Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 20:00:09 GMT -5
The basic idea is that you can only know your own awareness, your own consciousness, your own capacity to perceive. So there's no evidence to be found anywhere that could give you a clue as to whether there is another awareness, another one that is conscious, another perceiver. So the things you hear from the second guy would have no bearing at all, it wouldn't be evidence. "Your own" that's your problem right there mister greedy britches it's legitimate to refer to "my" consciousness when undifferentiated awareness becomes associated with individuated consciousness as I. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 25, 2022 21:10:56 GMT -5
"Your own" that's your problem right there mister greedy britches it's legitimate to refer to "my" consciousness when undifferentiated awareness becomes associated with individuated consciousness as I. Undifferentiated awareness? Individuated consciousness? Seems like jars of fighting fish I saw in Bangkok. Each fish in its own jar stacked against other jars of fighting fish in a row. One individuated consciousness against another.
To each its own. And we believe that. How sad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 21:41:11 GMT -5
it's legitimate to refer to "my" consciousness when undifferentiated awareness becomes associated with individuated consciousness as I. Undifferentiated awareness? Individuated consciousness? Seems like jars of fighting fish I saw in Bangkok. Each fish in its own jar stacked against other jars of fighting fish in a row. One individuated consciousness against another.
To each its own. And we believe that. How sad.
I'm talking about something real and you're talking about fish. Is there anything else you would like to share with me? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 25, 2022 21:49:46 GMT -5
Undifferentiated awareness? Individuated consciousness? Seems like jars of fighting fish I saw in Bangkok. Each fish in its own jar stacked against other jars of fighting fish in a row. One individuated consciousness against another.
To each its own. And we believe that. How sad.
I'm talking about something real and you're talking about fish. Is there anything else you would like to share with me? Yup. This bear attacking the mirror. It is me attacking you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 21:53:49 GMT -5
I'm talking about something real and you're talking about fish. Is there anything else you would like to share with me? Yup. This bear attacking the mirror. It is me attacking you. I'm happy to be of service in helping you to see your reflection in the mirror clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Jul 25, 2022 22:19:29 GMT -5
Yup. This bear attacking the mirror. It is me attacking you. I'm happy to be of service in helping you to see your reflection in the mirror clearly. You are not my reflection.
You are another me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2022 22:23:10 GMT -5
I'm happy to be of service in helping you to see your reflection in the mirror clearly. You are not my reflection.
You are another me.
You are your own reflection. It has nothing to do with me. Your bear persona cannot touch my mirror only reflect back to you your own self. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2022 3:46:28 GMT -5
"Your own" that's your problem right there mister greedy britches it's legitimate to refer to "my" consciousness when undifferentiated awareness becomes associated with individuated consciousness as I. I forget his exact line but it struck me as something that would be argued from a position of separation, so I tried to find a different way to say that. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 4:16:39 GMT -5
Come on all you Self realised Folks  What is it that you have realised Consciousness to be? What does this reflect in all things manifest and unmanifest? Explain how what you are transcended mind and self and then had this grand realisation that you are Consciousness . Apparently "Consciousness" is a funny idea for you to sneer at.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 4:41:31 GMT -5
Come on all you Self realised Folks What is it that you have realised Consciousness to be?
What does this reflect in all things manifest and unmanifest? Explain how what you are transcended mind and self and then had this grand realisation that you are Consciousness . Consciousness is Form. I'm inclined to express the notion that, as is often the case, "Reefs is right" (but I will take it further): both form and emptiness are misconceptions .. and yet, the heart remains.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 4:43:41 GMT -5
You also said Consciousness is a state of awareness and also you see yourself as being human consciousness .
I started the thread because peeps use the term as if it's realised . I don't understand how folks realise what they are and then say Ah! I am consciousness . That doesn't happen, so I am curious why peeps continue to act like Consciousness professors . You are welcome to explain yourself or not, so you can put the gun down . It's funny how simple questions bring the worse out of some peeps .
Sorry, I was being a bad peep. Allow me to clarify the top line in bold above. I am human consciousness as opposed to squirrel consciousness. As human consciousness, I am a state of awareness in which there is cognition of place populated by people and things not to mention sensations like sound of cars passing by, chirping of birds, the AC condenser running, leaves of trees rustled by the breeze that also touches the skin of my body. What else? Can you tell me where you are going with this? I am the impatient type. If you can state your objective, I can give you the info you want right now instead of having to check back every 24 hours.
What's so special about human consciousness? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 4:51:40 GMT -5
You are changing contexts again . Let's just speak about what was initially said . I don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow either but it doesn't stop me knowing that all things are what you are . I can accept that from a mental level one cannot see through the eyes of another . That's the beauty of individuality in effect . It doesn't reflect the bigger picture tho and that's what a few are pointing too . If you realise all that you are then you know that all is what you are . If you are experiencing individuality upon the earth plane, then is a level playing field . You can't have real perceivers pregnating unreal females and end up with babies that one doesn't know if they are real or not . Foundation, Foundation, Foundation . yeah, nicely expressed. And I should acknowledge that reefs did go that extra mile in engaging about the animate/inanimate dichotomy. Everything is alive. Brass hasp day, you know. But on the flip side, figology is not wrong in the truthiness doctrine, either. There is no existential truth in anything that appears to you. ZD has contemplated and once expressed - to my recollection in paraphrase - that one can realize what one is, and/or, one can realize what one is not. Abandoning any concern over the risk of sounding like a condescending asshole, I'd opine that much of the turbulence in these dialogs is a clash of varying flavors and degrees of those two different realizations and the informings of mind that followed. Yes, I wrote "varying degree of realization", you see, in this regard, I am more ZD that even ZD ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 4:58:26 GMT -5
So a tree that's felled in the forest does make a noise if you're not there? I'm not clear how your question relates to what I said. But within that question is the presupposition of an objective reality, so I would have to say 'yes'. I've always wondered why that question is such a 'thing', if you know what I mean. Yeah, but that's a cop-out, the same way that saying "self-inquiry is misconceived" is a cop-out. That's Jed's analysis btw. The reason it's a thing is because the question has the potential to bring the mind out to the limit where the potential to realize the futility of intellect is enhanced. Mostly people just spin on it, instead. The honest answer, from the personal perspective, is not-knowing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 5:04:29 GMT -5
No it doesn't. It only makes a noise for me even if Andrew is with me. If you admit that it only makes a noise as far as Andrew is concerned then it only makes a noise for me as far as I'm concerned whether Andrew is with me or not. I may have not be clear. My reasoning based on my perception on consciousness is this. The falling tree will make a noise if you are there. You, or andrew or anyone, is a state of awareness. If the tree is within that state, it makes a noise. The tree has no independent existence of its own. Don't follow the science. There is no objective reality. Each of us is a state of awareness. If all of us die, everything vanishes. There never were dinosaurs before us. We did not evolve from apes.We are not human beings. We are consciousness. And we don't come out of the brain. You are not a state. One way to point to what is meant by this is that you are what states appear into and eventually run their course and disappear from. This is why some of those ducks you are hunting will sometimes quack-up a distinction between "Consciousness" (perpetual change) and "Awareness" (absolute ground of empty being from which all change arises). Not something you can theorize about. Not successfully, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 5:15:31 GMT -5
The basic idea is that you can only know your own awareness, your own consciousness, your own capacity to perceive. So there's no evidence to be found anywhere that could give you a clue as to whether there is another awareness, another one that is conscious, another perceiver. So the things you hear from the second guy would have no bearing at all, it wouldn't be evidence. "Your own" that's your problem right there mister greedy britches Well, yeah, if I'm not mistaken from reading along with andy over the past few years that's the point he's essentially setting up for, and the premise of reefs' "solipsism = separation" argument, which is essentially a logical tautology, because it's a seekers perspective, and for the seeker, existential separation hasn't been penetrated yet, otherwise they wouldn't be seeking any longer.  Where I side with the figopal camp is that I think it unfair to label that "solipsism" in all instances, as the question of whether anyone is stuck at "the only thing I know for sure is that I AM", is a question of WIBIGO. |
|
