|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 16, 2015 12:20:40 GMT -5
In the moment of eating the turkey, it's probably not so much the experience of 'you' eating turkey though, it's just the experience of smells, tastes, feelings. I'm not saying its impossible to experience a 'you' that is eating turkey, on the other hand, it's also not necessary to experience a 'you' that is eating turkey. It can be just 'nom nom yum yum'. Maybe this body-mind is just too greedy to bother with a sense of self when eating turkey lol. I relate the sense of self to a sense of 'I' or even 'me' in any form, and the most obvious form of that is when someone calls my name. Fleeting, the sense of 'I' in the form of Andrew arises. There is a recognition in that moment that I am Andrew. Edit: What also occurs to me is that I don't tend to participate in environments which lend themselves to a sense of self. I notice that 'formality' tends to lend itself to a 'sense of self', so if I eat turkey on the 25th, it's without any formal xmas hoop-la. haha .. when you say the experience of 'you' do you mean 'you' as in what 'I am' or what 'I think I am' in relation to the turkey or what the turkey is, or what I think the turkey is lols .. The thing is the realization of what you are is in a roundabout way bringing home that there is only what you are (cutting story short for convenience sakes) . If we go into those kinda realms where 'it is not you' that is eating the turkey then 'what else is there' that isn't 'you' Then 'what is it' that is eating the darn bird . Are we not venturing into the realms of 'what we are is this' and 'what we are is not that' . In the experience of eating turkey perhaps it's safer to say in relation to what is realized is that what we are is experiencing eating turkey . The turkey however is what we are also . Sounds kinda cannibal heaven or hell but hey ho, a means to an end and all that jazz When the sense of andrew is not there, there is sense of what you are present somewhere . It may not be localised where the turkey burger is at but if one is entertaining the mind, your individual sense of self is somewhere . Where would your attention be if not on the poor little turkey .. Who is chomping up and down licking their lips or wiping the mayo from your bib lols . Would you say the moment your attention is elsewhere you cease to chomp turkey ..
Would you be a sitting zombie eyes starry eyed looking into the void and yet no-one is in . This post is why I make a distinction between self as essence and self as ego or personality, these are in a very real sense two different selves. Essence is the sense of I am. Ego/personality is our cultural conditioning, a false sense of self. The beginning question is a very good question. You could say it is asking, Is the sense of I am eating the turkey or is a false sense of I am eating the turkey, IOW, ego/personality? So, there is not only, 'what you are' eating the turkey, because it can be a deeper sense of self, I am, or a superficial sense of self, ego/personality. So, for me it is necessary to venture into 'what we are is this' or 'what we are is that'. Let's go into the possible differences here. We could say that sdp eating the turkey is ego/personality eating the turkey. If sdp is eating the turkey, sdp can be there, or not. sdp, while eating, can disappear into a past memory when his mother made the best turkey and dressing in the world, like no one else's, can see it in his mind, even taste the memory. And while sdp is in this reverie, the body of sdp is all the while eating, precisely like a zombie, no-one-there, attention is elsewhere in the memory. And then suddenly sdp comes out of the memory and participates in the conversation again, may or may not taste the turkey while eating. And sdp can be there thinking what he will say next, or wondering how the football game is going, or saying to himself, I can't wait until this is over and I can go home. But there is another way to eat the turkey, through the sense of I am. You eat (you, in a manner of speaking), taste the food, listen to the conversation, you are totally present, not thinking what to say next, not anxious what to say next, attention not captured by the wandering mind into the past of the future, attention not leaving the present moment. This means there is not a sense of sdp there, no superficial chattering in the head. This deeper sense of self, I am, is wholly there. Now, one more thing, I am will eat what's necessary for the body. sdp will eat for pleasure, can overeat. ................ Being mindful means that mind and body are in the same place. Ayya Khema
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 13:44:06 GMT -5
Hi zindarud, maybe I'll buck the consensus then and say yes, absolutely. God tried to get "I AM" out of a meteor but it just wasn't happening. Hi source, How did you learn about the meteor? I am open to any answer! From observation (of universe), from some legends, from your own thinking? ...But yes, I am generally talking about living things & Earth. Perhaps there is not much to say on this issue but I was curious about whether some of us would instantly say "yes". Sort of, there is not much to think about, just go into the "I am" feeling/sense and decide there. (perhaps it is not the same sense for everybody, I really don't know). Hi zindarud, I apologize, I was making a joke about the meteor. It just came spontaneously into my mind. I do think that man is a peculiar creature in that his mind is able to conceive existence. From that I assume God provided the planet earth as the circumstances in which that conceiving in man could take place. Otherwise it would have been some other kind of circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 16, 2015 18:07:17 GMT -5
haha .. when you say the experience of 'you' do you mean 'you' as in what 'I am' or what 'I think I am' in relation to the turkey or what the turkey is, or what I think the turkey is lols .. The thing is the realization of what you are is in a roundabout way bringing home that there is only what you are (cutting story short for convenience sakes) . If we go into those kinda realms where 'it is not you' that is eating the turkey then 'what else is there' that isn't 'you' Then 'what is it' that is eating the darn bird . Are we not venturing into the realms of 'what we are is this' and 'what we are is not that' . In the experience of eating turkey perhaps it's safer to say in relation to what is realized is that what we are is experiencing eating turkey . The turkey however is what we are also . Sounds kinda cannibal heaven or hell but hey ho, a means to an end and all that jazz When the sense of andrew is not there, there is sense of what you are present somewhere . It may not be localised where the turkey burger is at but if one is entertaining the mind, your individual sense of self is somewhere . Where would your attention be if not on the poor little turkey .. Who is chomping up and down licking their lips or wiping the mayo from your bib lols . Would you say the moment your attention is elsewhere you cease to chomp turkey ..
Would you be a sitting zombie eyes starry eyed looking into the void and yet no-one is in . This post is why I make a distinction between self as essence and self as ego or personality, these are in a very real sense two different selves. Essence is the sense of I am. Ego/personality is our cultural conditioning, a false sense of self. The beginning question is a very good question. You could say it is asking, Is the sense of I am eating the turkey or is a false sense of I am eating the turkey, IOW, ego/personality? So, there is not only, 'what you are' eating the turkey, because it can be a deeper sense of self, I am, or a superficial sense of self, ego/personality. So, for me it is necessary to venture into 'what we are is this' or 'what we are is that'. Let's go into the possible differences here. We could say that sdp eating the turkey is ego/personality eating the turkey. If sdp is eating the turkey, sdp can be there, or not. sdp, while eating, can disappear into a past memory when his mother made the best turkey and dressing in the world, like no one else's, can see it in his mind, even taste the memory. And while sdp is in this reverie, the body of sdp is all the while eating, precisely like a zombie, no-one-there, attention is elsewhere in the memory. And then suddenly sdp comes out of the memory and participates in the conversation again, may or may not taste the turkey while eating. And sdp can be there thinking what he will say next, or wondering how the football game is going, or saying to himself, I can't wait until this is over and I can go home. But there is another way to eat the turkey, through the sense of I am. You eat (you, in a manner of speaking), taste the food, listen to the conversation, you are totally present, not thinking what to say next, not anxious what to say next, attention not captured by the wandering mind into the past of the future, attention not leaving the present moment. This means there is not a sense of sdp there, no superficial chattering in the head. This deeper sense of self, I am, is wholly there. Now, one more thing, I am will eat what's necessary for the body. sdp will eat for pleasure, can overeat. ................ Being mindful means that mind and body are in the same place. Ayya Khema Were you saying 'there is not a *false * sense of sdp' there in the underlined part? ...About the 'sense of self' issue here, I guess it may sound superfluous to some, like as if the person is putting on some special airs while doing something, but for it I would just say "a deeper sense of self" (like you did). But also it does frequently happen that I remember some things and want to go into some kind of lala land, want to entertain thoughts about those things... not exactly head chatter but some kind of getting lost, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 16, 2015 18:19:45 GMT -5
Hi source, How did you learn about the meteor? I am open to any answer! From observation (of universe), from some legends, from your own thinking? ...But yes, I am generally talking about living things & Earth. Perhaps there is not much to say on this issue but I was curious about whether some of us would instantly say "yes". Sort of, there is not much to think about, just go into the "I am" feeling/sense and decide there. (perhaps it is not the same sense for everybody, I really don't know). Hi zindarud, I apologize, I was making a joke about the meteor. It just came spontaneously into my mind. I do think that man is a peculiar creature in that his mind is able to conceive existence. From that I assume God provided the planet earth as the circumstances in which that conceiving in man could take place. Otherwise it would have been some other kind of circumstances. Oh, no need to apologize, I understood the joke but as you didn't use any emoticon (perhaps you don't like using) I thought I could kinda 'inquire' into it a bit -- so, I too apologize. ...On the other hand, there was a theory about a meteor hitting earth and causing the disappearance of dinasours (maybe not too popular now); I like to invent reasons for such things And yes, I think there is a special relationship between earth & man.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 16, 2015 18:24:22 GMT -5
The sense of existing has no relationship to what it is that exists. ... counter-intuitive, but still ... What does Mr. Spock mean in your language?
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 16, 2015 18:29:24 GMT -5
Hi Andrew, yes I too love that video. I am not asking about experiences, I am asking about the "I am" as the 'sense of existing'. I recently read discussions in the other thread about these things and it began to seem a bit complicated to me; what I heard about "I am" comes fom Mooji videos, and there he explains it as the feeling of I exist, un-associated with anything else (like your name, past, relationships, etc). About this, if you think not everyone has it, the question can still be valid for those who do have that sense/feeling Btw I understand how Mooji says even a fly has it, because it isn't about thoughts. (Perhaps animals have it even more than humans?). Lastly, maybe it is better to ask "does the Earth have a role/influence in this feeling?", but the use of the word 'need' is not too much wrong, I think. My own opinion is, yes, the Earth has a role in it, and not only the Earth but also the Sun, etc... It may seem like words of a sentimental Nature-lover but one can look at things organically. (note: whether disembodied spirits has it is not my concern for the time being ) Thanks for clarifying. What you talked about I tend to think of as 'atman'..a core individuality prior to all name/form/past/personality etc, though I don't see the conditioned and unconditioned aspects as entirely divorced or separate. There are many ways of talking about this stuff of course. I don't have much of an answer to your question, but in the context you are speaking, certainly I would also say the Sun etc has a role in it. I would say there is nothing that doesn't have a role in it...to offer what is now a spiritual cliche...'it's all one'. Yes, and not too related but today I came across some saying in the i-ching, it said "One who is all over the map is no less lost than the one without a map"... I just liked the saying.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 16, 2015 19:34:51 GMT -5
... counter-intuitive, but still ... What does Mr. Spock mean in your language? Hey.....I'll jump in here. This picture is from the episode Spock's Brain. In this episode an advanced civilization stole Spock's brain. The device on his head allowed his body to remain functioning. Of course Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy go in search of Spock's brain in the hope to put it back in his body. They find it and also find a device that enhances Doctor McCoy's intelligence and medical skill so that he is able make most of the connections hooking Spock's brain back up, he told Kirk that it was like child's play putting the brain back in. I say most because the enhancement was temporary and toward the end of the surgery McCoy began to lose the gained knowledge. IOW, McCoy didn't know how to finish. ........I think Kirk told McCoy to make his best guess finishing........ ........ So, this particular picture means, no brainer.......that's a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2015 22:19:15 GMT -5
No-one as such being present can eventually come about through meditation amongst other contributing factors . I am not so sure that no-one being present via meditation can be likened to an apple being consumed whist no-one is present to experience eating it . Is there anyone present whilst eating their xmas turkey, perhaps not but there is a sense of the self and the turkey . In regards to the source and I am, they are the same . There is only what you are and what you are that is of the mind relates that to 'I am' whether I am spirit, I am God, I am self, I am santa . The experience here is that turkey can be eaten without the sense of self lol. On reflection now, I would say that writing that last sentence came without a sense of self....there is just a sort of focused thought and attention...no sense of self to speak of. A sense of self probably arises at times though perhaps if someone called out my name from across the street, there would be a moment of 'oh that's me they are talking to'.I see two sort of 'pillars' of that which is prior to the manifested...there is a void of pure potentiality, and there is the conscious presence, still empty of form, but which is present within all form. I see the 'I am' as the second pillar. It can be known or sensed. The other pillar is a void. As humans we have generally resided between the manifested and the conscious presence, and have been scared of the void (we are not scared of conscious presence so much). I would say it is our 'job' to shift our 'residence' to a balance between the manifested and the void, and this isn't easy because it means facing the fear of the void, which to us, looks like non-existence. Is that the no sense of self that seems to have a strong preference for not being exposed to posts from L that reference that non-self?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2015 22:38:36 GMT -5
The sense of existing has no relationship to what it is that exists. In the realization of what you are there is only what you are . If 'I' sense existence .. then it is 'I' what exists that is being sensed . As I said to andy, what else is there other than what we are . Whatever exists can only be sensed by what exists .. Of course. I'm saying the sense of existing doesn't need the knowledge of what it is that exists, which is fortunate because there's nothing to know about it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2015 23:29:47 GMT -5
... counter-intuitive, but still ... What does Mr. Spock mean in your language? In that episode, Spocks brain has been heisted, and the story only gets more absurd from there. ... it's a visual for "no-brainer".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2015 23:32:03 GMT -5
The experience here is that turkey can be eaten without the sense of self lol. On reflection now, I would say that writing that last sentence came without a sense of self....there is just a sort of focused thought and attention...no sense of self to speak of. A sense of self probably arises at times though perhaps if someone called out my name from across the street, there would be a moment of 'oh that's me they are talking to'.I see two sort of 'pillars' of that which is prior to the manifested...there is a void of pure potentiality, and there is the conscious presence, still empty of form, but which is present within all form. I see the 'I am' as the second pillar. It can be known or sensed. The other pillar is a void. As humans we have generally resided between the manifested and the conscious presence, and have been scared of the void (we are not scared of conscious presence so much). I would say it is our 'job' to shift our 'residence' to a balance between the manifested and the void, and this isn't easy because it means facing the fear of the void, which to us, looks like non-existence. Is that the no sense of self that seems to have a strong preference for not being exposed to posts from L that reference that non-self? (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2015 23:41:51 GMT -5
Yea it sounds like an absurd question. Perhaps there won't be any answer other than a "no", but it is an interesting subject for me. Btw, not strictly related but if you haven't watched this "Overview" video, I recommend it (19 min). zindy, one example of a monism that I used to subscribe to is that of "the Universe".
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 17, 2015 3:47:08 GMT -5
There only requires a sense of 'I am' to relate that 'I' exist . The mind is the environment for that to be so . No matter what form or non form one experiences and no matter where one finds themselves whilst of the mind one will always be aware of "I am" . 'I am' just requires an association with what 'I am' within mind be it just a thought or whatever . OK. I wonder if you would say anything about Earth, does it have any kind of consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 17, 2015 3:51:18 GMT -5
Hi source, How did you learn about the meteor? I am open to any answer! From observation (of universe), from some legends, from your own thinking? ...But yes, I am generally talking about living things & Earth. Perhaps there is not much to say on this issue but I was curious about whether some of us would instantly say "yes". Sort of, there is not much to think about, just go into the "I am" feeling/sense and decide there. (perhaps it is not the same sense for everybody, I really don't know). The meteor joke actually brings to mind a fun little bit of TMT. The old consensus for how life arose on Earth was that it started from a random event, here locally (on Earth itself) that was the bridge from inorganic to organic chemistry. This view is somewhat out of fashion these days because archeology has revealed that life got started much much earlier in the history of the planet than was previously thought likely. I wonder if life 'came from' somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 17, 2015 3:53:36 GMT -5
What does Mr. Spock mean in your language? Hey.....I'll jump in here. This picture is from the episode Spock's Brain. In this episode an advanced civilization stole Spock's brain. The device on his head allowed his body to remain functioning. Of course Captain Kirk and Doctor McCoy go in search of Spock's brain in the hope to put it back in his body. They find it and also find a device that enhances Doctor McCoy's intelligence and medical skill so that he is able make most of the connections hooking Spock's brain back up, he told Kirk that it was like child's play putting the brain back in. I say most because the enhancement was temporary and toward the end of the surgery McCoy began to lose the gained knowledge. IOW, McCoy didn't know how to finish. ........I think Kirk told McCoy to make his best guess finishing........ ........ So, this particular picture means, no brainer.......that's a no-brainer. Thanks! I watched either too little or I remember very little -- this is *very* funny
|
|