|
Post by enigma on Aug 28, 2017 18:37:50 GMT -5
The obliviousness of the 99.9% of the seven or so billion people out there to the obviousness of oneness, non-separation is puzzling, I feel like there is some way to wake them up but the sage's have been trying for a long time so one would think it would have happened by now. A favorite metaphor that was helpful is that of a movie being projected on to a movie screen, there is total and complete universe that happens on the screen , the screen of course is consciousness and there is no separation between the actors and the objects and even the apparent atmosphere. In our own direct perception its obvious that what is perceived is all within consciousness even our thoughts can only appear to consciousness or they wouldn't exist, sometimes I ask myself am I these thoughts or am I whats aware of the thoughts, I have a strong attachment to thoughts because they give me the sense of Me , that's why I still get an odd feeling when its seen that my me thoughts are not me. Oneness is not at all obvious when focused on experience, and 7 billion or so are focused on that continually.
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Aug 28, 2017 20:46:13 GMT -5
So reefs do you see Seth as an awakened sage as say Ramana or Buddha. Tenka mentioned on one post, correct me if I'm wrong he feels he is a indigo child. It seems rainbow child is the new norm going by the new age crew in Glastonbury. It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. They speak from different platforms. The Buddha and Ramana and Niz all had to deal with the human condition and had to operate in the physical camouflage system. And so there are certain limitations (or distortions) to their message and perspective that are more or less unavoidable. Seth and Abraham on the other hand, don't have those limitations. Our masters in the flesh primarily had to rely on the physical senses and found a way to look with the inner senses beyond the root assumptions of the physical system. Our non-physical friends already by default look with the inner senses and beyond the root assumptions of the physical system. Reefs are you looking at what most new age channellers are pointing at, a change in the story from being class c prisoners to class A prisoners who have been pointing at this since the 60's at a new earth,ascension etc. I don't understand your idea of self realisation and Seth and ND and how that all fits in. The only channeled material I have ever paid attention to is the Seth material and the A-H material. Which are basically identical teachings, just a slightly different angle and vocabulary. Seth is closer to ND, A-H is closer to self-help material. And so Seth actually works as a conceptual bridge between ND concepts and self-help concepts. The basic premise of Seth/Abraham is that you are the creator of your own reality, you make your own experience. Humans are all multi-dimensional beings. The physical part of your experience is just a tiny part of your overall experience. The largest part of you stays non-physical. From that larger perspective, you choose the parameters of your physical experience. You choose your time and place of birth, you choose your parents and your parents choose you. So since this is all deliberately, the prison story makes no sense whatsoever. There are families of consciousness, streams of consciousness. That's your actual family or home - it's prior to any time or place or group of beings. I know Krishnamurti went past the ascended masters he was exposed to under the Theosophical society, the bringing in the maitreya where his brother died as result of being a vessel for his appearance, and the great American sage Joe Miller too seems to have distanced himself from the ascended masters and channellers. A must watch if you haven't seen or heard of him. Same with UG. Not sure what ascended master means to you. You see, the physical is not a lesser or lower realm than the non-physical realms. So this ascending and moving up the rungs of certain universal ladders doesn't really make sense. It's all cheese. Same same but different. Consciousness will forever expand and forever seek new experiences. The domains of experience are One for a sage.No domain of experience is higher or lower. Yet is that true for Seth? He influenced the likes of Louise l Haye, deepak chopra , Marianne Williamson. They have made a living from Teaching on improving the story, as most channellers in the marketplace do. They do serve for the individual trying to better the many me in the story of separation but it's not what sages are pointing at. They may use the term awakening as Tenka does but there is no channelling in what sages are pointing at. Please don't confuse the two. There is no channelling for sages just the seeing through of the imagined me. There is no consciousness seeking of new experiences. Only in separation. I may have been with different sages as yourself but the pointing has not been at that. Sages are pointing at taking you out of the story of the opposites where each moment is unknown, spontaneous where you are not trying or seeking to improve on the character as the character is seen through in true realisation SR. indigo children, crystal children, Seth, Abraham Hicks belong to the story and not what sages are pointing at. A sage sees through even the idea, the very thought that enlightenment happened to a character in a story. Why in the Bhakti tradition Kabir and Nanaks teachings they point at the illusion of certain teachings being sold in the marketplace but are just there to keep you in separation. Kabir would say Kal takes on the form of the sage. Sai Baba, muktanada, the hugging Saint are from this stage. There have been many more. Just as Jesus said beware of false prophets dressed up in sheeps clothing. When I first met Donna she was surrounded by channellers bringing in commander Ashtar, and in the reiki tradition Usui, even one group came along with a channeled message from Usui which was the total opposite to the what an angel lady was teaching over from a different camp. Why when I danced with Donna I was taking her out of these groups which are serving the story and not the realisation sages are pointing at. Why Kabir said seek out a Sat Guru and not a guru. Just dancing with her she was moving away maturing out of the marketplace. The poem below came to her not too long after I Thought I thought I was someone A person born I thought I was something A character worn I thought I was vulnerable Separate and torn I thought I was emotional Happy and forlorn I thought I was so many things Born of caste, men and kings I never thought I was just a thought Till the death of I Was truly sought Death of life me and I Just a thought passing by Yet here I am I am still, Being All is one If you know what you're seeing
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 28, 2017 22:42:45 GMT -5
Yes,that's what I mean. What I don't mean is that certainty defines the perception as an illusion. I'm just saying certainty is required, as you've gleaned. If one is certain that a rope is a rope, and upon examining it more closely, it turns out to be the case, there is no illusion involved. Regarding the issue of proof required, I see that Gopal operates that way when it comes to vetting the ideas of others, but most, including Gopal, are referring to their direct seeing. Yes, all appearances are the same in nature, which is to say they are all empty appearances in the same Consciousness. It does not, however, say they are all conscious. It's also obvious that Awareness/Consciousness experiences from the limited perspective of some (but probably not all) appearances. I know this because one of those perspectives is right here in this appearance. I do not, however, know if one of those perspectives is also there. I say probably not all only because experience requires engagement and engagement requires interest, and I'm imagining the experience of a rock buried a mile beneath the Earth is singularly uneventful. The problem seems to be that some would like to believe that realizing the fundamental nature of existence says something about how creation unfolds. It does not. This is why it's correct to be suspicious of any experience that seems to reveal a truth about what is prior to experience. Another absolute requirement is that, in order to understand Tenkaworld one must deeply engage him in debate. Gopal, Figs and myself at least have done so and have experienced the same futility of communication. You should try it yourself because it really is quite interesting, but no, he has not been unfairly persecuted. The direct seeing of our solipsists refers to the physical camouflage senses backed up by the intellect, i.e. framework 1. In that sense, they describe it well and draw the correct conclusions. But that's not what we usually call direct seeing on this forum. On this forum direct seeing refers to the inner senses and prior to the intellect, i.e. framework 2. And so the so-called direct seeing from inside framework 1 is more akin to deductive reasoning than actual seeing because it only applies to this specific framework 1 context. And only in this context does uncertainty look like a virtue. The dictionary definition of consciousness refers to the state or quality of being conscious or aware. And so if you say that consciousness doesn't necessarily mean conscious then you are proposing consciousless consciousness which assassinates the term consciousness as we know it. So maybe you mean something different, maybe you are referring to "_______"? What Tenka calls SR is actually what we call CC here. I've had long discussions with Tenka in the past about SR and it didn't go anywhere because of that. Only when I was using the cheese metaphor I realized that he has actually been speaking from a CC perspective all the time. Once you know that, you will find him exceptionally clear. What folks don't realize is that CC is on par with SR. It's basically the flip side of SR. And so with only a reference for either SR or CC one's realization is incomplete. And that's what I see as the actual issue in these discussions - folks speaking from different platforms without noticing it. There are folks who have no reference for either SR or CC, then there are folks who have a reference for only SR or only CC and then there are folks who have a reference for both SR and CC. How creation unfolds was never the issue. The issue was always about the substance, or the fabric of creation and what we can say about it. Form (or appearances) as we know it is empty in the sense that it doesn't exist in itself. When we look at form we do not see the original face of basic reality. However, there's a flip side to this. Form (or appearances) as we know it, is just the 3D face of basic reality and in that sense it is as real as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2017 23:06:24 GMT -5
Yes,that's what I mean. What I don't mean is that certainty defines the perception as an illusion. I'm just saying certainty is required, as you've gleaned. If one is certain that a rope is a rope, and upon examining it more closely, it turns out to be the case, there is no illusion involved. Regarding the issue of proof required, I see that Gopal operates that way when it comes to vetting the ideas of others, but most, including Gopal, are referring to their direct seeing. Yes, all appearances are the same in nature, which is to say they are all empty appearances in the same Consciousness. It does not, however, say they are all conscious. It's also obvious that Awareness/Consciousness experiences from the limited perspective of some (but probably not all) appearances. I know this because one of those perspectives is right here in this appearance. I do not, however, know if one of those perspectives is also there. I say probably not all only because experience requires engagement and engagement requires interest, and I'm imagining the experience of a rock buried a mile beneath the Earth is singularly uneventful. The problem seems to be that some would like to believe that realizing the fundamental nature of existence says something about how creation unfolds. It does not. This is why it's correct to be suspicious of any experience that seems to reveal a truth about what is prior to experience. Another absolute requirement is that, in order to understand Tenkaworld one must deeply engage him in debate. Gopal, Figs and myself at least have done so and have experienced the same futility of communication. You should try it yourself because it really is quite interesting, but no, he has not been unfairly persecuted. The direct seeing of our solipsists refers to the physical camouflage senses backed up by the intellect, i.e. framework 1. In that sense, they describe it well and draw the correct conclusions. But that's not what we usually call direct seeing on this forum. On this forum direct seeing refers to the inner senses and prior to the intellect, i.e. framework 2. And so the so-called direct seeing from inside framework 1 is more akin to deductive reasoning than actual seeing because it only applies to this specific framework 1 context. And only in this context does uncertainty look like a virtue. The dictionary definition of consciousness refers to the state or quality of being conscious or aware. And so if you say that consciousness doesn't necessarily mean conscious then you are proposing consciousless consciousness which assassinates the term consciousness as we know it. So maybe you mean something different, maybe you are referring to "_______"? What Tenka calls SR is actually what we call CC here. I've had long discussions with Tenka in the past about SR and it didn't go anywhere because of that. Only when I was using the cheese metaphor I realized that he has actually been speaking from a CC perspective all the time. Once you know that, you will find him exceptionally clear. What folks don't realize is that CC is on par with SR. It's basically the flip side of SR. And so with only a reference for either SR or CC one's realization is incomplete. And that's what I see as the actual issue in these discussions - folks speaking from different platforms without noticing it. There are folks who have no reference for either SR or CC, then there are folks who have a reference for only SR or only CC and then there are folks who have a reference for both SR and CC. How creation unfolds was never the issue. The issue was always about the substance, or the fabric of creation and what we can say about it. Form (or appearances) as we know it is empty in the sense that it doesn't exist in itself. When we look at form we do not see the original face of basic reality. However, there's a flip side to this. Form (or appearances) as we know it, is just the 3D face of basic reality and in that sense it is as real as it gets. The idea that being applies to all appearances is concordant with the pointer that all appearances are a reflection of being, and have no inherent existence in and of their own right. Only _________ is "real". This can be understood intellectually by the idea that it is our thoughts, feelings and senses that literally give reality to the objects within our perception. But that indirect and abstract understanding is only a shadow that can lead to such cognitive dissonance as Jesus = Manson. The solipsist script is "if suffering is only created by my mind, then I just won't think thoughts that make me suffer .. and hey, while I'm at it I'll attract what I want by wishing for it really hard". It leads to what you've called happy-face stickering, Byron-Katie-style emotional detachment, and all sorts of Doooooofus guy questions about the preferences of pet rocks.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Aug 29, 2017 4:11:37 GMT -5
Yes,that's what I mean. What I don't mean is that certainty defines the perception as an illusion. I'm just saying certainty is required, as you've gleaned. If one is certain that a rope is a rope, and upon examining it more closely, it turns out to be the case, there is no illusion involved. Regarding the issue of proof required, I see that Gopal operates that way when it comes to vetting the ideas of others, but most, including Gopal, are referring to their direct seeing. Yes, all appearances are the same in nature, which is to say they are all empty appearances in the same Consciousness. It does not, however, say they are all conscious. It's also obvious that Awareness/Consciousness experiences from the limited perspective of some (but probably not all) appearances. I know this because one of those perspectives is right here in this appearance. I do not, however, know if one of those perspectives is also there. I say probably not all only because experience requires engagement and engagement requires interest, and I'm imagining the experience of a rock buried a mile beneath the Earth is singularly uneventful. The problem seems to be that some would like to believe that realizing the fundamental nature of existence says something about how creation unfolds. It does not. This is why it's correct to be suspicious of any experience that seems to reveal a truth about what is prior to experience. Another absolute requirement is that, in order to understand Tenkaworld one must deeply engage him in debate. Gopal, Figs and myself at least have done so and have experienced the same futility of communication. You should try it yourself because it really is quite interesting, but no, he has not been unfairly persecuted. What Tenka calls SR is actually what we call CC here. I've had long discussions with Tenka in the past about SR and it didn't go anywhere because of that. Only when I was using the cheese metaphor I realized that he has actually been speaking from a CC perspective all the time. Once you know that, you will find him exceptionally clear. What folks don't realize is that CC is on par with SR. It's basically the flip side of SR. And so with only a reference for either SR or CC one's realization is incomplete. And that's what I see as the actual issue in these discussions - folks speaking from different platforms without noticing it. There are folks who have no reference for either SR or CC, then there are folks who have a reference for only SR or only CC and then there are folks who have a reference for both SR and CC. Well for myself so to speak I identified afterwards a change in what transpired moment to moment in such quickness that's within the blink of an eye . What I think the sticky point for me was others pointing out the permanence of S.R. compared to C.C's that are not . It beggars the question also that I have maintained throughout and that is the difference between the mind / no mind . S.R. therefore must be entertained so to speak from the actual moment of realization to the actual moment of one's physical death . It was not so for Ramana and Niz I would say .. I would say as I have always said that the non functional bliss bunny awareness isn't present all the time .. What does this then mean in regards to S.R? and for the masters that have realized what they are . For me I noticed a transcendence from self through mind-through-universe, to beyond that .. There was an awareness of I AM the universe prior to going / being beyond that .. Like said in a blink of an eye one is self of the mind and then not . Realizing what you are universally speaking is realizing what you are that pertains to everything in existence . That is why cheese is all there is and that is why that knowing reflects upon the existence of rocks and the tree's .. Being what you are prior to existence, when aware of existence will have the same result / effect . It will reflect the sameness because there is no fundamental difference in regards to what you are being prior to mind and being of the mind . In my eyes realizing what you are beyond - prior too and of the mind is realizing what you are (S.R) Peeps can call it what they like .. it won't change what was realized .
|
|
|
Post by zin on Aug 29, 2017 9:27:09 GMT -5
Do the outer self and inner self work with the same kind of energy? The outer self is an extension of the inner self. The division is arbitrary and doesn't actually exist. But we could say that the different parts deal with different stages of energy in the same way that the different parts represent different stages of consciousness. Ok. Quotes (or explanation) on energy will be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2017 10:33:44 GMT -5
Yes,that's what I mean. What I don't mean is that certainty defines the perception as an illusion. I'm just saying certainty is required, as you've gleaned. If one is certain that a rope is a rope, and upon examining it more closely, it turns out to be the case, there is no illusion involved. Regarding the issue of proof required, I see that Gopal operates that way when it comes to vetting the ideas of others, but most, including Gopal, are referring to their direct seeing. Yes, all appearances are the same in nature, which is to say they are all empty appearances in the same Consciousness. It does not, however, say they are all conscious. It's also obvious that Awareness/Consciousness experiences from the limited perspective of some (but probably not all) appearances. I know this because one of those perspectives is right here in this appearance. I do not, however, know if one of those perspectives is also there. I say probably not all only because experience requires engagement and engagement requires interest, and I'm imagining the experience of a rock buried a mile beneath the Earth is singularly uneventful. The problem seems to be that some would like to believe that realizing the fundamental nature of existence says something about how creation unfolds. It does not. This is why it's correct to be suspicious of any experience that seems to reveal a truth about what is prior to experience. Another absolute requirement is that, in order to understand Tenkaworld one must deeply engage him in debate. Gopal, Figs and myself at least have done so and have experienced the same futility of communication. You should try it yourself because it really is quite interesting, but no, he has not been unfairly persecuted. The direct seeing is that everything is an empty appearance in Consciousness. The dictionary definition of Consciousness is irrelevant in this context just as the dictionary definition of Awareness is. There is some unfortunate objectification involved due to the limitations of language, but 'everything is Consciousness' doesn't mean 'everything is conscious'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2017 10:43:48 GMT -5
The direct seeing of our solipsists refers to the physical camouflage senses backed up by the intellect, i.e. framework 1. In that sense, they describe it well and draw the correct conclusions. But that's not what we usually call direct seeing on this forum. On this forum direct seeing refers to the inner senses and prior to the intellect, i.e. framework 2. And so the so-called direct seeing from inside framework 1 is more akin to deductive reasoning than actual seeing because it only applies to this specific framework 1 context. And only in this context does uncertainty look like a virtue. The dictionary definition of consciousness refers to the state or quality of being conscious or aware. And so if you say that consciousness doesn't necessarily mean conscious then you are proposing consciousless consciousness which assassinates the term consciousness as we know it. So maybe you mean something different, maybe you are referring to "_______"? What Tenka calls SR is actually what we call CC here. I've had long discussions with Tenka in the past about SR and it didn't go anywhere because of that. Only when I was using the cheese metaphor I realized that he has actually been speaking from a CC perspective all the time. Once you know that, you will find him exceptionally clear. What folks don't realize is that CC is on par with SR. It's basically the flip side of SR. And so with only a reference for either SR or CC one's realization is incomplete. And that's what I see as the actual issue in these discussions - folks speaking from different platforms without noticing it. There are folks who have no reference for either SR or CC, then there are folks who have a reference for only SR or only CC and then there are folks who have a reference for both SR and CC. How creation unfolds was never the issue. The issue was always about the substance, or the fabric of creation and what we can say about it. Form (or appearances) as we know it is empty in the sense that it doesn't exist in itself. When we look at form we do not see the original face of basic reality. However, there's a flip side to this. Form (or appearances) as we know it, is just the 3D face of basic reality and in that sense it is as real as it gets. The idea that being applies to all appearances is concordant with the pointer that all appearances are a reflection of being, and have no inherent existence in and of their own right. Only _________ is "real". This can be understood intellectually by the idea that it is our thoughts, feelings and senses that literally give reality to the objects within our perception. But that indirect and abstract understanding is only a shadow that can lead to such cognitive dissonance as Jesus = Manson. The solipsist script is "if suffering is only created by my mind, then I just won't think thoughts that make me suffer .. and hey, while I'm at it I'll attract what I want by wishing for it really hard". It leads to what you've called happy-face stickering, Byron-Katie-style emotional detachment, and all sorts of Doooooofus guy questions about the preferences of pet rocks. Mostly, pet rocks enjoy peaceful moments, sunsets and a roll along the beach.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 29, 2017 11:45:41 GMT -5
The idea that being applies to all appearances is concordant with the pointer that all appearances are a reflection of being, and have no inherent existence in and of their own right. Only _________ is "real". This can be understood intellectually by the idea that it is our thoughts, feelings and senses that literally give reality to the objects within our perception. But that indirect and abstract understanding is only a shadow that can lead to such cognitive dissonance as Jesus = Manson. The solipsist script is "if suffering is only created by my mind, then I just won't think thoughts that make me suffer .. and hey, while I'm at it I'll attract what I want by wishing for it really hard". It leads to what you've called happy-face stickering, Byron-Katie-style emotional detachment, and all sorts of Doooooofus guy questions about the preferences of pet rocks. I'd say the weakest point in the solipsist script is that it has no real life consequences. The solipsist just can't keep up appearances for long. And that's where self-honesty enters the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 29, 2017 11:49:42 GMT -5
The direct seeing is that everything is an empty appearance in Consciousness. That's it? The dictionary definition of Consciousness is irrelevant in this context just as the dictionary definition of Awareness is. There is some unfortunate objectification involved due to the limitations of language, but 'everything is Consciousness' doesn't mean 'everything is conscious'. Then I guess we are done here (unless you tell us your own definition).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 29, 2017 12:04:40 GMT -5
The domains of experience are One for a sage.No domain of experience is higher or lower. Yet is that true for Seth? He influenced the likes of Louise l Haye, deepak chopra , Marianne Williamson. They have made a living from Teaching on improving the story, as most channellers in the marketplace do. They do serve for the individual trying to better the many me in the story of separation but it's not what sages are pointing at. They may use the term awakening as Tenka does but there is no channelling in what sages are pointing at. Please don't confuse the two. There is no channelling for sages just the seeing through of the imagined me. There is no consciousness seeking of new experiences. Only in separation. I may have been with different sages as yourself but the pointing has not been at that. Sages are pointing at taking you out of the story of the opposites where each moment is unknown, spontaneous where you are not trying or seeking to improve on the character as the character is seen through in true realisation SR. indigo children, crystal children, Seth, Abraham Hicks belong to the story and not what sages are pointing at. A sage sees through even the idea, the very thought that enlightenment happened to a character in a story. Why in the Bhakti tradition Kabir and Nanaks teachings they point at the illusion of certain teachings being sold in the marketplace but are just there to keep you in separation. Kabir would say Kal takes on the form of the sage. Sai Baba, muktanada, the hugging Saint are from this stage. There have been many more. Just as Jesus said beware of false prophets dressed up in sheeps clothing. When I first met Donna she was surrounded by channellers bringing in commander Ashtar, and in the reiki tradition Usui, even one group came along with a channeled message from Usui which was the total opposite to the what an angel lady was teaching over from a different camp. Why when I danced with Donna I was taking her out of these groups which are serving the story and not the realisation sages are pointing at. Why Kabir said seek out a Sat Guru and not a guru. Just dancing with her she was moving away maturing out of the marketplace. The poem below came to her not too long after I Thought I thought I was someone A person born I thought I was something A character worn I thought I was vulnerable Separate and torn I thought I was emotional Happy and forlorn I thought I was so many things Born of caste, men and kings I never thought I was just a thought Till the death of I Was truly sought Death of life me and I Just a thought passing by Yet here I am I am still, Being All is one If you know what you're seeing No matter how enlightened a sage is he still has to deal with the human condition. And that's where sages seem to fail regularly. The story caught up with them.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2017 15:37:44 GMT -5
The idea that being applies to all appearances is concordant with the pointer that all appearances are a reflection of being, and have no inherent existence in and of their own right. Only _________ is "real". This can be understood intellectually by the idea that it is our thoughts, feelings and senses that literally give reality to the objects within our perception. But that indirect and abstract understanding is only a shadow that can lead to such cognitive dissonance as Jesus = Manson. The solipsist script is "if suffering is only created by my mind, then I just won't think thoughts that make me suffer .. and hey, while I'm at it I'll attract what I want by wishing for it really hard". It leads to what you've called happy-face stickering, Byron-Katie-style emotional detachment, and all sorts of Doooooofus guy questions about the preferences of pet rocks. Mostly, pet rocks enjoy peaceful moments, sunsets and a roll along the beach. Bad things happen when there's noone around to chaperone Rocky and Pebbles.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2017 15:57:20 GMT -5
The idea that being applies to all appearances is concordant with the pointer that all appearances are a reflection of being, and have no inherent existence in and of their own right. Only _________ is "real". This can be understood intellectually by the idea that it is our thoughts, feelings and senses that literally give reality to the objects within our perception. But that indirect and abstract understanding is only a shadow that can lead to such cognitive dissonance as Jesus = Manson. The solipsist script is "if suffering is only created by my mind, then I just won't think thoughts that make me suffer .. and hey, while I'm at it I'll attract what I want by wishing for it really hard". It leads to what you've called happy-face stickering, Byron-Katie-style emotional detachment, and all sorts of Doooooofus guy questions about the preferences of pet rocks. I'd say the weakest point in the solipsist script is that it has no real life consequences. The solipsist just can't keep up appearances for long. And that's where self-honesty enters the picture. Well, start with this idea that thoughts shape reality. Now then, what is the consequence for an en masse, collective questioning of the basis of the idea of a shared, objective, physical reality? In terms of the recorded history of human thought, reality has always been open and subject to question. But there have been some particular milestones in that process that are especially notable. While the individuals and the groups involved aren't really the source of the radical ideas they originated, they serve as useful points of reference for those milestones. The funny thing about our times that we can see reflected in these forum dialogs is this tendency to claim an individual sovereignty over our perspectives without acknowledging our influences. People get intent on claiming a direct seeing of their own personal and original exploration, and so they can't afford to acknowledge their influences. It's the opposite end of the spectrum from guru parroting. It's also why some unconscious peeps will see guru parroting where there is none. A specific example of this outside of the forum dialogs is my doubt about the claim in the Seth material that the channeled entity couldn't be considered to be a product of Jane's subconscious. So while I'm tempted to list some of those past influential thinkers, I won't. This is where there's some serious value to be found in the idea of exploring our conditioning. If we get present to the why's and how's of our states of mind, we can come to a deeper insight as to source, nature, and consequences of the contents of our minds. The absurdity of "I act as if other people are real" is a very extreme example of a state of mind that presents a golden opportunity. Yes, you see, it's really not that hard at all to find instances where a person's day-to-day experience is very heavily influenced by their abstract notions of reality.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2017 14:38:22 GMT -5
The direct seeing is that everything is an empty appearance in Consciousness. That's it? You mean is that the only direct seeing there is? No, it's the direct seeing that applies to the topic we're discussing. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 31, 2017 14:44:36 GMT -5
Mostly, pet rocks enjoy peaceful moments, sunsets and a roll along the beach. Bad things happen when there's noone around to chaperone Rocky and Pebbles. Well, they don't call her Pebbles because of her virtue. You have to understand that social mores are much more relaxed in the rock kingdom. For example, boulders pretty much get their way all the time, but nobody really minds. It's almost like they go around stoned, like, all the time.
|
|