|
Post by Portto on Sept 30, 2010 16:32:37 GMT -5
I know nothing about nothing. I don't know nearly enough about everything to make statements about it that aren't ludicrous. That's a pretty good and cozy hiding place.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2010 0:42:02 GMT -5
I say forget about what you are; everything, nothing, whatever. The simple fact that you ARE it (whatever 'it' is) guarantees you can never find it. If you do find it, then you'll have to find the one who found it. 'I don't know' is the best mind will ever do with that question.
You don't need to find it. You ARE it. That's the whole point. You aren't hiding from yourself. That would be silly, not to mention impossible. (Well, okay, I mentioned it.) If the thought never occurred to identify yourself in the first place, you would be free. This implies you don't need to know in order to be free. It also implies that you need to unknow what you think you are.
Is that possible? Well, it's a damn sight easier than seeing your own eye.
|
|
|
Post by souley on Oct 1, 2010 5:33:22 GMT -5
If we believe there is a conventional I: Well there is no I so then "I" might find that "I am nothing". But if "I" am nothing and we still have reality (which we do) then there is nothing separating "I" from reality. Which means "I" am reality, and "I" am nothing. Yeah it's a paradox. If you exclude everything, you have essentially not excluded anything, you have made no distinctions, and so might as well just have included everything.
If we don't believe there is an I the question cant be answered, it's all concepts so all answers are just a construction of more concepts, which seems pointless if you don't believe in them. On the other hand it is fun so it's not pointless:)
Please poke this gibberish..
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Oct 1, 2010 7:24:20 GMT -5
I say forget about what you are; everything, nothing, whatever. That's how I ended up believing I am a brain. That is true only in the "classical" context of something seeing something else, in the context of something looking through a medium to see something else. But it doesn't apply when the seer and the seen are one. Then what are those saying "I don't know what I am" doing? Aren't they hiding? "I don't know what I am" goes hand in hand with knowing what "I am" means. Yes, we are free to ignore what we are.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2010 10:52:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Oct 1, 2010 12:48:16 GMT -5
I didn't say we forgot it. I would say we prefer to focus on something else, like "I don't know."
Sure!
I think words such as life / consciousness / awareness / what is / present moment / etc. do a pretty good job at pointing to what we are.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2010 18:21:32 GMT -5
Yes, I would say settling for 'I don't know', may be the insistence that if it can't be an object of mind, maybe it's not worth noticing. It's actually quite appropriate, and irrelevant, that mind can't know. An analogy might be that a mathematician can't write an equation for love. It doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by loverofall on Oct 1, 2010 18:50:16 GMT -5
I have been quiet lately. In those modes of the more I think about this the more I get lost in the mind. Rereading James Braha book on Sailor Bob and boy does it resonate so much more. I get the this is too simple at time feelings and then it goes. LOL.
Very aware of how we use everything to avoid pain from eating to thinking. And pain can be emotional or physical. Its our conditioning I guess out of whack.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Oct 2, 2010 7:05:04 GMT -5
Yes, I would say settling for 'I don't know', may be the insistence that if it can't be an object of mind, maybe it's not worth noticing. It's actually quite appropriate, and irrelevant, that mind can't know. An analogy might be that a mathematician can't write an equation for love. It doesn't matter. That turned out really good! Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Oct 2, 2010 7:07:51 GMT -5
Very aware of how we use everything to avoid pain from eating to thinking. We do have interest in focusing on 'little' things (fragments of reality).
|
|
|
Post by mysticwinds on Oct 13, 2010 15:38:31 GMT -5
as they say; everything is something we need nothing of. though we seem to have to LABEL our language to give definition to all things that exisits. Is it our egos that attaches it self to all this?
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Oct 13, 2010 16:19:13 GMT -5
sad, that I didn't understand when the other kids told me I was 'It' in all those childhood games ... woulda saved me a lot of trouble ... ah, out of the mouths of babes ...
|
|
|
Post by peanut on Oct 13, 2010 18:57:37 GMT -5
good to see you back loverofall!!! :-)
|
|
|
Post by unveilable on Oct 13, 2010 20:01:13 GMT -5
I think I'm the Homer Simpson of seekers.
|
|
|
Post by ashtavakra on Oct 21, 2010 5:44:38 GMT -5
we can play with words...as much as it fancies our mind...but what lies beyond...(again... if there is a beyond) would be anybody's guess !!!
|
|