|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 19:17:05 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'. Now you sound like Tzu. What you're calling ultimate consciousness is not a big person with multiplexed vision that can see through whatever eyes it chooses. Yes, yes, I know you didn't say that, but that's the implication of suggesting I should be able to look through your eyes. We could start talking about the impersonal perspective, but that didn't get us anywhere the last 136 times we talked about it. Maybe the best way to talk about it is that the individual is a particular focus of consciousness, but however we talk about, there is just one conscious. You are intimately familiar with it already. I know that all ideations and perceptions arise from consciousness, and are essentially imagined into apparent existence. Hencely, there is nothing to know prior to that arising.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 19:26:57 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'. Now you sound like Tzu. What you're calling ultimate consciousness is not a big person with multiplexed vision that can see through whatever eyes it chooses. Yes, yes, I know you didn't say that, but that's the implication of suggesting I should be able to look through your eyes. We could start talking about the impersonal perspective, but that didn't get us anywhere the last 136 times we talked about it. Maybe the best way to talk about it is that the individual is a particular focus of consciousness, but however we talk about, there is just one conscious. You are intimately familiar with it already. I know that all ideations and perceptions arise from consciousness, and are essentially imagined into apparent existence. Hencely, there is nothing to know prior to that arising. So, you acknowledge that you do not know for definite what is outside of, prior to, or beyond your individual consciousness or field of perception? I would say there is one consciousness and many consciousnesses, but the one consciousness transcends the many. If you are ONLY the one consciousness, then you would be omnipresent, and you would be able to look through my eyes. I would say you are an individuation and you are the source of the individuation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 19:28:28 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. What you are is already beyond that 'field', which is why that 'field of knowing' appears to you at all.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 19:33:16 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. What you are is already beyond that 'field', which is why that 'field of knowing' appears to you at all. That's a conjecture, a theory, and one I can get on board with, but it's not a truth. Any amount of shenanigans and stories can occur within the individual field which make it seem as if 'I' am beyond that field, or that the field is appearing to 'me', but they are shenanigans/stories, and it is not possible to get beyond the field to discover 'the truth'. Without those shananigans, what appears in the field is much more ordinary. Woof woof, slurp slurp, herp derp, woohoo.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 19:38:09 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. 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 ;-) He's saying a subset of consciousness cannot be the cause of consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 19:43:19 GMT -5
Now you sound like Tzu. What you're calling ultimate consciousness is not a big person with multiplexed vision that can see through whatever eyes it chooses. Yes, yes, I know you didn't say that, but that's the implication of suggesting I should be able to look through your eyes. We could start talking about the impersonal perspective, but that didn't get us anywhere the last 136 times we talked about it. Maybe the best way to talk about it is that the individual is a particular focus of consciousness, but however we talk about, there is just one conscious. You are intimately familiar with it already. I know that all ideations and perceptions arise from consciousness, and are essentially imagined into apparent existence. Hencely, there is nothing to know prior to that arising. So, you acknowledge that you do not know for definite what is outside of, prior to, or beyond your individual consciousness or field of perception? I said the opposite. I just addressed that, and you're repeating it as though I didn't.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 19:45:45 GMT -5
What you are is already beyond that 'field', which is why that 'field of knowing' appears to you at all. That's a conjecture, a theory, and one I can get on board with, but it's not a truth. Any amount of shenanigans and stories can occur within the individual field which make it seem as if 'I' am beyond that field, or that the field is appearing to 'me', but they are shenanigans/stories, and it is not possible to get beyond the field to discover 'the truth'. Without those shananigans, what appears in the field is much more ordinary. Woof woof, slurp slurp, herp derp, woohoo. No, not conjecture or theory, and not appearing in the 'field'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 19:47:25 GMT -5
So, you acknowledge that you do not know for definite what is outside of, prior to, or beyond your individual consciousness or field of perception? I said the opposite. I just addressed that, and you're repeating it as though I didn't. It didn't sound like the opposite, it sounded like what you know is what arises in individual consciousness. In that case, are you saying that you know for definite what is outside of or beyond your individual field? If so, how? You addressed it, but you haven't yet said whether you are omnipresent or not. Are you? If not, then you are an individual.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 3, 2015 19:50:32 GMT -5
That's a conjecture, a theory, and one I can get on board with, but it's not a truth. Any amount of shenanigans and stories can occur within the individual field which make it seem as if 'I' am beyond that field, or that the field is appearing to 'me', but they are shenanigans/stories, and it is not possible to get beyond the field to discover 'the truth'. Without those shananigans, what appears in the field is much more ordinary. Woof woof, slurp slurp, herp derp, woohoo. No, not conjecture or theory, and not appearing in the 'field'. So what you perceive/know is perceived and known OUTSIDE of your field of perception/knowing? How so? Yes, conjecture and theory. The only other option is that you see it as truth, in which case, you are taking the non-dual context as true i.e you have made it a belief system.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 22:30:09 GMT -5
I said the opposite. I just addressed that, and you're repeating it as though I didn't. It didn't sound like the opposite, it sounded like what you know is what arises in individual consciousness. In that case, are you saying that you know for definite what is outside of or beyond your individual field? If so, how?You addressed it, but you haven't yet said whether you are omnipresent or not. Are you? If not, then you are an individual. I know that all ideations and perceptions arise from consciousness, and are essentially imagined into apparent existence. Hencely, there is nothing to know prior to that arising.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2015 22:32:37 GMT -5
No, not conjecture or theory, and not appearing in the 'field'. So what you perceive/know is perceived and known OUTSIDE of your field of perception/knowing? How so? Yes, conjecture and theory. The only other option is that you see it as truth, in which case, you are taking the non-dual context as true i.e you have made it a belief system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 3:31:21 GMT -5
It didn't sound like the opposite, it sounded like what you know is what arises in individual consciousness. In that case, are you saying that you know for definite what is outside of or beyond your individual field? If so, how?You addressed it, but you haven't yet said whether you are omnipresent or not. Are you? If not, then you are an individual. I know that all ideations and perceptions arise from consciousness, and are essentially imagined into apparent existence. Hencely, there is nothing to know prior to that arising. That reminds me of McKenna. Consciousness is real, the contents of it, not.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 4, 2015 5:01:54 GMT -5
It didn't sound like the opposite, it sounded like what you know is what arises in individual consciousness. In that case, are you saying that you know for definite what is outside of or beyond your individual field? If so, how?You addressed it, but you haven't yet said whether you are omnipresent or not. Are you? If not, then you are an individual. I know that all ideations and perceptions arise from consciousness, and are essentially imagined into apparent existence. Hencely, there is nothing to know prior to that arising. Yes, but this is known within your individual field isn't it? In a sense, it doesn't matter to me here what you know, my question is whether you think you know it within or outside your individual field.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 4, 2015 6:19:55 GMT -5
That's a conjecture, a theory, and one I can get on board with, but it's not a truth. Any amount of shenanigans and stories can occur within the individual field which make it seem as if 'I' am beyond that field, or that the field is appearing to 'me', but they are shenanigans/stories, and it is not possible to get beyond the field to discover 'the truth'. Without those shananigans, what appears in the field is much more ordinary. Woof woof, slurp slurp, herp derp, woohoo. No, not conjecture or theory, and not appearing in the 'field'. That's a bit Brown Bearish, like the guy sitting in his new car and somebody says: 'hey, nice car', and BB says.. ' no, it's not a car, it is consciousness appearing as a car, there is no car, i and the car are one, inseparable'.. so BB get's out of his car and the somebody says: ' okay, nice car, though, you know, the one you separated yourself from', and BB says ' No, you don't understand, you haven't had the realizations i've had.. by the way, how do you like my nice new car over there.. The talk ain't walking..
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 6, 2015 11:43:49 GMT -5
No one is tricking anyone here, except what you think you are tricking itself. Putting it out front is something your mind is saying has to be done. You're already standing in the river, dreaming up contexts and looking for angles in an argument going on in those contexts. Notice that? Peace. You suggested to 'put it out front', it wasn't something my mind is saying has to be done. I could possibly agree that it is a good meditation thing to do, but there is a trickery within it. Yet, you trust the distractions mind comes up with?
|
|