|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 20:55:49 GMT -5
I've pulled this one over from figgy's forum because I'm disinclined to create another account for one post, or converse over two forums … I say there is exactly such thing, and in fact that’s kinda what I always felt the 'it's all alive' meme alluded to. Well that and that, what me might think of the 'Intelligence' aspect of Awareness, the 'organisational principle', encompasses ALL creation, at all levels. It's hard to put into words. Layer isn't quite right anyway, because really we can also talk in terms of how the dream arises 'within it', or is merely a movement of it, but all those phrases are where the pointers begin to fail in earnest.
But I'd be interested to see if enigma aligns with your position here …. that there is no such thing that could be reasonably adequately described as a field of aliveness that underpins and pervades the dream. Awareness/Intelligence/Aliveness are just different ways of talking about the same thingless thing. It only really gets interesting when we're looking at a corpse and trying to fathom how we categorise that in terms of this 'field of aliveness'. Yes. If the two conceptual 'layers' have nothing in common, they can't be collapsed. Let's not forget that what really matters here is collapsing the dualistic mind, the arguing over the correctness of our 'models' of existence only matters to the extent that they can be collapsed. So, a wave collapses back into the ocean because it's all water. If the wave has no commonalty with the ocean, we have an objective wave that cannot collapse into the ocean. So when Enigma said above that 'being aware' is present in the dream, and I asked him what is the connection between being aware and 'Awareness', I'm hoping he says...'' they're the same darn 'thing' ''
I basically did.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 5, 2019 20:58:30 GMT -5
I still struggle to relate to this notion of entirely divorcing realisation from experience. I understand the method behind it in order to point away from 'mundane experience' as a means of discovering Truth. Yet I still tend to class both realisation and say, samadhi for example, as forms of transcendent experience. I can understand a reluctance to embrace that terminology, as it does sound a bit woo. Supra-mundane isn't much better. But for me, to entirely divorce realisation from experience tends to become even more problematic, and quite quickly. You can't divorce them as it is the experiencer as individuated ego/self who proclaims "I am realized". That proclamation, alone, is grounds for a divorce.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 5, 2019 21:03:45 GMT -5
You can't divorce them as it is the experiencer as individuated ego/self who proclaims "I am realized". That proclamation, alone, is grounds for a divorce. Grounds for what? Disembodiment? You can't live like that, not in a body anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 6, 2019 0:31:45 GMT -5
Awareness/Intelligence/Aliveness are just different ways of talking about the same thingless thing. It only really gets interesting when we're looking at a corpse and trying to fathom how we categorise that in terms of this 'field of aliveness'. That's where the infamous mixing of contexts starts.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 6, 2019 0:33:44 GMT -5
Yes, or a rock or a piece of dog dodo. I think the most we can say is that form is a movement happening in Awareness, perhaps in the way that a thought is a movement happening in mind.That movement IS Awareness just as the thought IS mind. I don't know what aliveness means in the context of Awareness, but I do know what it means in the context of form, and rocks don't qualify. This is why I distinguish between appearances that operate as a point of perception and those that don't, and I claim that nothing within form and no transcendent realization will reveal which is which at any given time. It seems to be part of the unfolding of the dream itself, and is just as unpredictable as the rest of the dream. The context is nothingness (no-thing-ness).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 6, 2019 0:37:41 GMT -5
For anyone with a sincere interest in what ZD and I have been pointing to, just read this. That’s it. And remember, it’s a pointer. Don’t lick it!
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 6, 2019 3:07:24 GMT -5
There isn't the realization of that, there is the conclusion of that when self aware of the mind . Figs has changed her mind of late by agreeing with a video link that I posted that emphasised everything is real But I questioned why one earth would you make out the world is a dream full of dream characters and everything said of the dream is empty and absent of Truth .. It's a very strange example used to describe a real reality full of real peeps to then set up a foundation around it and by comparing the illusory nature of it with dream characters in the night dream .. Everything points to things not being as they seem to be and not holding any Truth or weight .. When you have a peep telling you that they are awake to the dream and myself and other are not, it leaves you scratching your head .. How can I be asleep when the world being a dream is just something that you have made up lol .. This is why I have spent a long time getting to the truth of this matter. The notion is something that actually holds no Truth or weight. There is no realization had that reflects the notion .. so how can one peep be asleep to that notion and one be awake .. Sounds silly to me and it sounds like one peep just wants to put themselves in a higher position than the other with there being no foundation at all other than one making stuff up about the world and the other .. I can speak about life and God and Self and self without using a dream analogy at all . There really is no need to set up a foundation about life using a dream metaphor at all . What one has to look at is who would hold onto that concept for as long as they have done and have spent an age trying to bolster the notion up with further ideas about non aware peeps that walk the earth .. There is no reason to do this .. You want to collapse everything into one neat box, so I suggest you drop the dream notion and the zombies . I'm going to assume that you understand what I'm saying at this point. That you don't like it is not my concern. what sort of answer is that? If everything is real then there is no need to portray the world as illusory and dreamy where peeps are potentially running around as empty figments I'm going to assume that you understand what I'm saying at this point. That you don't like it is not my concern.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 6, 2019 3:16:28 GMT -5
The experiencer therefore by using your model is also just an idea (agreed)?, but you favour one idea over another ..When you have a dude favouring one idea over another it really points to there is one that can have preferences .. Awareness itself doesn't have ideas about awareness, nor does it favour one notion over another .. This reflects traits of self denial. self isn't a separate entity as we all know, but within mind there is an awareness of the individual that is absent beyond the mind. There is still what you are present but there is no thought about oneself, so it is foolish to deny self while of the mind and this is the biggest mind trap for most, thinking that self isn't present or is dreamy or illusory . If self isn't a separate entity, then what is it that is conscious and aware in the self? Why are you not answering my question?
You see this is why it's difficult to talk to you anymore because you don't answer straight forward questions about your model and at times when I do engage with you, you just fob me off without explaining yourself ..
Not sure why you bother to be honest ..
In answer to your question however, what you are is conscious and aware .. The self is what you are of the mind .. it's a term used because what you are is aware of what you are that is of the mind ..
There is no self beyond mind because the mind is required to be present in order for that to be experienced .
When you speak about awareness of the mind you want to shove self aside, but all you are doing is swapping self for awareness and it doesn't work. The problem is that you have assigned what we are to being awareness and that is just a theory you have that self (as what you are) has concluded of the mind.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 6, 2019 3:25:37 GMT -5
.... There are qualities that are of the mind and of what we are of the mind even though there is only what we are .. You want to tie that into one word usage that is 'awareness' . Now in my eyes all you need to do is compare what you are aware of that reflects your individuality and beyond that . There are obvious differences .. I have emphasised that the witness is not some separate dude nor is the self a separate dude that is not what we are in any shape or form .. I have explained this for many years and agree with Ramana's thoughts on how consciousness and awareness and the self all come together so to speak .. But all you are doing is casting out many references and keeping to 'awareness' which doesn't help because only of the mind can one conclude what you have and favour what you have .. Awareness itself like said cannot have preferences, so it's not going to work of the mind . Saying that the witness is a movement of awareness makes no sense, it's just words cobbled together in order to uphold your notion .. Awareness itself doesn't have qualities of movement. Awareness is present in the dream. It is the reason you are conscious and aware. So the idea that there is nothing present that can see beyond the dream is misconceived. There is awareness of the mind for sure, you can entertain a theory that it is a dream world if you like. This is not something you have realized, but you are welcome to your own theory .. I realized what I am so to speak but there was no thought that I AM awareness ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 6, 2019 3:43:15 GMT -5
Well what you are doing is collapsing what we are into one conceptual pointer . Awareness itself cannot do that. There requires the thought of oneself, there requires the mind, there requires perception, knowing/s and such likes. All your doing is exterminating all that is required to make that one conceptual pointer by passing them off as movements of awareness .. I don't see any benefits from passing off everything as a movement of awareness when the movement of awareness is what enabled you to collapse the concepts into a one neat box ..It's the dreamer thinking his outside the dream mentality and is counter productive .. The benefit is to demonstrate to you that Awareness is also present in the dream, and so it's not true that there is nothing present in the dream that can see beyond the dream. .. Like said, I agree there is awareness present of the mind environment, but what you are doing is passing what you are off as awareness. This is not realized. So you are making a theory up about what you are then you are adding qualities to awareness. The same qualities that you assign to awareness that are movements of it. It creates a conceptual mess when questioned just like your model of consciousness did and the walking dream characters did .. You say you want to simplify but your not .. You just coming up with something about something that wasn't realized . I have suggested that there is no consciousness or awareness beyond mind because there was nothing realized beyond mind that gives one the impression that there is .. So unless you speak to me about your realization that awareness is what you are then, your theory remains your theory as does mine .. I can't say what I AM if I have never realized that, can you?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2019 11:48:55 GMT -5
If self isn't a separate entity, then what is it that is conscious and aware in the self? Why are you not answering my question?
You see this is why it's difficult to talk to you anymore because you don't answer straight forward questions about your model and at times when I do engage with you, you just fob me off without explaining yourself ..
Not sure why you bother to be honest ..
In answer to your question however, what you are is conscious and aware .. The self is what you are of the mind .. it's a term used because what you are is aware of what you are that is of the mind ..
There is no self beyond mind because the mind is required to be present in order for that to be experienced .
When you speak about awareness of the mind you want to shove self aside, but all you are doing is swapping self for awareness and it doesn't work. The problem is that you have assigned what we are to being awareness and that is just a theory you have that self (as what you are) has concluded of the mind.Again, the fact that you don't like it is not my concern.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2019 11:54:06 GMT -5
Awareness is present in the dream. It is the reason you are conscious and aware. So the idea that there is nothing present that can see beyond the dream is misconceived. There is awareness of the mind for sure, you can entertain a theory that it is a dream world if you like. This is not something you have realized, but you are welcome to your own theory .. I realized what I am so to speak but there was no thought that I AM awareness .. Is what you are present right here and now, or is it hidden from view again?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2019 11:58:12 GMT -5
The benefit is to demonstrate to you that Awareness is also present in the dream, and so it's not true that there is nothing present in the dream that can see beyond the dream. .. Like said, I agree there is awareness present of the mind environment, but what you are doing is passing what you are off as awareness. This is not realized. So you are making a theory up about what you are then you are adding qualities to awareness. The same qualities that you assign to awareness that are movements of it. It creates a conceptual mess when questioned just like your model of consciousness did and the walking dream characters did .. You say you want to simplify but your not .. You just coming up with something about something that wasn't realized . I have suggested that there is no consciousness or awareness beyond mind because there was nothing realized beyond mind that gives one the impression that there is .. So unless you speak to me about your realization that awareness is what you are then, your theory remains your theory as does mine ..I can't say what I AM if I have never realized that, can you? I thought I was being extraordinarily clear that Awareness is what I am.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Nov 6, 2019 16:45:19 GMT -5
I've pulled this one over from figgy's forum because I'm disinclined to create another account for one post, or converse over two forums … I say there is exactly such thing, and in fact that’s kinda what I always felt the 'it's all alive' meme alluded to. Well that and that, what me might think of the 'Intelligence' aspect of Awareness, the 'organisational principle', encompasses ALL creation, at all levels. It's hard to put into words. Layer isn't quite right anyway, because really we can also talk in terms of how the dream arises 'within it', or is merely a movement of it, but all those phrases are where the pointers begin to fail in earnest.
But I'd be interested to see if enigma aligns with your position here …. that there is no such thing that could be reasonably adequately described as a field of aliveness that underpins and pervades the dream. Awareness/Intelligence/Aliveness are just different ways of talking about the same thingless thing. It only really gets interesting when we're looking at a corpse and trying to fathom how we categorise that in terms of this 'field of aliveness'. Yes, or a rock or a piece of dog dodo. Sure, or an atom. Sounds good. Well it's a direct apprehension thing. But what if I say I perceive Awareness itself as vibrant, and luminous, (divinely so, I spose), rather than being dull, and inert.
I should probably warn you I'm only one step away from talking about divine dog dodo, hehe
The way it reads to me is, in the dream, you know what constitutes aliveness, rocks don't qualify (and I assume by contrast other people do). But can't distinguish if either a rock or a another person is a point of perception. Is that right? If I'm interpreting that correctly, I'll go on to ask what the difference is in the process by which you determine whether an appearance is alive or not, as opposed to being a point of perception or not.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 6, 2019 19:29:47 GMT -5
Yes, or a rock or a piece of dog dodo. Sure, or an atom. Sounds good. Well it's a direct apprehension thing. But what if I say I perceive Awareness itself as vibrant, and luminous, (divinely so, I spose), rather than being dull, and inert.
I should probably warn you I'm only one step away from talking about divine dog dodo, hehe
The way it reads to me is, in the dream, you know what constitutes aliveness, rocks don't qualify (and I assume by contrast other people do). But can't distinguish if either a rock or a another person is a point of perception. Is that right? If I'm interpreting that correctly, I'll go on to ask what the difference is in the process by which you determine whether an appearance is alive or not, as opposed to being a point of perception or not.If you perceive qualities in what is essentially a pointer to nothingness, then I would suggest you are relating an experience (no doubt a spiritual experience) that is devoid of transcendent truth. Yes'Alive' has biological requirements defined within the context of form. A point of perception would be defined outside of form, as a part of the functioning of Consciousness itself. There's no reason dog dodo cannot be a point of perception, though perhaps the resulting experience wouldn't be sufficiently enticing, and it's likely that all intelligent creatures are POPs, but of course I'm just speculating about that.
|
|