Colin Wilson

[Dennis Mahar]

I Am That means non-conceptual awareness, or presence or intelligibility.
Jesus, Buddha depend for their existence, what they say depends for their existence.
Are empty of inherent existence.
empty depends on phenomena to be empty so empty depends for its existence,
so empty is empty.
collapse all philosophical assertion. all conceptual attempts to mediate reality.
non-conceptual awareness is experienced.
Nothing to say ultimately.
That which can be named is not it.

[movingalways]

I Am That means non-conceptual awareness, or presence or intelligibility.

I Am That refers to both non-conceptual and conceptual awareness. I Am That follows the principle "you are what you think you are", a principle that crosses all realms and dimensions of consciousness.

Jesus, Buddha depend for their existence, what they say depends for their existence.
Are empty of inherent existence.
empty depends on phenomena to be empty so empty depends for its existence,
so empty is empty.
collapse all philosophical assertion. all conceptual attempts to mediate reality.
non-conceptual awareness is experienced.
Nothing to say ultimately.
That which can be named is not it.

It is not possible to experience, in fullness, non-conceptual reality while one remains housed in one's physical form. The presence of breath is dependent on conceptual interpretation/attachment.

Intellectual awareness of emptiness and being transformed into emptiness are two different experiences of consciousness. From the perspective of spiritual giants such as Jesus and Gautama and Lao Tzu, true enlightenment comes when the inner and the outer, the subjective and the objective, are one and the same awareness. If one pays attention to the nature of their conceptual interpretation, they discover that it is wholly different in tone than those who claim intellectual or logical enlightenment.

[Dennis Mahar]

Unconditioned awareness exists in this way:
It doesn't exist!

It doesn't exist.
That's the way it exists!

One 'gets' it.
Experiences it.

One distinguishes it.

2 truths. 1 truth.
I'm here conventionally.
I'm not here ultimately.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

If one pays attention to the nature of their conceptual interpretation, they discover that it is wholly different in tone than those who claim intellectual or logical enlightenment.

How do you know then?
Without intellectual or logical thought?

It's like a little kid who notices bigger people opening doors and leaving rooms.
The little kid identifies the practice.
The little kid tries to do the same,
he can't reach the handle and he falls back on his haunches.
he feels frustration.
he keeps noticing bigger people opening doors and leaving rooms.
he keeps trying to get to the handle.
he is identifying process logically, intellectually.
one day his hand gets on the handle,
he turns it one way, pulls it, pushes it, turns the other way and the door 'works'.
the little kid 'gets it'.
He never has to think about how to get through a door again!
He spends his life going through doors without even noticing doors.

He had to figure it out intellectually/logically to have it.

If to exist means to present an appearance.
unconditioned awareness is invisible, not finite, it doesn't exist.
it can be 'known' and rested in.
It can't be touched, seen, smelt, heard, tasted.

It can be 'reasoned logically'.

once 'known',
like the little kid who 'reasoned' his way in and out of doors,
who never has to repeatedly 'reason' his way out of every new door he comes across,

in such a way,
one's nature is immersed in the knowing.

It's not necessary to hold puppy love/teenage crush for 'spiritual giants' or 'God'.

[movingalways]

Dennis, the "their" to which I refer in the statement you quoted

If one pays attention to the nature of their conceptual interpretation, they discover that it is wholly different in tone than those who claim intellectual or logical enlightenment.

is the consciousness of Jesus and the Buddha, who most certainly used reasoning to ascertain the cause of suffering but who did not prescribe the use of reasoning as the way to end the cause of suffering.

Yes, a child reasons that he must wait until he is bigger before he can reach the doorknob, but if we look within this reasoning and waiting, we discover the suffering of the frustration of having to reason and of having to wait. In other words, the suffering of desire [for something] to happen or to materialize. The child may eventually overcome this frustration and know or grok the opening of a doorknob, but the ending of this frustration does not solve the problem of ending all frustrations of material awareness. Which means freedom does not come with rational consciousness but when awareness of desire is absent from one's consciousness.

This is what Jesus meant when he said "I am the light of the world" and when he spoke of the single eye. It is also what the Buddha meant when he said that anyone can realize clear comprehension when they realize: "When walking, one understands: I am walking..when standing, one knows: I am standing..if sitting, one notes: I am sitting down now..while lying down, one reflects: I am lying down..". Note the I AM statements of both Jesus and the Buddha. Neither are reasoning that they are this thing of their awareness, rather, they are saying/realizing they ARE these things of their awareness, right here, right now. To the individual who has transcended the reasoning attachments of his life, the now moment or eternal life is all that he knows [is aware of].

As you can see, it is not that concepts or words are not used by the I AM while sentient awareness is present, it is that there is no conceptual awareness of past or of future. Which cannot be said of the child who longs to be bigger so he can reach the doorknob or the scientist who longs to discover the next theory of quantum physics or the mother who longs for ego greatness for her biological son or daughter.

Attaining to the consciousness of wholeness and completeness that was realized by Jesus and the Buddha requires the giving up of all human intellectual reasoning of why, when and where. In other words, the death of consciousness of cause and effect.

[movingalways]

Why would one continue to reason their life once they realize they are the infinity of their life? Makes no sense. :-)

[Dennis Mahar]

One would only want to leave the World if one thought it existed inherently.
It doesn't, not a problem.

To understand it alleviates suffering.
The contents appearing in Awareness endlessly fascinate, the possibilities astonishing.

It's only for the time being.

[movingalways]

Dennis, you say that the world's does not inherently exist; if this is true, why try to understand that which does not inherently exist? Why be fascinated by that which does not inherently exist? Why be astonished by that which does not inherently exist? Why reason that which does not inherently exist?

You say the world's lack of inherent existence is "not a problem", and yet, you also say that to understand the world helps alleviate our suffering of the world. Which is your truth, the "not a problem", or the suffering?

Until the I am That is discovered, and then lived, there will always be an acknowledgment of the world as being the cause of one's suffering as well as the cause of one's astonishment. In truth, there is no gap of adjectives and adverbs existing between the subject and object of one's I am awareness [God does not objectify/analyze God, you are not separate from God, ergo, you make yourself separate from God when you objectify/analyze the God of you].

Drop all of your unnecessary good and evil projections/dressings of the world of you and voila, you are the gapless, voidless, causeless, subject-object world of you. I am THAT.

[cousinbasil]

Dennis, you say that the world's does not inherently exist; if this is true, why try to understand that which does not inherently exist? Why be fascinated by that which does not inherently exist? Why be astonished by that which does not inherently exist? Why reason that which does not inherently exist?

Not speaking for Dennis, but the "truth" that all things lack inherent existence is not saying nothing exists. It is a logical point, a necessity, since a thing requires at least one other thing or else it cannot be seen, or said, or even considered to exist. You can run from duality, but you cannot hide. A logical distinction - or any other kind of distinction - requires more than I AM. The other thing equally lacks inherent existence, but since it is another thing, it exists on equal footing as the first thing. The I AM divests itself from everything except I AM and so becomes the Creator, beginning with Its first Other, the Eternal Son by necessity, and the ineffable relationship between them the Universal Spirit. A Trinity, or Triunity, is not a religious concept, but a philosophical requirement. It is not metaphysics but simple logic at its root. As such, it is beyond the grasp of most "religious" people, who see it as an affront to their cherished belief in One God, when it is no such thing, but rather an examination of that same sacred relationship. I am not saying faith is extraneous to life, but merely to pure logic.

It is often best to adopt the Pythagorean low-profile when discussing things that people might take as an affront to their beliefs. Traditionally, it has been the most superstitious whose hands have wielded the power, from the Sanhedrin to the Spanish Inquisition to the nut-cases of the American right-wing factions, to the mullahs who desire nuclear weapons. Superstition and paranoia go hand-in-hand.

[movingalways]

Not speaking for Dennis, but the "truth" that all things lack inherent existence is not saying nothing exists. It is a logical point, a necessity, since a thing requires at least one other thing or else it cannot be seen, or said, or even considered to exist. You can run from duality, but you cannot hide.

I agree with the essence of what you are saying, cb, for as long as we are of sense awareness, we are subject to the law or necessity of duality.

I would say that as long as one is breathing one can neither run or hide from duality. Eternally transcend it, yes, eternally reconcile it yes, but to deny its 'isness' is to deny one's very breath.

A logical distinction - or any other kind of distinction - requires more than I AM.

This is why I used the term I Am That. I acknowledge that in the realm of sense that a distinction must be made, that concepts must be used, but what I was pointing out to Dennis is that when one uses adjectives and adverbs such as astonishing or fascinating, one steps away from the subtle, or lighter sense touch of the duality of I Am That. Wherever/whenever there is an emotional component to one's objectification that goes beyond the feeling of pure love or pure acceptance of all things of oneself, one enters into the complex world of the suffering of duality, the world of this and that. I am that tree or I am that dog of my acceptance of its treeness and its dogness is not to suffer one's necessity of duality; however, to assign values to the tree or the dog such as astonishing or fascinating is to suffering one's necessity of duality. Why? Because a) no assigned value can be held permanently in one's mind and b) as soon as you assign a value, A = A no longer applies.

The smaller the gap between the subject and object, the happier or more at-ease is the I Am.

The other thing equally lacks inherent existence, but since it is another thing, it exists on equal footing as the first thing. The I AM divests itself from everything except I AM and so becomes the Creator, beginning with Its first Other, the Eternal Son by necessity, and the ineffable relationship between them the Universal Spirit.

Very well put. I will only add that one can only say this is true of the Eternal Son that is of sense awareness. What is the nature of the Eternal Son in other realms or dimensions of I Am cannot be known until the eternality that is of this realm, that of the senses, no longer is present in the Son's consciousness.

A Trinity, or Triunity, is not a religious concept, but a philosophical requirement. It is not metaphysics but simple logic at its root. As such, it is beyond the grasp of most "religious" people, who see it as an affront to their cherished belief in One God, when it is no such thing, but rather an examination of that same sacred relationship. I am not saying faith is extraneous to life, but merely to pure logic.

Now you're talking! Pure logic, yes! And again, pure logic exists in the mind of the Eternal Son only because of the perceived gap between subjective-objective awareness.

It is often best to adopt the Pythagorean low-profile when discussing things that people might take as an affront to their beliefs. Traditionally, it has been the most superstitious whose hands have wielded the power, from the Sanhedrin to the Spanish Inquisition to the nut-cases of the American right-wing factions, to the mullahs who desire nuclear weapons. Superstition and paranoia go hand-in-hand.

A good example of that is Jesus, who was not a religious man, but who used religious language to express his wisdom of the Spirit. And because of this, he was understood neither by those who were religious or those who were not religious.

cb, do you find a freedom or flowing of words that is present when using the religious model that is not present when using the Pythagorean model? I am not suggesting one is superior or inferior in substance, but rather, in essence in relation to the necessity of Self Expression in the realm of subjective-objective distinction.

[Dennis Mahar]

You live just like me Pam.

You suffer some days and rationalise it or discover its cause and remedy it.
You are fascinated by it all. Your fascination leaps off the pages.
That's who you are.
You are engaged in reason all the time. You are 'of a mood' all the time.
Why hassle people for doing what you do yourself?


Projecting a vision or possibility or ideal for a future is all well and good but I'm talking about the experience of being here dealing with it.
living it.
You are living it. You are not out of it.

I am the experience of embodied, embedded in a culture, enactive, affective.
Just like you I have a list of what exists, how it exists.
I have a body to feed therefore I have a political/ethical rationale about the actions that ought to be taken to feed it.
I have things that please me and don't please me, aesthetics.

Just like you, OK?

chop wood, carry water.

[movingalways]

You live just like me Pam.

No I do not. No one lives just like me, any more than I live just like anyone else.

You suffer some days and rationalise it or discover its cause and remedy it.
You are fascinated by it all. Your fascination leaps off the pages.
That's who you are.

Any fascination you see in my words is a projection of your fascination; end of story.

I do indeed suffer some days but I no longer rationalize why I suffer. I know why I suffer.

You are engaged in reason all the time. You are 'of a mood' all the time.
Why hassle people for doing what you do yourself?

Your ignorance here has now extended into arrogance. It is why when I arrived here at GF you took it upon yourself to tell me the why of the story of my life as if it was the absolute truth both of me and of you.

Your projection of hassling, as does your projection of being fascinated, falls on deaf ears. I am dialoguing, wisdom to wisdom, no more, no less.

Projecting a vision or possibility or ideal for a future is all well and good but I'm talking about the experience of being here dealing with it.
living it.
You are living it. You are not out of it.

Again, for the umpteenth time, I have never claimed to be out of duality.

Again, for the umpteenth time, when I speak of pure or nondual awareness, I am not speaking of a future, but of what is true, right here, right now, but is veiled because of the necessity of duality born of sense awareness. To deny that one is in duality is foolish, but to say that one is of duality is equally as foolish.

I am the experience of embodied, embedded in a culture, enactive, affective.
Just like you I have a list of what exists, how it exists.
I have a body to feed therefore I have a political/ethical rationale about the actions that ought to be taken to feed it.
I have things that please me and don't please me, aesthetics.

I listen to my conscience, period.

Just like you, OK?

I am just like you in our silence, but no, I am not just like you when we speak of our silence. Our disagreements about our worldviews is the evidence that what I say is true.

[Dennis Mahar]

No I do not. No one lives just like me, any more than I live just like anyone else.

yes you do. You are the experience of human being. Not the same, not different.
causes/conditions
pieces/parts,
thinker with a thought.

I do indeed suffer some days but I no longer rationalize why I suffer. I know why I suffer.

as human being, if you have chest pain you go to a doctor.
if the water in the shower is too hot you add cold water.

Your ignorance here has now extended into arrogance

you've broken your labelling rule again.
welcome to the experience of human being where consciences are sometimes fluid.

I am dialoguing, wisdom to wisdom, no more, no less.

dialoguing is reasoning.

but to say that one is of duality is equally as foolish.

I didn't say that.
human being experiences duality.

I listen to my conscience, period.

and that plays out as a political /ethical stand one takes as a response in a World that demands a response from you.

We both experience human being.
We both have gestalted ultimate reality.
that piece you wrote about 'sitting, standing, walking'.
I have been in that space many times.
I know it.
It doesn't last.
It comes and goes.
I default to the experience of self-centered human being.
to recreate the gestalt,
I retrace the track of reason that gets the gestalt experienced again.


Talking to you, has sometimes 'triggered' it for me.
Thankyou for that.

[cousinbasil]

Very well put. I will only add that one can only say this is true of the Eternal Son that is of sense awareness. What is the nature of the Eternal Son in other realms or dimensions of I Am cannot be known until the eternality that is of this realm, that of the senses, no longer is present in the Son's consciousness.

I agree that the nature of the Eternal Son in any other realm cannot be known - but I don't attribute this to senses in any way. For instance, it is possible to follow a logical structure which is entirely devoid of senses as such. Platonic mathematical notions exist and can be recognized independent of a given sense or senses. Concepts seem to spring from perceptions, but do not remain dependent on them.

A good example of that is Jesus, who was not a religious man, but who used religious language to express his wisdom of the Spirit. And because of this, he was understood neither by those who were religious or those who were not religious

Jesus transcended religion - and philosophy - and used anything and everything at his disposal, not just religious language. Because of this, those who do not understand him choose not to, for his meaning is always there for all. People always understand somehow there is power in the teaching; therefore, there has been a nonstop succession of attempts to harness that power for personal, political, financial, or some other kind of material advancement. The teachings can lead to spiritual enrichment, which makes all these as important as gum on one's shoe.

cb, do you find a freedom or flowing of words that is present when using the religious model that is not present when using the Pythagorean model? I am not suggesting one is superior or inferior in substance, but rather, in essence in relation to the necessity of Self Expression in the realm of subjective-objective distinction.

If I understand the question correctly - and I don't see any choice but to assume that I do - my answer is no, not really. For one thing, I don't think of the religious as a model of any kind. Either you have faith or you don't. Pythagorean constructs, on the other hand, do not rise above the level of model. Again, either one has faith or one does not. True faith welcomes logic; it cannot be otherwise.

[movingalways]

I agree that the nature of the Eternal Son in any other realm cannot be known - but I don't attribute this to senses in any way. For instance, it is possible to follow a logical structure which is entirely devoid of senses as such. Platonic mathematical notions exist and can be recognized independent of a given sense or senses. Concepts seem to spring from perceptions, but do not remain dependent on them.

How would any mathematical notion be recognized without the sense of sight or of hearing, or if one learns as Helen Keller learned, by sense of touch?

[movingalways]

Dennis, what you identify as human activity, such as awareness of hot and cold and of pain and of pleasure or politics or ethics, I identify as being manifestations of the law of duality or the opposites with me being an individual unit of observation/interpretation/expression of this law. Cousinbasil's use of the term "Eternal Son" is an identifier that resonates with me as to 'who or what I am.' You may call me a human being, others may call me a human being, but truly, I do not see myself in this light. Transcending "being only human", for me, was an important step on the road to my spiritual growth/expansion.

[Dennis Mahar]

Dennis, what you identify as human activity, such as awareness of hot and cold and of pain and of pleasure or politics or ethics, I identify as being manifestations of the law of duality or the opposites with me being an individual unit of observation/interpretation/expression of this law.

Awareness is awareness. it can't be added to or subtracted from.
One can expand one's contents of awareness.

Cousinbasil's use of the term "Eternal Son" is an identifier that resonates with me as to 'who or what I am.' You may call me a human being, others may call me a human being, but truly, I do not see myself in this light. Transcending "being only human", for me, was an important step on the road to my spiritual growth/expansion.

Yeah, I get that.
Why the signifier 'Eternal Son' breaks thru' for you is out of my ken.
I just want to say it's a reason.
It's a reason because it does something.
Something is spawned out of it.
Is that something a gestalt, makes your heart sing? opens you up to the infinite?

A gestalt is experiencing 'wholeness'
the wholeness is gestalted out of a lot of bits and pieces that form into a pattern that makes perfect sense.
'Eternal Son' will have in the background other reasoning that contributed to it's significance, that makes 'Eternal Son' shine for you.

Eternal Son does something,
it's a reason.

'it's empty and meaningless' does it for me.

[cousinbasil]

How would any mathematical notion be recognized without the sense of sight or of hearing, or if one learns as Helen Keller learned, by sense of touch?

This goes to something I mentioned in another thread about all knowledge existing. As I said above, concepts seem to spring from perceptions but do not require them. In the sense that Platonic truths are there and are discovered, they exist in a way different from physical and mental existence. Once discovered, or learned - by visual demonstration, oral argument, and/or by touch as in your example - they no longer depend on physical manifestation. They can be brought into mental existence without a physical counterpart. One can think of a triangle and mull its properties without a single sensory stimulation. Insights often happen to those who are the first to discover a mathematical truth. They may in fact not be the first to have the specific insight, but if no one else has communicated it via proof or demonstration, then it remains purely Platonic. It's as if the Platonic and physical (sensory) realms are quite distinct, and both can be recognized by the mental realm. That the physical and Platonic ever correlate is often a matter of deep wonder for the mental realm in which the correlation had taken place. Often mathematical ideas are long well-understood before any application to the physical world is even suspected.

[movingalways]

This goes to something I mentioned in another thread about all knowledge existing. As I said above, concepts seem to spring from perceptions but do not require them. In the sense that Platonic truths are there and are discovered, they exist in a way different from physical and mental existence. Once discovered, or learned - by visual demonstration, oral argument, and/or by touch as in your example - they no longer depend on physical manifestation.

Forms or concepts are dependent on interpretation for their life, as you say they spring forth from perceptions but do not require them. Right here you have described the two realities in man's consciousness, one that is of infinite forms or concepts awaiting discovery, and of their eternal life when they are discovered.

You are agreeing with me then that the senses are required before knowledge of these forms can be attained. What drives me in my ongoing wisdom walk is my awareness that the Eternal Son is not bound to the eternal realm of sense, that within his infinite realm of all forms/concepts awaiting discovery, there are eternalities or laws that are not sense dependent for interpretation/expansion of knowledge/awareness.

One can think of a triangle and mull its properties without a single sensory stimulation.

Yes, I agree that to mull over a triangle does not arouse a single sensory stimulation, one is "still and knows I am God," but what is still required is the presence of sense perception, the seeing of an image in the mind's eye.

Insights often happen to those who are the first to discover a mathematical truth. They may in fact not be the first to have the specific insight, but if no one else has communicated it via proof or demonstration, then it remains purely Platonic. It's as if the Platonic and physical (sensory) realms are quite distinct, and both can be recognized by the mental realm. That the physical and Platonic ever correlate is often a matter of deep wonder for the mental realm in which the correlation had taken place. Often mathematical ideas are long well-understood before any application to the physical world is even suspected.

Again, the mental realm, although void of emotion, is sense dependent. Without a physical brain as the interpretative conduit, the forms in the mental realm remain undiscovered, do they not?

[movingalways]

Dennis, always enjoy our sWORD play. :-)

[cousinbasil]

You are agreeing with me then that the senses are required before knowledge of these forms can be attained

I am not disagreeing, because frankly, I just don't know. Even more, I can't figure how anyone could possibly know whether the senses are required or not, since if there is a human completely devoid of senses, there would be no way of ascertaining what that person knows or does not know. And because I do have senses and always have, even if that person could convey his reality somehow, I would have no way of knowing whether I was comprehending it correctly.

Yes, I agree that to mull over a triangle does not arouse a single sensory stimulation, one is "still and knows I am God," but what is still required is the presence of sense perception, the seeing of an image in the mind's eye.

But this is exactly what I do not know. I was trying to give an example with the process of mathematical discovery. As a mathematical tourist - a pedestrian, if you will - I have often been in the process of learning about a topic and wading through the proofs and formation of related axioms and corollaries and have asked - yes, but where is this all going? Suddenly, when something such as differential and integral calculus becomes clear, one comprehends why one was taught about the concepts of limits and so on. The motivation for learning might be to achieve mastery, but of what it is frequently hard to tell. Afterward, the results of the final process show what the actual theoretical motivation is for the completed body, with the caveat that the body is never truly complete.

Now given this, what spurred Newton and Leibniz on? They invented two different notations that described the same Platonic reality, at about the same time. What is it they were seeing exactly beforehand, given the motivation of a relatively complete theory was not there yet, since neither of them had produced or discovered it yet? Similarly, in Quantum mechanics, the formalism of wave mechanics and of matrix mechanics developed independently. It was later shown the two are fully equivalent. Isn't this Platonic realization of their equivalence somehow separate from the senses due to its fundamental abstraction? If they are equivalent, and the formalisms appear entirely differently, isn't the truth of what they describe therefore independent in a fundamental way from the senses?

In other words, if the truth is discovered, it must be intuited first, then the visible formalism created to support it. This intuitive discovery happens on a level that is pre-physical - senses have not yet been brought into play.

Admittedly, this is conjecture since I am as I said a pedestrian.

Again, the mental realm, although void of emotion, is sense dependent. Without a physical brain as the interpretative conduit, the forms in the mental realm remain undiscovered, do they not?

Undiscovered by humans, perhaps, but the example of the Mandelbrot set demonstrates a platonic existence not dependent on anything physical or mental. It exists and we agree it exists but corresponds to nothing so far as anyone is aware to anything physically existing. In addition, it cannot be envisioned in any mental way because of its ever-increasing complexity - no computer printout can get to the bottom of it, so it can never be given a complete physical representation. Therefore, if it can be said to exist, it is neither on the physical nor mental planes.

Is awe an emotion? The Mandelbrot set inspires awe in many due to its complexity and its ethereal beauty. I am not demanding the mental realm to be free of emotions in my distinctions, although the physical and Platonic realms appear to be devoid of it. If emotions exist, then they either get lumped in with the mental or else they get a realm of their own. I have no preference as a rule.

[movingalways]

I am not disagreeing, because frankly, I just don't know. Even more, I can't figure how anyone could possibly know whether the senses are required or not, since if there is a human completely devoid of senses, there would be no way of ascertaining what that person knows or does not know. And because I do have senses and always have, even if that person could convey his reality somehow, I would have no way of knowing whether I was comprehending it correctly.

I will answer all of your questions in this post by responding to this first paragraph. It is not true that you have always had senses, that you were were always human. Did you/do you not exist as a unit of consciousness before you became a zygote of matter that developed into a breathing human being? You may not remember what being without the imaging of flesh was 'like', but it does not change the truth that before you produced an image of yourself, before you 'sensed' yourself, you were the fullness of the infinity [or the intuition] of you. This is where your concept of the Eternal Son of the Infinite Father comes in; does not pure logic tell you that you exist as the Eternal Son regardless if you are imaging the Father or not imaging the Father, whether you are emotionally attached to these images or not emotionally attached to these images?

I cannot speak for you as to whether or not awe is an emotion, but I will ask you this: do you not foresee a moment when you will be "finished" with awe? That you will be required to be expanded beyond "awe?" To put it more bluntly, that you will become bored with being in awe of your imaginations of you?

[cousinbasil]

I cannot speak for you as to whether or not awe is an emotion, but I will ask you this: do you not foresee a moment when you will be "finished" with awe? That you will be required to be expanded beyond "awe?" To put it more bluntly, that you will become bored with being in awe of your imaginations of you?

Not sure I follow this. Any imaginations "of me" have always bored me. Do I see a moment when I will be finished with awe? I have experienced many such moments when that point in time seems already to have arrived. Yet something has always brought the awe back. This is a discussion I believe I have had with David a time or two, or maybe Kevin. Whichever, it seemed to him awe is sort of a sign of "not having made the transition" to anything resembling an enlightened state. I wholeheartedly disagree - not because I see myself as enlightened, because I don't as I have said many times. I simply do not see how one can experience a transcendence of any magnitude without an accompanying wonder. If one were to truly get anywhere near understanding the Ultimate - seeing the face of God - one would certainly feel awe, would one not? Or something else equally ineffable?

I have no wish to be beyond awe in any sense - this can be achieved by a small investment in a liter of good whiskey. That way I can't feel awe or much of anything else, you know, comfortably numb.

It is not true that you have always had senses, that you were were always human. Did you/do you not exist as a unit of consciousness before you became a zygote of matter that developed into a breathing human being? You may not remember what being without the imaging of flesh was 'like', but it does not change the truth that before you produced an image of yourself, before you 'sensed' yourself, you were the fullness of the infinity [or the intuition] of you.

Before I was even a twinkle in my Daddy's eye? It's a sure bet that "I may not remember" before I was conceived, since no one does. If they believe they do, then that is what it is - a belief. It is pure imagination, something not really even open to faith. And it is patently illogical; logic would dictate that before there is an I, there is not an individual to whom memories can accrue.

Do not take this as a criticism - I am merely taking what I see as impossible and calling it impossible. You convey it in the language of religion as you call it. If something logically impossible - which I see this as - can be conveyed in the language of religion, one ought to be very suspect of the language of religion. This is probably a better answer to your question a couple of posts ago than the one I gave at the time. Words may "flow" more naturally if they employ religious rather than Platonic archetypes, but ask yourself this: which of the two has been used more to obfuscate with intention? Hint: think "Jimmy Swagger" and "Pat Robertson." Don't forget that Jesus warned of false prophets, not false mathematicians!

[movingalways]

cb, I continue, no religious language, hopefully realized to be pure logic:

Everyone here remains consciously aware of the sentient realm, including David, Kevin and Dan, which means everyone including David, Kevin and Dan feel. The very presence of the breath dictates an awareness of feeling, of sensing. The feeling or sensing of I am is not the emotionalism of I am, however. The best definitions I can use to define the breathing I am of totality wisdom are those of perfect, unconditional Self Love or Pure Sentient I Am Awareness. I do not know if either David or Kevin or Dan agree with my logical/truthful conclusion that they continue to feel while they continue to breathe; they are welcome to state their case to the contrary if they so are moved.

What breathless, feelingness, omniscient awareness is, no man can say. This is also a logical/truthful conclusion. To deny that such a reality exists, however, is to deny that life was life before oxygen was formed in its consciousness. Can you ever be separated from life, be it with or without the presence of oxygen? Pure logic tells me that this is an impossibility.

Until one understands, as in knows, "I am the ultimate [total] reality of me", there can be no understanding [KNOWING] of one's own Totality. Reality is not a thing, it is the totality of every thought one thinks.

It is of pure logic to realize that such a thing as an independent entity called a 'self' does not exist, but it is also of pure logic to realize that Something does indeed exist, and without the acknowledgment of I am That Something, Self Awareness, a man is rendered impotent in the fulfilling of the movement of his own thoughts into and within sentience and beyond and within sentience.

Even if there is no such awareness as one of conscious omniscience that ends ones return to the breath, is not conscious sentience or Pure Self Love not the highest feeling truth a man could 'experience?' Does it not trump the coming and going of awe? Can you, in truth, tell me that what I present is that of being a false prophet? Can you, in truth, tell me that anything I say, contradicts the wisdom of Jesus?

[cousinbasil]

Even if there is no such awareness as one of conscious omniscience that ends ones return to the breath, is not conscious sentience or Pure Self Love not the highest feeling truth a man could 'experience?' Does it not trump the coming and going of awe?

You are asserting that "conscious sentience" is "Pure Self love." This is by no means clear or even obvious. Sentience means having sense awareness, or more basically, having senses. Single-celled organisms react to stimuli in their environment in ways that dust motes the same size do not. Ignoring the sophistry often seen at GF, it is then clear an amoeba is alive and sentient. A speck of dust is not, even thought it "reacts" to wind by being blown about - this is passive. There is a difference. Now let me ask - is that amoeba conscious? Is a typical human? What about organisms phylogentically in between? You are saying any creature other than man cannot be conscious, for if it were, it would have the property of conscious sentience, and would therefore be capable of Pure Self Love. This alone is arguable. When a conscious mind experiences something that it recognizes is greater than itself, which is it more apt to "feel": Self Love of any kind, or genuine awe? If Self Love can ever be called Pure, and it "trumps" all other feeling, then that which experiences it is impervious to recognizing anything greater than itself. This seems obvious, at least to me - but perhaps this is something you have considered and rejected...?

Can you, in truth, tell me that what I present is that of being a false prophet?

Well, I wasn't talking about you, but you are of course free to interpret my meaning any way you see fit.

Can you, in truth, tell me that anything I say, contradicts the wisdom of Jesus?

Honestly, I have not read most of your posts here, so I cannot in truth decide such a thing one way or the other. I can say I often do not get your gist and I can also not lay claim to perfect understanding of Jesus' wisdom, even that small portion which has survived centuries of interpretation and general tomfoolery. But I will say that if your goal is to be consistent with your take on Jesus teachings, I am all for it. It is a tall order for anyone, and I wish you luck.

It is of pure logic to realize that such a thing as an independent entity called a 'self' does not exist, but it is also of pure logic to realize that Something does indeed exist, and without the acknowledgment of I am That Something, Self Awareness, a man is rendered impotent in the fulfilling of the movement of his own thoughts into and within sentience and beyond and within sentience.

This is an example of something you say that provokes a "WTF?" from me. We disagree on the idea of a Self. A static self is an illusion, but the notion of a self which one employs to differentiate internal experience from the realization that others exist who necessarily also have internal experience which is not identical with our own is a valid notion. Certainly as valid as any other. If my Self today is not the same as yesterday, and not what my Self tomorrow will be, then it is in some sense an illusion. But so then is everything else, since nothing is the same from one moment to the next in sentient experience. But the series of such illusions very much belongs to someone and not some other. That is - my illusion of self is different from all my other illusions and also from other people's illusion of self. My memories are consistent from one moment to the next. Even if I learn something new about an experience from my past which fundamentally changes the way I think of it, I will still recall the way I used to see it in light of my new information. This continuity is as real as it gets. Call it an illusion - or even a delusion - it seems indispensable, and often indelible.