|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 21:28:00 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 21:28:00 GMT -5
Yeah, that makes sense. I can see that experience is defined with boundaries and I at least understand the concept of all of creation being fully integrated. I think I was trying to understand whether or not different boundaries are dissolved in different ways. Whether the would-be levitating monk is doing anything different in convincing himself that levitation is possible than I am doing when looking at any of the ideas I have about how things are. I don't have much interest in levitating monks and people who throw others across the room with their woo woo energy beyond that. At least I didn't think I did, but last night I had a dream that I could make people itch by staring at the spot on their body that I wanted to be itchy. I love that in my wildest dreams the 'super power' that I give myself is the power to create itchiness. The power of the itch. Hehe. What most of self inquiry seems to be about is collapsing problematic beliefs, which is a bit different from forming new ones, which is what the levitating monk has done, and why Papaji was not particularly impressed by the talent, or so the story goes. Self inquiry, done properly, is not a genie in a bottle but a thief in the night.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 21:38:40 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 14, 2011 21:38:40 GMT -5
That's great, got nothing against that, but isn't it dependent on one of two beliefs? That there is a verifiable objective world or that the 'objective world' is really a projection of the mind. I'm not sure what belief your basing your premise on, or if it even matters. What say ye? Well, I don't think it matters, but ye says it's always created from the inside out, meaning an expression of the one consciousness that is here, both creating and experiencing. Whether or not it's a projection of the mind depends on what the concept of mind includes. If mind is a thinking process, then it doesn't really apply. If it's a process of perception, then sure. That sounds kinda dualistic, you know the one creating, the one experiencing... And what if the 'objective' world is really a world of 'potentiality', essentially formless until awareness intends to objectify it, for the purpose of conscious experience. Awareness can't be aware of potentiality because it doesn't have an existence. Yet it uses it for conscious experience, a sort of not being aware of the elements that make up it's awareness of reality. If the objective world was a projection of the mind, you'd think that awareness would have an inkling of it's own elements of manifestation, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 22:21:23 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 14, 2011 22:21:23 GMT -5
Maybe this gets back to the spontaneous function of creation, which happens in the same way whether asleep or awake. Maybe we could say it forms out of pre-conscious material in your individual conditioning, so it's more an expression of your experiences than of your desires. However, it's still 'of your own making'. Naw, that wouldn't make sense. cus there isn't a me making anything or a me having individual conditioning, right? There isn't a me having experiences or desires... So it begs the question, why is the awareness, or God, or the Eternal, hooked to this 'human' expression, when it could choose any expression for it's enjoyment, if that's what it's doing with the human one? I mean I could dream I'm an ant or a bat or anything for that matter and experience that reality. The mystery is that it chooses the human expression for manifestation... And although the answer is meaningless, it makes that which we are all the more magical, mysterious and unfathomable...
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 22:47:17 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 22:47:17 GMT -5
Well, I don't think it matters, but ye says it's always created from the inside out, meaning an expression of the one consciousness that is here, both creating and experiencing. Whether or not it's a projection of the mind depends on what the concept of mind includes. If mind is a thinking process, then it doesn't really apply. If it's a process of perception, then sure. That sounds kinda dualistic, you know the one creating, the one experiencing... Same one. Only one. That's what I be sayin. Um.....Uh, huh. An inkling??
|
|
|
Sleep
May 14, 2011 22:59:39 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 14, 2011 22:59:39 GMT -5
Maybe this gets back to the spontaneous function of creation, which happens in the same way whether asleep or awake. Maybe we could say it forms out of pre-conscious material in your individual conditioning, so it's more an expression of your experiences than of your desires. However, it's still 'of your own making'. Naw, that wouldn't make sense. cus there isn't a me making anything or a me having individual conditioning, right? There isn't a me having experiences or desires... Right. There's still conditioning, experience and desires, whether or not there's a 'me' belief as part of that.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 15, 2011 0:04:27 GMT -5
Post by kate on May 15, 2011 0:04:27 GMT -5
Yeah, that makes sense. I can see that experience is defined with boundaries and I at least understand the concept of all of creation being fully integrated. I think I was trying to understand whether or not different boundaries are dissolved in different ways. Whether the would-be levitating monk is doing anything different in convincing himself that levitation is possible than I am doing when looking at any of the ideas I have about how things are. I don't have much interest in levitating monks and people who throw others across the room with their woo woo energy beyond that. At least I didn't think I did, but last night I had a dream that I could make people itch by staring at the spot on their body that I wanted to be itchy. I love that in my wildest dreams the 'super power' that I give myself is the power to create itchiness. The power of the itch. Hehe. What most of self inquiry seems to be about is collapsing problematic beliefs, which is a bit different from forming new ones, which is what the levitating monk has done, and why Papaji was not particularly impressed by the talent, or so the story goes. Self inquiry, done properly, is not a genie in a bottle but a thief in the night. Isn't the yogi collapsing the belief that it is impossible for a human being to float in the air? He's gained a cool party trick but there is still something dropped in order for that to happen?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 15, 2011 1:09:28 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 15, 2011 1:09:28 GMT -5
Yeah, it's an expansion of sorts. But of course now he has a belief that he has the power to float in the air, so he may be lighter (hehe) but is he more or less empty? Hard to say, I guess. He'll be a hit at the next yogi party, fer sure.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 15, 2011 6:14:53 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 15, 2011 6:14:53 GMT -5
Indeed. There's nothing to recall in the mind, but it can be 'visited.' In the 'now' or in the mind? (a) Maybe we should come up with some nonduality multiple-choice tests, to make grading 'easier.' ;D
|
|
|
Sleep
May 15, 2011 6:23:57 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 15, 2011 6:23:57 GMT -5
Okay, but how do you even know that something is impossible? There's no belief about it until we imagine that something that's not currently here would be possible. I don't see this as driven by belief, but rather by creation/imagination. I agree. God's a creative, imaginative dude. I'd say the difference between imagination and 'reality' is the depth of belief, which makes life an interactive game. Anything that can be imagined is possible because the limiters are not in the potential, (formless) but in the actualization. (form) This is why it gets a bit irksome when folks get too deeply into the neti-neti world of no-me to no-do no-nothing. It can be useful in removing the personal aspect, but it seriously flies in the face of the infinite potential that I can't help but see as continuously present every moment. Nice! Imagination = reaching out It looks like God gets 'tired' from time to time, and says ' I'm not doing anything anymore.' But it can't really stop.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 15, 2011 9:29:04 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 15, 2011 9:29:04 GMT -5
That sounds kinda dualistic, you know the one creating, the one experiencing... Same one. Only one. Ya, I know all about the oneness thing, but nobody has been able to define it, except through dualistic ideas and principles... The one that is aware, the one that observes, the one that experiences, the one that creates... And to an observer, observing all this doing, it reinforces the idea of a doer, a limited being. It seems like a contradiction, to me anyway...
|
|
|
Sleep
May 15, 2011 12:33:48 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 15, 2011 12:33:48 GMT -5
I agree. God's a creative, imaginative dude. I'd say the difference between imagination and 'reality' is the depth of belief, which makes life an interactive game. Anything that can be imagined is possible because the limiters are not in the potential, (formless) but in the actualization. (form) This is why it gets a bit irksome when folks get too deeply into the neti-neti world of no-me to no-do no-nothing. It can be useful in removing the personal aspect, but it seriously flies in the face of the infinite potential that I can't help but see as continuously present every moment. Nice! Imagination = reaching out It looks like God gets 'tired' from time to time, and says ' I'm not doing anything anymore.' But it can't really stop. To me, there is something that doesn't jive with this whole awareness, anything is possible idea. For instance, I am aware of myself, my own reality, but I don't know about yours, or what it's like to be a cat, or a dog. The possibility of knowing what it's like to be a cat or dog, exists without the need for it to manifest objectively as form. So what seems extremely possible becomes quite impossible. Also, there exists the 'possibility' of telepathy. That's something that would seem to be simple, since there is just oneness, direct communication. And even though it isn't bound by the restrictions of form, it doesn't appear to be a functioning aspect of unlimited possibility or imagination. As always, trying to take the magic out of reality, leads to taking this mystery that we are for granted... So I'll forget my musing and retire to the back yard and visit with the Eternal for a while...
|
|
|
Sleep
May 15, 2011 14:49:44 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 15, 2011 14:49:44 GMT -5
Again, the boundaries on infinite potential appear in the constriction of form. That one form constriction can't know or do something is determined by the boundaries that make up that form, which are actually cognitive boundaries.
You CAN actually align with the consciousness of a cat and know what it's like to be a cat. It's also possible to tune into the mental/emotional structures of another and see what's going on. Marie and I will sometimes do this together (looking at a third person) and what we come up with is often surprising and always similar and often identical. (BTW, we look for that 'inside' rather than 'outside'.)
|
|
|
Sleep
May 15, 2011 16:08:54 GMT -5
Post by therealfake on May 15, 2011 16:08:54 GMT -5
Again, the boundaries on infinite potential appear in the constriction of form. That one form constriction can't know or do something is determined by the boundaries that make up that form, which are actually cognitive boundaries. You CAN actually align with the consciousness of a cat and know what it's like to be a cat. It's also possible to tune into the mental/emotional structures of another and see what's going on. Marie and I will sometimes do this together (looking at a third person) and what we come up with is often surprising and always similar and often identical. (BTW, we look for that 'inside' rather than 'outside'.) Well, ya, to believe in oneness, you have to believe you can know what it's like to 'be' a cat. But the reality is that the experience of human awareness is locked into a individuated point of view. There's no process, that I know of, to move my awareness into a different form and still retain the human awareness. If you knew what it was like to be a cat, you wouldn't know what it was like to be a human. And that's probably by design, cus I wouldn't want to suddenly find myself as the awareness of a cat, just before it stops to lick it's bum... Perhaps the awareness is of the 'thought' about being the awareness of a cat. Which seems to more readily pass the sensibility test...
|
|
alpha
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Sleep
May 15, 2011 18:29:49 GMT -5
Post by alpha on May 15, 2011 18:29:49 GMT -5
Again, the boundaries on infinite potential appear in the constriction of form. That one form constriction can't know or do something is determined by the boundaries that make up that form, which are actually cognitive boundaries. You CAN actually align with the consciousness of a cat and know what it's like to be a cat. It's also possible to tune into the mental/emotional structures of another and see what's going on. Marie and I will sometimes do this together (looking at a third person) and what we come up with is often surprising and always similar and often identical. (BTW, we look for that 'inside' rather than 'outside'.) reminds me of a few years ago when my wife, who btw has no interest whatever in all this "oneness" teachings, but one day she suddenly felt a severe pain in her finger, we both examined it but could find no bruising so the only relief was to bandage it and take painkillers, the next day it was no better, but the problem was solved when her brother, who lives in another county,phoned to say he was in hospital having badly injured his finger the previous day, in both cases it was the third finger of the left hand, i was amazed at this but she thought it of little importance...
|
|
|
Sleep
May 16, 2011 0:59:01 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 16, 2011 0:59:01 GMT -5
Again, the boundaries on infinite potential appear in the constriction of form. That one form constriction can't know or do something is determined by the boundaries that make up that form, which are actually cognitive boundaries. You CAN actually align with the consciousness of a cat and know what it's like to be a cat. It's also possible to tune into the mental/emotional structures of another and see what's going on. Marie and I will sometimes do this together (looking at a third person) and what we come up with is often surprising and always similar and often identical. (BTW, we look for that 'inside' rather than 'outside'.) Well, ya, to believe in oneness, you have to believe you can know what it's like to 'be' a cat. But the reality is that the experience of human awareness is locked into a individuated point of view. There's no process, that I know of, to move my awareness into a different form and still retain the human awareness. If you knew what it was like to be a cat, you wouldn't know what it was like to be a human. And that's probably by design, cus I wouldn't want to suddenly find myself as the awareness of a cat, just before it stops to lick it's bum... Perhaps the awareness is of the 'thought' about being the awareness of a cat. Which seems to more readily pass the sensibility test... Sounds like a pretty good description of your conceptual boundaries. Pretty sensible stuff. ;D
|
|