
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
Re: Awareness of awareness
I have no direct knowledge of these. And precious little indirect knowledge!
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Awareness of awareness
I'd say all phenomena are inherently aware, the body/mind doesn't generate awareness, it generates temporary phenomena all of which are aware unto themselves.Paul wrote:What about the formless realms? The bardo of dharmata?rachmiel wrote:But if you mean that there is *nothing* that awares ... it doesn't play. The organism awares ... the body, brain, nervous system. Remove that, and the awareness ceases.
Thus shall ye think of all this fleeting world:
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream;
A flash of lightning in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.
Re: Awareness of awareness
If I can be cheeky and offer advice with respect to what exactly it is that is aware it would be to just practice one's teacher's instructions as closely as you can and keep going. Any assumptions at all when practicing will hamper things.
I came across this paragraph from Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche:
I came across this paragraph from Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche:
Here in Dzogchen we are not thinking or creating concepts; we are simply looking directly at our own immediate experience. When we discover this for ourselves, then we can compare it with what the texts say. Searching for the nature of mind is not just thinking thoughts about the nature of mind. We are searching for the real truth, what is really there. Thoughts are secondary; they are one or more steps removed from our immediate experience. They are about the past, but our immediate experience is here and now in the present moment. What is our immediate experience? Do not think about it; just look at it. What do we find?
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
the modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell
Re: Awareness of awareness
Useful, thanks.Paul wrote:Here in Dzogchen we are not thinking or creating concepts; we are simply looking directly at our own immediate experience. When we discover this for ourselves, then we can compare it with what the texts say. Searching for the nature of mind is not just thinking thoughts about the nature of mind. We are searching for the real truth, what is really there. Thoughts are secondary; they are one or more steps removed from our immediate experience. They are about the past, but our immediate experience is here and now in the present moment. What is our immediate experience? Do not think about it; just look at it. What do we find?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...