Guest guest Posted March 14, 2002 Report Share Posted March 14, 2002 Usually, realizing involves a subjective change of awareness, allowing something to be made real due to new comprehension. Whatever is made real by way of new comprehension, depends on the subjective awareness which is doing the comprehending. If this subjective comprehension is changed due to illness, trauma, or death -- the realization is lost. What then can be said about realization that transcends loss? Such realization doesn't depend on subjective awareness. And without subjective awareness, there is no object. Neither a gross object (such as a computer) nor a refined or subtle object (such as "love"). We can say that such realization is not subject, not object. Once we affirm what it is, we supply subjectivity with an object. Having negated subjectivity and objectivity, what is left? There is no negator to be found, nor an outcome for a preceding process. There is no religion involved here, no teacher, nor teaching. But saying that there is no teacher or teaching is merely an idea held by a subjective awareness. To transcend that very subjectivity -- this is beyond explanation ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > Usually, realizing involves a subjective > change of awareness, allowing something > to be made real due to new comprehension. In the good old days it was "awareness" that was supposedly realized. Did you mean to say: subjective change of mind or consciousness,etc.? Or is awareness also now on the hit list? :-) Trying to keep up with the languaging here. Ed > > Whatever is made real by way of new comprehension, > depends on the subjective awareness which is > doing the comprehending. > > If this subjective comprehension is changed > due to illness, trauma, or death -- the realization > is lost. > > What then can be said about realization that > transcends loss? > > Such realization doesn't depend on subjective > awareness. And without subjective awareness, > there is no object. Neither a gross object (such > as a computer) nor a refined or subtle object (such as "love"). > > We can say that such realization is not subject, not object. > > Once we affirm what it is, we supply subjectivity with > an object. > > Having negated subjectivity and objectivity, > what is left? There is no negator to be found, > nor an outcome for a preceding process. > > There is no religion involved here, no teacher, nor > teaching. > > But saying that there is no teacher or teaching is > merely an idea held by a subjective awareness. > > To transcend that very subjectivity -- this is > beyond explanation ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 --- dan330033 wrote: > Usually, realizing involves a subjective > change of awareness, allowing something > to be made real due to new comprehension. > > Whatever is made real by way of new comprehension, > depends on the subjective awareness which is > doing the comprehending. > > If this subjective comprehension is changed > due to illness, trauma, or death -- the > realization > is lost. > > What then can be said about realization that > transcends loss? > > Such realization doesn't depend on subjective > awareness. And without subjective awareness, > there is no object. Neither a gross object (such > as a computer) nor a refined or subtle object > (such as "love"). > > We can say that such realization is not subject, not > object. > > Once we affirm what it is, we supply subjectivity > with > an object. > > Having negated subjectivity and objectivity, > what is left? There is no negator to be found, > nor an outcome for a preceding process. > > There is no religion involved here, no teacher, nor > teaching. > > But saying that there is no teacher or teaching is > merely an idea held by a subjective awareness. > > To transcend that very subjectivity -- this is > beyond explanation ... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 , "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote: > , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > Usually, realizing involves a subjective > > change of awareness, allowing something > > to be made real due to new comprehension. > > In the good old days it was "awareness" that > was supposedly realized. Did you mean to say: > subjective change of mind or consciousness,etc.? > > Or is awareness also now on the hit list? :-) > > Trying to keep up with the languaging here. > > Ed Hi Ed -- A subjective shift in awareness might be labeled as "I've realized awareness." Along with that enjoyment of a subjective shift might come labeling of those whose subjectivities seem to have shifted as "realizers." Here's the limitation involved: Reality beyond gain and loss isn't just beyond physical or intellectual gains and losses -- it's also beyond subjective gains by shifting awareness. There's not a hit list. There is recognition of the limits of subjectivity, and "what transcends loss" isn't one's subjectivity, nor is it in any way an object. Namaste, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > , "stillpointed" <eea@a...> wrote: > > , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > > Usually, realizing involves a subjective > > > change of awareness, allowing something > > > to be made real due to new comprehension. > > > > In the good old days it was "awareness" that > > was supposedly realized. Did you mean to say: > > subjective change of mind or consciousness,etc.? > > > > Or is awareness also now on the hit list? :-) > > > > Trying to keep up with the languaging here. > > > > Ed > > Hi Ed -- > > A subjective shift in awareness might > be labeled as "I've realized awareness." Hey Smiley Dan :-) The point I was making about "awareness" in the "good old days" is that awareness by that understanding c/would not, did not *shift.* Awareness simply IS. If anything shifted at all it was the self shifting to, or becoming, the awareness that always is. So maybe you are saying the same thing. Would a shift from perception to awareness be more accurate? Or even a shift *to* awareness. See what I'm saying? Or do I get demoted to nonduality 101. :-) or get to wear the nondual dunce cap. :-) Sheesh...when will I ever pay off my student loan? Stunted student > Along with that enjoyment of a subjective > shift might come labeling of those > whose subjectivities seem to have shifted > as "realizers." > > Here's the limitation involved: > Reality beyond gain and loss isn't just > beyond physical or intellectual gains > and losses -- it's also beyond subjective > gains by shifting awareness. > > There's not a hit list. > > There is recognition of the limits of subjectivity, > and "what transcends loss" isn't one's subjectivity, > nor is it in any way an object. > > Namaste, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 > Hey Smiley Dan :-) Hiya NopointEd One! :-) > The point I was making about "awareness" in the "good old days" > is that awareness by that understanding c/would not, did not *shift.* > Awareness simply IS. Yes. I know. But saying, "I now know 'Awareness simply IS'" is a subjective shift. Now, I get it. Yes? And people want to make this shift, they want to know what it's like to know that "Awareness simply IS" and they venerate people who seem to have subjectively become aware that "Awareness simply IS." We are still within the range of subjectivity, the subjectivity that now knows "Awareness simply IS" ... > If anything shifted at all it was the self > shifting to, or becoming, the awareness that always is. So maybe > you are saying the same thing. Would a shift from perception to > awareness be more accurate? Or even a shift *to* awareness. > See what I'm saying? Yes, I sure do. And what I'm saying is that awareness is a convenient label, until it's totally clear that "awareness" is not in any way even an approximation. Awareness implies subjectivity, and it's not subjectivity, any more than it's in any way objectifiable. And yes, we need to use words to communicate. And all words have dualistic implications. And with that understood, I would like to communicate that subjectivity, awareness is merely what you have as your object when you've released contents from awareness. And that awareness is itself a contentless content, which is released as there is no subjectivity whatsoever. And thus, no objectivity whatsoever. > Or do I get demoted to nonduality 101. :-) No, you get promoted to non-nonduality :-) > or get to wear the nondual dunce cap. :-) You get to wear without wearying or wearing out :-) > Sheesh...when will I ever pay off my student loan? Just don't get fooled by anything anyone says. Then, all bets are off, and all loans, too ... > Stunted student I don't buy that for a second :-) Peace, Dansmile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > Hey Smiley Dan :-) > > Hiya NopointEd One! :-) > > > The point I was making about "awareness" in the "good old days" > > is that awareness by that understanding c/would not, did not *shift.* > > Awareness simply IS. > > Yes. I know. > > But saying, "I now know 'Awareness simply IS'" is > a subjective shift. Now, I get it. Yes? > > And people want to make this shift, they want to > know what it's like to know that "Awareness simply IS" > and they venerate people who seem to have subjectively > become aware that "Awareness simply IS." > > We are still within the range of subjectivity, > the subjectivity that now knows "Awareness simply IS" ... > > > If anything shifted at all it was the self > > shifting to, or becoming, the awareness that always is. So maybe > > you are saying the same thing. Would a shift from perception to > > awareness be more accurate? Or even a shift *to* awareness. > > See what I'm saying? > > Yes, I sure do. > > And what I'm saying is that awareness is a > convenient label, until it's totally clear > that "awareness" is not in any way even an approximation. > > Awareness implies subjectivity, and it's not subjectivity, > any more than it's in any way objectifiable. > > And yes, we need to use words to communicate. And all > words have dualistic implications. And with that understood, > I would like to communicate that subjectivity, awareness > is merely what you have as your object when you've released > contents from awareness. And that awareness is itself > a contentless content, which is released as there is > no subjectivity whatsoever. And thus, no objectivity > whatsoever. > > > Or do I get demoted to nonduality 101. :-) > > No, you get promoted to non-nonduality :-) > > > or get to wear the nondual dunce cap. :-) > > You get to wear without wearying or wearing out :-) > > > Sheesh...when will I ever pay off my student loan? > > Just don't get fooled by anything anyone says. > > Then, all bets are off, and all loans, too ... Speaking of bets, i'd be willing to wager your folks wanted you to go to law school, but you said: nah I'd rather bring those rogue nondualists to justthis. Case dismissED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 > Speaking of bets, i'd be willing to wager your folks > wanted you to go to law school, but you said: nah I'd > rather bring those rogue nondualists to justthis. > > Case dismissED Omigod! Did you really just say that? Most excellent! I refuse to take the stand, on the grounds that I may incinerate myself. On second thought, I'll take the stand and the grounds ... Off to see the WizenEd One, DanGling Participle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 , "dan330033" <dan330033> wrote: > > Speaking of bets, i'd be willing to wager your folks > > wanted you to go to law school, but you said: nah I'd > > rather bring those rogue nondualists to justthis. > > > > Case dismissED > > Omigod! > > Did you really just say that? > > Most excellent! > > I refuse to take the stand, > on the grounds that I may > incinerate myself. > > On second thought, I'll take > the stand and the grounds ... Pleading the fifth dimension, eh? It figures. :-) > Off to see the WizenEd One, > DanGling Participle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.