|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 13:59:30 GMT -5
All you can know is, you are consciousness and everything is appearing to you, Can you know anything else other than this? Use your logic and answer the question! Okay, logic 101 for dummies: If everything there is is made of cheese, then what are you made of and what are all those others made of? Tell me! Seems you are trying to say that If All is Consciousness/God/Source, then others who appear are also consciously aware? You are mistaking 'Consciousness' for 'being consciously aware of self/being.' Two very different things... A computer/chair/pillow is an appearance, that is not separate from 'Consciousness/God/Source' but not necessarily consciously self aware.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 14:00:01 GMT -5
The conceptual identification of yourself as a body and a mind separate from other bodies and minds, denies the possibility of a conceptual reality in which all minds and not just the ones you rez with, are in fact 'One Mind' and is shared with 'Universal Mind'. What you should notice as an attack on you, will be your need to defend your conceptual bodily/mind identification with a rez'n time and space bound self. So, Theo-mind resonating with Figgle-mind means separation for Source-mind? Think of it as three cheese holes alligning in diameter and height. They are all part and parcel of the same cheese block. Let me share with you a pro tip: When you see an inkling of inconsistency in 'another' you want to uncover, it's indeed a great opportunity for you to try to do so. But don't take that as a presumption, as a basis for your attack. It's easy for everyone to see your preconception. Instead, ask them questions to actually see whether your idea is actually the case. This makes your point relatable and easily understood, as well. I'm not really concerned with your linguistic associations in an effort to protect your conceptual identity, but rather to share a certainty within my mind that cannot not also exist in the depths of your mind, that the reality of your conceptualization that you have of yourself as being encapsulated in a time and space bound field of nitrogen, called a body, and that you are one day going to get sick and die, isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by Theodore on Feb 24, 2016 14:08:10 GMT -5
So, Theo-mind resonating with Figgle-mind means separation for Source-mind? Think of it as three cheese holes alligning in diameter and height. They are all part and parcel of the same cheese block. Let me share with you a pro tip: When you see an inkling of inconsistency in 'another' you want to uncover, it's indeed a great opportunity for you to try to do so. But don't take that as a presumption, as a basis for your attack. It's easy for everyone to see your preconception. Instead, ask them questions to actually see whether your idea is actually the case. This makes your point relatable and easily understood, as well. I'm not really concerned with your linguistic associations in an effort to protect your conceptual identity, but rather to share a certainty within my mind that cannot not also exist in the depths of your mind, that the reality of your conceptualization that you have of yourself as being encapsulated in a time and space bound field of nitrogen, called a body, and that you are one day going to get sick and die, isn't true. What are you talking about? You set a standard for my behavior I don't care about, while you are not holding it yourself. Step up your game, I'm bored by it.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 14:13:39 GMT -5
So, Theo-mind resonating with Figgle-mind means separation for Source-mind? Think of it as three cheese holes alligning in diameter and height. They are all part and parcel of the same cheese block. Let me share with you a pro tip: When you see an inkling of inconsistency in 'another' you want to uncover, it's indeed a great opportunity for you to try to do so. But don't take that as a presumption, as a basis for your attack. It's easy for everyone to see your preconception. Instead, ask them questions to actually see whether your idea is actually the case. This makes your point relatable and easily understood, as well. I'm not really concerned with your linguistic associations in an effort to protect your conceptual identity, but rather to share a certainty within my mind that cannot not also exist in the depths of your mind, that the reality of your conceptualization that you have of yourself as being encapsulated in a time and space bound field of nitrogen, called a body, and that you are one day going to get sick and die, isn't true. So.....You are certain, that Theo is not certain, that he has conceptualized himself as being encapsulated in a body, and that he thinks it is...isn't..?? True, that he is going to get sick and die one day?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 14:28:07 GMT -5
I'm not really concerned with your linguistic associations in an effort to protect your conceptual identity, but rather to share a certainty within my mind that cannot not also exist in the depths of your mind, that the reality of your conceptualization that you have of yourself as being encapsulated in a time and space bound field of nitrogen, called a body, and that you are one day going to get sick and die, isn't true. So.....You are certain, that Theo is not certain, that he has conceptualized himself as being encapsulated in a body, and that he thinks it is...isn't..?? True, that he is going to get sick and die one day? We cannot perceive two worlds at the same time. But we can elect to see which world has value and which one doesn't. The reason minds(singular mind) haunt this forum is to find a solution to the realization that the world (conceptual identity) that most of us currently protect and regard as real, cannot possibly be what truth and life are all about, nor can it be found in this conceptualized reality.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2016 14:34:46 GMT -5
The absolute isn't relative to anything. It's .. well, you know .. absolute. Reminds me of Andrew who was trying to force me into admitting that there must be a relationship between the absolute and the relative, the impersonal and the personal, haha! maxy's always shown some detachment from the mind trapping nonsense though. It helps he's got a sense of humor about the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2016 14:36:04 GMT -5
Sorry, but Reefs is pointing here, he's not referring to anything you can reach with reasoning. In fact, notice that the term itself is, facially, an oxymoron: "impersonal perspective". There's no point arguing about it. You either see what he's pointing to, or ya' don't. Chances are high that this years "Worst Listener Ever Award" may actually go from Figgles to Gopal... Is there a cash award or does he get free English lessons??
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2016 14:41:45 GMT -5
Well, Tolle is very definitely advocating doing something for sure. Now, if by "easier said that done" you mean that lots of people might try this, and that the results vary quite a bit between them, and that most of those results either leave the monkey dancing happily or only quiet him temporarily then I'd agree. But I'd say that it's actually the exact opposite of hard. If what is beyond mind, what is always here and now and eternal, is engaged in the witnessing, what happens is an opening, an acceptance, and a surrender. What happens is an unwinding release and a relaxed letting go that is the antithesis of effort, but is very definitely not "doing nothing". Witnessing is the detached unraveling of conditioning, so while yes, when a judgment arises it has, as you say, already been fully formed it still can be witnessed. There are two different distinct opportunities in the witnessing. One is to allow the judgement to be as it is without acting on it and while maintaining the witnessing attitude. In this case the visceral sense of it can be felt in the body, and as that dissipates there's an opportunity to reclaim the power stolen by the part of mind that judges. The other opportunity -- which has by far the greater potential to transform -- is to witness the thought behind the judgement and the exact way that this thought and the movement of judging intertwine as it first arises. That is precisely the process of becoming conscious of our conditioning. The actual suggestion that Tolle has made derives through a type of judgement made that watching the thoughts without judgement is the way to go . We can't really remove that type of judgement from what arises in such a way where we understand what has surfaced . Without such reasoning one would not do something or nothing about whatever surfaced .. You go on to say 'One is to allow the judgement to be as it is without acting on it and while maintaining the witnessing attitude' is something that makes more sense to me .. it's still a bit slippery though cos it's like making a pre judgement to kill the wifey and then leaving it at that .. You can look at it like a judgement but it's really just an invitation to step back and see judgement for what it is. You're right about how that particular book is written from a perspective that values the reduction and end of human suffering, with a focus on the damage we do to ourselves with negative self-thought .. what's very important though, is that Tolle isn't a "positive thinking" salesman. But reason has to be left at the door. Any engagement of either intellect or emotion isn't witnessing, but of course, the act of witnessing can be quite cathartic and informing to mind, but that all happens after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 24, 2016 14:44:54 GMT -5
So.....You are certain, that Theo is not certain, that he has conceptualized himself as being encapsulated in a body, and that he thinks it is...isn't..?? True, that he is going to get sick and die one day? We cannot perceive two worlds at the same time. But we can elect to see which world has value and which one doesn't. The reason minds(singular mind) haunt this forum is to find a solution to the realization that the world (conceptual identity) that most of us currently protect and regard as real, cannot possibly be what truth and life are all about, nor can it be found in this conceptualized reality. Sure, I suspect that some come to find a solution, but that is only so if a problem is arising. If not, it might just be that some come because they enjoy talking about/debating/sharing comparing these things. Seems even those commonly regarded to be sages/gurus, still enjoy conversing (some, even heatedly at times) about all this. I was wondering specifically about what you had to say about Theo...and why it was that you figured you knew about the inner workings of his psyche to the degree that you seemed to be suggesting...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 14:48:56 GMT -5
I'm not really concerned with your linguistic associations in an effort to protect your conceptual identity, but rather to share a certainty within my mind that cannot not also exist in the depths of your mind, that the reality of your conceptualization that you have of yourself as being encapsulated in a time and space bound field of nitrogen, called a body, and that you are one day going to get sick and die, isn't true. What are you talking about? You set a standard for my behavior I don't care about, while you are not holding it yourself. Step up your game, I'm bored by it. Your not caring and boredom is a response to an attack on your conceptual self identity justifying it's defense and reality. If you knew that what you are protecting and defending from attack has no value, the momentary shock would be enough to take you out of space and time and facilitate a glimpse of an alternative conceptual reality that already exists within your own mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2016 14:52:19 GMT -5
And yet, you conclude that you can never know, and while it might seem subtle, and really, it's even TMT, the fact is, your conclusion is a form of knowing. He's just being honest. From his imaginary impersonal perspective (which is just a broader and more expansive personal perspective) that's all you can know. Also notice his total logic fail, he acknowledges that the Self is all there is and that he is the Self, and yet he can't know what's up with all those alleged others. From the personal perspective the only option involves giving up on making logical sense of Self.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2016 14:54:25 GMT -5
It seems you don't actually understand what 'The Self is all there is' or 'There is only you' means. Just use your logic, you are the Self, the Self is all there is, then what does that tell you about the nature of what you call 'others'? Should be a total no-brainer. .. until G man understands / addresses this point he will remain in doubt . And doubt isn't really genuine "not-knowing" the way that Zen peeps use the term, for instance. Both skepticism and gullibility have to be suspended.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2016 14:55:58 GMT -5
I don't know what "not personal" means specifically, I suppose that Reefs talks about something that applies to everyone. I haven't seen figgles making that mistake, and it's not relevant. As you can see in the quote I posted, Figgles hasn't had a clue 4 years ago and she still doesn't have a clue. We are having the exact same conversation with her we've already had 4 years ago. So I wouldn't count on her input. Nostradamus much? .. you called it about how this would still be going on halfway between now and then ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 14:56:13 GMT -5
We cannot perceive two worlds at the same time. But we can elect to see which world has value and which one doesn't. The reason minds(singular mind) haunt this forum is to find a solution to the realization that the world (conceptual identity) that most of us currently protect and regard as real, cannot possibly be what truth and life are all about, nor can it be found in this conceptualized reality. Sure, I suspect that some come to find a solution, but that is only so if a problem is arising. If not, it might just be that some come because they enjoy talking about/debating/sharing comparing these things. Seems even those commonly regarded to be sages/gurus, still enjoy conversing (some, even heatedly at times) about all this. I was wondering specifically about what you had to say about Theo...and why it was that you figured you knew about the inner workings of his psyche to the degree that you seemed to be suggesting...? Unlike Theo his concept of separate minds serves as a justification for his minds conceptual identity of what he is. I'm offering an alternative that exists in not only my mind but every mind whether it is known or not, which is that all minds are a singular mind and it is shared with God, if you prefer theology or with Universal Mind if not.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 24, 2016 14:56:56 GMT -5
As you can see in the quote I posted, Figgles hasn't had a clue 4 years ago and she still doesn't have a clue. We are having the exact same conversation with her we've already had 4 years ago. So I wouldn't count on her input. Figgles clearly aware of what she is talking, You are never clear about what others are talking here, at the same time you are not clear about what you are talking about either! PAY ATTENTION DUDE! You wouldn't be in such a huge confusion if you have given a little bit of attention. Yeah, shout louder, that'l help.
|
|