|
Post by zendancer on Nov 23, 2019 13:01:56 GMT -5
If you can say I then there is ego/personal self. But it is not an entity because you will never find such an entity wherever you look. Dictionary definition of entity is a thing with distinct and independent existence. The manifestation of the personal is not independently separate from consciousness. It is consciousness appearing as mind. And mind is just a series of thoughts one after the other. What does it matter what you think about it? To just be and to act is enough. If you can say "I", it may just be serving as a function of communication, which would not necessarily require an entity. The ego/persona could be more like masks being worn at the Halloween/costume party. Exactly! The reason Paul Morgan-Somers uses the phrase "this character" to refer to himself and other sages use terms like "body/mind organism" or "this individuation" is because they don't have the sense of being a separate entity in the same way they once did. It's a communication thingy.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 23, 2019 21:29:19 GMT -5
If you can say "I", it may just be serving as a function of communication, which would not necessarily require an entity. The ego/persona could be more like masks being worn at the Halloween/costume party. Exactly! The reason Paul Morgan-Somers uses the phrase "this character" to refer to himself and other sages use terms like "body/mind organism" or "this individuation" is because they don't have the sense of being a separate entity in the same way they once did. It's a communication thingy. If awareness is seen to be primary, then it is realized that I is just an object appearing in awareness, so from the perspective of awareness I is a character. But the difficulty comes if you ask, then who is saying that I is just a character? Clearly the character I is expressing that. It doesn't make any sense and never will. But if you are awake to the fact that you are not bound then the I is of no concern. These kind of questions simply won't arise because peace of mind prevails. You can be very happy with this I you carry around with you. It is both an object in awareness and awareness itself appearing as form without conflict.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 23, 2019 21:48:36 GMT -5
If you can say "I", it may just be serving as a function of communication, which would not necessarily require an entity. The ego/persona could be more like masks being worn at the Halloween/costume party. Exactly! The reason Paul Morgan-Somers uses the phrase "this character" to refer to himself and other sages use terms like "body/mind organism" or "this individuation" is because they don't have the sense of being a separate entity in the same way they once did. It's a communication thingy. Right, so without getting too abstract or theoretical, even the idea of an entity, whether it be a "me" or an "other" requires thought, and some very dynamic and complex structure at that. If no thought arises, no separate me or other can arise. More subtle senses of "self" arising can be noticed and, depending on what else might be arising, all sorts of self-referential thoughts might rise to the fore. This is all appearing quite fast, seemingly out of nowhere, and often folks feel powerless against these mind-driven tendencies. But, I'm sure most anyone has examples of looking back on the conditioned responses one used to have and thinking of how silly they were to be so worried or limited by the thoughts/reasons that gave rise to them. Obviously, SR/TR is on a much grander scale as there's a certain sense of having come full circle (i.e., to what one always was/has been/will be).
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 23, 2019 21:58:22 GMT -5
Exactly! The reason Paul Morgan-Somers uses the phrase "this character" to refer to himself and other sages use terms like "body/mind organism" or "this individuation" is because they don't have the sense of being a separate entity in the same way they once did. It's a communication thingy. If awareness is seen to be primary, then it is realized that I is just an object appearing in awareness, so from the perspective of awareness I is a character. But the difficulty comes if you ask, then who is saying that I is just a character? Clearly the character I is expressing that. It doesn't make any sense and never will. But if you are awake to the fact that you are not bound then the I is of no concern. These kind of questions simply won't arise because peace of mind prevails. You can be very happy with this I you carry around with you. It is both an object in awareness and awareness itself appearing as form without conflict. It is being said as the expression in/as Consciousness, as are all appearances.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2019 22:09:23 GMT -5
Exactly! The reason Paul Morgan-Somers uses the phrase "this character" to refer to himself and other sages use terms like "body/mind organism" or "this individuation" is because they don't have the sense of being a separate entity in the same way they once did. It's a communication thingy. If awareness is seen to be primary, then it is realized that I is just an object appearing in awareness, so from the perspective of awareness I is a character. But the difficulty comes if you ask, then who is saying that I is just a character? Clearly the character I is expressing that. It doesn't make any sense and never will. But if you are awake to the fact that you are not bound then the I is of no concern. These kind of questions simply won't arise because peace of mind prevails. You can be very happy with this I you carry around with you. It is both an object in awareness and awareness itself appearing as form without conflict. The question is misconceived as there isn't a 'who' involved at all. The notion that there must be a 'who' arises from the habit of assigning actions to an independent doer. Once the illusion of the SVP is seen for what it is, there's no more need to identify who is doing/saying things. Intelligence/Awareness is engaging an individuated perceptual process and interacting with the characters within it's own dream. There is no mystery at this level.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2019 22:11:49 GMT -5
If awareness is seen to be primary, then it is realized that I is just an object appearing in awareness, so from the perspective of awareness I is a character. But the difficulty comes if you ask, then who is saying that I is just a character? Clearly the character I is expressing that. It doesn't make any sense and never will. But if you are awake to the fact that you are not bound then the I is of no concern. These kind of questions simply won't arise because peace of mind prevails. You can be very happy with this I you carry around with you. It is both an object in awareness and awareness itself appearing as form without conflict. It is being said as the expression in/as Consciousness, as are all appearances. Zackly
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 23, 2019 22:13:37 GMT -5
If awareness is seen to be primary, then it is realized that I is just an object appearing in awareness, so from the perspective of awareness I is a character. But the difficulty comes if you ask, then who is saying that I is just a character? Clearly the character I is expressing that. It doesn't make any sense and never will. But if you are awake to the fact that you are not bound then the I is of no concern. These kind of questions simply won't arise because peace of mind prevails. You can be very happy with this I you carry around with you. It is both an object in awareness and awareness itself appearing as form without conflict. The question is misconceived as there isn't a 'who' involved at all. The notion that there must be a 'who' arises from the habit of assigning actions to an independent doer. Once the illusion of the SVP is seen for what it is, there's no more need to identify who is doing/saying things. Intelligence/Awareness is engaging an individuated perceptual process and interacting with the characters within it's own dream. There is no mystery at this level. There is clearly a manifestation of who because you are referring to it as someone who posts here with a specific name. You have taken on a certain identity. What is misconceived is making awareness an entity which is engaged in something. Awareness is never engaged in anything. It is the impassive, uninvolved unchanging witness.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 23, 2019 22:14:45 GMT -5
If awareness is seen to be primary, then it is realized that I is just an object appearing in awareness, so from the perspective of awareness I is a character. But the difficulty comes if you ask, then who is saying that I is just a character? Clearly the character I is expressing that. It doesn't make any sense and never will. But if you are awake to the fact that you are not bound then the I is of no concern. These kind of questions simply won't arise because peace of mind prevails. You can be very happy with this I you carry around with you. It is both an object in awareness and awareness itself appearing as form without conflict. It is being said as the expression in/as Consciousness, as are all appearances. That's just a conceptual statement which can never be the truth.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 23, 2019 22:29:35 GMT -5
It is being said as the expression in/as Consciousness, as are all appearances. That's just a conceptual statement which can never be the truth. No appearances are truth, and that's the double truth, Ruth!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2019 22:32:52 GMT -5
The question is misconceived as there isn't a 'who' involved at all. The notion that there must be a 'who' arises from the habit of assigning actions to an independent doer. Once the illusion of the SVP is seen for what it is, there's no more need to identify who is doing/saying things. Intelligence/Awareness is engaging an individuated perceptual process and interacting with the characters within it's own dream. There is no mystery at this level. There is clearly a manifestation of who because you are referring to it as someone who posts here with a specific name. You have taken on a certain identity. What is misconceived is making awareness an entity which is engaged in something. Awareness is never engaged in anything. It is the impassive, uninvolved unchanging witness.I'm not saying it doesn't manifest. I'm saying it's an illusion. Making Awareness an entity is that same habit of assignment described above. As for Awareness never engaging, this points out a limitation on the pointer that distinguishes 'pure Awareness' from a 'movement of Awareness', or formless vs form. This distinction has utility right up until the pointer is licked and it's limitations revealed. Most will agree that Awareness is all there is, but make the mistake of not including form as an ongoing expression of Awareness, not other than Awareness. (Formlessness and form are the same)
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 23, 2019 22:37:18 GMT -5
That's just a conceptual statement which can never be the truth. No appearances are truth, and that's the double truth, Ruth! Words have a part to play but it's when one extrapolates beyond immediate experience that we get into trouble. For instance, I'm aware that there is an all encompassing pervasive unchanging field which in my native language has been given the name awareness and phenomena seems to arise out of that. There is a personal self but because for me awareness is primary, I cannot find a doer of actions even though actions and choices happen through this manifestation of personal self. That is my experience. But if I go beyond that and try to explain why things are happening then perhaps I could say something like God is the doer and God is performing actions as the ultimate doer and is using me as an instrument of those actions. That would be an example of me imposing a belief system on top of what I was actually experiencing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2019 22:40:01 GMT -5
It is being said as the expression in/as Consciousness, as are all appearances. That's just a conceptual statement which can never be the truth. Conceptual statements are never intended to be the Truth, though they may be used as fingers pointing to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 23, 2019 22:40:18 GMT -5
There is clearly a manifestation of who because you are referring to it as someone who posts here with a specific name. You have taken on a certain identity. What is misconceived is making awareness an entity which is engaged in something. Awareness is never engaged in anything. It is the impassive, uninvolved unchanging witness. I'm not saying it doesn't manifest. I'm saying it's an illusion. Making Awareness an entity is that same habit of assignment described above. As for Awareness never engaging, this points out a limitation on the pointer that distinguishes 'pure Awareness' from a 'movement of Awareness', or formless vs form. This distinction has utility right up until the pointer is licked and it's limitations revealed. Most will agree that Awareness is all there is, but make the mistake of not including form as an ongoing expression of Awareness, not other than Awareness. (Formlessness and form are the same) Yes I agree, so the question arises, if form as the personal self is an illusion, but it is then recognized that form is no different to awareness and awareness is not illusion then where is the illusion?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2019 22:51:29 GMT -5
That's just a conceptual statement which can never be the truth. No appearances are truth, and that's the double truth, Ruth! There's nothing that makes mind spin faster than exploring the truth about truth.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2019 23:00:17 GMT -5
No appearances are truth, and that's the double truth, Ruth! Words have a part to play but it's when one extrapolates beyond immediate experience that we get into trouble. For instance, I'm aware that there is an all encompassing pervasive unchanging field which in my native language has been given the name awareness and phenomena seems to arise out of that. There is a personal self but because for me awareness is primary, I cannot find a doer of actions even though actions and choices happen through this manifestation of personal self. That is my experience. But if I go beyond that and try to explain why things are happening then perhaps I could say something like God is the doer and God is performing actions as the ultimate doer and is using me as an instrument of those actions. That would be an example of me imposing a belief system on top of what I was actually experiencing. What you are actually experiencing cannot be the foundation of your transcendent understanding as your experience is also the source of the illusions you want to dispense with via understanding. The story of a personal God using people as instruments of action would indeed be a wrong turn on the way to Rome.
|
|