The idea of total, expanding awareness is one that confuses me deeply. I am not just unsure what it means but what to think of it. One of the questions that comes up is as to how we can keep the value of the individual things and relationships in our own lives. Is the problem the way that we (I) always need to compare – is John a better friend than Jan? The Dalai Lama claims it is possible to aim to extend the same unlimited awareness toward everyone, and yet that seems very hard. C.S. Lewis said, I think, that something that is infinite and perfect everywhere without single attributes is basically “grey tapioca.” This is the problem I have – if I am equally aware of everyone, how do I keep people from becoming abstractions. Maybe the true expansion of awareness recognizes that everyone is worthy of infinite compassion and curiosity but that the amount we can give is only finite. Rather than comparing we can give things time for themselves, but perhaps rather than wandering over everything and everyone we must choose a few things and a few people to explore in their infinite detail during our finite lifetimes.
Is the infinite truly impossible to understand? You said that “if I am equally aware of everyone, how do I keep people from becoming abstractions.” I think that often a person as an abstraction is also a solid physical thing. For example, in math we see that infinite numbers of things can be added up to a single solid physical number. In this same way a person, who is an infinite number of complex ideas and pieces that make up a single person. One of the struggles in expanding our awareness is holding the duality of infinite feelings and emotions and consciousness also being a finite person who you must interact with.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.