Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 "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. from: http://presentnonexistence.com/teacher/intro.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Hi Shawn, Thanks so much for the website. I know Master Nome -- he is an amazing fellow -- he and his partner Russell always make me laugh and cry when I visit their satsang -- it is amazing how much there is to say about nothing whatsoever. :-) I would respectfully disagree with Nome that the sense of a separate self or ego is "very strange:" just look around, ask someone what they do for a living; they will tell you all about them"selves" and "their" family and thank "you" for asking. The baby bites a blanket and nothing happens; it bites its finger and feels pain. Separateness seems to be a "very normal" part of our development. Even Maharshi felt "separate" before being blown out around age twelve. To recap my theme here, the fact that you and I are conversing proves there is a "you" and a "me." These egos change and develop as we change and develop. To the extent that we identify ourselves with an absolute Self, our egos will seem to be correspondingly transparent, in the sense of placing one's hand through a solid object. When no-one is home, there are no buttons to be pushed. Kind of like Commander Data in Star Trek, except that you still have feelings. So I'm suggesting a continuous, fluid, changing ego rather than the on / off model of relative / absolute conflationists and guru wannabes. metta, david. , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > > 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. > > from: > http://presentnonexistence.com/teacher/intro.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 on 1/16/03 3:51 PM, David King at david.king wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > Thanks so much for the website. I know Master Nome -- he is an amazing fellow > -- he and his partner Russell always make me laugh and cry when I visit their > satsang -- it is amazing how much there is to say about nothing whatsoever. > :-) According to your logic about "factual"...*it* must be something! > I would respectfully disagree with Nome that the sense of a separate self or > ego is "very strange:" just look around, ask someone what they do for a > living; they will tell you all about them"selves" and "their" family and thank > "you" for asking. The baby bites a blanket and nothing happens; it bites its > finger and feels pain. Separateness seems to be a "very normal" part of our > development. Even Maharshi felt "separate" before being blown out around age > twelve. Of coarse you *do* realise he was saying that the arising and how it arises is strange. Sages recommend the observance of the ego, not the condemnation of oneself. > To recap my theme here, the fact that you and I are conversing proves there is > a "you" and a "me." It does no such thing. > These egos change and develop as we change and develop. > To the extent that we identify ourselves with an absolute Self, our egos will > seem to be correspondingly transparent, in the sense of placing one's hand > through a solid object. When no-one is home, there are no buttons to be > pushed. Kind of like Commander Data in Star Trek, except that you still have > feelings. You can never say that you are not home! It must be a recording! > So I'm suggesting a continuous, fluid, changing ego rather than the on / off > model of relative / absolute conflationists and guru wannabes. > > metta, > david. A very wet concept. namaste, Shawn ps forgive my ignorance, but what does conflation mean? You seem to like the word, and I've never heard of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2003 Report Share Posted January 18, 2003 Hi Shawn, , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > on 1/16/03 3:51 PM, David King at david.king@p... wrote: > > > Thanks so much for the website. I know Master Nome -- he is an amazing fellow > > -- he and his partner Russell always make me laugh and cry when I visit their > > satsang -- it is amazing how much there is to say about nothing whatsoever. > > :-) > > According to your logic about "factual"...*it* must be something! OK, I think I hear what's going on. I talked with Jan about reductionism, and you seem to be doing the reverse, maybe it can be called elevationism. In reductionism (common in scientism), consciousness is reduced to neuronal interactions in the brain, just molecules and chemicals and dirt and other exteriors. In elevationism (common in conflationism , everything becomes mental, interior. Somehow you, Shawn, created my microwave oven. It is all in your consciousness. Remarkable. I agree with philosophers and theologians who hold both aspects of reality (interiors and exteriors) to be important. You argue, "But Dave, Ramana said 'The World is an Illusion'." True, but he was talking about the absolute, trying to boot his students to a realization of Ground Zero. An important difference between regular dreams and "waking dreams" is seen if you stand in front of a big moving truck. Your regular dream may continue but your "waking dream" will promptly end. In the absolute, "you" may happily go floating along in bardo, or whatever, but we will no longer be able to have these great conversations. So both interiors and exteriors are equally important dimensions of our relative world. > > I would respectfully disagree with Nome that the sense of a separate self or > > ego is "very strange:" just look around, ask someone what they do for a > > living; they will tell you all about them"selves" and "their" family and thank > > "you" for asking. The baby bites a blanket and nothing happens; it bites its > > finger and feels pain. Separateness seems to be a "very normal" part of our > > development. Even Maharshi felt "separate" before being blown out around age > > twelve. > > Of coarse you *do* realise he was saying that the arising and how it arises > is strange. Yes, and I am saying it is as natural as the arising of taste, sight, feeling, thoughts, all the other things that make us human. The universe is amazing but I wouldn't call it strange. > Sages recommend the observance of the ego, not the condemnation of oneself. Yes, as the amazing Sahahja's post said, you cannot destroy ego / self / "I"-sense -- it keeps coming back (whenever you type email -- but you can make it your servant, or to use a more modern term, make it your friend like the new book, Turning the Mind into an Ally, by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche describes. I don't understand your condemnation comment. Who do you feel is condemning whom? > > To recap my theme here, the fact that you and I are conversing proves there is > > a "you" and a "me." > > It does no such thing. There seems to be a disagreement. This must be Self disagreeing with Self. ;-) > > These egos change and develop as we change and develop. > > To the extent that we identify ourselves with an absolute Self, our egos will > > seem to be correspondingly transparent, in the sense of placing one's hand > > through a solid object. When no-one is home, there are no buttons to be > > pushed. Kind of like Commander Data in Star Trek, except that you still have > > feelings. > > You can never say that you are not home! I can never say that "You are not home?" Sorry, maybe you misunderstood me. When I say "no-one is home," I'm referring to the absolute situation where you rest in utter selflessness, egolessness. No "Shawn" is home. No "Dave" is home. > It must be a recording! ? > > So I'm suggesting a continuous, fluid, changing ego rather than the on / off > > model of relative / absolute conflationists and guru wannabes. > > A very wet concept. Thank you for the thoughtful, considered reply. Think about it. You know I'm right. ;-) > ps forgive my ignorance, but what does conflation mean? You seem to like > the word, and I've never heard of it! Conflate means to confuse two different things as the same. For example, in reductionism or elevationism discussed above, and also sometimes in common speech, mind and brain are conflated. Mind is interior, brain is exterior (and some argue you can't have one without the other but that's another topic). regards, david. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2003 Report Share Posted January 20, 2003 on 1/18/03 4:32 PM, David King <david.king at david.king wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: >> on 1/16/03 3:51 PM, David King at david.king@p... wrote: >> >>> Thanks so much for the website. I know Master Nome -- he is an > amazing fellow >>> -- he and his partner Russell always make me laugh and cry when > I visit their >>> satsang -- it is amazing how much there is to say about nothing > whatsoever. >>> :-) >> >> According to your logic about "factual"...*it* must be something! > > OK, I think I hear what's going on. > > I talked with Jan about reductionism, and you seem to be doing the > reverse, maybe it can be called elevationism. > > In reductionism (common in scientism), consciousness is reduced to > neuronal interactions in the brain, just molecules and chemicals and > dirt and other exteriors. > > In elevationism (common in conflationism , everything becomes > mental, interior. Somehow you, Shawn, created my microwave oven. > It is all in your consciousness. Remarkable. > > I agree with philosophers and theologians who hold both aspects of > reality (interiors and exteriors) to be important. > > You argue, "But Dave, Ramana said 'The World is an Illusion'." > > True, but he was talking about the absolute, trying to boot his > students to a realization of Ground Zero. An important difference > between regular dreams and "waking dreams" is seen if you stand in > front of a big moving truck. Your regular dream may continue but > your "waking dream" will promptly end. In the absolute, "you" may > happily go floating along in bardo, or whatever, but we will no > longer be able to have these great conversations. > > So both interiors and exteriors are equally important dimensions of > our relative world. > >>> I would respectfully disagree with Nome that the sense of a > separate self or >>> ego is "very strange:" just look around, ask someone what they > do for a >>> living; they will tell you all about them"selves" and "their" > family and thank >>> "you" for asking. The baby bites a blanket and nothing happens; > it bites its >>> finger and feels pain. Separateness seems to be a "very normal" > part of our >>> development. Even Maharshi felt "separate" before being blown > out around age >>> twelve. >> >> Of coarse you *do* realise he was saying that the arising and how >> it arises >> is strange. > > Yes, and I am saying it is as natural as the arising of taste, > sight, feeling, thoughts, all the other things that make us human. > The universe is amazing but I wouldn't call it strange. Dave, I am not arguing that it is unnatural and Nome isn't either. He's saying (IIMBSB) that it is a curious process. It is like you make a hat and then call it "you." Then the "hat you" refers to you as "his" posession! "Look, I've got a person attached to my butt!" How's that for modern new ways to say it! ( I for 1 am not impressed) >> Sages recommend the observance of the ego, not the condemnation of >> oneself. > > Yes, as the amazing Sahahja's post said, you cannot destroy ego / > self / "I"-sense -- it keeps coming back (whenever you type > email -- but you can make it your servant, or to use a more > modern term, make it your friend like the new book, Turning the Mind > into an Ally, by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche describes. > > I don't understand your condemnation comment. Who do you feel is > condemning whom? I said that because I got the feeling you were "defending" the egoic view as natural when the fact of it's apparent naturalness is not in question. >>> To recap my theme here, the fact that you and I are conversing > proves there is >>> a "you" and a "me." >> >> It does no such thing. > > There seems to be a disagreement. This must be Self disagreeing > with Self. ;-) >>> These egos change and develop as we change and develop. >>> To the extent that we identify ourselves with an absolute Self, > our egos will >>> seem to be correspondingly transparent, in the sense of placing > one's hand >>> through a solid object. When no-one is home, there are no > buttons to be >>> pushed. Kind of like Commander Data in Star Trek, except that > you still have >>> feelings. >> >> You can never say that you are not home! > > I can never say that "You are not home?" > > Sorry, maybe you misunderstood me. When I say "no-one is home," I'm > referring to the absolute situation where you rest in utter > selflessness, egolessness. No "Shawn" is home. No "Dave" is home. It is a concept! "Dave" is just a bundle of memories and preferences. But the fact of your existence cannot be denied. If you can say "I am dead," then obviously, you are not. >> It must be a recording! > > ? > >>> So I'm suggesting a continuous, fluid, changing ego rather than > the on / off >>> model of relative / absolute conflationists and guru wannabes. >> >> A very wet concept. > > Thank you for the thoughtful, considered reply. > > Think about it. You know I'm right. ;-) Yes! Of coarse! Who cares if it is claylike? What is the point? I don't understand, on-off? What are you talking about? For give me, I know not what you mean? Of coarse the ego is everchanging, it fears it's demise, and uses every experience as more knowledge to protect it. It might be better to talk of the ego as an activity, not an entity. >> ps forgive my ignorance, but what does conflation mean? You > seem to like >> the word, and I've never heard of it! > > Conflate means to confuse two different things as the same. For > example, in reductionism or elevationism discussed above, and also > sometimes in common speech, mind and brain are conflated. Mind is > interior, brain is exterior (and some argue you can't have one > without the other but that's another topic). ....and some might say the brain is in the mind! > regards, > david. Peace King David I love this pretending to know stuff. Shawn 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.