It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sooner or Later We All Must Completely Surrender to Reality

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
Surrender to which reality, Heaven or hell? If you choose the world's logic of apathy and greed, that is still hell's reality.


There is only one Reality. Reality is indivisible consciousness-light-energy - nothing exists apart from it. So there are not two or more realities over against one another.

What we do to make different virtual realities is another matter. Various conditional forces can create the virtual reality of heaven or hell, but all conditions are modifications of the one Reality, absolute conscious being-love-bliss itself.

Surrendering to the one Reality is the only means for transcending the virtual realities of all conditional appearances and experiences - high or low.




posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Visitor2012

There is no you, but there's most certainly an I. ;

And who is this "I" you refer to?

Also, do you have any comments about the opening post?


I enjoy stimulating conversation and Thankyou for entertaining my perspective for a moment. Most likely I'm referring to the same I you're referring to. The ultimate perceiver, which is synonymous with the intuitive sense of I Am. I commented that basically it is paradoxical for anyone to say 'at one with the source' or whatever when referring to themselves. It's an impossibility. That was what I was trying to indicate. Semantics perhaps...I'll move on.

I do not disagree with your OP. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Perhaps we share similar agreements, and maybe I was quick to jump on the topic. The act of 'Letting go' is an impossible thing to do and when you look at it a bit deeper, as have tens of thousands of monks and seekers before us, it's actually quite absurd. With constant change, there's nothing to ever hold on to, so there's nothing to let go of, at least not in reality.

Our spiritual experiences are always coming and going, physical is always changing, minds are changing and thoughts and emotions change, come and go. Even the normal waking state is interrupted with sleep. Everything that can be percieved is constantly changing. So the very intent and belief that one is letting go, requires the assumption and belief that one is holding on, it is a delusion all the way down to its core.
edit on 17-4-2015 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




Oh, it's entirely possible to manifest things. I'm not very good at it yet. Remember, thoughts become things. Everything you see with your two eyes that's man-made at one time was a thought in someone's head.

How we feel influences how we think, and our thoughts influence our perception. Our perception becomes our reality.


Yes I agree ... Thought is the basis of all man made things ... Imagination also being thought ...

I can lift objects with thought ... like the coffee in front of me ... I have the thought to pick it up between my fingers and hey presto ... but seriously ...

I think you make a very important point ... Our attitude/way of thinking determines our circumstances



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Visitor2012

Most likely I'm referring to the same I you're referring to. The ultimate perceiver, which is synonymous with the intuitive sense of I Am.

Again, this could point to a need for us to clearly define our terms, but I think I can respond appropriately to your statement above.

The ultimate perceiver implies an ultimate subject which implies an object to be perceived. This is therefore a form of separation, so how can Reality actually be separated?

It seems as we understand more and more the subtleties of spirituality, we like to feel that we will not lose our basic sense of being a "perceiver". The root of this function is founded in the mechanism of attention, the making of a point-of-view, which creates the feeling of being a subject, knower, or perceiver.

Attention is the most fundamental essence of our (illusory) separate self. All experiences, even those very high, never transcend altogether the mechanism of attention. This is the fundamental sense of separation, that is actually just an activity moment to moment of constantly generating points-of-view, whether high or low, in the scheme of things.

Reality itself does not require such a mechanism, nor does reality perceive. Reality is not separate from anything arising, though it is prior to all conditions. It is the Witness of all conditions, but that is not perceiving.

Perceiving is what the brain-mind does through the machine of point-of-view making via attention. Whereas the Witness is to perfectly know what everything is because everything is simply a modification of reality itself.

Yes, we intuit the I Am because we are most fundamentally awareness, which is only apparently associated with these body-minds via the mechanism of attention. (I use the word awareness as the same as absolute Consciousness, though the former when expressing its apparent identification with the body-mind.)

There are several reasons why there are so few reports of anyone transcending attention altogether. All kinds of experiences have been equated with ultimate Enlightenment, from various mystical traditions relative to the subtle body, to transcendental experiences of non-duality. But very few speak of actually transcending attention itself. Most mystical traditions, and also the transcendental traditions of non-dualism, settle for the "ultimate" experience that their tradition's founder taught as Enlightenment and the tradition formed around.

Much of the new age talk these days has to do with a very "westernized" version of non-duality, and people actually think they can self-generate this great realization.

As you are indicating as well, how can one possibly pick themselves up by their own bootstraps with all kinds of seeking to realize the truth?

So the main reason such realization in terms of transcending the root of attention (associated with the right side of the heart and the causal body) is very very rare, is that it requires Unconditional Reality to draw one beyond this final vestige of egoity at the root of attention. No effort by the individual can possibly do this because attention is what the individual ego is at root.

And of course, almost no one even wants this! One would rather feel consoled with ideas of being the "I Am", which is true ultimately, but no "I" exists whatsoever in Reality. Does the ego-I, even at root, want that? Hell no!

Thank you for your feedback on the opening post. I also found your statements on the futility of seeking interesting, but given I have already written probably too much in this post already, I will leave any further writing for another post.

edit on 4/17/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

The thing is, you *could* levitate objects with your mind if you were 100% confident in your ability to do so. The problem is, our minds aren't disciplined enough to have that kind of control over our reality. There is always some form of doubt within us, even if we are sure there isn't. Somewhere, hidden inside there is doubt -- due to the programming we receive from the world around us as we grow/mature.

It would also be dangerous if we could have that kind of mastery over our own minds. If we could manifest whatever and exert the kind of control we have while lucid dreaming, the world would be pure chaos. No, we handicapped ourselves...for our own good. This doesn't mean, however, that we can't experiment and try to peer behind the curtain...

Everything is possible in some alternate reality. There are an infinite number or parallel/alternate realities. Some of these realities are different only by one atom.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I believe each person/soul has a vast amount power and potential ... I agree that being on Earth we are limited ...

Perhaps the doubt you speak of is what keeps us in check so to speak ...

The potential we have is linked to how evolved we are ... Not in a Darwin way but in a way of caring and understanding ...
We are always dealing with substance be it people or things ... It is how we handle substance that matters ... In a caring or non caring way ... that is the choice we have ... Thought is made of substance ...

If we were given the potential power we have ... no doubt we would destroy not only the Earth but the whole Solar system
Power alone is destructive if not tempered with caring or Love if you like




edit on 17-4-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108




The ultimate perceiver implies an ultimate subject which implies an object to be perceived. This is therefore a form of separation, so how can Reality actually be separated?


The perceiver is the subject, but it can never be an object to be perceived. It isn't reality being separated, it's an illusion of separation that occurs when the perceiver bonds it's fundamental identity and intuitive sense of self to what is being perceived. But it's not separation.



Perceiving is what the brain-mind does through the machine of point-of-view making via attention. Whereas the Witness is to perfectly know what everything is because everything is simply a modification of reality itself.


The instrument through which perception happens, is just that, an instrument. It isn't the perceiver of it. A telescope aids in observing, makes observing possible, but it's not the observer. The Self, You, are the observer. Witnessing has absolutely nothing to do with perfectly knowing anything. Everyone witnesses. If you're aware of anything, you can be none other than the witness of that awareness. You can not be anything other than a witness of that being-ness.



All kinds of experiences have been equated with ultimate Enlightenment, from various mystical traditions relative to the subtle body, to transcendental experiences of non-duality.


No experience has ever been equated with enlightenment. And no enlightened being would ever equate it as such, although a mystic might. Enlightenment is not an experience ultimate or otherwise, and it is not mystical. It's not phenomenal. Neither is the Self. You can not be found in the phenomenal. It doesn't matter what subtle body you discover and dwell in or what mystical mansion you play in.

The Mystical consists of phenomena and experience, enlightenment has nothing to do with the mystical. Enlightenment and the Mystical are two separate things all together. A sage can be a mystic, but a mystic does not mean enlightened. There is no such thing as experiencing non-duality. Only new age religions preach that garbage.



Much of the new age talk these days has to do with a very "westernized" version of non-duality, and people actually think they can self-generate this great realization.


Nobody wants non-duality. Unless they truly desire to cease to exist. And not even physical death would satisfy that desire. Transcending the mind does not require the ending of duality. Leave duality alone, the Universe needs it to exist. And I disagree with you, the self is the only one that generates the realization. That's why it is said that it's within each of us, here and now, eternally present. not external to us.



One would rather feel consoled with ideas of being the "I Am", which is true ultimately,

Which is true ALWAYS. I know not one seeker, who has ever been consoled with an idea for very long. You can not reap the fruits of liberation from an idea.



Thank you for your feedback on the opening post.


Thank you. I haven't been on this board in a while and it's nice to be able to entertain some dialog.
edit on 17-4-2015 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Visitor2012

It's nice to have you back. 🍀

👣



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule
Very kind of you Bluemule, Thankyou

edit on 17-4-2015 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Visitor2012
The perceiver is the subject, but it can never be an object to be perceived. It isn't reality being separated, it's an illusion of separation that occurs when the perceiver bonds it's fundamental identity and intuitive sense of self to what is being perceived. But it's not separation.

Again, I think we are in agreement more than meets the eye - we use different terminology to explain similar matters.
Anyway, I will try to define the terminology I am used to, as I go along.

Previously, you spoke of an Ultimate Perceiver. That is what I was addressing as not being the case - Reality is acausal and so has no cause and effect relationship with conditionality. So Reality does not create conditions - however, Reality is not separate from any conditions because all conditions are simply a modification of Consciousness-Light (Reality).

Reality does not perceive modifications because it is not separate from them - they are merely stepped down frequencies of Reality's Radiance, and this is the "means" in which Reality is the Witness of all conditions. It is all one event, Reality is not a witness or observer that is witnessing or observing any conditions. Reality is simply the Witness (Awareness), non-separate from its own modifications.

What I am used to speaking about in terms of the observer is that it is a higher function of mind and as such is conditional. The observer is also observing the observed, so in that sense it is separate from whatever it observes. Various Eastern traditions speak of the observer function of the higher-intellect.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
The instrument through which perception happens, is just that, an instrument. It isn't the perceiver of it. A telescope aids in observing, makes observing possible, but it's not the observer. The Self, You, are the observer.


Again, it may be terminology, but perception is a brain-mind activity. The sense of being a perceiver is an illusion created by the focusing of attention on any apparently perceived object.

Perceptions are limited to what the brain-mind constructs relative to any apparent object - so it is only a facsimile of what that object is in Reality.

In Reality, we are not the perceiver. Reality is beyond all subject-object dichotomies. Reality is not separate from anything, and never perceives anything like the brain-mind does.

What does an object actually look like in Reality? All objects are modifications of the Light-Energy of Reality, not separate from Reality.
However, no brain-mind can ever know what an object actually IS, because the brain-mind is already necessarily assuming a limted point-of-view to even perceive it. Perceptions are therefore limited.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
Witnessing has absolutely nothing to do with perfectly knowing anything. Everyone witnesses. If you're aware of anything, you can be none other than the witness of that awareness. You can not be anything other than a witness of that being-ness.


Again, this must be a difference in terminology. One could just as easily replace "witness" and "witnessing" with "observer" and "observing" and state what you said above - at least the way I use those terms.

Also, there is no witness of awareness. Awareness is the Witness is Consciousness is Reality.

Are you using the term "awareness" as synonymous with the the conscious mind?

I will try to capitalize the words I identify with Reality, and not capitalize brain-mind functions, like the observer. If you would do the same in terms of capitalizing the worlds that equate to Reality for you, it would help our communication.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
No experience has ever been equated with enlightenment. And no enlightened being would ever equate it as such, although a mystic might.

There have been various traditions that equate mystical experience with ultimate Enlightenment - because that was the limit their founder had and taught. And yes, they tend to be the mystical traditions that have made this error.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
Enlightenment is not an experience ultimate or otherwise, and it is not mystical.

It's not phenomenal. Neither is the Self. You can not be found in the phenomenal. It doesn't matter what subtle body you discover and dwell in or what subtle mansion you play in.

The Mystical consists of phenomena and experience, enlightenment has nothing to do with the mystical. Enlightenment and the Mystical are two separate things all together.

I agree except when you said "You can not be found in the phenomenal." I am assuming you are equating that "You" with Consciousness or the Self, right? However, no "you" actually exists in Reality, so I don't tend to mix these two meanings. The term "you" refers to the conditional "ego-I' illusion, in my way of seeing things.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
A sage can be a mystic, but a mystic does not mean enlightened. There is no such thing as experiencing non-duality. Only new age religions preach that garbage.

Agreed, though sages are seldom mystics. They see all experiences high or low as basically the same - to always be transcended.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
Nobody wants non-duality. Unless they truly desire to cease to exist.

Agreed. No ego-I would ever want this dissolution in Reality. This is the great fear, and why absolute Enlightenment is so very rare.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
And not even physical death would satisfy that desire. Transcending the mind does not require the ending of duality. Leave duality alone, the Universe needs it to exist. And I disagree with you, the self is the only one that generates the realization. That's why it is said that it's within each of us, here and now, eternally present. not external to us.


Here we differ. Ultimately there is only unqualified acausal Consciousness-Light-Energy. All forms are a modification of that one Being. As such, duality is an illusion. The only absolute Enlightenment is transcending all form AND seeing that all forms are always modifications of the one Divine Being.

Traditionally for the non-dualists, Enlightenment was falling into the Self (and for a rare few, via the causal heart on the right where attention itself is rooted), and thereby excluding conditionality.

However, there are even rarer teachers that speak to Enlightenment as also including the conditional worlds as not anything that have to be abstracted from - in fact, to do so, may represent a limit in one's realization.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
I know not one seeker, who has ever been consoled with an idea for very long.

Right, but they often seek for the next great experience, vision, insight, whatever - which is more of the same search to be consoled as a separate self.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
Thank you. I haven't been on this board in a while and it's nice to be able to entertain some dialog.

Yes, thank you - much appreciated.

edit on 4/17/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Look at it this way, mind is who you are, brain is your interface to this virtual reality. IMHO what we deem reality is actually like a ride, a seemingly "solid" multidimensional movie. There is a great deal of emerging scientific research that seems to solidify this view of our "bondage" within this virtual reality construct.


Yes, I agree with you about our virtual reality construct. I have had many discussions about how we never experience anything apart from awareness.

When we perceive an object, we are actually perceiving an image of that object, and given the time it takes for this perception to be created, processed, and registered, the object in reality could have actually changed.

So we are not only perceiving an image of the object (not the object itself), but also the image is a memory of whatever we are apparently viewing.

Given we never perceive an actual object in the present, as it is, yes, we have a virtual reality that we live in and believe is altogether real.


This is actually a very good point, everything we see, hear, smell, taste and touch has a propagation delay attached to it along with the processing time. There is a large body of research that postulates that the brain actually makes decisions up to a few seconds before an event occurs, which would seem to indicate that the brain can sense activity ahead of time in a limited or controlled fashion. Whether that ability is limited or controlled by a system we still don't understand is anyone's guess at this point.

However, if you use a "hard drive" or magnetic tape analogy, data can be sensed before it is actually read, by the magnetic interference pattern. This is another reason that if you erase data on magnetic medium, the "ghost" of the past data is still present as an underlying or even data track fringe-element.

Maybe the same kind of n-dimensional superstructure exists since it appears our original non-ground state was 10 space (10 dimensions) under string theory. But then there is other research, some of which was referenced on ATS, that there is a CRC type checksum built into everything that exists. It may be an abstract mathematical idea, but its prevalence makes this CRC data much more than a statistical anomaly.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 4/17.2015 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

.



The observer is also observing the observed,so in that sense it is separate from whatever it observes

Yet, at the same time, it is not what it observes, but that does not imply that it is separate from what it observes. In other words, a chair is the sum of its parts, but the chair is not any one particular part. This does not imply that the chair is separate from the parts. On the contrary.

If you said that the observer is observing the observer and therefore establishing the idea that the observer is objective and therefore an illusion. In that case, again, I'd say..this can never happen in reality. Only inside a thought in the mind. Anyone who says they can watch the watcher, is not aware of their most basic and true position in the whole scheme. It would be an illusion indeed.



In Reality, we are not the perceiver. Reality is beyond all subject-object dichotomies. Reality is not separate from anything, and never perceives anything like the brain-mind does.


You perceive and thus are aware of what's happening in your mind, thought, body, emotions, your actions and everything else. So as far as you're concerned, the only thing you know, without a doubt, is that you're aware. The intuitive sense EVERYONE has and some ignore, Is the sense I am (I'm not referring to the egoic identity, I'm referring to the atman itself). You know, the self, the presence you can not deny.

Everything you talk about seems to have one thing in common. All of it completely ignores and does not account for that one and only fact. It ignores the only living presence you know of, the one that is sitting their reading the words faithfully identified with the instrument through which the reading is taking place. and reduces it's true self (the presence, the awareness, the consciousness , beyond even the nuclear mind/body) to an illusion. The self, the atman, believing itself a figment of its own imagination and excluding itself in its description of the universe and reality. That is duality taken to the extreme. To separate self from your definition of reality and the universe around you. A highly exclusive reality, one which does not account for the perceiver of that reality.

However, I'm willing to bet I've misunderstood what you're saying.
Which is very easy to do with so many words being used. There's really no language for this kind of exchange where both of us could literally be talking about the exact same thing. Buried and lost in semantics. However, your angle on it compelled me to type a response. So I did.



There have been various traditions that equate mystical experience with ultimate Enlightenment - because that was the limit their founder had and taught. And yes, they tend to be the mystical traditions that have made this error.


Yes, an error indeed.



Agreed, though sages are seldom mystics. They see all experiences high or low as basically the same - to always be transcended.


A sage is transcended, liberated. His work is done. He's not transcending anything. Because these nothing to transcend.



I agree except when you said "You can not be found in the phenomenal." I am assuming you are equating that "You" with Consciousness or the Self, right? However, no "you" actually exists in Reality, so I don't tend to mix these two meanings. The term "you" refers to the conditional "ego-I' illusion, in my way of seeing things.


A rock is consciousness, but it's not aware. So no, I'm not referring to consciousness when I refer to the Self. More like a conscious awareness I suppose or the presence or sentience behind the awareness. I'm not using the word 'I' in the way you're using it (I-Ego). But that's ok, because I think we've communicated our point as best we could. And frankly, I'm getting a headache. The ego I that is..


When I said that you can never be found in the phenomenal, it's because if ever there was a moment place and time (in any realm) where you could find and perceive your self objectively.........there would still be YOU behind the looking glass.



edit on 17-4-2015 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
It's so uncomplicated that we complicate it


Everything is everything.

Reality is just what I call the "is-ness" (it just...is) experiencing itself in infinite forms.

That's really all there is to it. We can slice it, dice it and saute it in a pan all we want -- but at the end of the day everything comes from, is and goes back to this "is-ness" that is.

People seem to think that the world "out there" (waves arms around and points) is somehow disconnected from them. Really though, everything "out there" starts "in here" (taps side of head). People have it backwards and live out of harmony with the world around them.

IN a sense, you see with your mind, not your eyes. To a person with schizophrenia, they really do live in a reality where things may chase them. That is their reality, it's no less valid than your own. We each live in our own "species" of reality.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Ultimately there is only unqualified acausal Consciousness-Light-Energy. All forms are a modification of that one Being. 


I guess I would call that the 'Mother Light', from which we all borrow our space-time personalities. I'm still trying to figure out if the Mother Light is the same Light that lights up the backs of my eyelids from inside my skull sometimes when I meditate. Or perhaps, my inner light is more like a spark, a child, of the Mother Light which will be poured back into her someday, like a cup of water being poured into the ocean. And I'm still trying to figure out where the blue pearls and my cosmic body of stars fits in.

In any case, such experiences are truly exhilarating and en-light-ening. It's wonderful being alive! Thank you, Mother Light.

👣


edit on 084FridayuAmerica/ChicagoApruFridayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Given that I know you are familiar with the Eastern esoteric descriptions of the body-mind, here is an excerpt from an older book by Adi Da Samraj I found online in which he speaks of the sheaths, the Cosmic Mandala, and the Blue Pearl.



He also writes that the blue pearl "is one of the higher lights that appear in the subtle form of the human being. It may be seen within, above the plane of the eyes, or it may be seen to flash in front of the eyes."

As I am sure you are aware, Swami Muktananda looks at the Blue Pearl as the ultimate mystical revelation, as it is called by him the supracausal body or the cosmic body, the entrance to the abode of ascended beings.

Swami Muktananda initiated devotees into this experience when they were ready through various devotional exercises and surrender in the traditional Guru-disciple relationship. He would guide them through the experience, help them as needed with pitfalls, etc.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

edit on 4/17/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108

Thanks, that does shed light, so to speak, on the red light and dark field which I've also seen. But I can't find much cross-cultural correspondence in Western esotericism to the blue pearls. I usually try to triangulate such things.

👣



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule
I am not sure if the following is what you are speaking about partly because you are talking about blue pearls when there is only the one. Are you just pluralizing it in that sentence or do you see more than one blue spot?

Anyway, in the center of the Cosmic Mandala is the blue bindhu or blue pearl with a bright five-pointed star in its center.

This is the gateway we talked about earlier, and from what I can gather, in the Christian tradition, upon Jesus' death, he spiritually resurrected and ascended to this light and merged as this five-pointed star. Beyond this star is the Divine Light Above which Jesus called the Kingdom of God.

Also, various passages like "if thine eye be single", "being born to here from Above", the Morning Star, etc., in the Bible all point to this same esoteric process of seeing the inner light of the (morning) star, and being reborn in the Universal Light of God. Jesus' emphasis on Unity also is a characteristic of the Universal Light.

Also, Jesus initiated his disciples and seemingly Nicodemus, via his own capacity to transmit the spirit-light from above. This esoteric yoga is generally practiced with the help of a Spiritual Master due to various difficulties that can be encountered.

Upon his ascension, this merging with and as this passageway was Jesus' eternal gift to his followers, and ultimately to mankind, and also taught by the early disciples. This is why Jesus said that only through HIm could you enter the Kingdom, etc.

Of course, the official version of the ascension was not about this esoteric matter, and that version basically snuffed out this esoteric one.

However, the esoteric version of the ascension, and other passages in the Bible, are aligned to the inner structures of the body-mind - and for this reason, I personally believe it is evidence that Jesus did exist, as no ordinary people came up with this.




edit on 4/17/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Visitor2012
If you said that the observer is observing the observer and therefore establishing the idea that the observer is objective and therefore an illusion. In that case, again, I'd say..this can never happen in reality.

Right. The observer function is never objectified - it is the subject observing the objects.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
The intuitive sense EVERYONE has and some ignore, Is the sense I am (I'm not referring to the egoic identity, I'm referring to the atman itself). You know, the self, the presence you can not deny.

Right, but I have been calling that Awareness, which is inherently one with Consciousness or Reality Itself. One can even notice that Awareness never ages, it was the same when I was 10 years old as now. People can notice this, given that, after all is said and done, this is what we are. But I know what you mean that some ignore this most fundamental understanding of who we actually always are.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
The self, the atman, believing itself a figment of its own imagination and excluding itself in its description of the universe and reality. That is duality taken to the extreme. To separate self from your definition of reality and the universe around you. A highly exclusive reality, one which does not account for the perceiver of that reality.


No, I wasn't meaning to say that. When I talk about separate self, I am talking about the illusory ego-I that is a product of attention being focused as a point of view.

Attention is the root of the ego-I illusion, while Awareness is prior to attention. It is through the mechanism of attention that Awareness identifies with the body-mind, and apparently forgets its true nature and Source. Yes, Awareness is the Atman, in terms of how I am using the word.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
However, I'm willing to bet I've misunderstood what you're saying.
Which is very easy to do with so many words being used. There's really no language for this kind of exchange where both of us could literally be talking about the exact same thing. Buried and lost in semantics. However, your angle on it compelled me to type a response. So I did.

Well, I am glad you did respond - always enjoyable hearing another's take, and hashing out some of these details. It is often semantics and language differences.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
A sage is transcended, liberated. His work is done. He's not transcending anything. Because these nothing to transcend.

I guess it depends on how we define sage. There are some spiritual leaders who are involved in transcendental practices, but have not realized fully even though they can talk very well about their process.

I found Ramana Maharshi very early on in my life - he always appeared, in his pictures, and sounded, like a genuine sage to me.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
A rock is consciousness, but it's not aware.

Actually a rock is a modification of consciousness. Consciousness is the witness but the rock of course has no awareness, like a body-mind does. There is no mechanism of attention for consciousness (awareness) to hook up with in a rock - at least as far as I know!

Now I have seen some trees, like old redwoods, that definitely had some kind of awareness in unity with consciousness.


originally posted by: Visitor2012
So no, I'm not referring to consciousness when I refer to the Self. More like a conscious awareness I suppose or the presence or sentience behind the awareness. I'm not using the word 'I' in the way you're using it (I-Ego). But that's ok, because I think we've communicated our point as best we could. And frankly, I'm getting a headache. The ego I that is..


I hope your headache is gone by the time you read this! In fact, don't read this until it is gone!



originally posted by: Visitor2012
When I said that you can never be found in the phenomenal, it's because if ever there was a moment place and time (in any realm) where you could find and perceive your self objectively.........there would still be YOU behind the looking glass.

Right. Awareness, which is not the ego-I, is prior to what is phenomenal.

edit on 4/17/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
originally posted by: bb23108
originally posted by: arpgme

arpgme: Surrender to which reality, Heaven or hell? If you choose the world's logic of apathy and greed, that is still hell's reality.



bb23108: There is only one Reality. Reality is indivisible consciousness-light-energy - nothing exists apart from it. So there are not two or more realities over against one another.

What we do to make different virtual realities is another matter. Various conditional forces can create the virtual reality of heaven or hell, but all conditions are modifications of the one Reality, absolute conscious being-love-bliss itself.

Virtual reality (invented by the human) mimics the astral is all. This world is not 'reality' as you perceive it, or experience it. It is a material world (heavy matter) experimental playground. The "real world" is not this; it is what you will go back to after dropping this physical body. Your soul is eternal and can invent anything outside of the confines of 3D. Virtual reality is a good explanation for what REAL is (trying to tell ourselves there is something other than this). Its obvious; the digital world as described HERE (movie dome) is how it actually exists in the astral. IT IS A CLUE and how are you missing this?


edit on 18-4-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

This is actually a very good point, everything we see, hear, smell, taste and touch has a propagation delay attached to it along with the processing time. There is a large body of research that postulates that the brain actually makes decisions up to a few seconds before an event occurs, which would seem to indicate that the brain can sense activity ahead of time in a limited or controlled fashion. Whether that ability is limited or controlled by a system we still don't understand is anyone's guess at this point.

Very interesting consideration.

I wouldn't be surprised if some "higher" function of mind is also involved with this apparent "prescient" activity of the brain in the terms you described it is.

Perhaps, somehow this "higher" function overviews what is happening and has its own signaling capacity (quantum based?) that puts the brain at least in a "ready" mode to receive the incoming physically-based stimuli - like waking up the "data centers" that will be involved. Kind of like getting a hard-drive to first wake up from a sleep cycle.



edit on 4/18/2015 by bb23108 because:



new topics




 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join