|
Sleep
May 10, 2011 22:16:50 GMT -5
Post by ivory on May 10, 2011 22:16:50 GMT -5
minus a karma point for that one... hehe (jk)
|
|
|
Sleep
May 10, 2011 23:48:10 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 10, 2011 23:48:10 GMT -5
That would be completely 'arbitrary'. Hehe.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 4:49:39 GMT -5
Post by Peter on May 11, 2011 4:49:39 GMT -5
Wow, this thread is hoaching. It's grown 4 pages in one day, and that's a crowded house. So is my hair apart of my body? I stuck a pin in and didn't feel anything. And even then the bigger question remains, what defines your body? How can I tell where my body ends and world begins? I gotta make sure I get this locked down so I can get grounded in it. Wouldn't want to be fooled by the mind into thinking I'm grounded in the body just to find out I've laid roots down in the mind again!! Hmm yes, any definition of real world objects gets fuzzy when you start to look closely at it. Cells dropping off here, molecules being assimilated there... These definitions exist because we find them useful. Like when someone yells "Hey you, watch that BUS" one can say "Crikey, thanks mate!" rather than "What bus? I don't see a bus, I see the continuous entirety of creation. And what do you mean by 'you' anyway?" Splat. You can't tell where your body ends and the definition of it is (ahem) arbitrary. But you know all this, so I assume your post is intended to...what? Help me see or understand something you think I haven't seen? I take your tone to be jocular sarcasm and that you don't, in fact, want to work towards a definition of "your body" - noting also that you didn't answer my question (few do). So what then are you saying? Is bodily awareness important? Is "being present" useful? Or are you just going to negate anything I offer on the subject?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 7:00:39 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 11, 2011 7:00:39 GMT -5
That’s a wonderful account, Enigma! Marie and I just got back from our squirrel satsang in the park, and we were talking about this. As I think you know, Marie has a hearing deficit and mostly reads lips at close range. We were talking about how all boundaries, such as physical problems, are formed by mind and expressed in the body and held in place with belief, so the process of 'healing' isn't directly about manipulating the expression (fixing the body) but about transcending the beliefs that hold it in place. However healing might take place is still an expression of belief. She had some clarity show up a couple of times with the big eyes and gaping mouth expression that I love so much, then I walked away to go feed the squirrels. It looks like Marie still believes she’s going somewhere else, and yes, there’s nothing to do but love that. Marvelous! I hope both of you push the boundary all the way. In fact, now that I think about it, all the change that we experience is a push at the boundaries of perception/creation. It usually happens slowly and follows some apparent trends, but every now and then there’s a big jump. Technology is one of the jumpiest things lately, at least from where I’m standing. Others are talking about mass awakenings.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 7:38:41 GMT -5
Post by kate on May 11, 2011 7:38:41 GMT -5
Well, we would have to define what believing really is. There are lots of folks who 'believe' we are one, but they don't really believe that at all. They just like the idea and accepted it as a concept without questioning it, meanwhile believing wholeheartedly in separation. Now, I'm not saying that I don't believe that I believe you, enigma, but I have some questions about this. Feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted but earlier you seemed to be saying that believing something makes it so? Or have I got that slightly wrong? If not, what creates/generates this true belief (as opposed the pretend kind)? Because I don't think I truly believe anything, except what I see. And yet you seem to be saying that I wouldn't see anything if I didn't believe it? And how does this relate to the person who 'believes' we are one? It seems to me that if you see that we are all one then belief is not involved. And can there be some island in between 'believing' and seeing called Island of Belief (no inverted commas) but Not Seeing? Cause it sounds kind of made up.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 12:15:09 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 11, 2011 12:15:09 GMT -5
Well, we would have to define what believing really is. There are lots of folks who 'believe' we are one, but they don't really believe that at all. They just like the idea and accepted it as a concept without questioning it, meanwhile believing wholeheartedly in separation. Now, I'm not saying that I don't believe that I believe you, enigma, but I have some questions about this. Feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted but earlier you seemed to be saying that believing something makes it so? Or have I got that slightly wrong? Well, i just mean that experience, which is necessarily memory, and therefore thoughts and images that are recalled, are interpretations formulated by belief. The thoughts, feelings, images that constitute the experience aren't true in any ultimate sense, and nothing is 'so' ultimately. All beliefs are of the pretend kind. The belief in oneness is no more true than the belief in separation, though it will result in a different experience. I was a bit careless about it, but what I meant by believing makes it so is that belief formulates the experience, but I didn't differentiate between a true and a false experience because the distinction is purely imaginary. All experience is believed or interpreted into apparent existence. There's no True foundation for any of it. Assuming what you mean by "see" here is visual perception, that appearance is completely empty without your belief/interpretation, and leaves no tracks at all in the mind. Appearances appear and then they're gone and nothing is thought or recalled about it. Essentially, nothing happened. Hencely, everything you consider to be your experience is your ideas/beliefs/interpretations about this empty appearance. The belief in separation is not True. The belief in oneness is not True. In the realization that neither of these ideas is True, there is no experience of either one, no thoughts or feelings ABOUT it, no interpretation of any kind, and no problem. THIS is oneness. Zackly! I think maybe there's some confusion because I was talking about how we formulate our experiences with belief, without trying to imply that there is anything true or false about any of it. I also mean to say that sense perception (what is experienced 'out there') is not separate from what is thought, felt, interpreted, believed 'in here', and so infinite potential IS present now. There's isn't an actual boundary that keeps you from jumping off your roof and flapping your arms and flying. This apparent boundary is imagined and then encountered, just as all boundaries are. However, as you climb on your roof to test that out, you aren't preparing for a casual flap around the block, you're facing a boundary in your own mind and testing it. While I 'see' that this is so, I also see within me the same boundary. If that boundary wasn't in this mind, the thought could never arise to test that boundary. I would say we all perform miracles continuously because the thought never arises that they are miracles, and so we create an imaginary distinction about what is possible based entirely on our self created experience of what is possible. This mind/body IS a constriction on infinity, and it's this constriction that makes an experience of 'something' possible. The boundaries define the structure of an experiential perspective.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 13:21:50 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 11, 2011 13:21:50 GMT -5
I think maybe there's some confusion because I was talking about how we formulate our experiences with belief, without trying to imply that there is anything true or false about any of it. I also mean to say that sense perception (what is experienced 'out there') is not separate from what is thought, felt, interpreted, believed 'in here', and so infinite potential IS present now. There's isn't an actual boundary that keeps you from jumping off your roof and flapping your arms and flying. This apparent boundary is imagined and then encountered, just as all boundaries are. However, as you climb on your roof to test that out, you aren't preparing for a casual flap around the block, you're facing a boundary in your own mind and testing it. While I 'see' that this is so, I also see within me the same boundary. If that boundary wasn't in this mind, the thought could never arise to test that boundary. I would say we all perform miracles continuously because the thought never arises that they are miracles, and so we create an imaginary distinction about what is possible based entirely on our self created experience of what is possible. This mind/body IS a constriction on infinity, and it's this constriction that makes an experience of 'something' possible. The boundaries define the structure of an experiential perspective. If that were true, then children would not fall off a table when waking (or crawling) straight ahead. And I could safely sleep on my roof.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 13:40:37 GMT -5
Post by runstill on May 11, 2011 13:40:37 GMT -5
I think maybe there's some confusion because I was talking about how we formulate our experiences with belief, without trying to imply that there is anything true or false about any of it. I also mean to say that sense perception (what is experienced 'out there') is not separate from what is thought, felt, interpreted, believed 'in here', and so infinite potential IS present now. There's isn't an actual boundary that keeps you from jumping off your roof and flapping your arms and flying. This apparent boundary is imagined and then encountered, just as all boundaries are. However, as you climb on your roof to test that out, you aren't preparing for a casual flap around the block, you're facing a boundary in your own mind and testing it. While I 'see' that this is so, I also see within me the same boundary. If that boundary wasn't in this mind, the thought could never arise to test that boundary. I would say we all perform miracles continuously because the thought never arises that they are miracles, and so we create an imaginary distinction about what is possible based entirely on our self created experience of what is possible. This mind/body IS a constriction on infinity, and it's this constriction that makes an experience of 'something' possible. The boundaries define the structure of an experiential perspective. If that were true, then children would not fall off a table when waking (or crawling) straight ahead. And I could safely sleep on my roof. Well you assume all babies in the world would fall off a table. I've seen babies do a amazing things and I'll make an assumption here its because babies haven't been cursed with self.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 13:54:09 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 11, 2011 13:54:09 GMT -5
If that were true, then children would not fall off a table when waking (or crawling) straight ahead. And I could safely sleep on my roof. Well you assume all babies in the world would fall off a table. I've seen babies do a amazing things and I'll make an assumption here its because babies haven't been cursed with self. Yes, babies are amazing. Have you seen one continue to crawl in the air after the edge of the bed or table? Hmmm... maybe it's parents' fault. If only cribs didn't have those vertical bars....
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 14:24:27 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 11, 2011 14:24:27 GMT -5
I think maybe there's some confusion because I was talking about how we formulate our experiences with belief, without trying to imply that there is anything true or false about any of it. I also mean to say that sense perception (what is experienced 'out there') is not separate from what is thought, felt, interpreted, believed 'in here', and so infinite potential IS present now. There's isn't an actual boundary that keeps you from jumping off your roof and flapping your arms and flying. This apparent boundary is imagined and then encountered, just as all boundaries are. However, as you climb on your roof to test that out, you aren't preparing for a casual flap around the block, you're facing a boundary in your own mind and testing it. While I 'see' that this is so, I also see within me the same boundary. If that boundary wasn't in this mind, the thought could never arise to test that boundary. I would say we all perform miracles continuously because the thought never arises that they are miracles, and so we create an imaginary distinction about what is possible based entirely on our self created experience of what is possible. This mind/body IS a constriction on infinity, and it's this constriction that makes an experience of 'something' possible. The boundaries define the structure of an experiential perspective. If that were true, then children would not fall off a table when waking (or crawling) straight ahead. And I could safely sleep on my roof. Well, it doesn't mean that you won't have the experience of children falling. We're getting into some weird metaphysics here but it's fun. How is the child crawling on a table different from Schroedinger's kitty? Does the fact that there is no lid to the box change the functioning of the collapse of probabilities? What are your expectations, beliefs and fears when you see a toddler crawling on a table? Is the observer really separate from the observation? Is experience formed from the outside in or from the inside out? Are the events experienced objectively true and independent from the experiencer? Can you find evidence in your experience that tells you how experience works? Does anything in your nightly dream reveal anything about how the dream works?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 15:00:30 GMT -5
Post by enigma on May 11, 2011 15:00:30 GMT -5
Belief is a funny thang. Understood, and I am chuckling about it because in a way, it's really none of my business. Having said that, how do you feel about this website as far as pointing one in the 'right' (I would have used 'left', but that's too linear for me) direction? faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/I'm asking because I have been reading there for a month, and because 'you' appear (I know, I know, appear is a foul, too) to have a fairly good handle on the non-duality teaching, as do many others here who post regularly. Oy! (Just because I can type it) I read the Q&A about 'Dialog in Consciousness', and it's really good. It says a lot of the things we've been jabbering about here. I also like this: "What can we do to awaken? a. Since direct seeing shows that there is no doer, there is nothing that the "individual" can do to awaken. b. Since awakening transcends time, no practice that occurs in time can bring about awakening. Thus most practices do not bring about awakening. c. However, direct seeing can bring about awakening because direct seeing is timeless seeing."
|
|
waddicalwabbit
Full Member
Let's all go down the wabbit hole
Posts: 125
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 15:12:39 GMT -5
Post by waddicalwabbit on May 11, 2011 15:12:39 GMT -5
oh! Thank you for rearranging my energy whatsits, Enigma. It is totally working....I believe. In any case I do appreciate your kindness. Oddly, I'm kinda thinking the tumor is doing some shrinking. I'd post a photo but it's not very attractive. Today is my 4 and 1/2 year anniversary since diagnosis. I attribute that in part to doing a lot of negation and surrender, in part to taking boatloads of supplements and other alt cancer stuff and in part to the good thoughts and energy and prayers (or what you will) of a lot of very lovely people. I'm sending love to all on the board including those that some feel are a bit cranky at times. :-) I read the board a bit, but I really don't have a lot to say at this point. What does one say about being?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 15:39:44 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2011 15:39:44 GMT -5
"What can we do to awaken? a. Since direct seeing shows that there is no doer, there is nothing that the "individual" can do to awaken. b. Since awakening transcends time, no practice that occurs in time can bring about awakening. Thus most practices do not bring about awakening. c. However, direct seeing can bring about awakening because direct seeing is timeless seeing." where can i get a can of that direct seeing? ...and a can opener?
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 15:46:10 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 11, 2011 15:46:10 GMT -5
If that were true, then children would not fall off a table when waking (or crawling) straight ahead. And I could safely sleep on my roof. Well, it doesn't mean that you won't have the experience of children falling. ;D I knew you were going to blame me for all the naughty children. Yep, there's no such thing as pure objectivity. And that's true even if I leave the baby alone on the bed with a video camera and send you the tape.
|
|
|
Sleep
May 11, 2011 15:50:14 GMT -5
Post by Portto on May 11, 2011 15:50:14 GMT -5
where can i get a can of that direct seeing? ...and a can opener? Both are right in front of us... We just need to stop reflecting what we see.
|
|