How do I know myself as Consciousness?

[Goldcup7]

Thanks, Starman. That makes a lot of sense.

My view of permanence is that there is only what is permanent. Impermanence seems to come and go.

Regarding the one becoming two, becoming many, I say that's only how it appears. The One is an Infinite One. It allows the appearance of two and many (duality) whilst remaining complete and undivided. The world of limits and restrictions appears within the infinite freedom of what is.

This world then is an amazing play of variety within oneness. This variety of life should be cherished whilst recognising the underlying oneness of all.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by Starman

It is called illusion because it is illusive, constantly changing, coming and going, etc.
...
The rest of it is just so much word salad, using words to try to discuss, or debate, something which transcend words.

I suppose for me the first cracks in the illusion/appearance was meditation. Observing/witnessing thoughts arise from the subconscious at deeper and more subtle levels. How scattered and nonsensical those first fragments are until they play with other fragments and begin to solidify into a more coherent pattern, cross-reference and retrieving memories related to those patterns which then color them from past experience as not good, good or of no real consequence. Like water flowing through a channel it's been cutting and shaping for years or decades. Neurons that fire together, wire together.

For the first time realizing they have nothing to do with that innate, unchanging and ever-present sense of existing/being.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Goldcup7

Imo 'individual existence' does not come into being. If by 'individual existence' we mean an entity that is separate from other entities, then we slip into the error of duality and separation.

It seems that for many non dualists there cannot be individualisation because it implies separation. This is a red herring. It's bogus, and this is why there is a lack of understanding how there can possibly be individuality without separation. Therefore anything that resembles or reflects individuality must mean that it's false or illusory.

When individuality is realised for what it is, then the bog standard non duality premise comes to a grinding halt.

So for non dualists this can never be embraced and you will at times see the lengths some will go to avoid addressing this.


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Ewwerrin

Would you then say that the self is like the screen of the universe. Turning off the screen, leaves just the screen, and no thing. Like the ether?
Would you say then that the Absolute or Consciousness or the Self or I am, is like the Ether?

If you are asking me, then I see the mind as the environment for what we are to experience ourselves. What we think we are is self related in reflection of everything perceived.

I don't resonate with this whole screen analogy and actors and whatnot, it does nothing for me.

If one has transcended self and mind then there is no one and nothing to perceive. No thoughts of I am or what non duality means lol.

Consciousness as a word usage as said a few times now can create confusion especially when as said before also no one knows what it is. No-one knows how things supposedly arise from within or of it etc etc.


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Starman

In my perception, what is real is permanent and what is unreal is temporary. It is called illusion because it is illusive, constantly changing, coming and going, etc.

I don't understand why there is the connection between what is temporary and what is unreal. I mean we can go to a deeper level here in regards the the individual soul or spirit aspects of what we are that changes as one experiences. All that which is noted as unreal is based upon an unreal footing.

If we take Miss hepburns notion of the world is a dream, reflects constant change. J A S G notion of we are likened to reflections of God constantly changes.

All these base foundations are therefore built upon unreal and illusory footings.

If we start to divide what is permanent from what isn't then that conclusion is only going to come from mind. If we talk about beyond mind as what is permanent then there is no-one present that can conclude that.

What is unreal or real doesn't exist. No thoughts are present.


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

I suppose for me the first cracks in the illusion/appearance was meditation. Observing/witnessing thoughts arise from the subconscious at deeper and more subtle levels.

I am still not sure based upon what you have and haven't said what it is that can realise something or meditate or search within.

You speak about what you are as an individual is likened to Gods reflection.

So what is it that you believe you actually are?

Do you embrace the idea that as an individual there is an embodiment of the spirit / soul?


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Goldcup7

Regarding the appearance of objects, I do not believe that objects appear at all. There are no objects, as there are no limits that separate things from other things. There is only what is. .

Well from the very off it's kinda odd for one's family member or a Tree to be labelled an object in the first place. These are just words in the non duality handbook that relates to appearances.

This is why non dualists can't seem to break away from certain words. This is why it seems as if non dualist are just reciting words from the same hymn book.

It's a very niche set of chosen words.

If we forget about the choice of words that reflect non dualities version of objects and separation then there is a clear process of how things come to be.

Two weeks ago there were no weeds in my garden, until yesterday there were many. Are these weeds appearances only that just appeared in Consciousness?

In your eyes the weeds didn't appear?

How does there only what is mean in reflection of the weeds not being there and then being there?

Don't forget we can leave separation at the door.




x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

Interesting post, Starman. A thought on permanence vs impermanence ~ we measure these against linear time but time itself slows down, finally stopping altogether at the singularity point.

There is either integration of what you are in all things as real or there is a divide between what is and what isn't.

This is why one can say I am not the mind, I am not the body, or everything of the mind is a dream or illusory because it is temporary or whatnot.

It's not a problem to see the world as one wishes, but it does reflect a divide of sorts. It doesn't reflect a union of all things.


x daz x

[Goldcup7]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Two weeks ago there were no weeds in my garden, until yesterday there were many. Are these weeds appearances only that just appeared in Consciousness?

In your eyes the weeds didn't appear?

How does there only what is mean in reflection of the weeds not being there and then being there?

Don't forget we can leave separation at the door.

In everyday life we can talk of weeds and such. But if we look at the deeper understanding, there are no weeds imo. Where do the weeds begin and end? 'The weeds' is a fuzzy label, a vague term referring to something as if it was truly defined. That's the problem. Better to get to the root of the question.

God-Like, it seems you assume that 'the weeds' encapsulates a bunch of entities. It is then that the issue of separation has crept in through the door.

[Starman]

Discussion is fine but the forum rules here wants us to stay away from debate. Personally I would like to see more inspiration on this forum, for me poetic inspiration is the language of spirituality, while discussion is largely a mental endeavor grounded in intellect. We each have our preferences in spirituality as well as in life.