The possibility of truth

[Saggi]

Originally Posted by silent whisper

Well that is worth a mention also..

Ah, yes in conversation,,,

I thought you were listening and responding so the other was aware you were listening,,, My mistake,,,,

Love and hugs

Jo

XxXx

so if its not beyond your awareness its back to I again...beause I know..you know.

Only if you were absolutely certain I knew, you would have to actually know I know and that i was not pretending I knew. Not that I am given to pretending . However The Achilles heel in all of this is that we can only ever really think we know. And thinking we know sometimes has a great distance between actually knowing.

I once thought I could put a shelf up straight... The Spirit Level had a different and more accurate view of horizontal than I

So off we go into fractions and subdivisions.. I as you can be partially aware of a thing. Not have the whole picture, .... boy oh boy,

Rabbit Hole alert ... Methinks.

Originally Posted by Neville

Only if you were absolutely certain I knew, you would have to actually know I know and that i was not pretending I knew. Not that I am given to pretending . However The Achilles heel in all of this is that we can only ever really think we know. And thinking we know sometimes has a great distance between actually knowing.

I once thought I could put a shelf up straight... The Spirit Level had a different and more accurate view of horizontal than I

So off we go into fractions and subdivisions.. I as you can be partially aware of a thing. Not have the whole picture, .... boy oh boy,

Rabbit Hole alert ... Methinks.

No.... actually how certain you are in your knowing does not concern me...its your knowing...pretending or otherwise..

I prefer to not think to much in my knowing, but more listen and feel how it feels...then I trust it...

As for trusting and feeling if the shelf is straight...I would definitely use my eyes and spirit level for that one...so we can agree on that even if you only use your own view alone before you check out spirits level...afterwards to do a check.

I cant see any maths in this other than a picture your putting out there and some..girl oh girl.......

Start digging, Ithink....

I prefer to not think to much in my knowing, but more listen and feel how it feels...then I trust it...

Intuition is fine but substantiation can either endorse or encourage revisions where applicable.

just knowing and proclaiming that knowing (without words and proofs) is as we have seen here a cause for many challenges and disagreements. which are vexatious to the humours.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Xan

I have a question for James and others who are talking about no "I", that I hope is taken as a simple query.

In place of the "I", what are you experiencing instead?


Xan

There is no "no I". There is "I" knowing "I".
In "I" knowing "I", more and more, it is observed here that "I" is simply a thought and that which is observing it is also the same thought.
Then what happened here is noticing a waiting for something else to expereince or even manifest.....something 'instead'. It never happens or so it seemed at first.
I then realized it is "I" who waits for something instead and in that, "I" becomes even further known and exposed.....or further deeper hidden within itself.
(see to me, your "go deeper" is this....)

Then it was observed that there IS nothing instead. That nothing is everything.
Awareness without a self, without awareness of awareness. Peace.
I am now beggining to see that in this peace, there is uniqueness in how it flows thru me. Life doesn't care but life cares thru me. Life doesn't do but life does thru me.

So see the question you pose is a non-question really. There is no "no"I". There is only "I" knowing "I".

Originally Posted by psychoslice

All I can go by is my own experience, I don't have a clue what others have experienced, and I don't really care.

I remember I was just wanting to die after a long time of clinical depression and all of a sudden I was gone, just disappeared into whatever it was, in that experience I felt like I knew all there was, I experienced all there IS, but not intellectually, i cannot explain it, one must experience it for themselves, and that is what I share, that is all I know, so whatever Enlightenment means, that is what it means to me.

Very true words

[StrandedSnowMonkey]

Originally Posted by Xan

StrandedSnowMonkey: Self-determination? It's easier to elect.

It sounds like you're saying it's easier to choose to avoid the unknown. Did I hear you right?

If that were a conscious choice....


I've been reading a little about the mystics... that it's all just a matter of time

Yep.


Xan

Hi :)


Sorry! I should have said something more about subtle awareness and the noisy mind

With awareness we can be self-determined ~ become our own author. From another perspective, it can appear that one is just being rather indifferent. An agreement can be a rather formal way of moving forward. It's more natural to agree to be dynamic and supportive :)

Developing intuition and taking time for choices. Like a tree, which develops strong roots and branches out, supporting many other animals. Become conscious of the cycles, and take/choose the time to blossom ~ unlock the unknown/mystery :)


Hopefully I'll discover more stories about the mystics. There's some lessons in those...

Talk about surrender and choices! That's some determination...

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

But see, from what I read here, you feel that you are 'becoming'. I experience that it is "I" that thinks it is becoming and all the while remaining "I" and never becoming anything but "I" with a different face. (higher self, changed, better, wiser, enlightened) All require "I" or a self.
No "I"...no self....no becoming. The ride stops and the next one begins.
That's how I see it anyways and because I too have spent many diverse, full years "becoming"...which in retrospect were really all about "unbecoming" .
I appreciate the conversation...... thanks............gotta run for now

But perhaps, when you say...

But see, from what I read here, you feel that you are 'becoming'.

...you are fitting my described experience into the paramters of your experience.
Aka, you are taking my words that are an expression of how i processed a specific incident in reality
but you are processing them through your thinking process, and reaching a conclusion i was expressing "becoming"
That you have done this to my experience because that is you experience.

But see, from what I read here, you feel that you are 'becoming'

If it's what you read, then perhaps it's "I feel" not "you feel". "becoming" is your interpretation of what i shared, not mine.

Granted, as i ponder your response, that 'becoming' can comprise of 'discovery' and ' manufacturing',
in that as i examine myself i am discovering who and what i am and i also have the capacity to change,
to create new ways to behave(manufacture).
So i contemplate this is why you see it as 'becoming'.

However, it seems to me that below is where our base assumptions/foundations that we work from, greatly differ.
And, when i say "assumptions/foundations", i mean i know this is how it is for me, but i am only theorising this is how it is for you.

I experience that it is "I" that thinks it is becoming and all the while remaining "I" and never becoming anything but "I" with a different face. (higher self, changed, better, wiser, enlightened) All require "I" or a self.
No "I"...no self....no becoming. The ride stops and the next one begins.

I just stated my position that "I" is not me, but that "I" is a word used to identify me,
in that "I" cannot do anything, it's just a word.
Actually, bin the above statement, and please clarify if you like, why, in your first line you have two types of 'I's, as bolded.
A lot of people do this "I" thing and quite frankly, one, i have never delved into it to find out why they do this
and two, i have no idea if people have the same or different meanings as to why they do it.

I use "" when i am quoting another's word within my sentence,
aka, WS when you say "becoming"...
But what i don't fully understand is when a person uses both I and "I" in the same sentence when speaking about themself,
as you have just done.

Back to my initial observations.

(1)I experience that it is "I" that thinks it is becoming and all the while remaining "I" and never becoming anything but "I" with a different face. (higher self, changed, better, wiser, enlightened)(2) All require "I" or a self.
(3)No "I"...no self....no becoming.(4) The ride stops and the next one begins.

1) The second claim of your statement cancels out the first one.
If you state that self changes, then i don't see the point i starting off saying self doesn't become anything.
It just looks like you are disagreeing with yourself.
In that you first conclude self doesn't become anything, but then state is does.

2a) I agree, and it seems logical/obvious to me that a self is required to produce these "higher self, changed, better, wiser, enlightened" within a self.
Though i am unclear as to why you made this statement if it's so obvious.
And depending on why you stated that "I" never becomes anything, i cannot agree that a self cannot become nothing.

2b) Why is 'I' in parenthesis but not 'self'?

3)Again, logical and obvious, if a self does not exist, then that self cannot become anything, cannot change, grow, etc.
And again, why is 'I' in parenthesis but not 'self'?

4) I dont see how if self does not exist, if i do not exist, that there is the experience of a ride stopping and the experience of another one starting.
If i do not exist, i will not sense, i will not be aware of any type of ride.

Originally Posted by Neville

Oh and if I do discover something beyond my awareness, well it's not beyond my awareness anymore then is it ?

Nice !

I'll tell you what I have been thinking of late... A Central point.. Me you the Earth the Sun. Maintains objects in a stable orbit unless the gravitational pull becomes too strong.. Then like the black hole or broken old space debri The gravity overpowers and begins to draw in the objects around it.

I am wondering whether our gravitational pull draws in knowledge and experience. I suppose it must really. Otherwise we would never learn anything. Now interestingly if a thing remains in stable orbit around us . It is there but we may never experience it which should not stop us being aware of it. It just don't happen to us.

Too much coffee again. Sorry.

I've been looking at it the another way.
That forms that have no innate ability to choose their paths but still are in motion,
will potentially venture into a space where there is new information.
But if this body in motion is not a conscious thinking feeling sensing form, it will not be able to recieve and / or make anything of this information.

A conscious form that thinks feels senses, that has the ability to choose what direction/path it wants to take,
then it's not that information gravitates towards such a creature, but it's the creature that gravitates towards that which it desires to.
And in doing so, it's not that this creature gravitates, but more that it proples itself.

Living creatures, as opposed to inanimate forms.
Living creatures walk towards rocks, rocks don't walk towards living creatures.
How does a person solve a problem, by the solution coming toward them or by the person moving around looking for one.
Perhaps there is a third party involved, that moves solutions towards people
but i have not experienced one enough to claim it to be a fact.

Originally Posted by Neville

Only if you were absolutely certain I knew, you would have to actually know I know and that i was not pretending I knew. Not that I am given to pretending . However The Achilles heel in all of this is that we can only ever really think we know. And thinking we know sometimes has a great distance between actually knowing.

I once thought I could put a shelf up straight... The Spirit Level had a different and more accurate view of horizontal than I

So off we go into fractions and subdivisions.. I as you can be partially aware of a thing. Not have the whole picture, .... boy oh boy,

Rabbit Hole alert ... Methinks.

And it's this kind of rational deep explorative thinking that some just don't like Neville.
These people just want to feel, they just want a surface sensation that they can quickly evaluate(a thinking process),
and if it's good, that's all they require.

To me it's like my time in chrsitianity.
When i first became a wacky born again christian(actually i was extremely sedate, not gung ho fundamentalist like a lot of my peers)
When i first ventured on that path, having limited knowledge, surface understanding, it was a most perfect and beautiful concept.
God loved me, god was in control, i was saved and i had my ticket to heaven when i died.
Why wouldn't you accept this awaesome news, especailly when it gives you the warm and fuzzies.

But as i delved into the concept (with no agenda but simply to immerse myself in this sublime sea) through the years i began to see the cracks, that a lot of things simply did not add up.
I suspect some people, if they saw these cracks in their perfect life, they would stop looking into it and simply enjoy the info that is obtainable on the surface.

And, as seems to be a farily sized issue of late, many are of the opinion/are convinced/believe that thinking is bad for your health.
A lot of them totally unaware of how much thinking they do to create and maintain their current perception.