|
|
Post by enigma on May 3, 2017 0:11:54 GMT -5
'I am' isn't about identification. It's about existence. (Being?) Being knows it IS, right? Yes Being knows itself but veils itself from itself and identifies with objects. Falling into the dream. That can be reverse engineered. You: Being knows it's Being without I am. You are Being, not I am. To think you are I am is a mistake of misidentification. Me: 'I am' isn't about identification. It's about existence. (Being?) Being knows it IS, right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 0:55:06 GMT -5
Yes Being knows itself but veils itself from itself and identifies with objects. Falling into the dream. That can be reverse engineered. You: Being knows it's Being without I am. You are Being, not I am. To think you are I am is a mistake of misidentification. Me: 'I am' isn't about identification. It's about existence. (Being?) Being knows it IS, right? Yes, Being knows it is. But who is saying that Being knows it is? I am. But I am also Being because there is nothing but Being. This will never be resolved by the mind. Awareness which is Being is not an object and knows itself. I can refer to awareness as if it's an object from my point of view. But what is this separate me? What is this point of view? It's not really separate but it is also separate. This paradox cannot be understood or explained in way that will satisfy the mind. It's impossible, but peeps continue to discuss it for years on forums until one day they might just stop and then the questions won't matter any more because they've been replaced with Peace that is undisturbed by unity and diversity occurring simultaneously. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 1:49:05 GMT -5
Don't you know that you are, in Being? Being knows it's Being without I am. You are Being, not I am. To think you are I am is a mistake of misidentification. Being can speak for itself. Though in this case, clearly not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 1:50:58 GMT -5
Don't you know that you are, in Being? I had the same question but I was afraid of starting another Samadhi-rama hootnany.  It seems unavoidable. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 3, 2017 2:10:38 GMT -5
To nothing is probably more accurate. Though in terms of Niz and the knowing I am, it could be unconscious knowing, to conscious knowing, then back to unconscious knowing. What is absent in the return are the fears and attachments and the misunderstanding. Yeah, I can agree with that in the sense in which ZD talks about the body knowing what to do, which to me is just unconscious knowing. Though as you imply, in a more purified state than before. There really is an irony there in that unconsciousness can be the mode of functioning in the natural state, or it can be a major source of suffering. Yes, exactly! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 2:14:57 GMT -5
Being knows it's Being without I am. You are Being, not I am. To think you are I am is a mistake of misidentification. Being can speak for itself. Though in this case, clearly not. Being cannot speak. It has no vocal chords, or mouth from which to speak. It is silent. It has nothing to say. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 3, 2017 2:17:11 GMT -5
Yes, the sense itself is non conceptual, and is the foundation of all other senses (or thoughts) but sensing that sense requires the movement of attention because it is non conceptual. So what you are calling realization comes with a movement.Would you call it a movement of mind? Cuz that's what I understand a movement to be. I would prefer to say a movement of attention. 'Movement of mind' carries an implication that doesn't quite work for me in this context. I think because I do see the sense of being as prior to mind and more fundamentally than phenomena. Attention seems a little more apt to me. Ah, it is because the idea of 'mind' is associated with creativity (and formulation). The sense of being isn't 'created' as such and definitely isn't formulated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 2:18:26 GMT -5
Being can speak for itself. Though in this case, clearly not. Being cannot speak. It has no vocal chords, or mouth from which to speak. It is silent. It has nothing to say. Are you unable to hear when you are Being? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 2:22:17 GMT -5
Being cannot speak. It has no vocal chords, or mouth from which to speak. It is silent. It has nothing to say. Are you unable to hear when you are Being? Give it up. You don't even know what you mean when you ask such a question. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 3, 2017 2:27:10 GMT -5
Would you call it a movement of mind? Cuz that's what I understand a movement to be. I would prefer to say a movement of attention. 'Movement of mind' carries an implication that doesn't quite work for me in this context. I think because I do see the sense of being as prior to mind and more fundamentally than phenomena. Attention seems a little more apt to me. Ah, it is because the idea of 'mind' is associated with creativity (and formulation). The sense of being isn't 'created' as such and definitely isn't formulated. Do you see a possibility that there is just being without sense of being prior to mind? For there to be a sense of being wouldn't that refer to something sensing something . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 2:55:51 GMT -5
Are you unable to hear when you are Being? Give it up. You don't even know what you mean when you ask such a question. I take that as a yes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 2:58:40 GMT -5
Give it up. You don't even know what you mean when you ask such a question. I take that as a yes. What's Being anyway? I don't know what it is. Please explain it to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 2:59:30 GMT -5
Yeah, I can agree with that in the sense in which ZD talks about the body knowing what to do, which to me is just unconscious knowing. Though as you imply, in a more purified state than before. There really is an irony there in that unconsciousness can be the mode of functioning in the natural state, or it can be a major source of suffering. Yes, exactly! You've been trying to explain 'unconscious knowing' to Enigma for many years. It's interesting that in 'it's more purified state' that it's become an understandable description now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 3:00:35 GMT -5
What's Being anyway? I don't know what it is. Please explain it to me. Ohh have I activated your 'trick mode'? Wasn't that difficult to do was it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 3:01:52 GMT -5
What's Being anyway? I don't know what it is. Please explain it to me. Ohh have I activated your 'trick mode'? Wasn't that difficult to do was it? Are you going to tell me what Being is? |
|
