Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 3:04:37 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. Your point is only your point. If awareness is apart from feeling how would you know what it is? I, fully recognise that the context of the word feelings in your post is emotional, though believe me old boy, you can't bypass your feelings. Not ever. Nor would you want to, if you really understood what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 20, 2017 13:47:00 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). Notice that Rupert is careful not to separate self. Mind loves layer cakes, the more layers the better, and even if we know it's distinction rather than separation, it still pulls us into thinking in separation terms.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 20, 2017 13:48:22 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. Zackly.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2017 14:02:02 GMT -5
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. Just to be clear, because I arbitrarily created the terms self 1 and self 2, self 1 is the small s self/ego/cultural self, self 2 is one's true nature. Still disagree?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2017 14:08:30 GMT -5
I'm still laughing at what you wrote in brackets. Going a little further (more). Could you say Presence = aware of being aware? (self 1, awareness [ edit: this would correctly be awareness captured and held by thoughts, feelings or stuff, not awareness itself] self 2, awareness of awareness [ edit: awareness of {awareness-captured-and-held-by-thoughts-feelings-and-stuff}) 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. Bumped for laughter, I amended (edits) an error bakk pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2017 14:17:12 GMT -5
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. Your point is only your point. If awareness is apart from feeling how would you know what it is? I, fully recognise that the context of the word feelings in your post is emotional, though believe me old boy, you can't bypass your feelings. Not ever. Nor would you want to, if you really understood what you're doing. I didn't say anything about bypassing feelings. I said awareness is separate from feelings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 15:00:09 GMT -5
Your point is only your point. If awareness is apart from feeling how would you know what it is? I, fully recognise that the context of the word feelings in your post is emotional, though believe me old boy, you can't bypass your feelings. Not ever. Nor would you want to, if you really understood what you're doing. I didn't say anything about bypassing feelings. I said awareness is separate from feelings. I know what you've written, and why.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2017 15:33:27 GMT -5
I didn't say anything about bypassing feelings. I said awareness is separate from feelings. I know what you've written, and why. OK..........
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2017 22:39:41 GMT -5
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. Just to be clear, because I arbitrarily created the terms self 1 and self 2, self 1 is the small s self/ego/cultural self, self 2 is one's true nature. Still disagree? Thanks, no I don't. I misread it the first time and misspoke. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 21, 2017 1:27:53 GMT -5
Just to be clear, because I arbitrarily created the terms self 1 and self 2, self 1 is the small s self/ego/cultural self, self 2 is one's true nature. Still disagree? Thanks, no I don't. I misread it the first time and misspoke. Sorry! No problem.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 21, 2017 10:31:22 GMT -5
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. Your point is only your point. If awareness is apart from feeling how would you know what it is? I, fully recognise that the context of the word feelings in your post is emotional, though believe me old boy, you can't bypass your feelings. Not ever. Nor would you want to, if you really understood what you're doing. Emotions/feelings are learned and habitual. That's why when you change your name on Spiritual Teachers Forum and come back, it doesn't take long for people to figure out who you are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 11:15:59 GMT -5
Your point is only your point. If awareness is apart from feeling how would you know what it is? I, fully recognise that the context of the word feelings in your post is emotional, though believe me old boy, you can't bypass your feelings. Not ever. Nor would you want to, if you really understood what you're doing. Emotions/feelings are learned and habitual. That's why when you change your name on Spiritual Teachers Forum and come back, it doesn't take long for people to figure out who you are. You don't have to be taught how to feel. Again, I will make the point that I am aware that to you, feelings are emotional. The avatar of bakk has been up for 19 months, if you've only just figured out that that's Wren then you've sincerely proved your point wrong.
|
|