That was the question I asked myself before summitting my last post.
I don't think so.
And, I love that reply. It reflects my stance.
I feel it is incomplete to reply in a mere yes or no.
To give a yes or no, some (if not many) detinitional constraints need to be made, in different perspectives, to reflect my stance, which I don't have much luxury to indulge, at the moment.
This is what has prompted me to take a closer look at mn121 in that "objectless awareness" seems to be what thanissaro is talking about in that one part near the end.....so the question was just that....awareness of what? So, to try to come to grips with the overall process which is described in the sutta I have been looking at other suttas which talk about the various dimensions, modes of perception, or attainments which are found in mn121. I started by making making a model of the process (process here is meant to be a description of exactly what is going on with the meditator etc.) of concentration meditation....that model being briefly stated as: get secluded; choose an object of meditation; focus on the object of meditation so that it becomes the object of awareness; possibly the mind will lose focus on the object of meditation and become distracted in which case the object of awareness is no longer the object of meditation but it is now some aspect of the distraction.
I then discovered that my model did not fit what was presented in mn121 so I am looking for whatever I can find in the suttas which gives light on what is happening in mn121 so that I can see what the process is that is happening there since my first attempt hasn't worked.
I have some things in mind and will probably post them if/when I feel that I have something pertinent to say about them.
chownah
Just introduce a conceptual differentiation so that "awareness" IS NOT "consciousness" and allow "awareness" to be without object but "consciousness" and "object" depending on each other and the issue is solved.
Don't get obsessed with mere words.
It is the same like introducing "consciousness without surface/feature" which is merely another conceptual trick. Why get obsessed with that?
It is just that "awareness without object" does NOT mean "passed out". Or call it "emptiness mind" since mn121 is about "entry into emptiness" and the "awareness without object" in question is about mind emptied to the highest degree of emptiness.
when the discourses of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are recited, they listen, they lend ear, they set their hearts on knowing them; they regard them as worth grasping & mastering. And when they have mastered that Dhamma, they cross-question one another about it and dissect it: 'How is this? What is the meaning of this?' They make open what isn't open, make plain what isn't plain, dispel doubt on its various doubtful points. This is called an assembly trained in cross-questioning and not in bombast."
If it is then I am obsessed....I guess....don't know for sure.....
I am not obsessed in the ways you have described......thank you for your concern for my well being.
chownah
chownah wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:37 pm
Is this a description of "obsession"?
when the discourses of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are recited, they listen, they lend ear, they set their hearts on knowing them; they regard them as worth grasping & mastering. And when they have mastered that Dhamma, they cross-question one another about it and dissect it: 'How is this? What is the meaning of this?' They make open what isn't open, make plain what isn't plain, dispel doubt on its various doubtful points. This is called an assembly trained in cross-questioning and not in bombast."
If it is then I am obsessed....I guess....don't know for sure.....
I am not obsessed in the ways you have described......thank you for your concern for my well being.
chownah
With reference to "cross-question one another" I am cross-questioning your understanding of 'awareness' in 'objectless awareness'.
In the present context I would define 'to get obsessed with a word': to take a word too literal regarding the meaning the world knows.
E.g. if I could think 'awareness' only as 'awareness of' because the world does not know 'objectless awareness' then that would qualify as 'getting obsessed' with that.
If all the words the suttas consist of should be understood exclusively like the world understands them then why is there mention of phenomena in the suttas the world does not know?
SteRo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:38 pm
With reference to "cross-question one another" I am cross-questioning your understanding of 'awareness' in 'objectless awareness'.
In the present context I would define 'to get obsessed with a word': to take a word too literal regarding the meaning the world knows.
E.g. if I could think 'awareness' only as 'awareness of' because the world does not know 'objectless awareness' then that would qualify as 'getting obsessed' with that.
If all the words the suttas consist of should be understood exclusively like the world understands them then why is there mention of phenomena in the suttas the world does not know?
I am not obsessed in the way you describe. tapussa an 9.41
chownah
Last edited by chownah on Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
chownah wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:58 am
I am not obsessed in the way you describe.
Great! I mean it may happen every now and then with all of us. Just think of a beginner coming across the expression 'rebirth'. Understanding it as "birth again" with the meaning of "birth" the world knows may cause an obsession.
In the same way it may happen with "awareness" in "objectless awareness".
