The Light of Awareness

Originally posted by Taoman
Thank you EB. Much to contemplate.
While there is the obvious View that is the same, the means and description of the two approaches to the view appear with differences. From both sides Dzogchen and Chan(Zen) Buddhism I hear deep conviction.
Nevertheless that is not the core. Mind, as EB continues to remind, is the core, or the locus of action/nonaction. a ...[text shortened]... rit.

Where is the door for the common (Western) man, no monk-likeness about most, whatsoever?

The door is always the evaluation of the mind😵

Originally posted by Maxwell Smart
Just scanned this thread...I am now keenly aware that I have wasted the last few minutes, and will never get them back...

Perhaps you should be keenly aware that the corresponding squares are always critical😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The door is always the evaluation of the mind😵

Yes. Different means, same door. Wanderers and means...?

Originally posted by googlefudge
+1 for this.

The nature of reality can't be found by looking inside yourself (metaphorically speaking).

However this doesn't mean that nothing can be found by looking in.

The laws of logic and pretty much the entirety of mathematics which do not rely on the
nature of reality to function can indeed only be found inside.

There is no such thin ...[text shortened]... rnally or internally is going
to be inferior to one that recognises that the answer is both.

Well-put.

There is also the fact of existential recursiveness, in which the so-called “external” reality includes me and my “internal” reflection as well as my reflecting on that external world, which includes me . . . and so on and so on. From a gestaltic point of view, whatever I focus my awareness on becomes “figure” vis-à-vis a necessary, but implicate, “ground”—which ground includes not only the external “background” (which can become figure, if I shift my focus), but also the ability and act of focusing my awareness so . . .

From either point-of-view, it seems that the bifurcation of the whole reality (gestalt) into “external” and “internal”, while occasionally useful for analysis, is an arbitrary and quite literally un-real-istic abstraction (though, to repeat, an abstraction that can be useful for certain analysis).

Originally posted by vistesd
Well-put.

There is also the fact of existential recursiveness, in which the so-called “external” reality includes me and my “internal” reflection as well as my reflecting on that external world, which includes me . . . and so on and so on. From a gestaltic point of view, whatever I focus my awareness on becomes “figure” vis-à-vis a necessary, but impli ...[text shortened]... l-istic abstraction (though, to repeat, an abstraction that can be useful for certain analysis).

I have read elsewhere the bare statement that all IS awareness, subject and object. This has caused me conceptual and rational difficulties (particularly as to object), yet your gestaltic centered statement impinges for me possibly on the concept, particularly its recursive reference.
If ground and figure 'require' each other, externally and internally, does this support the statement, "all is awareness", ultimately? I am exploring here.