Tim/Thinking..Outch!

[Guest guest]

Tim: (snip)

It does, and yet form is not " I " unless perceived as

such. It's

interesting to note the strong focus Hinduism puts on " I am not the

 

body, " especially in the beginning. Of course this asserts

both the

body and the " I, " but it supposedly acts as an aid to the

breaking of

identification of form with the sense of " I. " Perhaps

 

there's 'something to it', it's an age-old inquiry.

Hi Tim!

Agreeing with what you say here.

Drawbacks to this approach include

that it easily confuses dissociation

with wisdom, lends itself to collusion

with the delusion/agenda to

" master the body " , also can lead to

extreme kinds of ascetism confused

with wisdom.

 

Another kind of inquiry is to " extend "

the body such that it is " all inclusive " ,

as with Jesus saying " eat, this is my body " .

 

This universe is my body, without a " me " in sight.

 

" This body " has no mind, yet itself is

transcendently " intelligent " , not

meaning the intelligence to manipulate,

but the intelligence that grows a solar

system, ecosystems, myriads of lives,

and manifests synchronicity such

that all the " laws of physics " appear

and interweave ...

 

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Tim!

 

I'm not content with giving

the label " Awareness " or

" Consciousness " to a supposedly

absolute nature. Who or what

is able to give or use this label?

If it is said that the one who gives

the label is itself " Consciousness " ,

then the word loses any semblance

of meaning, like saying " this label

is used because there is the labelling

of the labelled by using this

label.

 

So, for me, it's just (another) pointer

to the nonseparation of inside and

outside.

 

If this nonseparation is clear, then

pointers to it are meaningless

(where are the pointers, inside or

outside, for whom are the pointers

pointing, where are they pointing?).

 

The entire realms of conceptuality, logic,

meaning, and definable experience

(including definitions like " form "

and " formless " ) depend on separation

of inside and outside.

 

So, not only does consciousness not require

a body, there is no consciousness for anything

to occur within, to require anything or

to have anything.

 

What then is this " body " which has neither

inside nor outside? It is everything

that seems to appear in terms of inside

and outside, thus, the " entire universe "

(whatever that is).

 

Saying " entire universe " is no better than

saying " consciousness " , I admit it.

 

The funny thing is, that although there is

no separation of inside and outside,

and thus no meaning to any terms, ideas,

or experiential validations or invalidations

of anything -- inside and outside appear.

Differentiation seems to occur.

Sense seems to be, and thus making sense

seems to intuitively make sense.

 

So, in words, it is utterly paradoxical,

like saying,

" With no inside or outside, inside and

outside are. "

 

It is this paradox (to words, not to

" awareness " -- oops, that word again)

that is how and why an apparent

body appears to appear, a world

appears to appear, a " mind " or

" consciousness " is

meaninglessly inferred ...

It is this paradox which is

explored ad infinitum without

ever getting anywhere ...

 

Love,

Dan

 

Resonations with this... an inquiry

that seems 'helpful' in my case

is an image of an immense forest, rather than the universe...

 

'The body' is like a tree in that forest. One tree is no different

 

than any other. There is one wilderness, and the falling of a

single

tree is not noticed... why is it important?

 

This could apply to 'the universe' as well... although I don't

identify with " the universe " as a body... why does there need

to be

identification with form at all? " Identity " seems to

transcend form.

 

Nisargadatta stated this -- " Consciousness is the body of the

supreme " (he used the terms consciousness and Awareness the same way

 

you do).

 

That seems like something interesting to 'meditate on.' The

question

is this -- does consciousness require form, or is it 'metaphysically

 

prior' to form (e.g. forms appear 'within' it or 'because of' it)?

 

Nisargadatta's stated view is that consciousness requires a body.

In

my case, this remains unsolved, and I'm content to leave it where it

 

sits. Perhaps " both " is true... consciousness both

depends on form

and transcends form.

 

Namaste,

 

Tim

 

 

 

Sponsor