|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 20, 2015 20:02:26 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1448057225000" class="time" title="Nov 20, 2015 23:07:05 GMT 7">Nov 20, 2015 23:07:05 GMT 7</abbr> stardustpilgrim said: It's been a while since I read J's-TOE but I don't remember anything particularly objectionable (to me) popping out. Unless you can give a direct quote, figgles, there isn't any contradiction between consciousness being the ground of being, that (Consciousness) which gives rise (same Consciousness) to being (meaning different levels of being, the being of a mineral, the being of a plant, the being of an animal, the being of a human) and consciousness as a state of being, IOW, why can't it be both? (Consciousness doesn't "give rise" to itself, Consciousness is Being ).
Here's my view, originally (if even that makes sense....but let's say, originally meaning before there were stars and planets and animals and people), there was Consciousness (which I call SOCI, for clarity, but Consciousness really says enough). So it is both the ground of being and Being itself. For whatever reason or whatever purpose, we exist here now in a suit of flesh, thinking, feeling-emoting and doing. Now, warm-blooded animals, mammals, think in the sense that they process information, they feel-emote and do, and so in a very real sense they are aware, if they were not aware of their environment, they would die pretty quickly as they couldn't find food or water.
So what distinguishes animals from human beings? It's the capacity for the possibility of having consciousness. For me, consciousness of the Whole is Consciousness (with a capital C). But humans can have consciousness, as a particular state, a state of being, but not the same state of Being as Consciousness (big C). So I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.
Again, what's the difference between animals and humans? Animals are aware, humans have the possibility of being aware that they are aware, aka self-aware, aka self-conscious. (And everyone has to find this difference, in themselves). We can have functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions) without consciousness and we can have consciousness without functions. Some people, maybe most people, maybe the majority of people, are just aware, you can get along quite well in the world with just being aware.
It takes consciousness to make consciousness. (IOW, for me, IMvhO, it's self-evident that Consciousness is first and consciousness does not arise from some combination of the elements slapped together, alone).
It is not true. Nothing exists outside of you.
Yes, self awareness is what distinquishes humans form animals, the nature of the Human Condition and the cause of human suffering.
It is not possible to have functions without consciousness, it gives rise to all. You are mixing consciousness with being aware.
I tried to be clear, I was talking about an individuated perspective (regarding the underlined. An individuated perspective would be tano reading and typing). I described "it gives rise to all", it's there, pretty clearly, in the post. If we go round and round about this, I'll get enigma to explain context for you. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 20:20:19 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1448057225000" class="time" title="Nov 20, 2015 23:07:05 GMT 7">Nov 20, 2015 23:07:05 GMT 7</abbr> stardustpilgrim said: It's been a while since I read J's-TOE but I don't remember anything particularly objectionable (to me) popping out. Unless you can give a direct quote, figgles, there isn't any contradiction between consciousness being the ground of being, that (Consciousness) which gives rise (same Consciousness) to being (meaning different levels of being, the being of a mineral, the being of a plant, the being of an animal, the being of a human) and consciousness as a state of being, IOW, why can't it be both? (Consciousness doesn't "give rise" to itself, Consciousness is Being ).
Here's my view, originally (if even that makes sense....but let's say, originally meaning before there were stars and planets and animals and people), there was Consciousness (which I call SOCI, for clarity, but Consciousness really says enough). So it is both the ground of being and Being itself. For whatever reason or whatever purpose, we exist here now in a suit of flesh, thinking, feeling-emoting and doing. Now, warm-blooded animals, mammals, think in the sense that they process information, they feel-emote and do, and so in a very real sense they are aware, if they were not aware of their environment, they would die pretty quickly as they couldn't find food or water.
So what distinguishes animals from human beings? It's the capacity for the possibility of having consciousness. For me, consciousness of the Whole is Consciousness (with a capital C). But humans can have consciousness, as a particular state, a state of being, but not the same state of Being as Consciousness (big C). So I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.
Again, what's the difference between animals and humans? Animals are aware, humans have the possibility of being aware that they are aware, aka self-aware, aka self-conscious. (And everyone has to find this difference, in themselves). We can have functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions) without consciousness and we can have consciousness without functions. Some people, maybe most people, maybe the majority of people, are just aware, you can get along quite well in the world with just being aware.
It takes consciousness to make consciousness. (IOW, for me, IMvhO, it's self-evident that Consciousness is first and consciousness does not arise from some combination of the elements slapped together, alone).
It is not true. Nothing exists outside of you.
Yes, self awareness is what distinquishes humans form animals, the nature of the Human Condition and the cause of human suffering.
It is not possible to have functions without consciousness, it gives rise to all. You are mixing consciousness with being aware.
As are you when you speak of consciousness being a 'state' of being. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4257/after-sr?page=4#ixzz3s5J82O1z |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 20:27:07 GMT -5
So you disagree that in in TOE Jed draws a distinction between 'a state of being conscious' and the "Consciousness" that is fundamental to all appearances, all experience? They are the same thing. I know they are to you, but my point was that in those quotes, Jed is making a distinction between them. "There are actually two types of consciousness, Atmanic and Brahmanic." Jed McKenna My initially query to you was whether or not you resonated with his viewpoint as expressed by those quotes. I'll ask again, do you agree with Jed's quote above...are there 2 types of consciousness as he says? If so, I don't get why you told Max to 'simplify' when he talked about there being two types of "consciousness" of "consciousness" getting spoken about in two different ways. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 20:30:50 GMT -5
Existence of consciousness "before there were stars and planets and animals and people" is the garden path, very similar to the path of all religions - a path to the external God.
It is not true. Nothing exists outside of you.
Yes, self awareness is what distinquishes humans form animals, the nature of the Human Condition and the cause of human suffering.
It is not possible to have functions without consciousness, it gives rise to all. You are mixing consciousness with being aware.
I tried to be clear, I was talking about an individuated perspective (regarding the underlined. An individuated perspective would be tano reading and typing). I described "it gives rise to all", it's there, pretty clearly, in the post. If we go round and round about this, I'll get enigma to explain context for you. Yes, McKenna (In TOE) describes this as "Brahmanic/Atmanic Consciousness." "Brahmanic Consciousness is our absolute nature. Atmanic Consciousness is our living reality." Jed McKenna You are saying the same thing from what I can see. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 20:39:13 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1448057225000" class="time" title="Nov 20, 2015 23:07:05 GMT 7">Nov 20, 2015 23:07:05 GMT 7</abbr> stardustpilgrim said: It's been a while since I read J's-TOE but I don't remember anything particularly objectionable (to me) popping out. Unless you can give a direct quote, figgles, there isn't any contradiction between consciousness being the ground of being, that (Consciousness) which gives rise (same Consciousness) to being (meaning different levels of being, the being of a mineral, the being of a plant, the being of an animal, the being of a human) and consciousness as a state of being, IOW, why can't it be both? (Consciousness doesn't "give rise" to itself, Consciousness is Being ).
Here's my view, originally (if even that makes sense....but let's say, originally meaning before there were stars and planets and animals and people), there was Consciousness (which I call SOCI, for clarity, but Consciousness really says enough). So it is both the ground of being and Being itself. For whatever reason or whatever purpose, we exist here now in a suit of flesh, thinking, feeling-emoting and doing. Now, warm-blooded animals, mammals, think in the sense that they process information, they feel-emote and do, and so in a very real sense they are aware, if they were not aware of their environment, they would die pretty quickly as they couldn't find food or water.
So what distinguishes animals from human beings? It's the capacity for the possibility of having consciousness. For me, consciousness of the Whole is Consciousness (with a capital C). But humans can have consciousness, as a particular state, a state of being, but not the same state of Being as Consciousness (big C). So I don't see any contradiction whatsoever.
Again, what's the difference between animals and humans? Animals are aware, humans have the possibility of being aware that they are aware, aka self-aware, aka self-conscious. (And everyone has to find this difference, in themselves). We can have functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions) without consciousness and we can have consciousness without functions. Some people, maybe most people, maybe the majority of people, are just aware, you can get along quite well in the world with just being aware.
It takes consciousness to make consciousness. (IOW, for me, IMvhO, it's self-evident that Consciousness is first and consciousness does not arise from some combination of the elements slapped together, alone).
It is not true. Nothing exists outside of you.
Yes, self awareness is what distinquishes humans form animals, the nature of the Human Condition and the cause of human suffering.
It is not possible to have functions without consciousness, it gives rise to all. You are mixing consciousness with being aware.
If Consciousness gives rise to all, then is it really so 'garden pathy' to say, "prior to stars, planets, animals and people,' is Consciousness? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 20:55:33 GMT -5
I know they are to you, but my point was that in those quotes, Jed is making a distinction between them. "There are actually two types of consciousness, Atmanic and Brahmanic." Jed McKenna My initially query to you was whether or not you resonated with his viewpoint as expressed by those quotes. I'll ask again, do you agree with Jed's quote above...are there 2 types of consciousness as he says? If so, I don't get why you told Max to 'simplify' when he talked about there being two types of "consciousness" of "consciousness" getting spoken about in two different ways. Jed McKenna They are the same thing. Atman is Brahman, they are ONE. How can I explain this if you can't SENSE it? I can't. How can I show this to you if you treat this as a mental gymnastics?Yes, it could be said that Atman And Brahman are one...and I"m sure Jed would not disagaree... But in those quotes, he IS in fact, making a distinction. That is my only point. There is nothing I need to sense or be shown. I am clear about Consciousness giving rise to it all. What I am trying to find out is if you agree with those Jed quotes or not. You seem to not want to answer.... |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 20:58:52 GMT -5
"Brahmanic Consciousness is our absolute nature. Atmanic Consciousness is our living reality." Jed McKenna They are the same thing. Atman is Brahman, they are ONE. How can I explain this if you can't SENSE it? I can't. How can I show this to you if you treat this as a mental gymnastics? I can't show you. Jed was right... come and see for yourself. I have seen. I am simply asking about what you make of those quotes. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 21:13:05 GMT -5
Who is looking to confirm disagreements or agreements? Is that important?They are ONE. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EC3hswtZhIAll that you touch And all that you see All that you taste All you feel And all that you love And all that you hate All you distrust All you save And all that you give And all that you deal And all that you buy Beg, borrow or steal And all you create And all you destroy And all that you do And all that you say And all that you eat And everyone you meet (everyone you meet) And all that you slight And everyone you fight And all that is now And all that is gone And all that's to come And everything under the sun is in tune But the sun is eclipsed by the moon Who is the one asking that question? Why is it important? I'm Just trying to have a conversation. You've shared that you've read Jed McKenna's trilogy and that these books hammered the final nail in. Thus, I was simply curious as to what you made of those TOE quotes...his theory hinges upon making the distinction between 'a state of being conscious' and that which gives rise to all beings, all states. In your insistence upon 'sameness' you don't seem to want to acknowledge the distinction he's making. I found that interesting is all, considering your deep resonance with McKenna in his previous writings. No big deal though. You're allowed to disagree with Jed, or see things in different ways from him. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 20, 2015 22:00:25 GMT -5
You're allowed to disagree with Jed, or see things in different ways from him. The disagreement between 'me and Jed' exists in your mind only, and was the (subconscious) reason for this exchange on your part.Thank you. Any exchange moves forward.   |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 21, 2015 9:46:56 GMT -5
I tried to be clear, I was talking about an individuated perspective (regarding the underlined. An individuated perspective would be tano reading and typing). I described "it gives rise to all", it's there, pretty clearly, in the post. If we go round and round about this, I'll get enigma to explain context for you. SDP, I know you were talking about an individuated perspective. Read what you wrote again very carefully: We can have functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions) without consciousness and we can have consciousness without functions.Thank you. Go back and consider the statement, before TR (like, for ordinary people). I'm talking about consciousness, not the ground (Consciousness). edit: I read the remaining quotes (and last night I got out JTOE and read the part about Brahman and Atman (having learned this, information, in 1970). So, piggybacking on to "Go back and consider...", the difference between [Consciousness, big C (Brahman)] and {consciousness-as-awareness-of-functions and even consciousness, alone}, versus functions without consciousness (IOW, pre-TR). IOW, the difference between Brahman and Atman is the difference between the Whole and individuation, and, the difference pre-TR and TR. If there was no difference, there wouldn't be two different names. (That's not to say there is any difference between Brahman and Atman). Or, is tano the ~ same person~ pre-TR and TR? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 21, 2015 11:21:35 GMT -5
SDP, I know you were talking about an individuated perspective. Read what you wrote again very carefully: We can have functions (thinking, feeling/emotions, bodily actions) without consciousness and we can have consciousness without functions.Thank you. Go back and consider the statement, before TR (like, for ordinary people). I'm talking about consciousness, not the ground (Consciousness). edit: I read the remaining quotes (and last night I got out JTOE and read the part about Brahman and Atman (having learned this, information, in 1970). So, piggybacking on to "Go back and consider...", the difference between [Consciousness, big C (Brahman)] and {consciousness-as-awareness-of-functions and even consciousness, alone}, versus functions without consciousness (IOW, pre-TR). IOW, the difference between Brahman and Atman is the difference between the Whole and individuation, and, the difference pre-TR and TR. If there was no difference, there wouldn't be two different names. (That's not to say there is any difference between Brahman and Atman). Or, is tano the ~same person~ pre-TR and TR? The person has evolved: same, but different.. " you can't step into the same river twice".. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 21, 2015 11:37:42 GMT -5
I know they are to you, but my point was that in those quotes, Jed is making a distinction between them. "There are actually two types of consciousness, Atmanic and Brahmanic." Jed McKenna My initially query to you was whether or not you resonated with his viewpoint as expressed by those quotes. I'll ask again, do you agree with Jed's quote above...are there 2 types of consciousness as he says? If so, I don't get why you told Max to 'simplify' when he talked about there being two types of "consciousness" of "consciousness" getting spoken about in two different ways. Jed McKenna They are the same thing. Atman is Brahman, they are ONE.How can I explain this if you can't SENSE it? I can't. How can I show this to you if you treat this as a mental gymnastics? does not mean 'the same.' All sorts of distinctions and differences appear, albeit, all under the umbrella of One. Indeed, Jed would not say that there is separation between Atman and Brahman, but his theory hinges upon them being "different." (Ground vs. what arises from Ground) That is where you and he are seeing things differently; You say Ground and that which arises from are One AND the same. He would not deny they Are One, but he is quite succinctly making the point in this book that they are different. (..."there are two types of consciousness." JM) |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 21, 2015 11:38:02 GMT -5
Just a reminder: what Tano IS cannot be imagined.
|
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Nov 21, 2015 15:29:00 GMT -5
I will answer here to both SDP and Figgles. You are reading quotes from a ten year old book, written by a being which wrote what he wrote the way he understood it THEN. Actually, TOE was published in 2013. If the Jed character really is also the author, and everything he says reflects his life and understandings, then surely he would not release a book in 2013 that is representative of understandings a decade earlier unless they were the same...? No one is asking you to 'get stuck' on anything. We are simply trying to point out that you and Jed are saying different things; Jed: There are two types of Consciousness. Tano: They are same (& regarding 'skinning yourself alive,'... so not necessary.) Anyway, my point was/is as simple as that...you and Jed are saying something different if you are insisting upon 'sameness.' Beyond that, you're reading far more into what I am saying than what is actually there. Fwiw, I have not divulged in this conversation precisely what MY understanding is with regards to what does or does not give rise to it all, rather I am sharing my take on Jed's theory of Everything. When I read what you wrote, it appeared quite different from his take on "consciousness", thus, I asked for clarification. Simple curiosity is all as I know you see Jed as an authority of sorts on all this. If you do in fact have areas of understanding that diverge from his, I actually see that as a good thing..guru worship is never advised. Assumptions abound. I seek for nothing. I have never depended upon what another has to say, supposed guru or not, but rather, early on clearly understood that anything I wanted to understand was accessible right 'here.' fwiw, I resonate with some of what McKenna says, but by no means all of his material. This could be said for most teachers/teachings I've come across. Okay. Initially you were unwilling to acknowledge that difference. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 21, 2015 17:40:11 GMT -5
Just a reminder: what Tano IS cannot be imagined. Hey ZD, yes, butt ... Zen Master Ummon was asked once, What is Buddha? His reply, Dry sh!t on a stick. .......I didn't get this for a long time, what he was referring to, and then it hit me one day. I had an uncle who was a dairy farmer, and grew some corn for silage for feed, but some for hard corn which was ground into corn meal, a treat for the cows as they were milked (and also an easy way to give them vitamins and minerals). A byproduct of this corn was a dry corncob (unlike silage where everything was used, corn stalk, corncob and corn). Now I have never used a dry corncob, because of the new invention called toilet paper, but its use was known to me as it was spoken of from time to time, usually in some kind of humor, and I have since seen novelty items saying, redneck toilet paper. Saying all that to say that I realized Ummon's sh!t stick was used "toilet paper"  . And saying all that to say that one of the differences between Brahman and Atman, is that the tano-Atman necessarily needs the use of a "corncob", and Brahman never does. |
|
.