|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 9:26:49 GMT -5
But the difference is when I say 'YOU ARE IT', I am not implying that the real 'I' is present or that what you are is pure awareness, aware of itself as that, knowing that . This perhaps emphasises and illustrates that what I have been speaking of is not N.S. (and for the record I have never implied that it was N.S.) . All I know and have the comparison for is awareness of I AM and not and when I AM is absent there is no knowing of anything and yet what you are is present . I think there has been confusion here because there has been the associations made in that what I experienced was likened to Tolle's C.C. and likened to N.S. Many things don't add up with what other's have said and this is the reason, but it's no surprise because I dare say everyone even agrees to what N.S. is or what S.R. is or S.S is . I can only go by what happened in my regards and what resulted in so to speak . If it is true enough to say that N.S. reflects pure awareness and awareness knows of itself as that then it has to be mindful in my book based upon the absence of knowing that I refer to as being beyond mind . When you say Awareness is the ultimate subject which knows itself points to a subject which is why I mentioned I AM is still present . I am trying to tie in a subject without I AM being present . If there is a subject still then there is mind, if it doesn't require mind to know itself then it must require something to be present because beyond the subject and beyond the knowing that it is pure awareness there is what you are still hehehe .. If it is not mind that is present then I don't know what else to call it . Something is present isn't it . Perhaps awareness at this point is sufficient in a way where it is beyond mind but there has to be this state attained for it to know itself, but knowing and states are mindful so perhaps it just won't work for me .. Now we get to the crux of it which is also the sticking point. You state that you are not implying that the real 'I' is present or that what you are is pure awareness, aware of itself as that, knowing that.I am saying precisely that. You are not able to take the mind or I am sense out of the equation of knowing what you are. Pure awareness of samadhi has no sense of self which is the same as the I Am sense. It is just pure awakedness without someone experiencing it even though we are constrained by language by talking about experiencing awareness. If you are speaking of N.S. then I have no experience of that so I can only go by my realizations / comparisons had in relation to what N.S. is . My realization didn't entertain the knowing of pure awareness, aware of itself, I didn't have a knowing of the real 'I' being present either . I can understand that after the fact there can be associations made that could reflect the real I and pure awareness tho . It may well be true that awareness can be aware of itself as that but it doesn't compute with my realization beyond awareness and beyond knowing . I think there is perhaps different differences had regarding mind to that andy and I have so it maybe why we are not seeing each other precisely here . (sorry for the delay .. busy at work) . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 9:29:56 GMT -5
Yep, I understand and get that you were only able to experience comparisons AFTER the event...the ability to experience comparisons requires a high degree of mindfulness. I think the crux of the slight disagreement probably relates to a difference in our understanding of 'mind'. So I would say mind runs very very deep...all the way to Source itself. And 'I am' can be found at all levels of mind. For sure we are never going to have the exact same understandings of what vital words mean and represent, and your right in that mind runs deep, this is why I say mind is the entire foundation of the infinite universe for it encompasses everything that is present so to speak . For me however the switch off or cut off point for mind is when there is no I AM awareness, but for you there never is such a switch off point while the body remains .
Where we differ also is that the self references that the body cells have are or not dependant on our pop had that relates to I AM. This is why I asked when there is no longer a pop had what has the blood cells got to do with I AM . yes, and quite frankly, I'm limiting the context to 'organic' just to avoid the solipsist debates. Theoretically, I'd probably be ok to say that all 'life' is 'mind' or 'God's ego' or 'I amness'. Anyway, so keeping within context, each blood cell has its own mind, but it is also operating as part of a team. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 14, 2020 9:35:46 GMT -5
It may well be true that awareness can be aware of itself as that but it doesn't compute with my realization beyond awareness and beyond knowing . I think there is perhaps different differences had regarding mind to that andy and I have so it maybe why we are not seeing each other precisely here . That poses the question, how can you realize something that is beyond knowing? I have a very simple definition of mind. It is simply one thought followed by another thought, but that includes any mental activity such as feelings emotions perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 9:40:28 GMT -5
So are you agreeing with me that when you sleep and when you faint the Self or the Sun in totality isn't present? You asked me how do I know that I wasn't asleep or had fainted .. I do understand why you say what you say about the subtle registering but as I see it, the sun in totality has to make sense when I AM isn't present . As Satch said, it's all Self .. in a way it feels as if it's put across in that when I AM leaves the building Self has too ..  When you turn the lights off you don't see anything .. when the light's turned on you do . What your suggesting is that your still seeing something when the lights are off . I don't think 'I am' diminishes or strengthens while the body is alive. I think our capacity to be mindful of 'I am' can vary though (in line with our capacity to experience making comparisons). Way I see it, is that during your event, there would have been notes made at a deep level of mind ('unconscious mind'), so although you couldn't compare at that time, you could compare after So are you agreeing with me that when you sleep and when you faint the Self or the Sun in totality isn't present? You see also here where bolded you are looking at it like it was an event that was associated with me in someway . There was nothing that was related to me at all . This is where 'what you are' being present in all it's glory is vital to acknowledge . When you faint or when you are asleep there is still an I AM status that can be then related to you having fainted or been asleep . You are still associating I AM with no I AM just because there is the mind body present . |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 9:54:28 GMT -5
I don't think 'I am' diminishes or strengthens while the body is alive. I think our capacity to be mindful of 'I am' can vary though (in line with our capacity to experience making comparisons). Way I see it, is that during your event, there would have been notes made at a deep level of mind ('unconscious mind'), so although you couldn't compare at that time, you could compare after So are you agreeing with me that when you sleep and when you faint the Self or the Sun in totality isn't present? You see also here where bolded you are looking at it like it was an event that was associated with me in someway . There was nothing that was related to me at all . This is where 'what you are' being present in all it's glory is vital to acknowledge . When you faint or when you are asleep there is still an I AM status that can be then related to you having fainted or been asleep . You are still associating I AM with no I AM just because there is the mind body present . I thought I had answered the question in first line....so 'the sun' is steadfastly and unwaveringly present all the time the body is alive (sleeping, awake, faint, functioning etc). But when I say 'event', I mean more like UG meant it, I don't mean to imply anything about the I am. I just mean, 'what happened'. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 10:01:24 GMT -5
It may well be true that awareness can be aware of itself as that but it doesn't compute with my realization beyond awareness and beyond knowing . I think there is perhaps different differences had regarding mind to that andy and I have so it maybe why we are not seeing each other precisely here . I have a very simple definition of mind. It is simply one thought followed by another thought, but that includes any mental activity such as feelings emotions perceptions. You can't and this is what I have said as my foundation . It's always an after thought . You then make sense of what is beyond sense .. This is why I have said the nearest thing that I can say of beyond mind and beyond self and beyond I AM is that there is what you are present because there is the totality of what you are present even though there is no one there and there is no thought about what that is . You can't even say awareness is aware of itself . All these thoughts had of the mind that point to awareness knowing itself beyond I Am cannot be beyond knowing .. This is why I say it's mindful still .. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Jan 14, 2020 10:01:47 GMT -5
Love is not the opposite of hate. Love encompasses mind and intellect. It's the totality one realizes in the Self. in the dualistic context love is the opposite of hate I prefer the word Peace, which has less baggage associated with it Like is the opposite of hate. Love encompasses like and hate. Many even say that God is Love. Peace has an opposite. It's war. What encompasses peace and war? Why its love. And why not? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 10:05:44 GMT -5
For sure we are never going to have the exact same understandings of what vital words mean and represent, and your right in that mind runs deep, this is why I say mind is the entire foundation of the infinite universe for it encompasses everything that is present so to speak . For me however the switch off or cut off point for mind is when there is no I AM awareness, but for you there never is such a switch off point while the body remains .
Where we differ also is that the self references that the body cells have are or not dependant on our pop had that relates to I AM. This is why I asked when there is no longer a pop had what has the blood cells got to do with I AM . yes, and quite frankly, I'm limiting the context to 'organic' just to avoid the solipsist debates. Theoretically, I'd probably be ok to say that all 'life' is 'mind' or 'God's ego' or 'I amness'. Anyway, so keeping within context, each blood cell has its own mind, but it is also operating as part of a team. So when there is no pop had what has a blood cell got to do with 'andy' as part of a team? What is the relationship had between the blood cell and 'no thought of andy'? |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 14, 2020 10:11:45 GMT -5
So are you agreeing with me that when you sleep and when you faint the Self or the Sun in totality isn't present? You see also here where bolded you are looking at it like it was an event that was associated with me in someway . There was nothing that was related to me at all . This is where 'what you are' being present in all it's glory is vital to acknowledge . When you faint or when you are asleep there is still an I AM status that can be then related to you having fainted or been asleep . You are still associating I AM with no I AM just because there is the mind body present .
But when I say 'event', I mean more like UG meant it, I don't mean to imply anything about the I am. I just mean, 'what happened'. Yes the sun is always present but when you are asleep what do you know of it? What do you remember of it? There is a time that has passed where it is for most blank where there is not the awareness of I AM aware . When I spoke about the sun initially I spoke about the sun in totality in all it's glory, the love, the joy, the power, the peace as descriptors, but when you are asleep or when you faint is there the totality of what you are present like as i have described? The answer is no, because the sleep and the fainting is all mindful, the clouds obscure the totality of the sun in these instances don't they . This is key to what I am saying and have been saying all along . |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 14, 2020 10:14:35 GMT -5
You said that pure awareness knowing itself is prior to I Am .. but there was awareness of I AM prior to their being awareness of anything ego related .. In normal activity the I Am sense regardless of whether it is attached to a thought such as I am happy, I am hungry, is mixed together with the real unbounded I which is pure awareness. The sense of I am is not pure awareness. In nirvikalpa samadhi there is no sense of I am. But awareness does not need the I Am sense to know that it is. Yet the I Am sense preceded it and it will also proceed it. Awareness is the ultimate subject which knows itself. It doesn't require mind to know that it is. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 14, 2020 10:20:28 GMT -5
But the difference is when I say 'YOU ARE IT', I am not implying that the real 'I' is present or that what you are is pure awareness, aware of itself as that, knowing that . This perhaps emphasises and illustrates that what I have been speaking of is not N.S. (and for the record I have never implied that it was N.S.) . All I know and have the comparison for is awareness of I AM and not and when I AM is absent there is no knowing of anything and yet what you are is present . I think there has been confusion here because there has been the associations made in that what I experienced was likened to Tolle's C.C. and likened to N.S. Many things don't add up with what other's have said and this is the reason, but it's no surprise because I dare say everyone even agrees to what N.S. is or what S.R. is or S.S is . I can only go by what happened in my regards and what resulted in so to speak . If it is true enough to say that N.S. reflects pure awareness and awareness knows of itself as that then it has to be mindful in my book based upon the absence of knowing that I refer to as being beyond mind . When you say Awareness is the ultimate subject which knows itself points to a subject which is why I mentioned I AM is still present . I am trying to tie in a subject without I AM being present . If there is a subject still then there is mind, if it doesn't require mind to know itself then it must require something to be present because beyond the subject and beyond the knowing that it is pure awareness there is what you are still hehehe .. If it is not mind that is present then I don't know what else to call it . Something is present isn't it . Perhaps awareness at this point is sufficient in a way where it is beyond mind but there has to be this state attained for it to know itself, but knowing and states are mindful so perhaps it just won't work for me .. Now we get to the crux of it which is also the sticking point. You state that you are not implying that the real 'I' is present or that what you are is pure awareness, aware of itself as that, knowing that.I am saying precisely that. You are not able to take the mind or I am sense out of the equation of knowing what you are. Pure awareness of samadhi has no sense of self which is the same as the I Am sense. It is just pure awakedness without someone experiencing it even though we are constrained by language by talking about experiencing awareness. Totally agree. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 10:20:54 GMT -5
yes, and quite frankly, I'm limiting the context to 'organic' just to avoid the solipsist debates. Theoretically, I'd probably be ok to say that all 'life' is 'mind' or 'God's ego' or 'I amness'. Anyway, so keeping within context, each blood cell has its own mind, but it is also operating as part of a team. So when there is no pop had what has a blood cell got to do with 'andy' as part of a team? What is the relationship had between the blood cell and 'no thought of andy'? A pop is a point of perception? In this context a blood cell would be a point of perception until the body dies, and then the point of perception would either come to an end, or continue in another form (I would say the latter). I dont understand the second question. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 14, 2020 10:31:23 GMT -5
I thought I had answered the question in first line....so 'the sun' is steadfastly and unwaveringly present all the time the body is alive (sleeping, awake, faint, functioning etc).But when I say 'event', I mean more like UG meant it, I don't mean to imply anything about the I am. I just mean, 'what happened'. Yes the sun is always present but when you are asleep what do you know of it? What do you remember of it? There is a time that has passed where it is for most blank where there is not the awareness of I AM aware . When I spoke about the sun initially I spoke about the sun in totality in all it's glory, the love, the joy, the power, the peace as descriptors, but when you are asleep or when you faint is there the totality of what you are present like as i have described? The answer is no, because the sleep and the fainting is all mindful, the clouds obscure the totality of the sun in these instances don't they . This is key to what I am saying and have been saying all along . Okay in my view the difference between sleeping and awake state is that the level of mindfulness has changed. In deep sleep, mind is still present and regulating the body, but there is very low level of mindfulness. A plant has a relatively low level of mindfulness. As adult humans we have high level of mindfulness, but the reason that the 'clouds obscure the sun' isn't because of our high level, it's because of our false beliefs. Our false beliefs provide the cloud cover. I think I am in agreement with you that awareness in its purest form (for me, that would be without body, for you that would be in realization state) is unaware of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2020 11:10:02 GMT -5
Enigma made the same point that several of us have made. Would you care to explain what you disagree with about what he wrote and why? Enigma said: "You would know precisely nothing about what was present or absent while you were absent, even after returning from that absence. What is difficult to understand in regards to that?" So he assumes an absence, but when challenged concludes that there was no absence. So what is his point? I didn't assume an absence. Tenka did. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2020 11:21:18 GMT -5
But that's a realization, without which you can't conclude from your pure awareness state that you experienced what you truly are. Well that's the crux of it. You think the experience of pure awareness as fundamental is arrived at as a conclusion after the fact instead of a direct experience happening in the now which is what someone would say who hasn't experienced it, because they think they wouldn't be there to know it. If you put your hand in the fire do you "conclude" you are burning as a result of some kind of realization or do you just feel a burning sensation? Tenka has already stated he came to his conclusion after the fact because mind and the sense of existence were absent during the 'experience'. Somebody registered that experience of pure awareness, and it wasn't pure awareness. |
|
