Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 16:13:01 GMT -5
You weren't talking at age two? I believe most babies have formed their first words by age one. Usually, the favorite word of a two year old is "mine!"  I would say ego is part of the content of mind, (a story in mind) but not mind itself. I would also not say mind is words. Mind is what you used to learn words, but it's a term that has various definitions. However, some rudimentary conceptualization seems to be required in order to speak, and as I'm saying, in order to form the 'me', so there is an association. It didn't say 2, I said there abouts, I was guessing. However, I just called my Mom to ask about it. As the first child I am 18 mos older than my sister whom Mom was carrying when we returned from Bermuda to grandmas house. That makes me as little as 14 mos when we returned. Anyway, matters not. You have a difficult time believing that consciousness came from Unconsciousness and will return to Unconsciousness. I get it. Its pretty radical, and calls into question EVERYTHING you think you know. However, I have no desire to argue the point or try to convince you. Take it up with your own I AM. Be with it and let it tell you it's secrets. It may be more accurate to change your word Unconsciouness to Unknowableness. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 18, 2014 16:26:58 GMT -5
It didn't say 2, I said there abouts, I was guessing. However, I just called my Mom to ask about it. As the first child I am 18 mos older than my sister whom Mom was carrying when we returned from Bermuda to grandmas house. That makes me as little as 14 mos when we returned. Anyway, matters not. You have a difficult time believing that consciousness came from Unconsciousness and will return to Unconsciousness. I get it. Its pretty radical, and calls into question EVERYTHING you think you know. However, I have no desire to argue the point or try to convince you. Take it up with your own I AM. Be with it and let it tell you it's secrets. It may be more accurate to change your word Unconsciouness to Unknowableness. Sure, I can see how that translates better. Unknowableness it is. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 18, 2014 17:20:31 GMT -5
But not as big as the oneness  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 18, 2014 17:23:01 GMT -5
That spirituality has anything to do with attainment is an interesting belief that some peeps have. Agree!!! who attains what?? oops, I have said too much |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 18, 2014 17:28:12 GMT -5
Seems like two or three posters here have done that too. I pretty much agree. Niz has been objectifying 'the being' or 'the beingness' and 'the I am' lately, and I've been whining about it.  In 2 'level' non-duality, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to say 'the I am' or 'the beingness' (its just Being/Mind, or Being/Appearances, or Being/Existence, or Existence/Appearances or Absolute/Relative, or whatever), but in 3 'level' non-duality it becomes relevant to use concepts like 'the absolute, the void, the Not, the emptiness of emptiness'. The second level then becomes 'falsity' or 'illusion' so there is no harm in objectifying it...for example 'the I am'. Having said that, there are times when all this does strike me as philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Its all happening in the oneness anyway hehehe.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 18, 2014 18:10:07 GMT -5
The fascination with speculating about what happens in a child's mind selectively chooses to ignore the whole process, it focuses on the portion of the process that cannot be verified, and.. supposing the functioning of a child's mind to be superior to the mind more fully evolved, the supposer disregards the actuality that a child's mind depends on another experiencer's more evolved mind for it's survival.. sometimes it's best to simply acknowledge what is happening, rather than conjure stories for the purpose of advancing an agenda..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 18:40:29 GMT -5
though devoid of any attributes whatsoever, pretend tea is remarkably filling... ! |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 18, 2014 18:45:16 GMT -5
sometimes it's best to simply acknowledge what is happening  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 18, 2014 22:36:36 GMT -5
Seems like two or three posters here have done that too. I pretty much agree. Niz has been objectifying 'the being' or 'the beingness' and 'the I am' lately, and I've been whining about it. In 2 'level' non-duality, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to say 'the I am' or 'the beingness' (its just Being/Mind, or Being/Appearances, or Being/Existence, or Existence/Appearances or Absolute/Relative, or whatever), but in 3 'level' non-duality it becomes relevant to use concepts like 'the absolute, the void, the Not, the emptiness of emptiness'. The second level then becomes 'falsity' or 'illusion' so there is no harm in objectifying it...for example 'the I am'. Having said that, there are times when all this does strike me as philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Its all happening in the oneness anyway hehehe.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 19, 2014 5:25:45 GMT -5
Seems like two or three posters here have done that too. I pretty much agree. Niz has been objectifying 'the being' or 'the beingness' and 'the I am' lately, and I've been whining about it. In 2 'level' non-duality, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to say 'the I am' or 'the beingness' (its just Being/Mind, or Being/Appearances, or Being/Existence, or Existence/Appearances or Absolute/Relative, or whatever), but in 3 'level' non-duality it becomes relevant to use concepts like 'the absolute, the void, the Not, the emptiness of emptiness'. The second level then becomes 'falsity' or 'illusion' so there is no harm in objectifying it...for example 'the I am'. Having said that, there are times when all this does strike me as philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Its all happening in the oneness anyway hehehe. And, clarity reveals that 'oneness' is happening in mind.. still mind, no conceptual oneness.. There is an interconnectedness between all things, and 'interconnected' illustrates the part/whole relationship.. without the 'parts' to conceptualize a description for the interconnectedness, there would be no 'whole', no 'oneness'.. the trap of incessantly 'talking about' what 'is' is mind's infatuation with its own imagination.. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 19, 2014 7:02:17 GMT -5
In 2 'level' non-duality, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to say 'the I am' or 'the beingness' (its just Being/Mind, or Being/Appearances, or Being/Existence, or Existence/Appearances or Absolute/Relative, or whatever), but in 3 'level' non-duality it becomes relevant to use concepts like 'the absolute, the void, the Not, the emptiness of emptiness'. The second level then becomes 'falsity' or 'illusion' so there is no harm in objectifying it...for example 'the I am'. Having said that, there are times when all this does strike me as philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Its all happening in the oneness anyway hehehe. And, clarity reveals that 'oneness' is happening in mind.. still mind, no conceptual oneness.. There is an interconnectedness between all things, and 'interconnected' illustrates the part/whole relationship.. without the 'parts' to conceptualize a description for the interconnectedness, there would be no 'whole', no 'oneness'.. the trap of incessantly 'talking about' what 'is' is mind's infatuation with its own imagination.. s'fine, I was just teasing Enigma because he has a bit of a thing about people saying 'the oneness'. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 22, 2014 12:26:33 GMT -5
Niz: "From the Absolute no-knowing state, spontaneously, this consciousness “I Am” has appeared – there is no reason, no cause. Spontaneously it has come, with the waking state, deep sleep, the five elemental play, three Gunas*, and Prakriti and Purusha. Then it embraces the body as self and therefore identifies as a male or a female.This “I Amness” has its own love to be: it wants to remain, to perpetuate itself, but it is not eternal." It seems far easier to dis-identify with the mind than it does to dis-identify with the body. Male-hood and female-hood is something rarely questioned or talked about, or so it seems. Dis-identifying as a male, for example, and with its accompanying attachments  , is something the average male-soul just doesn't seem willing to consider. In fact, just the opposite seems true. Viagra's world-wide popularity is testimony to that. But body identification is as much a cause of illusion perpetuation and suffering as mental identification, yet there are some attachments we are reluctant to let go of come hell or high water. I say, perhaps we should just put an ax to the whole concept.  And none of this is to say that the average female-soul doesn't have her own set of attachments she identifies with. She do.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 22, 2014 15:53:51 GMT -5
Niz: "From the Absolute no-knowing state, spontaneously, this consciousness “I Am” has appeared – there is no reason, no cause. Spontaneously it has come, with the waking state, deep sleep, the five elemental play, three Gunas*, and Prakriti and Purusha. Then it embraces the body as self and therefore identifies as a male or a female.This “I Amness” has its own love to be: it wants to remain, to perpetuate itself, but it is not eternal." It seems far easier to dis-identify with the mind than it does to dis-identify with the body. Male-hood and female-hood is something rarely questioned or talked about, or so it seems. Dis-identifying as a male, for example, and with its accompanying attachments , is something the average male-soul just doesn't seem willing to consider. In fact, just the opposite seems true. Viagra's world-wide popularity is testimony to that. But body identification is as much a cause of illusion perpetuation and suffering as mental identification, yet there are some attachments we are reluctant to let go of come hell or high water. I say, perhaps we should just put an ax to the whole concept. And none of this is to say that the average female-soul doesn't have her own set of attachments she identifies with. She do. What seems a common vector in disidentifying with the body is to first observe that the body isn't independent of it's environment. From there the sense of physical identification is broadened and it shifts from the localized sense that stops at your skin to ... well, everything.  Another term for this is "identity poker". From my experience and from reading what others have written it can, but doesn't necessarily have to start with an intellectual understanding which then can either gradually become embodied and/or lead to a sudden experience similar to the ones currently under discussion here. I've never experienced it but my guess is that an OBE/Astral travel would lead one to the same conclusion. ... wow, if past me from two years ago read that last sentence he'd sh!t a brick! The game goes on from there, and while I guess it would be theoretically possible for someone to go backward and revert from "Consciousness is all, I am Consciousness" (or something similar) to "I am just my individual mind and the body that contains it" ... I really can't imagine it. In the final analysis though, that statement of identity, no matter how all-encompassing it is imagined to be, is in error. Impermanence is the croupier who ultimately gathers all the chips in the end.  |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 22, 2014 18:52:56 GMT -5
... wow, if past me from two years ago read that last sentence he'd sh!t a brick! Funny how that is sometimes.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 23, 2014 3:24:18 GMT -5
... wow, if past me from two years ago read that last sentence he'd sh!t a brick! Funny how that is sometimes. There is the appearence of a depth that is possible and manifests relative to what, in turn, appears as a process of becoming conscious of our individual orientation toward various concepts. But at the core of the whole shooting match the only concepts you'll find are those that explicitly point away from conceiving. The story that I'd tell in this particular instance is how recognizing and then letting go of a lifelong world view based on skepticism and a primacy of the empirical and physical was followed by noticing the arising of skepticism. At this point there's really no positive interest here in OBE's/Astral travel but there's no negative interest either. While ideas can be shot down with other ideas, an opening up based on insight into the nature of ideas in general isn't that. |
|
, is something the average male-soul just doesn't seem willing to consider. In fact, just the opposite seems true. Viagra's world-wide popularity is testimony to that. But body identification is as much a cause of illusion perpetuation and suffering as mental identification, yet there are some attachments we are reluctant to let go of come hell or high water. I say, perhaps we should just put an ax to the whole concept. 
And none of this is to say that the average female-soul doesn't have her own set of attachments she identifies with. She do. 
