|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2011 14:12:22 GMT -5
"Very funny Enigma, lol, awareness noticing innocence, by noticing that which is impossible to notice, the absence of innocence... That's turning awareness into something other than awareness and is pure imagination and a huge fallacy... lol" I'm not sure I follow how it gets so complicated for you. Awareness notices innocence by noticing it's own innocence. Heh, well maybe I wouldn't be so confused if you weren't trying to attribute qualities to the awareness... You know very well that the awareness is unknowable and that you have no way of demonstrating, how that premise would even be possible... So maybe you can assist me in alleviating my confusing conceptual diarrhea, if in fact you actually believe your premise and tell me how that would be possible? Sitting on my conceptual toilet of confusion, can be a real pain sometimes. I think I need some Imodium... LOL For the gazillionth time, the illusion of guilt is seen for what it is. This isn't an attribute of awareness. You can spin that gerbil wheel a few more times by saying awareness can't notice something that doesn't exist, to which I'll say awareness is noticing it's own innocence, to which you'll say that's attributing qualities to awareness, to which I'll say....... Or you can just slow down and notice it.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Apr 6, 2011 16:03:03 GMT -5
A butterfly sat on my finger today. It, and another one had 'hatched' in a customer's outdoor toilet. The first one flew away quite soon after the door was opened. Though the second one seemed to need a little more time. So it climbed onto the finger of my right hand, and we walked outside. It was well sweet ~ looking at it's fur blowing in the breeze ... it's old face ... it's beautiful, chiseled perfection. Then the idea formed to show it to the owner of the house. She was busy in the kitchen and her granddaughter wasn't looking out of the window and so the idea furthered, to take it into the house ... Not! It flew away
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2011 17:14:10 GMT -5
Critters are sometimes in need of a savior like you. There's a powerful message in the irony of a caterpillar that crawls in through a crack in the door, endures a complete transformation of being, spreads her wings to fly only to find that the same wings that promise freedom also deny it.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Apr 6, 2011 21:56:36 GMT -5
Heh, well maybe I wouldn't be so confused if you weren't trying to attribute qualities to the awareness... You know very well that the awareness is unknowable and that you have no way of demonstrating, how that premise would even be possible... So maybe you can assist me in alleviating my confusing conceptual diarrhea, if in fact you actually believe your premise and tell me how that would be possible? Sitting on my conceptual toilet of confusion, can be a real pain sometimes. I think I need some Imodium... LOL For the gazillionth time, the illusion of guilt is seen for what it is. This isn't an attribute of awareness. You can spin that gerbil wheel a few more times by saying awareness can't notice something that doesn't exist, to which I'll say awareness is noticing it's own innocence, to which you'll say that's attributing qualities to awareness, to which I'll say....... Or you can just slow down and notice it. See, heh, that's the problem, I'm not noticing it and guess what, no one else is either... Telling me to notice something that isn't there, is kind of delusional, no? You know full well that the awareness of something, innocence for instance, is not a quality of the awareness... Awareness is prior to that noticing and it's stupid for me to be pointing something out to you that your fully aware of. Instead of explaining your premise, which you know can't be explained, you throw it back at me... No, you explain how the noticing of innocence is an attribute of the awareness, even though the awareness is prior to all noticing... Either s**t or get off the pot...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2011 22:42:33 GMT -5
For the gazillionth time, the illusion of guilt is seen for what it is. This isn't an attribute of awareness. You can spin that gerbil wheel a few more times by saying awareness can't notice something that doesn't exist, to which I'll say awareness is noticing it's own innocence, to which you'll say that's attributing qualities to awareness, to which I'll say....... Or you can just slow down and notice it. See, heh, that's the problem, I'm not noticing it and guess what, no one else is either... Telling me to notice something that isn't there, is kind of delusional, no? Noticing THAT something isn't there is clarity. Imagining that it IS there is delusional. Not only do I know that, I just said it.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Apr 7, 2011 9:55:23 GMT -5
See, heh, that's the problem, I'm not noticing it and guess what, no one else is either... Telling me to notice something that isn't there, is kind of delusional, no? Noticing THAT something isn't there is clarity. Imagining that it IS there is delusional. Not only do I know that, I just said it. You know, saying that "the awareness can notice it's own innocence" without an explanation of how that's possible, isn't what I'd call Clarity. I see it more like spiritual campfire storytelling... To me, that's Clarity...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2011 10:35:20 GMT -5
Well, that's cool n all, but whatever is noticed, it's awareness that's gonna notice it, and whatever it's noticing something about has to be about itself, so it seems pretty clear to me. Your issue with it seems to be that anything that smacks of a quality is dismissed.
This is an issue that also comes up in the context of knowing something. To see that something is not so is not the grasping of some knowledge, it's the seeing through of some knowledge. Likewise, seeing that guilt is an illusion is not the acquisition of an attribute, it's the seeing through of an illusion. To see that you are innocent is the falling away of the illusion of guilt.
As for clarity, I would never claim that I can make something clear to you or anyone else. That's not what clarity refers to. Clarity is your job.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Apr 7, 2011 11:41:51 GMT -5
Just because you got some glasses and you can see a lot of stuff you couldn't see before doesn't mean you can see more clearly. It's the first time you've seen with glasses, so you probably don't even notice the fingerprints and smudges an inch away from your face.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2011 12:10:01 GMT -5
I also don't claim to know anything.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Apr 7, 2011 12:39:12 GMT -5
I've got a question that's off topic. How do you know when the seeking has ended? Any time you check to see would be a continuation of the seeking, so I'm confused. The whole idea is to stop checking, but when does it become clear that you have stopped? I guess when you don't ask silly questions like this.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Apr 7, 2011 12:52:24 GMT -5
Well, that's cool n all, but whatever is noticed, it's awareness that's gonna notice it, and whatever it's noticing something about has to be about itself, so it seems pretty clear to me. Your issue with it seems to be that anything that smacks of a quality is dismissed. This is an issue that also comes up in the context of knowing something. To see that something is not so is not the grasping of some knowledge, it's the seeing through of some knowledge. Likewise, seeing that guilt is an illusion is not the acquisition of an attribute, it's the seeing through of an illusion. To see that you are innocent is the falling away of the illusion of guilt. As for clarity, I would never claim that I can make something clear to you or anyone else. That's not what clarity refers to. Clarity is your job. I agree with you, heh, but I'm not seeing that being applied... Here's what I see, an attempt to define the unknowable, by that what which is noticed, as you say, a grasping of some knowledge. That which is noticed by the awareness, in fact changes and is transitory... So, saying that which changes and is transitory, is about the awareness, is simply wrong. One can say that the awareness and that which is observed are part of a process, but one does not define the other... The awareness is 'like' a shinning light and is 'changeless', while that which is noticed 'changes'. It's possible that what is obvious to me, is not obvious to someone else.... But I believe, it's important to see that which is real and that which is transitory, as clearly as possible. This stuff is confusing enough without adding additional layers of interpretation that just aren't true...
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Apr 7, 2011 12:59:30 GMT -5
That which is noticed by the awareness, in fact changes and is transitory... So, saying that which changes and is transitory, is about the awareness, is simply wrong. One can say that the awareness and that which is observed are part of a process, but one does not define the other... What other? This is non-duality. I think you are getting caught up in the term 'awareness'. Awareness is only a pointer. It is not something that is aware of something else, it is the totality.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 7, 2011 13:13:42 GMT -5
I've got a question that's off topic. How do you know when the seeking has ended? Any time you check to see would be a continuation of the seeking, so I'm confused. The whole idea is to stop checking, but when does it become clear that you have stopped? I guess when you don't ask silly questions like this. That's right. When the checker/seeker is discovered to be non-existent, not as a form of knowledge, but as a direct realization, the seeking comes to an end because there is no longer a seeker seeking anything. There will be no doubt when this happens. "What is," manifesting as a particular body/mind, realizes that "what is" is the whole shooting match, and that there is nothing separate from Itself. This realization is generally accompanied by non-abidance in the mind because there is no longer anyone who closely identifies with the mind's activities. After this realization, one continues much as before, but without the sense that one is separate from anything else. One knows that one is the totality of all being, and whatever one sees is known to be one's True Self.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 7, 2011 13:20:30 GMT -5
That which is noticed by the awareness, in fact changes and is transitory... So, saying that which changes and is transitory, is about the awareness, is simply wrong. One can say that the awareness and that which is observed are part of a process, but one does not define the other... What other? This is non-duality. I think you are getting caught up in the term 'awareness'. Awareness is only a pointer. It is not something that is aware of something else, it is the totality. I agree. I was just preparing to write almost exactly these same words. E. is simply pointing to something. The innocence he is pointing to can be realized directly, and it has nothing to do with definitions or explanations or layers of anything.
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Apr 7, 2011 16:57:52 GMT -5
This has turned out to be an awesome thread. Finally I've got some time to respond... I realize there is no self, yet I stil get defensive when I am "wronged" by another. Self-judgement also remains in my case. Judgement is an automatic response. I wonder if it is possible to get rid of the mechanism that judges both self and others so that judgement doesn't happen at all. Yes, actually realizing there is no self. Hehe. You can't realize there is no self and still say that self should have done something other than what happened. What do you mean by realize no self, full awakening? I've realized there is no self but the sense of doership remains. So does guilt and judgement. In other words, there's still identification. Every time guilt or judgment arises I could say to myself, "It's all good dude, there's no self, forget about it." I don't know if judgement or guilt would fall away without digging into the reason why guilt and judgement is there, seeing what those beliefs are, and perhaps negating them or seeing that those beliefs are false(??). The idea that ego can't see itself sounds odd to me. Ego is a complex of thoughts rather than something that can see stuff, and you CAN see those thoughts. It's true that it's often easier to see the dynamics of ego reflected in others, but surely you've done some things that nobody but you was aware of, and yet you still questioned whether you should have done it. Nobody else is thinking anything about it, so they aren't reflecting anything for you. You can become fully conscious of the machinations of ego because you aren't the ego. Sure, I didn't mean to sound like I thought that ego was something that sees or interprets. Yes, I have done something that nobody was aware of but I only questioned if I should have done it because of the conditioning that was there in the first place. If I thought I shouldn't do something, it's because I was taught or learned not to do that sort of thing from someone else. Therefore I'm seeing myself through the eyes of someone else. I'm not seeing myself directly. There may be cases where this isn't true but I have yet to come across any. I will keep looking though. It's taken me a while to peg you. Your "method" it seems is quite different and not as direct as ZD's. Either that or you just really like this scene from the Matrix: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaBvDKrPdZYWhat is obvious is that the independent, volitional person who is believed to be the author of his thoughts and actions is a delusion; a set of unquestioned conclusions and assumptions. Not only can that entire thought structure of ego be seen, it can be seen through. When you say "seen through" are you saying that it can be seen that it doesn't exist? Or are you saying that the beliefs, ideas, and concepts that make up the egoic structure can be seen to be false? "Does any of that make any sense?" If you wish to see your own genius then you must first show it ... Either you have misunderstood me or I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
|
|