How is it possible?

[LadyMay]

How is this possible? Maybe some of you have an answer....

Here is the background:

We don't tend to realise what we already are because it's such a part of us and so natural that we tend to be blind to its existence. For example I often get told I'm intellectual but I don't see that about myself, despite the fact that it's probably just so a part of me that I'm not even aware of it.

I have noticed in this way that we only tend to be aware of in ourselves what we have not fully embodied into our consciousness yet. It is why we point fingers at others and blame them for our own shortcomings (or idolise them for their greatness), because we are recognising ourselves in them. I won't go around making gods out of intellectual persons because I am already that so what use is it for consciousness to try and realise something it already is? But I will point out to myself when people are being arrogant because I realise that same arrogance in myself that hasn't been fully owned yet.

I am writing these things as an introduction to my question as a sort of presupposition and would like to request that this thread refrain from extensively questioning it unless directly related to the end answer (only for the reason that we all interpret things differently and that trying to understand something with a radically different interpretation can hinder more than help).

And now onto the question:

Assuming of course these things are true which I've written and observed, and that we don't realise what we already are but yet we realise what are already not, then how does consciousness realise itSelf when it is all that ever exists anyway?

Maybe to put it differently, during the experience of self-realisation where one realises what one is, if one realises they are all that is and that nothing else is except that, then how is that possible if we only tend to realise that which are not yet fully?

Maybe my presupposition is a little faulty but this is a little mind-boggling paradox to me and I would be agreeable to reading your opinions...

Scarlett

[ajay00]

And now onto the question:

Assuming of course these things are true which I've written and observed, and that we don't realise what we already are but yet we realise what are already not, then how does consciousness realise itSelf when it is all that ever exists anyway?

By the removal of the ego that blocks true perception of reality, and covers the Self within. This happens through constant self-awareness or the no-mind. It is the ego/mind which distorts reality and interprets it according to its conditionings. Through the no-mind, this process comes to an end, and one sees reality as it is.




Maybe to put it differently, during the experience of self-realisation where one realises what one is, if one realises they are all that is and that nothing else is except that, then how is that possible if we only tend to realise that which are not yet fully?



The truth cannot be perceived through intellection and thinking, which distorts it incessantly as per its ideas. It can only be perceived by experiencing it in meditation, and by the cessation of thought.

The Self-realized master Dada Gavand says thus, " Truth is destroyed by making an idea of it. Thought embalms the Truth in time to keep it dead. This way the intellect can use Truth easily and conveniently whenever needed — to fulfill the vested interest of the ego. Be aware of the idea, the thought or concept. Thought is the slayer of Truth. Memory is a barrier to the Timeless."

Nonduality arises only with the cessation of thinking in meditation, and through this one understands clearly what the sages meant by their words describing Self-realization.

[A human Being]

I'd like to respond, but I think I'll have to have a lie-down first (where's the 'bewildered' smiley?) :smile:

[lemex]

How is this possible? Maybe some of you have an answer....

Here is the background:

We don't tend to realise what we already are because it's such a part of us and so natural that we tend to be blind to its existence. For example I often get told I'm intellectual but I don't see that about myself, despite the fact that it's probably just so a part of me that I'm not even aware of it.

I have noticed in this way that we only tend to be aware of in ourselves what we have not fully embodied into our consciousness yet. It is why we point fingers at others and blame them for our own shortcomings (or idolise them for their greatness), because we are recognising ourselves in them. I won't go around making gods out of intellectual persons because I am already that so what use is it for consciousness to try and realise something it already is? But I will point out to myself when people are being arrogant because I realise that same arrogance in myself that hasn't been fully owned yet.

I am writing these things as an introduction to my question as a sort of presupposition and would like to request that this thread refrain from extensively questioning it unless directly related to the end answer (only for the reason that we all interpret things differently and that trying to understand something with a radically different interpretation can hinder more than help).

And now onto the question:

Assuming of course these things are true which I've written and observed, and that we don't realise what we already are but yet we realise what are already not, then how does consciousness realise itSelf when it is all that ever exists anyway?

Maybe to put it differently, during the experience of self-realisation where one realises what one is, if one realises they are all that is and that nothing else is except that, then how is that possible if we only tend to realise that which are not yet fully?

Maybe my presupposition is a little faulty but this is a little mind-boggling paradox to me and I would be agreeable to reading your opinions...

Scarlett

Remember the question asked before of who has responsibility, the sender or receiver. The responsibility of cause and effect. There is truth in what you felt, and don't we hear it time and again. I know I have observed it. What one is saying is, you told me. I have never taken this as passing the buck as it's said way too much and so must mean something seen. It is very hard to put aside what you hear here. Even in the physical world, thoughts seem physical. What has been said is important. One thing we have to remember is, the mind develops through time and those who tell us things are like teachers and because we are so innocent early in life we take everything in as information and true. I see the child (in us) as the innocent Adam figure and the adult who becomes the Adam figure.

[Mr Interesting]

I was pondering the idea of surrender the other day and it made sense to me that it doesn't make sense.

What that means is that when we supposedly surrender something we might give away the thing itself but the ownership of it, the attachment to it, is retained... otherwise what would be surrendered? And it seems that in giving it away or no longer having it we might 'hopefully' forget it and that seems an exercise in the ridiculous.

So in regard to your question it could simply be that what needs to be realised no longer has the need of realisation... that the need isn't surrendered so much as realisations are no longer needed.

So even the word realisation offers it's own question in that before it was realised was it real?

[Octy]

We don't tend to realise what we already are because it's such a part of us and so natural that we tend to be blind to its existence. For example I often get told I'm intellectual but I don't see that about myself, despite the fact that it's probably just so a part of me that I'm not even aware of it.


This reminds me of the Johari Window, having others see what we don't see about ourselves.

"then how does consciousness realise itSelf when it is all that ever exists anyway?"

I like these kinds of questions. Gets the mind thinking. This also reminds me of Freudian theories.
I did have an answer all lined up, but now when I reflect on it, urgh. Confusion. Going to give this question some further thought.

[Octy]

What that means is that when we supposedly surrender something we might give away the thing itself but the ownership of it, the attachment to it, is retained...

Interesting observation. I'm just wondering how something could be retained if it is surrendered?

[Ivy]

How is this possible? Maybe some of you have an answer....

Here is the background:

We don't tend to realise what we already are because it's such a part of us and so natural that we tend to be blind to its existence. For example I often get told I'm intellectual but I don't see that about myself, despite the fact that it's probably just so a part of me that I'm not even aware of it.

I have noticed in this way that we only tend to be aware of in ourselves what we have not fully embodied into our consciousness yet. It is why we point fingers at others and blame them for our own shortcomings (or idolise them for their greatness), because we are recognising ourselves in them. I won't go around making gods out of intellectual persons because I am already that so what use is it for consciousness to try and realise something it already is? But I will point out to myself when people are being arrogant because I realise that same arrogance in myself that hasn't been fully owned yet.

I am writing these things as an introduction to my question as a sort of presupposition and would like to request that this thread refrain from extensively questioning it unless directly related to the end answer (only for the reason that we all interpret things differently and that trying to understand something with a radically different interpretation can hinder more than help).

And now onto the question:

Assuming of course these things are true which I've written and observed, and that we don't realise what we already are but yet we realise what are already not, then how does consciousness realise itSelf when it is all that ever exists anyway?

Maybe to put it differently, during the experience of self-realisation where one realises what one is, if one realises they are all that is and that nothing else is except that, then how is that possible if we only tend to realise that which are not yet fully?

Maybe my presupposition is a little faulty but this is a little mind-boggling paradox to me and I would be agreeable to reading your opinions...

Scarlett

It's like wondering through a house of mirrors saying where am I.

When we close our eyes and stand still, we understand exactly where we are. When we open our eyes and try to get some measure of where we are by what we see around us, we are forever bumping into reflections.

[LadyMay]

It's like wondering through a house of mirrors saying where am I.

When we close our eyes and stand still, we understand exactly where we are. When we open our eyes and try to get some measure of where we are by what we see around us, we are forever bumping into reflections.

Yes, yes it is. And I am not grasping for an answer because I know I'll pull away from the truth of where I am and yet... there's still the wondering, still the observation of the mirrors.

Maybe it'll come to me at a later date. The very fact I am asking means there is an understanding to come along with it.

[lanza]

Consciousness seems to show itself as the total supreme ultimate undifferentiated bliss when non duality is excepted and the mind dissolves

I feel the fascination behind it as it continually shines

[Ivy]

I didn't see what I'd said as an answer really. It's something we observe as being there, so for me how to make that into a useful tool would be the understanding I sought - and that comes from trial and error.

[Greenslade]

Assuming of course these things are true which I've written and observed, and that we don't realise what we already are but yet we realise what are already not, then how does consciousness realise itSelf when it is all that ever exists anyway?
Take a look around you. Notice the vibrancy of the colours and how one shade moves into the next, or the subtle shadows and highlights. Conscious realises itself in all it can observe. Put a blindfold on and wear it for a day, consciousness becomes what it is not - blind and unable to see those colours, highlights and shadows. Take the blindfold off again and the Universe looks different, they are the same colours, highlights and shadows but your perception of them is very different, perhaps they seem more vivid. You are consciousness that realises that being in a state of not yet fully is a realisation in itself, as valid a state of consciousness as realising it is all that is - not yet fully is a part of all that is.

[Mr Interesting]

Interesting observation. I'm just wondering how something could be retained if it is surrendered?

I'm still somewhat unable to explain it myself as it seems to be quite subtle as in one forgets something then remembers but while the memory was gone it seemed to lose weight so surrendering would need complete forgetfullness to be a surrender like we might hope it is spiritually but if even the slightest remembrance comes into play then... well, it's not really surrendered is it?

It's like surrender is an intellectual construct whereby it's almost fake it till you make it. As in if something were just naturally forgotten, slipped away in uselessness, it wouldn't need the intellectual construct to define it as surrendered... it's just gone.

[MIND POWER]

..............

[Octy]

It's like wondering through a house of mirrors saying where am I.

When we close our eyes and stand still, we understand exactly where we are. When we open our eyes and try to get some measure of where we are by what we see around us, we are forever bumping into reflections.
Does this apply when one is aware? Of bumping into mirrors that is. I'm trying to wrap my head around it (not argue the point - as there is no point in arguing, lol, sorry, my sense of humour... ahem, I' shall carry on)... If we are bumping into reflections, would we not know this? And in that case, would it not make the reflections disperse?

Sorry OP for going off track. Somehow though, I kinda feel it ties in with your query. At least I can see slithers of threads starting to appear on the horizon.

And Mr. Interesting, would that be equivalent to phenomenon occurring in the realm of the unknown, otherwise it becomes part of our possession? This is how I read your statement, one must forget something (say, surrender) but as soon as one remembers one forgot about it, it becomes owned (so to speak).

Which, as crazy as it sounds, means that part of self (perhaps consciousness - don't quote me, this stuff still confuses the bajeebers out of me) has to be unaware of itself in order to work.

[LadyMay]

Actually carry on, I have been wondering similar things myself and I'm content to watch this exchange of queries until I feel I have something to add... :)

[LadyMay]

If we are bumping into reflections, would we not know this? And in that case, would it not make the reflections disperse?

Ugh, now it's my turn to bang my head against the wall in confusion. :BangHead: :D

My gut says no, we don't recognise our own reflections. Just like when you put animals in front of a mirror they don't realise it's themselves.... we don't or can't realise that what we see is also ourselves, and this is a weird thing for me to say or feel considering I have already experienced realising myself... the question is how?

And like you said, if you did realise, then wouldn't that make the reflections disperse? My gut says yes. So by that time there's no reflections left to be reflected anyway...

So it's either, you're blind to what's there, or there's nothing there to see anyway???

:confused2:

[Visitor]

...Assuming of course these things are true which I've written and observed, and that we don't realise what we already are but yet we realise what are already not, then how does consciousness realise itSelf when it is all that ever exists anyway?

Maybe to put it differently, during the experience of self-realisation where one realises what one is, if one realises they are all that is and that nothing else is except that, then how is that possible if we only tend to realise that which are not yet fully?...
Hello ScarlettHayden.

Here is my take on this.
Long time ago I was told that I was a person in denial. Naturally, I denied that. And even argued the fact to protect my ego-pride. Then stormed out of the room in anger.
When I calmed down, it occurred to me that I could not recall what denial meant. So I checked the dictionary, and realized that I already new what it meant but was in denial about it. I went into a mental shock about myself.
Many years later, during an introspection exercise, it occurred to me that I have to know what I am denying before I can deny it. Much like throwing something in the air but not watching where it landed, in the hope or losing it.
Then later, I also learnt that either by accident or by desperation (a deeper need than normal, like introspection) can I again find what was once (seemed to be) lost.

[Ivy]

Does this apply when one is aware? Of bumping into mirrors that is. I'm trying to wrap my head around it (not argue the point - as there is no point in arguing, lol, sorry, my sense of humour... ahem, I' shall carry on)... If we are bumping into reflections, would we not know this? And in that case, would it not make the reflections disperse?


Some metaphors are pretty accurate in their transfer, enabling you to look to human experience.

Being aware that what you're looking at is a reflection, doesn't make the reflection disperse. It just makes it a useful tool to see if you have dinner on your chin, to see how a wound is healing or to smile at yourself.

[Ivy]

Hello ScarlettHayden.

Here is my take on this.
Long time ago I was told that I was a person in denial. Naturally, I denied that. And even argued the fact to protect my ego-pride. Then stormed out of the room in anger.
When I calmed down, it occurred to me that I could not recall what denial meant. So I checked the dictionary, and realized that I already new what it meant but was in denial about it. I went into a mental shock about myself.
Many years later, during an introspection exercise, it occurred to me that I have to know what I am denying before I can deny it. Much like throwing something in the air but not watching where it landed, in the hope or losing it.
Then later, I also learnt that either by accident or by desperation (a deeper need than normal) can I again find what was once (seemed to be) lost.

I like this little gem of wisdom.

It reminds me of abstract art and deconstrionism, that works on the basis that, in order to make an abstract, one has to now the normal state of the thing one is going to abstract. Or, in order to deconstruct something, one must first know its construction.

[LadyMay]

Being aware that what you're looking at is a reflection, doesn't make the reflection disperse.

I have to disagree. I wouldn't have thought of it unless octopusonpaper brought it up but there's a subtle experience or realisation I had the other day- because I am rather isolated in life I tend to project a lot of myself onto characters in shows, but this gives me time to analyse them and peer deeper into the mirror, which would be harder to do in any social sitting.

Anyway, something I noticed is that first I project a trait of myself onto a character, and then I try to 'become' them, if the projection is strong enough. So in effect what I'm doing is owning that and making it my own- coming to the realisation that what I'm seeing is a reflection of me. Then I usually get bored of the character for a while, maybe a few months. I go back to it out of curiosity after I have gone through the integration process of said trait, and I notice that there is nothing to see in them anymore. There is no reflection, there is nothing to look at in the mirror. Because I have taken that and realised it as my own, I can't see what I already am anymore.

And yet before the process of owning took place I was seeing myself without realising I was seeing myself. It's only afterwards we can look back and say "hey, I was seeing myself". But afterwards there's nothing to see. We move onto a different reflection.

Maybe the reflections go on infinitely, or maybe there comes a time where we decide that there's nothing to see anymore.

But I'm convinced now in my own mind that reflections are a result of at least partial unawareness and realisation of them is what renders them null, that there is nothing to see and be aware of anyway. And maybe that's all self-realisation actually is, not the recognition of anything in ourselves, but instead the recognition that there is nothing to see or realise in the first place.

[BlueSky]

How is this possible? Maybe some of you have an answer....

Here is the background:

We don't tend to realise what we already are because it's such a part of us and so natural that we tend to be blind to its existence. For example I often get told I'm intellectual but I don't see that about myself, despite the fact that it's probably just so a part of me that I'm not even aware of it.

I have noticed in this way that we only tend to be aware of in ourselves what we have not fully embodied into our consciousness yet. It is why we point fingers at others and blame them for our own shortcomings (or idolise them for their greatness), because we are recognising ourselves in them. I won't go around making gods out of intellectual persons because I am already that so what use is it for consciousness to try and realise something it already is? But I will point out to myself when people are being arrogant because I realise that same arrogance in myself that hasn't been fully owned yet.

I am writing these things as an introduction to my question as a sort of presupposition and would like to request that this thread refrain from extensively questioning it unless directly related to the end answer (only for the reason that we all interpret things differently and that trying to understand something with a radically different interpretation can hinder more than help).

And now onto the question:

Assuming of course these things are true which I've written and observed, and that we don't realise what we already are but yet we realise what are already not, then how does consciousness realise itSelf when it is all that ever exists anyway?

Maybe to put it differently, during the experience of self-realisation where one realises what one is, if one realises they are all that is and that nothing else is except that, then how is that possible if we only tend to realise that which are not yet fully?

Maybe my presupposition is a little faulty but this is a little mind-boggling paradox to me and I would be agreeable to reading your opinions...

Scarlett
We come from emptiness and we return to emptiness. Emptiness is potentially anything and everything. We experience what it can be, not what it is. We realize what it is, but there is only experiencing what it can be.
There is nothing "to" fully be, you can be anything.

[Ivy]

I have to disagree. I wouldn't have thought of it unless octopusonpaper brought it up but there's a subtle experience or realisation I had the other day- because I am rather isolated in life I tend to project a lot of myself onto characters in shows, but this gives me time to analyse them and peer deeper into the mirror, which would be harder to do in any social sitting.

Anyway, something I noticed is that first I project a trait of myself onto a character, and then I try to 'become' them, if the projection is strong enough. So in effect what I'm doing is owning that and making it my own- coming to the realisation that what I'm seeing is a reflection of me. Then I usually get bored of the character for a while, maybe a few months. I go back to it out of curiosity after I have gone through the integration process of said trait, and I notice that there is nothing to see in them anymore. There is no reflection, there is nothing to look at in the mirror. Because I have taken that and realised it as my own, I can't see what I already am anymore.

And yet before the process of owning took place I was seeing myself without realising I was seeing myself. It's only afterwards we can look back and say "hey, I was seeing myself". But afterwards there's nothing to see. We move onto a different reflection.

Maybe the reflections go on infinitely, or maybe there comes a time where we decide that there's nothing to see anymore.

But I'm convinced now in my own mind that reflections are a result of at least partial unawareness and realisation of them is what renders them null, that there is nothing to see and be aware of anyway. And maybe that's all self-realisation actually is, not the recognition of anything in ourselves, but instead the recognition that there is nothing to see or realise in the first place.

Not everyone reflects us, if that's what you're thinking of?

But what octopus asked was, if we are aware of the reflection does it disperse. The answer is no, if we are aware of a reflection, it's still there.

I work with reflections often, and have done for a long time. So I would be wary of ideas that suggest that once we know about reflections, what we perceive is then real and no longer reflective of where we stand.

We can only perceive the world from where we are standing. Therefore, what we see reflects where we stand.

[LadyMay]

Ivy I just can't reconcile it with what I know, to me the idea of there being a reflection is the recognition that what I am seeing is separate and apart from me. If it wasn't then there would be no reflection. The ability to realise the reflection is the understanding that it's not separate from me but instead a part of me, but once I shift my perception to that I become the reflection and there is no reflection left to perceive. So a reflection I see as an illusion, I am not seeing what it is, I am not seeing the whole, I am seeing something which I have segregated outside myself and labelled as something "me but not a part of me", so there is unawareness of that trait in myself. But once I realise myself as the reflection there's then nothing to perceive because I am that which was being reflected....?

So all that remains is nothing but what you realise as being already inside you.

[Octy]

So it's either, you're blind to what's there, or there's nothing there to see anyway???

:confused2:

:D ...giggles... :tongue: If I were drinking coffee, I'm sure my laptop would have worn it.

[Octy]

Oh my gosh this thread takes me back to the classroom < which was a positive experience btw. Giggling to self here. It conjures up psychology and philosophy, the cave, the stage, perceptions and projections. Love it! PS, sorry, didn't have anything to add this time. I've been beamed up by Scotty and in no-mans land. When I touch base with reality, I might be able to use this brain.

Sometimes though, (this is tongue-and-cheek) I feel like I need to smoke weed in order to catch peeps drift on here. Sometimes it is so out there that even I can't keep up. But then, keep in mind I still a baby when it comes to this spiritual stuff. All I know is that I have an opinion. And sometimes it's best to keep it to myself *giggle snort*

[Ivy]

Ivy I just can't reconcile it with what I know, to me the idea of there being a reflection is the recognition that what I am seeing is separate and apart from me. If it wasn't then there would be no reflection. The ability to realise the reflection is the understanding that it's not separate from me but instead a part of me, but once I shift my perception to that I become the reflection and there is no reflection left to perceive. So a reflection I see as an illusion, I am not seeing what it is, I am not seeing the whole, I am seeing something which I have segregated outside myself and labelled as something "me but not a part of me", so there is unawareness of that trait in myself. But once I realise myself as the reflection there's then nothing to perceive because I am that which was being reflected....?

So all that remains is nothing but what you realise as being already inside you.

I can understand your logic and if this is how you see reflection, then maybe it isn't the best metaphor for you.

When I look in a mirror, the thought never crosses my mind that it's not me. I understand the reflection I see is me, standing where I am. Same with seeing the inner reflection in others - I don't look and think is it me or isn't it - I recognise the reflection because I recognise it as my own.

Having said all that, when I first came across people talking about reflection, I did used to look for my reflection in others, which wasn't helpful. It took some time to learn to use it as I do now.

[LadyMay]

All that said Ivy, I'm still not really sure how to see everything right now. I realise that there's truth in your own perspective which I don't really understand, and then I had a dream a couple of nights ago about seeing the reflection of my reflection? It was strange.