awakeningtothedream.com Forum Index awakeningtothedream.com
Non Duality: The one question to all our answers.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

"What I Am"
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    awakeningtothedream.com Forum Index -> Awakening to the Dream
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
godindrag



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 38
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
gid: If you just shut up and sit there, the sky doesn't fall, I find.

......[YES IT DOES!!!!]


Mmmm... melting, disintegrating, collapsing, not at all what 'Oneness' is supposed to be like Smile

But hey, I just meant that Life doesn't need your concepts to just be Life and not fall apart... Life doesn't need you! Sad Laughing Sad Laughing

- cause it's already falling apart!

Anyway... WhatEVER!, innit? Wink

xxx gid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sara



Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Location: below sea level

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

godindrag wrote:

Quote:
gid: I don't own anything. I don't know anything . I don't understand anything.
I'm completely lost.

.....[yeah, really clomps......? there seems to be a smugness with that? ]



Aw Sad , nope, no smugness... tastes too much like vomit in my experience.... Ok I don't even know that I don't know? Not knowing is absolute knowing?, oh fuck it! Just read Unmani's book!


gid


Aw Crying or Very sad, sweetheart. The misplaced 'smugness' was all here, trying to be cute and witty Rolling Eyes

o.k. o.k. I'll read the book.

Hey! I got Guy Smith for Christmas. Haven't had a chance to read him yet, but he has a fabulously fun new website called: www.guisemyth.com.

love,
sarasorry
_________________
There is only Love


Last edited by sara on Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
godindrag



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 38
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hey! I got Guy Smith for Christmas. Haven't had a chance to read him yet, but he has a fabulously fun new website called: www.guisemyth.com.


Fucking fabulous! Got his book when it came out and was feeling a bit arrogant (i.e. insecure) so didn't like it much - thought it made too much of 'experiences' and not enough of 'ordinariness', but I was probably being a cunt Laughing so will now reread!

I know he used to move in the same circles as me - Roger Linden meetings etc. but I haven't met him...

Tra la la la bang bang
xxx gid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sara



Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Location: below sea level

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

godindrag wrote:

I know he used to move in the same circles as me - Roger Linden meetings etc. but I haven't met him...

Tra la la la bang bang
xxx gid



hmmm...Roger Linden....been a while. Wasn't he the one who first 'coined' the phrase, "when the penny FINALLY dropped..." to signify the changing of the guard? LOL! Loved that. And dropped the groceries when he walked in his front door and spent 3 weeks laughing?! Laughing

Wonder what happened to the celery.Confused


love,
sara
_________________
There is only Love


Last edited by sara on Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sara



Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Location: below sea level

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

michael wrote:
The words 'seeing/colour', 'hearing/sound', 'feeling/feeling', 'smelling/odour', 'tasting/flavour' and 'knowing/meaning' are 'joined' as it is impossible to separate the 'sense' (seeing) from the 'sensation' that is sensed (colour), or the 'knowing' from the 'meaning'.

Only 'colour' is seen. Impossible to see seeing, yet in seeing colour, 'seeing' is 'self evident'... it requires no proof Very Happy

'Self evident' that colours appear to change... seeing does not.

While each sense is 'self evident', 'Knowing' cannot be seen, or heared, or tasted, or smelled, or felt. To the senses it appears as 'non-existent'.

Yet 'knowing' is known in the same way seeing is seen: in knowing meaning, 'knowing' is 'self evident'... it requires no proof.

While so ever the apparent focus is on understanding the meaning of these words, the 'knowing/meaning' they point to is missed Evil or Very Mad Crying or Very sad

'Knowing Thyself' has nothing to do with analysis.

Love



Occam's poem:

Hear hear!!!
This is beautifully clear....here!
And such lovely golden colours!!!


love,
sarasighing Very Happy
_________________
There is only Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 3816
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A NONSENSE MEANINGLESS POEM Confused Rolling Eyes

Looking through the keyhole
Of the senses
A fleeting image appears:
Colours, sounds and odours
Flavours and feelings...

Nothing, nothing, no 'thing' at all.

Drawing meaning from the depths
I see, hear and smell 'things'
I taste and feel them...

This me I call myself appears...
A separate, suffering
Creature.

And for a moment,
I seem to enjoy a fragment
Of all that is.

How wonderful.

Yet what the senses show...
Is but a caricature

Beyond the senses,
Is the field of meaning.
Perfect, unchanging

Here the senses never go
For the senses never know

Invisible, silent
Untouchable, unsensed...
How vast this field of meaning

I am this field and this field is me
The senses too, not separate...
Arise in one accord

But why look through the keyhole
Come play...
The whole field of dreams
Is here.

Love
_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
godindrag



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 38
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The words 'seeing/colour', 'hearing/sound', 'feeling/feeling', 'smelling/odour', 'tasting/flavour' and 'knowing/meaning' are 'joined' as it is impossible to separate the 'sense' (seeing) from the 'sensation' that is sensed (colour), or the 'knowing' from the 'meaning'.


By knowing you mean understanding? (what else can apply to meaning?)

So... understanding is one with meaning like hearing is one with sound....
Hmmm.. meaning/understanding involves seeming division and relationship between the apparently divided bits.
No such division occurs.
No such relationship exists.
Within the game there is apparent meaning/understanding.
Understanding - or pretending to - is the game.


Quote:
Only 'colour' is seen. Impossible to see seeing, yet in seeing colour, 'seeing' is 'self evident'... it requires no proof

'Self evident' that colours appear to change... seeing does not.


Yes. Seeing etc. are self evident. Seer and seen only apparently existing as two ends of seeing. There is only seeing, hearing, feeling etc.

Quote:
While each sense is 'self evident', 'Knowing' cannot be seen, or heared, or tasted, or smelled, or felt. To the senses it appears as 'non-existent'.

Yet 'knowing' is known in the same way seeing is seen: in knowing meaning, 'knowing' is 'self evident'... it requires no proof.


That there is understanding of meaning is self evident... so what?
Meaning and understanding are what seem to weave a world of isolation and separation or project a world of interconnectedness and some BIG Consciousness.
Neither is the case. There's just this.

Quote:
While so ever the apparent focus is on understanding the meaning of these words, the 'knowing/meaning' they point to is missed


So by 'knowing' you don't mean understanding then? Not direct registering/cognizing either? Confused

Quote:
'Knowing Thyself' has nothing to do with analysis.


..Indeed. And therefore nothing to do with meaning.

You are the blank in which the game of understanding meaning happens and this game seems to give you integrity as an entity - whether a small personal entity or a universal 'all-knowing' entity - a great web of meaning - some of which is sometimes forgotten and sometimes remembered.
Bollocks Laughing
There's just this.

*Pokes sleeping nurse in ribs*
xx gid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 3816
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which reminds me Cool of a story… an oldie, but a goodie.

The various parts of the body were once arguing amongst themselves about who was the most important, with each taking turns to prove that they were the boss: ‘eyes’ shutting off sight, and so on. When it finally came to the poor old arsehole, the rest of the body was highly amused. But he showed ‘em. He simply shut up for 3 days and by the end of it, every other part of the body was yelling defeat, begging the arsehole to relax... he did of course and everything went back to normal... but from then on every one knew who was boss... what a revelation. Exclamation

So giddy relax... you don't have to prove you’re an arsehole all the time... everyone knows who's boss... Very Happy

Gid, you’ve asked about ‘meaning’… a great topic for a forum built out of words. Very Happy

Though, on a cautionary note, it must be remembered that ‘he who knows does not speak’, and that ‘he who speaks does not know’…

There is no speaker… only hearing… and seeing and feeling and tasting and smelling… and knowing… and power. Knowing? Power? What nonsense! Yes it is. Very Happy

That said, these apparent words are by through and for One alone... the One that now appears to read these words. They are of no comfort or value to any one… least of all ‘michael’ or ‘godindrag’… or any such other apparent person. Very Happy

So on with the show.

As it is clear that ‘meaning’ is known, inseparable from awareness… so this apparent inquiry may be called 'Knowing Thyself'. It is not a search. It is more like a dropping away of concepts about ‘meaning’, and awareness that ‘this’ is ‘more than meets the eye’. Cool

But before looking at ‘meaning’, lets be clear about the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘believing’. Take the statement: “I believe there are green men on the far side of the moon… or God… or…” This is a statement of ‘belief’. And this statement is ‘known’. So ‘knowing’ is direct cognition of meaning, while the ‘belief’ is the meaning itself.

As with seeing/colour, there is no separation between knowing/meaning. And, as seeing sees all colour, so knowing knows all meaning… self evident.

So what is meaning?

Not so fast.

If there is going to be an apparent meaningful discourse, let’s first see what is ‘known’ about ‘words’… the ‘things’ that are supposed to convey the meaning of the discourse. Rolling Eyes

The most common belief is that the marks appearing as ‘words’ are themselves ‘meaningful’. Which is to say these marks (words) are seen as being ‘intrinsically meaningful’. Yet, as seen in other posts, the ‘marks’ or ‘sounds’ that apparently manifest as ‘words’ are meaningless. Surprised

To save you the trouble of looking up the other posts, the point(ing) is seen in the marks 'dog' and 'le chien'... different marks (and sounds when apparently 'spoken)... but same meaning.

The marks appear to be ‘meaningful’ only as ‘meaning’ is associated with them.

The fundamental ‘meaning’ that is associated with all marks, that are apparently intended to convey meaning, is ‘words’ or ‘writing’.

But not all ‘word marks’ are meaningful.

Some words simply point to that which is ‘sensible’ but ‘meaningless’

Sensible Meaningless Words Very Happy
These are words such as: ‘red’ or ‘blue’… all ‘colour’. These words have no meaning. They cannot be ‘understood’. They simply ‘point’ to the direct experiencing of the sensation perceived. It is a meaningless question to ask ‘what’ is colour… ‘colour’ is ‘self evident’. Shocked Cool

Any attempt to ‘explain’ colour expresses only ‘meaning’… and no ‘meaning’ is the experience of seeing colour. Surprised

Conversely, no ‘colour’ is the experience of ‘knowing meaning’, which is the same as saying ‘colour in and of itself is meaningless’. Very Happy

Other sensible meaningless words are: odour… and any other word that points to the direct smelling experience: ‘citrus’, or ‘poo’, or... any other label for a ‘smell’. And so for ‘flavour’, ‘sound’ and ‘feeling’ and any words that point to specific flavours, sounds and feelings. These are all meaningless words that point to the whole range of sensation.

But (a thought may come): ‘citrus’ is a meaningful word! It points to the type of fruit that has the odour (or taste) that is experienced. But the type of fruit is not the smell itself. The smell is not the label, nor the fruit. Each distinct smell is a smell like no other smell… a unique sensation.

Meaningful Nonsense Words Confused
Other words point to that which is meaningful but not sensible: ‘mother’, ‘freedom’, ‘atom’, ‘dog’, ‘cucumber’, ‘friendship’… All these ‘things/relationships’ cannot be sensed, they can only be known. Shocked Most words are in this category.

Meaning includes all ‘forms’ (shape/relative size) and ‘number’… again, these cannot be sensed… nor is it possible to understand ‘what’ a ‘form’ or ‘number’ ’is’. Forms and numbers are simply known.

Take ‘number’. It may appear that ‘numbers’ can be seen. But what is ‘seen’ are either ‘marks’ representing ‘mathematical notations’ (which like ‘words’, are themselves meaningless), or ‘sets of objects’. These ‘sets’ too are not seen, they are only known.

Take 10 pieces of fruit. (Well don't actually take them... I need them here for the demonstration Laughing ).

In looking, it seems that ‘10’ is a property of the objects seen. Yet now look within the 10, and see the ‘subsets’: ‘four’ or ‘three’ or ‘one’ and so on. The apparent fruit has not changed, but the meaning now associated with the appearance is different. Number is a word that points to 'that which is calculated’.

Number is the basis for the meaning of ‘space’ and ‘time’ when ‘applied’ to ‘forms’.

As for forms, it has been noted before that the ‘form’ of a cube is ‘known’ to have six equal sides. This ‘universal cube’ (that is known), has no dimensions. It cannot be seen or visualised… it is simply known. Surprised

Though ‘dimensionless’, forms have inherent ‘mathematical properties’… ratio (number) of diameter of circle to the circumference, and so on… Surprised

Number translates the ‘universal form’ into the ‘particular’, to give the form its relative shape and size: This cube of this size as opposed to another cube of a different size (all 'size' is relative).

As well, through number, the ‘cube’ may be transformed into a ‘sphere’… though the ‘universal sphere’ is ever ‘spherical’… amazing!

Number ‘specifies’ forms and is the 'basis' of all apparent 'separation' and 'change'… 'one multiplied into many'… 'sets and subsets'… 'one number/form transformed into another'. (That to which these words point has nothing to do with the 'apparent calculations' that appear as thoughts, or that are apparently written on a blackboard, or apparently processed in a computer). Confused

Finally, through number, the ‘known 3-D form’ is also translated into the 2 dimensional perspective that appears as the ‘seen 3-D object’. Again, the image has no actual dimensions. It is neither near nor far, nor big nor small, in relation to the seeing.

Any apparent object (coloured image) is not really ‘3-D’... though it appears to be!

As seen, the image is not at all ‘like’ the ‘known 3-D form’. The image is ‘distorted’ (‘foreshortened’ and ‘tapered’), with only a ‘part’ of the ‘known 3-D form’ being seen. And yet, through association with the known form, it appears to be the form itself… amazing!

As any ‘mathematician’ knows, ‘number’ is amazing. (Of course there are no mathematicians… the knowing and the amazement is all One)

As for the ‘web of meaning’, these words (web of meaning) point to the ‘inter-relation of meaning as it is directly known’… more pointing!!! Cool

…what does the concept/meaning: ‘mother’ (and every other ‘thing/relationship’ known) mean? Are they known ‘in isolation’, or are they really fully known only in relation to everything else that is known? Knowing/meaning, it is self evident: no 'thing' stands alone. Surprised

Thinking and Meaning Surprised
This ‘knowing/meaning’ does not involve ‘thinking’, though it also gives meaning to thought.

Thought may be experienced as an ‘inner voice’… a ‘subtle sound’ (that appears different to the voices of other apparent people), or as a ‘gross sound’ (appearing to be a ‘voice’ like other ‘voices’). As with all apparent voices, it is not the ‘sound’ (subtle or gross) that is meaningful… it is the ‘meaning’ associated with the sound that is known. Only ‘meaning’ is ‘meaningful’. It is the same ‘meaning’ whether the ‘sound’ is ‘French’ or ‘English’ or any other language. Shocked

Look at a scene. Does it appear to be a ‘cityscape’, or ‘mountain meadow’, or the ‘inside of an office’? Whatever meaning is apparent is not ‘intrinsic to the colours seen’.

Colours, sounds, odours, flavours and feelings arising in the absence of all meaning (including no labels to even categorise or identify these sensations as such)… is pure sensation… no ‘experience’. (Seeing colours as random colours without meaning, is still an experience… the experience of chaos).

That which is known are ‘universals’ (‘mother’, ‘weapon’, ‘heart’, ‘frog’… ) 'number' and ‘forms’ (shape/relative size)... self evident. These are ever unchanging.

And yet it appears that through the ‘application of number', and in 'association with sensation’, these 'universals' are experienced in every ‘particular’... telling stories that appear to change: 'across space', and 'through time'.

How? No idea... Very Happy

Wonder of wonders!

Note: these are just words and words are only pointing to the 'meaning'... unless they are 'meaningless', in which case they are pointing to nothing... no 'thing'. Cool Very Happy

So ‘what’ is ‘meaning’? Ah… finally, all is to be revealed!!!

The Meaning of Meaning Very Happy
As ‘colour’ cannot be ‘known’, so ‘meaning’ cannot be sensed. It cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted or smelled. To the senses, ‘meaning’ is simply ‘non-existent’.

As with ‘colour’, the question ‘what is meaning’ is meaningless. Rolling Eyes

Any explanation of ‘meaning’ is not the direct ‘knowing experience’. ‘Meaning’ is a word that simply points to that which is known by the knowing… inseparable from knowing… as colour is inseparable from seeing.

Any description of ‘what’ meaning ‘is’, is meaningless. Evil or Very Mad Shocked Cool

Knowing ‘Reality’ Shocked
As meaning refers only to all meaning, knowing can never know the ‘underlying reality’ that is the ‘source’ of ‘knowing’… of ‘consciousness’. And yet, as knowing/meaning is integral to consciousness, in knowing all that is knowable, so consciousness is known… to the extent it is knowable. Very Happy

This is called ‘Knowing Thyself’… beyond this, there is nothing to know. Shocked Cool

But don’t worry… this field is ‘inexhaustible’ (in so far as any ‘particular’ is concerned)… there is no end to play. Very Happy

Meaningless Nonsense Words Confused Wink Cool
Which brings us to words that point to this that is neither sensible nor meaningful. What! something that cannot be sensed or known? How could there be such a thing, and even if there was, how could you know that it ‘is’… if you cannot sense it, or know anything about it?

Well there is, of course, no such ‘thing’. Surprised

And these words: ‘seeing’, ‘hearing’, ‘tasting’, ‘smelling’, ‘feeling’ and ‘knowing’ (and power)… collectively called: ‘consciousness’, or ‘awareness’ all point to this that cannot be sensed or known. As such these words are neither sensible nor meaningful.

These words point to no 'thing', no 'experience'. They point to that which is aware of the experience.

This that is, 'consciousness' cannot sense, or know (in any ‘meaningful’ way) 'itself'.

And yet... that to which these words point is clear: it requires no analysis to be what it is, no proof, no validation. Unsensed and Unknown… self evident... ‘self aware’. The question ‘in what way is it ‘self evident’, or ‘how is the awareness aware’, has no answer… it is a meaningless senseless question. Confused Cool Very Happy

Seeing is clear in seeing colours… self evident
Hearing is clear in hearing sounds… self evident
Smelling is clear in smelling odours… self evident
Tasting is clear in tasting flavours… self evident
Feeling is clear in feeling feelings… self evident, and
Knowing is clear in knowing meaning… self evident.

Now a thought may appear that what is here written is ‘splitting’ consciousness into ‘bits’, but this is not so… consciousness is one. As the body is one, yet includes a heart and eyes and legs and arms and so on, so consciousness is one, yet includes each sense and the knowing.

There is too another word that points to an ‘aspect’ of consciousness that cannot be sensed or known. This word is ‘power’.

What the heck is power? Confused

As Knowing/meaning is non-existent to the senses, so power is non-existent to the knowing.

Power cannot be known (conceptualised). It is not a ‘force’, or any ‘thing/relationship’ that is known, or sensation that is sensed... and so appears as 'non-existent' from the perspectives of the 'witness' or 'knower'. From these perspectives, all that 'appears' seems to arise ‘spontaneously’.

You may say that ‘there is no such ‘thing’ as power’ and I would agree. ‘What it is’ and ‘how it works’ I cannot say, and you cannot know… for you and I are not real. Shocked Crying or Very sad Cool

Power is in the apparent act… in the immediate concord of the senses and meaning… creating this wondrous play now and now and now.

This power is inseparable from consciousness.

It is neither 'spontaneous', nor 'causal'... 'what' it is no one can say. Crying or Very sad

Colour Form Number and Meaning…More Pointing
As the image on a computer screen has no 'intrinsic meaning' (just colours dancing across a screen), so the image that appears in the seeing has no 'intrinsic meaning'... is just colours in the seeing.

Though meaningless in themselves, the colours on the screen are not simply random. And neither are those in the seeing (as an image is seen).

Both 'on the screen' and 'in the seeing' (where the 'screen' is also Very Happy ), the colours appear in relations that can be seen as ‘meaningful’: "soldiers fighting on the killing fields"... only as this meaning is associated with the images.

The forms ‘on the screen’ and 'in the seeing' are distorted 2-D images of ‘known 3-D forms’.

In the case of the screen, even though the 'known 3-D form' does not change, the 2-D image is distorted and continually changes shape according to the 'numerical rules' of 'perspective' (as coded by the software)... depending upon the relative distance and direction of the 'form/object' from the assumed 'observer' in the 'game world'. Surprised

The relationship between the 'known shape' and the 'displayed shape on the screen', is a direct pointer to the relationship between all known forms and the coloured patterns seen in the seeing. Wink

So every known world may be seen from the perspective of every known creature from each point in known space, at every known time. Shocked

Now the thought may come that all this is just thought. Which is so… while soever the words are ‘thought about’. Very Happy

But no need to ‘think it’… this is already that which is indicated. Very Happy

The indication is self to self… just playing. Cool

As for 'play', this is a many tiered game indeed... involving different 'perspectives': Cool

Seeing Apparent Life from All Perspectives

Man of the World
From the perspective of a man who sees the world as matter/energy/stuff, and himself as a little bit of it, the idea of seeking for anything more is plain nonsense.

Seeker
From the perspective of the seeker, there is an 'inner feeling/belief' that there really is 'something more’. From this perspective, the person who is not ‘on the path’ is seen to be missing out on a 'greater truth'.

From this perspective, it also appears that there were/are people who have direct apperception of this 'greater truth'… while there are others who are seen as charlatans. Evil or Very Mad

From this perspective, there are no perspectives’… just people who each have a different level of ‘insight’.

The perspective of ‘seeker’ appears as the concept of a completely separate person is no longer in awareness.

Witness
From the perspective of the witness, both these viewpoints are seen as illusory. From this perspective there is 'just this fleeting image' (including all sensation)... arising spontaneously... appearing as an illusory world not separate from awareness.

From this perspective, it appears that what is sensed has it own ‘intrinsic meaning’ which is ‘sometimes’ ‘commented upon’ by thought. From this perspective, it appears as though "I am the witness to an apparent reality that has its own flow". It is as though ‘I’ am 'watching a show' that is ‘directing itself’. The indication of 'anything more' is plain nonsense.

From this perspective, there are no ‘perspectives’… just this as it appears.

The perspective of ‘witness’ appears as the concept of a separate self is no longer in awareness.

Knower
From the perspective of the knower, all these viewpoints are seen as illusory. From this perspective, there are no 'images' with their own ‘intrinsic meaning’ 'directing themselves'. From this perspective, the meaning that is ‘in awareness’ (in the apparent moment), is but an infinitesimal fragment of all that is known... ever unchanging.

From this perspective, the apparent image (not separate from 'awareness'), in comparison to all that is known, is like looking at the whole universe through a keyhole. Cool It is like looking at a computer image on a screen that shows only a fragment of the ‘game world’ through the eyes of one of the characters in the game.

From this perspective, the ‘show’ appears to be neither 'caused' (meaning), nor 'causeless' (meaning).

From this perspective, there are as many ‘perspectives’ as there are ‘worlds’ and ‘creatures’ in the knowing... as well as the different perspectives of the 'experience' itself ('man of the world', 'seeker, and so on).

The perspective of ‘knower’ appears as... unknowable Crying or Very sad

Creator
From the perspective of the creator, all these viewpoints are illusory. From this perspective, sensation and meaning arise in one accord wherein the ‘will’ (that the senses now manifest ‘these specific sensations in these specific relations’) and the ‘act’ (the arising of the senses in concord with meaning) are one.

'This', is that to which the words ‘power’ and ‘spontaneous’ both point.

And ‘beyond’ all perspectives…

Remember giddy, all these perspectives have no separate reality… they are all the same one seemingly seeing difference where there is none. No perspective 'better' or 'higher' than any other, no one confused, or deluded… just sensing and knowing in the apparent moment… by (the power of), through and for One. Very Happy

I’m sorry (just kidding) that you cannot enjoy the play giddy. But you cannot… you are the play. Cool

PS, if this doesn't give you indigestion dear sara, nothing will. Very Happy

Love
_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring


Last edited by michael on Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:14 am; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sara



Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Location: below sea level

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holy dooley, michael! Shocked

O.k., she'll be right.

I'm gonna hardcopy this and pack it along on my walkabout ( or, more likely, a bike-about) in the 'netherdunes' never never and give it a burl (with my bikkie and cuppa) by the bush telly before crawling into matilda.

With apologies to "Waltzing Matilda": '.....and she'll sit and read and wait 'til her billy boils.'

hooroo,
sarastrine Very Happy

"And [her] ghost may be heard as you walk along that billabong." "W M"
_________________
There is only Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 3816
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Holy dooley indeed, dear sara.

Enjoy your bikkies and cuppa Very Happy

As for 'matilda', you are amazing... most Aussies no longer know what she is!

Love
_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
godindrag



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 38
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Which reminds me of a story… an oldie, but a goodie.

The various parts of the body were once arguing amongst themselves about who was the most important, with each taking turns to prove that they were the boss: ‘eyes’ shutting off sight, and so on. When it finally came to the poor old arsehole, the rest of the body was highly amused. But he showed ‘em. He simply shut up for 3 days and by the end of it, every other part of the body was yelling defeat, begging the arsehole to relax... he did of course and everything went back to normal... but from then on every one knew who was boss... what a revelation.

So giddy relax... you don't have to prove you’re an arsehole all the time... everyone knows who's boss...

Gid, you’ve asked about ‘meaning’… a great topic for a forum built out of words.

Though, on a cautionary note, it must be remembered that ‘he who knows does not speak’, and that ‘he who speaks does not know’…

There is no speaker… only hearing… and seeing and feeling and tasting and smelling… and knowing… and power. Knowing? Power? What nonsense! Yes it is.

That said, these apparent words are by through and for One alone... the One that now appears to read these words. They are of no comfort or value to any one… least of all ‘michael’ or ‘godindrag’… or any such other apparent person.

So on with the show.

As it is clear that ‘meaning’ is known, inseparable from awareness… so this apparent inquiry may be called 'Knowing Thyself'. It is not a search. It is more like a dropping away of concepts about ‘meaning’, and awareness that ‘this’ is ‘more than meets the eye’.

But before looking at ‘meaning’, lets be clear about the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘believing’. Take the statement: “I believe there are green men on the far side of the moon… or God… or…” This is a statement of ‘belief’. And this statement is ‘known’. So ‘knowing’ is direct cognition of meaning, while the ‘belief’ is the meaning itself.

As with seeing/colour, there is no separation between knowing/meaning. And, as seeing sees all colour, so knowing knows all meaning… self evident.

So what is meaning?

Not so fast.

If there is going to be an apparent meaningful discourse, let’s first see what is ‘known’ about ‘words’… the ‘things’ that are supposed to convey the meaning of the discourse.

The most common belief is that the marks appearing as ‘words’ are themselves ‘meaningful’. Which is to say these marks (words) are seen as being ‘intrinsically meaningful’. Yet, as seen in other posts, the ‘marks’ or ‘sounds’ that apparently manifest as ‘words’ are meaningless.

To save you the trouble of looking up the other posts, the point(ing) is seen in the marks 'dog' and 'le chien'... different marks (and sounds when apparently 'spoken)... but same meaning.

The marks appear to be ‘meaningful’ only as ‘meaning’ is associated with them.

The fundamental ‘meaning’ that is associated with all marks, that are apparently intended to convey meaning, is ‘words’ or ‘writing’.

But not all ‘word marks’ are meaningful.

Some words simply point to that which is ‘sensible’ but ‘meaningless’

Sensible Meaningless Words
These are words such as: ‘red’ or ‘blue’… all ‘colour’. These words have no meaning. They cannot be ‘understood’. They simply ‘point’ to the direct experiencing of the sensation perceived. It is a meaningless question to ask ‘what’ is colour… ‘colour’ is ‘self evident’.

Any attempt to ‘explain’ colour expresses only ‘meaning’… and no ‘meaning’ is the experience of seeing colour.

Conversely, no ‘colour’ is the experience of ‘knowing meaning’, which is the same as saying ‘colour in and of itself is meaningless’.

Other sensible meaningless words are: odour… and any other word that points to the direct smelling experience: ‘citrus’, or ‘poo’, or... any other label for a ‘smell’. And so for ‘flavour’, ‘sound’ and ‘feeling’ and any words that point to specific flavours, sounds and feelings. These are all meaningless words that point to the whole range of sensation.

But (a thought may come): ‘citrus’ is a meaningful word! It points to the type of fruit that has the odour (or taste) that is experienced. But the type of fruit is not the smell itself. The smell is not the label, nor the fruit. Each distinct smell is a smell like no other smell… a unique sensation.

Meaningful Nonsense Words
Other words point to that which is meaningful but not sensible: ‘mother’, ‘freedom’, ‘atom’, ‘dog’, ‘cucumber’, ‘friendship’… All these ‘things/relationships’ cannot be sensed, they can only be known. Most words are in this category.

Meaning includes all ‘forms’ (shape/relative size) and ‘number’… again, these cannot be sensed… nor is it possible to understand ‘what’ a ‘form’ or ‘number’ ’is’. Forms and numbers are simply known.

Take ‘number’. It may appear that ‘numbers’ can be seen. But what is ‘seen’ are either ‘marks’ representing ‘mathematical notations’ (which like ‘words’, are themselves meaningless), or ‘sets of objects’. These ‘sets’ too are not seen, they are only known.

Take 10 pieces of fruit. (Well don't actually take them... I need them here for the demonstration ).

In looking, it seems that ‘10’ is a property of the objects seen. Yet now look within the 10, and see the ‘subsets’: ‘four’ or ‘three’ or ‘one’ and so on. The apparent fruit has not changed, but the meaning now associated with the appearance is different. Number is a word that points to 'that which is calculated’.

Number is the basis for the meaning of ‘space’ and ‘time’ when ‘applied’ to ‘forms’.

As for forms, it has been noted before that the ‘form’ of a cube is ‘known’ to have six equal sides. This ‘universal cube’ (that is known), has no dimensions. It cannot be seen or visualised… it is simply known.

Though ‘dimensionless’, forms have inherent ‘mathematical properties’… ratio (number) of diameter of circle to the circumference, and so on…

Number translates the ‘universal form’ into the ‘particular’, to give the form its relative shape and size: This cube of this size as opposed to another cube of a different size (all 'size' is relative).

As well, through number, the ‘cube’ may be transformed into a ‘sphere’… though the ‘universal sphere’ is ever ‘spherical’… amazing!

Number ‘specifies’ forms and is the 'basis' of all apparent 'separation' and 'change'… 'one multiplied into many'… 'sets and subsets'… 'one number/form transformed into another'. (That to which these words point has nothing to do with the 'apparent calculations' that appear as thoughts, or that are apparently written on a blackboard, or apparently processed in a computer).

Finally, through number, the ‘known 3-D form’ is also translated into the 2 dimensional perspective that appears as the ‘seen 3-D object’. Again, the image has no actual dimensions. It is neither near nor far, nor big nor small, in relation to the seeing.

Any apparent object (coloured image) is not really ‘3-D’... though it appears to be!

As seen, the image is not at all ‘like’ the ‘known 3-D form’. The image is ‘distorted’ (‘foreshortened’ and ‘tapered’), with only a ‘part’ of the ‘known 3-D form’ being seen. And yet, through association with the known form, it appears to be the form itself… amazing!

As any ‘mathematician’ knows, ‘number’ is amazing. (Of course there are no mathematicians… the knowing and the amazement is all One)

As for the ‘web of meaning’, these words (web of meaning) point to the ‘inter-relation of meaning as it is directly known’… more pointing!!!

…what does the concept/meaning: ‘mother’ (and every other ‘thing/relationship’ known) mean? Are they known ‘in isolation’, or are they really fully known only in relation to everything else that is known? Knowing/meaning, it is self evident: no 'thing' stands alone.

Thinking and Meaning
This ‘knowing/meaning’ does not involve ‘thinking’, though it also gives meaning to thought.

Thought may be experienced as an ‘inner voice’… a ‘subtle sound’ (that appears different to the voices of other apparent people), or as a ‘gross sound’ (appearing to be a ‘voice’ like other ‘voices’). As with all apparent voices, it is not the ‘sound’ (subtle or gross) that is meaningful… it is the ‘meaning’ associated with the sound that is known. Only ‘meaning’ is ‘meaningful’. It is the same ‘meaning’ whether the ‘sound’ is ‘French’ or ‘English’ or any other language.

Look at a scene. Does it appear to be a ‘cityscape’, or ‘mountain meadow’, or the ‘inside of an office’? Whatever meaning is apparent is not ‘intrinsic to the colours seen’.

Colours, sounds, odours, flavours and feelings arising in the absence of all meaning (including no labels to even categorise or identify these sensations as such)… is pure sensation… no ‘experience’. (Seeing colours as random colours without meaning, is still an experience… the experience of chaos).

That which is known are ‘universals’ (‘mother’, ‘weapon’, ‘heart’, ‘frog’… ) 'number' and ‘forms’ (shape/relative size)... self evident. These are ever unchanging.

And yet it appears that through the ‘application of number', and in 'association with sensation’, these 'universals' are experienced in every ‘particular’... telling stories that appear to change: 'across space', and 'through time'.

How? No idea...

Wonder of wonders!

Note: these are just words and words are only pointing to the 'meaning'... unless they are 'meaningless', in which case they are pointing to nothing... no 'thing'.

So ‘what’ is ‘meaning’? Ah… finally, all is to be revealed!!!

The Meaning of Meaning
As ‘colour’ cannot be ‘known’, so ‘meaning’ cannot be sensed. It cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted or smelled. To the senses, ‘meaning’ is simply ‘non-existent’.

As with ‘colour’, the question ‘what is meaning’ is meaningless.

Any explanation of ‘meaning’ is not the direct ‘knowing experience’. ‘Meaning’ is a word that simply points to that which is known by the knowing… inseparable from knowing… as colour is inseparable from seeing.

Any description of ‘what’ meaning ‘is’, is meaningless.

Knowing ‘Reality’
As meaning refers only to all meaning, knowing can never know the ‘underlying reality’ that is the ‘source’ of ‘knowing’… of ‘consciousness’. And yet, as knowing/meaning is integral to consciousness, in knowing all that is knowable, so consciousness is known… to the extent it is knowable.


Hi, I admire your energy in posting all this!! - I can't even dredge up the interest to read all of it! Very Happy (And YOU want ME to relax! Razz ) Saw some bits about me though Laughing Don't know why you think I can't or can enjoy the play (or being the play) or why you think I want to be the 'boss'. Maybe the arsehole in your story was simply deflating the self importance of the other organs rather than asserting its own self importance? Laughing
Simplicity: 'Awareness' and 'Content' are One, Self-shining 'this'. Content includes a lot of assumptions. Coherent philosophies can be built (conjured) from these assumptions and are fine if that's what turns you on. (I used to think it did but it never satisfied.) It's just hot air.
Imagine Bugs Bunny giving an extensive lecture on the nature of the TV screen. Then Elmer Fudd questions his expression. Both are ridiculous. It's just that Elmer's point might be:
"There's nothing to figure out, explain or understand.
There's just screen. It's not your screen. You'll never understand it or possess any knowledge about it. All you can talk about is a cartoon plot - perhaps an absurd one about arrogant cartoon characters expressing complex ideas about the nature of the screen.
Anyway...
There's no screen.
So shut up Wabbit! Or not. Whatever!" Very Happy

Anyway, happy gassing! Wink

*Eating whale blubber from the Thames*
xxgiddy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sara



Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Location: below sea level

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

O.k., no time, so small bites!

michael wrote:

Gid, you’ve asked about ‘meaning’… a great topic for a forum built out of words. Very Happy

Though, on a cautionary note, it must be remembered that ‘he who knows does not speak’, and that ‘he who speaks does not know’…


This is an interesting aspect of the 'in and out' of integration. Anytime long or short events take place, there is no need at all to talk about it with anyone; (which is fortunate, since no one in my circle is the least bit interested!). in fact, the very idea of 'talking about it' is absurd, forgotten, an 'afterthought'. Wink

But in the 'out' (sara's baaaaack) phase , there is a frustrating search for words to try to 'hold on' to the feelings and/or to explain. I have a feeling most everyone here knows all about this ad nauseum. But there is a strong compulsion for the puppet to 'express' itself! Rolling Eyes

michael wrote:

There is no speaker… only hearing… and seeing and feeling and tasting and smelling… and knowing… and power. Knowing? Power? What nonsense! Yes it is. Very Happy


And there is sometimes almost an aggressive assertiveness as this amazing power is felt. Everything becomes a plaything for oneness and sara (often still sort of there) watches in wonderment and glee and perhaps, since it's so intoxicating, tries to 'own it'! Cool

michael wrote:
That said, these apparent words are by through and for One alone... the One that now appears to read these words. They are of no comfort or value to any one… least of all ‘michael’ or ‘godindrag’… or any such other apparent person. Very Happy



Yes. Exactly.

michael wrote:
So on with the show.

As it is clear that ‘meaning’ is known, inseparable from awareness… so this apparent inquiry may be called 'Knowing Thyself'. It is not a search. It is more like a dropping away of concepts about ‘meaning’, and awareness that ‘this’ is ‘more than meets the eye’. Cool



It's the 'show' that follows that seems somewhat redundant and is causing the eyes to glaze over.

And the words 'meaning' and 'inquiry'aren't really 'glomping' here.

Experientially, the dropping just happens seemingly out of the blue as a 'gift' irrespective of 'meaning' and 'inquiry'. And concepts, thoughts and tribbles just take their proper toolbox (hard to describe this) place with everything else.

Back to the happy host holodek for now! Very Happy

love,
sara
_________________
There is only Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sara



Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Location: below sea level

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi gid!

Talk about synchronicity! We musta been posting replies to michael at the same time, unbeknownst to.....oh...... yeah!!!! Cool

And sorry about your whale, but no use blubbering about it, I guess. Crying or Very sad

O.k., YEAY Very Happy !!! I ordered the book! Very Happy

So, we'll 'see'. <g>

And I'm stealing this:

godindrag wrote:


There's just this.



for my signature, as payback, since you've totally degraded:

sara's sig wrote:

there is only oneness


Now I can't look at it without giggling ( I'm easily amused Rolling Eyes ).

So please be serious!

love,
saracastic
_________________
There is only Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 3816
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey gid, who do you think you are talking to...

Who do you think has authored the words that you apparently disdain?

Silly question. Rolling Eyes

You don't think. Without ever knowing it, you are the apparent disdain Shocked

Oh never Mind... no Matter Very Happy

Its all non sense anyway... including the meaningful bits Cool

Love
_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    awakeningtothedream.com Forum Index -> Awakening to the Dream All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group