|
Post by enigma on Jan 27, 2015 20:32:57 GMT -5
So if there is just YOU, why are YOU selective with YOU when you talk about your psychosis? Yea........I've had this conversation with E numerous times. I've suggested previously that even if he is right, he can't function in life without a sense of separation. He just comes back with, Why not? source has nailed you here, THAT is why not. I'll be interested in your answer. I don't see the issue. The only way I can imagine one is if I assume I'm the only mind/body in the world, which of course I don't.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 27, 2015 20:34:42 GMT -5
........... .............. ................ ................... ....................... ..................... ..................... .......................... Oh.........wait a minute.......hE's right. Although I don't agree with E concerning his full view of nonduality, and I do believe that there is an >out there<, we do not have ~ direct~ experience of what's out there. We only have direct experience of our own sensations. So E is essentially correct. What we see isn't out there, it's in our head/mind-body. stardustpilgrim, isn't "our head/mind-body" part of what "isn't out there"? Yup
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 27, 2015 20:43:10 GMT -5
Yea........I've had this conversation with E numerous times. I've suggested previously that even if he is right, he can't function in life without a sense of separation. He just comes back with, Why not? source has nailed you here, THAT is why not. I'll be interested in your answer. Hi stardustpilgrim, the way I see it, is that the senses and the dynamics of perception associated with them don't function any differently just because of mental psychosis. Even if there is just YOU, YOU will still jump out of the way of an illusory truck, so that YOU don't get run over and killed by YOU. The YOU that you are referring to is an appearance only, and has no independent existence. It's a shadow on the wall. That YOU that jumps out of the way is not what I am, so it makes no sense to talk about it and ask questions about it as thought it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 23:01:30 GMT -5
Hi stardustpilgrim, the way I see it, is that the senses and the dynamics of perception associated with them don't function any differently just because of mental psychosis. Even if there is just YOU, YOU will still jump out of the way of an illusory truck, so that YOU don't get run over and killed by YOU. The YOU that you are referring to is an appearance only, and has no independent existence. It's a shadow on the wall. That YOU that jumps out of the way is not what I am, so it makes no sense to talk about it and ask questions about it as thought it is. Hi enigma, nevertheless, I see that what you are, is some how or other attached to a particular appearance of YOU. And if an appearance of a truck runs over the appearance of YOU, your appearance will no longer appear in the world. Is that not what we call physical death?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 0:24:40 GMT -5
The YOU that you are referring to is an appearance only, and has no independent existence. It's a shadow on the wall. That YOU that jumps out of the way is not what I am, so it makes no sense to talk about it and ask questions about it as thought it is. Hi enigma, nevertheless, I see that what you are, is some how or other attached to a particular appearance of YOU. And if an appearance of a truck runs over the appearance of YOU, your appearance will no longer appear in the world. Is that not what we call physical death? Sure, the point is there is not just the YOU of Enigma. There is also the YOU of Source, and the YOU of Laughter. They are the same Beingness, the same Intelligence. There is just that Beingness, just that Intelligence. That Beingness/Intelligence does not get run over and die. It never appears; is never born. You (or YOU) are the unborn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 1:43:58 GMT -5
Hi enigma, nevertheless, I see that what you are, is some how or other attached to a particular appearance of YOU. And if an appearance of a truck runs over the appearance of YOU, your appearance will no longer appear in the world. Is that not what we call physical death? Sure, the point is there is not just the YOU of Enigma. There is also the YOU of Source, and the YOU of Laughter. They are the same Beingness, the same Intelligence. There is just that Beingness, just that Intelligence. That Beingness/Intelligence does not get run over and die. It never appears; is never born. You (or YOU) are the unborn. Yes, at the universal level of consciousness we are all the same being. And at the individual level of consciousness the same being is trapped in a physical body. So when the body gets run over by a truck it disappears and the trapped consciousness is reclaimed by the universal consciousness. At least that is my understanding. The body isn't just a shadow on the wall, it is consciousness itself.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jan 28, 2015 2:27:48 GMT -5
Sure, the point is there is not just the YOU of Enigma. There is also the YOU of Source, and the YOU of Laughter. They are the same Beingness, the same Intelligence. There is just that Beingness, just that Intelligence. That Beingness/Intelligence does not get run over and die. It never appears; is never born. You (or YOU) are the unborn. Yes, at the universal level of consciousness we are all the same being. And at the individual level of consciousness the same being is trapped in a physical body. So when the body gets run over by a truck it disappears and the trapped consciousness is reclaimed by the universal consciousness. At least that is my understanding. The body isn't just a shadow on the wall, it is consciousness itself. That's pretty analogous to my experience, except to say that one's whole identity is kinda re-absorbed in the universe, it kind of melts away locally, but it does not disapear, it merges into and infinate conciousness, and something else re-emerges from the same pool of conciousness unrelated to yet not seperate from the identity that merged back into the whole. If you remember doing an experiment with salt and water in high school science class to study Dynamic Equilibrium, then Dynamic Equilibrium is a good analogy for what happens....the salt desolves in the water that is so saturated with salt, that when one salt crystal devolves another is formed out of the water someplace else.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 28, 2015 6:22:19 GMT -5
Hi stardustpilgrim, the way I see it, is that the senses and the dynamics of perception associated with them don't function any differently just because of mental psychosis. Even if there is just YOU, YOU will still jump out of the way of an illusory truck, so that YOU don't get run over and killed by YOU. The YOU that you are referring to is an appearance only, and has no independent existence. It's a shadow on the wall. That YOU that jumps out of the way is not what I am, so it makes no sense to talk about it and ask questions about it as thought it is. It makes no sense to 'you', because it reveals the flaw in your reasoning.. you are both/and..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 28, 2015 6:29:13 GMT -5
Hi enigma, nevertheless, I see that what you are, is some how or other attached to a particular appearance of YOU. And if an appearance of a truck runs over the appearance of YOU, your appearance will no longer appear in the world. Is that not what we call physical death? Sure, the point is there is not just the YOU of Enigma. There is also the YOU of Source, and the YOU of Laughter. They are the same Beingness, the same Intelligence. There is just that Beingness, just that Intelligence. That Beingness/Intelligence does not get run over and die. It never appears; is never born. You (or YOU) are the unborn. The speculation is interesting and fun, but it IS speculation.. you are speculating beyond 'now', you are attending to images in your mind's processes.. what IS directly experiencable is the YOU of Enigma, of Laughter, of Source, of ZD, of SDP, all united in a common happening/experience.. both/and.. parts 'part'icipating in/with a greater whole..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 6:54:59 GMT -5
I'll put my two cents in this pot so-to-speak ;-) If what Enigma wrote sounds like hallucination or psychosis, have you considered the possibility that your own direct experience may not be the totality of all people's experience? Said another way... To form an intellectual opinion that what E wrote is some sort of illusion or derangement, is assuming that you yourself have plumbed the depths of direct experience on this matter, and assumes that becuase you have not directly experienced what E said that E must be dillusional....Frankly it's a lack of genuine scientific curiosity that would lead folks to assume that because E's stated experience is different than their own, that E must be wrong. It's a way of discounting another's direct experience, and this usually occurs as a result of someone clinging rigidly to their own views and direct personal experiences, with little interest in further exploration ;-) In response to folks like that, I generally don't argue the points intellectually, or enter into a philosophical debate, as this generally only entrenches folks into their current views more deeply. Instead, I find it useful to offer to show them a method by which they can have a similar direct experience of phenomena like 'no-out-there' or everything being inside you. Here is a quick query for you...when you look at a tree, or a table, where does this seeing occur?...where does the table appear? Recently Laughter posted a link to a group of astro-physicists whose math posits that becuase of nature's extreme efficiency, and because all phenomena really only appear within our experience as interpreted by our brain, that mathematically it's very likely that reality as most believe it does not exist, and that instead, the math and the rules of nature would suggest that we are more likely all just Brains floating in empty space. If you take that further, and don't stop with a Brain floating in empty space as nature's lowest common denomenator, then a more accurate representation of the ultimate efficiency of nature would be that we are all nodes of conciousness floating in some ether, creating an erray of experiences that we are not in any way seperate from. All of that is of course an intellectual exploration, there are means of directly experiencing this if you are interested? Do you meditate deeply Source? hi steve, the descriptions of hallucination, delusion and mental psychosis are all associated with the loss of being in touch with reality, as it is normally conceived. But anyone who has an interest in spirituality, truth or the ultimate reality doesn't actually conceive of reality as it is normally conceived. That change in the conceiving of reality is therefore a mental psychosis. People, or rather society in general, see that change in the conceiving of reality in a negative and not a positive way. So from my point of view, it's quite possible that it is societies mental psychosis which is out of touch with reality. Yes, sometimes, when I sense someone who is a stranger is open to it, I'll engage them in conversation along the lines of "what you think you are/this is isn't what it is", and the results are always rewarding ... but I'm sure that most of the people who might overhear those would think I'm a loon. But, on the other hand, if people were all equipped with speakers that spoke out the contents of their minds as they went about their daily business, how many new mental hospitals would we have to build?? The consensus trance is a fragile and superficial thing. This situation seems to me to be simply a function of the complexity of the human brain/mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 7:03:03 GMT -5
Sure, the point is there is not just the YOU of Enigma. There is also the YOU of Source, and the YOU of Laughter. They are the same Beingness, the same Intelligence. There is just that Beingness, just that Intelligence. That Beingness/Intelligence does not get run over and die. It never appears; is never born. You (or YOU) are the unborn. Yes, at the universal level of consciousness we are all the same being. And at the individual level of consciousness the same being is trapped in a physical body. So when the body gets run over by a truck it disappears and the trapped consciousness is reclaimed by the universal consciousness. At least that is my understanding. The body isn't just a shadow on the wall, it is consciousness itself. This objectifies and quantifies consciousness as if were some material that could be bottled, commoditized and shuffled about like ketchup or beer or snail snot. What it is that looks out from behind every pair of eyes isn't subject to such objectification. As far as physical death is concerned, it's an unknown, and any relation of our physical experience to it is founded primarily on speculation and imagination.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 9:45:01 GMT -5
Sure, the point is there is not just the YOU of Enigma. There is also the YOU of Source, and the YOU of Laughter. They are the same Beingness, the same Intelligence. There is just that Beingness, just that Intelligence. That Beingness/Intelligence does not get run over and die. It never appears; is never born. You (or YOU) are the unborn. Yes, at the universal level of consciousness we are all the same being. And at the individual level of consciousness the same being is trapped in a physical body. So when the body gets run over by a truck it disappears and the trapped consciousness is reclaimed by the universal consciousness. At least that is my understanding. The body isn't just a shadow on the wall, it is consciousness itself. Yes, the body is consciousness, so consciousness does not appear in a body. The body appears in/as consciousness appearing. Levels can be useful when talking in various contexts, but 'universal consciousness' is the only consciousness. It never gets separated, trapped or reclaimed. 'Your' consciousness is already 'universal consciousness' now. Be careful not to objectify 'universal consciousness'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 28, 2015 9:58:12 GMT -5
The YOU that you are referring to is an appearance only, and has no independent existence. It's a shadow on the wall. That YOU that jumps out of the way is not what I am, so it makes no sense to talk about it and ask questions about it as thought it is. It makes no sense to 'you', because it reveals the flaw in your reasoning.. you are both/and.. You cannot be both one and separate. That reasoning is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 28, 2015 10:22:59 GMT -5
Perhaps it is either, neither or both depending on how one perceives self or what they are .
Realizing what you are is more about realizing that there is only what you are rather than realizing oneness so perhaps what one makes of oneness and separation is each to their own on that score .
If there is only what you are does that necessarily relate to oneness .
I suppose if there is only what you are there can seemingly be two of what you are without being separate or one .
Why has it got to be one or the other ..
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jan 28, 2015 10:29:38 GMT -5
It makes no sense to 'you', because it reveals the flaw in your reasoning.. you are both/and.. You cannot be both one and separate. That reasoning is flawed. Sometimes it's best to set 'reasoning' aside
|
|