|
|
Post by exactamente on Jan 20, 2012 8:15:22 GMT -5
Helpful in what sense? Flow experience is what I point to when I talk of a non-dual reality. A flow experience is not our reality because we still experience attraction and aversion, we still say yes and no. It seems to me that you are saying that you organize yourself in such a way so as to only experience one state of mind/being. Is that correct? Do you not experience light, bubbly, joyful and delighted states? Do you not experience playful states? Do you not experience deep compassionate states? Do you not experience soft loving states? Do you not experience frustrated states? Flow experience means loss of identity, it's impersonal. Therefore it's prior to any state. There is no prior, thats a delusion. We only experience states. Am I correct that you only experience one state? You dont experience the states I described? The words prior and beyond are misleading. Maybe it's more accurate to say what is prior is "always there" and mind states are "fleeting". |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 8:19:27 GMT -5
There is no prior, thats a delusion. We only experience states. Am I correct that you only experience one state? You dont experience the states I described? The words prior and beyond are misleading. Maybe it's more accurate to say what is prior is "always there" and mind states are "fleeting". What this 'always there' means practically speaking is that what is constant is the ever changing mind/being states. They are never quite the same from one moment to the next. Our experience is never quite the same from one moment to the next. We are fully immersed in the flow of creation. We are not passive and detached neutral observers. What states do you experience mostly? Which ones do you prefer? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 8:23:34 GMT -5
Sometimes people reside in a particular state of mind/being in which it SEEMS as they have placed distance between themselves and mind. This is quite delusionary in its own way. What you are describing is small-e-enlightenment, it's going as general as possible, back to the "I am" so that it seems any identity is lost. Im not quite sure what you are saying here but that might be because I dont conceptualize a difference between little e and big E. Thats been kind of a new one on me. |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Jan 20, 2012 8:26:58 GMT -5
The words prior and beyond are misleading. Maybe it's more accurate to say what is prior is "always there" and mind states are "fleeting". What this 'always there' means practically speaking is that what is constant is the ever changing mind/being states. They are never quite the same from one moment to the next. Our experience is never quite the same from one moment to the next. We are fully immersed in the flow of creation. We are not passive and detached neutral observers. What states do you experience mostly? Which ones do you prefer? Always there means like the stars at the sky. They are always there, no matter what is going on in the skies. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 20, 2012 8:28:18 GMT -5
Andrew: it looks "being aware" and "thinking" are the same for you!
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 8:31:57 GMT -5
What this 'always there' means practically speaking is that what is constant is the ever changing mind/being states. They are never quite the same from one moment to the next. Our experience is never quite the same from one moment to the next. We are fully immersed in the flow of creation. We are not passive and detached neutral observers. What states do you experience mostly? Which ones do you prefer? Always there means like the stars at the sky. They are always there, no matter what is going on in the skies. Okay, doesnt really change what I said though. Change is the constant and as experiential beings we are fully immersed in that change. What it means is that there are only ever changing states of mind/Being (its ultimately the same thing because they are not separate). There are states of peace and joy and love and bliss and delight and play and fun and passion and commitment and compassion and optimism and kindness and hope and ecstasy and abundance and many more. And of course the not quite such pleasant states. We dont ever stop being in a state though, and neither is the state ever a constant. |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Jan 20, 2012 8:32:06 GMT -5
What you are describing is small-e-enlightenment, it's going as general as possible, back to the "I am" so that it seems any identity is lost. Im not quite sure what you are saying here but that might be because I dont conceptualize a difference between little e and big E. Thats been kind of a new one on me. small e means within the conceptual realm, it's mind-in', full circles and that kind of stuff. Big E means prior to the conceptual, truthin', no circles at all.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 8:33:06 GMT -5
Andrew: it looks "being aware" and "thinking" are the same for you! Yes, they kind of are. If there is a being that is aware, then the being that is aware is aware through mind. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 8:35:26 GMT -5
Im not quite sure what you are saying here but that might be because I dont conceptualize a difference between little e and big E. Thats been kind of a new one on me. small e means within the conceptual realm, it's mind-in', full circles and that kind of stuff. Big E means prior to the conceptual, truthin', no circles at all. Sounds a bit of a nonsense to me because there is only a conceptual/imaginary realm, in the sense that the universe is conceptual and imaginary, and we are fully immersed in that. We dont step outside of, or prior to, or beyond the imaginary, the dream, the conceptual. If we think we are somehow experiencing those things from a distance, then our state is somewhat disassociated. We are holding ourselves apart from life. Sometimes we speak of non-conceptual seeing, but again that is an approach, not a state. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 20, 2012 8:38:35 GMT -5
Andrew: it looks "being aware" and "thinking" are the same for you! Yes, they kind of are. If there is a being that is aware, then the being that is aware is aware through mind. OK, so we just need to replace "thinking" and "mind" with "awareness" in your posts. E.g., your post above reads: "the being that is aware is aware through awareness." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 8:39:12 GMT -5
andrew, it seems like this is mostly a semantic distinction.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 8:43:31 GMT -5
Yes, they kind of are. If there is a being that is aware, then the being that is aware is aware through mind. OK, so we just need to replace "thinking" and "mind" with "awareness" in your posts. E.g., your post above reads: "the being that is aware is aware through awareness." Um. Okay. Im not sure that quite works because 'awareness' is not the same as 'being aware'. |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Jan 20, 2012 8:46:36 GMT -5
small e means within the conceptual realm, it's mind-in', full circles and that kind of stuff. Big E means prior to the conceptual, truthin', no circles at all. Sounds a bit of a nonsense to me because there is only a conceptual/imaginary realm, in the sense that the universe is conceptual and imaginary, and we are fully immersed in that. We dont step outside of, or prior to, or beyond the imaginary, the dream, the conceptual. If we think we are somehow experiencing those things from a distance, then our state is somewhat disassociated. We are holding ourselves apart from life. Sometimes we speak of non-conceptual seeing, but again that is an approach, not a state. It is kinda futile to talk about Big E, because all you can talk about is conceptual stuff. Can you go back to the very beginnings of concepts by using concepts? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 8:47:17 GMT -5
andrew, it seems like this is mostly a semantic distinction. There is a semantic issue but its relevant. What seekers often search for is a state that is not a mind state. There is no such thing. Its a deluded search. There is no-mind but that is an approach, or a WAY, not a state (a good one in my opinion). I am very interested in whether exactamente functions in such a way that enables him to experience joy and delight and play and fun and passion and compassion and love. If not, then Im trying to get clear what he is selling exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 8:49:05 GMT -5
Sounds a bit of a nonsense to me because there is only a conceptual/imaginary realm, in the sense that the universe is conceptual and imaginary, and we are fully immersed in that. We dont step outside of, or prior to, or beyond the imaginary, the dream, the conceptual. If we think we are somehow experiencing those things from a distance, then our state is somewhat disassociated. We are holding ourselves apart from life. Sometimes we speak of non-conceptual seeing, but again that is an approach, not a state. It is kinda futile to talk about Big E, because all you can talk about is conceptual stuff. Can you go back to the very beginnings of concepts by using concepts? Its impossible to go back to the beginning because there is no beginning. The imaginary and conceptual universe flows on whether we 'go back to the beginning' or not. To attempt to go back to the beginning is still the imaginary and conceptual universe that we are fully immersed in flowing onwards. |
|
