|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 18, 2015 21:48:42 GMT -5
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 . I asked some questions, i didn't make suggestions or infer that you you hadn't "entertained a still mind".. no biggie.. " The sun shines, the rains falls, what is better, the rain or the sun shining", "better", is relative.. to the drought-stricken, rain rain is better, and to the flood ravaged sunshine is better.. choosing a value, better/worse, has inherent preferences, distortions..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2015 21:49:40 GMT -5
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. Roight, the world is vibrantly alive because it is consciousness itself, not to be confused with being conscious. Once we make dead metal conscious, then we're obliged to sit down and have a chat with it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 18, 2015 22:17:01 GMT -5
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. Roight, the world is vibrantly alive because it is consciousness itself, not to be confused with being conscious. Once we make dead metal conscious, then we're obliged to sit down and have a chat with it. Does this explain why correspondin' with some peeps here is like talkin' to a brick wall??
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 19, 2015 0:09:51 GMT -5
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 ) Eeerie ... and mezmerizin' ..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 19, 2015 1:17:11 GMT -5
Roight, the world is vibrantly alive because it is consciousness itself, not to be confused with being conscious. Once we make dead metal conscious, then we're obliged to sit down and have a chat with it. Does this explain why correspondin' with some peeps here is like talkin' to a brick wall?? Maybe we shouldn't assume they're conscious!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 19, 2015 1:33:32 GMT -5
Does this explain why correspondin' with some peeps here is like talkin' to a brick wall?? Maybe we shouldn't assume they're conscious!
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 19, 2015 2:44:23 GMT -5
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 . I asked some questions, i didn't make suggestions or infer that you you hadn't "entertained a still mind".. no biggie.. " The sun shines, the rains falls, what is better, the rain or the sun shining", "better", is relative.. to the drought-stricken, rain rain is better, and to the flood ravaged sunshine is better.. choosing a value, better/worse, has inherent preferences, distortions.. You said 'Why am I 'thinking' rather than 'living'? Why Am not 100% present for what is happening 'now', rather than speculating about what stuff is made of? ''' That seemed to imply that my mind / attention was not where it should or could be .. Rain or shine, still or busy, tis all relative I agree to where one is at in the moment .. I Can't really say what someone else should be doing by means of suggestion but rather relate to where they are at . Do you not see any benefits for the individual that makes sense of things rather than not . Can you see that from the stillness of mind tis where understandings are attained that will end up being expressed as noise / chatter ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 19, 2015 2:57:46 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. There is no on, off switch if consciousness equates to life in mind, everything is alive . Everything is conscious . The degrees of being conscious are minimal to complete realization had .. Being conscious in mind as a human construct we only compare our own conscious levels to something else . The rock or piece of gold has each their own signature of life . Nothing as such is completely dead in the water .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 19, 2015 3:24:05 GMT -5
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.. Cheers for explaining .. Your experience could perhaps be a few things, sometimes past life experiences happen this way, I have had many where I am conscious of being at home whilst I am aware of travelling through the secret passages of the pyramids . I am therefore aware of two places simultaneously . It can get a bit slippery because I am not actually at the pyramids at that time but is rather more an imprint in time replaying it's self from memory . It could be said that the now moment is happening just the same lols . Of course if you are into mutli-dimensional selves then there could be projections of actual experiences happening simultaneously and in real time or now time .. but I would say there still remains a single point of perception had . I wouldn't say that one could be aware of sitting on the beach in the seychelles and feeling the sun upon their face at the same time feeling one's nuts are frozen in the antartic .lols . It's perhaps more to do with projections from memory somewhere down one's time line or images being received via another's hand so to speak, just like one picking up radio signals but in images instead .
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 19, 2015 6:21:00 GMT -5
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. Roight, the world is vibrantly alive because it is consciousness itself, not to be confused with being conscious. Once we make dead metal conscious, then we're obliged to sit down and have a chat with it. You really don't see past your own beliefs, do you? IF it's all consciousness, it's all conscious. My understanding is that it's all energy, which is conscious, behaving in a cosmos of manifested versions of itself.. each version interconnected with the whole, and functioning in accord with its level of awareness.. People judge the rest of creation through the lens of their own understanding, sometimes unwilling to afford the possibility that "dead metal" may be vibrantly alive and conscious from a perspective beyond the limited range of human perception..
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 19, 2015 8:06:52 GMT -5
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.. Cheers for explaining .. Your experience could perhaps be a few things, sometimes past life experiences happen this way, I have had many where I am conscious of being at home whilst I am aware of travelling through the secret passages of the pyramids . I am therefore aware of two places simultaneously . It can get a bit slippery because I am not actually at the pyramids at that time but is rather more an imprint in time replaying it's self from memory . It could be said that the now moment is happening just the same lols . Of course if you are into mutli-dimensional selves then there could be projections of actual experiences happening simultaneously and in real time or now time .. but I would say there still remains a single point of perception had . I wouldn't say that one could be aware of sitting on the beach in the seychelles and feeling the sun upon their face at the same time feeling one's nuts are frozen in the antartic .lols . It's perhaps more to do with projections from memory somewhere down one's time line or images being received via another's hand so to speak, just like one picking up radio signals but in images instead . I admit that I tend to 'go after' the most interesting explanation here, the multi-dimensional selves thing . But I don't know it, I just heard the name. True, it was not like having two streams of sensory input coming in at the same time (your seychelles & antartic example). Rather, the second perception *strengthened* the incoming impressions of the first one (like, the music coming from the caffee I was passing by in the street began to be perceived in stronger way). Thanks for the comment.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 19, 2015 8:13:26 GMT -5
Cheers for explaining .. Your experience could perhaps be a few things, sometimes past life experiences happen this way, I have had many where I am conscious of being at home whilst I am aware of travelling through the secret passages of the pyramids . I am therefore aware of two places simultaneously . It can get a bit slippery because I am not actually at the pyramids at that time but is rather more an imprint in time replaying it's self from memory . It could be said that the now moment is happening just the same lols . Of course if you are into mutli-dimensional selves then there could be projections of actual experiences happening simultaneously and in real time or now time .. but I would say there still remains a single point of perception had . I wouldn't say that one could be aware of sitting on the beach in the seychelles and feeling the sun upon their face at the same time feeling one's nuts are frozen in the antartic .lols . It's perhaps more to do with projections from memory somewhere down one's time line or images being received via another's hand so to speak, just like one picking up radio signals but in images instead . I admit that I tend to 'go after' the most interesting explanation here, the multi-dimensional selves thing . But I don't know it, I just heard the name. True, it was not like having two streams of sensory input coming in at the same time (your seychelles & antartic example). Rather, the second perception *strengthened* the incoming impressions of the first one (like, the music coming from the caffee I was passing by in the street began to be perceived in stronger way). Thanks for the comment.I appreciate the dialogue zindarud .. Interesting isn't it ..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 19, 2015 10:59:53 GMT -5
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. There is no on, off switch if consciousness equates to life in mind, everything is alive . Everything is conscious . The degrees of being conscious are minimal to complete realization had .. Being conscious in mind as a human construct we only compare our own conscious levels to something else . The rock or piece of gold has each their own signature of life . Nothing as such is completely dead in the water . Sure, we define what it means to be conscious, and then notice that rocks aren't.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 19, 2015 12:19:22 GMT -5
There is no on, off switch if consciousness equates to life in mind, everything is alive . Everything is conscious . The degrees of being conscious are minimal to complete realization had .. Being conscious in mind as a human construct we only compare our own conscious levels to something else . The rock or piece of gold has each their own signature of life . Nothing as such is completely dead in the water . Sure, we define what it means to be conscious, and then notice that rocks aren't. "Everything is conscious" is a way to punt on "what is conscious?". It's a similar strategy as embracing delusion and being clear about one's confusion .. unless they're not .. Ya' gotta love the Japanese man, just, like no nonsense. Conceptual is conceptual ...
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 19, 2015 17:50:20 GMT -5
I admit that I tend to 'go after' the most interesting explanation here, the multi-dimensional selves thing . But I don't know it, I just heard the name. True, it was not like having two streams of sensory input coming in at the same time (your seychelles & antartic example). Rather, the second perception *strengthened* the incoming impressions of the first one (like, the music coming from the caffee I was passing by in the street began to be perceived in stronger way). Thanks for the comment.I appreciate the dialogue zindarud .. Interesting isn't it .. Me, too! Interesting, yes. I have other things to ask also, mostly about higher mind (or however you would like to call/define it), but a bit later
|
|