True Nature

Awareness as an Object

Use of the terms "Awareness", "Consciousness", "Aliveness" often refers to their nature as if they were something that is clearly identifiable - in other words - they are Objects and the words used to describe them are nouns.

"I need to cultivate my Awareness" refers to "Awareness" as if it was something that "belongs" to someone. This Objectifies Awareness (turns it into a conceptual Object) and Objectifies the alleged "owner" - the "me" - already a conceptual object.

An Object is something that can be observed - in other words detected using any of the the senses.

The Buddha said

"You are what observes, not what you observe. "

When the ultimate subject - your true nature - that which observes - which is formless - is conceptualised it becomes a conceptual object which can be referred to as if it was a thing. This is what "Objectification" is - apparently turning something that it not an object into an object. Conceptual objects are referred to using words that are nouns.

That conceptual object can become the content of a beliefs - at this point it is treated as the real thing - treated as your true nature. Believed to be your true nature.

It is not and in actuality nothing has changed - true nature has not changed - it is changeless. It is still fully Alive, fully Aware, Fully Conscious. And it is not personal - not an entity - it is Life Itself. The One Life.

Meanwhile the belief that your nature IS a conceptual object is "deadening". The mental construct is known as the ego - the self image, the illusory sense of self.

The ego actually is an Object - it is a thought object - a conceptual object. But there is no Aliveness in it, no Awareness, No Consciousness there at all. And the belief is held "that is me".

That is Objectification - big time!!

Life Itself identified with an Object.

Awareness is more of a function - an activity - something that occurs - rather than something - an object - in its own right.

What occurs is better described as "awar-ing" - which is very similar to "swimm-ing". Swimming is what occurs as an activity, a function. Except as an abstract concept there is not a "swimmer" there at all, although we are accustomed to thinking in those terms.

Similarly with "awar-ing" there is not someone or something present that is the "Awar-er", except as an abstract concept. There is no entity at all. No separate soul, no separate being, no separate anything.

"Being" is a verb which refers to the action of be-ing or exist- ing. It is a function, or a "movement", as Jiddu Krishnamurti was apt to say. In this case there is the action or function of be-ing" but there is no "be-er" - no separate entity doing it.

As for a so-called "Being" which refers to an apparent separate sentient being, or an apparent separate soul - neither exist.

Be-ing, like swimm-ing, like awar-ing is a function or a movement. The idea that there is a separate person that is Be-ing, swimm-ing or awar-ing - is just that - an idea from the mind.

Thoughts can latch onto this, and they do. Suddenly there is a "thinker" that apparently produces the thoughts. Soon there is a conceptual entity - the "me" - which is taken as the final product of all that "be-ing". "Be" is now an object It used to be a functional verb and now it is a noun - an object. This is the Objectification of the sense of self and is the Ego - but in fact is just another thought.

As with all functions - like swimming - it continues to occur, and after a while people think up the idea of a "swimmer" - the invented abstract entity that apparently does it. The conceptualisation of all this "Be-ing" gives rise to a thought stream about the "me" - an invented abstract entity that apparently does it and IS it - and the "me" idea is firmly established. However it needs a constant thought stream mentioning the "me" to maintain its apparent existence. Once again the "me" (which is a noun) is an abstraction and relies on a continuing functioning (verb) for its apparent existence.

The "me" is also linked via thought to actual objects - "my car", "my house", "my debts" which adds apparent credibility to its claims of existing. So a conceptual object latches onto real objects over which it claims ownership. This also occurs in the thought stream - yet another functioning (verb) to attempt to support the illusion of "me" (noun).

Take away these functionings and what have you got ? What is the actuality of the "me"? Not much at all- actually. Well - alright - nothing at all. An illusion. And all that is left is the functioning.

The word "Mind" is also an alleged something that appears to exist - but it is an abstract concept. What actually exists is the movement of thought and when thoughts are occurring people say "Oh - that is the mind". When the thoughts stop or slow down the person is described as having a "quiet mind". The mind is just the movement of thought - the thoughts are real but the mind, as such, is an abstraction and does not exist except as a concept - which, ironically, is a thought that occurs as a function.

The "witness" that "looks" at a feeling or a thought stream is also an abstraction. The actuality is that "awar-ing" occurs- and there is no-entity there that has done it. It is a function - a movement. Conceptually it is reclassified as an Object and given a noun (the witness - now an entity - wow!) as a reward (joke). It does not exist.

So called "staying with the feeling" is also an exercise in abstractions, especially if it is the "witness that does it". The feeling thus "stayed with" may be sorrow, grief, a toothache or just a stubbed toe, or anything else. The actuality is what the so called feeling is at this instant without reference to words or concepts at all.

Concepts are used to categorise feelings - they are like buckets into which a whole group of particular unique examples are thrown - and they are lumped together under the name "anger" , for example. However the actuality is not the label "anger" and nor is it any of the other distinct and unique feelings in that bucket - it is only ever what is being experienced at this instant - without reference to concepts or labels.

Staying with that is what it is all about. Eckhart Tolle uses the term "energy movement" to describe that - a term which is undoubtedly close to the actuality - as close as you can get in words. Staying with it in those terms is quite interesting - and it is a verb.

Identification of our true nature with Objects is Bondage.

Objects can be observed - whatever can be observed is "not us".

As Nisargadatta said

"It is useless to search for the truth, when the mind is blind to the false. "

Disidentification - dis-objectification is what it is all about.

Neti neti - not this, not this.

Written by Mike Graham, 15 September 2009, last edited 16 September 2009