|
Post by zin on Feb 17, 2015 4:02:37 GMT -5
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". Oh, I didn't know that story! And before I asked this question (also before I became a member here) I was seeing it and thinking "does it mean the poster finds what's being talked about meaningless?" but this image was not fitting the words usually.. so I'm glad I asked.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 4:13:32 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 . When the sense of Andrew is not there, it is possible that there is a sense of 'what I am' present somewhere, the point is though that it's not 'localized' i.e. the only thing relevant at that moment is the feelings and tastes etc. This is just one example though, when the turkey is finished, something else begins, and there may or may not be a sense of what I am that is present locally. Again, writing that last sentence...there was just a sense of focused attention and thought. There are lot of different types of meditation activity that happen here, and in some of those, I might sit with a deep sense of 'I'. In other meditations, there really is just...nothing though. In one way, it is possible that all this is God Godding, and there is no 'I' or 'you', there is just the sense of an 'I' or 'you' that arises from time to time as a pattern within experience. Having said that, this is not 'my' preferred way of thinking on the subject, I'm just trying to illustrate something here about the way 'I' see things. I agree that self is not localised although self has a point of awareness . The point of perception . So the point of perception is either through the mind body that what you are relates to andy that eats turkey or it is somewhere else . What is the crux of that scenario is whether or not one is aware of being conscious somewhere else .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 4:15:28 GMT -5
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 .. Could all just be 'God'. Or 'Impersonal Being'. Or 'Self'. But God, Self, Santa are the same . What we are covers all bases . There is only what we are . To suggest that there is something else points to their being something we are not (when you pointed to whether or not it is you that is eating turkey) . Are you of the understanding that there is something else out there?
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 17, 2015 4:17:35 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". I read Max's explanation on the other thread and also looked at Wiki, it says: "According to stuff monism there is only one kind of stuff (e.g. matter or mind), although there may be many things made out of this stuff. According to thing-monism there exists strictly speaking only a single thing (e.g. the universe), which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things." You used to subscribe to but then you left it, OK. But why did you leave it; because these things "can't be known", etc? (you don't have to answer, of course. I just wondered if it is a common 'station' seekers usually pass by). In any case, it is a beautiful one.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 4:22:33 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 At times I agree it can be beneficial to put self across by ways that you have said . Sometimes self is mentioned in ways of true self, ego self, essence of self, higher self, etc to illustrate a point . I would say when this happens though there is either a distinct flavour that either the true self or the ego self are two entire different entities or that they are the same entity or self just expressing in different ways . My conversation with andy was that there is only self or only what you are . The you, the turkey, the ego, the essence are the same self in my book .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 4:26:41 GMT -5
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. I thought you were speaking of a 'sense' of existence and not having 'knowledge' of what exists . As you have now put it across in this way I would agree with you .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 4:30:59 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? Everything that exists is conscious of their existence to some degree . So yes the earth is conscious . The mind houses conscious existence .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2015 5:04:35 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? I don't know what you are saying exactly, but strong preferences arise at times as part of the experience. Bearing in mind there is a GA, I am reluctant to say more specifically.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2015 5:11:34 GMT -5
When the sense of Andrew is not there, it is possible that there is a sense of 'what I am' present somewhere, the point is though that it's not 'localized' i.e. the only thing relevant at that moment is the feelings and tastes etc. This is just one example though, when the turkey is finished, something else begins, and there may or may not be a sense of what I am that is present locally. Again, writing that last sentence...there was just a sense of focused attention and thought. There are lot of different types of meditation activity that happen here, and in some of those, I might sit with a deep sense of 'I'. In other meditations, there really is just...nothing though. In one way, it is possible that all this is God Godding, and there is no 'I' or 'you', there is just the sense of an 'I' or 'you' that arises from time to time as a pattern within experience. Having said that, this is not 'my' preferred way of thinking on the subject, I'm just trying to illustrate something here about the way 'I' see things. I agree that self is not localised although self has a point of awareness . The point of perception . So the point of perception is either through the mind body that what you are relates to andy that eats turkey or it is somewhere else . What is the crux of that scenario is whether or not one is aware of being conscious somewhere else . Yup I getcha, it's just not my experience that the location of the point of perception necessarily has to be experienced on a moment by moment basis. Sometimes there is just straight quale. For example, being tickled very exquisitely might produce an intense sensation...and that is all there is. Sometimes there is just an intense....nothingness. There might be a very light joy. Or there might be a strong sense of anger. There might be just a pure awareness. There are lots of examples of course. I'm not questioning that the point of perception is rooted in Self, I'm just talking about experience.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2015 5:18:20 GMT -5
Could all just be 'God'. Or 'Impersonal Being'. Or 'Self'. But God, Self, Santa are the same . What we are covers all bases . There is only what we are . To suggest that there is something else points to their being something we are not (when you pointed to whether or not it is you that is eating turkey) . Are you of the understanding that there is something else out there? Yeh, it's all the same and there is nothing else. Though I'm also saying though that the 'I' or the 'you' MAY just be a sort of pattern that arises, or an illusion (not so different from 'time'). In this sense, there would be no 'what we are' per se, there is just God, or Self, or Being. Ultimately I guess the pattern/illusion would still be that too though. In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that just because something arises in experience or is known, doesn't necessarily make it trustable as an absolute truth.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2015 5:41:04 GMT -5
OK. I wonder if you would say anything about Earth, does it have any kind of consciousness? Everything that exists is conscious of their existence to some degree . So yes the earth is conscious . The mind houses conscious existence . I get what you are saying, and this could be just a language difference, but it doesn't quite sit with me to say that the remote control or the lamp 'is conscious of it's existence'. I would say that everything has a consciousness (to use zindarud's turn of phrase), and can therefore be communicated with (I talk to my car loads and have a strong relationship with it lol), but being conscious of our existence implies a kind of 'self-consciousness' to me, which I would say applies only to certain kinds of expression. It's an important point you are making though, because you are pointing away from the idea that even a remote control is just dead metal.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 17, 2015 5:52:22 GMT -5
Everything that exists is conscious of their existence to some degree . So yes the earth is conscious . The mind houses conscious existence . I get what you are saying, and this could be just a language difference, but it doesn't quite sit with me to say that the remote control or the lamp 'is conscious of it's existence'. I would say that everything has a consciousness (to use zindarud's turn of phrase), and can therefore be communicated with (I talk to my car loads and have a strong relationship with it lol), but being conscious of our existence implies a kind of 'self-consciousness' to me, which I would say applies only to certain kinds of expression. It's an important point you are making though, because you are pointing away from the idea that even a remote control is just dead metal. Hi Andrew, I was hesitant in the same way you are, I think... Hence I said "does it have *any* kind of consciousness" (about Earth).. But maybe Earth is a bit different, but again, not exactly like humans
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 6:52:13 GMT -5
The thing is, is that the mind is consciousness .
Everything within or of the mind is consciousness .
How can one supposed thing in mind be not made of the same stuff as another supposed thing .
How can a dream environment contain anything more or less than a dream .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 6:53:45 GMT -5
I agree that self is not localised although self has a point of awareness . The point of perception . So the point of perception is either through the mind body that what you are relates to andy that eats turkey or it is somewhere else . What is the crux of that scenario is whether or not one is aware of being conscious somewhere else . I'm not questioning that the point of perception is rooted in Self, I'm just talking about experience. Okey dokey
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 6:56:28 GMT -5
But God, Self, Santa are the same . What we are covers all bases . There is only what we are . To suggest that there is something else points to their being something we are not (when you pointed to whether or not it is you that is eating turkey) . Are you of the understanding that there is something else out there? Yeh, it's all the same and there is nothing else. Though I'm also saying though that the 'I' or the 'you' MAY just be a sort of pattern that arises, or an illusion (not so different from 'time'). In this sense, there would be no 'what we are' per se, there is just God, or Self, or Being. Ultimately I guess the pattern/illusion would still be that too though. In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that just because something arises in experience or is known, doesn't necessarily make it trustable as an absolute truth. Well when we start to decipher what is real or what is true or absolute then we need to have something in comparison to relate all that jazz with or too . In the realization of what you are there is no thought of illusions or what is real or what floats one's boat so what does that say about what is absolutely true or real or not be it the case . Am I dreaming of a zebra, is it a real zebra or is it an illusion compared to the one that I met at the zoo they look the same . Was the zebra I saw at the zoo a real zebra or was I dreaming of being at the zoo and the zebra isn't a zebra anyhow .. humma humma where do we start with that scenario I am absolutely sure I saw a zebra though lols
|
|