Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 16:37:10 GMT -5
.... So in truth, it's entirely possible that each of our Awareness is in fact somehow separate, despite observational evidence to the contrary, but in real life, where the rubber meets the road, what I've found is the when you spend some time closely observing Awareness, and become more sensitive to it as a result of continued observation of it, you began to be able to see it in EVERYTHING that you perceive. I'm very comfortable leaving it here. "Become more sensitive to it" are key words. I've heard this before. There is no real need to spend energy contemplating why the conclusion does not follow. It will come or it will not. This is reassuring. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2013 17:27:23 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, If we could see memory as a mere vantage point and not something that is similar to stored data on a physical HDD then it's not a far stretch to see how memory indeed 'survives' death. In the same sense that thoughts don't have owners and are accessible by just anyone/anything that is able to tune into it, memory also has no owner and is accessible by just anyone/anything that is able to tune into it. If we put it into a LOA framework then we can see how retrieving certain memories or not being able to remember works. edit: that would also explain how one can talk to dead pharaohs and do time travel. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize AFAIK, talking to dead pharaohs and time travel are still in the belief bucket. I'm sure if a channel opened up in me or someone I know and trust I might consider these ideas more seriously. Right now it just seems like highly creative thinking. Refraining from the skepticism that was at the core of my worldview, as it tends to just generate beliefs with a not in front of them, is something relatively new to me ... maybe two years+ or so. I've found I don't need it to refrain from forming a whole bunch of new beliefs. Like I can talk to dead Pharaohs. Or time travel. Or converse with channeled aliens. Or read peoples minds. Perhaps "refraining" is the nondual grammar error in that sentence -- it's like these ideas just float around like soap bubbles and when I look at them they pop. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 17:47:22 GMT -5
.... So in truth, it's entirely possible that each of our Awareness is in fact somehow separate, despite observational evidence to the contrary, but in real life, where the rubber meets the road, what I've found is the when you spend some time closely observing Awareness, and become more sensitive to it as a result of continued observation of it, you began to be able to see it in EVERYTHING that you perceive. I'm very comfortable leaving it here. "Become more sensitive to it" are key words. I've heard this before. There is no real need to spend energy contemplating why the conclusion does not follow. It will come or it will not. This is reassuring. Good Question Max....I had to Edit that post after a re-evaluation In retrospect, the phrase: "become more sensitive to it".....doesn't actually make a lot of sense. There is a good intellectual argument to be made that each have their own separate Awareness... when I sit at the coffee shop watching people come and go it seems as if most of the world is asleep, utterly absorbed in their own mentation, and nothing that you can do wake them up and get them to have a look around. Seems like if its all one Awareness that less people would be so absolutely absorbed. On the other hand, "seems" very clear to me that everything is a part of me, that everything that I perceive is inside my Awareness and pervaded by it. In truth, from there it's just an assumption that all Awareness; yours and mine, is Universal. Not sure I can buy a cup of coffee with that though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2013 18:54:49 GMT -5
o.k. John ... (John Edward btw, not "Edwards", sorry...)what does a hateful lawyer, who was banging some opportunist political groupie while his wife was dying of cancer have to do with collapsing beliefs into some metaphorical greasy spot? oh, psychic medium edit .. never mind  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 5, 2013 21:30:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure what that means. I'll just say that 'other peeps' are found 'in here', and not really 'out there'. The notion sometimes infuriates peeps who want to stay 'out there', so I'm not sure how much I wanna discuss it. o.k. John ... (John Edward btw, not "Edwards", sorry...)Unless you want to argue for separation, 'your' consciousness is not really separate from that of 'others'. That's not to say that crossing that practical boundary is necessarily easy, but it's possible. You're being influenced all the time by consciousness in the vicinity of your focus of attention anyhoo. When you attend to this forum or walk into a Walmart, you are being influenced by others whether you like it or not. In Walmart that can be bad. In Satsang that can be good. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2013 21:47:01 GMT -5
o.k. John ... (John Edward btw, not "Edwards", sorry...)Unless you want to argue for separation, 'your' consciousness is not really separate from that of 'others'. That's not to say that crossing that practical boundary is necessarily easy, but it's possible. You're being influenced all the time by consciousness in the vicinity of your focus of attention anyhoo. When you attend to this forum or walk into a Walmart, you are being influenced by others whether you like it or not. In Walmart that can be bad. In Satsang that can be good. z ... o .... m ..... b .... i ... e .. s !!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 5, 2013 22:11:43 GMT -5
Unless you want to argue for separation, 'your' consciousness is not really separate from that of 'others'. That's not to say that crossing that practical boundary is necessarily easy, but it's possible. You're being influenced all the time by consciousness in the vicinity of your focus of attention anyhoo. When you attend to this forum or walk into a Walmart, you are being influenced by others whether you like it or not. In Walmart that can be bad. In Satsang that can be good. z ... o .... m ..... b .... i ... e .. s !!!!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2013 7:21:40 GMT -5
AFAIK, talking to dead pharaohs and time travel are still in the belief bucket. I'm sure if a channel opened up in me or someone I know and trust I might consider these ideas more seriously. Right now it just seems like highly creative thinking. Refraining from the skepticism that was at the core of my worldview, as it tends to just generate beliefs with a not in front of them, is something relatively new to me ... maybe two years+ or so. I've found I don't need it to refrain from forming a whole bunch of new beliefs. Like I can talk to dead Pharaohs. Or time travel. Or converse with channeled aliens. Or read peoples minds. Perhaps "refraining" is the nondual grammar error in that sentence -- it's like these ideas just float around like soap bubbles and when I look at them they pop. noted. I suppose skepticism is just a vantage point from reasoning (hopefully!). It's not like it's the main window from which I interact with stuff. It seems to be a little force field that pops up when strange information is coming at me. Perhaps just another defense mechanism given stately robes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2013 7:24:57 GMT -5
I'm very comfortable leaving it here. "Become more sensitive to it" are key words. I've heard this before. There is no real need to spend energy contemplating why the conclusion does not follow. It will come or it will not. This is reassuring. Good Question Max....I had to Edit that post after a re-evaluation In retrospect, the phrase: "become more sensitive to it".....doesn't actually make a lot of sense. There is a good intellectual argument to be made that each have their own separate Awareness... when I sit at the coffee shop watching people come and go it seems as if most of the world is asleep, utterly absorbed in their own mentation, and nothing that you can do wake them up and get them to have a look around. Seems like if its all one Awareness that less people would be so absolutely absorbed. On the other hand, "seems" very clear to me that everything is a part of me, that everything that I perceive is inside my Awareness and pervaded by it. In truth, from there it's just an assumption that all Awareness; yours and mine, is Universal. Not sure I can buy a cup of coffee with that though. I really appreciate your openness here. No where in my awareness travels have I encountered Universality. So it's nice to hear from you what I think I'm hearing, which is that it is just conclusion or assumption. That makes sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2013 13:05:46 GMT -5
Right, so what's this tuning into a 'field' or dead person biznit then?? From a practical standpoint, that's the focus. How else are you going to find that 'file' in the consciousness archives? Don't you need a 'file name'? I don't know if I would need a file name or not. If I was experiencing/imagining tuning into 'fields' and dead persons it's not something I'd tend to forget...  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 6, 2013 21:56:57 GMT -5
From a practical standpoint, that's the focus. How else are you going to find that 'file' in the consciousness archives? Don't you need a 'file name'? I don't know if I would need a file name or not. If I was experiencing/imagining tuning into 'fields' and dead persons it's not something I'd tend to forget... Did you actually read the post? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 6, 2013 22:08:32 GMT -5
Max, So I gave you the theory, the set of ideas and 2nd-hand knowledge that I've encountered along the way that applies to your question. I also mixed it in with a bit of my personal story and included some of my interpretations of what it all meant to me at different points in what the mind sees as a progression. The details of that story as it relates to your question are scattered about over what I've written on the forum over the past year+. If you'd like I can summarize them and center them on your question. No worries if you don't have any interest -- if you don't respond or even if you decline I won't take it in any particular way. ... best of luck with this btw. Thanks laughter. I feel I have dishonored your previous attempts by not fully investigating them. As you know, the theory that consciousness is all around and this is what jostles photons or whatever, doesn't really sit well. As I understand it, Quantum Mechanics is not something my elementary understanding of mathematics can translate, and simple words don't do justice. Perhaps I'm giving in to the gods of math on this one, and will need to continue with math studies should this type of question persist. So yes, I'd love a summary if you can stomach my lack of interest in tons of scientific/mathematical investigation. Thanks again for your time and effort. No dishonor on either part max, as I read your question here, with the references to science and agnosticism, as an interest in a theoretical exploration of the question and presented my answer with the disclaimer as to it’s nature. What I’ve described to you so far was the key feature on a map that I followed to the point of “burn this” – a tree in the forest. I’ll give you the wide shot of the journey, not because there’s any expectation that it will be one that you follow or find all that useful, but because you’ve expressed interest in this line between realization and belief, and this story involves that … but of course, it’s only a story! This is the short version, btw.  I carried around a version of your question in the back of my mind for about 15 years. The progression that led to the question, encountered in the form of “what is the Quantum Observer?”, was from a stark atheistic material realism when I was very young through to an agnostic material monism as a college student. It was one that accompanied the intent to revisit it and that opportunity arose about 11 years ago. If I were to identify a single source out of what were actually many (all written by either scientists or historians) as the most important catalyst for the next phase of progression from material monism to monistic idealism it would be Goswami’s “Self-Aware Universe”. Dr. Goswami’s metaphysics are the conventional spiritual view on the question and for this you can look to Deepak Chopra as an example and I can cite what I’ve learned of Jed Mckenna’s latest work here on the forum. To paraphrase E’, that viewpoint is stated as “all is consciousness”. This is the monistic idealists counterpoint to material monism and my interest in it was rooted in the report by the science of Physics that no physical phenomenon is independent of the observation of it; The model of individuated bits of consciousness arising by and in a shared objective physical reality is discarded as unsupportable and supplanted by the idea of a single consciousness manifesting as individual localized physical experience. “All is stuff”, is replaced by “all is consciousness”. According to my story it was this swap out of belief #2 in favor of belief #1 that set me up for Tolle when I literally stumbled onto him a few years later. By that time the belief expressed itself as a structure involving an impersonal, non-specific, but still objectified deific influence on reality similar to what soggy described a few pages back. This structure was so hand-stitched and personalized that I felt sort of isolated at the time: it didn’t apply to the Christianity I’d never experienced or fit in with the secular humanism I’d emerged from and the Eastern religions seemed so foreign that I didn’t see the connection before it was bridged with Capra’s “Tao of Physics”, but that was roughly concurrent with bumbling onto “The Power of Now”. In this script, the belief that all is consciousness provided a point of reference for Tolle’s “felt sense of oneness with Being” that opened the mind to his words. It’s ironic that I didn’t even encounter the term “self-inquiry” until months after the experience of “I” based only on that sense of being and the momentum of life. You’ve heard it from others here that these experiences aren’t important in and of themselves, and to the extent that it lasted there was a feeling of permanence to it that the mind/ego of course betrayed little-by-little and then finally altogether in favor of curiosity about it. I say that it’s ironic because I bought TPON because I thought it would help with insomnia based on maybe 45 seconds of surfed TV channel content, and at the root of causality for this whole movement of experience was an investigation of a theory with randomness at its root. That structure centered around belief #2 survived the initial two years of conversation, primarily over at the Tolle board, that was driven by that eventual and rather intense curiosity about the experience. Some of the folks I spoke with resonated with parts of that structure, but the pointing in this culture is clear and can be summarized with the question: who is it that believes? During that time I explored the landscape of spiritual material and ideas with a new openness, and even finally started reading the Bible, something that I’d always planned to do. All the while though, it was pretty obvious that it was the non-conceptual, simple, always available, unexciting, unremarkable and yet ultimately inexpressible sense of being itself rather than any idea about it that was the focus of attention. Eventually what dawned on me intellectually was that there is a commonality between material monism (#2) and monistic idealism (#1), in that both are based in the assumption that the apparent commonality of our experience and our ability to communicate with and understand each other requires some explanation. There was experience associated with this of a shift in perspective that was rather profound, but unlike with the initial sneak-attack-self-inquiry, was actually very subtle. It resonated well with the descriptions of desolation and emptiness and lack of balance that I’ve read from others, but by this time, the sight of a need for an explanation for what it is came into focus pretty clearly and required no suppression, and what was left was an absence. Lightness. The catalyst for this was a debate with someone who sounded like a Truther that got took private ‘cause of winging by the board folk. I left a breadcrumb to my state of mind expressed by a pair of subsequent posts here. During the periods of time when I was in the process of swapping #2 for #1 and then subsequently in seeing through #1 I was open to new input and in a flexible state of not knowing. That’s not the same as where I’m at now, which is an absence of explanation. The collapse of the material assumption simply witnesses the dissolution of an assumption. As previously discussed, without this assumption belief in #2 has no footing, and #1 is based on a speculation. You’ve expressed on a number of occasions that you haven’t had the requisite woo-woo’s, but the fact is that experiences, while imbued with commonality, are ultimately personal. Case in point, lots of folks like me who had anxiety that goes away along with the defensiveness will take great notice of the drop-off. Others who are more naturally laid back won’t. You’ve described looking up at the night sky, and for you that might be all the woo-woo that you need. As far as death is concerned, for the body, it's an inevitability, and the brain function is part of the body. That's what we can know about it for sure. Applying skepticism to ideas such as NDE is as unhelpful as internalizing the stories as some sort of hopeful truth. It's all just data. best of luck to you sir. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2013 20:17:21 GMT -5
I don't know if I would need a file name or not. If I was experiencing/imagining tuning into 'fields' and dead persons it's not something I'd tend to forget... Did you actually read the post? Does it sound like I'm responding to a post I haven't read? I'm not sure if it's even possible to respond to a post I haven't read... I'm just saying that we don't actually experience labels and descriptions like 'fields' and dead people. Which is what you seem to be saying you do experience... |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 7, 2013 21:14:05 GMT -5
Unless you want to argue for separation, 'your' consciousness is not really separate from that of 'others'. That's not to say that crossing that practical boundary is necessarily easy, but it's possible. You're being influenced all the time by consciousness in the vicinity of your focus of attention anyhoo. When you attend to this forum or walk into a Walmart, you are being influenced by others whether you like it or not. In Walmart that can be bad. In Satsang that can be good. z ... o .... m ..... b .... i ... e .. s !!!!!!  "TULSA, Oklahoma – Police are looking for answers after a woman is caught making meth inside the 81st and Lewis Walmart Thursday evening. Investigators say Alisha Halfmoon gathered the ingredients from throughout the store and started building a meth lab on a store shelf. Walmart security notified authorities around 6 p.m. after spotting the 45-year-old woman acting suspiciously. They told Tulsa Police that Halfmoon had been in the store for more than six hours. According to an arrest report, police observed Halfmoon on security tape mixing the chemicals. When Halfmoon was arrested, she had already mixed two containers of sulfuric acid. Police removed the lab from the store and a team from the Special Investigation Unit disposed of the chemicals. No one was injured. Halfmoon is now in jail, being held without bond. She was just bailed out of jail two days ago, after she was picked up on drug complaints Tuesday." |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jun 7, 2013 21:16:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure if it's even possible to respond to a post I haven't read... Why do you have OCD about it? |
|
