" I think therefore I am not "

Originally Posted by celest

My understanding is that there are different layers of consciousness some which are independant of sensory imput, some layers for the outer world and some for inner life.

celest and all,

I sense that you and others intuit something that is genuine but have some difficulty in articulating this in a convincing way. In reality, I share some of these same beliefs but have presented my arguments from the opposite side to encourage thought and meditation on this subject. Sorry in a way because this is a hangover from a previous life in which I was active in formal debate. One had to be able, at all times, to argue either side of a proposition. It forced one to look at every subject from multiple viewpoints and served to greatly increase one's understanding of any given subject. I have never seen the value of simply telling someone that I agree with them without being able to articulate why I agree with them.

In light of this, I am sharing a website that might provide some insight for those who have a broader understanding of consciousness. I believe that some will find this interesting.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA0...060824p01.html

[lemex]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

We totally identify with our bodies as being us. When really, I think the reality is closer to we experience the body. We are the ghost in the machine. We are a point of conscious awareness that is fed all of this sensory and mental data and in this experience we are in a type of illusion where we believe all of this input is us.

Yes, even thought is taken as input. It is often returned back as input. Take language for instance. Now this illusion is saying consciousness is elsewhere isn't it.

Originally Posted by Molearner

celest and all,

I sense that you and others intuit something that is genuine but have some difficulty in articulating this in a convincing way. In reality, I share some of these same beliefs but have presented my arguments from the opposite side to encourage thought and meditation on this subject. Sorry in a way because this is a hangover from a previous life in which I was active in formal debate. One had to be able, at all times, to argue either side of a proposition. It forced one to look at every subject from multiple viewpoints and served to greatly increase one's understanding of any given subject. I have never seen the value of simply telling someone that I agree with them without being able to articulate why I agree with them.

In light of this, I am sharing a website that might provide some insight for those who have a broader understanding of consciousness. I believe that some will find this interesting.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA0...060824p01.html

Thanks for the link but it explains nothing to me as it talks about souls, souls and more souls and I don't have a soul others might enjoy it.

I was not trying to convince anyone, it was more about seeing the views of others which is interesting, you might not understand what I /others are saying but thats good as we all have our own ideas/beliefs that's what make life interesting.

Originally Posted by Serrao

I disagree with this statement.

I would even add:
Even when my mind is free from thoughts, I still am.

Thanks for your input Serrao, its interesting to see you have looked at the quote from a different angle, just what I enjoy, it gives me more to think about. I agree that we are able 'to be' without thought, I have said this in a previous post. Another way of looking at it is, when you are NOT thinking then you are your real self, hence my quote

Originally Posted by celest

Thanks for the link but it explains nothing to me as it talks about souls, souls and more souls and I don't have a soul others might enjoy it.

.

celest,

hahahahaha.........thanks for taking a look. For those who do pursue the link I would suggest availing themselves of the ability to view both previous pages and next pages. It will give a more complete picture of what Steiner is presenting.

Now this might make you mad......I certainly hope not......so even thought you have self-identified as not having a soul I will retain my belief that, indeed, you do have a soul.....:)

take care.....

Originally Posted by Molearner

celest,

hahahahaha.........thanks for taking a look. For those who do pursue the link I would suggest availing themselves of the ability to view both previous pages and next pages. It will give a more complete picture of what Steiner is presenting.

Now this might make you mad......I certainly hope not......so even thought you have self-identified as not having a soul I will retain my belief that, indeed, you do have a soul.....:)

take care.....

No no, no soul, I don't believe in a soul, never have from a very early age.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by celest

No no, no soul, I don't believe in a soul, never have from a very early age.

How about when you dance? Do you have soul then? Lol

Originally Posted by Capacity

How about when you dance? Do you have soul then? Lol

No soul, just rythm

[BlueSky]

I am is a reflection of the mind. Is there something deeper than I am? That's another question but I am is a reflection of the mind. Being is a reflection of the mind.

[BlueSky]

Is there being without reflecting on being? Can you feel your iamness without reflecting on it with the mind. Is not the mind the same as iam?
The thing is, some identify with the mind and for others it is a part of being.