|
|
Post by preciocho on Apr 25, 2017 12:51:02 GMT -5
If you're saying the knowing of the concept and the concept itself are essentially different stuff, that's fine. If you're saying they're both essentially concepts and one is a pointer to what isn't a concept, no problemo there. My original post mentioned a primary realization that you are consciousness, and I wasn't talking about knowing some idea, but rather realizing you aren't the idea of a person, or the idea of consciousness for that matter. In this sense, the primary realization is experiential in the sense that it breaks into the experience of the separate person. The illusion is that realization can happen outside now or within time, or to a person which does not essentially exist in its own right. Are we on the same page? No, I am saying that experience; 'knowing and known', are not different, but rather the known is the activity of knowing. It is consistent with the concept that there is only consciousness. If there is only consciousness then the realization that you are not something that either arises in, is observed by, or made out of consciousness, then the realization has formed into a misunderstanding. IMO I'm saying there is no person but that person identification happens (the issue I'm addressing is how). A pointer such as 'you are not your mind' (ch. 1 Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle) is not meant in any way to imply there 'actually is' a mind that you are not. That is the illusion that can be seen through, and I certainly have no issue with saying that is the realization that consciousness is all.
I'm certainly not saying there is actually a person that exists and you aren't the person. It seems that's how you're interpreting what I wrote. Yay or nay?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 16:45:37 GMT -5
No, I am saying that experience; 'knowing and known', are not different, but rather the known is the activity of knowing. It is consistent with the concept that there is only consciousness. If there is only consciousness then the realization that you are not something that either arises in, is observed by, or made out of consciousness, then the realization has formed into a misunderstanding. IMO I'm saying there is no person but that person identification happens (the issue I'm addressing is how). A pointer such as 'you are not your mind' (ch. 1 Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle) is not meant in any way to imply there 'actually is' a mind that you are not. That is the illusion that can be seen through, and I certainly have no issue with saying that is the realization that consciousness is all.
I'm certainly not saying there is actually a person that exists and you aren't the person. It seems that's how you're interpreting what I wrote. Yay or nay?
I am also addressing the same issue but without associating ' experience' or 'knowing' with any kind of conceptual self-identity. It is the focus of attention on the conceptual or the known where self-identity is formed. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Apr 26, 2017 10:09:34 GMT -5
I'm saying there is no person but that person identification happens (the issue I'm addressing is how). A pointer such as 'you are not your mind' (ch. 1 Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle) is not meant in any way to imply there 'actually is' a mind that you are not. That is the illusion that can be seen through, and I certainly have no issue with saying that is the realization that consciousness is all.
I'm certainly not saying there is actually a person that exists and you aren't the person. It seems that's how you're interpreting what I wrote. Yay or nay?
I am also addressing the same issue but without associating ' experience' or 'knowing' with any kind of conceptual self-identity. It is the focus of attention on the conceptual or the known where self-identity is formed. You also said 'knowing' and 'known' are not different (check back 2 posts). Now you just said focus of attention on the known is where self identity is formed, and that you are not associating 'knowing' with any kind of conceptual self identity. That's associating 'knowing' with self identity, which is what you said you aren't doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 11:13:36 GMT -5
I am also addressing the same issue but without associating ' experience' or 'knowing' with any kind of conceptual self-identity. It is the focus of attention on the conceptual or the known where self-identity is formed. You also said 'knowing' and 'known' are not different (check back 2 posts). Now you just said focus of attention on the known is where self identity is formed, and that you are not associating 'knowing' with any kind of conceptual self identity. That's associating 'knowing' with self identity, which is what you said you aren't doing.
Let's put it this way. In my world self-identity as a mind/body is very real and very necessary to navigate and function in the world of human beings. But when seen through a deeper understanding it's an illusion; what is called Maya. Detachment from the conceptual self-identity of a body/mind doesn’t mean attaching to an alternate conceptual self-identity of consciousness, or God, or anything at all, but to let go of all identity. Including the concept that detaching and letting go of all identity is an identity. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Apr 26, 2017 12:47:29 GMT -5
I'm saying there is no person but that person identification happens (the issue I'm addressing is how). A pointer such as 'you are not your mind' (ch. 1 Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle) is not meant in any way to imply there 'actually is' a mind that you are not. That is the illusion that can be seen through, and I certainly have no issue with saying that is the realization that consciousness is all.
I'm certainly not saying there is actually a person that exists and you aren't the person. It seems that's how you're interpreting what I wrote. Yay or nay?
I am also addressing the same issue but without associating ' experience' or 'knowing' with any kind of conceptual self-identity. It is the focus of attention on the conceptual or the known where self-identity is formed.That's a nice summation. Buddha's second noble truth points to desire/craving underlying the focus of attention. Perhaps we are really just complexified snails. Regular desire for pleasure all addled up with thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Apr 26, 2017 14:44:32 GMT -5
You also said 'knowing' and 'known' are not different (check back 2 posts). Now you just said focus of attention on the known is where self identity is formed, and that you are not associating 'knowing' with any kind of conceptual self identity. That's associating 'knowing' with self identity, which is what you said you aren't doing.
Let's put it this way. In my world self-identity as a mind/body is very real and very necessary to navigate and function in the world of human beings. But when seen through a deeper understanding it's an illusion; what is called Maya. Detachment from the conceptual self-identity of a body/mind doesn’t mean attaching to an alternate conceptual self-identity of consciousness, or God, or anything at all, but to let go of all identity. Including the concept that detaching and letting go of all identity is an identity. Oh ok. |
|
