Ponder this...

[Gem]

Originally Posted by din

I would have to disagree with this

there is definitely the experience of physicality, we all are intimately acquainted with this

but when we truly open our minds

we realize there is another, more real, more subtle reality

the reality of MIND (consciousness) itself

from a course in miracles

"Nothing real can be threatened,

Nothing unreal exists,

Therein lies the peace of God"

Din Wrote:

"Gem wrote:

Din used the concept of 'physical reality' so I am going with it, but yes, I would say it is the experience of physicality and in the end there is no other kind of experience. "

I didn't write that. It sounds like a 'g'izm.

I say 'reality' is something which is subtler and subtler.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Internal Queries

LOL so threads like this one are just exercise wheels in the hamster cage. **squeak squeak squeak**

smiling pragmatically.

Yes it is true... but I like takling in circles.

"sometimes your joy is the source of your smile but sometimes your smile can be the source of your joy." Thich

I like your avatar name... how would you describe what internal inquiry is? I was reading some ramana recently and he defines internal inquiry as observing the sense of self. (that's my inteerpretation)

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes it is true... but I like takling in circles.

Its a strange thing that, but I do too sometimes. For me, there is something fun about circles. Some might say that circles dont lead anywhere, but I quite like that.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by andrew g

Its a strange thing that, but I do too sometimes. For me, there is something fun about circles. Some might say that circles dont lead anywhere, but I quite like that.

Everything is a debate discussion tha inevitably leads to 'what we really are' so it's quite the quandry as the thought occurs 'I am... (something)' or some such notion, but essentially the definition is what I am as opposed to what I am not, entailing only two facets, so the question is what is the difference between them, for it is the difference that defines both, but can't 'really' be either.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Gem

Everything is a debate discussion tha inevitably leads to 'what we really are' so it's quite the quandry as the thought occurs 'I am... (something)' or some such notion, but essentially the definition is what I am as opposed to what I am not, entailing only two facets, so the question is what is the difference between them, for it is the difference that defines both, but can't 'really' be either.

Yes .

Greetings..

Originally Posted by Gem

Everything is a debate discussion tha inevitably leads to 'what we really are' so it's quite the quandry as the thought occurs 'I am... (something)' or some such notion, but essentially the definition is what I am as opposed to what I am not, entailing only two facets, so the question is what is the difference between them, for it is the difference that defines both, but can't 'really' be either.

I sense that the "difference between them" is the 'relationship' inherent to their existence, their experience with each other.. "it takes two to tango"..

Be well..

[Gem]

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

Greetings..


I sense that the "difference between them" is the 'relationship' inherent to their existence, their experience with each other.. "it takes two to tango"..

Be well..

I think people assume the ontology demands 'one' or 'two', but the geometry doesn't permit that.

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hello Din,

First would like to express to you that I find this exchange of ideas, experiences, and yes thoughts to be interesting and that I am not taking most of this very seriously. Looking at what gets presented and play with it and share how I tend to view things at this time. Which I feel you are doing in a way as well.

I can only speak for myself and in that I would say some things have come to make more sense, while other things are still and may remain to this physical person a mystery. But that is what makes life interesting.

I may come off at times as perhaps "serious", but it is more an attempt to express myself.

So what all this has brought me to ponder upon is this. Is everything one experiences just thought? Is everything we pick up on with our senses form its image according to our thoughts?

I see your picture and I assume so does everyone else who comes here. I bet if we all described your picture, we would most likely come up with a similar description. So what formed the picture and maintains that form?

This is kind of what I was playing with. Not all things formed come from thought.

But I can see what perhaps you are getting at is when one tries to hold onto an identity of something. Just because one may not know what it is, this does not negate its existence, nor is it what one may think he/she knows it to be. So enjoy the existence. Is this some of what you are playing with?

I think we know what we know at the present time and with in this it changes and expands. But I don't know everything and clueless about many things and that's fine with me. Gives me that much more to discover.

I will leave this thought. One can know many things and gain little wisdom, while another can know very little and be the wisest.

Rambled enough here.

Peace

Hi Moonglow,

I think I'd prefer to take the spotlight off thought and I'd like to talk about what it is that is aware of thought and what it is that thought arises in, which, of course is awareness again.

The course in miracles says "you are the light of the world", to me this means you are the MIND of God, which literally means of course, is that all there is is Awareness, or MIND.

Here we are deeply conditioned to believe we are flesh and blood and the truth actually is that we are indestructible and eternal.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

You are totally off the mark.. you are seeing and preferring to see through 'Din's' very special 'corrective lenses', those lenses want everyone to agree with you.. but, you are right, i have a lot invested in the understanding that 'Life is going to happen, and we're going to participate'.. i am not so 'invested' in the comedies of pompous pretentiousness, i am preferring simplicity, lately.. i am amused by your evangelical approach to pretending nothing matters.. why do you prattle on, so inanely pedaling your own versions of wisdom, and counsel others to "forget all notions of wisdom"? Do not suppose more than is evident, the 'tone of the post' is one of exploring simplicity in contrast to your prattling about 'thinking your way beyond thinking'.. just stop posting, Din.. that is the surest evidence that you have heeded your own words, but.. every post you make confirms you have no faith in the words you preach.. so, stop preaching, start 'living', then there's no contradictions..

Be well..

Yes, of course I'm totally off the mark Tzu, because i'm projecting as we all do. The whole point is that what i wrote about is more true about ME!!!

And that's a good lesson for all of us I think.

What we write here is our own beliefs, our own perceptions and ideas, and it would be very useful for us to reread our own posts and see where we are identified with ideas and beliefs.

Originally Posted by andrew g

I agree that thinking is inevitable right now but do you think that Byron Katie and Eckhart Tolle talk without any degree of seriousness? Or Nisargadatta and Osho? I have seen and heard them all talk and I would say they are quite serious in what they are saying sometimes. At peace yes, but there is also a quality of seriousness there too.

Andrew, let me take another stab at "total freedom", it seems to me it's simply a shift in identity from being this flesh and bones person, to being the eternal awareness in which all the appearances arise in/as.

What do you think?