|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 29, 2019 19:15:16 GMT -5
I assume you mean 'Consciousness isn't something that happens inside awareness'? Ultimately, Consciousness and Awareness are just conceptual categories used as pointers and fodder for conversation, but all of it collapses into the infamous little greasy spot, and calling it 'THIS' or '______' just starts up the lying all over again. There is no Consciousness or Awareness. Talking like there is is unavoidable, and if you think you've got the correct verbiage to describe that which cannot be described with verbiage, you're mistaken. That said, my preference is Intelligence. Perhaps it is less prone to objectification. That's also a category I know. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 29, 2019 19:36:36 GMT -5
Right, Awareness is more like a pointer to "prior to mind". It is not to be considered and/or labeled as "something". The suffix "-ness" refers to a quality/state, whereas Awareness points to "somenothing" prior to quality/state. As such, Consciousness, in how I'd talk about it is the movement, which is prior to the movement of mind known as thought. Thoughts are conditioned, so it gets a little tricky and people tend to get it backasswards (slang) because they are conditioned to think a certain way, and then become sensitive to when that's pointed out. To touch emptiness (i.e., Awaken and/or at least begin to stir in one's dreaming sleep) will set in motion the movement of more consciously meeting the previous conditioned-based thoughts and discerning them from the more contemporarily forming thoughts. The fact that nothing is truly known, except that Existence Is, does throw a monkey wrench into the previously conditioned machinery of thought. That doesn't mean that one can't talk about other stuff, nor that one can't interact with forms as they come into consciousness, but there's much more of a "universal" sense about those movements in the dream. Oh, and feelings of amazement, awe, or woweezoweeness (slang) tend to arise more often than before, too, but they seemingly tend to arise at very ordinary moments and/or when adrift in enlightened thoughts. The feelings tended to arise more, at least in this story, when life became simpler and less clouded by certain trappings that called on the previously conditioned thought patterns to act. Anyway, the clarity of those moments might give rise to a desire to share or express an idea/pointer in some way, and it can be a beautiful thing. I'd dare to say that if one just sees the world as a personal story, such feelings can be more fleeting, if ever, and then they usually get translated into the conditioned self's finite sense of what those movements are. Some of the discussions that happen here on ST highlight a lot of the dynamics mentioned above. No biggie; it's just life in the dream. Big Love.
Dream on. From what I understood, you are seeing 'conditioned thought patterns' are the only problem. But you are completely missing the creator who is creating the entire story including what you consider as your inner thoughts and outer world movement. He could create anything he wants. Everything lies on the story which is unfolding infront of your eyes. If story is bad, then you feel bad, your feelings follows the story. If you have to suffer, then nothing else can make you suffer except the story, Story is the only thing that exist for you perceive, Said that what other things that can make you suffer? There isn't a creator entity who is creating what he wants. You wrote a post about that a while back. What happened since then? Gopal: "If we assume there is something called awareness and to which knowing is happening, then we are placing awareness as static entity. But where does such a static entity exist when awareness is part and parcel of that movement itself? So there is no such static entity called awareness exist, there is no one is there to know, there is simply knowing, there is no one is there to see, there is simply seeing, that point of perception we can take that later as someone or something but there is no such existence of such an entity behind the scene." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5402/question-sr?page=6#ixzz66iUEp8oF |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 29, 2019 19:40:17 GMT -5
I assume you mean 'Consciousness isn't something that happens inside awareness'?Ultimately, Consciousness and Awareness are just conceptual categories used as pointers and fodder for conversation, but all of it collapses into the infamous little greasy spot, and calling it 'THIS' or '______' just starts up the lying all over again. There is no Consciousness or Awareness. Talking like there is is unavoidable, and if you think you've got the correct verbiage to describe that which cannot be described with verbiage, you're mistaken. That said, my preference is Intelligence. Perhaps it is less prone to objectification. I am sorry If I have worded wrongly. I meant to say KNOWING is happening within awareness, and this knowing is inseparable from what we call awareness. Awareness is not a kind of static entity which is looking at what's unfolding. That's what I meant to say in my aforementioned line. So it's not looking but it's creating what it wants? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 19:55:37 GMT -5
From what I understood, you are seeing 'conditioned thought patterns' are the only problem. But you are completely missing the creator who is creating the entire story including what you consider as your inner thoughts and outer world movement. He could create anything he wants. Everything lies on the story which is unfolding infront of your eyes. If story is bad, then you feel bad, your feelings follows the story. If you have to suffer, then nothing else can make you suffer except the story, Story is the only thing that exist for you perceive, Said that what other things that can make you suffer? There isn't a creator entity who is creating what he wants. You wrote a post about that a while back. What happened since then? Gopal: "If we assume there is something called awareness and to which knowing is happening, then we are placing awareness as static entity. But where does such a static entity exist when awareness is part and parcel of that movement itself? So there is no such static entity called awareness exist, there is no one is there to know, there is simply knowing, there is no one is there to see, there is simply seeing, that point of perception we can take that later as someone or something but there is no such existence of such an entity behind the scene." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5402/question-sr?page=6#ixzz66iUEp8oFwait, that's the good observation. But please follow the long conversation between me and Satch at The Mind Identification Complex that happened yesterday and I also want you answer my questions from your side .
Conversation starts here
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2019 22:55:03 GMT -5
There isn't a creator entity who is creating what he wants. You wrote a post about that a while back. What happened since then? Gopal: "If we assume there is something called awareness and to which knowing is happening, then we are placing awareness as static entity. But where does such a static entity exist when awareness is part and parcel of that movement itself? So there is no such static entity called awareness exist, there is no one is there to know, there is simply knowing, there is no one is there to see, there is simply seeing, that point of perception we can take that later as someone or something but there is no such existence of such an entity behind the scene." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5402/question-sr?page=6#ixzz66iUEp8oFwait, that's the good observation. But please follow the long conversation between me and Satch at The Mind Identification Complex that happened yesterday and I also want you answer my questions from your side . Conversation starts here I tried to follow it, but your point isn't clear to me, just the contradiction. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 3, 2019 6:38:56 GMT -5
Right, Awareness is more like a pointer to "prior to mind". It is not to be considered and/or labeled as "something". The suffix "-ness" refers to a quality/state, whereas Awareness points to "somenothing" prior to quality/state. As such, Consciousness, in how I'd talk about it is the movement, which is prior to the movement of mind known as thought. Thoughts are conditioned, so it gets a little tricky and people tend to get it backasswards (slang) because they are conditioned to think a certain way, and then become sensitive to when that's pointed out. To touch emptiness (i.e., Awaken and/or at least begin to stir in one's dreaming sleep) will set in motion the movement of more consciously meeting the previous conditioned-based thoughts and discerning them from the more contemporarily forming thoughts. The fact that nothing is truly known, except that Existence Is, does throw a monkey wrench into the previously conditioned machinery of thought. That doesn't mean that one can't talk about other stuff, nor that one can't interact with forms as they come into consciousness, but there's much more of a "universal" sense about those movements in the dream. Oh, and feelings of amazement, awe, or woweezoweeness (slang) tend to arise more often than before, too, but they seemingly tend to arise at very ordinary moments and/or when adrift in enlightened thoughts. The feelings tended to arise more, at least in this story, when life became simpler and less clouded by certain trappings that called on the previously conditioned thought patterns to act. Anyway, the clarity of those moments might give rise to a desire to share or express an idea/pointer in some way, and it can be a beautiful thing. I'd dare to say that if one just sees the world as a personal story, such feelings can be more fleeting, if ever, and then they usually get translated into the conditioned self's finite sense of what those movements are. Some of the discussions that happen here on ST highlight a lot of the dynamics mentioned above. No biggie; it's just life in the dream. Big Love.
Dream on. From what I understood, you are seeing 'conditioned thought patterns' are the only problem. But you are completely missing the creator who is creating the entire story including what you consider as your inner thoughts and outer world movement. He could create anything he wants. Everything lies on the story which is unfolding infront of your eyes. If story is bad, then you feel bad, your feelings follows the story. If you have to suffer, then nothing else can make you suffer except the story, Story is the only thing that exist for you perceive, Said that what other things that can make you suffer? Without getting to mired in the details of the conditioning, sure, it is likely most are conditioned to believe that cause and effect (duality) rule. To Realize that is not true is bring to an end the search for an entity thought to be the Creator. Notice the trick: conditioned thought assumes a cause (creator) of an effect (creation/story) as two separate “things”, and it appears that a lot of characters in the story believe they, too, are separate volitional people to/for which drama happens. Oops. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 12:05:41 GMT -5
Yet another question. I'm reading about atma vichara. Michael James book. My second go round. It is a daunting book, more than five hundred pages. But I'm willing to sell my kids to get to your side of the river Styx, the fun side, with all the cool folk and no Texans.
There is an explicit and persistent argument James makes concerning Ramana's atma vichara and that was that mind is seen to never having existed. I'm cool with that. Not a mind lover, a thought hater. I'm laughing while typing. Wife thinks I'm crazy. Giving strange looks.
But mind, imagining you are a body, causes this thing called the world. Mind is projecting this movie. If mind never existed and you see this, why is the movie still playing?
|
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 3, 2019 12:27:23 GMT -5
Yet another question. I'm reading about atma vichara. Michael James book. My second go round. It is a daunting book, more than five hundred pages. But I'm willing to sell my kids to get to your side of the river Styx, the fun side, with all the cool folk and no Texans. There is an explicit and persistent argument James makes concerning Ramana's atma vichara and that was that mind is seen to never having existed. I'm cool with that. Not a mind lover, a thought hater. I'm laughing while typing. Wife thinks I'm crazy. Giving strange looks. But mind, imagining you are a body, causes this thing called the world. Mind is projecting this movie. If mind never existed and you see this, why is the movie still playing? Who says the movie is still playing? When the I is looked into deeply, there remains no one to say that the movie is still playing, or indeed that it ever played. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 13:19:36 GMT -5
Yet another question. I'm reading about atma vichara. Michael James book. My second go round. It is a daunting book, more than five hundred pages. But I'm willing to sell my kids to get to your side of the river Styx, the fun side, with all the cool folk and no Texans. There is an explicit and persistent argument James makes concerning Ramana's atma vichara and that was that mind is seen to never having existed. I'm cool with that. Not a mind lover, a thought hater. I'm laughing while typing. Wife thinks I'm crazy. Giving strange looks. But mind, imagining you are a body, causes this thing called the world. Mind is projecting this movie. If mind never existed and you see this, why is the movie still playing? Who says the movie is still playing? When the I is looked into deeply, there remains no one to say that the movie is still playing, or indeed that it ever played. Yes. Mind is chewing on that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 3, 2019 14:52:01 GMT -5
Yet another question. I'm reading about atma vichara. Michael James book. My second go round. It is a daunting book, more than five hundred pages. But I'm willing to sell my kids to get to your side of the river Styx, the fun side, with all the cool folk and no Texans. There is an explicit and persistent argument James makes concerning Ramana's atma vichara and that was that mind is seen to never having existed. I'm cool with that. Not a mind lover, a thought hater. I'm laughing while typing. Wife thinks I'm crazy. Giving strange looks. But mind, imagining you are a body, causes this thing called the world. Mind is projecting this movie. If mind never existed and you see this, why is the movie still playing? Clearly, there's motion of a sort. For instance, it would be silly to deny that you've read this sentence. There is "something" rather than "nothing", and it's always changing. Now, you know that whatever that is, it isn't this "world" that results from imagining you are a body. That's really as far as a pointer can go. Any dissatisfaction this may raise is an opportunity: as diaper guy might ask, "who is it that is dissatisfied?". Or, to open that up somewhat, what is the source of the pattern of thought and emotion that gives rise to the dissatisfaction? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 9:45:46 GMT -5
Another trick question for the SR. Do you dream? If so, are you SR in your dreams as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 7, 2019 10:10:30 GMT -5
Another trick question for the SR. Do you dream? If so, are you SR in your dreams as well? What's the trick??  Yes, I dream. I'd be suspicious of any so-called authority that denies the "post-SR" possibility of dreaming. The only time the question of "SR" or not comes up for me is in these forum dialogs, and then, it's always with a big 'ole grain 'o salt.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 10:17:34 GMT -5
Another trick question for the SR. Do you dream? If so, are you SR in your dreams as well? What's the trick?? Yes, I dream. I'd be suspicious of any so-called authority that denies the "post-SR" possibility of dreaming. The only time the question of "SR" or not comes up for me is in these forum dialogs, and then, it's always with a big 'ole grain 'o salt. He is asking your SR will remain in your nightly dream. It's perfectly valid question, it definitely wouldn't remain in your nightly sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 7, 2019 11:06:16 GMT -5
What's the trick?? Yes, I dream. I'd be suspicious of any so-called authority that denies the "post-SR" possibility of dreaming. The only time the question of "SR" or not comes up for me is in these forum dialogs, and then, it's always with a big 'ole grain 'o salt. He is asking your SR will remain in your nightly dream. It's perfectly valid question, it definitely wouldn't remain in your nightly sleep. In those terms "SR" is a misconception. No person ever becomes enlightened.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 11:31:23 GMT -5
What's the trick?? Yes, I dream. I'd be suspicious of any so-called authority that denies the "post-SR" possibility of dreaming. The only time the question of "SR" or not comes up for me is in these forum dialogs, and then, it's always with a big 'ole grain 'o salt. He is asking your SR will remain in your nightly dream. It's perfectly valid question, it definitely wouldn't remain in your nightly sleep. So you don't identify with a body in the waking state, but you do identify with a body in a dream. How's that possible, if you've "seen" through the illusion of being a body? |
|
