|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 3:01:25 GMT -5
A story of the person is just a story (and not even a problematic one). Its the need to attach to the story as true or false that is the conditioning, and this need is in the subconscious not in the intellectual mind. Huh? I need more clarification on this one Andrew. Well, a story is just a story. Its the investment in the truth or falsity of a story that creates the attachment, and we invest in the truth or falsity of stories in order to protect particular self-images. We go through our day seeing people and its really not a big deal. 'People' appear in our consciousness. The story of people happens. I think the relevant question is, how attached are we to the truth of the story? We may also be invested in believing that the story is not true. Its the same with the idea that 'I exist'. Every time we speak of 'I', the idea of our existence is being played with. The issue isnt so much whether we do or dont exist, the issue is the need to believe the story to be true or false. Most people deeply need to believe its true that they exist. Some spiritual folk will insist that its not true that we exist. The attachment is just the same for both. So the way I see it is that its not WHAT is seen that is the problem as much as it is the depth to which we need to believe that what is seen is true or false that is the problem. Non-conceptual seeing is not a 'what' we see or dont see, its a way of seeing without the need to believe in the duality of truth/falsity. |
|
Jasun
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Jasun on Jan 24, 2012 11:47:23 GMT -5
Jed McKenna wrote that the ONLY thing we know for absolutely sure is that we exist, that is, the I AM exists. That, and that this present physical form is going to die.
How does the finite exist inside of Infinity - the temporal exist within Eternity? Any number divided by infinity = 0. Yet we experience ourselves as an I, a unity, or 1. Therefore, we are infinite and eternal! Yay.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 12:34:46 GMT -5
Jed McKenna wrote that the ONLY thing we know for absolutely sure is that we exist, that is, the I AM exists. That, and that this present physical form is going to die. Yes, this can be a simple way for anyone to taste knowing beyond mind. Without mind's interference, it's obvious that one exists. While this is clear and self evident without thought, what exists is not clear, and it can be noticed that mind engages to respond to that question. It's also useful to notice what some minds do to that simple, obvious, non-conceptual realization that 'I am', dragging it kicking and screaming into mind where it gets thrown into doubt. If mind will do that to such a simple and obvious realization, how much more inclined will it be to do so to much more subtle realizations? ......Say what?? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 12:56:47 GMT -5
Jed McKenna wrote that the ONLY thing we know for absolutely sure is that we exist, that is, the I AM exists. That, and that this present physical form is going to die. How does the finite exist inside of Infinity - the temporal exist within Eternity? Any number divided by infinity = 0. Yet we experience ourselves as an I, a unity, or 1. Therefore, we are infinite and eternal! Yay. What this suggests to me is that Jed has got some way to go then. In my opinion we can transcend the knowing that we exist, and Im by no means certain that these present physical forms are actually going to die this time round. The first knowing is more relevant for this forum though. I could not honestly say these days that I know I am. And the reason is, that I dont experience myself as separate from that 'amness'. In order to know that 'we are' we have to experience a separation from this 'amness'. As this separation dissolves, the knowing that 'I am' dissolves with it. Jed is a fictional character himself though isnt he? The author of those books has never been established has it? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 12:58:38 GMT -5
Jed McKenna wrote that the ONLY thing we know for absolutely sure is that we exist, that is, the I AM exists. That, and that this present physical form is going to die. Yes, this can be a simple way for anyone to taste knowing beyond mind. Without mind's interference, it's obvious that one exists. While this is clear and self evident without thought, what exists is not clear, and it can be noticed that mind engages to respond to that question. It's also useful to notice what some minds do to that simple, obvious, non-conceptual realization that 'I am', dragging it kicking and screaming into mind where it gets thrown into doubt. If mind will do that to such a simple and obvious realization, how much more inclined will it be to do so to much more subtle realizations? ......Say what?? I would say that it is WITH mind's interference that we know that we exist because with mind's interference we experience ourselves as separate from existence. Existence itself is self evident beyond mind interference but the knowing we exist requires mind interference. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 13:08:12 GMT -5
Jed McKenna wrote that the ONLY thing we know for absolutely sure is that we exist, that is, the I AM exists. That, and that this present physical form is going to die. How does the finite exist inside of Infinity - the temporal exist within Eternity? Any number divided by infinity = 0. Yet we experience ourselves as an I, a unity, or 1. Therefore, we are infinite and eternal! Yay. What this suggests to me is that Jed has got some way to go then. In my opinion we can transcend the knowing that we exist, and Im by no means certain that these present physical forms are actually going to die this time round. The first knowing is more relevant for this forum though. I could not honestly say these days that I know I am. And the reason is, that I dont experience myself as separate from that 'amness'. In order to know that 'we are' we have to experience a separation from this 'amness'. As this separation dissolves, the knowing that 'I am' dissolves with it. Jed is a fictional character himself though isnt he? The author of those books has never been established has it? "We are" is not what's being suggested, at least by Jed. Whatever I am, I exist. I don't follow how you find separation in that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 13:17:52 GMT -5
Yes, this can be a simple way for anyone to taste knowing beyond mind. Without mind's interference, it's obvious that one exists. While this is clear and self evident without thought, what exists is not clear, and it can be noticed that mind engages to respond to that question. It's also useful to notice what some minds do to that simple, obvious, non-conceptual realization that 'I am', dragging it kicking and screaming into mind where it gets thrown into doubt. If mind will do that to such a simple and obvious realization, how much more inclined will it be to do so to much more subtle realizations? ......Say what?? I would say that it is WITH mind's interference that we know that we exist because with mind's interference we experience ourselves as separate from existence. Existence itself is self evident beyond mind interference but the knowing we exist requires mind interference. Right. Nobody said 'we exist'. (Well, maybe Jasun said that, but that's not what Jed said) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 13:18:37 GMT -5
What this suggests to me is that Jed has got some way to go then. In my opinion we can transcend the knowing that we exist, and Im by no means certain that these present physical forms are actually going to die this time round. The first knowing is more relevant for this forum though. I could not honestly say these days that I know I am. And the reason is, that I dont experience myself as separate from that 'amness'. In order to know that 'we are' we have to experience a separation from this 'amness'. As this separation dissolves, the knowing that 'I am' dissolves with it. Jed is a fictional character himself though isnt he? The author of those books has never been established has it? "We are" is not what's being suggested, at least by Jed. Whatever I am, I exist. I don't follow how you find separation in that. Its the knowing that I have an issue with. When we no longer experience ourselves as separate from amness or existence, there is no way of knowing that we exist (whatever we are). Of course existence is self-evident, but this is a self-evident beyond words and mind. 'Self-evident' is the best words we have got but it goes beyond self-evident because it goes beyond mind. Knowing that we exist comes from the egoic sense of separation. Without this knowing we are spontaneous like the animals again, though its a transcending not a returning. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 13:19:46 GMT -5
I would say that it is WITH mind's interference that we know that we exist because with mind's interference we experience ourselves as separate from existence. Existence itself is self evident beyond mind interference but the knowing we exist requires mind interference. Right. Nobody said 'we exist'. Jed said the only think we can know is that we exist. Im saying that this knowing is transcended when we no longer experience ourselves as separate from existence. I have actually also heard you quote that from Jed before so I dont think Jed is being misquoted. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 24, 2012 13:19:50 GMT -5
What this suggests to me is that Jed has got some way to go then. In my opinion we can transcend the knowing that we exist, and Im by no means certain that these present physical forms are actually going to die this time round. The first knowing is more relevant for this forum though. I could not honestly say these days that I know I am. And the reason is, that I dont experience myself as separate from that 'amness'. In order to know that 'we are' we have to experience a separation from this 'amness'. As this separation dissolves, the knowing that 'I am' dissolves with it. Jed is a fictional character himself though isnt he? The author of those books has never been established has it? "We are" is not what's being suggested, at least by Jed. Whatever I am, I exist. I don't follow how you find separation in that. Can't speak for Andrew, but that an 'I' exists at all would imply separation. I mean, if it doesn't, why refer to it at all? |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 24, 2012 13:21:52 GMT -5
Jed McKenna wrote that the ONLY thing we know for absolutely sure is that we exist, that is, the I AM exists. That, and that this present physical form is going to die. How does the finite exist inside of Infinity - the temporal exist within Eternity? Any number divided by infinity = 0. Yet we experience ourselves as an I, a unity, or 1. Therefore, we are infinite and eternal! Yay. What this suggests to me is that Jed has got some way to go then. In my opinion we can transcend the knowing that we exist, and Im by no means certain that these present physical forms are actually going to die this time round. The first knowing is more relevant for this forum though. I could not honestly say these days that I know I am. And the reason is, that I dont experience myself as separate from that 'amness'. In order to know that 'we are' we have to experience a separation from this 'amness'. As this separation dissolves, the knowing that 'I am' dissolves with it. Jed is a fictional character himself though isnt he? The author of those books has never been established has it? Well Andrew, if you don't believe we are all being stocked by death, you might get caught reading the newspaper while sitting on the toilet when it comes. On the other hand if your aware enough to see it's hand reaching out to touch you, there's a good chance you'll experience death in full consciousness. And wouldn't that be mind blowing  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 13:23:27 GMT -5
What this suggests to me is that Jed has got some way to go then. In my opinion we can transcend the knowing that we exist, and Im by no means certain that these present physical forms are actually going to die this time round. The first knowing is more relevant for this forum though. I could not honestly say these days that I know I am. And the reason is, that I dont experience myself as separate from that 'amness'. In order to know that 'we are' we have to experience a separation from this 'amness'. As this separation dissolves, the knowing that 'I am' dissolves with it. Jed is a fictional character himself though isnt he? The author of those books has never been established has it? Well Andrew, if you don't believe we are all being stocked by death, you might get caught reading the newspaper while sitting on the toilet when it comes. On the other hand if your aware enough to see it's hand reaching out to touch you, there's a good chance you'll experience death in full consciousness. And wouldn't that be mind blowing Death in full consciousness would be good, but Im just not sure death is on the cards for all humans this time round. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 13:39:25 GMT -5
"We are" is not what's being suggested, at least by Jed. Whatever I am, I exist. I don't follow how you find separation in that. Can't speak for Andrew, but that an 'I' exists at all would imply separation. I mean, if it doesn't, why refer to it at all? I suspect Andrew is imagining multiple persons existing (though we'll likely never know) and you may be imagining a thing that exists, neither of which is what is meant by Jed. All that's being said is that existence is the case. Any separation is your own implication. Why would existence be separate from something? What would it be separate from, nonexistence? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 13:41:15 GMT -5
Well Andrew, if you don't believe we are all being stocked by death, you might get caught reading the newspaper while sitting on the toilet when it comes. On the other hand if your aware enough to see it's hand reaching out to touch you, there's a good chance you'll experience death in full consciousness. And wouldn't that be mind blowing Death in full consciousness would be good, but Im just not sure death is on the cards for all humans this time round. Go ahead and say it, Andrew. Ascension? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 13:43:44 GMT -5
Can't speak for Andrew, but that an 'I' exists at all would imply separation. I mean, if it doesn't, why refer to it at all? I suspect Andrew is imagining multiple persons existing (though we'll likely never know) and you may be imagining a thing that exists, neither of which is what is meant by Jed. All that's being said is that existence is the case. Any separation is your own implication. Why would existence be separate from something? What would it be separate from, nonexistence? I dont know how you derived that first bit from what I just said. Existence is the case I agree but this is self evident beyond words. The knowing that we exist is lost when we no longer experience ourselves as separate from existence. We can only know that we exist for as long as existence is perceived as something separate to us. Me - here....existence - there. In this instance, Jed is barking up a wrong tree when he says that what we are left with is the knowing that I exist (whatever that is). |
|
