Self - open discussion

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by Lazarus72

I think this this might be the part that can't be said. I'm mean there's gotta be something that can't be said right ?

Right. 'The inexpressible'. I think something can be said, but whatever is said is not 'it'. Or perhaps not all of 'it'.

Originally Posted by Lazarus72

I think this this might be the part that can't be said. I'm mean there's gotta be something that can't be said right ?

I could say that everything can experience my thoughts.
My hands move according to some thoughts, my legs the same.
Even a tree can experience some of my thoughts if I go and hug it, or even if I look at it! Not to mention you guys reading!
And my thoughts come from the 'whole thing.'

Greetings..

Originally Posted by ichc

When you look at one of your friends, do you see a "unique individually functioning vibrational signature" ?
If not, what do you see?

I see a friend, identified by the qualities that have evolved with that "unique individually functioning vibrational signature", i know the friend 'is' all of the uniqueness, including qualities inherent only to the friend, and the unique energetic signature, too.. i am aware of these relationships and find great beauty in them, the Cosmos is a most interesting experience..

What do i see, i see Life..

Be well..

[Lazarus72]

Originally Posted by andrew g

Right. 'The inexpressible'. I think something can be said, but whatever is said is not 'it'. Or perhaps not all of 'it'.

Yep, as we've discussed before I think verbal communication (incl written) is an imperfect medium due to the true nature of things.

Words are only pointers really, pointing to something that eventually just cannot be said.

I think that's why when you get to the deeper stuff or subtler stuff then the Tao like phrases tend to work best. Reading between the lines.

Originally Posted by TzuJanLi

What do i see, i see Life..

That's what I see, too
Be well, TzuJanLi!

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by Gem

The mindset... that's a good point.

The flexibility can be maluable easily manipulated, brain washed, and conviction can be ridgid and dogmatic, so it revolves around the belief... and sometimes I imagine how deeply one resonates with the quantity of material they read, constantly finding reenforcement for the originally adopted idea, Then dance to another man's drum.

Discernment of the mind is always better for then one can read and merely understand the intended message... formulated thoughts derived from the vast banks of memory including the linguistic expression...

So often I hear it expressed, as clearly statedin tzu's sig, it isn't what is said that is true, but the experience, and perhaps people each experience some fundamental presence core to their mindset and refer to that existence as self, being not seperate by that very expression.

I think one has to be mindful of where he departs the experience and enters into speculation, and face it, any interpretation made of what is said here is speculation, the assumption I'm making a point, not writing randomly as things spring to mind, and there is the possibility one might interpret the words you use as antiquitated, which indicates little to no interest in understanding what you mean.

i think your convulating things.

what i am saying is simple.

the sense of me is sensed by awareness, therefore awareness is prior to "me". and I is an object of awareness. now what part of the prior do you not understand?

while tzu and the most people think that they own awareness. which is a norm for almost thousands of years, so it's antiquated. and i am saying that this has no basis in actual experience, meaning it's a belief, an abstraction that results from inductive reasoning,

there are 3 respones to this...

1. it is not my experience so i can't comment on that.
2. or i experienced it but i wont teach it becasue it leads to indifference
3. its' nonsense and you are trying to escape life.

so tzu response was always the third. what yours?

.

/

Originally Posted by hybrid

i think your convulating things.

what i am saying is simple.

the sense of me is sensed by awareness, therefore awareness is prior to "me". and I is an object of awareness. now what part of the prior do you not understand?

while tzu and the most people think that they own awareness. which is a norm for almost thousands of years, so it's antiquated. and i am saying that this has no basis in actual experience, meaning it's a belief, an abstraction that results from inductive reasoning,

there are 3 respones to this...

1. it is not my experience so i can't comment on that.
2. or i experienced it but i wont teach it becasue it leads to indifference
3. its' nonsense and you are trying to escape life.

so tzu response was always the third. what yours?

Hi Hybrid: Try speaking directly to me.. or, do you simply lack the courage?

My response is this, you say much and demonstrate little.. you play word games, yes.. 'word-games'..
No one says 'own', it's an inherent attribute of Consciousness, it was there before 'you', the individual, developed the the words to describe it, but it serves at your pleasure.. it is an inert vehicle that transports information, an attribute of Consciousness, whether that Consciousness be individualized or the collective whole..
and, your conclusions are non-sequiturs:
1) It's been that way for thousands of years, so it's "antiquated"
2) And, you say, "this has no basis in actual experience"
3) "Meaning it's a belief"
These are unrelated concepts, meaningless if intended to appear to support your beliefs.

"the sense of me is sensed by awareness,".. that is a nicely stated understanding, but then.. you follow it up with personal desires and beliefs, unsupportable speculation, and 'word-games' that you hope will imply some illusion of validity..

It seems that the distraction of appearing 'spiritual' without understanding the simplicty of it, is more that your speculation can contain..

Be well..

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hybrid

i think your convulating things.

what i am saying is simple.

the sense of me is sensed by awareness, therefore awareness is prior to "me". and I is an object of awareness. now what part of the prior do you not understand?

Awareness is not prior in my experience, space is the primary object of awareness just as this computer is, but when that goes away awareness goes away.

while tzu and the most people think that they own awareness. which is a norm for almost thousands of years, so it's antiquated. and i am saying that this has no basis in actual experience, meaning it's a belief, an abstraction that results from inductive reasoning,

To experience awareness makes it apparent that individuals share the same awareness and perception of the primary object (thought) is the same perception of the same object by the same awareness, but awareness springs up with the thought (object).

there are 3 respones to this...

1. it is not my experience so i can't comment on that.
2. or i experienced it but i wont teach it becasue it leads to indifference
3. its' nonsense and you are trying to escape life.

so tzu response was always the third. what yours?

[hybrid]

So the single most vital step on your journey toward enlightenment is this: learn to disidentify from your mind. Every time you create a gap in the stream of mind, the light of your consciousness grows stronger. One day you may catch yourself smiling at the voice in your head, as you would smile at the antics of a child. This means that you no longer take the content of your mind all that seriously, as your sense of self does not depend on it.

~ Eckhart Tolle

[Gem]

Originally Posted by hybrid

So the single most vital step on your journey toward enlightenment is this: learn to disidentify from your mind. Every time you create a gap in the stream of mind, the light of your consciousness grows stronger. One day you may catch yourself smiling at the voice in your head, as you would smile at the antics of a child. This means that you no longer take the content of your mind all that seriously, as your sense of self does not depend on it.

~ Eckhart Tolle

perhaps people each experience some fundamental presence core to their mindset and refer to that existence as self.

(Re-quoted from my convolution)