|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 10:12:44 GMT -5
Isn't 'a process of self-reflection, introspection, or turning attention inwards', 'observational/perceptive in it's nature and not instantaneous'? Not quite, no....there is a movement involved. The absolute doesn't have to move to know I am. Oh, I think I get it. You're saying the Absolute doesn't observe but something else does (the person)? There are things that you 'know' the way the absolute knows, because you ARE the absolute. You already non-conceptually 'know' you exist, and you 'know' what you are, you just don't realize it, which is the whole game here. You don't have to learn something you don't already know. That's why realization seems simple and obvious after the fact. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 10:27:56 GMT -5
I only know I am when my attention is called to it, though can agree with the idea of unconscious knowing. Yes but once you are attentive to it, it doesn't require reflective thinking to know it. It just is. Yes, and is there any suffering in that place? Any lack? Any efforting? Any agenda? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 2, 2017 10:32:43 GMT -5
This is a good place to mention that I disagree with you and ZD about the sense of I am requiring some kind of reflection. Reflection is required to know that I know it, but not to know it. It is there, extremely subtle, prior to thought. It is the foundation upon which 'I' can have a thought, or reflect in any way. It is present when consciousness is present, and I suggest it is there in Samadhi, but one does not know that one knows, as reflection is absent. Mooji once said 'a mosquito knows it exists', which is a clue as to how much reflection is required. Well, I agree that it is there (prior to thought), and it doesn't make much difference to my position if it is there in samadhi or not...I can see validity in both sides of that issue. What is important for me is understanding that the sense of I am being sensed requires a movement. It seems like you are suggesting that unconscious knowing (I agree there is unconscious knowing) is part of what is experienced. I don't think it is. My breath isn't part of my experience until it is. The sense of I am isn't part of my experience until it is. So when Niz says to focus on I am he is saying to make the unconscious knowing, a conscious one. I could agree that the mosquito unconsciously knows that it exists, but has no capacity to make it a conscious one. Then again, it has no good reason to because it doesn't have to transcend its belief that it is a mosquito! A thought about the sense of I am, requires a movement. The sense is non-conceptual. As I said, the sense of existence is the foundation upon which a thought is built. I don't know if that makes the sense a part of the experience or not. I would say unconscious motivations, fears, etc are very much a part of our experience, so I don't think one has to consciously reflect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 10:51:43 GMT -5
Yes but once you are attentive to it, it doesn't require reflective thinking to know it. It just is. Yes, and is there any suffering in that place? Any lack? Any efforting? Any agenda? Not when you are in sleeping state either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 11:56:00 GMT -5
Yes, and is there any suffering in that place? Any lack? Any efforting? Any agenda? Not when you are in sleeping state either. Sleeping state? Is where you are looking 'from' changing states? A change full place? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 11:56:20 GMT -5
Not quite, no....there is a movement involved. The absolute doesn't have to move to know I am. Oh, I think I get it. You're saying the Absolute doesn't observe but something else does (the person)? There are things that you 'know' the way the absolute knows, because you ARE the absolute. You already non-conceptually 'know' you exist, and you 'know' what you are, you just don't realize it, which is the whole game here. You don't have to learn something you don't already know. That's why realization seems simple and obvious after the fact. Yes, when you say non conceptually know, I say unconsciously know, so I agree the sense of I am is not learned or conditioned, it is prior to that. I see ths unconscious knowing of I am as very very similar to the way that the absolute knows I am, but it is not quite the same, because although I agree that fundamentally we are the absolute, there is a filter in place in our experience. It is actually the filter of experience itself, because with experience comes attention. The absolute does not have that filter. So for us, the I am is sensed instantly I.e as soon as attention moves, but for the absolute it is even 'faster' because attention is not required. So Niz is telling the person to focus on I am, which leads to stabilization in I am, and then hopefully a kind of dissolution of attachment to I am, which results in merger between self and Self. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 2, 2017 11:59:46 GMT -5
Well, I agree that it is there (prior to thought), and it doesn't make much difference to my position if it is there in samadhi or not...I can see validity in both sides of that issue. What is important for me is understanding that the sense of I am being sensed requires a movement. It seems like you are suggesting that unconscious knowing (I agree there is unconscious knowing) is part of what is experienced. I don't think it is. My breath isn't part of my experience until it is. The sense of I am isn't part of my experience until it is. So when Niz says to focus on I am he is saying to make the unconscious knowing, a conscious one. I could agree that the mosquito unconsciously knows that it exists, but has no capacity to make it a conscious one. Then again, it has no good reason to because it doesn't have to transcend its belief that it is a mosquito! A thought about the sense of I am, requires a movement. The sense is non-conceptual. As I said, the sense of existence is the foundation upon which a thought is built. I don't know if that makes the sense a part of the experience or not. I would say unconscious motivations, fears, etc are very much a part of our experience, so I don't think one has to consciously reflect. 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. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 12:18:46 GMT -5
Not when you are in sleeping state either. Sleeping state? Is where you are looking 'from' changing states? A change full place? I'm trying to work out why you think it's significant in some way that there is no agenda in the thoughtless void of undifferentiated awareness, because the agenda arises in the personal. So why is this of interest? I'm not sure what the point is. There can be an agenda for both the ignorant and enlightened, just as they both have arms and legs. What of it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 12:50:42 GMT -5
Sleeping state? Is where you are looking 'from' changing states? A change full place? I'm trying to work out why you think it's significant in some way that there is no agenda i n the thoughtless void of undifferentiated awareness, because the agenda arises in the personal. So why is this of interest? I'm not sure what the point is. There can be an agenda for both the ignorant and enlightened, just as they both have arms and legs. What of it? I asked if there was an agenda in that place. Not as an intellectual looking and imagining what it is like to be at that place. But to go there, be there, and discover the truth for ones self. If I wanted an intellectual discussion I would be quite willing to discuss that consciousness does in fact have an agenda, but that is not what I am getting at. My point and interest is in wanting to converse with someone who is at that place, who is abiding there, not someone who thinks and imagines they are. Who here on the forum will say something to me from that place? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 12:55:54 GMT -5
I'm trying to work out why you think it's significant in some way that there is no agenda i n the thoughtless void of undifferentiated awareness, because the agenda arises in the personal. So why is this of interest? I'm not sure what the point is. There can be an agenda for both the ignorant and enlightened, just as they both have arms and legs. What of it? I asked if there was an agenda in that place. Not as an intellectual looking and imagining what it is like to be at that place. But to go there, be there, and discover the truth for ones self. If I wanted an intellectual discussion I would be quite willing to discuss that consciousness does in fact have an agenda, but that is not what I am getting at. My point and interest is in wanting to converse with someone who is at that place, who is abiding there, not someone who thinks and imagines they are. Who here on the forum will say something to me from that place? No one can or ever will in the entire history of mankind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 13:04:06 GMT -5
I asked if there was an agenda in that place. Not as an intellectual looking and imagining what it is like to be at that place. But to go there, be there, and discover the truth for ones self. If I wanted an intellectual discussion I would be quite willing to discuss that consciousness does in fact have an agenda, but that is not what I am getting at. My point and interest is in wanting to converse with someone who is at that place, who is abiding there, not someone who thinks and imagines they are. Who here on the forum will say something to me from that place? No one can or ever will in the entire history of mankind. If you believe that thought, it cannot not be your experience. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 13:07:18 GMT -5
No one can or ever will in the entire history of mankind. If you believe that thought, it cannot not be your experience. Okay I'll speak from that place. Here goes. _ _ |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on May 2, 2017 13:48:19 GMT -5
Is it won't go or can't go? As in, there is only being and thoughts/belief about it. Won't...as in you don't want to. There isn't anything there for Mr Mind. Mr. Mind can want even that, though. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 2, 2017 13:56:32 GMT -5
Well, I agree that it is there (prior to thought), and it doesn't make much difference to my position if it is there in samadhi or not...I can see validity in both sides of that issue. What is important for me is understanding that the sense of I am being sensed requires a movement. It seems like you are suggesting that unconscious knowing (I agree there is unconscious knowing) is part of what is experienced. I don't think it is. My breath isn't part of my experience until it is. The sense of I am isn't part of my experience until it is. So when Niz says to focus on I am he is saying to make the unconscious knowing, a conscious one. I could agree that the mosquito unconsciously knows that it exists, but has no capacity to make it a conscious one. Then again, it has no good reason to because it doesn't have to transcend its belief that it is a mosquito! A thought about the sense of I am, requires a movement. The sense is non-conceptual. As I said, the sense of existence is the foundation upon which a thought is built. I don't know if that makes the sense a part of the experience or not. I would say unconscious motivations, fears, etc are very much a part of our experience, so I don't think one has to consciously reflect. Expressing this as a sense associates it with content. It's not only non-conceptual, but completely sideways to content. Perhaps it would be useful to even assassinate "prior-to", as it seems that can suggest something to mind that just isn't the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2017 14:07:39 GMT -5
A thought about the sense of I am, requires a movement. The sense is non-conceptual. As I said, the sense of existence is the foundation upon which a thought is built. I don't know if that makes the sense a part of the experience or not. I would say unconscious motivations, fears, etc are very much a part of our experience, so I don't think one has to consciously reflect. Expressing this as a sense associates it with content. It's not only non-conceptual, but completely sideways to content. Perhaps it would be useful to even assassinate "prior-to", as it seems that can suggest something to mind that just isn't the case. No, you're associating it with content. It doesn't mean he does just because he uses the word sense. If not sense then what? And we have to dump prior to as well? Let's just stop talking in case we have to use a word! |
|
