|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 17, 2015 6:57:21 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 . Why are you 'thinking' rather than 'living'? Why are you not 100% present for what is happening 'now', rather than speculating about what stuff is made of?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 7:03:45 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 . Why are you 'thinking' rather than 'living'? Why are you not 100% present for what is happening 'now', rather than speculating about what stuff is made of? Why are you thinking about what I am thinking about . Why are you not 100% present for what is happening 'now', rather than speculating about what I am thinking of .
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2015 8:40:03 GMT -5
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 yeah I would say Earth has consciousness (some speak of Gaia as a living organism), just a different kind of consciousness to humans with their somewhat neurotic self-consciousness lol
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 17, 2015 8:57:50 GMT -5
I was walking the dog, and suddenly it was like the whole world was watching, so the possibilities are, I have serious psychosis or this is a conscious universe... or both.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2015 8:59:45 GMT -5
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 yep a zebra appears and it would only be after the perception of it that we might question whether it was a zebra, or whether it was a dream or whatever, and trying to question every perception would be a futile and miserable business! Nevertheless, I see value in the realization that anything known or experienced can be questioned. What I'm suggesting is that it COULD be the case that there is just a void in which everything that is known or experienced happens, including sense of self etc. Again, that's not exactly the view I most lean towards (I like the idea of 'God'), but it is a valid perspective I feel. My stamina for these conversations isn't what it was four years ago lol
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 17, 2015 9:02:48 GMT -5
What I tend toward is, if it's a zebra it's an illusion, but if it's a loin chasing me, I don't give a fig what it is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2015 9:40:38 GMT -5
What I tend toward is, if it's a zebra it's an illusion, but if it's a loin chasing me, I don't give a fig what it is. LOL Though it might also depend on whose loin it is! (I know you meant 'lion'...at least I'm pretty sure that's what you meant)
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 17, 2015 9:42:22 GMT -5
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 yep a zebra appears and it would only be after the perception of it that we might question whether it was a zebra, or whether it was a dream or whatever, and trying to question every perception would be a futile and miserable business! Nevertheless, I see value in the realization that anything known or experienced can be questioned. What I'm suggesting is that it COULD be the case that there is just a void in which everything that is known or experienced happens, including sense of self etc. Again, that's not exactly the view I most lean towards (I like the idea of 'God'), but it is a valid perspective I feel. My stamina for these conversations isn't what it was four years ago lol I lean towards everything is how we see it and how we see it depends on many things . Mainly it depends on how we perceive ourselves . Then everything else is either the same as or different from or separate from etc .. I never really speak of anything truth related be it relative or absolute, real or illusory because again it can only be ascertained from a vantage point in relation to how we perceive ourselves . The only point that one could possible realize all these things is in the actual realization of what we are and within the actual realization there are no answers as such, there are no questions as such, there is nobody there as such lols .. Lols regarding the stamina, you should of paced yourself Long way to go yet andy haha
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 17, 2015 9:52:12 GMT -5
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 . Hey tenka.......I consider your identity as what you say "I" to, in an ordinary sense. So there can be a movement, say from lesser consciousness to higher consciousness. That would be based on your level of vibration, quicker and finer (true self) to slower (false self). So it's not that there are two different entities, but a movement. And this is maybe the meaning of sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 17, 2015 9:56:10 GMT -5
yep a zebra appears and it would only be after the perception of it that we might question whether it was a zebra, or whether it was a dream or whatever, and trying to question every perception would be a futile and miserable business! Nevertheless, I see value in the realization that anything known or experienced can be questioned. What I'm suggesting is that it COULD be the case that there is just a void in which everything that is known or experienced happens, including sense of self etc. Again, that's not exactly the view I most lean towards (I like the idea of 'God'), but it is a valid perspective I feel. My stamina for these conversations isn't what it was four years ago lol I lean towards everything is how we see it and how we see it depends on many things . Mainly it depends on how we perceive ourselves . Then everything else is either the same as or different from or separate from etc .. I never really speak of anything truth related be it relative or absolute, real or illusory because again it can only be ascertained from a vantage point in relation to how we perceive ourselves .
The only point that one could possible realize all these things is in the actual realization of what we are and within the actual realization there are no answers as such, there are no questions as such, there is nobody there as such lols .. Lols regarding the stamina, you should of paced yourself Long way to go yet andy haha I lean towards that view myself though I am aware of the assumptions I hold beneath it. In fact that applies to my overall perspective, I am apt to take many differing views but am always aware of the assumptions held beneath each view. I say they are 'assumptions' because that's how I see them, but it is possible that they could be 'truths'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2015 11:07:23 GMT -5
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. Last I read/heard, the theory that Earth was "seeded" with the process of organic chemistry from a "meteor" during the time of it's formation was gaining in popularity and validity. I put meteor in quotes because, as the process of formation was the aggregation of material by gravity, the line between the fragments that were part of the initial formation and stuff that fell down onto that later is ultimately arbitrary. We could say that the Earth is a work in progress.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2015 11:13:40 GMT -5
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. It cracks me up just to think of it .. 'cause the story was (probably inadvertently) one of the funniest of the entire franchise. Who stole the brain and why they stole it, and why McCoy had to wear the modified hair dryer to do the operation, are facts that are at the height of the absurd.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2015 11:24:30 GMT -5
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. It is a beautiful one, yes, but it comes with certain questions inherently woven into it. There's really no reason that I don't have it anymore, but those questions are gone now. There's a story I could tell that would involve intellectual learning, frequent unconscious nonconceptual communion with what the monism of the Universe points to, and the eventual stumbling onto conscious self-inquiry. The fact is though, that there's really no causal link between the appearance of that path and the ending of the questions. Every monism: "Consciousness", "Source", "Mind", "Self", etc. is just a sort of shadow of what the idea of "not two" points to, and "not two", is not "One". A belief system based on a monism is the embodiment of a conceptual sense of identity.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2015 11:30:40 GMT -5
I was walking the dog, and suddenly it was like the whole world was watching, so the possibilities are, I have serious psychosis or this is a conscious universe... or both. Just 'cause yer paranoid don't mean that they're not outs ta' gits' ya'!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2015 11:36:41 GMT -5
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.
|
|