|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 16, 2016 15:44:04 GMT -5
But, are you comfortable seeing things how you see them, and understanding peeps how you understand them? I would say that to at least some extent, everyone is. Not the question, which is also consistent with your path. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 16, 2016 16:12:23 GMT -5
I would say that to at least some extent, everyone is. Not the question, which is also consistent with your path. It was because the question of being comfortable with how I see things isn't very applicable to my experience. The best I can say is..'I guess so, as much as anyone' |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 17, 2016 15:00:50 GMT -5
Not the question, which is also consistent with your path. It was because the question of being comfortable with how I see things isn't very applicable to my experience. The best I can say is..'I guess so, as much as anyone' The question was about your process and whether or not you are comfortable with where you are in that process. When asked about it, you immediately went into explaining it away in how you see other people's process in relation to who you think you are. I know from past discussions (which, indeed, may not apply now) that you are not interested in search for anything, but your discussions on this board reveal otherwise. I'm just curious about how honest you are being with yourself and the board. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 17, 2016 15:11:30 GMT -5
It was because the question of being comfortable with how I see things isn't very applicable to my experience. The best I can say is..'I guess so, as much as anyone' The question was about your process and whether or not you are comfortable with where you are in that process. When asked about it, you immediately went into explaining it away in how you see other people's process in relation to who you think you are. I know from past discussions (which, indeed, may not apply now) that you are not interested in search for anything, but your discussions on this board reveal otherwise. I'm just curious about how honest you are being with yourself and the board. And as I said to you, 'comfort', as a state or a felt sensation isn't very relevant or applicable to my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 17, 2016 18:50:46 GMT -5
It was because the question of being comfortable with how I see things isn't very applicable to my experience. The best I can say is..'I guess so, as much as anyone' The question was about your process and whether or not you are comfortable with where you are in that process. When asked about it, you immediately went into explaining it away in how you see other people's process in relation to who you think you are. I know from past discussions (which, indeed, may not apply now) that you are not interested in search for anything, but your discussions on this board reveal otherwise. I'm just curious about how honest you are being with yourself and the board.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 13, 2016 11:18:04 GMT -5
Yes, we've discussed this before, thoroughly. Basically, I don't see how your creative Intelligence, goes unconscious (falls into the dream). All I can see is you are essentially an A-theist. Yes, if you must assign a label to me, I am an atheist. I don't see a personal God anywhere, and the implications of such would make that God despicable. I recall that you don't like the idea of God falling into his own dream, for personal reasons, but I don't know why it's hard to understand. I don't see anything BUT God, so I don't know what the alternative would be. ............bumped as referred to........... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 30, 2020 22:29:22 GMT -5
………...As the question of conditioning has been raised lately, thought I'd pull this up...… I've been considering a thread where people could somewhat elaborate their "metaphysical" stance, that is, their basis for living, for making decisions and maneuvering through life, in short, your world view. Many of us have done this through posting, but it is not succinct or in one place. There is generally the non-dual view expressed here, but with many variations. And I have asked the question many times, but how does that relate to your ordinary life, how does that apply to how you function in day by day life circumstances? I don't usually get a satisfactory reply. And then some have [what I consider] a very healthy ~ bridge~ between their world view and the tasks of operating in life, getting from point A to point B, earning a living, putting food on the table and a roof over one's head. So, it seems some have a divided life, OTOneH expressing certain views here on ST's which seem like conceptual constructs with a little pixie-dust spread over them, and I want to call bs (belief-system, or whatever else comes to mind), and OTOH some of the views expressed here couldn't realistically get you a coffee at McDonald's. The basis of this thread is the desire for some to completely ignore the material world, I want to call you on that. Yes, I accept that all we can know is our own consciousness, but if I walk into a gas station and plunk down a few bills for gasoline, a Pepsi and a pack of peanuts, I want to know how you can say there is no external world. That, it seems to me, is living in illusion. And also some will say, well, we act as if the external world exists, etc. That just doesn't cut the mustard for me, that is living in illusion too. IOW, I'm looking for a unifying principle or principles for your life. Yes, there is only One universe, there isn't anything outside all that is. There is all that is, why can't we call that what's real, or call that reality? So, illusion, Maya, is to operate outside of a right relationship to all that is, the illusion is a false relationship to all that is. So, we are born into the real world. If baby gets food and nourishment and love and affection, baby learns how to function in the actual world, it hurts if you fall out of your highchair. Baby forms mind-brain memories that relate to the world so as to be able to eat, play, learn and interact with the people, plus, of course, starting with varying genetic predispositions which these are built upon. But then also a child learns illusory stuff, how to manipulate mommy and daddy or grandma and grandpa to get stuff that isn't needed, extra toys, candy (basically unneeded stuff which doesn't contribute to a healthy body and mind, and these can result in jealousy, envy, wanting stuff just to have stuff, etc.). Maybe child is mistreated, has to learn to cope with how the world is not supposed to operate. So child becomes a mixture of illusory misinformation as well as how the world actually operates. So child goes through life collecting illusory data and real-world-how-life-operates data. And then they become teenagers and the misinformation is multiplied, and then we become young adults and have to make our way in the world with this combination of illusory ~stuff~ and data concerning how reality actually operates. We all have varying degrees of this combination. The illusory stuff causes suffering in one way or another, and can lead to further delusion. Of course ~real life situations~ will inevitably cause pain (broken legs, disease, etc.), but we have to learn to deal with painful situations, it's part of ~real life~. Suffering is extra psychological baggage. So how does a person, upon reaching adulthood, a separate self, learn to sort out the illusory versus the real? (That which does not contribute versus that which does contribute). And eventually, we learn to be successful in life, or not. We eventually develop our own world view (or if we are immature, we continue to try to live out the world view which was handed to us by the culture we grew up in, but I think most everybody here is past that). So that brings us back to the question of the thread (beginning of OP). Of course this is going to pull in questions of volition and will and many etcs. {The Silent Pulse is the link between ordinary life (which can be/is a mixture of ~real~ and the illusory) and All That Is [Real]}. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 1, 2020 0:01:38 GMT -5
………...As the question of conditioning has been raised lately, thought I'd pull this up...… ... Yes, there is only One universe, there isn't anything outside all that is. There is all that is, why can't we call that what's real, or call that reality? So, illusion, Maya, is to operate outside of a right relationship to all that is, the illusion is a false relationship to all that is. ... While you're non-lucid dreaming you'd think the same thing about your dream reality: that that is the "One universe". As a side note, if you pay attention to your dreams, you notice that there are recurrent characters, places and situations that you can't find in your awake reality, but in your dream you recall them from your previous dreams, without realizing that you are dreaming (!). While you're engrossed in a book, or movie, or a computer game, for a moment you occasionally identify with that world, one of those characters, with that reality. Those are, in those moments, as "absolutely real" as this "one universe" seems now to you. As in those examples above those realities are yours only, the same way this reality you perceive is yours only. Mine, and all the others' realities are the so called "parallel universes" ("parallel" because as per this word's definition, they never intersect). All this doesn't mean that any of those realities, nor this, are illusions. None of them is, not even your dream, nor your engrossment into a fiction, nor this one. All are psychological realities, in their right. Just because you asked ...  (this is my opinion, not an argument; I haven't read the whole thread). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 1, 2020 12:47:26 GMT -5
………...As the question of conditioning has been raised lately, thought I'd pull this up...… While you're non-lucid dreaming you'd think the same thing about your dream reality: that that is the "One universe". As a side note, if you pay attention to your dreams, you notice that there are recurrent characters, places and situations that you can't find in your awake reality, but in your dream you recall them from your previous dreams, without realizing that you are dreaming (!). While you're engrossed in a book, or movie, or a computer game, for a moment you occasionally identify with that world, one of those characters, with that reality. Those are, in those moments, as "absolutely real" as this "one universe" seems now to you. As in those examples above those realities are yours only, the same way this reality you perceive is yours only. Mine, and all the others' realities are the so called "parallel universes" ("parallel" because as per this word's definition, they never intersect). All this doesn't mean that any of those realities, nor this, are illusions. None of them is, not even your dream, nor your engrossment into a fiction, nor this one. All are psychological realities, in their right. Just because you asked ... (this is my opinion, not an argument; I haven't read the whole thread). Yes. So how would one know if they were sleeping-and-dreaming, now? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 1, 2020 18:01:33 GMT -5
While you're non-lucid dreaming you'd think the same thing about your dream reality: that that is the "One universe". As a side note, if you pay attention to your dreams, you notice that there are recurrent characters, places and situations that you can't find in your awake reality, but in your dream you recall them from your previous dreams, without realizing that you are dreaming (!). While you're engrossed in a book, or movie, or a computer game, for a moment you occasionally identify with that world, one of those characters, with that reality. Those are, in those moments, as "absolutely real" as this "one universe" seems now to you. As in those examples above those realities are yours only, the same way this reality you perceive is yours only. Mine, and all the others' realities are the so called "parallel universes" ("parallel" because as per this word's definition, they never intersect). All this doesn't mean that any of those realities, nor this, are illusions. None of them is, not even your dream, nor your engrossment into a fiction, nor this one. All are psychological realities, in their right. Just because you asked ... (this is my opinion, not an argument; I haven't read the whole thread). Yes. So how would one know if they were sleeping-and-dreaming, now? It depends who is the "one" you're asking about. In my view... Consciousness is a domain. Wherever in it you-as-point-of-awareness focus, that's what "you" are. That defines your perspective of what you are, and what you can do. Basically, when "you" are focused on your outer-self, you seem "awake" in the physical universe (I call this "outer"). When "you" are focused on your inner-self you seem "asleep" or "dead" here. An incarnation of the entity associated with you-as-point-of-awareness is your whole-self (personality), that can focus as inner-self or outer-self, and includes a subconscious. Your "dreams" are a symbolical translation into your outer senses' language of the experiences "you" as inner-self, have, or of the guidance you receive from your inner guide. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 1, 2020 23:25:12 GMT -5
Yes. So how would one know if they were sleeping-and-dreaming, now? It depends who is the "one" you're asking about. In my view... Consciousness is a domain. Wherever in it you-as-point-of-awareness focus, that's what "you" are. That defines your perspective of what you are, and what you can do. Basically, when "you" are focused on your outer-self, you seem "awake" in the physical universe (I call this "outer"). When "you" are focused on your inner-self you seem "asleep" or "dead" here. An incarnation of the entity associated with you-as-point-of-awareness is your whole-self (personality), that can focus as inner-self or outer-self, and includes a subconscious. Your "dreams" are a symbolical translation into your outer senses' language of the experiences "you" as inner-self, have, or of the guidance you receive from your inner guide. You referenced dreams, and that when one is dreaming (and it's not a lucid dream), you don't know that you are dreaming. I get that consciousness is a domain. Do you know the book Flatland? Abbott describes a world of two dimensions where the beings of that world only experience two dimensions, their reality is a flat plane like a sheet of paper. They do not know depth. If a sphere, which is three dimensional, passed through their world, they would see a series of circles getting larger, and then getting smaller, and then disappearing. They could not experience the whole of the sphere at once. That, is an analogy to my question. If we take non-lucid dreaming to be 2-dimensional, then ordinary consciousness experiences the 3-dimensional world. These, for me, are obviously 2 different states of consciousness. In non-lucid dream consciousness, you could be riding a motorcycle, hit a wet spot going around a curve, slide down, go off the road, hit a tree, break a leg and an arm. But the shock wakes you up into ordinary consciousness, no wreck, no motorcycle, no broken leg, no broken arm. And you go, Whew! Glad that was just a dream. In both the non-lucid dream and in waking up in-to 3D, you had a certain sense of 'I'. Your sense of 'I' experienced two decidedly different states of consciousness. And one in relation to the other, awake in 3D (actually 3D4D, as we live in time) is a higher state of consciousness than asleep (non-lucid dreaming) in a "2D" world. So my question was, Is there a yet higher state of consciousness, a decidedly different state of consciousness, as different as-if the 2D Flatland beings suddenly experienced the whole-sphere and not just a series of circles? Would your view of the structure of consciousness (the domain) allow for that scenario? How would one experience such a world? And so then, if that world were experienced, we would recognize that as ~being awake~, and we would know that ordinary consciousness is in actuality really sleep (in comparison). And so then, when that higher state of consciousness ~is lost~ and one comes back-to ordinary consciousness, you would know that you-are-now impoverished in a very real sense, experiencing less of the Whole that you know is possible. This is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It is not an allegory. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 2, 2020 0:45:41 GMT -5
It depends who is the "one" you're asking about. In my view... Consciousness is a domain. Wherever in it you-as-point-of-awareness focus, that's what "you" are. That defines your perspective of what you are, and what you can do. Basically, when "you" are focused on your outer-self, you seem "awake" in the physical universe (I call this "outer"). When "you" are focused on your inner-self you seem "asleep" or "dead" here. An incarnation of the entity associated with you-as-point-of-awareness is your whole-self (personality), that can focus as inner-self or outer-self, and includes a subconscious. Your "dreams" are a symbolical translation into your outer senses' language of the experiences "you" as inner-self, have, or of the guidance you receive from your inner guide. You referenced dreams, and that when one is dreaming (and it's not a lucid dream), you don't know that you are dreaming. I get that consciousness is a domain. Do you know the book Flatland? Abbott describes a world of two dimensions where the beings of that world only experience two dimensions, their reality is a flat plane like a sheet of paper. They do not know depth. If a sphere, which is three dimensional, passed through their world, they would see a series of circles getting larger, and then getting smaller, and then disappearing. They could not experience the whole of the sphere at once. That, is an analogy to my question. If we take non-lucid dreaming to be 2-dimensional, then ordinary consciousness experiences the 3-dimensional world. These, for me, are obviously 2 different states of consciousness. In non-lucid dream consciousness, you could be riding a motorcycle, hit a wet spot going around a curve, slide down, go off the road, hit a tree, break a leg and an arm. But the shock wakes you up into ordinary consciousness, no wreck, no motorcycle, no broken leg, no broken arm. And you go, Whew! Glad that was just a dream. In both the non-lucid dream and in waking up in-to 3D, you had a certain sense of 'I'. Your sense of 'I' experienced two decidedly different states of consciousness. And one in relation to the other, awake in 3D (actually 3D4D, as we live in time) is a higher state of consciousness than asleep (non-lucid dreaming) in a "2D" world. So my question was, Is there a yet higher state of consciousness, a decidedly different state of consciousness, as different as-if the 2D Flatland beings suddenly experienced the whole-sphere and not just a series of circles? Would your view of the structure of consciousness (the domain) allow for that scenario? How would one experience such a world? And so then, if that world were experienced, we would recognize that as ~being awake~, and we would know that ordinary consciousness is in actuality really sleep (in comparison). And so then, when that higher state of consciousness ~is lost~ and one comes back-to ordinary consciousness, you would know that you-are-now impoverished in a very real sense, experiencing less of the Whole that you know is possible. This is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It is not an allegory. I have no answer for your 2D / 3D4D question, as it isn't the way I understand reality to be. Dreaming isn't an inferior state of consciousness (2D), but, as I explained, you change your focus of awareness away from your outer-self, to your inner-self. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 2, 2020 7:19:36 GMT -5
You referenced dreams, and that when one is dreaming (and it's not a lucid dream), you don't know that you are dreaming. I get that consciousness is a domain. Do you know the book Flatland? Abbott describes a world of two dimensions where the beings of that world only experience two dimensions, their reality is a flat plane like a sheet of paper. They do not know depth. If a sphere, which is three dimensional, passed through their world, they would see a series of circles getting larger, and then getting smaller, and then disappearing. They could not experience the whole of the sphere at once. That, is an analogy to my question. If we take non-lucid dreaming to be 2-dimensional, then ordinary consciousness experiences the 3-dimensional world. These, for me, are obviously 2 different states of consciousness. In non-lucid dream consciousness, you could be riding a motorcycle, hit a wet spot going around a curve, slide down, go off the road, hit a tree, break a leg and an arm. But the shock wakes you up into ordinary consciousness, no wreck, no motorcycle, no broken leg, no broken arm. And you go, Whew! Glad that was just a dream. In both the non-lucid dream and in waking up in-to 3D, you had a certain sense of 'I'. Your sense of 'I' experienced two decidedly different states of consciousness. And one in relation to the other, awake in 3D (actually 3D4D, as we live in time) is a higher state of consciousness than asleep (non-lucid dreaming) in a "2D" world. So my question was, Is there a yet higher state of consciousness, a decidedly different state of consciousness, as different as-if the 2D Flatland beings suddenly experienced the whole-sphere and not just a series of circles? Would your view of the structure of consciousness (the domain) allow for that scenario? How would one experience such a world? And so then, if that world were experienced, we would recognize that as ~being awake~, and we would know that ordinary consciousness is in actuality really sleep (in comparison). And so then, when that higher state of consciousness ~is lost~ and one comes back-to ordinary consciousness, you would know that you-are-now impoverished in a very real sense, experiencing less of the Whole that you know is possible. This is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It is not an allegory. I have no answer for your 2D / 3D4D question, as it isn't the way I understand reality to be. Dreaming isn't an inferior state of consciousness (2D), but, as I explained, you change your focus of awareness away from your outer-self, to your inner-self. OK, no problem, but I will ask in another way (fine if there is still no response). There is part of ~All That Is~ which is an unknown to invalan. (IOW, is invalan conscious of the Whole?) Yes? No? IOW, consciousness is a continuum, a Whole (the domain), and invalan exists somewhere on that continuum. You speak of focus, a certain focus is the dream world, a certain focus is the waking world. All I'm asking is how does invalan move into the unknown? How does intuition move the consciousness of invalan into "knowing" what not- now-is(known) for invalan? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 2, 2020 13:31:45 GMT -5
I have no answer for your 2D / 3D4D question, as it isn't the way I understand reality to be. Dreaming isn't an inferior state of consciousness (2D), but, as I explained, you change your focus of awareness away from your outer-self, to your inner-self. OK, no problem, but I will ask in another way (fine if there is still no response). There is part of ~All That Is~ which is an unknown to invalan. (IOW, is invalan conscious of the Whole?) Yes? No? IOW, consciousness is a continuum, a Whole (the domain), and invalan exists somewhere on that continuum. You speak of focus, a certain focus is the dream world, a certain focus is the waking world. All I'm asking is how does invalan move into the unknown? How does intuition move the consciousness of invalan into "knowing" what not- now-is(known) for invalan? To me "All That Is" has no meaning. I asked my guide, and I was "told" that his knowledge is limited too, but it doesn't matter because it is beyond what I or he need to know to progress. It seems to be infinite. If you're asking in terms of God. As far as I know, there isn't one. Inavalan exists as part of an entity that is actually a point of awareness that focuses somewhere in the consciousness domain / dimension. There is no dream world, nor a waking world. The physical world I observe is the creation of my subconscious, and my outer-self perceives it through his five senses. I am the primary creation in my world, and everything else is secondary creation, based on my subconscious information of the co-participants into the physical world's virtual blueprint. Each co-participant creates his own world per his own interpretation of the same information. All those worlds are psychological creations, don't overlap, and aren't identical. They may not contain exactly the same elements, and the common elements aren't identical. Your pet is a co-participant too, your plant in the window too. The dream world is what the outer-self is shown by its subconscious, in symbolical form, who translates knowledge and guidance messages into the five senses' language. That translation is necessary because the outer-self can't directly understand the inner senses' data. When we dream, our awareness re-focuses into the inner-self part of our whole-self. It is like your awareness "wakes up" as your inner-self, participating in whatever he does there. Part of that is instruction for his evolvement, which he practices when he projects into his version of the physical world. A good analogy is that your inner-self is a student in front of his terminal, practicing on an educational game simulation that is the physical world, and the character that he manipulates in the game is his outer-self. The purpose of the game is to educate the inner-self, but he gets so absorbed by the game, that he forgets who he is, and what that is. The physical word educational game was created for that purpose, as a daydream in his imagination, by an entity who is now evolved beyond our comprehension, but who wasn't and isn't a God, and who doesn't monitor his creation anymore, as you don't think at all of your past thoughts. Your question about moving into "knowing" doesn't make sense to me. The intuition is (in my terminology) a capability that the point of awareness (the entity) doesn't have (as yet) as man (when the inner-self plays this "physical world" educational game). In this stage of evolvement, man mostly mastered instincts, is dominated by emotions, and started to develop an intellect. His intuition is in a very incipient stage. He knows things based on rationalization, strongly affected by emotions and beliefs. Intuition implies knowing directly, outside rationalization. surely there is a distribution between men, as among all the other co-participants in other stages. There are men that haven't mastered their instincts, as there are others who have a more developed intuition. Consciousness isn't moved in any way. The point of awareness focuses and re-focuses on the consciousness domain. We give some words different interpretations, and that contributes to miscommunication. The overall point of view is quite different too, it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 2, 2020 19:10:05 GMT -5
This is from my dream notes, recorded immediately after waking up, not edited for clarity: |
|
(this is my opinion, not an argument; I haven't read the whole thread).