|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 24, 2012 13:45:27 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? Wasn't saying that existence itself was separate from anything, but rather that the 'I' implies separate existence (particularly from other 'I's). I think this is why the question "what am 'I'?" is so effective. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 13:46:04 GMT -5
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? Well, I wasnt GOING to say it....but..... The 'knowing' thing is more relevant for this forum than the 'death' thing I think, though the 'death' thing could be kinda fun to discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 14:07:44 GMT -5
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? Existence is the case I agree but this is self evident beyond words. Precisely what I've been saying. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 14:11:53 GMT -5
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? Wasn't saying that existence itself was separate from anything, but rather that the 'I' implies separate existence (particularly from other 'I's). But "other I's" was your idea. I don't see where separate existence is implied at all in saying 'I am'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 14:13:34 GMT -5
Go ahead and say it, Andrew. Ascension? Well, I wasnt GOING to say it....but..... The 'knowing' thing is more relevant for this forum than the 'death' thing I think, though the 'death' thing could be kinda fun to discuss. Yeah, death is always a real hoot to talk about. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 24, 2012 14:26:29 GMT -5
Wasn't saying that existence itself was separate from anything, but rather that the 'I' implies separate existence (particularly from other 'I's). But "other I's" was your idea. I don't see where separate existence is implied at all in saying 'I am'. Then why say it? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 14:33:28 GMT -5
But "other I's" was your idea. I don't see where separate existence is implied at all in saying 'I am'. Then why say it? Why say I exist? Because some think 'they' don't exist. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 14:34:11 GMT -5
Existence is the case I agree but this is self evident beyond words. Precisely what I've been saying. Its not existence thats under debate, its the 'knowing' that Jed spoke of that is under debate. I am only arguing with you here if you are saying that the knowing that you exist is inevitable (as Jed said) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 14:34:53 GMT -5
Well, I wasnt GOING to say it....but..... The 'knowing' thing is more relevant for this forum than the 'death' thing I think, though the 'death' thing could be kinda fun to discuss. Yeah, death is always a real hoot to talk about. Hehe. Haha good point. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 24, 2012 14:41:35 GMT -5
Well, I wasnt GOING to say it....but..... The 'knowing' thing is more relevant for this forum than the 'death' thing I think, though the 'death' thing could be kinda fun to discuss. Yeah, death is always a real hoot to talk about. Hehe. Yup, when the topic of death isn't addressed, it coincides with a sense of having loads of time to figure things out. Reincarnation might be the recurring cycle of being touched by death before grace gets her hands on you.  Ooops wrong thread. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 14:41:39 GMT -5
Wasn't saying that existence itself was separate from anything, but rather that the 'I' implies separate existence (particularly from other 'I's). But "other I's" was your idea. I don't see where separate existence is implied at all in saying 'I am'. As you are aware, concepts create the illusion of discreet, finite, separately existing things that exist in an external objective reality. In thinking 'I am', an illusion is unavoidably created of separately existing 'I's that 'are'. As Niz said, 'I am' is the first ignorance. Thats why I have said on the odd occasion that human beings are bound to be somewhat deluded in this reality because of the way the conceptual mind works, so its really just a question of whether the delusion is primary or secondary., |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 24, 2012 15:00:55 GMT -5
But "other I's" was your idea. I don't see where separate existence is implied at all in saying 'I am'. As you are aware, concepts create the illusion of discreet, finite, separately existing things that exist in an external objective reality. In thinking 'I am', an illusion is unavoidably created of separately existing 'I's that 'are'. Yes, if grasped as a concept seen through the belief in separation, but as I said, this existence is known before those thoughts. Those thoughts are conclusions about what exists. He's not talking about identification as a separate person. He's suggesting that the sense of existing itself appears along with consciousness in the body and is not existence itself. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 15:11:12 GMT -5
As you are aware, concepts create the illusion of discreet, finite, separately existing things that exist in an external objective reality. In thinking 'I am', an illusion is unavoidably created of separately existing 'I's that 'are'. Yes, if grasped as a concept seen through the belief in separation, but as I said, this existence is known before those thoughts. Those thoughts are conclusions about what exists. He's not talking about identification as a separate person. He's suggesting that the sense of existing itself appears along with consciousness in the body and is not existence itself. Existence is not known prior to thoughts (because that which is prior to thought does not experience itself as separate from existence). The degree to which existing is sensed goes hand in hand with self-awareness (and identification) In order to sense existence we have to experience ourselves as separate FROM existence. When this separation has dissolved there is no more sense of existing. There is no separation from the senses. There is no more self-awareness. But this is not a return to the level of consciousness we were at prior to self-awareness, our level of consciousness is raised. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 15:29:09 GMT -5
Put it this way. Without any thought at all, there would be no sense of our existence and no knowing that we exist. How could there be? In a very subtle way, thought and sensing go hand in hand.
And the thing is, we dont even need to get rid of thought altogether in order to no longer sense our existence or know that we exist. We just have to release the attachment to the duality of truth/falsity.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2012 15:37:40 GMT -5
An interesting thing about Niz is that I can quite clearly see a progression on his path between the time he wrote his first book and last book. A little quote from one of his last ones...
''Once the body and the sense of being (‘I am’) goes what remains is the Original, which is unconditioned, without attributes, and without identity.''
|
|
