I Exist

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

That's irrelevant, unknown. You don't exist, much less anything you're not saying.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Leyla wrote:
Past, present and future arise (appear) at the same time based on what was known/experienced, what is known/experienced and what will be known/experienced. That's all.

When you’re talking about the “past, present and future arise (appear) at the same time”, is your meaning something like I’ve written below?

Each moment appears and disappears – it is impossible for there to be a present, because it is already the past; equally, the future is the present that has become the past.

And the “know/experience” - is it?

When we think we have ‘a thought’, it isn’t actually separated from the thought before it, or from the thought in front of it. Therefore, the process of thought is like every other thing in Nature - without bounds.

Sue
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Post by Matt Gregory »

Sapius,
I see the real problem here. It basically revolves around how free will could exist without violating the basic law of cause and effect. Of course it has been discussed before, but in short, Logic and reason facilitates “free will”. Higher the complexity of consciousness, the more freedom of internal thought processes, and yet, these thoughts are also bound by internal cause and effect, not just external.
Sure, but the more causes a thing has the more difficult they are to trace. Just because we can't trace them all doesn't mean they don't exist.

Words don’t just pop up in our brains. Try making up a new word and see how much of thinking is involved.
The amount of thinking is really besides the point. We may expend effort, but we ultimately have no choice in expending it. We expend effort in thinking because we are caused to.

Have you seen the movie Space Odyssey:2001? In the beginning the ape is simply holding a large bone and sloppily drops it on another bone, then again, and again, until he realizes that the heavier bone is actually shattering the other bones. Until now, all experiences are external, but when he realizes that it can be used on another ape to scare him away and capture the water hole, this decision is an internal logical realization, and is definitely bound by cause and effect but an internal mental one. Say birth of limited free will, and cause and effect still rules.
How can the external be distinguished from the internal?

As far as mind and mentality goes, cause and effect surely remains the basic rule, but it is not a God commanding you to act in a particularly definitive way.
If cause and effect is the rule, then we do act in a definitive way determined by cause and effect. I don't know how you think we can get around it.

Human mind is capable of refusing or accepting a given concept, if that were not true, no one would ever be in disagreement with another, nor would we be discussing this issue sitting on the opposite sides of the table.
Right, but this doesn't say one way or the another why we have this capability or what this capability consists of.

Why do some people prefer to eat non-fatty foods while others don’t?
Why are there so many different religions and political systems? Etc., etc., etc.
Many things have so many causes that they are difficult or even impossible to trace.

MG: When I think of my "I", I think of the thing that's controlling my thoughts

S: Read your sentence carefully again. All you are doing is creating an extra “I” where there really isn’t. The totality of you is an “I”, not an extra hidden “I” somewhere within receiving info. There is no-thing controlling your thoughts, your thoughts are you.
This seems to contradict what you've said elsewhere in this message, so I don't know what to make of it. What do you mean by "you" and what are you thinking its totality is?

MG: I can't directly see the source of my thoughts.

S: Again, your thoughts are you, and thoughts require thinking.
If thoughts are me, then the thinker must be something else, but if the thinker isn't me, then I have no control over what is being thought, so how can even a limited type of free will exist?
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

Matt,
Just because we can't trace them all doesn't mean they don't exist.
I never said they don't.
We expend effort in thinking because we are caused to.
Yes, you are caused to think. Ever think why a rock is not caused to think? OR do you claim that forms do not exist.
How can the external be distinguished from the internal?
Do you or do you not experience forms? Including your own. The basic law of cause and effect surely connects each and everything back to infinity, but it does not make forms disappear. Does it? Once a form appears, it has its own distinguishing attributes, otherwise, no-thing could be experienced. 'Things do not inherently exist' is as true as forms, that is things, do exist. Unless one is able to reconcile these two thoughts into one, without having any doubts, one will always find himself on one of the extreme ends, whereas the answer lies in the middle.
If cause and effect is the rule, then we do act in a definitive way determined by cause and effect. I don't know how you think we can get around it.
Cause and effect is blind, consciousness is not, although created and bound by the same principle of C&E. Mental world is not the same as the physical.
Right, but this doesn't say one way or the another why we have this capability or what this capability consists of.
Why? Product of evolution; brain, electrochemical impulses, etc. We may not have all the answers, but we do have a pretty good idea from past research. You mentioned earlier that science is thoughts too. Do you mean that scientific thoughts are unimportant or irrelevant since they are just thoughts? If so, are not philosophical thoughts just thoughts too?
MG: When I think of my "I", I think of the thing that's controlling my thoughts.

S: Read your sentence carefully again. All you are doing is creating an extra “I” where there really isn’t. The totality of you is an “I”, not an extra hidden “I” somewhere within receiving info. There is no-thing controlling your thoughts, your thoughts are you.

MS: This seems to contradict what you've said elsewhere in this message, so I don't know what to make of it. What do you mean by "you" and what are you thinking its totality is?
Its totality is the six categories you speak of, not "When I think of my "I", I think of the thing that's controlling my thoughts". Who is this my here? Isn't “My” and the “I” one and the same thing?
If thoughts are me, then the thinker must be something else, but if the thinker isn't me, then I have no control over what is being thought, so how can even a limited type of free will exist?
Why do you think that a thinker must be something else? Is it because you cannot pin down a direct link between the physical and the mental world?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Sue wrote:
When you’re talking about the “past, present and future arise (appear) at the same time”, is your meaning something like I’ve written below?

Each moment appears and disappears – it is impossible for there to be a present, because it is already the past; equally, the future is the present that has become the past.
Well, what I was attempting to highlight was how the "I" places boundaries on things based on knowledge/experience and ends up with (the boundary of) time, things and itself all at once.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Leyla,

I am not getting the bit about “itself all at once” – do you mean the “I” is making the boundaries up?

Sue
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

For example:

The following are all set boundaries -- based on A=A -- through the experience and sense of physical form and, then, as knowledge, which could be defined as the translation (through mental faculties) of experience and sense/s of physical form.

A. This is an apple (mental image of an object by physical experience through the senses)
B. This is a body (mental image/physical sensation -- nervous, endocrine systems, etc.)
C. That is another’s body (mental image/physical sensation -- sight, light, heat)
D. He (another individual/viewpoint) has an apple
E. I (own individual/viewpoint) do not have [present] an apple (optional based on experience of form and knowledge: I have had [past] an apple)
F. There are apple trees
G. I will/will again [future] have an apple (postulated action)

(Of course, it can get much more complex than that.)
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

It does sound pretty complex - so to simplify it, why don’t we get rid of the “I” first and see what happens.

Well, without the “I”, all talk of; “mental image/physical sensation, another individual/viewpoint, own individual/viewpoint, present, past (and) future” go flying out the window.

So at least we can safety say that everything ‘out there’ is all made up ‘in our heads’. Next, we can say - if everything is made up in our heads, then we can’t be sure that our thoughts about ‘out there’ is real or not, because we could just have a horrible virus that makes us believe that things are three dimensional and happening in time.

Because we can’t get out of our own minds, we have to work with what we’ve got; therefore we have to see how our minds work. We know that we understand things through their relationship with other things, and from this, we know that nothing can exist independently. Then we have to apply this same understanding to our thoughts, and see that they too, are subject to that same process – dependent on other thoughts and circumstances. Then we can have a look at how the brain works; seeing that it depends on numerous other things for it to do its job, therefore making it neither independent, nor separated in any way from the environment.

Thoughts, mind, other people’s minds, things, ideas of past, present and future are all subject to the same A=A principle you spoke of. Therefore, the best we can do to understand “memory”, “view point” and “mental image/physical sensation”, is by seeing that at no time are any of these things acting independently from any other thing.

This is all very simple indeed. So, am I in the same ball park as you, about this issue?

Sue
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Yes, same ball park.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

From the "Spotlight" thread, Sue wrote:
Yes, it really is a comedy of errors the way we wish to consider ourselves separate from the rest of the universe. We only have the appearance of separateness because of circumstances. Take away our oxygen and gravity, our society and loved ones, our intellect and willfulness – then we are left looking not much like ‘ourselves’ at all. So, if we depend on all this to be ourselves, then we can’t be separate, or special, or different, or unique – well, we can’t be less than the Universe itself, can we?
Fucking does my head in, but I think I’m coming to a fuller understanding of this viewpoint of “we” as opposed to the sharply contrasted one of “me and him/you/it.” Or, say, good and bad, masculine and feminine…

However, it’s still a viewpoint with “me” as the focal centre of it. Like being in a sea of things but instead of setting “me” up against a single “it” (duality), it’s “me” in and as part of a sea of interdependent “its” -- like, as you mention, intellect, family, oxygen and gravity. So, being that there is still a viewpoint, why is this one of more value than the other, sharply dualistic one? Greater powers of discernment.

Very simple, but quite significant, indeed.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Leyla,

The dualistic viewpoint is a stepping stone to this ‘new’ view of “(you) in and as part of a sea of interdependent ‘its’” - it is the logical ‘next step’. It is a significant step, because it can set in motion further deeper thinking, using this new understanding. From this vantage point you can look into all aspects of life, and begin to unravel the beliefs of a life-time. Science, history, traditions, emotions; there is no end to the supply of things to cast your discerning eye upon – you can unlock the reality of everything.

But I’m getting ahead of myself - first, it might be advisable to just rest easy in this new understanding – let it sink in a bit.

All the best,
Sue
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

From this vantage point you can look into all aspects of life, and begin to unravel the beliefs of a life-time. Science, history, traditions, emotions; there is no end to the supply of things to cast your discerning eye upon – you can unlock the reality of everything.
I can see how that would be.
But I’m getting ahead of myself - first, it might be advisable to just rest easy in this new understanding – let it sink in a bit.
Ha! (But, yes.)

It is a good day.

Thanks for your sentiments -- and the dialogue, sue hindmarsh.

It's a place that seems familiar, yet not, at the same time.
AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin »

What does it mean for something to be self-evident? That it does not require something else in order to become evident, present.
Are the senses self-evident? No.
What is it that remains as you go discarding things? If you close your eyes, you're still there (here). So, even without senses you_are_being. Now, is Being, being conscious? Is being conscious Proprioception? Does the I exist even when not conscious (example: while sleeping, not dreaming)? Are there different "levels" of the "I"?


I think everything is physical including thought. Thought is matter, even if it is electric based, or intangible.
So, we have proprioception which is the feeling or sensation of beeing this body, being stuck inside it, commanding it, etc. In which, in my opinion, the greatest of all senses is touch (I think emotions are perceived by touch). I call touch the very perceiving anything like: skin, cold, stomach, tongue, nose breathing, pain in the leg, ALSO pleasure, sadness, and even thought.

Now, with thought it gets a little complicated, since one doesn't "touch" thought, but rather "touches" thought's impressions. For example if you look at a chair, you are having an impression. That itself is being perceived by what I call "touch". If you close your eyes and imagine that chair, you are not touching the chair, but rather the impression which it leaves. I think emotions are obviously, physical events, or sensations, and for example being sad, is physically different from being angry, or joyful. The fluids and whatever, are running differently, and different types being released, etc.
Now, what is called "thinking" is usually the most superficial of all levels of thinking: verbal thinking, dialogue, words...
So, if one is sitting on a chair (pressing the ass against the chair, you know, feeling the contact, pressure, etc.) you are not "thinking". It's usually considered plain sensory input. Here is where I disagree. Even sensations are thoughts. Thought means: form. Thought means: something. No matter how subtle whatever is, as long as is a form is a thought.
If you hear some noise, you are hearing it begin, and end (form). You also are imagining VISUALLY that sound (I am serious about this, however I don't know how it is with blind people). One imagines things visually even if that means abstract imagining. Observe yourself when hearing the phone ring, and you'll get what I mean.
So far there is thinking without words (usually called non-thinking) and thinking with words (inner dialogue, etc.). "Thinking" is also considered the fact of remembering something, picturing, imagining something. If you close your eyes and imagine that chair, you are thinking about it right? However you are not necessarily saying something in your mind. But there are sensations, impressions: the chair having certain characteristics, with a black background (just an example), etc. etc.
When one is washing one's hands for example, one may not be thinking in terms of words or remembering something, but one is feeling those hands get affected by water, one feels movement, cold, etc. And there is also the visually representation of what is being heard and touched (so far I have no better way of probing this).
One IS there, washing one's hands. It is happening, even if one isn't thinking in terms of words or memories.
HOWEVER, the very experience of feeling those hands as MINE, feeling the water AFFECTING ME, the very BEING THERE, the very THIS HAPPENING NOW, is a thought (different thoughts actually) in a very subtle level.
The feeling of being the body (proprioception) is a thought. Nevertheless, it's not the most essential I-thought. Proprioception is not the same as the I-thought (or thought of being here now).
This thought of being Here Now, is what is telling you that you are alive, that you exist, that life is, regardless of senses and memories and wordy thoughts.

The feeling of Being. This at first feels like one is the body, but once one starts investigating it, examining it, dissolves from the body.
So, one is conscious of the body, of thoughts, and one looks for where is this "I"?
The interesting thing is, what is it that it's looking for the "I"? Is it the I, is it a thought? This is something tricky, since thoughts "mix" with Awareness, and it is kind of blury or confusing.
I would say, that the mind when identified with something becomes that. The search for it's essence (One's essence, Being) is the dis-identification in it's different levels or layers.
One is usually identified with the body, so everything is affecting the body. Also one has a self-image, of how one is, both physically and of one's personality. Something really interesting in my view, is that when one is perceiving let's say, a foot hitting a wall, and that being something painful, the mind "zooms" so one is in somehow "there", being to foot. This is something really hard for me to explain. It is like if the mind was a big screen, and when focusing on something, that object becomes the centre of the screen, or the totality of it. Sometimes the rest of things are in the background, and there are also times when the rest of the things perceived (besides the foot hitting the wall, for example some noise) aren't in the background but rather in another "plane", like in a different screen bellow/underneath the main screen.
So in my opinion, thoughts (wordy ones, and images) are as good as objects as an apple flying towards us.

Where is it located this "I" or point of perception in the normal experience of man? That's something yet to be discovered I think. When one is walking down the street,
are feet bellow, sky above, etc? When observing my feet, are the bellow, and my head here on top, closer to the "I"? Or not at all? This is something "blury" I have to admit. It is like the I (in the normal experience of man) is inside the body, but not clearly localized. From where is one perceiving things? From the head? Inside the head? Try to observe touching your head, and your neck, and also your feet (the other extreme) and after some observation you'll find you are not up there inside the head. Neither there, nor in the feet. Neither in the head nor in the "middle" (stomach).
So where are you? Everywhere! both inside the head and in the rest of the body - apparently, but not certainly. Are you inside the body or outside the body? Well, once one gets "there", dis-localizing oneself from being the body and inside of it, one is released from any point. It is like something triggered and one is point floating nowhere. A non localized Emptiness which is not affected by the body's: feelings, sensations, thoughts. Still, the feeling of being Here Now continues, the I-Thought remains, the Sillence is like still "breathing". That's why in my opinion there are different levels or layers of the I, or of Identification. One is to keep looking for the essence, to understand that anything observed CANNOT be the observer, and that the observer isn't in a localized place.
Without this search (or awareness of oneself, etc.) one is the normal guy who has a name, personality, body, etc. One funny thing about this, is that any attribute or quality has to belong to someone, to an entity. But if one goes dissolving whatever is identified but looking at it, but investigating it's essence, all attributes go dissapearing. Emptiness doesn't have attributes, entities do.

Just for the record, I am very very far from Emptiness today, and I am 99,999999% of the time ARY. I'd say I am 99,99999999999999999% ARY. So I'm usually trapped in this person (this sounds tricky). But when there is some Awareness of Self, or some Awareness about the impermanence of things, or where I Am not, then I AM NOT ARY. But rather I am Awareness, or whatever it is I am.

I still can't grasp, not even intelectually when it is said that One is Consciousness and Consciousness is the Universe. I cannot understand how I can be everything including those shoes, the sky, etc. I can understand that I AM nothing, or that I AM empty Awareness, pure silence, pure energy. But the former I still can't grasp (Ary can't grasp it, just for the record :p).

I don't mimic Ramana Maharshi and the rest of the Advaita Vedanta Masters, I certainly experienced some of it. But it is undeniable that I (Ary) am conditioned to this line of view, after having passed over different lines of views and obviously think it's the best way (for me) to approach.

Hope we can discuss this more profoundly.
AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin »

There is also this thing of what is common to all experriences? What is permanent? This "I" being there right? Like a tape recorder that records any noise or sound, no matter how high or low it is, or if there is slience. It doesn't get affected by the sound or noise or silence that it records.
And also the thing about what happens when one isn't conscious, like when sleeping. The "I" continues regardless of the state: waking state, dreaming state or sleep? Or is it that it "activates" once one wakes up? I am sure that only those who have experienced the deep samadhi (being aware of what is during the sleep state, while being awake) can say how it is. I for one know, that when I go to sleep (not when dreaming) this body and world dissapear, but I don't die (the conscious experience dies). It is like there has to be something that sustains the different states. Like the emptiness sustaining space, like manifestations of Consciousness happen because there is Consciousness.

Just a few more thoughts to add. Greetings.
AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin »

DavidQuinn000 wrote:There are too many thoughts there, Ary. It's a bit overwhelming trying to read it. Let's try to narrow it down. What is the one burning issue for you right now?

-
Well, I woudn't know how to syntethize it. I just developed some thoughts I have regarding the nature of the I, the nature of thought, the body, etc. I know it was too long, but maybe with time whoever feels interested could reply or discuss some excerpt.
For instance, what would you say about the different states? Waking state, sleep, dreaming, etc? Do you think the I is "on" only during dreaming, and during the waking state? Or also during sleep?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Ary wrote:
(being aware of what is during the sleep state, while being awake)
You mean the phenomenon of being awake (state of consciousness identified with when the body is not asleep) and conscious of the environment including the sleeping body?

That I have experienced a few times. It's even better than moving an architrave.

It's entirely different to being asleep and appearing conscious in a dream.

I hope to comment more on this subject soon.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn »

Ary wrote:
For instance, what would you say about the different states? Waking state, sleep, dreaming, etc? Do you think the I is "on" only during dreaming, and during the waking state? Or also during sleep?
If by "I" you mean subjective awareness, then the "I" doesn't appear to be on during sleep.

If you mean the body itself, then the "I" does remain on during sleep.

If you mean the brain, then the "I" does remain on during sleep.

It all comes down to what we mean by "I". From what you have written above in your long post, it's not entirely clear what you mean by it.

From my perspective, the "I" is nothing more than a conceptual construct, and thus the idea that we really do have an "I" is an illusion. The "I" exists in the same way that the lines of longitude and latitude exist - as a kind of arbitrary demarcation that we project onto reality. The seperation between ourselves and the rest of the world is not really there, and so any pursuit of the "I" will always end in failure. It is like chasing a mirage.

-
AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin »

DavidQuinn000 wrote: If by "I" you mean subjective awareness, then the "I" doesn't appear to be on during sleep.
What would be objective awareness?
If you mean the body itself, then the "I" does remain on during sleep.

If you mean the brain, then the "I" does remain on during sleep.

It all comes down to what we mean by "I". From what you have written above in your long post, it's not entirely clear what you mean by it.
Maybe you could describe what Awareness is for you, and if there is anything permanent that remains during the 3 states while not being the brain, nor the body, nor the subjective awareness as you call it?
From my perspective, the "I" is nothing more than a conceptual construct, and thus the idea that we really do have an "I" is an illusion. The "I" exists in the same way that the lines of longitude and latitude exist - as a kind of arbitrary demarcation that we project onto reality. The seperation between ourselves and the rest of the world is not really there, and so any pursuit of the "I" will always end in failure. It is like chasing a mirage.
-
Agreed, the separation is not really there, but one feels like it, so it IS there. It is like being afraid of a fake snake (plastic snake for example). The fear IS real until one discovers the fear has no grounds to exist, therefore the fear dissapears. What wasn't true was the grounds, the thought of the snake being real, but the fear was indeed felt.

There is certainly a huge difference, between the regular experience of man, and the experience of a man that is observing the body, himself, or whatever one wants to call it, without being the doer. Is that called Awareness?, are there different levels of Awareness? What does it mean to BE Consciousness, to be everything?
I appreciate your thoughts. Greetings
AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin »

Leyla Shen wrote:
You mean the phenomenon of being awake (state of consciousness identified with when the body is not asleep) and conscious of the environment including the sleeping body?

That I have experienced a few times. It's even better than moving an architrave.

It's entirely different to being asleep and appearing conscious in a dream.
I am not sure. For what I read, the Samadhi, is the state of being in complete silence, emptiness, "like" the sleep state is, but during the waking state (being conscious of it, unlike the sleep state where you are not conscious). It would be like being awake but completely immersed in silence, emptiness, not disturbed or thinking about the objects of the world. As I haven't experienced this, I said, only those who experienced it could explain it well and clarify how it is.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

As I haven't experienced this, I said, only those who experienced it could explain it well and clarify how it is.
That is a problem.

How are you going to know when you have come across a person who has experienced it? What, in their explanation, will you look for?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

David Quinn wrote:
From my perspective, the "I" is nothing more than a conceptual construct, and thus the idea that we really do have an "I" is an illusion. The "I" exists in the same way that the lines of longitude and latitude exist - as a kind of arbitrary demarcation that we project onto reality. The seperation between ourselves and the rest of the world is not really there, and so any pursuit of the "I" will always end in failure. It is like chasing a mirage.
That's interesting. That may possibly be greatest barrier to understanding this "samadhi" thing, which appears to be defined as a state wherein "the mind rests unwaveringly."

Reminds of the Hakuin quote in your book:
Many people are afraid to empty their minds lest they plunge into the Void. They do not know that their own mind is the Void.
AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin »

Leyla Shen wrote: That is a problem.

How are you going to know when you have come across a person who has experienced it? What, in their explanation, will you look for?
We are only discussing here. It isn't like these words are gonna make some experience happen, one is to live it by oneself. Unless it is: means and ways of doing things one is discussing, for later practise, then all are mere discussions without any real end, just for fun, knowledge, security, etc. (I consider that if someone is to give some thoughts space, to think about them, to investigate them, that would enter in my first classification of before).
It is like discussing what Enlightenment is, how an unenlightened being would recognize an enlightened one?, what would he do with what the enlightened one says? In my opinion there are 2 options and I described them above.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett »

.
David:

If by "I" you mean subjective awareness, then the "I" doesn't appear to be on during sleep.
By my perspective, it is necessarily the case that nothing is on during sleep, by definition. Sleep is a neat word for non-awareness.

If you mean the body itself, then the "I" does remain on during sleep.
The body, whilst non-existent in the absence of the 'subjective' awareness in question, can however occur in other awarenesses.

If you mean the brain, then the "I" does remain on during sleep.
Similar for above.


.
Last edited by Rhett on Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Ary wrote:
We are only discussing here.
Yes, we are.
It is like discussing what Enlightenment is, how an unenlightened being would recognize an enlightened one?
Sure.
what would he do with what the enlightened one says?
Hopefully, unenlightenment is not equal to unthinking. In which case, the unlightened person would be able to think about what anyone says, enlightened or not. Or, is that something only the enlightened person can do?

I think its probably more up to the enlightened person causing (by virtue of his enlightenment and wisdom) the unenlightened person to think -- since the unenlightened person probably arrived in the vicinity by a mere freak accident of nature, eh?

But then, for the unenlightened person to understand anything an enlightened person says, he must understand it -- which makes him enlightened to that degree.

In my view, the only thing that needs to be done is thinking. Anything else follows from that. Conversely, certain things follow from not thinking, also. Like more not-thinking.

If this is, in fact, what you mean -- then I agree with you.
Lennyrizzo
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am

Post by Lennyrizzo »

Leyla you wrote:
Since all things, in actuality, arise at the same time -- including the idea of re-collection -- awareness is the enlightened “I“ that perceives its relationship to all things and the relationship of all things to itself.
Thats an interesting use of the word, what do you think enlightenment is, how are you using it here, defining it? Can one flip-flop to and fro enlightenment as awareness comes and goes, is that it? What about during sleep/unconsciousnesss? Are there two I's in your scheme?
Sorry but I'm confused!
Locked