Examine the Nature of Unborn Awareness

Easy said! But, what does this mean? If we are able to examine the nature of unborn awareness, how can it be unborn?

One way to interpret it would be to take it quite literally, which is to examine the awareness you had before you were born. This is quite metaphysical, but some abstractions can be simplified and made more intelligible. Like in this case, unborn awareness is the awareness defined outside of the scope of one's self. When you are unborn, you don't have the sense of self or the concept of "I", but you are alive and aware, but that awareness is unaccompanied by ego!

In the last month, I have struggled with this teaching and have only now made peace with it. I decided that I don't have to understand everything. It has fueled enough introspection, albeit exasperatingly. Some of this exasperation comes from the contradictory nature of this teaching from the previous one.

In the previous one Chodron talks about regarding dharma as dreams. The commentary says

"Although you might think things are very solid, they are like passing memory. All that arises in your mind—hate, love and all the rest—is not solid. Although the experience can get extremely vivid, it is just a product of your mind. Nothing solid is really happening."

Whereas, the commentary that goes along with the new teaching says

"Look at your mind, at just simple awareness itself. "Examine" doesn't mean analyze. It means just looking and seeing if there is anything solid to hold onto. Our mind is constantly shifting and changing. Just look at that!"

If all that arises in the mind is not solid (previous teaching), but I am to look into the mind to see if there is anything solid (new teaching), it seems like I am being asked to run after the impossible. How does one coalesce these two very contradictory teachings?

With the previous teaching I was able to translate the ideas into some action. I could look into how I handled relationships, and try not to dwell on temporary feelings of anger, hatred or elation or let them guide my actions and behavior. But, this new teaching isn't as actionable.

So I decided not to analyze the teaching, and just examine it, like the commentary suggests I do. I try to meditate, not by letting my mind go blank, or go haywire, but by trying to find something solid. The only way I found being able to do this so far, is to focus less on myself or a subject, and more on the feeling itself. Feelings can be very solid things. I know it is a fluid emotion that will pass, but for as long as I feel it, it is solid. So there! I am able to marginally reconcile the two teachings. There is an awareness that everything that arises in the mind is like passing memory, and yet as long as it in in my mind, it feels overpowering, like an enveloping cocoon that has taken over my being, feeling more vivid than it is.

Now there are three things I have come to enjoy with my meditation, which I touched upon in my previous post. One, to let my mind go blank; Two, to let it go haywire and see where my thoughts take me; Three, to be aware and hold onto something solid.

I am yet to figure out if I am doing this the right way. I am beginning to feel the need to read more about each teaching. But, in running behind the essence, I am afraid I will turn this into a time consuming activity that might dissuade continuation. I also see some benefit in my ignorant meditative contemplation, like spending time with myself and getting to know my thoughts in the quiet.