Dreambus Driver

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Been away on a business trip.

Is awareness an ability? Does it require conditions (able-ness) in order to be?

Before some time I'd answer "No". Lately I think of it as a kind of skill.
I mean: awareness itself is NOT an ability, but "coming to" or "seeing" awareness require disregarding of the entire mind field; kind of ability to see through.
Is DE an ability?
I remember old, printed 3D posters with layer of seemingly abstract picture or dots on 2D which somehow merge in a different 3D picture only if you learn NOT to focus on them, if you SEE THROUGH 2D plane and not stuck on it. That I could call perhaps not an ability, but a skill.
In that sense only.

Don't want to answer other questions "from the head".
I'll take some more time to go into them.

Thnx,

Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev,

Another question to look at.

Are you in control of when this 'coming to' happens? Can you decide when it happens. Or does it just happen out of the blue?

Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Finally had a time to dive in.

@ your post from Wed May 11, 2016 6:34 pm:

T: When 'focusing', or polarization happens, is there anything actually focusing? Is any'thing' being polarized? Or is it just that this experiencing appears divided when no actual division takes place?

+

T: During focus/polarization, do they actually separate from each other?
Watch this focus happening and see if there is actually a divide, or just the appearance of such.

> No actual division or separation takes place. An experience of polarization arises as a kind of interpretation or description, proclaiming there is a separation.

T: Is there a something other than awareness that awareness can focus on? Or is the polarization simply an appearance in and AS awareness? Is there anything outside of awareness/experiencing?

> Otherness is proposed. It is an appearance. My experience is that it happens IN awareness. (That's why I said in some previous post that seeing is "a inner phenomenon").
Still, I cannot say it is OF awareness or AS awareness.
That's a melt-down point.
A real hot-spot.
It is utterly logical but I cannot say it from experience... or, somehow, I can reffer to a memory of something that happened sometime ago, but not from DE now.
When I go in that, I can hear thin ice crackling.
A mind then plays a trick: I either become unconscious (like I swoon into a nap) or I got jerked out in the name of "something important" -- anything -- like some "annoying" sound or uncomfortable position or any other excuse.

-----

@ your post from Fri May 13, 2016 6:14 pm

D: Is there anything else beside everything altogether?
T: Can you find anything else?

> As I wrote above, "inside" everything altogether there arises "experiences"...

T: Is awareness/experiencing ever exited? Or is the appearance of separation still just 'experiencing', in its wholeness?

> Can't say. Thin ice. Blind spot. The fuse goes off.

T: Can awareness actually become smaller chunks of itself? Or is it always 'full' of itself, despite the appearances?

> No. It is presented like something-happening-to-someone. Melting down this subject-object separation in DE with question like "Is awareness different from what it is aware of", or "Is there a difference between outer and inner" or between experiencing and experience(s) for me ends in blind spot.

T: Is anything actually doing this focusing? Is it an ability something has?

> It is a happening. A concept that proposes a doersip or the interpretation that there is someone who is doing the DE exercises.

D: I am is potential for all dreams (etc.)
T: Can dreams die? Or is death just part of the dream?

+

T: if there are no 'things', can anything actually die?

> That is a metaphysical question. Only dreams can die. The real cannot die.
On the other hand, dreams are not real so nothing really dies.

T: Does awareness ever go anywhere?

> It cannot. But it can become preocupied or immersed in concepts or thoughts. You can ask again here "can it actually be seduced?", to which I can say that that's how I feel it, like being zooming in , than it pops into "ah!" and there is openness again. And again.
Like solidification-dispersion, solidification-dispersion, solidification-dispersion... When I become aware of this proces there is a relief.

T: Are you ever unaware, or is that just a thought?

> Good one. I'd say that unawarenss is a thought, or -- more preciselly -- that it translates as "being-lost-in-thought". The moment it's recognised, it pops into seeing that it have no being and it is not real.

T: Can you find a beginning and an end to 'experiencing?

> No... I can find exiting experiencing (seemingly) by being immersed in experience (and maybe get "lost" in "it"). Again: universal-to-local shift. And the recognition of that shift pops the local "back" to universal, to the recognition it was never really local at all. Like a dream looks real while dreaming. Upon waking, you say: "Ah, that was just a dream".

-----

@ your post from today, Sun May 15, 2016 8:06 pm

T: Are you in control of when this 'coming to' happens? Can you decide when it happens. Or does it just happen out of the blue?

> No... though I sometimes feel that I can obstruct it by surface activity or excessive interest. Like indulging in a dream seems to prolong it. But it's old religious stuff, probably learned. I can't really say so...

Thnx,

Dev

[Devissimus]

Added

T: Is there anything outside of awareness/experiencing?

No. The best I can come up is that it looks like there is something happening "inside" experiencing, or it is interpreted as such.
Or: A thought happens, saying there is a happening.

+ A 3AM night stuff:

Does experiencing appear as a thought too?
The basic polarity I can find is: there is being aware of a thought telling something.
Can't get pass that.
Or maybe: there is being aware of the presence of a thought and disregarding it or not being involved in its meaning. A slight duality is still present.

I tried to see following in DE:

> Is awareness different from a sensation or a thought that appears in it? Where is the borderline or a difference?
> Is awareness different from the mind/thought(s) that appear "in it"? Where is the borderline or a difference?
> Is the reality different from the dream? (it's like asking "is a particle different from a wave?") Or: is dreaming a function of reality?
A two can become one only if their difference is find out to be nonexistent. Then both disappear.
> Is there no difference between reality and dream? Between awareness and its perception (the awared?)
> Is awareness just another idea, another thought?

Oh, yes. It is.

Related mind-stream:

I'm back on the wheel, trying to "get it" with mind. And I spin again, in labyrinth of the map.
Again and again I'm proving -- maybe in more subtle way -- the basic thing: anywhere I can go to is still within the mind, and anything I can get is just another carrot on the stick.
Are you leading me somewhere?
Are not all directions within the mind?
It cannot be get.
And perhaps it don't have to.
(came to mind from some Upanishad: "Did you get that which cannot be taught and get? No? Than you didn't get anything!")
What is that which cannot be pointed to?

Dev

PS. I'm jotting those mind-streams because I have the idea that they might help in some way.
If you think they are distraction or annoyance, do tell me; I don't have to write them down.

[Tao]

Hi Dev

> No actual division or separation takes place. An experience of polarization arises as a kind of interpretation or description, proclaiming there is a separation.

Good.

> Otherness is proposed. It is an appearance. My experience is that it happens IN awareness. (That's why I said in some previous post that seeing is "a inner phenomenon").
Still, I cannot say it is OF awareness or AS awareness.
That's a melt-down point.
A real hot-spot.
It is utterly logical but I cannot say it from experience... or, somehow, I can reffer to a memory of something that happened sometime ago, but not from DE now.
When I go in that, I can hear thin ice crackling.
A mind then plays a trick: I either become unconscious (like I swoon into a nap) or I got jerked out in the name of "something important" -- anything -- like some "annoying" sound or uncomfortable position or any other excuse.

Good, so otherness is only ever proposed. No separation actually takes place.

Does awareness/experiencing have an outside?
Does it have a beginning or end?

Can you find anything that ISN'T awareness/experiencing?

Thoughts are 'holding on to' the idea of there being an inner. But unless you can find the outside, then what sense does 'inner' make?

> As I wrote above, "inside" everything altogether there arises "experiences"...

What is it that can appear as separate experiences?
Experiencing itself?
Experiencing polarizes itself to appear separate, that is not far from an accurate description of DE.
Experiencing does not actually ever become two or more, it is only ever experiencing.

T: Is awareness/experiencing ever exited? Or is the appearance of separation still just 'experiencing', in its wholeness?
> Can't say. Thin ice. Blind spot. The fuse goes off.

Have you ever been aware of being unaware?
What would unawareness/unconsciousness involve?
A thought that says 'I was unconscious'? Can you find the experience of being outside of experiencing?

T: Is anything actually doing this focusing? Is it an ability something has?
> It is a happening. A concept that proposes a doersip or the interpretation that there is someone who is doing the DE exercises.

Are you that concept?
If not, can you actually find the doer?
If you can't, then is it anything more than an unsupported assumption?

> That is a metaphysical question. Only dreams can die. The real cannot die.
On the other hand, dreams are not real so nothing really dies.

Good. So 'dying' is part of the appearance?

> It cannot. But it can become preocupied or immersed in concepts or thoughts. You can ask again here "can it actually be seduced?", to which I can say that that's how I feel it, like being zooming in , than it pops into "ah!" and there is openness again. And again.
Like solidification-dispersion, solidification-dispersion, solidification-dispersion... When I become aware of this proces there is a relief.

Are thought/concepts separate from awareness?
If not, how can awareness be seduced by them?
Isn't that part of the appearance of being separate?

T: Are you ever unaware, or is that just a thought?
> Good one. I'd say that unawarenss is a thought, or -- more preciselly -- that it translates as "being-lost-in-thought". The moment it's recognised, it pops into seeing that it have no being and it is not real.

Do you ever experience being lost in thought, or are you only ever aware of a thought that says you were?

T: Can you find a beginning and an end to 'experiencing?
> No... I can find exiting experiencing (seemingly) by being immersed in experience (and maybe get "lost" in "it"). Again: universal-to-local shift. And the recognition of that shift pops the local "back" to universal, to the recognition it was never really local at all. Like a dream looks real while dreaming. Upon waking, you say: "Ah, that was just a dream"

.

Good so if it never really was local, did you ever get immersed in experience? or does it just appear that way from the point of view of a concept, now, that you are fully aware of.

Where is the experience of being lost in a dream or thought?

T: Are you in control of when this 'coming to' happens? Can you decide when it happens. Or does it just happen out of the blue?
> No... though I sometimes feel that I can obstruct it by surface activity or excessive interest. Like indulging in a dream seems to prolong it. But it's old religious stuff, probably learned. I can't really say so...

Are you in control of the surface activity or the appearance of awareness being obstructed?

Tao

[Tao]

Hi dev, in response to your mind stream post:

awareness just another idea, another thought?

Yes and no. The word awareness is a label, but it points directly to that which is aware of these words.
Are you aware of these words?
That which 'knows itself' to be aware is not a thought.

the basic thing: anywhere I can go to is still within the mind

Similar to the last point: (forgive the inadequacy of language here)
'Attention' can go to an object, a thing if you will, thought, sensation, colour blob, melody, and so on
Or it can turn around and 'see itself'. Here it rests as the formless knowing of itself. 'It' is not dependent on mind or objectness to be the knowing of itself.

Are you aware?
Check the answer in DE
After asking yourself the question, and before the first thought, what do you find?

me to mind from some Upanishad: "Did you get that which cannot be taught and get? No? Than you didn't get anything!")
What is that which cannot be pointed to?

Hehe, it is not something that a 'somebody' gets.
And it can be pointed to, at least it appears that way.
Are you aware is a question that seems to point attention upon 'itself', even if only for a flash.

Tao

[Devissimus]

17-05-2016, 22:31 h

LOCATION & INSIDE-OUTSIDE STUFF

T: Does awareness/experiencing have an outside? 
Does it have a beginning or end?
Can you find anything that ISN'T awareness/experiencing? 
What is it that can appear as separate experiences? 
Can you find the experience of being outside of experiencing?

I know, it's logical to think "if there is no outside, it's pointless to use the term inside". However, if we say there's nothing beside (or outside of) totality, where could we than say the dreams are happening? Inside totality? Beside totality? Aside? On a different plane? 
Could we say the dreams (or dreaming) are happening inside, outside, beside or aside the dreamer?
I guess those terms are just philosophical or technical nouns and proposition. In that sense I don't put much weight on them.

Can the dreams (happenings, thoughts) be anything else than totality/awareness/experiencing?
I could say that thoughts refracts totality (experiencing, awareness, consciousness) [another terms I used were "polarization" and "focusing"], thus seemingly creating "something else" -- the experiencer-and-experience nexus (or the dream experience). Although they appear as distinctively different and separate, their "material" is the same: totality (experiencing, awareness, consciousness or "the dreamer" < I don't ascribe divinity to the term "dreamer"; I just use it just technically. 

T: Have you ever been aware of being unaware? 

Only after the fact, not during it.
I did some conscious sleeping exercises long time ago, during which I was aware of being asleep and snoring and was still un-(sub?-)consciously present. Don't know how to technically describe that.
On the other hand, "being aware of being unaware" is practically a description of DE.

T: What would unawareness/unconsciousness involve? A thought that says 'I was unconscious'?

Post-factum, yes. What would it involve during unawareness/unconsciousness?

T: Is anything actually doing this focusing? Is it an ability something has? 
D: It is a happening. A concept that proposes a doersip or the interpretation that there is someone who is doing the DE exercises.
T: Are you that concept? If not, can you actually find the doer? If you can't, then is it anything more than an unsupported assumption?

I guess "I" is exactly that: the identification with that concept. Other than that, a doer cannot be found.

T: So 'dying' is part of the appearance?

From my insight, the appearances are constantly renewed at the mind rate.
It happens so quick, like the exchange of the still pictures we -- due to laziness of our eye -- perceive as a movie. In the same manner, we perceive the person as something constant -- due to laziness of our attention -- but the person is actually being born and dying with each thought, like a stroboscope.
Dying in the other sense would be the endo of the movie, which is the end of that laziness of attention we call our "wake state".

T: Are thought/concepts separate from awareness? If not, how can awareness be seduced by them? Isn't that part of the appearance of being separate?

That's hot question.
As Nathan Gill nicely put it: "I understood that all there is is Consciousness, but why did I still feel like a separate me? What was the missing link? If I was already awake and free then why did my life seem like a pile of dung?" 

-------

Sometimes I see our correspondence as a kind of philosophical grinding. 
Knowing there is only the totality, if stepping on a snake would happen, a jumping back would probably follow. The whole event we could call dreaming. What is the appearance of a snake but totality? What is a "me" that jumped back? Where did the whole event happen? Of what relevance it is? Is it causal? Did something really happen? 

T: And it can be pointed to, at least it appears that way.

A pointing toward totality, hummm... OK.
The way I see it, there cannot really be a pointer toward that; rather a pointer on how to stay AS "it"

Thanks,

Dev

PS. Don't mind my mood; I spent a day on a computer so this was the last drop of lucidity I could squeeze out of myself.

[Tao]

Hi dev,

I know, it's logical to think "if there is no outside, it's pointless to use the term inside". However, if we say there's nothing beside (or outside of) totality, where could we than say the dreams are happening? Inside totality? Beside totality? Aside? On a different plane? 
Could we say the dreams (or dreaming) are happening inside, outside, beside or aside the dreamer?
I guess those terms are just philosophical or technical nouns and proposition. In that sense I don't put much weight on them.

Does there have to be a 'where'
Isn't 'where' just thought stuff?
Can you locate where in DE?

Are the dreams and the dreamer separate?
What/where is the dreamer?

T: Have you ever been aware of being unaware? 
Only after the fact, not during it.
I did some conscious sleeping exercises long time ago, during which I was aware of being asleep and snoring and was still un-(sub?-)consciously present. Don't know how to technically describe that.
On the other hand, "being aware of being unaware" is practically a description of DE.

Everything you've described, you were aware of.
'After the fact' is a thought you are aware of
Being asleep and snoring you were aware of.
Un-sub consciously present you were aware of.
Where is the experience of awareness disappearing?
Does awareness ever sleep?

Look at these carefully in DE.

- but the person is actually being born and dying with each thought, like a stroboscope.

Yes indeed :)

That's hot question.
As Nathan Gill nicely put it: "I understood that all there is is Consciousness, but why did I still feel like a separate me? What was the missing link? If I was already awake and free then why did my life seem like a pile of dung?" 

The missing link here is that there is still a belief in 'my life'.
And that that apparent life should look different somehow.

-------

Sometimes I see our correspondence as a kind of philosophical grinding. 

It is important to look from DE. It is simple from there, so simple and obvious that it defies logic.
If it feels like a grinding it is because subtle beliefs are being challenged.
I dont claim to have the right answers to philosophical questions,
Try not to analyse what I say but see where it is pointing.

Knowing there is only the totality, if stepping on a snake would happen, a jumping back would probably follow. The whole event we could call dreaming. What is the appearance of a snake but totality? What is a "me" that jumped back? Where did the whole event happen? Of what relevance it is? Is it causal? Did something really happen? 

Good I like these questions.
Answer them from DE.
What do you find?

A pointing toward totality, hummm... OK.
The way I see it, there cannot really be a pointer toward that; rather a pointer on how to stay AS "it"

OK sure.
But words can seem to direct attention upon attention itself, rather than 'objectness'.
That is the meaning of a pointer.

PS. Don't mind my mood; I spent a day on a computer so this was the last drop of lucidity I could squeeze out of myself.

Haha that is fine.
Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Does there have to be a 'where'.

No.

Isn't 'where' just thought stuff?

Yes.

Can you locate 'where' in DE?

No.

Are the dreams and the dreamer separate? What/where is the dreamer?

I use the "dreamer" and "totality" as synonymes. Every dream is a dreamer"s. Dreamer is potential for all dreams.
The "dreamer" is an idea.
Same as "totality".

Where is the experience of awareness disappearing? Does awareness ever sleep?
Look at these carefully in DE.

OK. Will do. Need time.

D: What is the appearance of a snake but totality? What is a "me" that jumped back? Where did the whole event happen? Of what relevance it is? Is it causal? Did something really happen? 
T: Answer them from DE. What do you find?

OK. Will do. Need time.

Thnx,

Dev

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Unanswered stuff from the last post:

Where is the experience of awareness disappearing? Does awareness ever sleep?
Look at these carefully in DE.

In DE: The experience (< lousy term) of awareness does not disappear. It seemingly gets lost only due to fixation on the thought.
If the country you live in would be in war, global awareness might be lost due to its concentration on local situation.
The same happens in pain -- it sucks the attention in, and then the happenings on a broader plane might not be noticed.
Its like losing the wide-angle picture when zooming on detail happens.

D: What is the appearance of a snake but totality? What is a "me" that jumped back? Where did the whole event happen? Of what relevance it is? Is it causal? Did something really happen? 
T: Answer them from DE. What do you find?

All of this is just a play.
On the other hand, beside the play ... there's nothing.
I guess the whole thing is not to lose a sight of that nothingness, otherwise the play is no longer a play but it "solidifies" into "reality".

Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev

Where is the experience of awareness disappearing? Does awareness ever sleep?
Look at these carefully in DE.

In DE: The experience (< lousy term) of awareness does not disappear. It seemingly gets lost only due to fixation on the thought.

'Seemingly' being the key word here.
Does awareness ever actually ever get lost? Or is it always 'here'?
Is awareness ever off?
Is awareness ever unaware?
Isn't 'unaware' just a thought, that you are aware of?

If the country you live in would be in war, global awareness might be lost due to its concentration on local situation.
The same happens in pain -- it sucks the attention in, and then the happenings on a broader plane might not be noticed.
Its like losing the wide-angle picture when zooming on detail happens.

I know what you are saying here but its all just thought story. Nothing to do with DE. Its only how things appear to be.

All of this is just a play.
On the other hand, beside the play ... there's nothing.

Yes. No-thing. But there is awareness, which is not a thing.

i guess the whole thing is not to lose a sight of that nothingness, otherwise the play is no longer a play but it "solidifies" into "reality".

The use of speech marks indicates that you understand the play never actually solidifies into a reality.
The play, is always the play,
Even if there are thoughts saying it is real,
And thoughts saying other thoughts are real.

Is there anything that ever 'gets sucked into', or 'believes' this play?
Can you find that thing?
If not, then what is it that would keep sight of nothingness?
If nothing gets sucked in, then how can 'being sucked in' be prevented?

What would 'keeping sight of nothingness' entail?
The play showing up but another constant thought saying 'this is just a play'?

Even 'nothingness' is an idea arising now.
It points to the nature of awareness, yes
But it is still an idea.

Just like when I said there is only THIS.
You said 'THIS' is an idea. Which it is.
But it also points to the 'nature of awareness'

Is there anything that needs to hang on to a state of nothingness?
Tao

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Does awareness ever actually ever get lost? Or is it always 'here'?
Is awareness ever off?
Is awareness ever unaware?
Isn't 'unaware' just a thought, that you are aware of?

No. Awareness doesn't get lost. It only seems that sometimes the thought becomes its exclusive focus and the recording of other present sensation somehow falls in second plane.
When I watch a movie, the contact of body with clothes is still there but not in the first plane. Than we commonly say that awareness lost itself in the thought or movie. It didn't. It is always present... I can't even say narrowed... still it appears as if in different mode.
Yes, "unaware" is just a thought.

Is there anything that ever 'gets sucked into', or 'believes' this play?
Can you find that thing?
If not, then what is it that would keep sight of nothingness?
If nothing gets sucked in, then how can 'being sucked in' be prevented?
What would 'keeping sight of nothingness' entail? The play showing up but another constant thought saying 'this is just a play'?

No. Again, I speak about, I could say, of two modes of awareness/consciousness: wide open and focused. One is more open (like being on walk noticing everything) and the other more like being immersed into TV that is reporting on something important.
Awareness/consciousness is present in both cases.
I guess I'm having ideas about it, considering the open one better then the focused one.
Could we speak about this two modes of awareness/consciousness just for the sake of vocabulary or you consider this being beyond the point?

Is there anything that needs to hang on to a state of nothingness?

I didn't get that one. If you find this point important, could you please rephrase it?

Thank you for your time and work,

Dev

[Tao]

Hi Dev

No. Awareness doesn't get lost. It only seems that sometimes the thought becomes its exclusive focus and the recording of other present sensation somehow falls in second plane.
When I watch a movie, the contact of body with clothes is still there but not in the first plane. Than we commonly say that awareness lost itself in the thought or movie. It didn't. It is always present... I can't even say narrowed... still it appears as if in different mode.
Yes, "unaware" is just a thought.

Good.
Is there actually a second plane of awareness?
If you look at an object in the room,
And then look at a different object out of eyesight of the first
Is the first object still there in the background/on another plane?
Does the first object exist? Or is it just a thought that says it is there?
A thought that says it is in the background of awareness somewhere?

No. Again, I speak about, I could say, of two modes of awareness/consciousness: wide open and focused. One is more open (like being on walk noticing everything) and the other more like being immersed into TV that is reporting on something important.
Awareness/consciousness is present in both cases.
I guess I'm having ideas about it, considering the open one better then the focused one.
Could we speak about this two modes of awareness/consciousness just for the sake of vocabulary or you consider this being beyond the point?

Well we need to look to see if there actually are two modes of awareness, or whether that is just 'stuff' that shows up in/as awareness.

Similar to the exercise above with the object,
When you are immersed in TV,
Is there a world out there with lots of other things that awareness isn't aware of at the time?
Or is it just a thought that says there are 'other things' that awareness was not aware of?

Whatever shows up in/as awareness:
A narrow closed off constricted focused world,
Or an expansive, open orgasmic bliss,
Is still just appearances

Awareness is never more or less aware
And there is nothing that awareness is unaware of.
Even the thought that creates an illusion of an 'unknown'
Is still fully known

And you rightly said that there are ideas about one appearance (openness) being better/more preferable, than another appearance (focusedness)

That's the point, the illusory self seems to be strung together with ideas about where that self needs to get to.
Spiritual enlightenment is just another idea/hope for the future.

Is there anything that needs to hang on to a state of nothingness?
I didn't get that one. If you find this point important, could you please rephrase it?

What is it that needs to be free from focused awareness?
What is it that needs openness?

Tao

[Tao]

Is awareness ever limited in any way?

[Devissimus]

Hi Tao,

Is there actually a second plane of awareness?
If you look at an object in the room, and then look at a different object out of eyesight of the first, is the first object still there in the background/on another plane?
Does the first object exist? Or is it just a thought that says it is there? A thought that says it is in the background of awareness somewhere?

Whoa!
You mean: whatever is not an object of consciousness does not exist i.e. it exist only in thought?
I speak to you, and then I turn away and speak to someone else -- that moment you ceased to exist?
Well, OK, you did, for me -- in my DE.
You still do exist for yourself and for someone else who might tlk with you at that time but you don't exist for my point of awareness anymore. Your existence -- when you are not with me -- is just an assumption, a thought?
Second plane of awareness is just an assumption?
What I am not aware of does not exist?
America is just my idea? It have no existance?
Not for me, here -- sure.

Let's see this: my car (parked outside) pops out of existence the moment I turn my attention to something else?

Out of my attention, out of existence?
Out of my "subjective existence"?

When we talked about existence did you always talk about this type, of subjective existence?

Is there a world out there with lots of other things that awareness isn't aware of at the time?
Or is it just a thought that says there are 'other things' that awareness was not aware of?

Well, yes, it's just a thought, an assumption that my car is still there when I'm not aware of it in DE. Might be stolen. OK.

Awareness is never more or less aware. And there is nothing that awareness is unaware of.

So if it is aware of a just one thing instead of a thousand things, awareness is not less...?

Even the thought that creates an illusion of an 'unknown' is still fully known.

Could you/we elaborate on that?

Spiritual enlightenment is just another idea/hope for the future.

Got that.

What is it that needs to be free from focused awareness? What is it that needs openness?

How the hell did I came to the idea of "being lost in thoughts" as being less valuable than "being present"?

Do we talk about it's really irrelevant weather we are mesmerized by thought or we see through it?

+++ (@ your second post)

Is awareness ever limited in any way?

I guess I'm hung up on idea of being "more aware".
But I see: the ocean is not less with less waves.
Being aware of one thing exclusivelly is no better than being aware of whole room... for awareness.

Just now a certain smell evoked a memory of childhood and I wandered away from writting this.
No problem for awareness.

Am I unconscious if my awareness is in my thoughts rather than present when I drive a car?
(good recipe for quick dis-identification with anything other than awareness)

Puzzled,

Dev