Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 14:01:19 GMT -5
The left brain = trees, and a verbal description, particular "trees". Right brain = forest, a sensation of the whole, a silent taking in. Left brain, I-dentity. Right brain, being-(ness). (I don't disagree with your analysis, just the reasoning of your assigned brain-halfs). I wonder why there's no one here interested in the pineal gland. Because it's just an augmentation.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 6, 2017 15:22:18 GMT -5
I consider it very admirable that you can distinguish within your own brain the local of certain attributes. I cannot do that, I only know the research of others. Thusly, left-brain = particular "trees"; right brain = whole forest. Left-brain favors verbal description of the particular; right-brain (ZD's)_______ _________. (Jill Bolte-Taylor is a neuroscientist who had a stroke, and so examined her own stroke within her own knowledge of neuroanatomy, fascinating). Can't you feel? We were talking about brain hemispheres. You seemed to indicate from which hemisphere arises, in yourself, certain attributes, and these disagreed with accepted research. That's all I dispute. (I have no problem with the attributes).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 6, 2017 15:33:14 GMT -5
Going a little further (more). Could you say Presence = aware of being aware? (self 1, awareness; self 2, awareness of awareness) And further still. self 1 = left brain; self 2 = right brain. (_________ of awareness). The Whole encompasses the particular. (The particular does not encompass the Whole). IOW, left brain, ego/fictitious I-dentity; right brain, essence. The OP, The mind is not identical with the mind, astute. A few days ago self 1 was a fiction, a story, that couldn't see or understand.. now you've promoted it to awareness. Please explain the leap. We are all a mixture of ego/persona/cultural self/ self 1, and essence (self 2). Essence is defined as what you were born with, so one ~part~ of essence is the body. Do you have a body? So essence is kind-of-like hardware, ego is software, ego is the programming. So ego consists of our thoughts and feelings. Are you aware you have thoughts? Are you aware you have feelings? (I am, too, to answer your question). Most people consider that-they-are their thoughts and feelings. So most people are aware of thoughts and feelings, so I called this self 1, that is, thoughts and feelings are tied to awareness. Saying that as explanation, but you are correct, self 1, in and of itself, is not aware. But the point is to know which is awareness and which is mere programming. I think you have successively done so. (Few here have).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 15:40:19 GMT -5
We were talking about brain hemispheres. You seemed to indicate from which hemisphere arises, in yourself, certain attributes, and these disagreed with accepted research. That's all I dispute. (I have no problem with the attributes). Initially, to be honest, we were talking about from where does the passion and the intent to 'judge the living and the dead arise from'.. though yeah now this has turned into whether you've stilled yourself enough to notice where recognition arises from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 15:48:00 GMT -5
A few days ago self 1 was a fiction, a story, that couldn't see or understand.. now you've promoted it to awareness. Please explain the leap. We are all a mixture of ego/persona/cultural self/ self 1, and essence (self 2). Essence is defined as what you were born with, so one ~part~ of essence is the body. Do you have a body? So essence is kind-of-like hardware, ego is software, ego is the programming. So ego consists of our thoughts and feelings. Are you aware you have thoughts? Are you aware you have feelings? (I am, too, to answer your question). Most people consider that-they-are their thoughts and feelings. So most people are aware of thoughts and feelings, so I called this self 1, that is, thoughts and feelings are tied to awareness. Saying that as explanation, but you are correct, self 1, in and of itself, is not aware. But the point is to know which is awareness and which is mere programming. I think you have successively done so. (Few here have). I didn't say that 'self 1' couldn't see or understand, you did. Here's some of the other things you've written about self 1 in the past 3 weeks. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/430154Now how did it get promoted to being called awareness?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 16:03:48 GMT -5
What if there are really God/god existing in this forum and are the one's responsible for creating super cyclones, earthquakes and massacres? We know that God/god is compassionate but God/god could also be vengeful. There is maybe a God/god of love existing yet this God/god can't do anything to stop the destruction and killing. Life has been presenting those questions for as long as there have been people. I don't have any answer for you that can be defended by intellect. You might try praying to that God of love, or you can go about seeking answers a different way. A way that involves looking inward toward where those questions emerge.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Oct 6, 2017 18:18:45 GMT -5
Last night, my wife said something about me, " You know sweetie why did you not include your friend Rey in the program/list of sponsors undertaking the Holy Rosary prayer activity on 28th of October dedicated to our Mother Mary? By failing to do so, it's simply because you are not articulate." This was the first time I heard her say the word articulate. I was amused instead of being irritated. My view is that God from within cause us to say things taken from our thoughts. The thoughts formed in our minds also come from God.There are pleasant, obnoxious, smart, ridiculous and funny thoughts that appear in our minds. These are the ones that make us laugh, sad, angry, elated or depressed. So, if unwarranted thoughts come smile and say, " There you go again God." It has been described in the book Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 10 that God whose name is Govinda has earned the reputation for being a naughty Boy. He stole the dresses of his girlfriends while they were bathing in the Yamuna river, hang the dresses on the branches of the tree. Govinda sitting in one of its branches told his girlfriends who were naked to climb up the tree and get the dresses He took one by one.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 6, 2017 21:07:31 GMT -5
We are all a mixture of ego/persona/cultural self/ self 1, and essence (self 2). Essence is defined as what you were born with, so one ~part~ of essence is the body. Do you have a body? So essence is kind-of-like hardware, ego is software, ego is the programming. So ego consists of our thoughts and feelings. Are you aware you have thoughts? Are you aware you have feelings? (I am, too, to answer your question). Most people consider that-they-are their thoughts and feelings. So most people are aware of thoughts and feelings, so I called this self 1, that is, thoughts and feelings are tied to awareness. Saying that as explanation, but you are correct, self 1, in and of itself, is not aware. But the point is to know which is awareness and which is mere programming. I think you have successively done so. (Few here have). I didn't say that 'self 1' couldn't see or understand, you did. Here's some of the other things you've written about self 1 in the past 3 weeks. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/430154Now how did it get promoted to being called awareness? I guess my admission of being incorrect was too subtle? (Although it seemed quite clear). But you did bold it. Ego cannot do. All the actions of ego consist of completely mechanical processes (however complex). Ego cannot be aware. You clearly understand the difference between mere awareness (for example, you have to be aware of a red light, to stop) and awareness of awareness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 21:24:34 GMT -5
I didn't say that 'self 1' couldn't see or understand, you did. Here's some of the other things you've written about self 1 in the past 3 weeks. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/430154Now how did it get promoted to being called awareness? I guess my admission of being incorrect was too subtle? (Although it seemed quite clear). But you did bold it. Ego cannot do. All the actions of ego consist of completely mechanical processes (however complex). Ego cannot be aware. You clearly understand the difference between mere awareness (for example, you have to be aware of a red light, to stop) and awareness of awareness. You still haven't answered my question even though there is the subtlety in your reply about asking me to stop. Now please answer it, how, did self 1 get named awareness?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 6, 2017 21:42:11 GMT -5
I guess my admission of being incorrect was too subtle? (Although it seemed quite clear). But you did bold it. Ego cannot do. All the actions of ego consist of completely mechanical processes (however complex). Ego cannot be aware. You clearly understand the difference between mere awareness (for example, you have to be aware of a red light, to stop) and awareness of awareness. You still haven't answered my question even though there is the subtlety in your reply about asking me to stop. Now please answer it, how, did self 1 get named awareness? I misspoke [is that clear enough?] (I guess that's why it's called self-remembering and not awareness of awareness).
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Oct 8, 2017 0:33:23 GMT -5
Great avatar photo!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 19, 2017 13:47:36 GMT -5
We are all a mixture of ego/persona/cultural self/ self 1, and essence (self 2). Essence is defined as what you were born with, so one ~part~ of essence is the body. Do you have a body? So essence is kind-of-like hardware, ego is software, ego is the programming. So ego consists of our thoughts and feelings. Are you aware you have thoughts? Are you aware you have feelings? (I am, too, to answer your question). Most people consider that-they-are their thoughts and feelings. So most people are aware of thoughts and feelings, so I called this self 1, that is, thoughts and feelings are tied to awareness. Saying that as explanation, but you are correct, self 1, in and of itself, is not aware. But the point is to know which is awareness and which is mere programming. I think you have successively done so. (Few here have). I didn't say that 'self 1' couldn't see or understand, you did. Here's some of the other things you've written about self 1 in the past 3 weeks. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/430154Now how did it get promoted to being called awareness? Hey bakk (and also pertinent to the current conversation with laughter)...I guess you accepted my answer as you didn't reply further. I was just ~creating a new language~ in using the term self 1, and it was just incorrect to say self 1 is aware. I wasn't trying to "fudge" an answer (above), just trying to explain the mistake. Reading the Rupert Spira book, Being Aware of Being Aware (2017), I wasn't too impressed with the beginning, but he is getting better. Coming to page 53 he sort of explains what I was trying to explain (above). "However, when awareness directs its attention or the light of its knowing towards an object, its awareness of itself is mixed ( emphasis sdp) with its awareness of objects, and thus it seems to cease being aware of itself as it truly is. Therefore, in the gap between two such objects or thoughts it seems to become aware of itself anew. ....... (pg 55) To begin with, awareness may seem to find it difficult to remain with itself, that is, to stay with the non-objective experience of simply being aware, so accustomed is it to assuming the form of mind and, as such, directing itself towards objective experience. As soon as this is noticed ( emphasis sdp), we may ask again, 'Am I aware?', in this way inviting the mind away from the objects of knowledge or experience, towards its essence or source". (IOW, all thoughts and all feelings ~belong~ to self 1, constitute self 1, and awareness thereof, or awareness itself, "constitute" "self" 2).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 15:21:36 GMT -5
I didn't say that 'self 1' couldn't see or understand, you did. Here's some of the other things you've written about self 1 in the past 3 weeks. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/430154Now how did it get promoted to being called awareness? Hey bakk (and also pertinent to the current conversation with laughter)...I guess you accepted my answer as you didn't reply further. I was just ~creating a new language~ in using the term self 1, and it was just incorrect to say self 1 is aware. I wasn't trying to "fudge" an answer (above), just trying to explain the mistake. Reading the Rupert Spira book, Being Aware of Being Aware (2017), I wasn't too impressed with the beginning, but he is getting better. Coming to page 53 he sort of explains what I was trying to explain (above). "However, when awareness directs its attention or the light of its knowing towards an object, its awareness of itself is mixed ( emphasis sdp) with its awareness of objects, and thus it seems to cease being aware of itself as it truly is. Therefore, in the gap between two such objects or thoughts it seems to become aware of itself anew. ....... (pg 55) To begin with, awareness may seem to find it difficult to remain with itself, that is, to stay with the non-objective experience of simply being aware, so accustomed is it to assuming the form of mind and, as such, directing itself towards objective experience. As soon as this is noticed ( emphasis sdp), we may ask again, 'Am I aware?', in this way inviting the mind away from the objects of knowledge or experience, towards its essence or source". (IOW, all thoughts and all feelings ~belong~ to self 1, constitute self 1, and awareness thereof, or awareness itself, "constitute" "self" 2). Ok. When Spira says .. "so accustomed is it to assuming the form of mind.." it's the same as when Enigma says that Awareness touches mind. The mind that says 'Am I aware?', isn't aware independent, of the primary I, which is what you wanted to call self 2. There isn't anything that belongs to self 1, that doesn't simultaneously belong to self 2, because... .. self 1 isn't independent of self 2.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 19, 2017 20:31:24 GMT -5
Hey bakk (and also pertinent to the current conversation with laughter)...I guess you accepted my answer as you didn't reply further. I was just ~creating a new language~ in using the term self 1, and it was just incorrect to say self 1 is aware. I wasn't trying to "fudge" an answer (above), just trying to explain the mistake. Reading the Rupert Spira book, Being Aware of Being Aware (2017), I wasn't too impressed with the beginning, but he is getting better. Coming to page 53 he sort of explains what I was trying to explain (above). "However, when awareness directs its attention or the light of its knowing towards an object, its awareness of itself is mixed ( emphasis sdp) with its awareness of objects, and thus it seems to cease being aware of itself as it truly is. Therefore, in the gap between two such objects or thoughts it seems to become aware of itself anew. ....... (pg 55) To begin with, awareness may seem to find it difficult to remain with itself, that is, to stay with the non-objective experience of simply being aware, so accustomed is it to assuming the form of mind and, as such, directing itself towards objective experience. As soon as this is noticed ( emphasis sdp), we may ask again, 'Am I aware?', in this way inviting the mind away from the objects of knowledge or experience, towards its essence or source". (IOW, all thoughts and all feelings ~belong~ to self 1, constitute self 1, and awareness thereof, or awareness itself, "constitute" "self" 2). Ok. When Spira says .. "so accustomed is it to assuming the form of mind.." it's the same as when Enigma says that Awareness touches mind. The mind that says 'Am I aware?', isn't aware independent, of the primary I, which is what you wanted to call self 2. There isn't anything that belongs to self 1, that doesn't simultaneously belong to self 2, because... .. self 1 isn't independent of self 2. Yes, of course, "self 1" can't exist without "self 2" but "self 2" can exist without "self 1". Asking am I aware? Is like asking who am I? The point is to ~locate~ the fundamental, awareness, apart from thoughts and feelings.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2017 0:38:54 GMT -5
Ok. When Spira says .. "so accustomed is it to assuming the form of mind.." it's the same as when Enigma says that Awareness touches mind. The mind that says 'Am I aware?', isn't aware independent, of the primary I, which is what you wanted to call self 2. There isn't anything that belongs to self 1, that doesn't simultaneously belong to self 2, because... .. self 1 isn't independent of self 2. Yes, of course, "self 1" can't exist without "self 2" but "self 2" can exist without "self 1". Asking am I aware? Is like asking who am I? The point is to ~locate~ the fundamental, awareness, apart from thoughts and feelings. Whelps, the only reason I'm crackin' my piehole is 'cause you mentioned me up there .. .. While I can't defend it intellectually, I flat out disagree with this.
|
|