|
Post by tenka on Feb 18, 2015 6:57:15 GMT -5
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. I understand your methodology . Thanks for the explanation of how you see it .
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 18, 2015 6:58:46 GMT -5
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 I had heard something like, a master was asked, "if there is no 'I', what is it that incarnates?", and he answered "neurosis"
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 18, 2015 7:01:59 GMT -5
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 . If you don't have an answer, or don't want to answer, that's cool.. honesty is appreciated, though.. What is happening now is each to their own . There is a time to dance and a time to be still . Engaging in the intellectual wrangling of the inner workings of the universe is a tune unto it's self . What is happening now is what is happening now, be it the merry dance or the stillness of mind . What is best for whom in each moment is each to their own . The sun shines, the rains falls, what is better, the rain or the sun shining . Would it be better for I to be still or to be busy in mind now . Your suggestion pointed it would be best for me to be still in my now moment . How does one conclude that, how does one conclude what is best for 'I' . Thanks for the suggestion though Perhaps you are under the impression that I haven't entertained a still mind .. That would be a false assumption .
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 18, 2015 7:17:52 GMT -5
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. I got caught in a video-current nowadays What you said reminded me of volcanos, so I'm putting one here. About the origin of life, I had read it might be the sun but I don't remember if there was any (scientific) explanation. It must be a bit difficult to examine the sun I guess (yea I admit this is an ignorant talk on my part )
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 18, 2015 7:19:42 GMT -5
Everything that exists is conscious of their existence to some degree . So yes the earth is conscious . The mind houses conscious existence . It's fine if you choose to define existence in physical terms, but how have you concluded that all objects are conscious of their existence? In mind there is consciousness . I relate the mind with being consciousness . The mind is the environment for the playground to exist and it is the play ground its self . As mentioned before in another post, the realization of what you are is that what you are is all there is . The only difference between a tree and a rock or an animal or a piece of metal is the levels of self awareness / levels of being self conscious . There is nothing other than what we are .. So would you suggest that there is something present in existence that is not what we are?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 18, 2015 7:23:36 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 once lived this, simultaneous with what I was doing 'on earth'. I was walking down a street and I got conscious of being somewhere else also. Perhaps such 'accidents' happen to people from time to time? It happened only once and the important thing was, I felt that there had to be something between the two ...whats? two me's? By 'something' I mean, some kind of link. I don't know how to express. If no link, then my existence on earth would not be any different than a stone rolling because of this or that impact. Do you mean you was aware of two points of perception? Like perceiving Big Ben and the Eiffel tower at the same time .
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2015 11:04:53 GMT -5
You really do go into 'what?' mode at times when you don't want to hear. That's a distinctly unconscious mode. Sometimes when you seem a bit irritable, you make odd conversational leaps that require a fair bit of reading between the lines. Two aspects of what you said in that previous single sentence required me to read between the lines, and so my feeling is that you were probably a bit irritable and unconscious when you wrote that. If you would like me to go into what those aspects were, I might be willing. You mean this sentence?: I was just commenting on an apparent inconsistency, and there's nothing difficult to understand about it. There's also no reason for me to be irritated as it's not even about me. I do see how it could have caused some irritation in you, and you may be mistaking it for mine.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2015 11:25:15 GMT -5
It's fine if you choose to define existence in physical terms, but how have you concluded that all objects are conscious of their existence? In mind there is consciousness . I relate the mind with being consciousness . The mind is the environment for the playground to exist and it is the play ground its self . As mentioned before in another post, the realization of what you are is that what you are is all there is . The only difference between a tree and a rock or an animal or a piece of metal is the levels of self awareness / levels of being self conscious . There is nothing other than what we are .. So would you suggest that there is something present in existence that is not what we are?No, I wouldn't suggest that, but to say everything is what we are is not to say everything is conscious, but rather that everything is consciousness. IOW, everything, including mind and rocks, is appearing in the consciousness that we are. There is a context, of course, in which we say that some of those appearances are conscious, at least some of the time, but even in that context, we don't say rocks are conscious, and certainly not self aware. Not everything that appears is conscious. In this context, we make the distinction between life and inert matter.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2015 11:50:08 GMT -5
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 I had heard something like, a master was asked, "if there is no 'I', what is it that incarnates?", and he answered "neurosis"
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2015 11:57:15 GMT -5
Practical! I really should get me a loin cloth... just in case.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2015 12:03:54 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. I wouldn't say objects are dead exactly, but I also wouldn't say they have consciousness. These things are arising in/as consciousness in the larger context. In the context of sentient life, your remote control is dead metal. (The fact that you talk to your car is irrelevant, albeit disturbing) Yeah, as always, the first cut's the deepest. One experience to be had for a body/mind-identified peep is to notice how alive the world is ... really, the descriptions/explanations about that are all ultimately irrelevant, but once we're in the context of an object, then we're in the context of observation. If peeps won't hear the idea that reality is just an idea. If they won't take the advice to attend to what's in front of them instead of theorizing about it, then perhaps the next best thing is to point out that the reality of the object is inseparable from the reality that they are.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2015 12:13:50 GMT -5
In mind there is consciousness . I relate the mind with being consciousness . The mind is the environment for the playground to exist and it is the play ground its self . As mentioned before in another post, the realization of what you are is that what you are is all there is . The only difference between a tree and a rock or an animal or a piece of metal is the levels of self awareness / levels of being self conscious . There is nothing other than what we are .. So would you suggest that there is something present in existence that is not what we are?No, I wouldn't suggest that, but to say everything is what we are is not to say everything is conscious, but rather that everything is consciousness. IOW, everything, including mind and rocks, is appearing in the consciousness that we are. There is a context, of course, in which we say that some of those appearances are conscious, at least some of the time, but even in that context, we don't say rocks are conscious, and certainly not self aware. Not everything that appears is conscious. In this context, we make the distinction between life and inert matter. Yeah good thing too otherwise we'd have a car-rights movement and lawsuits on behalf of houses against peeps that wanted to rip out walls. ... peeps are so selfish! They should really be more considerate of the remote instead of jammin' it down between the couch cushions all the time .. ain't much air down there yanno'!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 18, 2015 12:14:20 GMT -5
Sometimes when you seem a bit irritable, you make odd conversational leaps that require a fair bit of reading between the lines. Two aspects of what you said in that previous single sentence required me to read between the lines, and so my feeling is that you were probably a bit irritable and unconscious when you wrote that. If you would like me to go into what those aspects were, I might be willing. You mean this sentence?: I was just commenting on an apparent inconsistency, and there's nothing difficult to understand about it. There's also no reason for me to be irritated as it's not even about me. I do see how it could have caused some irritation in you, and you may be mistaking it for mine. Yes I am saying that question you asked in relation to what I had said speaks of your unconsciousness. I am willing to discuss that if you want to, but out of respect for this thread it would probably be better in the other section.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 18, 2015 16:03:23 GMT -5
I once lived this, simultaneous with what I was doing 'on earth'. I was walking down a street and I got conscious of being somewhere else also. Perhaps such 'accidents' happen to people from time to time? It happened only once and the important thing was, I felt that there had to be something between the two ...whats? two me's? By 'something' I mean, some kind of link. I don't know how to express. If no link, then my existence on earth would not be any different than a stone rolling because of this or that impact. Do you mean you was aware of two points of perception? Like perceiving Big Ben and the Eiffel tower at the same time . No, there was not much 'vision' in the second perception, it was like I was waking up in some dimly lit place (at the same time I was still walking in the street). It came out of nowhere. I wrote this because I was curious about why you said "What is the crux of that scenario is whether or not one is aware of being conscious somewhere else." (to Andrew). Perhaps you were talking about something different..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2015 16:27:08 GMT -5
Sometimes when you seem a bit irritable, you make odd conversational leaps that require a fair bit of reading between the lines. Two aspects of what you said in that previous single sentence required me to read between the lines, and so my feeling is that you were probably a bit irritable and unconscious when you wrote that. If you would like me to go into what those aspects were, I might be willing. You mean this sentence?: I was just commenting on an apparent inconsistency, and there's nothing difficult to understand about it. There's also no reason for me to be irritated as it's not even about me. I do see how it could have caused some irritation in you, and you may be mistaking it for mine. How many layer's do ya' think??
|
|