otiosedodge wrote:Hi All,
If samsara is nirvana (ref. Madhyamaka school), then why does it make a difference if one is aware of this fact or not? That is, if we are all enlightened already, then why do we have to dwell in awareness in order to be realized? Isn't this merely creating another dualistic construct, ie, between awareness (and associated realization) and non-awareness?
Thanks
If samsara is nirvana (ref. Madhyamaka school), then why does it make a difference if one is aware of this fact or not?
- Any meaning associated with conditions, such as making a difference, depends upon your system of values. People develop a system of values though a combination of direct experience, logical inference, and from the wisdom of others. Individual emphasis on any one of these varies.
That is, if we are all enlightened already,... then why do we have to dwell in awareness in order to be realized?
- Just as all matter has the potential to be transformed into energy, all beings have the potential for enlightenment. Based on what we know, just as uranium has a greater potential to exist as energy, human beings have a greater potential for enlightenment. However, in the same way that a lump of matter does not equate to tremendous energy, the potential for enlightenment does not equate to enlightenment.
... then why do we have to dwell in awareness in order to be realized?
- abiding as awareness, rather than as an identity independent of awareness that may or may not dwell within awareness (implying duality), comes closer to characterizing realization.
Isn't this merely creating another dualistic construct, ie, between awareness (and associated realization) and non-awareness?
- dualistic constructs are inherent to language, and language is used to communicate. Language is also intertwined with thought. Thoughts develop with the use of language and language develops concurrent to thinking. Mathematics and symbols are also forms of language. Creating dualistic constructs is not a problem. However, losing sight of the fact that dualistic constructs used for communication are nothing more than references, or representations, is to be bound by the limitations of delusion.
- The limitations of duality dictate that to be aware means to be aware of ...
- To be “aware of” introduces duality. Something that is aware of something else.
- Removing sensory stimulation takes awareness to more subtle levels of awareness, namely, to one who is thinking thoughts. This is still dualistic.
- Thus, non-dual awareness is awareness without an object of awareness. Namely, one without thoughts. Or, thoughts without a thinker.
- Is this possible? Yes. However, it can only be realized outside the limitations of duality. Time is one such limitation, thus the realization occurs outside of time, namely, the present unbound by conceptual time-lags. Another limitation is delusions spun out of losing perspective, or losing sight of the fact that thought exists within the conceptual construct of time, and that thought is merely a representation, or reference.
- Within the boundaries of dualistic thought, awareness implies the possibility of non-awareness. To be conscious of the world, and thoughts, and illusions, requires awareness, however perspective of awareness may be skewed in the sense that thoughts and illusions attain disproportionate significance.
- Actions based on skewed perspective are the source of samsara. For example, people kill each other because of skewed perspectives. Any definition of awareness that attempts to call awareness non-dual, yet insists on including thinking capacity as an aspect of the definition, thus limits awareness to dualism. However, realization is awareness not bound by dualistic limitations.