|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2012 23:16:46 GMT -5
I suggest internal states and reactions are strictly a matter of conditioning. I'll mull that one over a bit. What I was referring to ultimately, at best case, reduces to the breakdown of this conditioning, little-by-little, after all. The notion of God cannot be more than the ultimate macro label; all inclusive. There cannot be God, and then something else, and so if I point to something (like mind) and call it God, I'm quite sure that is correct. ... ahhh ... yes, well here I imagine a strategy to put forth the definition of "mind" that fits the bill! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2012 23:21:52 GMT -5
While what the mind imagines about what the stars are can be that source you're speaking of, what Max describes likely predates any such knowledge. He's talking about jelly donuts, which is fine. I respectfully offer my disagreement with you on this point. If there were jelly donuts on the plate I would have eaten them by now. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 6, 2012 23:42:09 GMT -5
He's talking about jelly donuts, which is fine. I respectfully offer my disagreement with you on this point. If there were jelly donuts on the plate I would have eaten them by now. ;D Well, that seems pretty conclusive, then.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2012 12:02:50 GMT -5
While what the mind imagines about what the stars are can be that source you're speaking of, what Max describes likely predates any such knowledge. He's talking about jelly donuts, which is fine. In this case, I am a jelly donut*.  *I was going to reiterate JFK's famous 'ich bin ein berliner' gaffe but it turns out to be urbanlegend -- urbanlegends.about.com/cs/historical/a/jfk_berliner.htm |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2012 6:50:45 GMT -5
I suggest internal states and reactions are strictly a matter of conditioning. I'll mull that one over a bit. What I was referring to ultimately, at best case, reduces to the breakdown of this conditioning, little-by-little, after all. O.k. done mulling. I find your conclusion to be steeped in metaphor. While I perceive the distinction you're implying between an action and what may only appear to be an action but isn't, the human machine is distinct from every other machine by what is imagined to animate it. Now before you reply, I do concede that if our metric for comparison is the number of things imagined, then your version of the pointer claims a 2 - 4 victory, as I am imagining: 1 - an individual 2 - the concept of control 3 - the divide between internal and external 4 - existence of a state While you .... now you're just imagining "God" and "creation". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2012 7:17:15 GMT -5
The notion of God cannot be more than the ultimate macro label; all inclusive. There cannot be God, and then something else, and so if I point to something (like mind) and call it God, I'm quite sure that is correct. Sorry man, there is no definition of either word or any word that can save this construct. Even if you use capitalized letters. The thought "I am God" is no different from any other thought of identification. seeker: As a witness, are you working or at rest? Niz: Witnessing is an experience, the rest is freedom from experience. seeker: Can't they coexist, as the tumult of the waves and the quiet of the deep coexist in the ocean? Niz: Beyond the mind there is no such thing as experience. Experience is a dual state. You cannot talk of reality as an experience. Once this is understood, you will no longer look for being and becoming as separate and opposite. In reality they are one and inseparable, like roots and branches of the same tree. Both can exist only in the light of consciousness, which again arises in the wake of the sense 'I am.' This is the primary fact. If you miss it, you miss all. seeker: Is the sense of being a product of experience only? The great saying (mahavakya) tatsat -- is it a mere mode of mentation? Niz: Whatever is spoken is speech only. Whatever is thought is thought only. The real meaning is unexplainable, although experienceable. The mahvakya is true, but your ideas are false, for all ideas are false. seeker: Is the conviction, 'I am That' false? Niz: Of course. Conviction is a mental state. In 'That' there is no 'I am.' With the sense 'I am' emerging, 'That' is obscured, just as with the sun rising the stars are wiped out. But as the sun comes with light, so with the sense of self comes bliss. The cause of bliss is sought in the 'not I' and thus the bondage begins. seeker: In your daily life are you always conscious of your real state? Niz: Neither conscious nor unconscious. I do not need convictions. I live on courage. Courage is my essence, which is love of life. I am free of memories and anticipations, unconcerned with what I am and what I am not. I am not addicted to self-descriptions, soham and brahmasmi ('I am He', 'I am the Supreme') are of no use to me. I have the courage to be as nothing and to see the world as it is: nothing. It sounds simple, just try it! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 8, 2012 9:21:44 GMT -5
The notion of God cannot be more than the ultimate macro label; all inclusive. There cannot be God, and then something else, and so if I point to something (like mind) and call it God, I'm quite sure that is correct. : Neither conscious nor unconscious. I do not need convictions. I live on courage. Courage is my essence, which is love of life. I am free of memories and anticipations, unconcerned with what I am and what I am not. I am not addicted to self-descriptions, soham and brahmasmi ('I am He', 'I am the Supreme') are of no use to me. I have the courage to be as nothing and to see the world as it is: nothing. It sounds simple, just try it! Liking that a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 8, 2012 13:51:32 GMT -5
Niz: Neither conscious nor unconscious. I do not need convictions. I live on courage. Courage is my essence, which is love of life. I am free of memories and anticipations, unconcerned with what I am and what I am not. I am not addicted to self-descriptions, soham and brahmasmi ('I am He', 'I am the Supreme') are of no use to me. I have the courage to be as nothing and to see the world as it is: nothing. It sounds simple, just try it! Liking that a lot. Yes, well in honest deference to E the fact is that there was a bit of conditioning going on over here in responding to the provocation. It's really interesting watching that play out using the tools that he recommends to deal with such reactions. It's also funny watching this Niz stuff just seem to fit-into the conversations synchronously ;D ... don't have much time to read right now and I literally read that like one or two days after E started the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Dec 9, 2012 11:15:19 GMT -5
Mystery = Create and Seek  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 9, 2012 12:37:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 9, 2012 14:39:28 GMT -5
"To be aware is to be awake. Unaware means asleep. You are aware anyhow, you need not try to be. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious."
(Niz channeling from the 10th dimension)
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2012 20:43:26 GMT -5
"To be aware is to be awake. Unaware means asleep. You are aware anyhow, you need not try to be. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious." (Niz channeling from the 10th dimension) Wow E, in all sincerity, thanks for that dude. What I have to say in reply is: [ ......................................................................................................] (to say that this one is best read with the eyes of a child that had never heard of the word "recursion" is even saying too much, just can't help myself)
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 9, 2012 22:36:34 GMT -5
"To be aware is to be awake. Unaware means asleep. You are aware anyhow, you need not try to be. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious." (Niz channeling from the 10th dimension) Wow E, in all sincerity, thanks for that dude. What I have to say in reply is: [ ......................................................................................................] (to say that this one is best read with the eyes of a child that had never heard of the word "recursion" is even saying too much, just can't help myself)
Are you a non-duality scholar? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 10, 2012 5:00:32 GMT -5
Wow E, in all sincerity, thanks for that dude. What I have to say in reply is: [ ......................................................................................................] (to say that this one is best read with the eyes of a child that had never heard of the word "recursion" is even saying too much, just can't help myself)
Are you a non-duality scholar? (*** smiles a smile of certainty and holds up a three-finger imagination score-card ***) |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Dec 10, 2012 9:15:42 GMT -5
"To be aware is to be awake. Unaware means asleep. You are aware anyhow, you need not try to be. What you need is to be aware of being aware. Be aware deliberately and consciously, broaden and deepen the field of awareness. You are always conscious of the mind, but you are not aware of yourself as being conscious." (Niz channeling from the 10th dimension) Are we also aware of being aware of awareness? ;D What I find nice about "be aware of being aware" is that it chills the mind and can induce a meditative state. A similar one would be "be aware that you're alive." These can result in interesting experiences and realizations. |
|
