|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 13:52:14 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2016 13:52:14 GMT -5
Now I can't say that I've ever knowingly met someone with that sort of belief structure playing out. Some of the peeps on the interwebs seem to express something like it from time to time, and surprisingly, it can take on lots of different characteristics and look very different from peep to peep. Reefs coined a term, "identity poker", which I find appropriate. Struck me at first as an auspicious position from which to realize the truth, as believing "I am Source/Consciousness/Oneness/Awareness/All That Is" etc. would sorta' seem as though it's closer to the truth than "I'm a separate volitional peep made of stuff". Problem is, of course, than any and every conceptualized sense of identity or reality is ultimately infinitely distant from the truth. What's really fascinating about "The Power of Now" is that he doesn't use the word "person" even once. A peep can read it, have their perspective rocked, maybe get a woo-woo out of the deal, but then still show up on the internet all surprised like .. " what?? peeps aren't real??  my thought's aren't my volitional creation??  nah! (** ptoooey! **) I don't like it!!  " Tolle is gentle, seductive and potentially sly that way, he just kinda' sneaks up on a peep.  Yes Tolle sticks to the word ego and equates that with mind identification, and then equates the mind with resistance, and then talks about aspects of the human experience as the source of that resistance. He appeals to the spiritual teacher in all of us.
I would say the I am Source/Consciousness/Awareness belief structure is almost an inevitable consequence of suffering and having spiritual experiences or being exposed to certain teachings. I used to speak with groups a while back and I've come to the conclusion that almost everyone is looking for something to believe in and everyone who is suffering is doing so because of beliefs that aren't true. When you get into the belief in non-belief, in order to get out of that, a high degree of consciousness and presence is required. Once the mind starts playing gatekeeper with its own thinking, uninvited guests are already hanging out in the cavities that play a role in generating such thoughts in the first place. Explaining to the mind that it is its own intrusive thoughts isn't difficult, but its a lot easier to just believe there is no mind and let the circus continue, until it no longer is.
It's kinda' funny watching peeps get caught up in the inherent double-bind Tolle presents to any approach by way of mind .. "but don't I need my ego to go to work an' stuff?  " .. and the little gnome doesn't tell anyone they gotta' destroy the stupid thing, after all. So, now, all these peeps looking for something to believe in, that's just the Universe doin' it's thing, and another way that it does that is for some other peeps to interest those peeps in not doing that anymore. Isn't the challenge for us that the looking peeps are gonna' hear whatever we say as just an invitation to believe something? I gotta' get out more  ... and you are a rockstar. I actually did get off my a$$ and drive to where some interesting peeps where meeting once two years ago. I've also had a series of super-brief but interesting fleeting encounters with strangers over the years and a few of the descriptions are scattered over the forum. I'd have to say though, speaking with spiritual speakers would only be essentially superficially different from dealing with everyday peeps. They're simply not going to hear a challenge to a belief that they're unconscious of. Except perhaps in those moments where they actually invite an opening into questioning what they believe. That's what ya' gotta' love on this forum, 'cause even though it usually generates alot of push-back and resistance, at least some peeps here will say that they're interested in examining their beliefs. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 14:33:58 GMT -5
earnest likes this
Post by enigma on Sept 1, 2016 14:33:58 GMT -5
Wait, so you are telling me that my two sentence post is long winded??  I'm saying conversation with you is typically a major investment with very little payoff, so don't be surprised when someone says they can't be bothered. Q, Yes i am. I judge it's long winded to write two sentences to express, 'you're insane'. Well, that wasn't the main point but I understand why that's all you heard. The main point was to help answer your question as to why Sasquatch couldn't be bothered to respond. And also to throw in a little Simon and Garfunkel silliness. In any event I judge that your judgment is a projection since you are infamous for the most long winded responses on the forum. There's no need for you to express that you've already expressed it. Pointless effort? Your rationale for why Sasquatch didn't want to respond was self serving nonsense, most likely voiced as bait to get the Yeti to respond. Perhaps it worked. I'm guessing you can't name more than one or two members who's conversations with you might possibly be characterized that way, though I haven't been following your exploits closely for obvious reasons. Everybody hopes for some kind of payoff, even if it's just enjoying the chat, which is difficult for me to imagine. You mean like you did when Sasquatch refused to engage you in discussion? Nice cover, but too late. You're clearly the hissy fitter you seek to expose. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 15:56:35 GMT -5
Post by preciocho on Sept 1, 2016 15:56:35 GMT -5
Yes Tolle sticks to the word ego and equates that with mind identification, and then equates the mind with resistance, and then talks about aspects of the human experience as the source of that resistance. He appeals to the spiritual teacher in all of us.
I would say the I am Source/Consciousness/Awareness belief structure is almost an inevitable consequence of suffering and having spiritual experiences or being exposed to certain teachings. I used to speak with groups a while back and I've come to the conclusion that almost everyone is looking for something to believe in and everyone who is suffering is doing so because of beliefs that aren't true. When you get into the belief in non-belief, in order to get out of that, a high degree of consciousness and presence is required. Once the mind starts playing gatekeeper with its own thinking, uninvited guests are already hanging out in the cavities that play a role in generating such thoughts in the first place. Explaining to the mind that it is its own intrusive thoughts isn't difficult, but its a lot easier to just believe there is no mind and let the circus continue, until it no longer is.
It's kinda' funny watching peeps get caught up in the inherent double-bind Tolle presents to any approach by way of mind .. "but don't I need my ego to go to work an' stuff? " .. and the little gnome doesn't tell anyone they gotta' destroy the stupid thing, after all. So, now, all these peeps looking for something to believe in, that's just the Universe doin' it's thing, and another way that it does that is for some other peeps to interest those peeps in not doing that anymore. Isn't the challenge for us that the looking peeps are gonna' hear whatever we say as just an invitation to believe something?I gotta' get out more ... and you are a rockstar. I actually did get off my a$$ and drive to where some interesting peeps where meeting once two years ago. I've also had a series of super-brief but interesting fleeting encounters with strangers over the years and a few of the descriptions are scattered over the forum. I'd have to say though, speaking with spiritual speakers would only be essentially superficially different from dealing with everyday peeps. They're simply not going to hear a challenge to a belief that they're unconscious of. Except perhaps in those moments where they actually invite an opening into questioning what they believe. That's what ya' gotta' love on this forum, 'cause even though it usually generates alot of push-back and resistance, at least some peeps here will say that they're interested in examining their beliefs. Welp, path of least resistance leads to a shifting foundation to the belief structure. When a belief is let go, and another belief engaged, that happens because of an imagined likelihood the new belief will provide a happiness that the previous one could not, and that includes the belief that one does not exist or one does not believe in anything, aka, protection.
Meetup.com had a few places to go to engage in discussion. Book discussions on Tolle were pretty common back in 2010 or 2011. There's lots of LOA groups but I did not have the desire to attend such group when I was more socially spiritually engaged. I will say it was refreshing, and meaningful, to be a 29/30 year old guy to find other people that had a passion for spiritual stuff. At some point though, I noticed a strange thing, where it seemed like others were trying to gain some further knowledge(and it wasn't always this way), and I was in the process of just the opposite. I'm not saying this was better at all, and in fact I would say I was far more miserable than these people by the time I turned away from the idea of engaging in enlightenment discussion. Yet I still have reverence and would jump at the chance for a coffee and a catch up chat with any one of a 100 people I met with over the years.
These days I wouldn't mind a discussion on the mind or synchronicity or what presence is, but to talk about enlightenment wouldn't really be fun at all. More than likely such a talk would have a lot more to do with listening, than talking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 20:41:37 GMT -5
I just talked to you. Not good enough? I never mentioned or inferred you have not spoken to me or that i was satisfied or not. Though i will clarify that i think your previous response is one of the best examples of woo woo preaching i have seen for a long time, so much so that i envisioned it to be your prideful self righteous closing remark to the heathenistic spiritually inferior person you perceive me as, and i just wanted to make sure you remembered to take your soapbox with you, 'cus in the throngs or an emotional high, those kinds of logistical things can be overlooked. Q. Oh no, on the contrary, i was more that satisfied, i was very impressed. That is why I will never ever speak to you again. To call my comments about the fact that the experience of awareness is self evident and cannot be proved to another, as woo woo preaching is beyond ridiculous and shows what a deep state of ignorance you are in. Goodbye Jay and good luck. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 1, 2016 22:37:02 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Sept 1, 2016 22:37:02 GMT -5
I never mentioned or inferred you have not spoken to me or that i was satisfied or not. Though i will clarify that i think your previous response is one of the best examples of woo woo preaching i have seen for a long time, so much so that i envisioned it to be your prideful self righteous closing remark to the heathenistic spiritually inferior person you perceive me as, and i just wanted to make sure you remembered to take your soapbox with you, 'cus in the throngs or an emotional high, those kinds of logistical things can be overlooked. Q. Oh no, on the contrary, i was more that satisfied, i was very impressed. That is why I will never ever speak to you again. To call my comments about the fact that the experience of awareness is self evident and cannot be proved to another, as woo woo preaching is beyond ridiculous and shows what a deep state of ignorance you are in. Goodbye Jay and good luck. Apologies to the music aficionados and Paul McCartney. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 2, 2016 0:03:26 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Sept 2, 2016 0:03:26 GMT -5
I never mentioned or inferred you have not spoken to me or that i was satisfied or not. Though i will clarify that i think your previous response is one of the best examples of woo woo preaching i have seen for a long time, so much so that i envisioned it to be your prideful self righteous closing remark to the heathenistic spiritually inferior person you perceive me as, and i just wanted to make sure you remembered to take your soapbox with you, 'cus in the throngs or an emotional high, those kinds of logistical things can be overlooked. Q. Oh no, on the contrary, i was more that satisfied, i was very impressed. That is why I will never ever speak to you again. To call my comments about the fact that the experience of awareness is self evident and cannot be proved to another, as woo woo preaching is beyond ridiculous and shows what a deep state of ignorance you are in. Goodbye Jay and good luck. If it cannot be proven to another why did you attempt to convince me in the first place. Nah, i think you were doing your usual of being quite passionate to share your beliefs with me and try to convince me it's an absolute universal fact of life for every person, but became discouraged when you realised the long journey to help me understand what i interpet as your vague statements, and covered your a.ss by finishing off with now claiming it can't be proven to anyone. I also think you have vastly different definitions of words, also a common attribute of religious folk or people who adhere to one spiritual philosophy...that is, words that already have established definitions require completely new and different ones to align with the religion or philosophy. You keep calling it a fact, but have no way of proving it to anyone, so i think that's an irrational statement, for something is classified as fact when adequate proof is established. I think you are unaware that what you claim is fact is only perceived\judged\labeled as such. What you think is an absolute truth about reality is only a belief, a conceptualization that you classify\label as truth...and i think is clearly hi-lighted by your inability to provide evidence to back up your claim it's a fact of life. If you are convinced "experience of awareness" is a fact, then that is no concern of mine, i have no reason to interfere in what others choose to believe. Our discussion was about you sharing your thoughts on the subject matter so i can understand this concept, and i think you gave up because you are unwilling or unable to clarify things for me, and claim i am the problem in the transfer of this information. That is why I will never ever speak to you again. I think that's a wise move, less stress for you. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 2, 2016 12:21:00 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 2, 2016 12:21:00 GMT -5
It's kinda' funny watching peeps get caught up in the inherent double-bind Tolle presents to any approach by way of mind .. "but don't I need my ego to go to work an' stuff? " .. and the little gnome doesn't tell anyone they gotta' destroy the stupid thing, after all. So, now, all these peeps looking for something to believe in, that's just the Universe doin' it's thing, and another way that it does that is for some other peeps to interest those peeps in not doing that anymore. Isn't the challenge for us that the looking peeps are gonna' hear whatever we say as just an invitation to believe something?I gotta' get out more ... and you are a rockstar. I actually did get off my a$$ and drive to where some interesting peeps where meeting once two years ago. I've also had a series of super-brief but interesting fleeting encounters with strangers over the years and a few of the descriptions are scattered over the forum. I'd have to say though, speaking with spiritual speakers would only be essentially superficially different from dealing with everyday peeps. They're simply not going to hear a challenge to a belief that they're unconscious of. Except perhaps in those moments where they actually invite an opening into questioning what they believe. That's what ya' gotta' love on this forum, 'cause even though it usually generates alot of push-back and resistance, at least some peeps here will say that they're interested in examining their beliefs. Welp, path of least resistance leads to a shifting foundation to the belief structure. When a belief is let go, and another belief engaged, that happens because of an imagined likelihood the new belief will provide a happiness that the previous one could not, and that includes the belief that one does not exist or one does not believe in anything, aka, protection. That right there is the difference between science and neti-neti.  It sounds so simple. Just let go of the constriction around the conceptual that is this screen of ideation that obscures. Just let that fade without attaching to something new and different. But there's neither any describing that absence, nor is there any way of directly teaching this as a process. It's just a grand chasm that makes Cassandra's of us all. Meetup.com had a few places to go to engage in discussion. Book discussions on Tolle were pretty common back in 2010 or 2011. There's lots of LOA groups but I did not have the desire to attend such group when I was more socially spiritually engaged. I will say it was refreshing, and meaningful, to be a 29/30 year old guy to find other people that had a passion for spiritual stuff. At some point though, I noticed a strange thing, where it seemed like others were trying to gain some further knowledge(and it wasn't always this way), and I was in the process of just the opposite. I'm not saying this was better at all, and in fact I would say I was far more miserable than these people by the time I turned away from the idea of engaging in enlightenment discussion. Yet I still have reverence and would jump at the chance for a coffee and a catch up chat with any one of a 100 people I met with over the years. These days I wouldn't mind a discussion on the mind or synchronicity or what presence is, but to talk about enlightenment wouldn't really be fun at all. More than likely such a talk would have a lot more to do with listening, than talking. Cool, thanks for relating and giving a taste of what that was like for ya'. In one sense though, you can't avoid that talk. If it doesn't happen consciously, it will emerge through the subconscious of billions of people peeps -- collective or otherwise -- and demand unconscious expression in one way shape, form, or another. Two weeks ago the homily was "enter through the narrow gate", and Father Joe told this funny story to illustrate about Charlie Brown trying to go skiing, but couldn't get through the door 'cause he was too bundled up. Ironic, of course, that this was (quite literally) in the middle of a Catholic liturgy. This past week it was based on "the first shall be last and the last shall be first", which to me expresses the notion that enlightenment is the furthest thing from an achievement or specialness that can ever possibly be imagined. The way I like to explain this is that one way to see that there are no paths is to recognize the grand, excruciating and beautiful uniqueness of every human being. But the flip side to this is that what is realized is a subtle, simple and quiet commonality between every human being, regardless of action, or conditions. And most certainly regardless of what anyone might ever have learned along the way. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 2, 2016 14:25:51 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Sept 2, 2016 14:25:51 GMT -5
Q, Yes i am. I judge it's long winded to write two sentences to express, 'you're insane'. Well, that wasn't the main point but I understand why that's all you heard. The main point was to help answer your question as to why Sasquatch couldn't be bothered to respond. And also to throw in a little Simon and Garfunkel silliness. In any event I judge that your judgment is a projection since you are infamous for the most long winded responses on the forum. There's no need for you to express that you've already expressed it. Pointless effort? Your rationale for why Sasquatch didn't want to respond was self serving nonsense, most likely voiced as bait to get the Yeti to respond. Perhaps it worked. I'm guessing you can't name more than one or two members who's conversations with you might possibly be characterized that way, though I haven't been following your exploits closely for obvious reasons. Everybody hopes for some kind of payoff, even if it's just enjoying the chat, which is difficult for me to imagine. You mean like you did when Sasquatch refused to engage you in discussion? Nice cover, but too late. You're clearly the hissy fitter you seek to expose. ? |
|
|
|
You
Sept 2, 2016 22:02:35 GMT -5
Post by preciocho on Sept 2, 2016 22:02:35 GMT -5
Welp, path of least resistance leads to a shifting foundation to the belief structure. When a belief is let go, and another belief engaged, that happens because of an imagined likelihood the new belief will provide a happiness that the previous one could not, and that includes the belief that one does not exist or one does not believe in anything, aka, protection. That right there is the difference between science and neti-neti. It sounds so simple. Just let go of the constriction around the conceptual that is this screen of ideation that obscures. Just let that fade without attaching to something new and different. But there's neither any describing that absence, nor is there any way of directly teaching this as a process. It's just a grand chasm that makes Cassandra's of us all. Meetup.com had a few places to go to engage in discussion. Book discussions on Tolle were pretty common back in 2010 or 2011. There's lots of LOA groups but I did not have the desire to attend such group when I was more socially spiritually engaged. I will say it was refreshing, and meaningful, to be a 29/30 year old guy to find other people that had a passion for spiritual stuff. At some point though, I noticed a strange thing, where it seemed like others were trying to gain some further knowledge(and it wasn't always this way), and I was in the process of just the opposite. I'm not saying this was better at all, and in fact I would say I was far more miserable than these people by the time I turned away from the idea of engaging in enlightenment discussion. Yet I still have reverence and would jump at the chance for a coffee and a catch up chat with any one of a 100 people I met with over the years. These days I wouldn't mind a discussion on the mind or synchronicity or what presence is, but to talk about enlightenment wouldn't really be fun at all. More than likely such a talk would have a lot more to do with listening, than talking. Cool, thanks for relating and giving a taste of what that was like for ya'. In one sense though, you can't avoid that talk. If it doesn't happen consciously, it will emerge through the subconscious of billions of people peeps -- collective or otherwise -- and demand unconscious expression in one way shape, form, or another. Two weeks ago the homily was "enter through the narrow gate", and Father Joe told this funny story to illustrate about Charlie Brown trying to go skiing, but couldn't get through the door 'cause he was too bundled up. Ironic, of course, that this was (quite literally) in the middle of a Catholic liturgy. This past week it was based on "the first shall be last and the last shall be first", which to me expresses the notion that enlightenment is the furthest thing from an achievement or specialness that can ever possibly be imagined. The way I like to explain this is that one way to see that there are no paths is to recognize the grand, excruciating and beautiful uniqueness of every human being. But the flip side to this is that what is realized is a subtle, simple and quiet commonality between every human being, regardless of action, or conditions. And most certainly regardless of what anyone might ever have learned along the way. Life is a fascinating thing. I enjoy watching the comings and goings, and say the opportunity to learn something new is never ending. With greater consciousness of energy I've merged into a non-accidental way of viewing even what seems like non desirables. Father Joe seems like a cool priest. There was a priest in my hometown in my early 20's that was actually using Tolle's PON to give relationship advice to newly weds and explain the scripture. I'm pretty sure he croaked a few years ago but I doubt the Vatican would have approved.
|
|
|
|
You
Sept 3, 2016 16:36:27 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 3, 2016 16:36:27 GMT -5
That right there is the difference between science and neti-neti. It sounds so simple. Just let go of the constriction around the conceptual that is this screen of ideation that obscures. Just let that fade without attaching to something new and different. But there's neither any describing that absence, nor is there any way of directly teaching this as a process. It's just a grand chasm that makes Cassandra's of us all. Cool, thanks for relating and giving a taste of what that was like for ya'. In one sense though, you can't avoid that talk. If it doesn't happen consciously, it will emerge through the subconscious of billions of people peeps -- collective or otherwise -- and demand unconscious expression in one way shape, form, or another. Two weeks ago the homily was "enter through the narrow gate", and Father Joe told this funny story to illustrate about Charlie Brown trying to go skiing, but couldn't get through the door 'cause he was too bundled up. Ironic, of course, that this was (quite literally) in the middle of a Catholic liturgy. This past week it was based on "the first shall be last and the last shall be first", which to me expresses the notion that enlightenment is the furthest thing from an achievement or specialness that can ever possibly be imagined. The way I like to explain this is that one way to see that there are no paths is to recognize the grand, excruciating and beautiful uniqueness of every human being. But the flip side to this is that what is realized is a subtle, simple and quiet commonality between every human being, regardless of action, or conditions. And most certainly regardless of what anyone might ever have learned along the way. Life is a fascinating thing. I enjoy watching the comings and goings, and say the opportunity to learn something new is never ending. With greater consciousness of energy I've merged into a non-accidental way of viewing even what seems like non desirables. Father Joe seems like a cool priest. There was a priest in my hometown in my early 20's that was actually using Tolle's PON to give relationship advice to newly weds and explain the scripture. I'm pretty sure he croaked a few years ago but I doubt the Vatican would have approved.
yeah there's no way I'm vulnerable to delusions about the outfit. Institutions are an interesting phenomenon. We can think of institutions like the Catholic church in terms of a sort of machine. This way, we can come up with objective explanations as to how and why they got to be the way they are in terms of the ideas of adaptation over time, selection and competition etc., aka, evolution. That would be a way of applying your idea about the best dream winning. But just as medical science treats the body as a machine in this way, or psychology conceives of mind, these descriptions are only valid up to the point that they have to account for the human beings that are part of picture, because of course, in the end, the idea of applying any mechanics to that fails at the subjective limit. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Sept 5, 2016 14:56:52 GMT -5
Life is a fascinating thing. I enjoy watching the comings and goings, and say the opportunity to learn something new is never ending. With greater consciousness of energy I've merged into a non-accidental way of viewing even what seems like non desirables. Father Joe seems like a cool priest. There was a priest in my hometown in my early 20's that was actually using Tolle's PON to give relationship advice to newly weds and explain the scripture. I'm pretty sure he croaked a few years ago but I doubt the Vatican would have approved.
yeah there's no way I'm vulnerable to delusions about the outfit. Institutions are an interesting phenomenon. We can think of institutions like the Catholic church in terms of a sort of machine. This way, we can come up with objective explanations as to how and why they got to be the way they are in terms of the ideas of adaptation over time, selection and competition etc., aka, evolution. That would be a way of applying your idea about the best dream winning. But just as medical science treats the body as a machine in this way, or psychology conceives of mind, these descriptions are only valid up to the point that they have to account for the human beings that are part of picture, because of course, in the end, the idea of applying any mechanics to that fails at the subjective limit. Organizationally speaking the unconscious collective mind is oriented in such a way to expand through divide and conquer. Guilt and shame are the primary energies of manipulation with compensation allotted through a program which takes power, control, choice, away from the individual through an ever decreasing path of less resistance. Basically, the function of collective unconsciousness is to provide greater resistance to experience on the individual level. In this sense the Catholic Church and world governments are not separate machines but moving parts of a unified whole.
Through superimposition complete understanding of an individual part (separate people are one such part)will bring understanding of the forces that act upon it, but it's often easier (path of least resistance) to understand the engine from a distance before consciousness of relative functioning is allowed. It's a built in correction to alleviate the pressure placed on the individual through the manipulation of collective unconsciousness. In this sense consciousness solves the equation because it isn't a 'part' of the equation.
Of course theoretically speaking there are more conscious components to the collective engine than others, or it might point closer to say components less prone to manipulation from collective unconsciousness than others. Even though consciousness isn't a 'component' to consciousness, absence of identification removes the hooks and triggers pushed and pulled by dark and unseen forces, because the energy manipulated by these forces is either released, made conscious, or was never made unconscious in the first place.
The spectrum of dark energy is broad, and within this context true consciousness of why we think or act a certain way as individuals is a virtually never ending process of self discovery (not implicitly infinite). In this sense waking up really is about finding vibrational harmony, but from the greater angle, losing or moving away from the disharmony implicit in the identification complex.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
You
Sept 6, 2016 3:43:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 3:43:18 GMT -5
Ok, good, now it seems clear to me that you are not talking about the common and general aspects of perception that everyone has...interpreting existence via one's mind that utilised data from the five senses. Ahh, i see, this is why i have not understood you all this time. I have no idea what these "universals " are, or what is the element of our human beingness that you see a "bottom line" of. I will require some details of what these are. And i am unclear of what "perceiving of change" means...because i can interpret it two ways... - when a person perceives a change withi themself. - or it's related to your previous utterances about two types of perceiving, that there is a change in the manner in which a person perceives. HUH??? A perceiver is an entity capable of perceiving...a noun...but you define this noun as a verb- the act of perceiving. And it seems to me you are inferring that individual's actions of perception, are false, because either each individual has the ability to change their minds about things they perceive, or individual's can construct different conclusions based on both people perceiving the same incident. But you aslo classify 'the true perceiver' as observing truth or obtaining truth about existence due to always perceiving the same way, via the basic manner, which i thought was via the mind utilizing the five senses, which each individual has and uses to preceive. What i conclude thus far then, is you are speaking about, or leading to speak about an entity, some type of consciousness, that you have yet to describe, that can perceive the actual truth about existence. Am i close to what you wish to share, or do i still not understand what your talking about? Ultimately, I'm trying to provide experiential proof (instead of just concepts) that your true nature, my true nature, and the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless pure awareness, and that the confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening situation that is the multiplicity and diversity of separate things and events is actually an illusion. In other words, I'm trying to show you that, in truth, for your true nature, there has never been (and will never be) anything to fear or worry about. That's all.  This is just mind made speculation, You can know you are the perceiving point but you have no way to know whether other perceiving point of same consciousness exist, because other people are simply appearing, appearing thing is dream stuff, actuality beyond the dream stuff can never be known. |
|
|
|
You
Sept 9, 2016 7:53:56 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Sept 9, 2016 7:53:56 GMT -5
Ok, good, now it seems clear to me that you are not talking about the common and general aspects of perception that everyone has...interpreting existence via one's mind that utilised data from the five senses. Ahh, i see, this is why i have not understood you all this time. I have no idea what these "universals " are, or what is the element of our human beingness that you see a "bottom line" of. I will require some details of what these are. And i am unclear of what "perceiving of change" means...because i can interpret it two ways... - when a person perceives a change withi themself. - or it's related to your previous utterances about two types of perceiving, that there is a change in the manner in which a person perceives. HUH??? A perceiver is an entity capable of perceiving...a noun...but you define this noun as a verb- the act of perceiving. And it seems to me you are inferring that individual's actions of perception, are false, because either each individual has the ability to change their minds about things they perceive, or individual's can construct different conclusions based on both people perceiving the same incident. But you aslo classify 'the true perceiver' as observing truth or obtaining truth about existence due to always perceiving the same way, via the basic manner, which i thought was via the mind utilizing the five senses, which each individual has and uses to preceive. What i conclude thus far then, is you are speaking about, or leading to speak about an entity, some type of consciousness, that you have yet to describe, that can perceive the actual truth about existence. Am i close to what you wish to share, or do i still not understand what your talking about? Ultimately, I'm trying to provide experiential proof (instead of just concepts) that your true nature, my true nature, and the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless pure awareness, and that the confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening situation that is the multiplicity and diversity of separate things and events is actually an illusion. In other words, I'm trying to show you that, in truth, for your true nature, there has never been (and will never be) anything to fear or worry about. That's all. Well it's been a while relinquish, and you have provided any proof or instructions on how i can experience what you believe is the true nature of myself, humanity and existence. I calculate three of possibly more reasons for this. - you actually can't. - you don't want to. - you've rationally concluded i do not have the capacity to be able to experience what you have. I often find it interesting to observe the huge data streams people can generate as they advocate what they believe, are utterly convinced is the truth about something, yet they become quite silent when they come up to the brick wall of proving it with tangible verifiable evidence. It's actually very easy to believe anything, to label anything as truth, but it's far more difficult to confirm it, and that's why most folk take the former path. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Sept 9, 2016 8:36:45 GMT -5
Ultimately, I'm trying to provide experiential proof (instead of just concepts) that your true nature, my true nature, and the true nature of everyone and everything else in the universe is in fact the one causeless, boundless, changeless pure awareness, and that the confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening situation that is the multiplicity and diversity of separate things and events is actually an illusion. In other words, I'm trying to show you that, in truth, for your true nature, there has never been (and will never be) anything to fear or worry about. That's all. Well it's been a while relinquish, and you have provided any proof or instructions on how i can experience what you believe is the true nature of myself, humanity and existence. I calculate three of possibly more reasons for this. - you actually can't. - you don't want to. - you've rationally concluded i do not have the capacity to be able to experience what you have. I often find it interesting to observe the huge data streams people can generate as they advocate what they believe, are utterly convinced is the truth about something, yet they become quite silent when they come up to the brick wall of proving it with tangible verifiable evidence. It's actually very easy to believe anything, to label anything as truth, but it's far more difficult to confirm it, and that's why most folk take the former path. Sorry Jay. I just got COMPLETELY distracted by stuff going on. All good though. Forgive me. The following is basically my line of reasoning based on direct experience, followed by some speculation backed up by that same direct experience; Undeniably, You are aware. As such, You are a 'perceiver'. Apparently, You SEEM to be (or have) a particular, ever-changing body/mind that perceives a multiplicity and diversity of other ever-changing body/minds, life-forms and non-living forms that all exist in a fundamentally non-living reality that is absolutely different to and other than You. Evidently, the MANNER in which You perceive this 'constant difference' is itself constantly the same. If it is actually true that You are (or have) this particular ever-changing body/mind, how is it that You have been (and continue to be) perceiving all of these ever-changing forms (INCLUDING the particular ever-changing body/mind) in a manner that is ever-changless? Surely, if You perceive ever-changing form in an ever-changless manner as You do, You must ACTUALLY be absolutely changeless and formless. As such, in truth, You have no location or edge, and so You do not begin or end. You are infinite and eternal, causelessly silent and perfectly symmetrical, as the One unthreatenable Emptiness itself. You are Pure Awareness; the one and only Perceiver that ever TRULY exists. In truth, the TOTALITY of this 'ever-changing coherent asymmetry' that is ever-changelessly perceived by You (better known as 'the entire universe') is in fact Your only REAL Organism. As such, It is an inextricable aspect of Your REAL Self. It gets It's characteristic asymmetrical structure simply from the fact that (being 'finite') It is essentially the inseperable opposite of the one ever-changless, formless, causelessly silent and perfectly symmetrical Perceiver that You are. The only COHERENT ever-changing asymmetry is a 'FRACTAL' ever-changing asymmetry, and that is precisely what is 'perceived'. ALL apparent 'things' and 'events' are as they are simply because they are all 'parts' of this one eternally cyclic Universal Organism. Some of the 'nerve ends' of the Organism are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings. This hypnosis makes it seem to these 'nerve ends' (a.k.a. intelligent body/mind life-forms) as if there is a uniquely isolated, finite and temporary consciousness functioning within each one of them, which in turn gives rise to the illusion that they are the autonomous originators of their own particular movements. As such, the absolute harmony that naturally exists between all the 'parts' of the Organism (and therefore, the Organism itself) is impossible to be seen by these hypnotized nerve ends. In It's place is seen a situation that seems confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening. Seeing this, the hypnotized nerve ends are bound to suffer. But this harmony certainly IS Here and Now, outside of the hypnosis, ever-patiently awaiting 'our' realization of (and resting in) it. In this resting, there can be no suffering... |
|
|
|
You
Sept 24, 2016 1:13:10 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Sept 24, 2016 1:13:10 GMT -5
The following is basically my line of reasoning based on direct experience, followed by some speculation backed up by that same direct experience; - You haven't established what is fact and what is merely your belief something is fact. - You haven't established the validy of your conclusions derived from 'direct experience', nor have you defined what 'direct experience' is and how either it provides information you receive or what aspects of self you utilise to create or experience 'direct experience'. Apparently, You SEEM to be (or have) a particular, ever-changing body/mind that perceives a multiplicity and diversity of other ever-changing body/minds, life-forms and non-living forms that all exist in a fundamentally non-living reality that is absolutely different to and other than You. Do you have verifiable evidence that reality is the underlined? Evidently, the MANNER in which You perceive this 'constant difference' is itself constantly the same. Do you have verifiable evidence this is so? If it is actually true that You are (or have) this particular ever-changing body/mind, how is it that You have been (and continue to be) perceiving all of these ever-changing forms (INCLUDING the particular ever-changing body/mind) in a manner that is ever-changless? See above. Surely, if You perceive ever-changing form in an ever-changless manner as You do, You must ACTUALLY be absolutely changeless and formless. So many "if"s. Do you have any verifiable evidence for your speculations? What truth, have you established any truths yet, or just speculations\mental constructs you believe are truths? You have no location or edge, and so You do not begin or end. Do you have any verifiable evidence for these speculations? You are infinite and eternal, causelessly silent and perfectly symmetrical, as the One unthreatenable Emptiness itself. Same as above. You are Pure Awareness; the one and only Perceiver that ever TRULY exists. Same again, any verifiable evidence for these speculations? In truth, the TOTALITY of this 'ever-changing coherent asymmetry' that is ever-changelessly perceived by You (better known as 'the entire universe') is in fact Your only REAL Organism. As such, It is an inextricable aspect of Your REAL Self. It seems highly irrational to me to claim "in truth" when truth has not been established. It gets It's characteristic asymmetrical structure simply from the fact that (being 'finite') It is essentially the inseperable opposite of the one ever-changless, formless, causelessly silent and perfectly symmetrical Perceiver that You are. You claim to have factual data of some form that has certain characteristics. but you have not provided any verifiable evidence for it, you have only expressed speculations that you seem to label as 'truth'. The only COHERENT ever-changing asymmetry is a 'FRACTAL' ever-changing asymmetry, and that is precisely what is 'perceived'. Perceiving something, constructing conclusions of what you observe does not automatically make those conclusions correct. ALL apparent 'things' and 'events' are as they are simply because they are all 'parts' of this one eternally cyclic Universal Organism. Do you have any verifiable evidence of the nature of this "Universal Organism"? Some of the 'nerve ends' of the Organism are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings. This hypnosis makes it seem to these 'nerve ends' (a.k.a. intelligent body/mind life-forms) as if there is a uniquely isolated, finite and temporary consciousness functioning within each one of them, which in turn gives rise to the illusion that they are the autonomous originators of their own particular movements. As such, the absolute harmony that naturally exists between all the 'parts' of the Organism (and therefore, the Organism itself) is impossible to be seen by these hypnotized nerve ends. In It's place is seen a situation that seems confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening. Seeing this, the hypnotized nerve ends are bound to suffer. But this harmony certainly IS Here and Now, outside of the hypnosis, ever-patiently awaiting 'our' realization of (and resting in) it. In this resting, there can be no suffering... I do not subscribe to your belief system about existence, yet since mid 2009, apart from when i am physically ill or fatigued, i do not experience self inflicted\created suffering. And from that i calculate that absolute truth about existence is not required to end personal suffering. If you subscribe to a particular mental concept about existence and you find profound benefit when utilising these ideas, then i am genuinely happy for you. I still have no use or need for the ideas set forth in the precepts of any religion or spiritual philosophy of which you are eluding to. I've sorted my soul problems out without the use of the ideas set forth in NonDuality, Advaita or any other religion or spiritual philosophy that claims to be the absolute and total truth about existence. In closing, may your unverified beliefs\theories, not truths, serve you well, as mine do for me. |
|
nah! (** ptoooey! **) I don't like it!! 
" .. and the little gnome doesn't tell anyone they gotta' destroy the stupid thing, after all. 
... and you are a rockstar. I actually did get off my a$$ and drive to where some interesting peeps where meeting once two years ago. I've also had a series of super-brief but interesting fleeting encounters with strangers over the years and a few of the descriptions are scattered over the forum. I'd have to say though, speaking with spiritual speakers would only be essentially superficially different from dealing with everyday peeps. They're simply not going to hear a challenge to a belief that they're unconscious of. Except perhaps in those moments where they actually invite an opening into questioning what they believe. That's what ya' gotta' love on this forum, 'cause even though it usually generates alot of push-back and resistance, at least some peeps here will say that they're interested in examining their beliefs. 
It sounds so simple. Just let go of the constriction around the conceptual that is this screen of ideation that obscures. Just let that fade without attaching to something new and different. But there's neither any describing that absence, nor is there any way of directly teaching this as a process. It's just a grand chasm that makes Cassandra's of us all.
