|
Post by andrew on Feb 16, 2015 9:05:25 GMT -5
The experience here is that turkey can be eaten without the sense of self lol. On reflection now, I would say that writing that last sentence came without a sense of self....there is just a sort of focused thought and attention...no sense of self to speak of. A sense of self probably arises at times though perhaps if someone called out my name from across the street, there would be a moment of 'oh that's me they are talking to'. I see two sort of 'pillars' of that which is prior to the manifested...there is a void of pure potentiality, and there is the conscious presence, still empty of form, but which is present within all form. I see the 'I am' as the second pillar. It can be known or sensed. The other pillar is a void. As humans we have generally resided between the manifested and the conscious presence, and have been scared of the void (we are not scared of conscious presence so much). I would say it is our 'job' to reside between conscious presence and the void, and this isn't easy because it means facing the fear of the void, which to us, looks like non-existence. Self is evident in the unique presentation of 'your' understanding, you are engaged in mind-game of speculating beyond the present happening.. the still and clear mind, sees no 'void' and is therefore comfortable with its existence.. There was little speculating in the bit you highlighted, however, I acknowledge 'the void' is a speculative concept. On the other hand, given that the mind can only see 'things' by it's nature, sometimes these speculative ideas are useful in shifting our experience away from a consciousness of 'thingness'.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 16, 2015 9:10:14 GMT -5
No-one as such being present can eventually come about through meditation amongst other contributing factors . I am not so sure that no-one being present via meditation can be likened to an apple being consumed whist no-one is present to experience eating it . Is there anyone present whilst eating their xmas turkey, perhaps not but there is a sense of the self and the turkey . In regards to the source and I am, they are the same . There is only what you are and what you are that is of the mind relates that to 'I am' whether I am spirit, I am God, I am self, I am santa . The experience here is that turkey can be eaten without the sense of self lol. On reflection now, I would say that writing that last sentence came without a sense of self....there is just a sort of focused thought and attention...no sense of self to speak of. A sense of self probably arises at times though perhaps if someone called out my name from across the street, there would be a moment of 'oh that's me they are talking to'. I see two sort of 'pillars' of that which is prior to the manifested...there is a void of pure potentiality, and there is the conscious presence, still empty of form, but which is present within all form. I see the 'I am' as the second pillar. It can be known or sensed. The other pillar is a void. As humans we have generally resided between the manifested and the conscious presence, and have been scared of the void (we are not scared of conscious presence so much). I would say it is our 'job' to shift our 'residence' to a balance between the manifested and the void, and this isn't easy because it means facing the fear of the void, which to us, looks like non-existence. I see self as what we are that is of the mind so in that respect if there is turkey indeed being consumed then there is what you are in experience of eating turkey . A sense of self had is that I am experiencing eating turkey, I can smell it, I can taste it, I can feel the texture of it in my mouth . If you relate self in relation to your name being called then I understand what you mean regarding no sense of self whilst eating turkey in collaboration with one's attention / focus . That makes sense . I understand what you mean about the two pillars but what has manifested can only then point to the notion of what yet has not . It's like the mind / no mind scenario where one can only relate to no mind from mind . I agree that individuals can be scared of letting go of what they relate themselves to be if we take a non existent reflection of the void .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 16, 2015 9:14:09 GMT -5
The experience here is that turkey can be eaten without the sense of self lol. On reflection now, I would say that writing that last sentence came without a sense of self....there is just a sort of focused thought and attention...no sense of self to speak of. A sense of self probably arises at times though perhaps if someone called out my name from across the street, there would be a moment of 'oh that's me they are talking to'. I see two sort of 'pillars' of that which is prior to the manifested...there is a void of pure potentiality, and there is the conscious presence, still empty of form, but which is present within all form. I see the 'I am' as the second pillar. It can be known or sensed. The other pillar is a void. As humans we have generally resided between the manifested and the conscious presence, and have been scared of the void (we are not scared of conscious presence so much). I would say it is our 'job' to reside between conscious presence and the void, and this isn't easy because it means facing the fear of the void, which to us, looks like non-existence. Self is evident in the unique presentation of 'your' understanding, you are engaged in mind-game of speculating beyond the present happening.. the still and clear mind, sees no 'void' and is therefore comfortable with its existence..Yes, I would say at that point there would be no fear . Another point would perhaps present a dilemma of sorts where one is faced with jumping out of a plane with no parachute .
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 16, 2015 9:14:19 GMT -5
Self is evident in the unique presentation of 'your' understanding, you are engaged in mind-game of speculating beyond the present happening.. the still and clear mind, sees no 'void' and is therefore comfortable with its existence.. There was little speculating in the bit you highlighted, however, I acknowledge 'the void' is a speculative concept. On the other hand, given that the mind can only see 'things' by it's nature, sometimes these speculative ideas are useful in shifting our experience away from a consciousness of 'thingness'. "Thingness" is there, right in front of us.. understanding its nature and integrating its thereness/presence into the experiencer's relationship with existence is preferable to endless ideological attempts to rationalize 'thingness' away.. when the experiencer tires of endless 'model wars', thingness no longer distracts the experiencer from what is happening..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 16, 2015 9:20:33 GMT -5
The experience here is that turkey can be eaten without the sense of self lol. On reflection now, I would say that writing that last sentence came without a sense of self....there is just a sort of focused thought and attention...no sense of self to speak of. A sense of self probably arises at times though perhaps if someone called out my name from across the street, there would be a moment of 'oh that's me they are talking to'. I see two sort of 'pillars' of that which is prior to the manifested...there is a void of pure potentiality, and there is the conscious presence, still empty of form, but which is present within all form. I see the 'I am' as the second pillar. It can be known or sensed. The other pillar is a void. As humans we have generally resided between the manifested and the conscious presence, and have been scared of the void (we are not scared of conscious presence so much). I would say it is our 'job' to shift our 'residence' to a balance between the manifested and the void, and this isn't easy because it means facing the fear of the void, which to us, looks like non-existence. I see self as what we are that is of the mind so in that respect if there is turkey indeed being consumed then there is what you are in experience of eating turkey . A sense of self had is that I am experiencing eating turkey, I can smell it, I can taste it, I can feel the texture of it in my mouth . If you relate self in relation to your name being called then I understand what you mean regarding no sense of self whilst eating turkey in collaboration with one's attention / focus . That makes sense . I understand what you mean about the two pillars but what has manifested can only then point to the notion of what yet has not . It's like the mind / no mind scenario where one can only relate to no mind from mind . I agree that individuals can be scared of letting go of what they relate themselves to be if we take a non existent reflection of the void . In the moment of eating the turkey, it's probably not so much the experience of 'you' eating turkey though, it's just the experience of smells, tastes, feelings. I'm not saying its impossible to experience a 'you' that is eating turkey, on the other hand, it's also not necessary to experience a 'you' that is eating turkey. It can be just 'nom nom yum yum'. Maybe this body-mind is just too greedy to bother with a sense of self when eating turkey lol. I relate the sense of self to a sense of 'I' or even 'me' in any form, and the most obvious form of that is when someone calls my name. Fleeting, the sense of 'I' in the form of Andrew arises. There is a recognition in that moment that I am Andrew. Edit: What also occurs to me is that I don't tend to participate in environments which lend themselves to a sense of self. I notice that 'formality' tends to lend itself to a 'sense of self', so if I eat turkey on the 25th, it's without any formal xmas hoop-la.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 16, 2015 9:22:33 GMT -5
There was little speculating in the bit you highlighted, however, I acknowledge 'the void' is a speculative concept. On the other hand, given that the mind can only see 'things' by it's nature, sometimes these speculative ideas are useful in shifting our experience away from a consciousness of 'thingness'. "Thingness" is there, right in front of us.. understanding its nature and integrating its thereness/presence into the experiencer's relationship with existence is preferable to endless ideological attempts to rationalize 'thingness' away.. when the experiencer tires of endless 'model wars', thingness no longer distracts the experiencer from what is happening.. okay.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 16, 2015 10:01:36 GMT -5
I see self as what we are that is of the mind so in that respect if there is turkey indeed being consumed then there is what you are in experience of eating turkey . A sense of self had is that I am experiencing eating turkey, I can smell it, I can taste it, I can feel the texture of it in my mouth . If you relate self in relation to your name being called then I understand what you mean regarding no sense of self whilst eating turkey in collaboration with one's attention / focus . That makes sense . I understand what you mean about the two pillars but what has manifested can only then point to the notion of what yet has not . It's like the mind / no mind scenario where one can only relate to no mind from mind . I agree that individuals can be scared of letting go of what they relate themselves to be if we take a non existent reflection of the void . In the moment of eating the turkey, it's probably not so much the experience of 'you' eating turkey though, it's just the experience of smells, tastes, feelings. I'm not saying its impossible to experience a 'you' that is eating turkey, on the other hand, it's also not necessary to experience a 'you' that is eating turkey. It can be just 'nom nom yum yum'. Maybe this body-mind is just too greedy to bother with a sense of self when eating turkey lol. I relate the sense of self to a sense of 'I' or even 'me' in any form, and the most obvious form of that is when someone calls my name. Fleeting, the sense of 'I' in the form of Andrew arises. There is a recognition in that moment that I am Andrew. Edit: What also occurs to me is that I don't tend to participate in environments which lend themselves to a sense of self. I notice that 'formality' tends to lend itself to a 'sense of self', so if I eat turkey on the 25th, it's without any formal xmas hoop-la. haha .. when you say the experience of 'you' do you mean 'you' as in what 'I am' or what 'I think I am' in relation to the turkey or what the turkey is, or what I think the turkey is lols .. The thing is the realization of what you are is in a roundabout way bringing home that there is only what you are (cutting story short for convenience sakes) . If we go into those kinda realms where 'it is not you' that is eating the turkey then 'what else is there' that isn't 'you' Then 'what is it' that is eating the darn bird . Are we not venturing into the realms of 'what we are is this' and 'what we are is not that' . In the experience of eating turkey perhaps it's safer to say in relation to what is realized is that what we are is experiencing eating turkey . The turkey however is what we are also . Sounds kinda cannibal heaven or hell but hey ho, a means to an end and all that jazz When the sense of andrew is not there, there is sense of what you are present somewhere . It may not be localised where the turkey burger is at but if one is entertaining the mind, your individual sense of self is somewhere . Where would your attention be if not on the poor little turkey .. Who is chomping up and down licking their lips or wiping the mayo from your bib lols . Would you say the moment your attention is elsewhere you cease to chomp turkey .. Would you be a sitting zombie eyes starry eyed looking into the void and yet no-one is in .
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2015 10:01:54 GMT -5
There only requires a sense of 'I am' to relate that 'I' exist . The mind is the environment for that to be so . No matter what form or non form one experiences and no matter where one finds themselves whilst of the mind one will always be aware of "I am" . 'I am' just requires an association with what 'I am' within mind be it just a thought or whatever .The sense of existing has no relationship to what it is that exists.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 16, 2015 10:06:08 GMT -5
There only requires a sense of 'I am' to relate that 'I' exist . The mind is the environment for that to be so . No matter what form or non form one experiences and no matter where one finds themselves whilst of the mind one will always be aware of "I am" . 'I am' just requires an association with what 'I am' within mind be it just a thought or whatever .The sense of existing has no relationship to what it is that exists. In the realization of what you are there is only what you are . If 'I' sense existence .. then it is 'I' what exists that is being sensed . As I said to andy, what else is there other than what we are . Whatever exists can only be sensed by what exists ..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 16, 2015 10:29:34 GMT -5
In the moment of eating the turkey, it's probably not so much the experience of 'you' eating turkey though, it's just the experience of smells, tastes, feelings. I'm not saying its impossible to experience a 'you' that is eating turkey, on the other hand, it's also not necessary to experience a 'you' that is eating turkey. It can be just 'nom nom yum yum'. Maybe this body-mind is just too greedy to bother with a sense of self when eating turkey lol. I relate the sense of self to a sense of 'I' or even 'me' in any form, and the most obvious form of that is when someone calls my name. Fleeting, the sense of 'I' in the form of Andrew arises. There is a recognition in that moment that I am Andrew. Edit: What also occurs to me is that I don't tend to participate in environments which lend themselves to a sense of self. I notice that 'formality' tends to lend itself to a 'sense of self', so if I eat turkey on the 25th, it's without any formal xmas hoop-la. haha .. when you say the experience of 'you' do you mean 'you' as in what 'I am' or what 'I think I am' in relation to the turkey or what the turkey is, or what I think the turkey is lols .. The thing is the realization of what you are is in a roundabout way bringing home that there is only what you are (cutting story short for convenience sakes) . If we go into those kinda realms where 'it is not you' that is eating the turkey then 'what else is there' that isn't 'you' Then 'what is it' that is eating the darn bird . Are we not venturing into the realms of 'what we are is this' and 'what we are is not that' . In the experience of eating turkey perhaps it's safer to say in relation to what is realized is that what we are is experiencing eating turkey . The turkey however is what we are also . Sounds kinda cannibal heaven or hell but hey ho, a means to an end and all that jazz When the sense of andrew is not there, there is sense of what you are present somewhere . It may not be localised where the turkey burger is at but if one is entertaining the mind, your individual sense of self is somewhere . Where would your attention be if not on the poor little turkey .. Who is chomping up and down licking their lips or wiping the mayo from your bib lols . Would you say the moment your attention is elsewhere you cease to chomp turkey .. Would you be a sitting zombie eyes starry eyed looking into the void and yet no-one is in . When the sense of Andrew is not there, it is possible that there is a sense of 'what I am' present somewhere, the point is though that it's not 'localized' i.e. the only thing relevant at that moment is the feelings and tastes etc. This is just one example though, when the turkey is finished, something else begins, and there may or may not be a sense of what I am that is present locally. Again, writing that last sentence...there was just a sense of focused attention and thought. There are lot of different types of meditation activity that happen here, and in some of those, I might sit with a deep sense of 'I'. In other meditations, there really is just...nothing though. In one way, it is possible that all this is God Godding, and there is no 'I' or 'you', there is just the sense of an 'I' or 'you' that arises from time to time as a pattern within experience. Having said that, this is not 'my' preferred way of thinking on the subject, I'm just trying to illustrate something here about the way 'I' see things.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 16, 2015 10:33:04 GMT -5
The sense of existing has no relationship to what it is that exists. In the realization of what you are there is only what you are . If 'I' sense existence .. then it is 'I' what exists that is being sensed . As I said to andy, what else is there other than what we are .Whatever exists can only be sensed by what exists .. Could all just be 'God'. Or 'Impersonal Being'. Or 'Self'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2015 11:06:19 GMT -5
Yea it sounds like an absurd question. Perhaps there won't be any answer other than a "no", but it is an interesting subject for me. Btw, not strictly related but if you haven't watched this "Overview" video, I recommend it (19 min). What was remarkable about the look at the Earth from space for me was the contrast with what we see elsewhere in the Solar system. I used to conceive of myself as a collection of stardust that was the result of billions of years of evolution. It struck me once back then how long the odds were that the atoms of my body would have been part of the intricate and flowing surface of the bright blue ball. I mean, there's an awful lot of inhospitable real estate out there. So while I don't have any sort of answer for you to your question, what I can relate is that how the Earth from space eventually resolved for me the Christian notion of God's love. The Earth truly is the Lilly in the field of the Universe.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2015 11:11:23 GMT -5
Yea it sounds like an absurd question. Perhaps there won't be any answer other than a "no", but it is an interesting subject for me. Btw, not strictly related but if you haven't watched this "Overview" video, I recommend it (19 min). Hi zindarud, maybe I'll buck the consensus then and say yes, absolutely. God tried to get "I AM" out of a meteor but it just wasn't happening. God. Pshaw. What a weakling.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2015 11:16:32 GMT -5
Hi zindarud, maybe I'll buck the consensus then and say yes, absolutely. God tried to get "I AM" out of a meteor but it just wasn't happening. Hi source, How did you learn about the meteor? I am open to any answer! From observation (of universe), from some legends, from your own thinking? ...But yes, I am generally talking about living things & Earth. Perhaps there is not much to say on this issue but I was curious about whether some of us would instantly say "yes". Sort of, there is not much to think about, just go into the "I am" feeling/sense and decide there. (perhaps it is not the same sense for everybody, I really don't know). The meteor joke actually brings to mind a fun little bit of TMT. The old consensus for how life arose on Earth was that it started from a random event, here locally (on Earth itself) that was the bridge from inorganic to organic chemistry. This view is somewhat out of fashion these days because archeology has revealed that life got started much much earlier in the history of the planet than was previously thought likely.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 16, 2015 12:13:11 GMT -5
There only requires a sense of 'I am' to relate that 'I' exist . The mind is the environment for that to be so . No matter what form or non form one experiences and no matter where one finds themselves whilst of the mind one will always be aware of "I am" . 'I am' just requires an association with what 'I am' within mind be it just a thought or whatever .The sense of existing has no relationship to what it is that exists. ... counter-intuitive, but still ...
|
|