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.
I have not denied any piece of it, nor ever villified the body-mind, nor do I think the ego should be destroyed. I agree with you that the body-mind (ego-I) is process - i.e., change, observable from a point-of-view, etc., etc.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
But all egotism aside. Though we talk with different language, using different terms, we're still seems we are talking about the same thing: the body, the mind, consciousness, transcendental spiritual awareness, the ego—all abstractions together in one continuous experience—that of the human organism. To deny a piece of it, is to deny a piece of yourself. I cannot see it any other way.
That is mean and uncalled for, LesMis, especially given how much I have participated in so many of your threads.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I'd hate for you to have to interact with a mind-based observer any longer.
Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by mysticnoon
Yes, the observer function is of the mind - to know or observe an object in order to seek knowledge. This is definitely a mental function and concentration as the observer frequently leads to becoming abstracted from the physical and emotional aspects of the whole body-mind. This is the intent of some eastern techniques.
Originally posted by mysticnoon
I believe that the state of non-dual awareness being discussed in this thread is yet another aspect of ego, or what I consider the observer ego. It is still within the realm of mind, but removed from identification and participation with bodily and mental functions of waking consciousness.
The observer function is commonly confused with the Witness Consciousness, which is Reality Itself, or Awareness. This is what the actual realizers of the truth of non-dualism speak of - not the observer function of mind.
The Witness Consciousness is Reality and when associated with the body-mind via attention at the causal root, it becomes apparently individuated awareness. True realizers of non-dualism understand this association at the causal root, and the heart is flooded with the love-bliss of Reality when such true recognition occurs.
A true realizer always emanates this inherently recognizable love that practitioners of the mind-based observer function do not, because the latter have not fully transcended the knot of egoity at the causal heart, and tend to remain fixed in the head, perhaps having insight into the truth of non-duality, but mainly at the level of mind, not altogether transcendentally, spiritually, and whole bodily - beyond the causal root of egoity.
You got all this (relative to the definition of awareness), LesMis?
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by bb23108
I'm lost. I feel like I'm walking through an abstract forest, appealing to my imagination to invent some sort of meaning to these words. We are not going to get anywhere I'm afraid.
A true realizer always emanates this inherently recognizable love that practitioners of the mind-based observer function do not, because the latter have not fully transcended the knot of egoity at the causal heart, and tend to remain fixed in the head, perhaps having insight into the truth of non-duality, but mainly at the level of mind, not altogether transcendentally, spiritually, and whole bodily - beyond the causal root of egoity.
You got all this, LesMis?
But I do understand the psychology behind the paragraph I quoted:
You choose to gravitate towards "true realizers"—which I can only fathom are gurus, or more specifically, ones you enjoy listening to and being around because they speak a certain way in a certain language—thus you translate and express your reality how he would, simply because it satisfies your emotions, thoughts and desires, as do mine when I speak and see the world a certain way. There's nothing wrong with that.
But all egotism aside. Though we talk with different language, using different terms, we're still seems we are talking about the same thing: the body, the mind, consciousness, transcendental spiritual awareness, the ego—all abstractions together in one continuous experience—that of the human organism. To deny a piece of it, is to deny a piece of yourself. I cannot see it any other way.
Anyways, we should stop this here; I'd hate for you to have to interact with a mind-based observer any longer.
*Exit
Some of your posts, and one that AfterInfinity posted yesterday about his seeing awareness as a tool (in fact, he preferred the adjective "aware" for his definition), helped me to see further the difference relative to process as defined by the adjective "aware" vs. being as indicated by the noun "awareness".
So if I ran over you with a car, and somehow you survive but are rendered completely paralyzed from the neck down... you still identify with your body?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by HarryTZ
So if I ran over you with a car, and somehow you survive but are rendered completely paralyzed from the neck down... you still identify with your body?
I have never had nor will ever have another body. This body is a precise embodiment of the life I have lived and the person I have become. My physicality is an organic mascot, a three dimensional trademark, for my identity.
Can you prove otherwise?
Can you prove that you have never had nor will ever have another body? That is a belief, just as believing that you DID have another body or WILL have another body is a belief. It is all beliefs and none of them can be known for sure with absolute certainty. Even if you say "the evidence appear to be this way than that way" a person with the opposite beliefs can find whatever evidence out here to justify theirs and then the arguments begin trying to dismiss each other's evidences as "not sufficient".