You are not conscious.

[aquarius]

You are not conscious.

You do not have consciousness, consciousness have you.

[aquarius]

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1682

[Blossom]

You are not conscious.

You do not have consciousness, consciousness have you.

Yes, it seems that even science is just beginning to see this fact.

One day we come to perceive that Consciousness Itself is who and what we are and we are not the custodian of Conciousness---Mind is not inside us, Mind/Awareness is being All That I Am.

Or to say it another way; we are not a container that includes Awareness within itself. Free from that mistaken belief, we find our Self to be unbeholden to any so called 'human authority' too--and see the powerlessness of 'things'---which are images of Light within Awareness.

We find the 'who' of 'who we are' is Real and is the unbound, unlimited, ungovernable Child which 'sits next to God' ---Well, sometimes sits---mostly romps--

[maple3]

You are not conscious.

You do not have consciousness, consciousness have you.

Yes, it seems that even science is just beginning to see this fact.

One day we come to perceive that Consciousness Itself is who and what we are and we are not the custodian of Conciousness---Mind is not inside us, Mind/Awareness is being All That I Am.

Or to say it another way; we are not a container that includes Awareness within itself. Free from that mistaken belief, we find our Self to be unbeholden to any so called 'human authority' too--and see the powerlessness of 'things'---which are images of Light within Awareness.

We find the 'who' of 'who we are' is Real and is the unbound, unlimited, ungovernable Child which 'sits next to God' ---Well, sometimes sits---mostly romps--

I do agree with a lot of what you wrote, like I agree that we are not the custodians of consciousness, and we are not a container that includes Awareness within itself. I also agree that perceived "things are inherently powerless.

But when you go on to explain that the "who" of "who we are" is Real, I disagree. Maybe it's just that we explain things differently, but I perceive the little self-impressed "who" as unreal and irrelevant.

In Reality there is no "who," except as an appearance in the make-believe stories it tells itself about itself. And there is no Child that sits next to God either. The so-called "Child" is simply another "appearance," i.e. unreal, and no-thing. In the context of non-duality there is only ONE, ALL THERE IS, and nothing is ever "next" to IT, because IT is infinitely IT, non-dual, ALL-encompassing, ONE without a second.

As to the child who "mostly romps"... yes, I do agree with that. Although it's just an imaginary child, it's usually a damned rambunctious little brat, that's for sure.

[Blossom]

You are not conscious.

You do not have consciousness, consciousness have you.

Yes, it seems that even science is just beginning to see this fact.

One day we come to perceive that Consciousness Itself is who and what we are and we are not the custodian of Conciousness---Mind is not inside us, Mind/Awareness is being All That I Am.

Or to say it another way; we are not a container that includes Awareness within itself. Free from that mistaken belief, we find our Self to be unbeholden to any so called 'human authority' too--and see the powerlessness of 'things'---which are images of Light within Awareness.

We find the 'who' of 'who we are' is Real and is the unbound, unlimited, ungovernable Child which 'sits next to God' ---Well, sometimes sits---mostly romps--

I do agree with a lot of what you wrote, like I agree that we are not the custodians of consciousness, and we are not a container that includes Awareness within itself. I also agree that perceived "things are inherently powerless.

But when you go on to explain that the "who" of "who we are" is Real, I disagree. Maybe it's just that we explain things differently, but I perceive the little self-impressed "who" as unreal and irrelevant.

In Reality there is no "who," except as an appearance in the make-believe stories it tells itself about itself. And there is no Child that sits next to God either. The so-called "Child" is simply another "appearance," i.e. unreal, and no-thing. In the context of non-duality there is only ONE, ALL THERE IS, and nothing is ever "next" to IT, because IT is infinitely IT, non-dual, ALL-encompassing, ONE without a second.

As to the child who "mostly romps"... yes, I do agree with that. Although it's just an imaginary child, it's usually a damned rambunctious little brat, that's for sure.

Cute, yes, I love that rascal Child!!

For me the Truth is not bound to what would seem to be the reasonable or logical premise postulted by 'non-dualism'.

It's what I have found and It is Real.

And further more, I see The Child Alive and Well with YOU and many of you here---The Child is clearly romping Here! She/He/It pops up quite often--

Much Love Dear Maple3, Tender Child Heart You Are---

[Kailashana]

Many years Dr. Sobottka and I had a conversation on line.

I remarked that consciousness IS the *unifying theory* and he said he was working on a paper on that.

Well it's here, here it is.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

He was a *guest speaker* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OAStudyGroup/message/2236 should anyone want to follow Q's & A's.



~A