Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 Hello All, Sometimes when we begin to think about the problem of consciousness we are seduced by the clear as day certainty that every awareness is a presentation to my consciousness and is therefore in my consciousness. Thus we find ourselves trapped inside the magic chalk circle of our own mind with an external world that is mediated by sense data, images and perceptions. What's wrong with that, it sounds perfectly scientific? - Too early closure, you've locked the doors and secured the windows but hey, Freddy (solipsism) is in the wardrobe! What is more difficult to understand than that, is that my awareness of something, is of that thing as it is in its own being because its own being is consciousness as is mine. However the problem here is that 'being consciousness' or unitive consciousness or non-dual consciousness is of a different order to normal awareness. It is this unitive consciousness which is known as the witness in Advaita and because it is of a different order it escapes the problem of infinite regress which Eugene has hinted at. There is a witness protection program involving disinformation, birth and death certificates. I'd better stop, I don't recognise everyone in the snip salad but if you think it applies to you ....cross talk can generate new ideas, Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: <snip> > Hi Eugene: > > Warwick is probably laughing right now. Thinking what a mess I have > gotten myself into. Hi Bobby G. What Warwick is doing is Warwicks business...LOL > > There are two I's. I and "II". Just to be clear, you can think of > the I but not the "II". But to really thrash a dead horse, the first > is the mind's image of the second. OK...but my question is, which of "the two I's", that you declare to be so, conjures up which? In other words which is posting this theory of two I's? > > > > And "the World" that this not the "real you" is in relationship > > > > with...real or not? > > > > > > > > > This is not clear. If you meant "And the world that this not the > > > real you is in relationship with...is it real or not?", I could > try > > > to answer. No. That relationship is a mental or abstract > > structure, > > > the opposite of concrete. > > > > So it's not real...OK...gee, for something not real these two, the > > not self idea and the mental, abstract, opposite of concrete world > > sure gets alot of press don't they...LOL > > When someone believes there is a real world (objective world)that one > either sees correctly or does not, he makes an error that affects > every judgment. A world view that allows for another's world view > will allow that there is no objective world which "should" be viewed > in a certain way. > I think this is where the spritual philosophy muddles the actual point of inquirey(if that is the point). Where, when and how the mind (which I'll call the 2nd I) apparently abstracts what Is into multiple, nebulous, impersonal personages (someone 'else') believing something, as if I Am(I-I) is not right now as if the "false" I truly is. This mysterious, yet apparent second I postulates theories on it's own existance, which is by admission not real. It's seeing is self diagnosed as incorrect vs. it's own view of correct which is admittedly flase from the start. "You've been a liar rom the begining" said an old wine biber and whore chaser. > The press is full of examples of the "objective world" point of view. I was not speaking of the press. I was refering to spiritual practices, teachings etc. that explain, assuage, overcome, still or kill, transform or "realize" something that is not real. > > > > > > > > > What supports this relationship? > > > > What is it made of? > > > > > > The infinite world ground or potential. Prakriti is the Sanskrit > > > word. I.19 and IV.2 of the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali. IV. 1-19 is > > > particularly good. > > > > > > Many various thoughts and structures can be built on the > available > > > potetial raw material of the perceptions. Some are filled with > > > contradictions and collapse. When a set of ideas is sufficiently > > > elaborate and not too contradictory, people can share it and be > > > understood, even convincing. > > > > yes...LOL...so you're saying the source of the relationship is > > the "raw material of perception"? > > Yes, the Self. Why shouldn't the whole thing have an identity. It > seems like I do. > Should or shouldn't isn't really a valid question to me. Is or is not seems more aprropriate in the context of realization. Of course if the context is theoretical discussion real has no actual application. :-)))) > > > > > > > > > > Nice chatting > > > Love > > > Bobby G. > > > > Cheers > > thnaks for letting me play > > Eugene > > Many yuks, > Love > Bobby G. Bon jour thanks Eugene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > Hello All, > > Sometimes when we begin to think about the problem of consciousness we are > seduced by the clear as day certainty that every awareness is a > presentation to my consciousness and is therefore in my consciousness. > Thus we find ourselves trapped inside the magic chalk circle of our own > mind with an external world that is mediated by sense data, images and > perceptions. What's wrong with that, it sounds perfectly scientific? - > Too early closure, you've locked the doors and secured the windows but hey, > Freddy (solipsism) is in the wardrobe! Hi Michael: I don't think we have talked but I am glad for the chance. You seem to have a good sense of humor about these things. Being a Gomer in the middle of Texas I sort of have to have one. Solipsism is not my doctrine. I don't see isolation as a necessary conclusion of the ideas already discussed in this thread, except as the Aloneness of Being, which is expansion and not reduction. > > What is more difficult to understand than that, is that my awareness of > something, is of that thing as it is in its own being because its own being > is consciousness as is mine. Seeing the world as only in the mind is textbook Semantic Solipsism. That view, though, would be held only by people who believe there is indeed an objective world of parts and boundaries and not by the Advaitist. The problems occur when thinking of the "Whole" as dualistic with the "world of parts" as it's counterpart or opposite. Existentially this does not have to occur, but in communicating it is usually an unfortunate biproduct. In the world of ideas the idea of the whole is naturally the opposite of the idea of the parts. However the problem here is that 'being > consciousness' or unitive consciousness or non-dual consciousness is of a > different order to normal awareness. It is this unitive consciousness > which is known as the witness in Advaita and because it is of a different > order it escapes the problem of infinite regress which Eugene has hinted > at. I do not see unitive consciousness as of a different order than normal awareness. Normal awareness is not consciousness at all, except when one speaks of consciousness as being awake as opposed to being asleep. That is just a different definition of consciousness and not another order of it. Unitive Consciousness must be identical to the boundariless whole or the Whole cannot be said to be Consciousness. I am that. Love Bobby G. > > There is a witness protection program involving disinformation, birth and > death certificates. I'd better stop, I don't recognise everyone in the > snip salad but if you think it applies to you ....cross talk can generate > new ideas, > > Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 , "E. J. Shearn" <ejs22_2000> wrote: > , "texasbg2000" > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > <snip> > > Hi Eugene: > > > > Warwick is probably laughing right now. Thinking what a mess I > have > > gotten myself into. > > > Hi Bobby G. > What Warwick is doing is Warwicks business...LOL Hey hey hey, Eugene: > > > > > There are two I's. I and "II". Just to be clear, you can think of > > the I but not the "II". But to really thrash a dead horse, the > first > > is the mind's image of the second. > > > OK...but my question is, which of "the two I's", that you declare to > be so, conjures up which? In other words which is posting this theory > of two I's? Karma is the bugger who conjures everything. "Maya", the great Illusion, is the overview of the karmic involvement. Everything in the world is in context with the world and that includes the "I", not the "II". Remember, the "II" is only subject and never object. > And "the World" that this not the "real you" is in relationship > > > > > with...real or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not clear. If you meant "And the world that this not > the > > > > real you is in relationship with...is it real or not?", I could > > try > > > > to answer. No. That relationship is a mental or abstract > > > structure, > > > > the opposite of concrete. > > > > > > So it's not real...OK...gee, for something not real these two, > the > > > not self idea and the mental, abstract, opposite of concrete > world > > > sure gets alot of press don't they...LOL > > > > When someone believes there is a real world (objective world)that > one > > either sees correctly or does not, he makes an error that affects > > every judgment. A world view that allows for another's world view > > will allow that there is no objective world which "should" be > viewed > > in a certain way. > > > > > I think this is where the spritual philosophy muddles the actual > point of inquirey(if that is the point). Where, when and how the mind > (which I'll call the 2nd I) apparently abstracts what Is into > multiple, nebulous, impersonal personages (someone 'else') believing > something, as if I Am(I-I) is not right now as if the "false" I truly > is. This mysterious, yet apparent second I postulates theories on > it's own existance, which is by admission not real. It's seeing is > self diagnosed as incorrect vs. it's own view of correct which is > admittedly flase from the start. > "You've been a liar rom the begining" said an old wine biber and > whore chaser. An Advaitic sage wrote about the succesion which leads to understanding how this works. The eye sees the bird. (The eye is subject and the bird is object.) The mind perceives the eye. (The mind is subject and the eye is now object.) The mind (the I) with its thoughts is perceived by the Self (the "II").(The mind is now object with the Self as subject.) The Self cannot be object, not being perceived by anything else. > > > > > The press is full of examples of the "objective world" point of > view. > > > I was not speaking of the press. I was refering to spiritual > practices, teachings etc. that explain, assuage, overcome, still or > kill, transform or "realize" something that is not real. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What supports this relationship? > > > > > What is it made of? > > > > > > > > The infinite world ground or potential. Prakriti is the > Sanskrit > > > > word. I.19 and IV.2 of the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali. IV. 1-19 > is > > > > particularly good. > > > > > > > > Many various thoughts and structures can be built on the > > available > > > > potetial raw material of the perceptions. Some are filled with > > > > contradictions and collapse. When a set of ideas is > sufficiently > > > > elaborate and not too contradictory, people can share it and be > > > > understood, even convincing. > > > > > > yes...LOL...so you're saying the source of the relationship is > > > the "raw material of perception"? > > > > Yes, the Self. Why shouldn't the whole thing have an identity. It > > seems like I do. > > > > Should or shouldn't isn't really a valid question to me. Is or is not > seems more aprropriate in the context of realization. Of course if > the context is theoretical discussion real has no actual application. > :-)))) The point was that that is why it is called a Self. Identity accrues to the whole when being spoken about by a part which assumes identity. (I). You're tough, Eugene. Love Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice chatting > > > > Love > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > Cheers > > > thnaks for letting me play > > > Eugene > > > > Many yuks, > > Love > > Bobby G. > > Bon jour > thanks > Eugene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> <snip> > > However the problem here is that 'being > > consciousness' or unitive consciousness or non-dual consciousness > is of a > > different order to normal awareness. It is this unitive > consciousness > > which is known as the witness in Advaita and because it is of a > different > > order it escapes the problem of infinite regress which Eugene has > hinted > > at. > > I do not see unitive consciousness as of a different order than > normal awareness. > Normal awareness is not consciousness at all, except when one speaks > of > consciousness as being awake as opposed to being asleep. > That is just a different definition of consciousness and not another > order of it. Unitive Consciousness must be identical to the > boundariless > whole or the Whole cannot be said to be Consciousness. > > I am that. > > Love > Bobby G. > Hi Guys Thanks While I would agree with Bobby G. (is it a goober or a gomer? LOL) that normal awareness and whatever name is used to refer to non-dual consciousness (whatever) are not two, they seem to be two from a seeming "outsider's" view or different from the seeker of it, which I think is I #2 in Bobby's cosmology. Because it's idenity is as a separate or dualistic thing, so is all that it thinks, sees does etc, in mind, body and action. But only within it's limited context, which it makes up. :-) But there is an admission that it is false, illusory, ignorance, maya, dream, samsara etc. Yet in it's own "incorrect" (as Bobby put's it) view/judgment/ descimination it sees false as true, what's not there as there and doesn't see what Is here as Self or Consciousness. Wholey being conscious from within it's idea of self, it's delusion is total becuase non-duality is reguardless. And so it does seem a different order, but from what? An illusion. But there can be no true comparitive relationship between what Is and what is not that isn't dualistic and therefore false. What is not, is not, really, is not at all. Which is why individual awakening is a myth, probably propogated by a seperate mind as a way to attempt to co-opt reality as it's own or to get laid or rich or something....LOL Individuality is awoken from... In other words, Consciousness is another name for Awareness just as existance and being are synonamous. I Am That, Brahman is Atman, Buddha is Mind are redunancies, only pointers that somehow became "true" doctrine. And in fact or probably at least, only the names, distinctions, capital letters and measurements etc., which are also or can only be That/This/Mind/Brahman etc. funnily enuff, make Mind into mind, That into this, I-I into I, or even I into declaring That I am, too, but not two...LOL...shit look at this crap! LOL..where's Warwick when I need him? Love you Guys Eugene > > > > > There is a witness protection program involving disinformation, > birth and > > death certificates. I'd better stop, I don't recognise everyone > in the > > snip salad but if you think it applies to you ....cross talk can > generate > > new ideas, > > > > Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > , "E. J. Shearn" > <ejs22_2000> wrote: > > , "texasbg2000" > > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Hi Eugene: > > > > > > Warwick is probably laughing right now. Thinking what a mess I > > have > > > gotten myself into. > > > > > > Hi Bobby G. > > What Warwick is doing is Warwicks business...LOL > > > Hey hey hey, Eugene: > > > > > > > > > There are two I's. I and "II". Just to be clear, you can think > of > > > the I but not the "II". But to really thrash a dead horse, the > > first > > > is the mind's image of the second. > > > > > > OK...but my question is, which of "the two I's", that you declare > to > > be so, conjures up which? In other words which is posting this > theory > > of two I's? > > > Karma is the bugger who conjures everything. "Maya", the great > Illusion, is the overview of the karmic involvement. Everything in > the world is in context with the world and that includes the "I", not > the "II". Remember, the "II" is only subject and never object. Hi B.G I disagree...subject and object are polarities conjured by and from a particular point(a subjective object seeing object objects or "I" am this defining that) of measuring measurment. The Self can not be either subject or object since niether exist without each other. This is what Michael, I think, was speaking about as "a different order" of Consciousness. Non-conceptual awarness includes conceptual but is not that at all. > > > And "the World" that this not the "real you" is in relationship > > > > > > with...real or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not clear. If you meant "And the world that this not > > the > > > > > real you is in relationship with...is it real or not?", I > could > > > try > > > > > to answer. No. That relationship is a mental or abstract > > > > structure, > > > > > the opposite of concrete. > > > > > > > > So it's not real...OK...gee, for something not real these two, > > the > > > > not self idea and the mental, abstract, opposite of concrete > > world > > > > sure gets alot of press don't they...LOL > > > > > > When someone believes there is a real world (objective world) that > > one > > > either sees correctly or does not, he makes an error that affects > > > every judgment. A world view that allows for another's world > view > > > will allow that there is no objective world which "should" be > > viewed > > > in a certain way. > > > > > > > > > I think this is where the spritual philosophy muddles the actual > > point of inquirey(if that is the point). Where, when and how the > mind > > (which I'll call the 2nd I) apparently abstracts what Is into > > multiple, nebulous, impersonal personages (someone 'else') > believing > > something, as if I Am(I-I) is not right now as if the "false" I > truly > > is. This mysterious, yet apparent second I postulates theories on > > it's own existance, which is by admission not real. It's seeing is > > self diagnosed as incorrect vs. it's own view of correct which is > > admittedly flase from the start. > > "You've been a liar rom the begining" said an old wine biber and > > whore chaser. > > An Advaitic sage wrote about the succesion which leads to > understanding how this works. > > The eye sees the bird. (The eye is subject and the bird is object.) > > The mind perceives the eye. (The mind is subject and the eye is now > object.) > > The mind (the I) with its thoughts is perceived by the Self > (the "II").(The mind is now object with the Self as subject.) > > The Self cannot be object, not being perceived by anything else. Who cares about dusty old doctrine or the words of stinky dead sages (unless you do in which case forgive me). By saying Self is subject or even that it cannot be an object, you are calling it an object. The Self can be Known I suppose but why mess around with capitals and stuff? The Self is, now, you...how 'bout we say screw it to all the ratification and fillerbustering of I's or even I-I's...LOL > > > > > > > > > > The press is full of examples of the "objective world" point of > > view. > > > > > > I was not speaking of the press. I was refering to spiritual > > practices, teachings etc. that explain, assuage, overcome, still or > > kill, transform or "realize" something that is not real. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What supports this relationship? > > > > > > What is it made of? > > > > > > > > > > The infinite world ground or potential. Prakriti is the > > Sanskrit > > > > > word. I.19 and IV.2 of the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali. IV. 1- 19 > > is > > > > > particularly good. > > > > > > > > > > Many various thoughts and structures can be built on the > > > available > > > > > potetial raw material of the perceptions. Some are filled > with > > > > > contradictions and collapse. When a set of ideas is > > sufficiently > > > > > elaborate and not too contradictory, people can share it and > be > > > > > understood, even convincing. > > > > > > > > yes...LOL...so you're saying the source of the relationship is > > > > the "raw material of perception"? > > > > > > Yes, the Self. Why shouldn't the whole thing have an identity. > It > > > seems like I do. > > > > > > > Should or shouldn't isn't really a valid question to me. Is or is > not > > seems more aprropriate in the context of realization. Of course if > > the context is theoretical discussion real has no actual > application. > > :-)))) > > The point was that that is why it is called a Self. Identity accrues > to the whole when being spoken about by a part which assumes > identity. (I). > Ok..I don't know what that means as my usage of so many concepts of my own in the last hour has gotten my intelect dulled to a nub...LOL I think I'll go outside and breath or something. :-)))) > You're tough, Eugene. > Love > Bobby G. I'm not tough, just too big for my own britches :-))) love Eugene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice chatting > > > > > Love > > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > thnaks for letting me play > > > > Eugene > > > > > > Many yuks, > > > Love > > > Bobby G. > > > > Bon jour > > thanks > > Eugene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 , "E. J. Shearn" <ejs22_2000> wrote: > , "texasbg2000" > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > , ombhurbhuva > <ombhurbhuva@e...> > > <snip> > > > > However the problem here is that 'being > > > consciousness' or unitive consciousness or non-dual > consciousness > > is of a > > > different order to normal awareness. It is this unitive > > consciousness > > > which is known as the witness in Advaita and because it is of a > > different > > > order it escapes the problem of infinite regress which Eugene > has > > hinted > > > at. > > > > I do not see unitive consciousness as of a different order than > > normal awareness. > > Normal awareness is not consciousness at all, except when one > speaks > > of > > consciousness as being awake as opposed to being asleep. > > That is just a different definition of consciousness and not > another > > order of it. Unitive Consciousness must be identical to the > > boundariless > > whole or the Whole cannot be said to be Consciousness. > > > > I am that. > > > > Love > > Bobby G. > > > > Hi Guys > Thanks > While I would agree with Bobby G. (is it a goober or a gomer? LOL) > that normal awareness and whatever name is used to refer to non- dual > consciousness (whatever) are not two, they seem to be two from a > seeming "outsider's" view or different from the seeker of it, which I > think is I #2 in Bobby's cosmology. > Because it's idenity is as a separate or dualistic thing, so is all > that it thinks, sees does etc, in mind, body and action. > But only within it's limited context, which it makes up. :-) > But there is an admission that it is false, illusory, ignorance, > maya, dream, samsara etc. > Yet in it's own "incorrect" (as Bobby put's it) view/judgment/ > descimination it sees false as true, what's not there as there and > doesn't see what Is here as Self or Consciousness. > Wholey being conscious from within it's idea of self, it's delusion > is total becuase non-duality is reguardless. > And so it does seem a different order, but from what? > An illusion. > But there can be no true comparitive relationship between what Is and > what is not that isn't dualistic and therefore false. What is not, is > not, really, is not at all. Which is why individual awakening is a > myth, probably propogated by a seperate mind as a way to attempt to > co-opt reality as it's own or to get laid or rich or something....LOL > Individuality is awoken from... > In other words, Consciousness is another name for Awareness just as > existance and being are synonamous. > I Am That, Brahman is Atman, Buddha is Mind are redunancies, only > pointers that somehow became "true" doctrine. > And in fact or probably at least, only the names, distinctions, > capital letters and measurements etc., which are also or can only be > That/This/Mind/Brahman etc. funnily enuff, make Mind into mind, That > into this, I-I into I, or even I into declaring That I am, too, > but not two...LOL...shit look at this crap! > LOL..where's Warwick when I need him? > Love you Guys > Eugene > Yes all that too. Nice prose there Eu. Love Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > There is a witness protection program involving disinformation, > > birth and > > > death certificates. I'd better stop, I don't recognise everyone > > in the > > > snip salad but if you think it applies to you ....cross talk can > > generate > > > new ideas, > > > > > > Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 In other words which is posting this > > theory > > > of two I's? > > > > > > Karma is the bugger who conjures everything. "Maya", the great > > Illusion, is the overview of the karmic involvement. Everything in > > the world is in context with the world and that includes the "I", > not > > the "II". Remember, the "II" is only subject and never object. > > Hi B.G > I disagree...subject and object are polarities conjured by and from a > particular point(a subjective object seeing object objects or "I" am > this defining that) of measuring measurment. > The Self can not be either subject or object since niether exist > without each other. Hi Eugene: That's cool. I am glad you showed me the respect to think about it. This is what Michael, I think, was speaking about > as "a different order" of Consciousness. Non-conceptual awarness > includes conceptual but is not that at all. > > Who cares about dusty old doctrine or the words of stinky dead sages > (unless you do in which case forgive me). By saying Self is subject > or even that it cannot be an object, you are calling it an object. > The Self can be Known I suppose but why mess around with capitals and > stuff? The Self is, now, you...how 'bout we say screw it to all the > ratification and fillerbustering of I's or even I-I's...LOL I liked the idea. I gave credit. The guy was Shankara if you ever want to read some more of it. It was translated by Ramana Maharshi if you ever want to read some of that. > > > > > > > > Yes, the Self. Why shouldn't the whole thing have an > identity. > > It > > > > seems like I do. > > > > > > > > > > Should or shouldn't isn't really a valid question to me. Is or is > > not > > > seems more aprropriate in the context of realization. Of course > if > > > the context is theoretical discussion real has no actual > > application. > > > :-)))) > > > > The point was that that is why it is called a Self. Identity > accrues > > to the whole when being spoken about by a part which assumes > > identity. (I). To clarify: If I, as a part, assume an identity then I would logically believe the whole of which I am a part deserves that distinction. Now haven't we had fun? I have. Love Bobby G. > > > > Ok..I don't know what that means as my usage of so many concepts of > my own in the last hour has gotten my intelect dulled to a nub...LOL > I think I'll go outside and breath or something. :-)))) > > > > You're tough, Eugene. > > Love > > Bobby G. > > > I'm not tough, just too big for my own britches :-))) > love > Eugene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice chatting > > > > > > Love > > > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > thnaks for letting me play > > > > > Eugene > > > > > > > > Many yuks, > > > > Love > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > Bon jour > > > thanks > > > Eugene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2004 Report Share Posted May 18, 2004 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > In other words which is posting this > > > theory > > > > of two I's? > > > > > > > > > Karma is the bugger who conjures everything. "Maya", the great > > > Illusion, is the overview of the karmic involvement. Everything > in > > > the world is in context with the world and that includes the "I", > > not > > > the "II". Remember, the "II" is only subject and never object. > > > > Hi B.G > > I disagree...subject and object are polarities conjured by and from > a > > particular point(a subjective object seeing object objects or "I" > am > > this defining that) of measuring measurment. > > The Self can not be either subject or object since niether exist > > without each other. > > Hi Eugene: > > That's cool. I am glad you showed me the respect to think about it. > Hi Big Bobby G. Down in Tejas. Is the G. for Gomer? LOL I just moved from Las Cruces NM, pretty darn near close to El Paso. > > > This is what Michael, I think, was speaking about > > as "a different order" of Consciousness. Non-conceptual awarness > > includes conceptual but is not that at all. > > > > > Who cares about dusty old doctrine or the words of stinky dead sages > > (unless you do in which case forgive me). By saying Self is subject > > or even that it cannot be an object, you are calling it an object. > > The Self can be Known I suppose but why mess around with capitals > and > > stuff? The Self is, now, you...how 'bout we say screw it to all the > > ratification and fillerbustering of I's or even I-I's...LOL > > I liked the idea. I gave credit. The guy was Shankara if you ever > want to read some more of it. It was translated by Ramana Maharshi > if you ever want to read some of that. Got it read it. Probably nothing that either have been said to have written (and translated in Sri Maharshi's case) that I don't have or have had at some point. Shit I even lugged around Shankara'a Brahma Sura's for a while...LOL...to be honerst they didn't really help (or hurt)as far as I can tell, except to be able to discuss stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the Self. Why shouldn't the whole thing have an > > identity. > > > It > > > > > seems like I do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should or shouldn't isn't really a valid question to me. Is or > is > > > not > > > > seems more aprropriate in the context of realization. Of course > > if > > > > the context is theoretical discussion real has no actual > > > application. > > > > :-)))) > > > > > > The point was that that is why it is called a Self. Identity > > accrues > > > to the whole when being spoken about by a part which assumes > > > identity. (I). > > To clarify: If I, as a part, assume an identity then I would > logically believe the whole of which I am a part deserves that > distinction. > > Now haven't we had fun? I have. > Love > Bobby G. Yes! Thanks Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > Ok..I don't know what that means as my usage of so many concepts of > > my own in the last hour has gotten my intelect dulled to a nub...LOL > > I think I'll go outside and breath or something. :-)))) > > > > > > > > > > You're tough, Eugene. > > > Love > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > I'm not tough, just too big for my own britches :-))) > > love > > Eugene > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice chatting > > > > > > > Love > > > > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > thnaks for letting me play > > > > > > Eugene > > > > > > > > > > Many yuks, > > > > > Love > > > > > Bobby G. > > > > > > > > Bon jour > > > > thanks > > > > Eugene 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.