Nome-going upstream

[Guest guest]

"my" consciousness

------

------

 

cee: i kept trying to figure out how "my" consciousness is the same as

everyone elses, but, if the "my" dissolves, that is not really a question.

 

 

 

nome: here's a funny thing. within the limitlessness of your own

consciousness, where we really don't see a boundary or a size or shape,

within that consciousness there appears as it were a wave an illusion of

certain ideas. one of those ideas is "i", some of those ideas make up what

you commonly call a personality or a mind-- whatever seems to mark you off

as a separate being.

 

you are the consciousness and you have these ideas of a separate being, and

then marvelously enough you imagine you stand as the separate being and

refer to the consciousness as if it were your possession. isn't that a funny

thing? that's very strange.

 

first we set something apart from ourselves, then we step into it as if it

were ourselves. and look back at ourselves, thinking that we are a stranger

to ourselves. but none of that is true, none of that is actually happening.

there is really no such thing as "my consciousness" or "your consciousness".

"mineyour" etcetera, these are just ideas, and all ideas or thoughts are

inert.

 

the consciousness is the living part. now if you look right directly into

your consciousness it doesn't have an "i" or a "you" or a "yours" or

anything else like that.

 

upstream of all thought, in your consciousness where you know nothing other,

where you know no thing whatsoever,

 

there is no illusion.

[Guest guest]

, shawn <shawn@w...> wrote:

> "my" consciousness

> ------

> ------

>

> cee: i kept trying to figure out how "my" consciousness is the same as

> everyone elses, but, if the "my" dissolves, that is not really a

question.

 

The "my" doesn't need to be dissolved as much as be seen

for what it is, non-existent.

 

[snip]

[Guest guest]

, "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr> wrote:

>The "my" doesn't need to be dissolved as much as be seen

for what it is, non-existent.

 

 

 

))) yes, and then things and no-things

get rather playful with each other!

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

b