Utilizing... The Universe

[vicente]

A New Ager wrote: "The Divine is continually utilizing the "instrument" of manifest universe, in order to fully remind Itself of Its Own Radiant Identity...!!!"

Let's ponder upon this. The word divine, an adj., meaning of or pertaining to a god, especially a Supreme Being, does not exist. That is to say, no God, as defined by English language dictionaries, can possibly exist,...thus, if something does exist beyond nature, it could not possibly be called God. So, in all honesty, what is, or has the potential to, use the universe as an instrument,...for example, as we have the potential to utilized our body/vehicles as an instrument?

Easterners say, there is no music outside the nature of things. What is outside the nature of things? What utilizes the things of nature to reflect its own radiance?

The Christian paths teach the outer man that the outer man must be saved, and can only be saved through faith in their myth. Christians in essence say that all comic book heros are myths, except for (as Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, said) Superman,...he's real. The Buddhist paths teach the inner man how the outer man works. Buddhists say that all comic book heros are myths, without exception.

But,...who teaches how the Inner Man works? Can it be taught to the Outer Man? Is there really anything to teach? If there was, could the Outer Man grasp it while clinging to his outer manliness for his identity.
A joke in a soon to be released Vince Vaughn film says, science says we use only 10% of our brains, but I think we only use 10% of our hearts. This is why Buddhists teach about how the outer man works. Outer man only uses, at best, 10% of his heart. Vajrayana Buddhists understand that a heart cannot be opened, only unveiled. Outer man is nothing but baggage,...thick garments which cloak the Inner Man, and the heart. Inner man cannot be opened. To realize the Inner Man, the Outer Man must disrobe.

Once disrobed, including the delusion of a Divine, often referred to as the Last Emancipation, then there is a spaciousness extending from ones body and includes the so-called manifest universe,...a Full Spectrum vehicle to utilize.

Vicente Marco

[VossistArts]

i dont know if its like inner teaching outer as much as like you say, an unveiling. I tend to think that its the inner man as you call it ( i call it the higher self) that is unvieled. perhaps its the outter man ( or ordinary self) that does the unvieling. or maybe its not as though we are like two. Maybe as one comes to understand,the other becomes more apparent. i dont think there is any need to grasp at anything here. the higher self seems to know as it becomes known. however you see it, inner and outter, ordinary and higher, neither is any more or less important than the other. there is necessary time and space for one and both as one.

[Thomas Knierim]

If there is no self, there cannot be any "higher self". Sounds obvious to me. The higher self is then just another illusion out of the bag of psychological tricks.

Cheers, Thomas

[VossistArts]

even if everthing phenomenal is ultimately and illusion, things are real in their moment. At least thats what I think. Is it fair to say something is an illusion before youve witnessed its birth from apparent nothingness , its life, and its passing away back in to the nothingness? It kind of annoys me when people tell me something is an illusion, almost as if to say it has no meaning or value. Its these very illusions that pave our way to possibly seeing everything as an illusion, but until a person can desolve the thing(s) they call illusion as if they were just like a dream, i say you have to call it real. things are real while you are experiencing them. as for what i call the higher self, im not sure about this thing. In the last few years, Ive had more and more experiences with a kind of strange thing. sometimes its like a super aware knowing me steps up to situations unannounced and Ill approach a thing in a way i never saw coming, in a way that seems perfect and solid. sometimes its like it speaks to me. Lately ive found myself consideriing certain things ive been considering for a pretty long time, not any effort into finding a higher meaning or seeing a bigger picture, and its like something in me take the whole of my considerations and shows me this bigger picture, like a meaning in it all is revealed that i was even looking for or was aware that it existed. It happens so suddenly, and without intention or effort, i can hardly relate to the idea of having done anything. Maybe at certain points, when all the evidence, or puzzle pieces are present they just naturally fall together and make sense all on their own. Ive never experienced such a thing with my thought, and memories until recently. illusions all, but they have a reason that becomes clear in the now, there is understanding revealed.

[Thomas Knierim]

Hm, interesting...

I understand that you get annoyed. It's a normal reaction once you have developed some degree of attachement to an idea. Heck, it's not that I am free of attachments. I certainly maintain many attachments to many ideas, but I tend to see them as utilitarian constructs. For example, I am quite attached to the idea that the Big Bang is real. However, if conclusive evidence is found against Big Bang, I'd be inclined to let it go quickly (so far I haven't found any).

Now, what concerns the self, I know it sounds like I am reciting Buddhist dogma, but I think that this is one of the points where the Buddha hit bull's eye. The self is not real. In fact, it couldn't be more unreal. The self is a purely psychological entity which just vanishes in a poof when we die, and everytime we sleep; it is even possible to dispell the self consciously during meditation (even without being a very advanced meditator). The self is merely a very thick layer of conditioning. The psychological building blocks of the self are identifications, both positive and negative identifications. They take the form of memory structures, habits, likes and dislikes, tastes and preferences.

If one attempts to strip away these layers of conditioning, one can't help but be surprised how deep they go. In fact, they go to the very root of the "soul". In other words, once you attempt to remove them, and if you keep working diligiently until you eventually succeed, you will find that nothing of your self is left. :lol: So, I am pretty convinced that the self is a very fickle and illusionary entity, and that the term "higher self" is merely a conceptual extension of it.

What concerns this moment, the self appears to be real in this moment. This is so, because experience is real and experience is shaped by our conditioning, i.e. by our self. We perceive the world through our particular lense, and in a way we are the architects of our experience. At night in the dark we see a tree root and we might think it's a snake. Although the identification is mistaken, the fear is real. But neither the lense of perception we have shaped is real, nor the perceptions that it renders. We are mostly just walking about in a dream, or in a play that we are staging.

Now, what you mentioned in your last post seems reasonable to me, but I would not call it "higher self". You seem to be "communicating" with the transpersonal realm, which is connected to you through the unconscious. Unfortunately, the transpersonal realm is shrouded in mystery. Psychology hasn't yet formulated a consistent view of the transpersonal, and some even claim that it doesn't exist. Personally, I am convinced that it does exist and -even more- that it is the only real thing about us. In other words, the person -the body and the mind- are unreal, but the transpersonal is real.

Cheers, Thomas

[VossistArts]

I appreciate the idea and practice of letting go of an attachment to an idea. Ultimately I agree with what youre saying about the self. Its conceptual and like any other concept its without substance, maintained purposefully or unintentionally.. but without maintainence it doesnt exist at all. so what you talk about in the last part there,. I certainly dont need to call it higher self. Ive never even heard of the idea or whatever it is, of the transpersonal realm. Ill have to see if i can find some more information on this somewhere. Mostly, as Im sure you see, Im just putting a marker of sorts on something Ive been experiencing that I have no real reference for.
Its just fascinating the way thoughts evolve with experiences, connections acting like keys,opening spacing revealing stepping stones to what is more.. Thank you for the comments:O) peace.

[kowtaaia]

but without maintainence it (self) doesnt exist at all.

...and the maintenance is the activity of thought that perpetuates its own reality of the subjective state.

[sahyo]

:D

[kowtaaia]

What the hell is a 'lehish'?

[sahyo]

hehe...name called on a forum

[...]

..it's nice to see a familiar name again Kowtaaia, welcome back...

[ephrem]

[kowtaaia]

... (ephrem),

Thank you. If you're absent for a couple of years (or whatever it's been), you have to re-register. So kow is a newbie.

[vicente]

Asheera, Ephrem and Kowtaaia,...what a treat.


Kowtaaia:...and the maintenance is the activity of thought that perpetuates its own reality of the subjective state.


The sciential mind, which arises from a belief in object-ive reality, does not exist. For example,...the foundation of a mathematical statement is only true in relation to the assumption that 'set theory', that is, that any collection of objects exist. Yet Physics can show that no objects exist, thus, simply put, mathematics is based on a belief in materialism.

The sentiential mind, which arises from subject-ive reality, that is, perception through the senses, does not exist. As René Descartes said,..."all that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once".

There is however, another mind, the sapiential Mind, which is often associated with cardio-centricness, as suggested through NDE's, OBE's, samatha type meditations where the Parietal Lobe has been deactivated, etc.

Although few have direct experiences, that is, beyond that which is filtered through object-ive/subject-ive or self in separation, to say direct experience (without the condition of belief) is unrealizable is no more than a belief.

The atheist, object-ive view that death is final, is equally as absurd as the religionist, subject-ive view in God.

From all my observations, both conceptual and non-conceptual, Undivided light is eternal. Naropa's Yoga of the Clear Light. According to the Tantric tradition, says "everyone experiences the Clear Light of the Void shortly after death. Its brilliance, however, is so overwhelming that the departing consciousness usually recoils in fear and is drawn instead into another samsaric rebirth. By learning to recognize the transcendent Light of the Nirvanic Buddha Consciousness during his lifetime, an adept may return to it without difficulty when the shock of death threatens to disorient him".

Some may suggest the above speaks of a Higher Self,...but only if this so-called Higher Self is a term that transcends all self.

A Buddha reportedly said, "there is no Little Self nor a Big Self"; thus, even identifying with the universe as a whole is still ego attachment.

To truly understand Consciousness (the consciousness beyond object-ive/subject-ive reality), revisions of our conceptional views is necessary. Or, as Fa Tsang said, "by jointly discussing noumenon and phenomenon, one reaches the highest consciousness and creates right understanding among sentient beings".

Vicente Marco
:)

to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

[kowtaaia]

Hi V,

W'ell attack the assertions.

The sciential mind, which arises from a belief in object-ive reality, does not exist.

Oh, it does exixt, though! The knowledge that creates more knowledge, just functions from the past, because knowledge is memory. The mind is memory.

The sentiential mind, which arises from subject-ive reality, that is, perception through the senses, does not exist.

As above, so below. Memory exists. The error is in mistaking process for entity.

There is however, another mind, the sapiential Mind, which is often associated with cardio-centricness, as suggested through NDE's, OBE's, samatha type meditations where the Parietal Lobe has been deactivated, etc.

The capital S mind, the wisdom mind, is just a projection of the lower case 's' mind. There is a centerless field of awareness that can be called 'mind', but it is untouched by the silliness of NDE's, OBE's, LMNOP's :) and the other fear based projections of ego.


that the departing consciousness usually recoils in fear and is drawn instead into another samsaric rebirth

There is nothing in the body to leave the body.

[vicente]

Hey Kowtaaia,...please accept this return attack:

kowtaaia:Oh, it does exixt, though! The knowledge that creates more knowledge, just functions from the past, because knowledge is memory. The mind is memory.


First, to exist, means to stand alone, which perceived objects do not. As for "just functions from the past",...no arguement there, except perhaps to suggest that the past doesn't exist either.

kowtaaia: The capital S mind, the wisdom mind, is just a projection of the lower case 's' mind. There is a centerless field of awareness that can be called 'mind', but it is untouched by the silliness of NDE's, OBE's, LMNOP's and the other fear based projections of ego

How is a NDE or shutting down of the Parietal Lobe (as in some meditations) fear based projections? (not familiar with LMNOP's) In addition, if the Mind is a projection of the ego-thinking-lower mind, why does the Mind exist when the lower mind (neurological functioning) has been rendered inoperable?

I really have no desire to debate this philosophically, but if you are aware of some potential evidence to support the idea that Consciousness is not greater than its perceived object-ive/subject-ive parts (the sum of all positives and negatives equal zero), then you may just have the first ever evidence in support of Materialisms reductionist belief that all phenomenon is reducible to an assemblege of brain matter.

There is nothing in the body to leave the body.

I fully agree. As I often quote from ACIM:

"the ego uses the body to conspire against your Mind (in this context the Mind has no relation to intellect), and because the ego realizes that its 'enemy' (the Mind) can end them both (ego and body) merely by recognizing they are not part of You (the Mind), they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves.
The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the Mind, which is real, that the Mind is ego's learning device; and further, that the body is more real then the Mind is.
No one in their right Mind could possibly believe this, and no one in Their 'right Mind' does believe it"

Vicente
:)

to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

[kowtaaia]

V,


First, to exist, means to stand alone, which perceived objects do not.

If that's the definition that you want to use, then neither does the perceiver. Unfortunately, illusion is reality. We feel that we exist.


How is a NDE or shutting down of the Parietal Lobe (as in some meditations) fear based projections?

...because the ego projects its continuation with a different hat on. It doesn't matter if you call it 'Self' or 'consciousness'. It is thought that seeks continuation; permanancy.


I fully agree.

...but refering to the death of the body you said "the departing consciousness".

[vicente]

kowtaaia: If that's the definition that you want to use, then neither does the perceiver

Exactly! The perceiver does not exist,...like the dream doesn't exist,...yet is perceived to exist while the dream is in motion.

kowtaaia: It is thought that seeks continuation; permanancy.


Yes,...however,...thought ceases during many NDE's and most Parietal Lobe meditations,...then, when brought back to "waking consciousness", when neurological functionings return, the Thoughtless/thus egoless experience is described through the phenomena of physicality.

kowtaaia: ...but refering to the death of the body you said "the departing consciousness".


I did? Such was clearly not my intention; that is to say, to imply that unfragmented consciousness leaves the body as water leaves a dissolved container is misleading.

To clarify,...unfragmented consciousness is implied to point to that which is synonymous with unconditional, coherent light; that is, that which transcends thought, motion, energy, phenomena.

The presence of ultimate Consciousness is ever present in the present. The threshold of the present is where time collapses. 'Present time' is an oxymoron.

Vicente
:)

to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

[kowtaaia]

V,

Exactly! The perceiver does not exist,...like the dream doesn't exist,...yet is perceived to exist while the dream is in motion.

...because the dream is thought and thought is consciousness.


Yes,...however,...thought ceases during many NDE's and most Parietal Lobe meditations,...then, when brought back to "waking consciousness", when neurological functionings return, the Thoughtless/thus egoless experience is described through the phenomena of physicality.

If it can be described, then thought was there.


...unfragmented consciousness is implied to point to that which is synonymous with unconditional, coherent light; that is, that which transcends thought, motion, energy, phenomena.

You're implying 'spirit'.

[vicente]

kowtaaia: ...because the dream is thought and thought is consciousness.


No,...semantically there are as if levels of consciousness. For example, thought is to authentic Consciousness, what divided light (duality) is to Undivided Light (Stillness). Both are called light, but only the latter is real,...the other is projected,...like what is perceived on a theaters screen. Real Light is Still in the projector.

I don't notice the search function to bring up a link, so I'll repeat:

Vicente: Let's take a trip in my amazing LightCraft. We are going to accelerate to the so-called speed of light, said to be 186,282 miles per second in space-time. That is to say, for every 186K miles of space, we perceive 1 second of time; hence from our human-centric point of view we will be traveling pretty fast. On the way, keep Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity in mind, for as we approach that light speed, time shall slow towards zero, space shrink to nothing, and as we cross a threshold where the mass of our LightCraft shall become as infinite, and we will experience dimensionlessness within the Stillness of Undivided Light.

For those who have taken this trip, there is an immediate realization. How did we reach a velocity of 186K mps and arrive at Stillness? In that moment they behold a gnowing or sapiential understanding from Light's own point of view, which is that Light actually travels no distance in no time. In fact, as you will see, Undivided Light has not traveled any distance in any time in all of eternity. The once human-centric held beliefs of space-time then shifts, and a reciprocal tremendum resplendently springs its metanioa. Our Duality Reality is actually 186K mps slower than the Stillness of Light.

All energy-mass is an effect within divided light. It makes no difference how fast energy-mass is moving, for even at 186,281 mps, the Stillness of Undivided Light will continue to be perceived as 186,282 mps faster, because the closer to Stillness one gets, the slower time appears to advance, and the more the perception of length contracts. The past cannot pass into the Now, regardless of how close one is to it; just as the Conditional cannot enter the Unconditional and allow the Unconditional to remain Unconditional.

Look at a star in the evening. The light we see is not the light that celestial body radiated in that perceptual moment. The manifested light we see from many heavenly luminaries beyond our solar system is millions of years old, while the closest, Alpha Centuri, is about four years along by the time it reaches our vision on Earth. Let's reverse the above and look at something close to you. Regardless of what you may think, you are observing the past; perhaps only a fraction of a second in the past, but the past nevertheless. We do not see the world or cosmos that surrounds us, but only the one which surrounded us, because all our sensed based cognizance arrives through the past, that is, that which is as beneath the Present of Undivided Light.

If one is not in the Present, then they are in the past. This Present being pointed to, is not the oxymoron 'present time'. There is no present time, only a perceptual present; for there is no instant in time; time is always in motion. Any perceived travel between 1 and 186,281 mps is of time, and thus the past. All time, energy, mass, from Undivided Light's point of view, is in the past.


kowtaaia: If it can be described, then thought was there.


Yes, that is the reductionists view, but not the full view. The ego complex (the neurological intellect) is involved with the description process, after brain function returns,...but not necessarily (meaning for everyone) who transcended time, energy, phenomena in a direct experience. This is why, Buddhists for example, such an experience is called an experience of Thoughtlessness.

kowtaaia: You're implying 'spirit'.

Spirit is the energy which directs the motion of phenomena to be given what it gives,...in other words, spirit is the law of frequency that makes sure when we frown into a mirror that we are not reflected back a smile. Spirit does not exist outside of duality's reality,...but should be understood as a tool within duality's reality to heal our imagined fragmentation from Undivided Light.

Vicente Marco
:)


to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

[sahyo]

vicente :)


k: If it can be described, then thought was there.

v: Yes, that is the reductionists view, but not the full view.

thinking read as though was "reductionst view"?


v: Spirit is the energy which directs the motion of phenomena to be given what it gives,...in other words, spirit is the law of frequency that makes sure when we frown into a mirror that we are not reflected back a smile. Spirit does not exist outside of duality's reality,...but should be understood as a tool within duality's reality to heal our imagined fragmentation from Undivided Light

is that thought happening?

[vicente]

asheera: is that thought happening?


Thought/thinking is impossible at the Stillness of undivided Light. From a Reductionist/materialism viewpoint, the reality of the Stillness of Light is merely a theory of Physics and Buddhists, because they never retarded their thinking long enough to realize that reality.

In a way, Reductionists are like the Mesoamericans who could not see the ships that the Spanish arrived on, because they could not understand what a boat was. Yet, for those who have realized Stillness, there is no doubt that Consciousness is more than what can be reduced from materialism.

There are many transformational triggers that can activate direct experience,...unfortunately, most scientists, and regular folks, rather address the subject with ad homenim, that have anything challenge their logic.

Vicente
:)

to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

[sahyo]

unfortunately, most scientists, and regular folks, rather address the subject with ad homenim, that have anything challenge their logic.

some people think ad hominem happening though isn't

[sahyo]

k: If it can be described, then thought was there.

v: Yes, that is the reductionists view, but not the full view.

thought as though was "reductionist"? yet stated:

v: Thought/thinking is impossible at the Stillness of undivided Light.

[sahyo]

oop

[sahyo]

Thought/thinking is impossible at the Stillness of undivided Light.

called buddha couldn't speaking?

[kowtaaia]

V,

Both are called light, but only the latter is real,...the other is projected

That's nonsense. The consciousness that is thought is not a projection.


Yes, that is the reductionists view, but not the full view.


That's a non arguement. It has no more validity than saying that your view is gobblygookism.
Whether it's true or not, is besides the point. It's irrelevent.


The ego complex (the neurological intellect) is involved with the description process, after brain function returns,...but not necessarily (meaning for everyone) who transcended time, energy, phenomena in a direct experience. This is why, Buddhists for example, such an experience is called an experience of Thoughtlessness.

Two points: The ego is the reality of thought which is the subjective state and the continuation of that state by the activity of thought in self reference.
The word 'thoughtlessness' doesn't point well for obvious reasons and the absense of thought state has nothing whatsoever to do with a "who" transcending.

[vicente]

kowtaaia: That's nonsense. The consciousness that is thought is not a projection.


What's consciousness? Self-consciousness is an illusion,...except to the one imagining they're self-conscious. I did not say that consciousness was a projection, but that "moving" light is as a projection onto a theaters screen, while real Light is Still in the projector. I thank you for the critique however,...always interested in the confusion in verbal communion.

That's a non arguement. It has no more validity than saying that your view is gobblygookism.
Whether it's true or not, is besides the point. It's irrelevent.

Are you saying that If it can be described, then thought was there. aplies to the Thoughtless experience when the neurological functionings were flat-lined? Whether that is true or not is one of the most relevant inquiries of today. Over and over, evidence suggests that consciousness is greater than the sum of its parts. Are you saying it's not important, considering the level of Humanity's awareness?

Two points: The ego is the reality of thought which is the subjective state and the continuation of that state by the activity of thought in self reference.
The word 'thoughtlessness' doesn't point well for obvious reasons and the absense of thought state has nothing whatsoever to do with a "who" transcending.


I can see why you and Shari are so well matched. I agree, that Thoughtlessness has nothing to do a "who" transcending,...there is no Who in Thoughtlessness, just like there is no conditionality in the Unconditional. There is however, a Consciousness which transcends the ego-consciousness,...just like the so-called speed of light can be reach when the building blocks of ego consciousness, that is, motion, mass and energy ceases.

Why this is all relevant is that consciousness which arises from illusion (human-centric) cannot discern reality. Only conscious which arises from reality (Light-centric) can recognize reality.

Everything is light,...from the huge frozen masses that orbit the Sun, to photons dancing around us, to Undivided Light, when the so-called speed of light is realized. Thus, the only thing truely irrelevant is the Human-centric viewpoint.

And that is why I say, to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are. You can only understand When you are, through Light. Light is no irrelevant.

Vicente
:)

[kowtaaia]

V,

I did not say that consciousness was a projection, but that "moving" light is as a projection onto a theaters screen, while real Light is Still in the projector. I thank you for the critique however,...always interested in the confusion in verbal communion.


The confusion is in your communication. Earlier you talked about "departing consciousness" at the death of the body, but of course when called on it, you said that you didn't mean what you said. Anyways, you equated the consciousness that is thought with divided light and you say that this truly true consciousness is undivided light. You said that the former was a projection of the latter.


Are you saying that If it can be described, then thought was there.

It's already been said. The statement that you're responding to, pertained to your arguement fallacy, so the rest of your response is non-sequitur. If you'd like to post the statement again, but not as a response to a statement about your fallacious argument, then do so.


I can see why you and Shari are so well matched.

Ad-hominem. If you can't debate assertions, then don't say anything.


There is however, a Consciousness which transcends the ego-consciousness,...just like the so-called speed of light etc.

You are in error. When the consciousness that is thought, ceases: the other is there. The other does not transcend the ego. Transcendance has nothing to do with something transcending something else. What you're talking about is continuation in a modified form.

Why this is all relevant etc.

Again, you are responding to a comment about your fallacious argument.

[vicente]

The confusion is in your communication. Earlier you talked about "departing consciousness" at the death of the body, but of course when called on it, you said that you didn't mean what you said

No,...I would say the confusion is yours,...the term ""departing consciousness" was a quote from Naropa's Yoga of the Clear Light. To me, the context of this 12th Century interpretation, was pointing to the dissolvement of the imaginary self-consciousness, whereby that Consciousness which is more than the sum of neurological parts, appears to have departed.

Yes, I would say that the unfragmented Consciousness is a synonym of Undivided Light.

If you'd like to post the statement again, but not as a response to a statement about your fallacious argument, then do so.

Certainly. Yes,...however,...thought ceases during many NDE's and most Parietal Lobe meditations,...then, when brought back to "waking consciousness", when neurological functionings return, the Thoughtless/thus egoless experience is described through the phenomena of physicality.

Wakening consciousness is akin to self-consciousness, ego-consciousness, neurologically precipitated consciousness. During many NDE's and most Pariental Lobe meditations, that simulated consciousness is "turned-off", whereby unfragmented, non-dual consciousness, a consciousness beyond the sum of all positives and negatives, that is, the disappearence of subject and object, and the realization of emptiness.

Emptiness is not empty nor non-empty,...what it is, demands a Light-centric point of view.

Ad-hominem. If you can't debate assertions, then don't say anything.


My comment regarding you and Asheera was not meant as an ad hominem, but from my point of view, a compliment.

You are in error. When the consciousness that is thought, ceases: the other is there. The other does not transcend the ego. Transcendance has nothing to do with something transcending something else. What you're talking about is continuation in a modified form.

When the consciousness that is thought, ceases: the other is there. Hum! Not necessarily,...although the I'd agree that the potential is. I'm more in agreement with Naropa's Yoga of the Clear Light,...

"everyone experiences the Clear Light of the Void shortly after death. Its brilliance, however, is so overwhelming that the departing consciousness usually recoils in fear and is drawn instead into another samsaric rebirth. By learning to recognize the transcendent Light of the Nirvanic Buddha Consciousness during his lifetime, an adept may return to it without difficulty when the shock of death threatens to disorient him".

Even though I like the romantic notion that the Other is There, when thought ceases, such to me is not much different than Christians thinking that Jesus will save them.

Again, you are responding to a comment about your fallacious argument.

??? That,...consciousness which arises from illusion (human-centric) cannot discern reality. Only conscious which arises from reality (Light-centric) can recognize reality.

So, you expect the "self" to honestly discern reality? Or, that to say illusion is not the only way to recognize the illusion is a fallacious argument.

I been reading your posts for some 4 years Kowtaaia,...since InnerSanctum at Delphi,...and we still come to the same impasse. Until someone is willing to take the chance and directly experience the so-called speed of light,...that is to, a direct experience without the conditions of beliefs or self,...the impasse will remain.

Of course, many, especially Reductionists, will continue to imagine that only a subject can have an experience. The truth is, when the object dissolves, subject simultaneously dissolves.

Vicente
:)

to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

[sahyo]

k: When the consciousness that is thought, ceases: the other is there. The other does not transcend the ego. Transcendance has nothing to do with something transcending something else. What you're talking about is continuation in a modified form.


v: Even though I like the romantic notion that the Other is There, when thought ceases, such to me is not much different than Christians thinking that Jesus will save them.


'the other is there' not saying which you responded as though saying


:)

[sahyo]

Spirit is the energy which directs the motion of phenomena to be given what it gives,...in other words, spirit is the law of frequency that makes sure when we frown into a mirror that we are not reflected back a smile. Spirit does not exist outside of duality's reality,...but should be understood as a tool within duality's reality to heal our imagined fragmentation from Undivided Light

is that thought happening?

Thought/thinking is impossible at the Stillness of undivided Light.

wasn't asking if thought was happening

[kowtaaia]

V


No,...I would say the confusion is yours,...the term ""departing consciousness" was a quote etc.

You can blame it on anyone you like. You said one thing and when called on it, you said that you didn't mean what you said. Period!

...thought ceases during many NDE's and most Parietal Lobe meditations,...then, when brought back to "waking consciousness", when neurological functionings return, the Thoughtless/thus egoless experience is described through the phenomena of physicality.

Perhaps conscious verbalization, but if it can be described...you've heard the rest, already. The absence of thought state is not the NDE, OBE or any other fantasy state.



My comment regarding you and Asheera was not meant as an ad hominem, but from my point of view, a compliment.


Ad hominem is TO the person rather than TO the assertion. It's irrelvent.

k: "When the consciousness that is thought, ceases: the other is there."
V: " Hum! Not necessarily..."

Absolutely, actually. The reality of thought is the subjective state.


"everyone experiences the Clear Light of the Void shortly after death. Its brilliance, however, is so overwhelming that the departing consciousness usually recoils in fear and is drawn instead into another samsaric rebirth. By learning to recognize the transcendent Light of the Nirvanic Buddha Consciousness during his lifetime, an adept may return to it without difficulty when the shock of death threatens to disorient him".

Nonsense! That's a fear based belief and a fear based projection while the body is alive. Death is an ending and awareness is a field. Really do try and capture what that means.


Even though I like the romantic notion that the Other is There, when thought ceases, such to me is not much different than Christians thinking that Jesus will save them.

Are you a romantic? :) Your comparison is non-sequitur and odd. The self is thought. As the Buddha pointed out: "There is self and there is truth. Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not."

Only conscious which arises from reality (Light-centric) can recognize reality.

Recognition is dependent on knowledge. It is the continuation of knowledge, which is the past.

So, you expect the "self" to honestly discern reality?

Where the hell did that come from? Read what;s written without the filter of a pre conceived ideology.

Of course, many, especially Reductionists, will continue to imagine that only a subject can have an experience. The truth is, when the object dissolves, subject simultaneously dissolves.

If the experience is HAD, the subject is there, no matter how absorbed in itself or identified with the object. Truth doesn't manifest because the subject dissolves the object that it identifies with.

[vicente]

Spirit is the energy which directs the motion of phenomena to be given what it gives,...in other words, spirit is the law of frequency that makes sure when we frown into a mirror that we are not reflected back a smile. Spirit does not exist outside of duality's reality,...but should be understood as a tool within duality's reality to heal our imagined fragmentation from Undivided Light

is that thought happening?


No,...that is not thought happening. Many assume (human-centric viewpoint) that there is a need for human involvement for duality's reality to be,...such is a misrepresentation of the copenhagen Interpretation. Physics has no such need for an oberserver and an observed.

Energy is simply the motion of the divided seeking harmony, which it can never realize, because motion is an illusion,...just as thought is an illusion. Your concern seems to be which illusion came first,...motion or thought. From a Light-centric viewpoint it doesn't matter,...both are illusions.

Vicente
:)

[vicente]

kowtaaia: You can blame it on anyone you like. You said one thing and when called on it, you said that you didn't mean what you said. Period!


Usually, people are not attacked for a quote they use as a citation,...especially an 800 year old quote.

The absence of thought state is not the NDE, OBE or any other fantasy state.

It could be,...however, I was not entering the conceptual area of "absence of thought", but Thoughtlessness. For example, Silience isn't necessarily the absence of noise, but in Thoughtlessness is the dissolvement (albeit perceived temporarily) of noise.

Closing down or deactivating the Parietal Lobe is not a "fantasy state".


kowtaaia: Ad hominem is TO the person rather than TO the assertion. It's irrelvent.


An ad hominem as I use it, points to an attack of ones character rather than answer a question. I personally find it cute how Asheera finishes your statements,...and has been doing so, as far as I'm aware, since 2001. Some spend a lifetime seeking such compatibility,...other I guess choice to ignore it. For me, I have yet to have such a pleasure.

The reality of thought is the subjective state.

I don't disagree with that. Although I continue to say that Subject cannot perceive to exist without the Object. In other words, dissolve the perception of the Object, and Subject must simultaneously dissolve.

Nonsense! That's a fear based belief and a fear based projection while the body is alive.


If you're not interested in light, that's fine with me. Yet to label want you don't wish to understand as nonsense, is actually the nonsense, isn't it? As one who has had a NDE (1974), I concur with Naropa,...if there is a residue of belief in passing, the ultimate reality can easily be missed. Experience born of belief can only be experience through the condition of that belief.

The self is thought. As the Buddha pointed out: "There is self and there is truth. Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not."

I fully agree with the quote, but not your narrow interpetation of it. Self is not necessarily always thought,...a dog is self, but not self-consciousness. To me, what Buddha was saying is that Subject can never realize truth, because truth cannot be understood through Object, and as long as there is Subject, there will be Object.

Where truth is, is synonymous with the so-called speed of light. Cross that thresholdless threshold and truth is there. Kill yourself, to end self-consciousness, and Consciousness is not necessarily there.

Recognition is dependent on knowledge. It is the continuation of knowledge, which is the past.


No, not necessarily. Knowledge is indeed dependent on the past, but where knowledge ends, there is Gnowledge,...which is not dependent on the past, nor does it arise from the past. Knowledge is to the sciential, what Gnowledge is to the sapiential. Gnowledge is the understanding which is not filtered through neur0logical self-consciousness. Gnowledge is beyond Subject and Object,...although it can be describe through Subject and Object,...just as Buddha described "There is self and there is truth. Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not."

Vicente
:)

to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

[kowtaaia]

V,

Usually, people are not attacked for a quote they use as a citation,...especially an 800 year old quote.

The assertion "departing consciousness" was challenged. First you said that you didn't mean what you said and then you justified "departing consciousness" by saying that it was a quote of someone that you seem to hold in high regard. Just the facts ma'am. B)

Re: k: "The absence of thought state is not the NDE, OBE or any other fantasy state."

V: "It could be,...however, I was not entering the conceptual area of "absence of thought", but Thoughtlessness. For example, Silience isn't necessarily the absence of noise, but in Thoughtlessness is the dissolvement (albeit perceived temporarily) of noise."

This one you can have. 'Thoughtlessness' means 'inconsiderate; careless; inattentive; after all. Although there are a few uses of that word in certain TRANSLATIONS of the suttas; it's simply mistranslation.


An ad hominem as I use it, points to an attack of ones character rather than answer a question. I personally find it cute how Asheera finishes your statements,...and has been doing so, as far as I'm aware, since 2001. Some spend a lifetime seeking such compatibility,...other I guess choice to ignore it. For me, I have yet to have such a pleasure.

The above is a perfect example of circumstantial AND abusive ad hominems.


In other words, dissolve the perception of the Object, and Subject must simultaneously dissolve.

You are talking about absorbtion and identification



If you're not interested in light, that's fine with me. Yet to label want you don't wish to understand as nonsense, is actually the nonsense, isn't it? As one who has had a NDE (1974), I concur with Naropa,...if there is a residue of belief in passing, the ultimate reality can easily be missed. Experience born of belief can only be experience through the condition of that belief.

Testimonials are not proof or arguement, says the pink unicorn sitting on top of the monitor, that was rescued from the Martian flying saucer.



I fully agree with the quote (there is self and there is truth etc.) but not your narrow interpetation of it. Self is not necessarily always thought,...a dog is self, but not self-consciousness.

The above is so fundamentally flawed and staggeringly ignorant: it can't be responded to.

To me, what Buddha was saying is that Subject can never realize truth, because truth cannot be understood through Object, and as long as there is Subject, there will be Object.

You don't have to convolute it. The subjective state is the reality of thought, which is duality.



Re: k: "Recognition is dependent on knowledge. It is the continuation of knowledge, which is the past."

V: "No, not necessarily. Knowledge is indeed dependent on the past, but where knowledge ends, there is Gnowledge,...which is not dependent on the past, nor does it arise from the past. Knowledge is to the sciential, what Gnowledge is to the sapiential. Gnowledge is the understanding which is not filtered through neur0logical self-consciousness. Gnowledge is beyond Subject and Object,...although it can be describe through Subject and Object,..."



The fact is that "RECOGNITION" is the continuation of the known and the known is memory, the past. That means the self, thought is there and whatever fantastical, expansive, wonderful event is taking place; it is in the shadow of illusion and therefore not truth.

just as Buddha described "There is self and there is truth. Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not."


It's NOT description!

[vicente]

Testimonials are not proof or arguement, says the pink unicorn sitting on top of the monitor, that was rescued from the Martian flying saucer.


So says the monkey as he sits in the cold, though the night, scheming how to capture the moon. LOL

Vicente
:)

to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

[kowtaaia]

V,

So says the monkey as he sits in the cold, though the night, scheming how to capture the moon. LOL


The above is non-sequitur.

[vicente]

The above is non-sequitur.

Are there sequiturs or non-sequiturs without the thought of logical consequence? From my perspective, thinkers logic is always upset when the question focuses on letting go, usually of their imaginary control. Instead, sensical diversions are ushered in so that question is buried, rather than dissolved.

Enjoyed our discussion though. Look forward to when you uncover the step from which the sharing shifts to a mutual resonance.

Vicente
:)


to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

That isn't to say, Who you are will be anything at all,...but whatever it is, cannot be understood until Where and When is realized. Where and When cannot be understood throuh sequiturisms nor non-sequiturisms. Simple transformational triggers can show that.
http://www.slimeworld.org/xxaxx/jbc_ndx.html

[kowtaaia]

V,

That's a lovely yellow striped, white flag that you're waving. :lol:
Yes, it was enjoyable, even though you fell into fallacious arguementation, rather quickly and you seemed awfully shaken by simple challenge. Better that though, from someone that at least seems to be talking from the heart, than a flawless arguement from someone that merely believes.

Love and gassho.
Until the next time.

[sahyo]

Energy is simply the motion of the divided seeking harmony, which it can never realize because motion is an illusion,...just as thought is an illusion.

"divided"?

Your concern seems to be which illusion came first,...motion or thought.

read a post as though "which illusion am first"??

[sahyo]

Asheera finishes your statements



read like was?


;)

[vicente]

you seemed awfully shaken by simple challenge. Better that though, from someone that at least seems to be talking from the heart, than a flawless arguement from someone that merely believes.


Because you thought an 800 year old quote was my own statement?

As for talking from the heart,...ah,...one of my favorite subjects. Knowledge, science, the past, cerebro-centricness, verses Gnowledge, sapience, the Now, cardio-centricness. It's as if, so unfortunate that so few have been Still enough to recognize the heart.

Imagine if the Abrahamic religions shifted towards a compatibility with Tilopa's Mahamudra.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~papinnie/mahamudra_tilopa.html

Love to you Kow.
Until the next time.

Vicente
:)

[vicente]

read like was?


All reading was, Asheera,...even during (time) the perceived moment of the first syllable. There is no present in time.

Vicente
:)

to understand Who you are, you must realize Where and When you are

[sahyo]

Asheera finishes your statements



All reading was, Asheera,...even during (time) the perceived moment of the first syllable. There is no present in time.

thought "time" as though "finishes"?

[fu*]

GASSHO:

The word /gassho/ literally means "To place the two palms together". Of all the mudras (symbolic hand-gestures or positions) we use, it is perhaps the most fundamental, for it arises directly from the depths of enlightenment. Its uses are many, but most commonly it is employed to express respect, to prevent scattering of the mind, to unify all polarities (such as left and right, passive and dominant, etc.) and to express the One Mind -- the total unity of Being.


There are many types of gassho and I give these more common types for your information:


1. THE FIRM GASSHO. The most formal of the gasshos, this is the one most commonly used in daily practice. It is the gassho we use upon entering the zendo, and upon taking our seats. We also use it at least sixteen times in the course of a formal meal, and during all services.

It is made by placing the hands together, palm to palm in front of the face. The fingers are placed together, and are straight rather than bent, while the palms are slightly pressed together so that they meet.

The elbows are held somewhat out from the body, although the forearms are not quite parallel with the floor. There is about one fist's distance between the tip of the nose and the hands. Fingertips are at about the same height from the floor as the top of the nose. This gassho has the effect of helping to establish an alert and reverential state of mind.


2. THE GASSHO OF NO-MIND. This is the next most commonly used gassho. It is basically used in greeting one another or our teachers. In this position, the hands are held a little more loosely together, with a slight space between the palms, although the fingers still touch. The elevation of the elbows from the floor is not so great as in the Firm Gassho; forearms should be at approximately a 45-degree angle to the floor. This gassho has the effect of deepening one's state of samadhi.

~.~

In each of these gasshos, we keep the eyes focused upon the tips of our middle fingers. But regardless of the style or variety of the gassho, and in whatever setting it is being used, the fundamental point of the gassho is to be one with the Three Treasures: Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.

Of course, we can look at the Three Treasures from many perspectives, and with varying degrees of depth and clarity. At perhaps the most superficial level, the Three Treasures are seen as external objects of supreme reverence for all Buddhists. Unfortunately, in this view, the Three Treasures tend to be perceived as something other than oneself.

But as our vision opens up, we experience that each of us is, in fact, the Buddha. We see clearly that everything we encounter in the world is none other than the Dharma -- the functioning of underlying enlightenment. And, realizing the oneness of all beings, we come to realize that the Sangha -- the all-embracing brotherhood of practice -- is simply all composite things, including each of us. Having this awareness we become -- or rather, we /are/ -- one with the Three Treasures.

So, joining our hands palm to palm, we simultaneously create and express the absolute, the oneness which goes beyond all dichotomies. It is from this perspective that we make the gassho, and that we bow.

It is no ordinary person who bows; it is the Three Treasures recognizing itself in all things. If anyone thinks of himself as "just ordinary", he is, in effect, defaming the Three Treasures. And as we place our palms together we unite wisdom and samadhi, knowledge and truth, enlightenment and delusion.


Thank you V, and K.

I enjoyed also .

Every once in awhile, somehting sparkels in this mud of words that is the net.

fu

ps...To be clear, "Gassho" was not the "sparkel"

[Thomas Knierim]

Yes, interesting...

Reminds me a bit of the scholastic discussions of medieval philosophers. It seems that metaphysics is still a hotly debated field.

Oh, and... welcome back kowtaaia! It's been a while.

Cheers, Thomas

[kowtaaia]

V,

Point taken, but if you quote to back up what you're saying, it's your words in other words. How's that for an out? :)


fu*,

Specifically, "respect".


Thomas,

Thank you. It's good to be back.

[vicente]

kowtaaia: Point taken, but if you quote to back up what you're saying, it's your words in other words. How's that for an out?

You got me there Kow. LOL

Academics build their papers on a carefully constructed foundation of citation: Each paper reaches a conclusion by citing previously published papers as proof points that advance the author's argument. Papers are judged not only on their original thinking, but also on the number of papers they cite, the number of papers that subsequently cite them back, and the perceived importance of each citation. Citations are so important that there's even a branch of science devoted to their study: bibliometrics.

So what's the point? Well, it was Tim Berners-Lee's desire to improve this system that led him to create the World Wide Web. And it was Larry Page and Sergey Brin's attempts to reverse engineer Berners-Lee's World Wide Web that led to Google. The needle that threads these efforts together is citation - the practice of pointing to other people's work in order to build up your own.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/b...tw=wn_tophead_8 (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/battelle.html?tw=wn_tophead_8)

Vicente
:)

[deepakgang]

gosh ! everyone is qouting around...little bit confused here... :blink:

[scameter]

:D

[WilliamMckeehan]

:lol: