|
Post by quinn on Dec 24, 2014 22:48:29 GMT -5
Hey, sdp - question for you. Is the essence/consciousness you refer to here an individual one? In other words, is the context of what you're writing within the context of an individuated perspective? If so, I can agree with what you're saying. Alternately, within the context of life-lifeing, god-godding (if you know what I'm talking about there), consciousness is ever present, ever empty of size/shape/growth/loss/etc. and could never not be expressing in the world. To me, that's the meaning behind "closer than close" and "no where to go" (and effortlessness, for that matter). Hey Quinn.......yes, the essence/consciousness is individual. This is the back & forth discussion I had with E on the effortlessness thread (I think it was) about a "middle layer", he said no, I said yes. There is a wholeness to reality, but I don't see it in the same way expressed by nondualism. I would say there is an 'upper limit' beyond which man does not participate, cannot participate. This is why I'm not an unqualified nondualist. It seems the nondualists say you cannot have an experience of nonduality. I agree. Man doesn't have the capacity to experience the wholeness. But ATST the nondualists say one can have a realization of oneness. However, man is designed with the potential capability to experience more of what is, more of reality. The key word here is experience, not merely some kind of realization. I consider this an individual potential, a particular individual essence can grow, and with such an increase in the level of consciousness, can take in more of what is. This includes, but not limited to, space and time (within limits). I agree that the fullness of Consciousness (what I call SOI) pervades the whole of all that is. IOW the line of demarcation (alluded to above) is like a one-way mirror, there is no obstruction on the end of SOI, but we cannot look back through the mirror (there is a limit to what we can take in). This is expressed by the term panentheism (versus pantheism). Merry Christmas....... I'm interested in this conversation, but it's Christmas Eve and I've had a scotch...so it will have to wait. Merry Christmas, sdp - and everyone!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 24, 2014 23:15:06 GMT -5
Hey Quinn.......yes, the essence/consciousness is individual. This is the back & forth discussion I had with E on the effortlessness thread (I think it was) about a "middle layer", he said no, I said yes. There is a wholeness to reality, but I don't see it in the same way expressed by nondualism. I would say there is an 'upper limit' beyond which man does not participate, cannot participate. This is why I'm not an unqualified nondualist. It seems the nondualists say you cannot have an experience of nonduality. I agree. Man doesn't have the capacity to experience the wholeness. But ATST the nondualists say one can have a realization of oneness. However, man is designed with the potential capability to experience more of what is, more of reality. The key word here is experience, not merely some kind of realization. I consider this an individual potential, a particular individual essence can grow, and with such an increase in the level of consciousness, can take in more of what is. This includes, but not limited to, space and time (within limits). I agree that the fullness of Consciousness (what I call SOI) pervades the whole of all that is. IOW the line of demarcation (alluded to above) is like a one-way mirror, there is no obstruction on the end of SOI, but we cannot look back through the mirror (there is a limit to what we can take in). This is expressed by the term panentheism (versus pantheism). Merry Christmas....... I'm interested in this conversation, but it's Christmas Eve and I've had a scotch...so it will have to wait. Merry Christmas, sdp - and everyone! Sure. Likewise, later.........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2014 2:03:37 GMT -5
So Looking doesn't involve any thought? No. Your consciousness never left with no thought. When you are looking 'looking thought' is being experienced in your consciousness, Are you aware of that? For an example, Just wait for a next thought, next thought would not come for sure, because the waiting for another thought is also a thought which is experienced in your consciousness, Did you notice that?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2014 12:26:29 GMT -5
Awareness occupied by a thought is called thinking. No, it's not that. So Looking doesn't involve any thought? No. What you're trying to notice is not in the mind or you would already know it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2014 12:53:42 GMT -5
So Looking doesn't involve any thought? No. What you're trying to notice is not in the mind or you would already know it. Wrong, When you are looking, you are not noticing the thoughts comes and go, but rather you are experiencing the 'looking thought'. If you say you could notice the thought while you looking, then those thoughts are mixed with 'looking thoughts'.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 25, 2014 12:54:05 GMT -5
Awareness occupied by a thought is called thinking. No, it's not that. So Looking doesn't involve any thought? Try this experiment. Take a deep breath and hold it. Then while holding the breath look around you. Holding the breath often stops thought for a moment or two even as you are looking and seeing. If this looking without thought happens for you, then you will get a glimpse of what ZD and E are pointing to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2014 12:59:05 GMT -5
So Looking doesn't involve any thought? Try this experiment. Take a deep breath and hold it. Then while holding the breath look around you. Holding the breath often stops thought for a moment or two even as you are looking and seeing. If this looking without thought happens for you, then you will get a glimpse of what ZD and E are pointing to. You are not even close to what I am saying, I would rather use the term appearance than thought,perception, If I do so, then your confusion go away. When you are looking into what's happen, this looking may be in outer world or inner world(both are appearance in our consciousness), this looking causes another sort of thought that is 'looking thought', It's being experienced when you try to look at your thought or outer world. If you say you could perceive other thoughts when you are looking, then your 'looking thought' is mixed with other thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 25, 2014 13:06:12 GMT -5
No. What you're trying to notice is not in the mind or you would already know it. Wrong, When you are looking, you are not noticing the thoughts comes and go, but rather you are experiencing the 'looking thought'. If you say you could notice the thought while you looking, then those thoughts are mixed with 'looking thoughts'. It depends on how you want to define thought. If you include mental activity that you are not noticing, as part of thought, then yes, there's unconscious mental activity going on. If you include a focus of attention in your definition of thought, then yes, looking is thought. However, it seems your going out of your way to miss the point, (and call somebody wrong) which is that looking does not involve a conscious thinking process.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 25, 2014 13:31:45 GMT -5
Your consciousness never left with no thought. When you are looking 'looking thought' is being experienced in your consciousness, Are you aware of that? For an example, Just wait for a next thought, next thought would not come for sure, because the waiting for another thought is also a thought which is experienced in your consciousness, Did you notice that? Gopal: It sounds like you have a busy mind with lots of thoughts. Are you saying that you cannot look at the world WITHOUT thoughts? Some of us can.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 25, 2014 14:41:37 GMT -5
Your consciousness never left with no thought. When you are looking 'looking thought' is being experienced in your consciousness, Are you aware of that? For an example, Just wait for a next thought, next thought would not come for sure, because the waiting for another thought is also a thought which is experienced in your consciousness, Did you notice that? Gopal: It sounds like you have a busy mind with lots of thoughts. Are you saying that you cannot look at the world WITHOUT thoughts? Some of us can. This stuff is driving me to distraction! I guess I've always been at ease with the notion that the mind and thoughts are part n parcel of the same structure / intangible medium by which we can think about thinking - or nothing - or far-out stuff that makes us feel / sense / believe / etc. that we are literally 'out of our minds' - but at no time is this the reality of it. Only when our physical bodies die (and even then!) is there a possibility that our 'minds & thoughts' die, too. p.s. I hope this is no off-topic!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 25, 2014 15:04:19 GMT -5
Your consciousness never left with no thought. When you are looking 'looking thought' is being experienced in your consciousness, Are you aware of that? For an example, Just wait for a next thought, next thought would not come for sure, because the waiting for another thought is also a thought which is experienced in your consciousness, Did you notice that? Gopal: It sounds like you have a busy mind with lots of thoughts. Are you saying that you cannot look at the world WITHOUT thoughts? Some of us can. Again, mostly for gopal........ I wrote gopal about this some weeks ago. What he means by his use of the word thought is really the word cognition, basically, anything the brain does. If we don't define words in the same way, we cannot communicate. This is in evidence, now. In our use of the word thought: thought is an abstraction, a word represents a person, place or thing, etc. In our use, one can have a perception (see dog barking, hear dog bark, smell dog, feel furry dog) without attaching the word dog. I earlier gave the example of a baby who hasn't yet acquired language (baby only sees some thing, baby only hears some thing, baby only feels some thing, baby has no symbolic attachments to anything). But then gopal said the word used doesn't matter. Do you see now that it matters?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 0:51:18 GMT -5
Wrong, When you are looking, you are not noticing the thoughts comes and go, but rather you are experiencing the 'looking thought'. If you say you could notice the thought while you looking, then those thoughts are mixed with 'looking thoughts'. It depends on how you want to define thought. If you include mental activity that you are not noticing, as part of thought, then yes, there's unconscious mental activity going on. If you include a focus of attention in your definition of thought, then yes, looking is thought. However, it seems your going out of your way to miss the point, (and call somebody wrong) which is that looking does not involve a conscious thinking process. When you start to look what's happening in your mind, you feel that you are watching the thought flow,isn't it? That's the reason you came to the conclusion that 'looking' break the illusion,Isn't it? But what I am saying is, when you tend to look, you are creating another sort of thoughts that's looking thought, That's the reason I said looking is another kind of illusion that is being added when we try to break illusion using looking. Realization may happen and lot's recalling might happen along with your realization, I don't have any problem with that, but from our individual level you can't initiate any action(controlling,looking) to break the illusion, illusion would be broken by the impersonal movement of universe which includes all your mistakes. More closely put, mind can't pull off itself out of illusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 0:54:42 GMT -5
Your consciousness never left with no thought. When you are looking 'looking thought' is being experienced in your consciousness, Are you aware of that? For an example, Just wait for a next thought, next thought would not come for sure, because the waiting for another thought is also a thought which is experienced in your consciousness, Did you notice that? Gopal: It sounds like you have a busy mind with lots of thoughts. Are you saying that you cannot look at the world WITHOUT thoughts? Some of us can. To me, Outer world doesn't exist in itself. Outer world or inner thought is just an appearance in our consciousness. So what you are looking at outer world is just an another thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2014 1:01:56 GMT -5
Gopal: It sounds like you have a busy mind with lots of thoughts. Are you saying that you cannot look at the world WITHOUT thoughts? Some of us can. Again, mostly for gopal........ I wrote gopal about this some weeks ago. What he means by his use of the word thought is really the word cognition, basically, anything the brain does. If we don't define words in the same way, we cannot communicate. This is in evidence, now. In our use of the word thought: thought is an abstraction, a word represents a person, place or thing, etc. In our use, one can have a perception (see dog barking, hear dog bark, smell dog, feel furry dog) without attaching the word dog. I earlier gave the example of a baby who hasn't yet acquired language (baby only sees some thing, baby only hears some thing, baby only feels some thing, baby has no symbolic attachments to anything). But then gopal said the word used doesn't matter. Do you see now that it matters? To me, Outer world doesn't exist in itself. For me, everything is just an appearance in our consciousness. That's the reason I don't discriminate between outer world perception and inner world perception, I use perception as thought.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 26, 2014 8:42:09 GMT -5
Gopal: It sounds like you have a busy mind with lots of thoughts. Are you saying that you cannot look at the world WITHOUT thoughts? Some of us can. To me, Outer world doesn't exist in itself. Outer world or inner thought is just an appearance in our consciousness. So what you are looking at outer world is just an another thought. Kant would be proud.
|
|