|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2019 2:39:29 GMT -5
Forget about the words I AM and just home in on where awareness is located / felt / sensed .. Where is it? Over there? Outside your back door? Under the duvet? Where is the sense of one's awareness? I assure you when you locate it, consciousness as a word won't be there .. Consciousness won't be there but I AM will be emblazoned across the heavens? Something like that? Can you please just answer the question? Where is awareness located beyond the concept of I AM? Where is the sense of one's awareness?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2019 2:48:27 GMT -5
I am asking for your comparison, do you have one? I am still waiting for an answer regarding Marie, when you ask her if she wants a cup to tea are you asking Marie or are you asking time and space or the natural laws of the universe? You're asking for a comparison that I just spent two days giving you, and you're asking a question that I just got through showing as misconceived. This is how you come to imagine I refuse to answer your questions. Nah dude, you referred to my understandings of 'there is only what we are' by suggesting that in someway I am the creator of time and space and the natural laws . By asking you what I have in regards to Marie was illustrating to you that what you are saying isn't contextually correct . The fact that you can't answer or won't answer shows us that .. In regards to the dream comparison, you haven't given me a comparison regarding what you have experienced as a waking experience that isn't like a dream . It's so convenient that for all my unanswered questions from you and other members here get spun around and it's my misconceptions that are to blame for the lack of them .. lol .. I see the same tactics are being played against Satch on the other forums .. It's always the other dudes fault .. You can't say the waking world is like a dream without having a comparison for it . Saying it's like a night time dream is not the opposite comparison, it is of a similar ilk .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 9, 2019 3:47:00 GMT -5
If you see the lighters flame, there I AM, there is the world .
When there is no lighters flame there is no you, there is no world .
niz .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 4:24:10 GMT -5
I accept the ancient Great Chain of Being .. I do recognize this as I played with the Music of the Spheres stuff while contemplating existential platitudes. I'll take a look at it again and see what comes up. I do distinctly remember striking notes on a guitar and resonating with the sound as it traveled outward while also delving inward in/as awareness.If the delving inwards had happened first then the sound travelling outwards would have been perceived as being in/as awareness too.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 9, 2019 5:20:59 GMT -5
The skipper meant well, but keeping track of Gilligan was just too much of a distraction. Well, omniscient, omnipresent Being can only do so much. *Shhhhhhh!* (don't tell that to the professor ...)
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 9, 2019 6:12:56 GMT -5
I do recognize this as I played with the Music of the Spheres stuff while contemplating existential platitudes. I'll take a look at it again and see what comes up. I do distinctly remember striking notes on a guitar and resonating with the sound as it traveled outward while also delving inward in/as awareness.If the delving inwards had happened first then the sound travelling outwards would have been perceived as being in/as awareness too. Yeah, at that time, the right rear and the left front wheels had pretty much come off, and I was kinda spinning. The world had pretty much inverted itself in my perception, and I was well on my way into the hills and away from anything consensually worldly in an attempt to sort out WIBWGO, hehe. You're right, though. At the time, I was there, not Here. Edit: Great hills though. Mmmmm, love our abode up in the hills.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 9, 2019 6:16:18 GMT -5
Well, omniscient, omnipresent Being can only do so much. *Shhhhhhh!* (don't tell that to the professor ...)No need to worry. The Professor ain't here. He and Mary Ann...., well, they're MIA. 🥴
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 9, 2019 10:31:19 GMT -5
houghtl but we don't return to the level of consciouness of a baby. As adults, we have developed high creative potential, and so even when we 'thoughtlessly' experience the warmth of a sun, that creative capacity is still active. For sure, in my eyes the analogy doesn't work, completely different situations butt as said I know the pilgrim mean't well .. butt it is important to stick to the situation at hand here .. Being aware of something, is the same as having a thought about something . You can't be aware of something while declaring transcendence . It doesn't matter what one is aware of, but if there is awareness of something there is mindfulness . I mean wtf has transcended and wtf is aware of something just because there is the suggestion that there isn't thinking going on .. Intelligence as a suggestion doesn't mean nuffin to me .. You're right that mind is not gone, it hasn't ceased functioning when there are still unconscious recognition processes going on, but ZD has mentioned that and wouldn't disagree. What's being pointed out by a few others is just that active, conscious thinking can stop, and one will remain functional, which is no small thing. You might even agree with that. The argument seems to be about transcendence of mind. You're saying mind is still present. It is, but transcendence is an inclusive process and doesn't mean mind is gone, it's just operating differently.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 9, 2019 10:38:07 GMT -5
For sure, in my eyes the analogy doesn't work, completely different situations butt as said I know the pilgrim mean't well .. butt it is important to stick to the situation at hand here .. Being aware of something, is the same as having a thought about something . You can't be aware of something while declaring transcendence . It doesn't matter what one is aware of, but if there is awareness of something there is mindfulness . I mean wtf has transcended and wtf is aware of something just because there is the suggestion that there isn't thinking going on .. Intelligence as a suggestion doesn't mean nuffin to me .. You're right that mind is not gone, it hasn't ceased functioning when there are still unconscious recognition processes going on, but ZD has mentioned that and wouldn't disagree. What's being pointed out by a few others is just that active, conscious thinking can stop, and one will remain functional, which is no small thing. You might even agree with that. The argument seems to be about transcendence of mind. You're saying mind is still present. It is, but transcendence is an inclusive process and doesn't mean mind is gone, it's just operating differently. Yes, that's my way of understanding it also.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 9, 2019 10:45:33 GMT -5
Very easily. It happens all the time. Are you saying that every time you see a tree you are thinking, this is a tree? If that was the case life would be impossible. Imagine having labeled conscious thoughts about every single subject you saw as you were sitting in a car or train looking at a vast panorama of objects passing your field of vision very quickly while at the same time thinking about what you had to do at work that day, paying the bills, remembering to get some food in for the evening while thinking, traffic light, people, young child, old man, lamppost, bus, sidewalk, road, sky, tree, another tree here comes another the traffic light, what's that funny person doing, you would seize up and stop functioning if you had a conscious thought about everything you perceived. I remember reading about a study about what people notice and what they remember afterwards and it showed how little we actually take in and retain. I think Tenka equates the word "thought" with "perception," so whatever is perceived is a thought from his POV. This is a rather strange idea because that would mean that while turning one's head and scanning one's field of vision, there could be an infinite number of thoughts corresponding to each tiny fragment of the visual field. Because attention doesn't focus on specific "things" within the visual field while moving one's eyes, it would seem odd to have this kind of understanding. His elephant is clearly a distinction within the visual field rather than a perception because perception involves all that is seen (which would include the ground, the sky, the nearby trees, etc). I can only assume that he doesn't agree with the general concept of what a distinction is in the gestalt sense of figure and background, nor the way most of us understand this issue. Perhaps he will clarify his understanding in this regard. I think he's just trying to point out that mind is still present when perception is happening. He doesn't make the distinction between conscious and unconscious thought.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 9, 2019 11:23:03 GMT -5
There is only what you are Pilgrim . I don't separate what I AM from the thinker, the doer, or the witness or whatever words suits.. You are welcome to separate and divide if you like .. I would say this is why there is confusion, it's the neti neti approach .. I heard someone say that Ramana wasn't a fan of neti neti because there is too much attention had of what you are not rather than what you are .. yes, the problem with neti neti is that it perpetuates the duality of not/are, which are both 'mindful' categories The goal is not to end duality (or mind), but to transcend then, by which we mean include and go beyond. If there is a problem with neti-neti, it's that it doesn't include a turning of attention back to Self, it simply paves the way.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 9, 2019 11:23:20 GMT -5
I think Tenka equates the word "thought" with "perception," so whatever is perceived is a thought from his POV. This is a rather strange idea because that would mean that while turning one's head and scanning one's field of vision, there could be an infinite number of thoughts corresponding to each tiny fragment of the visual field. Because attention doesn't focus on specific "things" within the visual field while moving one's eyes, it would seem odd to have this kind of understanding. His elephant is clearly a distinction within the visual field rather than a perception because perception involves all that is seen (which would include the ground, the sky, the nearby trees, etc). I can only assume that he doesn't agree with the general concept of what a distinction is in the gestalt sense of figure and background, nor the way most of us understand this issue. Perhaps he will clarify his understanding in this regard. I think he's just trying to point out that mind is still present when perception is happening. He doesn't make the distinction between conscious and unconscious thought. Yes, I understand that much. I still have no idea what he means by 'spirit" or what sort of realization was triggered when all perception ceased and everything disappeared. The only realizations that I can relate to that event is the realization that (1) awareness can continue in the absence of sensory perception or mind talk (2) that such an event is possible, and (3) that there is an event horizon beyond which the sense of separateness, selfhood, time, space, and everything else gets sucked into a unified state of what can only be called "pure awareness."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 9, 2019 11:24:56 GMT -5
How can you be aware of another without there being the thought of another . There is so much confusion had here regarding what is a thought and what thinking is . I can have thought of my sister without thinking about how she might be feeling or what she is doing . You can't acknowledge or register the awareness of something without having a thought of something . Awareness and thought in a mindful environment cannot be separated . The mind facilitates I AM awareness . This is reflected in a thought of I AM . A thought is not a sensation. A thought is a word spoken "in your head."
There can be Awarness without Awareness of separately existing phenomenon. If no words (thoughts) arise, there is unity; no separation.Even without sensations this applies, but it's difficult to grasp Being without a world. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 9, 2019 11:27:37 GMT -5
I think Tenka equates the word "thought" with "perception," so whatever is perceived is a thought from his POV. This is a rather strange idea because that would mean that while turning one's head and scanning one's field of vision, there could be an infinite number of thoughts corresponding to each tiny fragment of the visual field. Because attention doesn't focus on specific "things" within the visual field while moving one's eyes, it would seem odd to have this kind of understanding. His elephant is clearly a distinction within the visual field rather than a perception because perception involves all that is seen (which would include the ground, the sky, the nearby trees, etc). I can only assume that he doesn't agree with the general concept of what a distinction is in the gestalt sense of figure and background, nor the way most of us understand this issue. Perhaps he will clarify his understanding in this regard. I think he's just trying to point out that mind is still present when perception is happening. He doesn't make the distinction between conscious and unconscious thought. That actually helps to understand what has been written and where some of the contradictions show up. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 9, 2019 11:28:47 GMT -5
Ramana was not a fan of neti neti to the extent it was simply thinking a set of intellectual conclusions, which is never enough, no matter how correct those conclusions may be. People would simply rehearse the Upanishadic neti-neti ideas as if that was enough. What really has to happen is that the mind must still itself and look inward... "Neti Neti" is introducing thought and then instantly negating it. Kind of a waste of energy. Just let thought go without using thought as a handle. Don't grab it in the first place. The purpose of neti-neti is to look deeply and consciously into what you take yourself to be, which hopefully includes more than just thinking about it.
|
|