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 

Who am I talking to
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    awakeningtothedream.com Forum Index -> Awakening to the Dream
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
michael



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

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:29 am    Post subject: Who am I talking to Reply with quote

What follows may be read as an argument to be analysed… it is not.

The only certainty is Consciousness here now. This needs no proof… it is ‘self evident’.

Both ‘waking experience’ and ‘nightly dreams’ appear in this same Consciousness.

It is ‘self evident’ that the nature of ‘waking experience’ and ‘nightly dreams’ is the same: ‘composed’ solely of sensations and meaning.

As the ‘things/people’ perceived in a nightly dream are inseparable from Consciousness (yet not it), so all ‘perceived things’ (being of the same nature as those in a ‘nightly dream’) are inseparable from Consciousness (yet not it). The images change – Consciousness does not.

It is ‘self evident’ that there is no ‘perceiver inside the perceived' of a nightly dream. To believe any different for all experience is simply a belief… a concept.

As these words are read (from whichever perspective they are read) there are no other Consciousnesses perceiving anything else, any where, any time, any how.

So who am I talking to?

The short answer is (my) Self.

The long answer points to the profound depths of this 'Self':

Looking up, as these words are typed, a person is seen sitting at a desk opposite. I speak and they answer as if they have heard me. Yet the person I see cannot hear, nor is there any other consciousness (inside the image) that hears 'me'.

The reply is simply part of the play... they reply as they must.

In truth, it is not ‘me’ that speaks, nor ‘them’ that replies.

There is no ‘speaking’… only hearing.

This 'me' that seems to speak is also an ‘image’ (a collection of feelings, visual images of torso, arms, and hands (typing) and some thoughts and the sound of a 'voice', called 'my voice').

All these impressions are now in Consciousness... creating the image of 'me typing' and 'talking' to 'another person'.

Michael makes no sound. The sound of michael's voice appears directly in the hearing... directly within Consciousness - just as the visual impression appears directly in the seeing.

The sound of their reply also appears directly in the hearing.

These faculties (seeing, hearing, etc) are the faculties of Consciousness, they are not dependant upon any ‘body’. They are eternal and unchanging. One with Consciousness.

Both 'me' and the 'other person' have no Consciousness... as in a nightly dream - Consciousness ‘has us’.

Profoundly, this play is not like watching a TV show.

Pain inflicted is pain felt. Words spoken to another are heard from the perspective of the other.

For, One experiences the world from every perspective.

What I do to another I really do to myself… though nothing is really done by anyone, to anyone – it is all a dream.

As the world is experienced from the perspective of the 'person sitting opposite me’, Consciousness seems to have the body (dream body) of that person and seems to be looking across at michael, hears michael speak and, in turn, experiences the person replying to michael.

Again, the sound of ‘michael speaking’ and the sound of ‘the reply’ both appear in Consciousness… on this occasion from the perspective of the person sitting opposite Michael.

Such experiencing of each perspective is neither concurrent in time, nor consecutive. It is wholly outside time.

Being outside time, there is no time ‘between’ the experience of the world from 'this perspective' and the experience of the world from any ‘other perspective’.

It means that 'when I speak to you'... ‘you’ hear, though it is not 'me' speaking and not ‘you’ hearing. In both cases Consciousness alone produces and hears the sound… from each perspective. The sound does not travel anywhere. It does not go from one apparent body to another apparent body.

Both space and time are concepts. They have no independent reality.

Consciousness alone hears from the perspective of Michael, and hears from the perspective of the ‘other’. These experiences are neither concurrent, nor consecutive. They are outside time.

While a nightly dream and waking experience are of the same nature, there is one fundamental difference. In the case of a nightly dream, only one perspective is experienced... that of 'the dreamer'.

In the case, of 'waking experience' all perspectives are experienced.

Take an analogy based on a human perspective: It is the difference between watching a TV show and participating in a video conference. In the first case, there is no interaction - simply because there is no 'consciousness' behind the images. In the second case there is.

Of course, in this analogy it is assumed that there are two consciousnesses existing at the same time separated by space.

The reality is One. Neither space nor time nor any division exists here.

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


Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 2277

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:32 am    Post subject: The Absolute Reply with quote

A good story Michael, and yes, dream state and waking state, but let's not forget the dreamless sleep state, which lingers as peace in the waking state.

As Nisargadatta said:
"1 Is the Absolute
2 is Consciousness
3 is Space."

This quote, together with your posting brings up the following association:
1 Is Dreamless sleep,
2 is the waking state,
3 is the dream state.

Even the old boy could not help but split IT in 1, 2 and 3 when talking about it. Such is the nature of conceptual expression. All thinking and talking functions within the pairs of opposites. It is all 'wrong' and it is all 'fun' and perfect as it is.

michael wrote:

These faculties (seeing, hearing, etc) are the faculties of Consciousness, they are not dependant upon any ‘body’. They are eternal and unchanging. One with Consciousness.


Seeing, hearing, etc, may be seen as the faculties of Consciousness, but the ears and eyes that participate in it are as much Consciousness as what is perceived via them. It is doubtful if sight would appear without eyes, as a person born blind apparently does not dream in pictures.


As seen from here Consciousness apparently breaks up through the sense organs in the same way that light appears different when it is projected through a crystal. The rainbows that appear are not of the crystal, yet light would not express as these rainbows if there was no crystal.

All there is is Consciousness; it's both the sense organs and the hearing seeing etc. It is the crystal and the light. Or perhaps... All there is and is not is the Absolute. And even that seems like saying too much and too little. Nevertheless here is enough foolishness to offer some words.... and here is some blank space....








.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fox



Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 821
Location: Switzerland

PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...


interrupting the blank space and shouting out:

Here and now - I am - again
(more foxy than ever... Cool )

Hello my friends - I missed this duality-dancing-discussion-forum!
Hope this time the hacker will realise the gem that we are continously sharpening here.

Michael, the words that seem to appear out of your mind are as fascinating as before the doom of the old forum.

However, some aspects of IT are still enigmatic...

for example this:

"...While a nightly dream and waking experience are of the same nature, there is one fundamental difference. In the case of a nightly dream, only one perspective is experienced... that of 'the dreamer'.

In the case, of 'waking experience' all perspectives are experienced..."


So why does consciousness 'in my case' not experience life from the perspective of George Clooney for example.

I herewith officially declare: Consciousness here in Switzerland, seen from the perspective of Fox wants to (at least for a few hours) change its perspective to experience the reality-tunnel of George Clooney, right at a moment, when he is in company of 2 or more sweet and intelligent groupies!)

Embarassed Very Happy Cool


Is this possible? If not, why not?
fox Exclamation
_________________
Atheists responsible for Adolf Hitler's cruelties?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



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

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi fox, lovely to have you back too.

I'll come back to your wish in a moment, but first Leo and I have some exploring to do.

Can Consciousness see without an 'eye' or hear without an 'ear'?

In an 'apparent nightly dream', the answer is plainly yes.

But what about the 'apparent waking world'? Is an eye required to see it?

Clearly, there are not two 'seeing faculties': one to see the apparent nightly dream, and one to see the apparent waking world.

The seeing in both cases is the same. And the nature of the image is the same: colours.

From this perspective here, as from the perspective of Wei Wu Wei, it is clear: nothing seen can see.

Any 'eye' seen (whether seen in an 'apparent nightly dream' or in the 'apparent waking state') cannot see... it is an object of seeing.

It is impossible to see the source of seeing.

Seeing is not mediated by any 'object', including 'eye objects'.

Try to locate seeing. 'You' cannot... every object seen is 'in the seeing', the seeing is not in it.

'You' cannot even locate 'your apparent physical eye'.

Yes, 'you' can see an image in the mirror... but that image is not the source of seeing... it is seen.

Yes, 'you' can 'feel your eye'. But the 'feeling' is not the source of seeing... it is just a feeling, which is named 'the feeling of my eye'.

Yes, 'you' can cover your eyes, or just close your lids, and there is no image.

But any thing seen (including any 'blindfold', 'hand' or 'lid') is an image in the seeing (just as in a dream). No image seen can possibly blind or cover seeing.

Yes, if someone has their eye damaged, or they are born without a functionimg eye, they cannot see.

You may say that these appearances prove you need a 'physical eye' to see.

Yet any person seen is an object of sight... no image can see - whether they have a good eye or a bad eye! No more that the image of a person in a nightly dream can see.

Reality is simple: there is only One.

As One experiences life from the perspective of a blind person, the faculty of sight remains 'dormant'... no images are apparent. But this is just an experience... the experience of being blind.

Seeing can never be damaged or changed. It relies on no eye to function.

The relationship between eyes and seeing is a 'creation'.

To take an analogy from a human perspective (pointing only).

To be played, a computer game requires hardware, software and a player. Without all three there is no game.

The player is the witness, the computer and screen provide the ever changing momentary image and the software determines what the image is each moment, while the witness also provides the meaning of the image from his own 'understanding'.

If the software dictates that no image appears (only sound)... then that is all that appears - but this in no way affects the witness. The seeing is unaffected by the lack of an image at any moment.

In reality, there is no separate hardware, software and witness. All is one. And 'what' that One is 'composed' of is forever unknowable.

All that is clear are the faculties: seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling, knowing and power... these are the 'witness' and the 'creator' of the 'witnessed', which is one with the witness, yet not the witness.

The image that appears (the colours seen) are inseparable from the seeing, yet the colours are not the faculty. Colours change, the faculty to see does not.

So fox... always wanting to be other than you are... impossible.

Only Conscousness can appear to be other than it is.

You dear fox are the appearance. And as Consciousness appears to be 'fox', that is the experience. And as Consciousness appears to be George, that is who one seems to be.

Some things are impossible (even for Consciousness). It is no more possible for Consciousness to experience being two people 'at the same time' in the apparent waking world, than it is in a nightly dream. (Though there is no impediment at all to remembering all lives now).

Of course, these terms, 'at the same time' really do not convey the reality.

Every experience is unique, and each appears momentarily: this moment this experience and this moment this experience. Yet between this moment and this moment there is no time. It is impossbile to say which moment is first and which is second.

It is like playing a video. The whole story is already on the video. The story has its own time, which the viewer is 'outside of'. The viewer can play one scene now and another later. Or the end before the start. These experiences do not affect the sequence of the story.

Just so, one may experience life from the perspective of fox and, now from the perspective of George and now from the persepctive of michael and now...

There is no time between these experiences, though they are not experienced concurrently. Time exists only in relation to the story.

Consciousness is wholly outside space and time. These are merely concepts.

Vision is one's magic latern through which the whole world appears.

Love dear heart.
_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring


Last edited by michael on Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cimages



Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 669

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

michael wrote:

Can Consciousness see without an 'eye' or hear without an 'ear'?
In an 'apparent nightly dream', the answer is plainly yes.
But what about the 'apparent waking world'? Is an eye required to see it?


To Consciousness there is no difference between a nightly dream & the apparent waking world, this is all one dream. This difference is only experienced by the illusion or dream that is you.

Just as you close your eyes, images appear in what is called your mind or imagination. The people move about doing, seeing, hearing, laughing, loving or whatever the case may be.

There are thoughts of sounds that exist in your imagination, thoughts of hearing, thoughts of seeing. None of these are real, they are experienced only as a thought, such is the ways of Consciousness.

Consciousness need not & neither have the eyes to see nor ears to hear, sights & sounds are experienced only as a thought to Consciousness, just as the thought of you. There is nothing to see, only a thought of seeing, a thought of that something, a thought of an eye that sees it.

Peace! Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
awakening
Site Admin


Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 2277

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

michael wrote:

Can Consciousness see without an 'eye' or hear without an 'ear'?


All there is is consciousness. The eye is consciousness 'eying' and the rose is consciousness rosing. It is not the eye that sees, it is consciousness that sees as the eye. Close the eyes and the 'seeing of seeing' is gone. That what knows this is not.

michael wrote:

In an 'apparent nightly dream', the answer is plainly yes.


A blind born person does not have 'seeing' dreams. Nor does a rose as far as I know. ( I will ask the first rose I meet.). But still. all there is is consciousness and as such it is the only seer.

Of course we can replace the label consciousness with 'the seeing' and as such it depends on no-thing. Let's say consciousness or IT can do as it pleases; eyes or not. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



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

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cimages wrote:
To Consciousness there is no difference between a nightly dream & the apparent waking world, this is all one dream.


That is why the reference is to 'apparent nightly dream' and 'apparent waking state'... no difference.

cimages wrote:
This difference is only experienced by the illusion or dream that is you.


An illusion can experience nothing. The illusion ('you' and everything else) is the experience

cimages wrote:
There are thoughts of sounds that exist in your imagination, thoughts of hearing, thoughts of seeing. None of these are real, they are experienced only as a thought, such is the ways of Consciousness.


What, from the perspective of cimages, are called 'thoughts', from the perspective of michael, are called 'meaning'.

Here 'colour' appears. What the colours appear 'as' is determined by the meaning associated with them. In itself colour is meaningless. The same 'patch of colours' may be seen as a 'rope', or as a 'snake', or as simply a 'thing'.

cimages wrote:
Consciousness need not & neither have the eyes to see nor ears to hear...

_________________
From Source to Source: an Endless Spring


Last edited by michael on Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:00 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



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

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Leo

awakening wrote:
The eye is consciousness 'eying'


Absolutely!

But the eye is not seeing... it is just 'eyeing'. It is the appearance of an eye.

As one looks into someone's eyes, one is looking at an image. Behind the image and within it are nothing. The image has no 'behind' or 'within', any more than the image in an 'apparent nightly dream' has a 'behind' or 'within'.

There is no 'spark' or 'focal point' or 'bit' of consciousness in, or associated with, the image seen.

One is wholly present. One is not divided into 'bits' or 'loci' or any other differentiator.

As one seems to be the person reading these words, there are no other 'points of consciousness' seeming to be other persons. There is only this here now.

awakening wrote:
It is not the eye that sees, it is consciousness that sees... as the eye.

Close the eyes and the 'seeing of seeing' is gone.


No argument here dear friend.

This seeing 'as the eye', is called from this perpspective seeing 'as if there is an eye'.

The eye (being an illusion) not only cannot see, it cannot determine (of its own) what is, or is not seen.

It is consciousness alone that determines what appears to the seeing. It simply depends upon the story being told. If the story is the life of a blind person there is no seeing. If the story involves an operation giving sight, there is seeing.

This 'story telling' is not like simply writing a script and following it.

The depth and breadth of the complexity that 'forms' the content of the story (its meaning) cannot be fathomed. It involves the 'concepts' of light and atomic and chemical processes that form not only the 'eye' but also the 'brain' of the creature from whose perspective the world is apparently seen (and all else besides).

michael wrote:

In an 'apparent nightly dream', the answer is plainly yes.


awakening wrote:
A blind born person does not have 'seeing' dreams.


True, but as one does experience an 'apparently nightly dream', the seeing that sees it is the same seeing that sees 'apparent waking life'.

There are not two 'seeings', an 'eye seeing' (in the case of the 'apparent waking life'), and a 'no-eye seeing' (in the case of the 'apparent nightly dream'). There is just seeing.

But then this is as you say:

awakening wrote:
...we can replace the label consciousness with 'the seeing' and as such it depends on no-thing. Let's say consciousness or IT can do as it pleases; eyes or not. Very Happy


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



Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 669

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

michael wrote:
cimages wrote:
To Consciousness there is no difference between a nightly dream & the apparent waking world, this is all one dream.


That is why the reference is to 'apparent nightly dream' and 'apparent waking state'... no difference.


Speaking/understanding of that which is the same.

michael wrote:
cimages wrote:
This difference is only experienced by the illusion or dream that is you.


An illusion can experience nothing. The illusion ('you' and everything else) is the experience


From the illusion that is you, there....is......an experience of seeing, hearing, doing, of being you! From your & my perspective this has a sense of being real.

From Consciousness perspective while having the experience of being you & I......this is also the case.

In Reality, all is occuring in Consciousness, of Consciousness, & is Consciousness.

This 'I' however can only think of & experience this reality, & ideas of Consciousness, according to those thoughts that come from Consciousness, including this thought or idea of me.

These thoughts tell me this experience is real, which is why I won't step out into oncoming traffic expecting not to be hit or injured. Because if I was injured & not killed it would be a real experience to me. If I was killed it wouldn't be.

When I die, then it will be as if there never was a me, a here, any experiences that I had only the experience of consciousness having been me.


michael wrote:
cimages wrote:
]There are thoughts of sounds that exist in your imagination, thoughts of hearing, thoughts of seeing. None of these are real, they are experienced only as a thought, such is the ways of Consciousness.


What, from the perspective of cimages, are called 'thoughts', from the perspective of michael, are called 'meaning'.

Here 'colour' appears. What the colours appears 'as' is determined by the meaning associated with it. In itself the colour is meaningless. The same 'patch of colours' may be seen as a 'rope', or as a 'snake', or as simply a 'thing'.


There is understanding.


cimages wrote:
Consciousness need not & neither have the eyes to see nor ears to hear...


I see..........Said the blind person. I hear the sound of a thousand symphonies..............exclaimed the deaf person. I speak the wisdom of the ages...............'thought'............... the deaf, blind, mute.

I AM! ...........expressed...........Consciousness!


Peace! Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



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

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cimages wrote:
These thoughts tell me this experience is real


Yet they are seen to thoughts, having no reality themselves.

cimages wrote:
which is why I won't step out into oncoming traffic expecting not to be hit or injured. Because if I was injured & not killed it would be a real experience to me. If I was killed it wouldn't be.


These are just more thoughts... not the 'reason' for not stepping into on-coming traffic.

If it is the 'destiny' of cimages (which destiny is not 'in the future', but 'in the story'), he will step into the front of traffic. No 'human' thought or lack of such thought can cause anything to happen or not to happen.

cimages wrote:
When I die, then it will be as if there never was a me, a here, any experiences that I had only the experience of consciousness having been me.


It is not (apparent) death that makes it so... it is ever thus Shocked

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



Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 669

PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All is correct!

The thoughts however will not tell me to step out into ongoing traffic when it is seen, by this me, that cars are coming.

Atleast the thoughts tell me that they hope they won't .

Man! talking about having to be precise! Laughing

When words are used....not sure if understanding is the same..........when read! Confused

Peace! Cool ....... Just be Cool!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
michael



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

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cimages wrote:
The thoughts however will not tell me to step out into ongoing traffic when it is seen, by this me, that cars are coming.


No 'me' can see anything. Nothing is seen by 'me'... any 'me'.

'Me' is an illusion. It is not a 'real thing'.

The clearest expression that points from source is to say 'from the perspective of... (whoever)'. It is 'source' seeing and feeling 'from a specific perspective'.

As one looks, the scene is observed from a specific viewpoint: from the chair behind the desk, looking across the room. There are an infinite number of 'viewpoints' from which the room can be observed. But this viewpoint here now is from the perspective of 'michael' sitting in the chair.

There is no actual room, or chair or desk or 'michael'... as in a dream, it is simply an 'image'.

Like the image of a scene from a film, seen from the perspective of the camera.

This 'michael' is the unique 'viewpoint', combined with a momentary collection of 'bodily' feelings (named sitting in the chair, feeling a bit hungry and so on), the appearance of limbs and a torso and occasionally some 'human' thoughts that provide a commentary on the experience... accompanied immediately by the feeling of a smile.

There really is no 'me'... apart from the idea.

The idea of this 'me' is unchanging... wholly one with all meaning.

All that changes are the momentary sensations that give apparent form to this meaning.

cimages wrote:
Atleast the thoughts tell me that they hope they won't .


Good thinking 99 Wink

But they don't tell 'me' anything. The thought is a part of 'me'.

Nor do they tell Consciousness anything.

Consciousness does not believe it is 'me', does not 'become' me... is not bound by the illusion. It simply knows what it is to see (apparent) life from the perspective of 'me'... that is all.

Man! talking about having to be precise! Laughing

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



Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 821
Location: Switzerland

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael, you said:
"...(Though there is no impediment at all to remembering all lives now)..."

So why then does consciousness always experience everything from the perspective of fox?

What is the impediment?
_________________
Atheists responsible for Adolf Hitler's cruelties?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cimages



Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 669

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At some point during the exchange of expressions, of thoughts & ideas, an assumption from this focal point of consciousness called me (Cimages) can be made about a focal point of consciousness called you (Michael).

This assumption is, that when you (Michael) in the course of a discussion refer to yourself (Michael) by using the term me (Michael), based upon previous expressions read by this me (Cimages) that there is understanding that there is no I, You or me.

Based upon this understanding I (Cimages) will never explain to you (Michael) that you, I or me does not exist, this will be understood no matter how you (Michael) use the terms, I, you or me.

This understanding again is based upon previous expressions by you (Michael) that this I (Cimages) have read.

Now.....I'm assuming that there is understanding from you that we are in agreement on atleast this one point, but of course we are on many many points.

We can now have indepth discussions using regular terms & it will save you & myself from repeating ourselves in explanation.

So, if I cut myself I'm going to feel pain & bleed. To me this is not going to be an illusion of pain because I'm not experiencing myself as an illusion & neither is consciousnes.

Thoughts appear in my focal point of consciousness that are expressing, defining & seem to telling me things about what it is I'm experiencing or feeling.

These thoughts tell me that since I can't control them, I can't decide what to think about, I can't determine how they are going to make me feel, I don't know where they're coming from other then the depths of consciousness, then who could this I possibly be other then that, that is defined by these very same thoughts.

Now, even though these thoughts are expressing these ideas of Non Duality, these very same thoughts are defining my perception of this reality or this experience & they are defining them as real.

Let me repeat, I am experiencing this reality as real. Consciousness is having the experience of this reality, & the experience as me, as if it's real.....I however.....no longer experience myself as an autonomous center of consciousness.

This experience as being non-autonomous is still based upon thoughts that come into my focal point of consciousness expressing itself as such. To me, this realization & the philospohy of Non Duality is Enlightenment.

All experiences are now somewhat observed including these thoughts, ideas, feelings, as occuring in a fixed point of consciousness which is me. Other then that all life & reality as defined continues as before. Before Enlightenment...Chop wood & carry water. After Enlightenment ....Chop wood & carry water. No different from before other then able to observe the such to a certain extent.

Due to the limitation of words & my limited expressive abilities, it appears as if these thoughts & this I are 2 different entities. Such is the use of words that thoroughly express & define this reality in dual terms.

Thanks & let's please continue to have these discussions.

Peace! Cool ......Just be Cool!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
toombaru



Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 5189
Location: There are no locations

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fox wrote:
Michael, you said:
"...(Though there is no impediment at all to remembering all lives now)..."

So why then does consciousness always experience everything from the perspective of fox?


Because............. that is fox's perspective.


What is the impediment?



Fox.




toombaru
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    awakeningtothedream.com Forum Index -> Awakening to the Dream All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 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