|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:07:43 GMT -5
The question is misconceived. The idea that there must be a 'who' is just a thought. Yes, the question is misconceived from the perspective of the conceptual self-identity. The question is for consciousness, so the answer cannot be a mental one. Mr Consciousness doesn't know anything about a 'who'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:08:53 GMT -5
That's just a thought. Next... When the I entity, or identity is removed from thought, it's much easier to see that in which they arise. That's just a thought. Next... |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jul 17, 2016 19:15:26 GMT -5
By controlling anger do you mean suppression or blocking the anger?
What do you mean by the background situation? If you mean the situation which one is controlling or allowing, yes seeing through the illusion of a person in the situation tends to collapse that. And yes, seeing through illusions does re-orchestrate life sequences and alter trajectories. I think it was Maharaj who said the person is a terrible burden! Yes diverting by some means, for an example, moving our focus to present moment or diverting away from the actual situation. The whole situation and the people those who are the cause of anger. When we reach to clarity, those people would be moved awayfrom our life. Whole situation collapses without our effect. Exactly, that's what I meant. I think I got another person in this forum to support my notion. So far, Enigma is the only person who supports my notion, and you are the second one. These meditating guys haven't seen this truth. Ok-but I will distinguish between moving away from someone who is causing anger, and getting to the root emotion within oneself of why one is angry in the first place. I would call the latter clarity. Often anger is a defense mechanism to a feeling of sadness or grief. And yes, in the expression of sadness or grief (causal emotion), the tendency to be 'triggered' dissipates immensely, and likewise, the tendency to attract other human energy fields with similar unhealed injuries unconsciously resonating with our own unexpressed pain.
|
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jul 17, 2016 19:17:08 GMT -5
I'm hoping to avoid that crucifixion thingy, but if I keep playing heretic it is only a matter of time before the village folk grab their torches and pitchforks and hunt me down!  That one with the googly eye means business. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:17:46 GMT -5
Unconscious, in this context, doesn't refer to losing consciousness. It's a psychological principle of denial. Essentially, self deception. Self deception happens, and it has little to do with ignorance. that arises about passed thoughts that no longer exist. There is no such thing as unconscious denial, unconscious self deception, or an I in which they refer to. Except as present moment thoughts. If you know your place, who is in denial and self deceiving? You're not conscious of being in denial about that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:23:15 GMT -5
I am not hypnotized at any way, I am directly seeing the perceiving nature of the human and coming to the conclusion that we can't know anything about the other perceiver, preciocho don't seems to be understanding anything of what I say, So I leave him in his own way. I really should quit here, but if there is no exterior world, then in what sense can any person you think is/might be a person?, the other perceiver. You must be say that consciousness contains illusory perceivers and ~real~ perceivers? Why would consciousness ~trick~ Gopal into thinking there is a ~real~ person there when it is indeed an imaginary person. I'm sorry, your world makes no sense to me. I understand preciocho, I don't understand you. The two ideas don't seem to be mutually exclusive to me. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:26:52 GMT -5
I am not talking about mind, Can you pay attention? Mind isn't perceiver? (The hole just gets deeper). Is his shovel digging that hole? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:28:52 GMT -5
I mean what I say. You can have a thought followed by a thought that contradicts the first thought. That isn't what Enigma means by split mind. As for unconsciousness, impossible. Consciousness is all there is whether or not it identifies with an object. You can't understand either idea, maybe because of too much meditation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 19:32:08 GMT -5
Maybe Laughter could read my post aloud to you; that may make it easier. Sure, I'll take a crack at translating. You seem to have written something along the lines of: "You are lecturing from ego. Maybe if you did that in a thread dedicated to lecturing the ignorant from ego, they would be able to discern that you were trying to lecture them from ego. Once they figured that out, they'd be that much less ignorant." I'm sure you were " speaking from the heart", right?  Not at all... from the mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:36:13 GMT -5
I mean what I say. You can have a thought followed by a thought that contradicts the first thought. That isn't what Enigma means by split mind. As for unconsciousness, impossible. Consciousness is all there is whether or not it identifies with an object. Yes, Enigma imagines an I entity or Identity between those contradictory thoughts. And then a thought arises that the I entity has a mind that is split. The imagined identity is not between the thoughts, whatever that means. The identity, itself, is a complex of thoughts, and when the mind splits, there are two imagined identities. Now both identities have to be seen for what they are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 19:36:48 GMT -5
Good morning Gopal. Clear skys here in Aborigineland, enough to make the witchitees contract their rolls of fat and bury deeper into logs, pokemons inviting tourists into their interiors, a grub in Mind. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:38:59 GMT -5
Ok, thank you. That I can understand. Where I question what you're saying, though, is in relation to the hanging moon issue. I know I'm going to struggle to get what I mean across, so please bear with me. I have seen the vastness of the implications of that subjectivity, so I don't question that part at all. It's the "You" part. There is only You, yes. This "You" also includes hanging moons, worlds, what we can perceive and what we can't perceive, in a nutshell - everything. We do not have the capacity to see 'The All' without subjectivity - that's just how minds work, and I believe that's basically what you're saying. But 'it' still exists. How I perceive the moon is only specifically my version of it - but there really is something there. The 'can't know' part only refers to what that something actually is. At the base of everything we perceive is an emptiness, but in its existence is fullness. If I exist, the moon exists. The sun is a better example. It takes eight minutes for photons from the sun to reach the earth. If we say the sun isn't there unless someone perceives it, you have to take into consideration the eight minutes. Alternatively, if you look up and, suddenly, there is no sun in the sky, it means the sun disappeared eight minutes ago, not this moment. But distant stars are an even better example. You are seeing light from millions of years ago. For many stars you presently see, they actually are no longer there, they died centuries ago. Time and space don't exist until you experience them. Same as sun and moon. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:40:09 GMT -5
Yes, Enigma imagines an I entity or Identity between those contradictory thoughts. And then a thought arises that the I entity has a mind that is split. Yes exactly. I was about to define the enigmatic split mind but I couldn't have put it better than you have. Serially? He's talking nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 17, 2016 19:45:10 GMT -5
Do you know Enigma's idea of Single consciousness experiences itself from multiple perspective? Enigma says One single consciousness experiences itself as you,me and everybody else in this universe. Enigma doesn't believe outer world exist but still believes that all the people are just various perspective(window of perception) of this single consciousness. It's believed that One single consciousness has multiple view point, and each and every view point is considered to be individated perspective, one view point is you and another view point is me. So I am saying I know I am that mega consciousness, but whether it has other view point or not can't be known. Are you clear here? I tried as possible as I can to preciocho but he continue to show ignorance towards what I have been writing so I gave up explaining to him. I think Consciousness has better things to do. Better things to do than create and perceive the entire universe? Like maybe rearrange it's sock drawer? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2016 19:52:41 GMT -5
Yes exactly. I was about to define the enigmatic split mind but I couldn't have put it better than you have. Serially? He's talking nonsense. Must be in your zone-bro. Non-sense is apart from common-sense. |
|
