|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 11:37:27 GMT -5
Hi andrew, so you believe you are the individual conciousness only, and not the ultimate consciousness in which the individual consciousness appears? Hi source, no I wouldn't say that exactly. I resonate with the idea of an ultimate consciousness that I am, but this resonation happens within the individual consciousness. It is possible to directly experience ourselves as 'ultimate consciousness', but this too is still happening within the individual consciousness i.e. we cannot step outside the individual consciousness to discover 'the truth' of whether there actually is universal consciousness. You are not inside some individual consciousness. That's a good example of ideas that aren't really true, and which can lead to erroneous conclusions if believed. You are already that 'ultimate consciousness', and the sense of being trapped in an individual consciousness is the result of a contracted focus on mind.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 11:46:55 GMT -5
Hi source, no I wouldn't say that exactly. I resonate with the idea of an ultimate consciousness that I am, but this resonation happens within the individual consciousness. It is possible to directly experience ourselves as 'ultimate consciousness', but this too is still happening within the individual consciousness i.e. we cannot step outside the individual consciousness to discover 'the truth' of whether there actually is universal consciousness. You are not inside some individual consciousness. That's a good example of ideas that aren't really true, and which can lead to erroneous conclusions if believed. You are already that 'ultimate consciousness', and the sense of being trapped in an individual consciousness is the result of a contracted focus on mind. I didn't say that we are 'inside individual consciousness', However, if it was as utterly simple as 'you are ultimate consciousness', then please tell me the colour of the wallpaper I am looking at No? Why's that then? We are individuated perceivers, and we are 'trapped' by individuality in the sense that you cannot see through these eyes, and I cannot see through yours. Perhaps you are scared of being 'trapped' by your individuality and hence pretend that you are only 'ultimate consciousness'. Can you tell me what you know for definite is outside, prior to, or beyond your individual consciousness, and how you know?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 11:48:17 GMT -5
Right, the pointers are pointing toward a realization, and that's where these chats always seem to hit a brick wall. The necessity of having to flail with the language in the pointing itself is bad enough, but then we have to logically analyse and dissect the language as well as what's being pointed to. Here's the problem, many people have the same realization/experience you 'point' to, you just don't like it if they don't agree with your interpretation of that realization/experience.. logic/analysis/clarity/understanding, the totality of the individual's capacity for integrating with the actuality is process you fear, it exposes the illusions you peddle.. so you try to demonize it as an obstacle to understanding.. It's clearly not the case, as a detailed discussion of the ideas reveals. It becomes very clear when folks see what is pointed to as opposed to licking the pointers. How they then choose to talk about it can vary considerably, and that's part of what you perceive as contradiction, but the clarity still comes through.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 11:55:37 GMT -5
Right, the pointers are pointing toward a realization, and that's where these chats always seem to hit a brick wall. The necessity of having to flail with the language in the pointing itself is bad enough, but then we have to logically analyse and dissect the language as well as what's being pointed to. The dynamic seems to be that it's pretty obvious when overthinking about a particular pointer happens, so the next best thing is to resort to one level of abstraction away from the dialog. The result is the same either way: hyperminded noncents conclusions, and even though the dialog is clearly not only entered into willingly but even precipitated by the hyperminding, next October there will be a new mob shouting out their outrage about the bullying, circular discussions where evil frogs have dug into rigid mental positions about existential truth. Sounds about right. Basically, every possible method of dismissal is used, which I don't really have a problem with as mind will explore all options, but to do it over and over endlessly just means peeps aren't paying attention to their own explorations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 12:57:04 GMT -5
Hi andrew, so you believe you are the individual conciousness only, and not the ultimate consciousness in which the individual consciousness appears? Hi source, no I wouldn't say that exactly. I resonate with the idea of an ultimate consciousness that I am, but this resonation happens within the individual consciousness. It is possible to directly experience ourselves as 'ultimate consciousness', but this too is still happening within the individual consciousness i.e. we cannot step outside the individual consciousness to discover 'the truth' of whether there actually is universal consciousness. Hi andrew, okay I see. It's kinda like the finite (individual consciousness) can't be the cause of the infinite (infinite consciousness) because a cause can't be smaller than the effect. IOW the finite can't be the cause of the infinite. That's a good point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 13:05:00 GMT -5
Hi andrew, so you believe you are the individual conciousness only, and not the ultimate consciousness in which the individual consciousness appears? We are both, simultaneously.. where we place our attention reveals the experience we are having, part, whole, and/or both.. H tzujanli, yeah, thanks for your response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 13:34:44 GMT -5
You are not inside some individual consciousness. That's a good example of ideas that aren't really true, and which can lead to erroneous conclusions if believed. You are already that 'ultimate consciousness', and the sense of being trapped in an individual consciousness is the result of a contracted focus on mind. I didn't say that we are 'inside individual consciousness', However, if it was as utterly simple as 'you are ultimate consciousness', then please tell me the colour of the wallpaper I am looking at No? Why's that then? We are individuated perceivers, and we are 'trapped' by individuality in the sense that you cannot see through these eyes, and I cannot see through yours. Perhaps you are scared of being 'trapped' by your individuality and hence pretend that you are only 'ultimate consciousness'. Can you tell me what you know for definite is outside, prior to, or beyond your individual consciousness, and how you know? Hi andrew, so you think clairvoyance is a constituent of ultimate consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 13:39:19 GMT -5
Hi source, no I wouldn't say that exactly. I resonate with the idea of an ultimate consciousness that I am, but this resonation happens within the individual consciousness. It is possible to directly experience ourselves as 'ultimate consciousness', but this too is still happening within the individual consciousness i.e. we cannot step outside the individual consciousness to discover 'the truth' of whether there actually is universal consciousness. Hi andrew, okay I see. It's kinda like the finite (individual consciousness) can't be the cause of the infinite (infinite consciousness) because a cause can't be smaller than the effect. IOW the finite can't be the cause of the infinite. That's a good point. Cool. Honestly, I'm not sure if that's what I was saying, but I do agree with what you said! What I'm saying is that we each have a field of knowing, or field of consciousness, and anything that is known, experienced or realized is within this field. We cannot get beyond that field to ever find out the 'truth' of what is prior to or beyond it, because anything we ever discover is always going to be within that field! What this means is that experience is one of faith, trust, intuition and resonance, rather than one of having access to absolute truths. There is always an 'unknown' within our experience, and I would argue that this 'unknown' gives rise to Joy, excitement and many other good things. There is an irony as well, in that faith in certain things bears out the 'truth' of these things experientially. As a simple example, faith in God can certainly can make God seem true. Similarly, there can definitely be direct experience of things like 'universal consciousness' or 'spirit', but this direct experience doesn't mean these things are 'absolute truths'. At most they are true for each us.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 13:42:58 GMT -5
I didn't say that we are 'inside individual consciousness', However, if it was as utterly simple as 'you are ultimate consciousness', then please tell me the colour of the wallpaper I am looking at No? Why's that then? We are individuated perceivers, and we are 'trapped' by individuality in the sense that you cannot see through these eyes, and I cannot see through yours. Perhaps you are scared of being 'trapped' by your individuality and hence pretend that you are only 'ultimate consciousness'. Can you tell me what you know for definite is outside, prior to, or beyond your individual consciousness, and how you know? Hi andrew, so you think clairvoyance is a constituent of ultimate consciousness? I think that we are both universal and individual consciousness, and the 'individual' aspect means that omnipresence is not an option for each of us. I cannot perceive 'the all', so I cannot perceive the room that you are currently sat in. Though actually I do believe in clairvoyance and clairsentience etc lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 13:50:13 GMT -5
Hi andrew, okay I see. It's kinda like the finite (individual consciousness) can't be the cause of the infinite (infinite consciousness) because a cause can't be smaller than the effect. IOW the finite can't be the cause of the infinite. That's a good point. Cool. Honestly, I'm not sure if that's what I was saying, but I do agree with what you said! What I'm saying is that we each have a field of knowing, or field of consciousness, and anything that is known, experienced or realized is within this field. We cannot get beyond that field to ever find out the 'truth' of what is prior to or beyond it, because anything we ever discover is always going to be within that field! What this means is that experience is one of faith, trust, intuition and resonance, rather than one of having access to absolute truths. There is always an 'unknown' within our experience, and I would argue that this 'unknown' gives rise to Joy, excitement and many other good things. There is an irony as well, in that faith in certain things bears out the 'truth' of these things experientially. As a simple example, faith in God can certainly can make God seem true. Similarly, there can definitely be direct experience of things like 'universal consciousness' or 'spirit', but this direct experience doesn't mean these things are 'absolute truths'. At most they are true for each us. Hi andrew, okay, but that goes back to my first question, that you believe that you 'are' that individuated finite consciousness 'alone'. And consequently you cannot get outside of the finite consciousness to see if you really are the ultimate consciousness. Is that what you are saying. It seems to me that if you can formulate that thought in your mind, there has to be something 'outside' of that thinking that is observing it. Thus proving there is something 'outside' of the thought. That's the way I see it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 14:05:29 GMT -5
Cool. Honestly, I'm not sure if that's what I was saying, but I do agree with what you said! What I'm saying is that we each have a field of knowing, or field of consciousness, and anything that is known, experienced or realized is within this field. We cannot get beyond that field to ever find out the 'truth' of what is prior to or beyond it, because anything we ever discover is always going to be within that field! What this means is that experience is one of faith, trust, intuition and resonance, rather than one of having access to absolute truths. There is always an 'unknown' within our experience, and I would argue that this 'unknown' gives rise to Joy, excitement and many other good things. There is an irony as well, in that faith in certain things bears out the 'truth' of these things experientially. As a simple example, faith in God can certainly can make God seem true. Similarly, there can definitely be direct experience of things like 'universal consciousness' or 'spirit', but this direct experience doesn't mean these things are 'absolute truths'. At most they are true for each us. Hi andrew, okay, but that goes back to my first question, that you believe that you 'are' that individuated finite consciousness 'alone'. And consequently you cannot get outside of the finite consciousness to see if you really are the ultimate consciousness. Is that what you are saying. It seems to me that if you can formulate that thought in your mind, there has to be something 'outside' of that thinking that is observing it. Thus proving there is something 'outside' of the thought. That's the way I see it anyway. I believe that I am both universal and individuated consciousness, but I cannot get prior to or beyond the individuated consciousness to find out if my belief in universal consciousness is justified lol. I directly experience it to be true, but even direct experience doesn't equate to truth, or prove the matter. Though actually, I have no interest in whether it really is true, the direct experience is enough in itself. We can create all sorts of impressions within the individual consciousness, for example, we can create the impression of there being something that is 'prior' to consciousness (abiding awareness, or infinite love, or something similar...which I resonate with). However, at a basic level, it's all really quite ordinary...dogs barking, feelings arising etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 15:21:14 GMT -5
Hi andrew, okay, but that goes back to my first question, that you believe that you 'are' that individuated finite consciousness 'alone'. And consequently you cannot get outside of the finite consciousness to see if you really are the ultimate consciousness. Is that what you are saying. It seems to me that if you can formulate that thought in your mind, there has to be something 'outside' of that thinking that is observing it. Thus proving there is something 'outside' of the thought. That's the way I see it anyway. I believe that I am both universal and individuated consciousness, but I cannot get prior to or beyond the individuated consciousness to find out if my belief in universal consciousness is justified lol. I directly experience it to be true, but even direct experience doesn't equate to truth, or prove the matter. Though actually, I have no interest in whether it really is true, the direct experience is enough in itself. We can create all sorts of impressions within the individual consciousness, for example, we can create the impression of there being something that is 'prior' to consciousness (abiding awareness, or infinite love, or something similar...which I resonate with). However, at a basic level, it's all really quite ordinary...dogs barking, feelings arising etc. Hi andrew, got it, playing both sides. "I think therefore I am" and "I am therefore I think". Thats cool.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 15:37:04 GMT -5
I believe that I am both universal and individuated consciousness, but I cannot get prior to or beyond the individuated consciousness to find out if my belief in universal consciousness is justified lol. I directly experience it to be true, but even direct experience doesn't equate to truth, or prove the matter. Though actually, I have no interest in whether it really is true, the direct experience is enough in itself. We can create all sorts of impressions within the individual consciousness, for example, we can create the impression of there being something that is 'prior' to consciousness (abiding awareness, or infinite love, or something similar...which I resonate with). However, at a basic level, it's all really quite ordinary...dogs barking, feelings arising etc. Hi andrew, got it, playing both sides. "I think therefore I am" and "I am therefore I think". Thats cool. Hi source, playing both sides is a good way to put it. I like to keep my options open when it comes to these kinds of things.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Feb 3, 2015 16:53:23 GMT -5
Hi source, no I wouldn't say that exactly. I resonate with the idea of an ultimate consciousness that I am, but this resonation happens within the individual consciousness. It is possible to directly experience ourselves as 'ultimate consciousness', but this too is still happening within the individual consciousness i.e. we cannot step outside the individual consciousness to discover 'the truth' of whether there actually is universal consciousness. Hi andrew, okay I see. It's kinda like the finite (individual consciousness) can't be the cause of the infinite (infinite consciousness) because a cause can't be smaller than the effect. Seems logical, but is not accurate. Dynamite is a pretty small package but makes a really big explosion, so it's obviously possible for a cause to be smaller than the effect ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 18:53:42 GMT -5
Hi andrew, okay I see. It's kinda like the finite (individual consciousness cause of the infinite (infinite consciousness) because a cause can't be smaller than the effect. Seems logical, but is not accurate. Dynamite is a pretty small package but makes a really big explosion, so it's obviously possible for a cause to be smaller than the effect ;-) Hi steve, the reality of the explosion is not greater than the explosive potential of the dynamite. They are potentially the same energy but in different forms. Now if you can get an explosion from nothing you might have a point.
|
|