‎’Awareness of’ is duality. Awareness is non dual.

[ajay0]

‎’Awareness of’ is duality. Awareness is non dual. - Gilbert Schultz

Great article by enlightened master Gilbert Schultz on non-duality, where he gives clear and precise insights on the nature of non-conceptual Awareness or pure consciousness.

Gilbert Schultz is of the lineage of Nisargadatta Maharaj and Sailor Bob Adamson.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am sure must be a great article, but perhaps even awareness is dual.

 

[BSM1]

I am sure must be a great article, but perhaps even awareness is dual.

To be aware you have to first be unaware?

 

[George-ananda]

‎’Awareness of’ is duality. Awareness is non dual.

Sounds right to me.

Sailor Bob? Got to love the name too.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

‎’Awareness of’ is duality. Awareness is non dual. - Gilbert Schultz

To make this statement, someone has to observe that awareness is non-dual. Else, such a statement is not possible.

Who is this observer and how does this observer fit into non-duality?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have not studied Ramana, Nisarga Datta Maharaj or Punjaji, but I think it means something like "Just be".

 

[Shantanu]

God is like a father figure to me in my dual existence and awareness.

 

[ajay0]

To make this statement, someone has to observe that awareness is non-dual. Else, such a statement is not possible.

Who is this observer and how does this observer fit into non-duality?

Seeing is not believing.

Belief is based on thought.

Thought cannot see.

The thought ‘I see’ is not the seeing itself.

The thought ‘I see’ is what the mind translates from the seeing that is ‘happening’.

‘I see this or that’ is the pseudo ‘subject’ and the ‘thing’ seen is an ‘object’.

This is the basis of duality and yet SEEING is singular. – Gilbert Schultz

If there is a ‘someone’ there will also be the ‘other’ which denotes duality.

Pure Consciousness is non dual. The content of consciousness is duality…… ‘me’ and ‘not me’, which are creations of thought with associated emotional energy manifesting as likes and dislikes.

Perception on the basis of Awareness/Presence/Pure Consciousness would reveal no duality, as there is no thought-images to habitually label oneself as ‘me’ and ‘not me’. The 'I', 'me' and 'mine' comes about when there is lack of Awareness, or stems from unconsciousness/body-consciousness as a substite for the sense of self or lack of self-knowledge.

In Awareness or witnessing, there is no sense of 'I','me' or 'mine' -- in thinking there is.

When there is a self-image or thought of ‘I’ or ‘me’ as the observer, then there will be the dualistic observed too , with a label such as ‘rose’ , ‘tree’, ‘her’, ‘car’, and with the associated past psychological memories of pleasure or pain. This is absent when one is established in pure consciousness or Awareness. You can try and check it out for yourself.

Labelling oneself with a thought-image will also bring about the dualistic labelling of the other with a thought-image . It is the thought-images with the associated emotions and beliefs that form the dualistic ego.

This is why perception on the basis of Awareness elicits a patient response, while perception on the basis of the ego elicits a negative reaction. I have explained this in this thread of mine.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Pure Consciousness is non dual. The content of consciousness is duality…… ‘me’ and ‘not me’, which are creations of thought with associated emotional energy manifesting as likes and dislikes.

Just as everything else is a thought, pure consciousness is also a thought. It is a logical inference. It is not an experience to be achieved through Yoga, etc. More below.

Perception on the basis of Awareness/Presence/Pure Consciousness would reveal no duality, as there is no thought-images to habitually label oneself as ‘me’ and ‘not me’.

When you say "perception", there is someone perceiving. When you say "reveal", there is someone to whom it is being revealed to. And in both cases, we have duality.

This is absent when one is established in pure consciousness or Awareness. You can try and check it out for yourself.

For me to check this out, my identity has to stay intact through the experience and I have to observe. For me to come back here and relate the experience, I should have been observing and recording. But if I am observing, there is the observed too, and therefore we have duality.

If there is no observer in this state, how are you able to remember it and how is it your experience?

 

[ajay0]

Just as everything else is a thought, pure consciousness is also a thought. It is a logical inference. It is not an experience to be achieved through Yoga, etc. More below.

Here are insightful sayings by an ancient enlightened master called Rishi Vasistha and a modern enlightened master Eckhart Tolle…

Consciousness minus conceptualization is the eternal Brahman the absolute; consciousness plus conceptualization is thought. -- Yoga Vasistha

Thinking and consciousness are not synonymous. Thinking is only a small aspect of consciousness. Thought cannot exist without consciousness, but consciousness does not need thought. -- Eckhart Tolle

If consciousness was a mere thought, it would shut down completely when you stop thinking.

This is especially the case in meditation or samadhi where thought ceases to function but I could clearly see that it was not the case.

During practice of thoughtless awareness or meditation, I was able to perceive things without any thought colouring them, or habitually labelling them as ‘refrigerator’ or ‘tree’ or ‘bird’.

In fact, there is better perception and clarity of things without the habitual thought and emotion process colouring them as per the filters of past conditioning.

One accepts things as they are and generates a measured response to them rather a volatile one due to the likes and dislikes stemming from mental-emotional patterns.

And this is often a major relief for the overworked mind due to its habit of chronic thinking and emoting without knowing when to switch off , take a break or relax. In extreme cases , this habit can result in psychosomatic diseases like migraines, blood pressure, heart problems, neurosis and psychosis.

You also gain peace and bliss as a bonus.

As Ramana Maharshi stated, “ Peace is absence of disturbance. The disturbance is due to the arising of thoughts in the individual, which is only the ego rising up from pure consciousness. To bring about peace means to be free from thoughts and to abide as pure consciousness. “

Thoughts and corresponding emotions, sensations appears in the background of consciousness. They have a beginning and an end, but consciousness remains whether there are mental-emotional patterns or not.

Thoughts are excellent as an instrument in solving practical problems of material life. But it becomes an issue when it is obsessed with satisfying never-ending desires and cravings, distinguished from needs and necessities of life.


As Krishna stated in the Gita,“"To the man thinking about the objects (of the senses) arises attachment towards them; from attachment, arises longing; and from longing arises anger. From anger comes delusion; and from delusion loss of memory; from loss of memory, the ruin of discrimination; and on the ruin of discrimination, he perishes".

When you say "perception", there is someone perceiving. When you say "reveal", there is someone to whom it is being revealed to. And in both cases, we have duality.

For me to check this out, my identity has to stay intact through the experience and I have to observe. For me to come back here and relate the experience, I should have been observing and recording. But if I am observing, there is the observed too, and therefore we have duality.

If there is no observer in this state, how are you able to remember it and how is it your experience?

“Duality is due to the ‘seer’ and the ‘seen’.” (Sri Siddharameshwar Maharaj)

Being is pure awareness free from the subject object nexus. ( Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj)

The cognizing presence or naked awareness is nondual. The mind is dualistic.

The dualistic mind translates the naked seeing into the ‘seer’ and the ‘seen’, as in ‘I’ and the ‘car’. However the ‘I’ and ‘car’ are just thought-labels born in the dualistic mind.

Belief in ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘mine’, is the reference point that ‘creates’ duality. As long as there is a thought-label called 'I', there has to be a corresponding thought-label as the object.

In witnessing or awareness, there is no sense of ‘I’ – it is only in thinking there is. The 'I' is just a thought process. Thought creates the subject or perceiver as in ‘I’ and the object or 'perceived' as in ‘this’ or ‘that’.

The subject comes in the form of 'I', 'me', 'mine' and the object in the form of 'you' , 'That', 'yours'.

( As in 'I hate you', 'That belongs to me', 'This is mine, that is yours' respectively. )

The subject and the object go together and define each other. That which recognizes both the subjective and objective without being affected by both is pure consiousness or awareness or witnessing state.


Here the ‘I’ as a mere thought is different from the true ‘I’ which is cognizing presence or awareness.

This is also distinguished as the selfish little self and the true Self respectively, in Vedanta.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Nāsato vidyate bhāvo, nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ;
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo 'ntas, tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ." BG 2.16

na — never; asataḥ — of the nonexistent; vidyate — there is; bhāvaḥ — endurance; na — never; abhāvaḥ — changing quality; vidyate — there is; sataḥ — of the eternal; ubhayoḥ — of the two; api — verily; dṛṣṭaḥ — observed; antaḥ — conclusion; tu — indeed; anayoḥ — of them; tattva — of the truth; darśibhiḥ — by the seers.

Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent, there is no endurance; and of the eternal there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

An enlightened person can experience both duality and non-duality, switching between them - on/off. Such a person can ride two horses simultaneously or travel with each feet on different boats. Sure, to keep such balance is difficult.

 

[ajay0]

An enlightened person can experience both duality and non-duality, switching between them - on/off. Such a person can ride two horses simultaneously or travel with each feet on different boats. Sure, to keep such balance is difficult.

How do you interpret duality !

 

[Aupmanyav]

To consider one different from all and anything in the universe. Things are only illusions.
'Brahma Satyam, Jaganmithya .."

 

[ajay0]

To consider one different from all and anything in the universe. Things are only illusions.
'Brahma Satyam, Jaganmithya .."

So who is it that considers itself different from all and anything in the universe !

The egoistic little self which is a creation of thought , or the true Self which is the witness and naked awareness !

 

[Aupmanyav]

"So who is it that considers itself different from all and anything in the universe?": One ho believes in Dvaita (Duality).
As Shivasomashekhar said 'the true self' (if you will call it that), Brahman, has no need, no apparatus to perceive or remember. It is uninvolved, unchanging, eternal.

निःस्पृह adj. niHspRha: without longing, free from desire, free of longing, indifferent, free of desire, not longing for, without desire, abstaining from.
Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

 

[ajay0]

"So who is it that considers itself different from all and anything in the universe?": One ho believes in Dvaita (Duality).

Correct. The egoistic little self or fictitious identity, which is a creation of thought and imagination, labels itself and others or other things with labels, and considers itself separate from all and anything in the universe .

Conflict and violence usually emerge from identification with such fictitious identities and its ego-based desires and fears.

One believes in dvaita or duality, because of lack of knowledge through meditation or inquiry. Belief exists where there is no knowledge. One believes when one does not know.

Similarly if there is no self-knowledge or true knowledge of what one is, one then believes all kinds of external concepts about oneself , and adopts them as an identity.

The ‘I’, ‘me’ and ‘mine’ associated with external identities along with its desires and fears arises when there is no perception of the true Self or witness or Awareness as one’s true identity.

The enlightened Janaka stated thus, “ I am neither king nor beggar. I am the witness.”


Similarly Ramana Maharshi stated thus,” You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it. All that you have to do is to give up being aware of other things, that is of the not-Self. If one gives up being aware of them then pure awareness alone remains, and that is the Self.”


This is what the thread’s subject matter proclaims as well.

As Shivasomashekhar said 'the true self' (if you will call it that), Brahman, has no need, no apparatus to perceive or remember. It is uninvolved, unchanging, eternal.

The Self or Awareness is the background for all of your experiences, though it is often obscured by habituated thoughts and emotions. Awareness is the constant factor throughout all experiences.

However the vacillation of the mind through cravings and aversions obscures this natural state of Awareness leading to self-forgetfulness and duality. Just as a calm lake reflects its bottom surface clearly but not so in a turbulent lake during a storm.

Rama stated thus on the mind,” The tendencies of the mind are always restless like waves. Failing to free itself from that restlessness, it cannot achieve composure even for a moment, agitated by the pursuit of the objects of senses, it runs in various directions.”

This is the reason why Krishna emphasized in the Gita, “Equanimity of mind is yoga”, as it is a calm mind free of restless desires and vacillation that leads to the clear perception of the natural state of Awareness or Self within.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Self-within and self-without is duality. There is just one self.