one word phrases

dilaram

Post by dilaram » Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:54 am

makara wrote:Ok ... that's all clear.

But when a statement is used like:
There is only one Self appearing as nearly 7 billion selves.
That is merely the closeset that can
be had with words/concepts.
If it is refuted then we have to refute all words.
Maybe that would be a good thing?
But the (dream) world is the way it is
and it would be (whatever) to remove
languaging.
n'est ce pas?
Words are just part of "everything" which is an appearance of "nothing".
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Post by toombaru » Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:55 pm

dilaram wrote:
toombaru wrote:




The I amness emerges concurrently with the conceptual mind of man.
It exists within and is no different than the mind map that is confined to its own personal pseudo-realty.
The sense of being a separate autonomous entity functions to enhance the physical organism's chances to survive and reproduce.
One of its highly evolved functions is to assimilate and organize its perceptual input to create a coherent picture of the world.
It searches for connections and meaning.
It searches for patterns in nature that will help it survive.
It evolved to "look out" but when it "looks in" to search for its own meaning and relevance......it sees nothing.
It must resort to the consensus mythology of its own society.
It assumes that it has its own actual reality
and therefore it must have been created.
And whatever created it.......must be more vast than itself.
Big Self is merely another word for a creator god and fulfills the same function.
It's a easy answer to a question that is founded on a misconception.
There is no self and nothing that created it.
"Nothing" appearing as "everything" yes...

By definition "nothing" is nothing....."everything is everything".
toombaru
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: There are no locations

Post by toombaru » Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:15 pm

makara wrote:Ok ... that's all clear.

But when a statement is used like:
There is only one Self appearing as nearly 7 billion selves.
That is merely the closeset that can
be had with words/concepts.
If it is refuted then we have to refute all words.
Maybe that would be a good thing?
But the (dream) world is the way it is
and it would be (whatever) to remove
languaging.
n'est ce pas?


Concepts can take the searcher only further into its own mind maze.
It is within the very concepts from which it emerges that the ego searches for its own assumed meaning.
It imagines that if it arranges the names for things in the right pattern it will solve a problem that exists only within its own self referencing system.
It seldom dawns that the names are themselves artificial overlays and that the entire mind map is relevant only to the imaginary self in which it is housed.
The I am searches for substance in a shadowland...for the meaning of a dream


It appears that a shift can occur in which the conceptual mind becomes aware of the charade.
It seems indirectly connected to the efforting and intent of the searching persona.
What happens is outside of the consensus reality and beyond the dream-speak in which the conundrum arises and resides.
Those who lose their gravitational center are pulled along in the
dream-stream.
Some try to speak.........some simply watch the flowing patterns.
Libra
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:03 pm

Post by Libra » Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:03 pm

dilaram wrote:
makara wrote:At first there was relief at finding a post
not by Dilaram,
or Toombaru
but all I got was "lookout".

Now I'm scared.

You seem to have an obsession with antagonism...

but that will pass too in the end...

Perhaps that's 'the reason' why you're here...: to see the futility of wanting to change the world to 'your' ideals...

"obsession with antagonism"
is a 3 words phrase

all posts must be one word only

we'll have to start over! :o
dilaram

Post by dilaram » Wed Sep 15, 2010 6:34 pm

Libra wrote:

"obsession with antagonism"
is a 3 words phrase

all posts must be one word only

we'll have to start over! :o
You sin against your own commandment with this post...

:twisted:
makara
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:09 am
Location: By the ocean, ready for the big one.

Post by makara » Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:52 am

we'll have to start over!
"Drat!"
angela
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:21 am
Location: uk

Post by angela » Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:49 am

toombaru wrote:
makara wrote:
There is no self.....no little s self....no big S Self.
:shock:

Perhaps some explanation would be
rather helpful here Toombaru.

I haven't come across this proposition
in any of my readings so am interested
in what you mean.




The I amness emerges concurrently with the conceptual mind of man.
It exists within and is no different than the mind map that is confined to its own personal pseudo-realty.
The sense of being a separate autonomous entity functions to enhance the physical organism's chances to survive and reproduce.
One of its highly evolved functions is to assimilate and organize its perceptual input to create a coherent picture of the world.
It searches for connections and meaning.
It searches for patterns in nature that will help it survive.
It evolved to "look out" but when it "looks in" to search for its own meaning and relevance......it sees nothing.
It must resort to the consensus mythology of its own society.
It assumes that it has its own actual reality
and therefore it must have been created.
And whatever created it.......must be more vast than itself.
Big Self is merely another word for a creator god and fulfills the same function.
It's a easy answer to a question that is founded on a misconception.
There is no self and nothing that created it.
Nice explanation, but I find it a bit confusing. You say 'The I amness emerges concurrently with the conceptual mind of man.' - doesn't a baby have a sense of I amnness before it can even think, I mean it has a sense of existence it just doesn't think about it. You say 'There is no self and nothing that created it.' So what in your opinion is there, and what is it and how did it come about and how can you even know about it's creation or non creation, I mean could you equate consciousness with self? What about Ramamna Maharshi's pointer that the self is the heart, after all if you were to point to yourself wouldn't you point to your heart area? Surely there is a sense of self, even if it can sometimes seem to encompass the whole. In my view the sense of self is something quite timeless and primal, but the mind is the temporary chatter obscuring it.
Post Reply