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.

 

You can never explain the physical world

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
In another post you stated that 'we made the mess'. But are you doing anything within the movie? Do you even appear in the movie? Is there not just a seeing of what is appearing to happen?

Of course, as the body-mind, we are apparently doing all kinds of things that as body-minds we must be responsible for. But that does not mean one has to presume that we are ultimately just the body-mind and when we die we are dead. We, as our true nature (awareness), can immediately and self-evidently recognize "something" greater than these body-minds.

So you may well be filled with thoughts of 'I should have done it differently' and 'he or she should have done it differently' because there is an idea that it could be different.
What is arising is just arising and appears to be seen. There is no one who can do anything different - all is changing but no one is doing this.





You can bet, events took place were in your best interest in a long run if you stop pushing vigorously your immediate goal.

DO.




posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: BlueMule


Oh come now Clark. You aren't confused. You're evasive. After all, you had this to say earlier. "I think you should take whatever you can from such a maxim. The good thing about such succinct epigrams, is that they generate ideas in the one reading them." Surely you know that extends to stories.


Sure. Why would I say otherwise, Tabarin?


Perhaps you don't want to answer my question. Have you ever penetrated the surface of a story, reached into the subtext, and extracted a truth that resonates with you?


So you will admit it is the people and not the stories that change?


That depends on what you think a story is. I think the essence of a story is not on the page. I think it is in a liminal no-mans land between the page and the reader. That liminal zone can be a barren place for one person, and a source of mystical inspiration for another person.

There are many mythic stories of heroes, but they share a skeletal structure under the surface. Just as people do. The skeletal structure undergoes a cycle of death and rebirth... reborn again and again in new forms for new ages.

Hey Clark, this might be of interest to you.

The Superhero's Mythic Journey:
Death and the Heroic Cycle in Superman


Abstract

Superman, the original superhero, is a culmination of the great mythic heroes of the past. The hero's journey, a recurring cycle of events in mythology, is described by Joseph Campbell. The three acts in Superman: The Movie portray a complex calling to the superhero's role, consisting of three distinct calls and journeys. Each of the three stages includes the death of someone close to him, different symbols of his own death and resurrection, and different experiences of atonement with a father figure. Analyzing these mythic cycles bestows the viewer with a heroic "elixir.”

[...]

👣



edit on 839TuesdayuAmerica/ChicagoApruTuesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


Have you ever penetrated the surface of a story, reached into the subtext, and extracted a truth that resonates with you?


It depends on the work, but it is the main reason I read.


That depends on what you think a story is. I think the essence of a story is not on the page. I think it is in a liminal no-mans land between the page and the reader. That liminal zone can be a barren place for one person, and a source of mystical inspiration for another person.


Absolutely so, Tartuffe. I have even written a thread on this very subject not too long ago. For once we agree.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

You have reached this impasse, my friend. Anytime you wish to continue further I will be here.

The impasse I refer to is that one cannot prove what is not a physical matter using only "materialistic"-based modes.

It is self-evident that everything I experience is in consciousness, but science is not likely to prove this any time too soon! But because of science's limits, does that mean that I am not awareness? Of course not.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: BlueMule


Have you ever penetrated the surface of a story, reached into the subtext, and extracted a truth that resonates with you?


It depends on the work, but it is the main reason I read.


Sure, it depends. Some stories are iterations of the monomyth, and as such are easy to reach through, despite variations of themes. A particular story comes alive when we reach into it, extract a truth, and internalize it. It dies when we no longer do that. Then the archetypes take on new form in a new story... forms which we can penetrate from our new cultural viewpoint.

Some people see only the surface of a story, an entertainment, a fairy tale. That is the exoteric layer. Others can see inside a story. That's the esoteric layer, and it is the domain of mystics.

You have the capacity to see the inner of a story and resonate with it. You have sought God in many places. You are a mystic whose development has been stalled by something. Let's figure out what.

👣


edit on 882TuesdayuAmerica/ChicagoApruTuesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: bb23108




The impasse I refer to is that one cannot prove what is not a physical matter using only "materialistic"-based modes.

It is self-evident that everything I experience is in consciousness, but science is not likely to prove this any time too soon! But because of science's limits, does that mean that I am not awareness? Of course not.


If by this you mean we are unable to detect nor speak of things that do not exist, I agree. However, I know exactly what you are speaking of. You are speaking of the word "awareness" or "consciousness". If you can point to me anything else that you may be speaking about, I'd be interested to examine it.

If you are speaking about yourself as awareness, then show me how you are something other than your body.



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

If you are speaking about yourself as awareness, then show me how you are something other than your body.

Okay, remember back to a distant event that was really powerful for you - that you remember very vividly. Now feel into that whole recollection as much as possible.

You can see that your body-mind has changed some since that time, but one's awareness feels exactly the same in your recollection.

Awareness was present then but feels exactly the same then as it does right now - i.e., it has not aged; but the body-mind clearly has.

This is very clear to me - it is self-evident that awareness does not change and is fundamental being itself.

edit on 4/21/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 21 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
The physical is now in the "Powers you cannot comprehend" like thought or spirit category now?

If I ate something that tastes like a chicken, it has to be chicken.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Specimen

Oh, well, that explains everything. 😯

👣



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
We never experience anything outside of awareness.

If anyone truly considers this, it is self-evident.

However, materialists do not believe this and make the claim that we experience things without awareness being necessary.

Why is it that materialists can make this leap of faith, this assumption, without proof?

In other words, does anyone have any experience outside of awareness? If you think so, can you prove it?

P.S. LesMis, did you do the "experiment" I described the other day? Or did you get so caught up in such a great reverie that you haven't gotten back to us about it?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108


Okay, remember back to a distant event that was really powerful for you - that you remember very vividly. Now feel into that whole recollection as much as possible.

You can see that your body-mind has changed some since that time, but one's awareness feels exactly the same in your recollection.

Awareness was present then but feels exactly the same then as it does right now - i.e., it has not aged; but the body-mind clearly has.

This is very clear to me - it is self-evident that awareness does not change and is fundamental being itself.


What is clear to me is you are adopting a word that means something different than what you're using it for. In other words, I still do not know what you are talking about, or what it is you claim doesn't age. Please, illustrate, circumscribe or show me this immortal entity you speak of so others and myself may come to your understanding.

But, as I already know from prior conversation, this is impossible, and we find that a religious Advaita Vedanta doctrine rather than philosophy is being cultivated here, not from any study of the unbelievable and primitive scriptures of Hinduism themselves, but likely from a youtube devotee of Ramana's revelations, pandering to western orientalism while at the same time never revealing the stupidities of the Upanishads and the Vedas. Did you get your ideas from anywhere else?

If by "awareness" you mean my noticing or witnessing myself and my situation, then you are speaking of an action: to notice, to witness are verbs, not things. Actions do not age, as they are not things at all. I can understand the necessary requirement of such equivocation and ambiguity in mysticism or neo-hinduism, but to say that an action precedes what performs it—in this case biology—is completely backwards and the opposite of self-evident. If your awareness is immutable, unchanging and prior to everything, then surely you are omniscient, as such a substance would pervade everything. But as much empirical research suggests, nearly 99% of thinking is unconscious, and your awareness cannot even penetrate the basest processes of your own body, let alone serve as a foundation for all that exists.

To assert that we do not experience anything outside of awareness is the exact same as we do not experience what we do not experience. Such a statement is not profound. We also do not eat what we do not eat. We do not walk where we do not walk.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX




But why does there have to be a reason?


If science only looks for how, without also looking for why it can
only mean that science fears what it may find.




posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



How do you experience it if it is non-physical?


That's an excellent question, and I'd like to add my two cents in if I may. Although I question the premiss that one can experience anything physically. Nonetheless, there are simple examples of so-called non-physical experiences. If you wake up from a dream, did you experience it? Where's the physicality of a dream?

In regards to your attempt to use physicality as the litmus test for reality, can you point to any recent scientific discovery which claims that physicality is that essential fabric of reality? Because decades ago, scientific research and discovery has gone FAR beyond the study of physics and are in deeper areas of research that are non-physical in nature. So why do you still view the physical like it is the basic foundation of all existence when science has already moved on?

edit on 23-4-2015 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108

Of course, as the body-mind, we are apparently doing all kinds of things that as body-minds we must be responsible for.



Ultimately there is only Consciousness, no apparent separate anyone doing any controlling or witnessing. But that is a great and very rare realization.

If you know that why do you still say 'as the body-mind, we are apparently doing all kinds of things that we must be responsible for'?
What is actually happening right now (the only time) is simply just happening - there is no one dong it and there is no one witnessing it. There is just what is happening - it is one without a second.
When the witness or awareness stands apart, now gets split into 'there and then' because the mind (thoughts/words) cannot think about now. But where are 'there and then'? There and then' are what is happening now as thought. No stories can be told about now because it is ever changing. Awareness sees itself as a thing in time (makes an false image) - as a body with other bodies. Time thoughts contain what appear to be things - but right here and right now there is just what is happening.
Is there anything other than what is happening?
There maybe an assumption that what is happening is happening to me.

The mind is nothing more than thoughts arising and are either believed to be done by me or they are speaking about me. Thoughts just arise and subside, they are no different than clouds in the sky, there is no one doing them - they just happen.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
But, as I already know from prior conversation, this is impossible, and we find that a religious Advaita Vedanta doctrine rather than philosophy is being cultivated here, not from any study of the unbelievable and primitive scriptures of Hinduism themselves, but likely from a youtube devotee of Ramana's revelations, pandering to western orientalism while at the same time never revealing the stupidities of the Upanishads and the Vedas. Did you get your ideas from anywhere else?

You are one presumptuous online character, LesMis. I have been studying and practicing these matters much much longer than YouTube has been around. You have clearly not studied very closely the Upanishads, Shankara's elaborations, etc. - and if you have, then you missed their essential message.

But this does not surprise me given your forever materialistic stance, at least as your LesMis character is presented online.



originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If your awareness is immutable, unchanging and prior to everything, then surely you are omniscient, as such a substance would pervade everything. But as much empirical research suggests, nearly 99% of thinking is unconscious, and your awareness cannot even penetrate the basest processes of your own body, let alone serve as a foundation for all that exists.


Ultimately awareness is beyond the body-mind and is prior to all conditions. You are tending to identify the word awareness with attention, which it is not. Also, a common mistake amongst various you-tubers regarding awareness, attention, and the observer function of the mind - which I have often criticized.

Why is there no fundamental sense of ageing when one FEELS who they are in terms of self-aware being? One IS self-aware feeling, but this is likely the reason your LesMis character cannot grok this. Your character, LesMis, identifies strongly with mentality, and this abstraction knots up the being in terms of feeling altogether to infinity, and even just feeling in and as the whole body-mind.

When I asked you to do that "experiment" it is necessary to compare the "feeling" of yourself back then to the "feeling" of yourself currently. Not as the online character LesMis, but as who you actually ARE.

If you cannot do this, then you should learn to feel into life more, and allow yourself to feel the simple joy of being - apart from all content and abstracted mentality. This self-awareness is feeling-being, beyond all content, never ages - and is self-evident.

edit on 4/23/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain
As I have mentioned to you before and again just recently, if you only speak in absolutes, you will not likely be communicating with others very well.

If we are to use the language, it has certain constraints given it was developed around the (illusory) "I" being presumed as a separate entity. So already we have a limit here in terms of communication. But to never use the word "I" makes for very difficult communication, often sounding contrived. So when I refer to "I", I am referring to what is conventionally assumed as "I" - i.e., this body-mind.

Without this understanding, communication between us often becomes a matter of semantic discussion, which I have little time for nor any interest in.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: bb23108
Ok, but do you think you are responsible for what happens?
Do you think anyone is responsible for what happens?


edit on 24-4-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: bb23108
Ok, but do you think you are responsible for what happens?
Do you think anyone is responsible for what happens?


Body-minds are always responsible for their actions. The destruction in the world shows us what occurs when people don't take responsibility for their body-mind's actions.

No matter what we are ultimately, as long as we are associated with a body-mind, we are responsible for its actions. The problem with so many people getting some insight into non-dualism, is that they get abstracted from life. This has been the traditional error made in the East for eons.

Truth is when that recognition of Reality fully includes the body-mind and all it participates in. So yes, in that manner, we are responsible.


edit on 4/24/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: bb23108
Ok, but do you think you are responsible for what happens?
Do you think anyone is responsible for what happens?


Body-minds are always responsible for their actions. The destruction in the world shows us what occurs when people don't take responsibility for their body-mind's actions.

No matter what we are ultimately, as long as we are associated with a body-mind, we are responsible for its actions. The problem with so many people getting some insight into non-dualism, is that they get abstracted from life. This has been the traditional error made in the East for eons.

Truth is when that recognition of Reality fully includes the body-mind and all it participates in. So yes, in that manner, we are responsible.


Freedom is realizing that there is no one doing anything. Life is just simply happening and if thoughts arise that you could have done it different or that 'they' should have done it different that is the suffering. Trying to do life right is the cause of all the trouble.
That which thinks itself separate will be trying to make life secure to secure it's own life, this will include defending beliefs and fighting for a better world - but there is just life.


Are you doing breathing? Or is breathing just happening? Are you making the blood flow through the body or is it just happening?
There maybe an idea that you are doing the thoughts but thoughts just happen.


But that does not mean one has to presume that we are ultimately just the body-mind and when we die we are dead.
Is that what it is about - surviving death?
If you do not want to die that is why you still believe there is a you doing things - you do not want to die.
But the individual, which is illusory, must be seen through and then it will be no more - it never was ever but believing in it is what causes the trouble - the separate me is the problem, all other problems cease when there is no separate me.

Ultimately there is only Consciousness, no apparent separate anyone doing any controlling or witnessing. But that is a great and very rare realization.


The problem with so many people getting some insight into non-dualism, is that they get abstracted from life.

You state that 'it is a great and very rare realization' so it seems that you do realize that 'no apparent separate anyone is doing any controlling or witnessing' - but somehow you can't see the contradiction you are holding on to.



posted on Apr, 24 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
You state that 'it is a great and very rare realization' so it seems that you do realize that 'no apparent separate anyone is doing any controlling or witnessing' - but somehow you can't see the contradiction you are holding on to.

Good lord, you just can't stop with the semantics, can you? Read my last few posts again; I cannot explain it to you any better than that. They are not really contradictory. But as long as you mentally abstract from life and insist on playing language games, it seems they do.
edit on 4/24/2015 by bb23108 because:



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join