The Mystery of Consciousness

[Wayfarer64]

Sean,

I am not enclinded toward Buddhist thinking, or belief systems. Nor Christian, nor Islamic. etc...

 

I love being alive and active on all levels of being, Kharma, Artha, Dharma. I have no inclination to be part of a blissful void. I do not seek any such state of being. I like the rough and tumble of being alive and it holds no fear for me, nor does death. I do not hope to hang onto a higher and still higher state of being while I am alive just to approximate being dead. I remember dead. So will you if you put your mind to it. Memory is part of consciousness we carry it with us through our many lives. I am in no hurry to stay in the void no matter how blissful it is.

 

My immortality is already solid in my sense of being. I do not fear rebirths I fear only a return to ignorance. This is a fear which I believe my conscious mind will be able to cope with when I die. We are all already immortal, we just don't all remember it. That is the waking-up.

 

The constant is change. The constant is not Immortality. Consciousness/ awareness/mindfulness all give us clues...

 

In death, I believe my being goes on as consciousness. I remember my connection to the Greater Consciousness as a constant. I came from there into life. Life is what it is. I put no value on ANY activity if I am being aware of its consiquences and impact and meaning in my life. Much of morality to me is just silly. I eat pork, so did Buddha, but not Mohammid, etc...

 

That is where merit comes in - doing unto others etc... We want to come back with good lives- I can't say I remember how that works exactly but the better you are the better you get. I am of the middle way I don't want a goody-goody life of bliss, at least not now. My intent is to come back just a little wiser than I am this time. I want to keep this thing going!

 

Being in the moment transcends death. I believe I can cope with it and keep my consciousness for another few life-times before I will try any Buddhist Void. What if there are other states of bliss?

 

Maybe if I reincarnate on another planet I will learn of a cooler part of those dimentions of being, one where I can Jam with Jimi Hendrix and wonder why those Buddhists chose to just bliss-out for the several millenia it takes for them to realize their options...

Edited January 26, 2007 by Wayfarer64

[DentyDao]

I read about a study that showed that the part of your brain that's in charge of SELECTION, of what you pay attention to, is actually increased, grows bigger, through meditating.

 

That's the whole point of meditation in a nut shell. Whatever you focus on increases. If you keep worrying about how overweight you are over and over again throughout the day, for example, you will just get more unhappy and attached to the problem instead of finding a solution. This is a meditation just as much as sitting quietly is.

 

Sitting quietly is just resting the mind and recharging. Sitting quietly with intention builds discipline and consentration. Conciously having good thoughts over and over again is far more effective in my opinion. Or even focusing on light or healing.

[Lozen]

That's the whole point of meditation in a nut shell. Whatever you focus on increases. If you keep worrying about how overweight you are over and over again throughout the day, for example, you will just get more unhappy and attached to the problem instead of finding a solution. This is a meditation just as much as sitting quietly is.

 

Candace Pert talks about this a lot in her books and in an interview I did with her (that was supposed to get published but they said it's not scientific enough...) Your body is your subconscious mind, you create your own experiences.

[DentyDao]

Sean,

I am not enclinded toward Buddhist thinking, or belief systems. Nor Christian, nor Islamic. etc...

 

I love being alive and active on all levels of being, Kharma, Artha, Dharma. I have no inclination to be part of a blissful void. I do not seek any such state of being. I like the rough and tumble of being alive and it holds no fear for me, nor does death. I do not hope to hang onto a higher and still higher state of being while I am alive just to approximate being dead. I remember dead. So will you if you put your mind to it. Memory is part of consciousness we carry it with us through our many lives. I am in no hurry to stay in the void no matter how blissful it is.

 

My immortality is already solid in my sense of being. I do not fear rebirths I fear only a return to ignorance. This is a fear which I believe my conscious mind will be able to cope with when I die. We are all already immortal, we just don't all remember it. That is the waking-up.

 

The constant is change. The constant is not Immortality. Consciousness/ awareness/mindfulness all give us clues...

 

In death, I believe my being goes on as consciousness. I remember my connection to the Greater Consciousness as a constant. I came from there into life. Life is what it is. I put no value on ANY activity if I am being aware of its consiquences and impact and meaning in my life. Much of morality to me is just silly. I eat pork, so did Buddha, but not Mohammid, etc...

 

Being in the moment transcends death. I believe I can cope with it and keep my consciousness for another few life-times before I will try any Buddhist Void. What if there are other states of bliss?

 

Maybe if I rencarnate on another planet I will learn of a cooler part of those dimentions of being, one where I can Jam with Jimi Hendrix and wonder why those Buddhists chose to just bliss-out for the several millenia it takes for them to realize their options...

 

Hey Pat, I was addressing Sean's post. Sorry for the confusion. I'm glad you are on a wonderful creative journey. You obviously know how to have a good time. Nothing wrong with it. I'm not at the no fear level yet. I just want to know the truth for myself and be totally confident about it. I'm certainly not ready to die until I know more, but if it happens, hopefully I'll get to jam with Hendrix and have a good time whatever happens.

 

S

[sean]

There's a lot of Buddhists in town who tell me that the point of meditation is to experience emptiness. But when I meditate it's because I want to drop enough ego for the Light to work through me. Is that emptiness? I never understood the whole emptiness thing.

 

I read about a study that showed that the part of your brain that's in charge of SELECTION, of what you pay attention to, is actually increased, grows bigger, through meditating.

Light could be described as the feminine side of the form/emptiness coin. I think emptiness is kind of a manly quest kind of thing. Adyashanti says "Light -- " ... well actually he says Love but I equate the two ... ok, he says "Love is the first movement of emptiness". But he is a dude, a woman might word this differently, with the emphasis more on the Love side. I find both to be so so important. Devotion and Stillness. Compassion and Emptiness. I think without a deepening into both, things get really wacky. On the emptiness side it just leads to deadness. Maybe what SeanD is calling Pratyeka. Adyashanti refers to it as being stuck in emptiness. It's really a wrong turn. The sense of no-self turns into an identification with witness-as-self which is actually a colossal aggrandizement of self, not emptiness at all. Think of, like, a hardcore zen guy who just meditates all the time but forces himself to be this kind of detached asshole to everything. Emptiness is in a dynamic tension with Love, or relationship. Emptiness is only possible because of fullness. This is a nondual view. It's not that first there is this beautiful emptiness at peace and then these damn ten thousand things swarm out of it to piss the quietists off. The existence of emptiness is dependent upon the ten thousand things. Both are eternal. Both co-arise together in an eternal moment. Reality is compound. On the too far on the Light side there is danger too, I think mainly of just getting so lost in relationship to everything coming up in awareness that awareness of the space things arise in is obscured. You become immersed. Think of a woman who is just totally not present, flitting from one whim to the next, crying one minute, laughing hysterically the next. No bigger picture. No stability. As Adyashanti says, "you're sunk".

 

 

Sean

[Lozen]

I thought emptiness was the feminine and karma was the masculine.

[sean]

[sean]

I thought emptiness was the feminine and karma was the masculine.

I'm sure there are dozens of ways to personify it all. I think a funny sexual implication of how I like to frame it is that I see emptiness as yin, which explains why masculine essenced men tend to seek it ... ultimate release into a soft open space, whereas form is yang, which is why feminine essence tends to seek it, becoming filled up with something firm, loving, tangible. Something like that.

[Ian]

Later edit: just to make clear: I am not practiced enough to be entitled to these opinions, but I trust the teacher whence they came.

 

My two cents:

 

Nirvana is a decision. You decide you can't be doing with it all any more. To make such a decision requires insight into how things are, which in turn requires practice.

 

I completely disagree with the post earlier saying good thoughts are more important than emptiness.

 

There is no such thing as a good thought. Every thought is a thief. True, you can't stop them, but you can be ever less involved.

 

The most compassionate thing you can do for anyone is perceive them absolutely as they are.

 

Pratyeka Buddha path is about our only hope, as it relies on direct experience and not on all this doctrine which we can't even begin to agree on.

 

And, well, I heard tell it's Taoists and good-thinkers who get stuck for mahakappas in bliss realms where you can't cultivate and just fall flat when your time is up.

 

Maybe just one cent there. Keep the change.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Ian

[DentyDao]

Yes, absolutely. I think I just language things a little differently. We are all trying to articulate our experience of life and a contemplative path as best we can. It's really kind of laughably futile in a way, but it's also sort of fun.

 

See, I would say, in response to what you wrote above, that, because of the fact that wherever I look I cannot find a self, no matter how hard I try I can't find what the word "self" refers to. Therefore this word has lost and continues to lose more and more meaning for me. Often it doesn't make any sense at all. At best it's a convenient label for having a certain kind of conversation. So since, in my experience, I really literally cannot find a self, on a deep level the idea that I can be "doing something and creating the conditions to undertake an investigation that has a good chance of success" is almost far out to me. I mean, I get what you mean. And I am not just trying be overly abstract to sound deep or avoid cultivation, I meditate regularly, often for hours and I am very passionate about the Tao. It's just, I am in a place where I can't say for sure who is initiating action. I can't even find an "I" so how can "I" be initiating anything? Sometimes a thought arises "I'm going to go meditate" and I hop right up and sit on the cushion. But, even scientifically speaking, just because two things tend to arise in close proximity, does not mean one is the cause of the other. This is IMO a really important contemplative insight.

 

Sean

 

Sorry, I completely missed your second to last post there. I guess I believe in mystery too, but I think we do have control. I think the more realize our true nature the more control over our destiny we have. I think your ideas are pretty clear. The Buddhist would say self referes to your thinking which is there; if it wasn't you wouldn't be writing on this forum. For example, if you cannot find the thing that 'self' refers to, who is making questions and and who is hearing answers? I'm not comfortable with the answer nobody or nothing or silence. You wre talking a minute ago. It just sounds too easy, but as you say that's your experience and words don't really do it justice. I certainly can Indentify with that. I'm not suggesting you are in some form of escape, I'm just not sure I buy the idea that the Buddha was talking about what you are describing when he got up from the Bodhi tree and spent the next 45 years teaching Dharma. The guy was 'doing' and he was working his ass off doing it.

 

I know you meditate regularly and I understand that this is your way of cultivating something. It sounds like your saying more awareness? Am I right? I really like the adyshanti quote you gave about cultivating light and love. It's a lot clearer than Just Stop. And it sounds way more in line with Buddhist thought in general.

 

I still don't agree with you that all the Buddhists were using metaphoric language to describe something as obvious as just being or just being natural, but I definitly respect your views and your methods. And look forward to further insights.

 

S

Edited January 26, 2007 by seandenty

[Cameron]

Hi SeanD,

 

My understanding, limited as it might be, of Adyashanti's teaching or invitation to just stop is to, for a moment, rest your need to grasp or understand or know. The idea of Buddhism, from my understanding, is we are enlightened Buddhas. Adyashanti says always and already. So, if we look at this human condition of being always and already enlightened, then the emphasis shifts from a seperate self wanting, trying, seeking and searching for something to simply resting and abiding in that which already is.

 

A Zen Buddhist might compare this to the cultivation of Great Faith in ones own Buddha Nature.

 

You don't get Buddha Nature or create Buddha Nature with a set of formulas or have to go to a special place and see a special person to recieve Buddha Nature.

 

You ARE Buddha Nature.

 

God Bless.

[DentyDao]

Hi SeanD,

 

My understanding, limited as it might be, of Adyashanti's teaching or invitation to just stop is to, for amoment, rest your need to grasp or understand or know. The idea of Buddhism, from my understanding, is we are enlightened Buddhas. Adyashanti says [/i]always and already. So, if we look at this human condition of being always and already enlightened, then the emphasis shifts from a seperate self wanting, trying, seeking and searching for something to simply resting and abiding in that which already is.

 

A Zen Buddhist might compare this to the cultivation of Great Faith in ones own Buddha Nature.

 

You don't get Buddha Nature or create Buddha Nature with a set of formulas or have to go to a special plance and see a special person to recieve Buddha Nature.

You ARE Buddha Nature.

 

God Bless.

 

Cameron,

 

I totally agree with you on so many levels, but Buddha is happy all the time; 24/7, all the days of the year. I don't think anyone can really say they don't have a bad day from time to time. There's more work and there are methods and they do help.

 

We all have Buddha nature and we all have ego clingling; we are Buddhas in the making. The Buddha said you are all like precious jewels covered in the dirt of your suffering. Polish your nature and refine yourself until your true nature is reflected perfectly, but don't ignor the problems. I think adyshanti would say the same thing. He's just using skillfull means.

 

You don't believe in special people? Why go to Adyshanti. If he's not special or at least more skilled at teaching and understanding Dharma then why go to him. In all fairness, I think this point is very clear.

 

 

That's how I see it.

Edited January 26, 2007 by seandenty

[Cameron]

Beautiful. I agree with everything you said.

[Lozen]

I have a hard time with the idea that we are all perfect just as we are.

[Cameron]

Great!

[el_tortugo]

In perhaps a different, but same general direction, check this clip out and tell me you don't do some version of this in your nei gong. . . http://resistancetraining.wordpress.com/20...in-my-language/

[sean]

... but I definitly respect your views and your methods. And look forward to further insights.

Thanks. Likewise.

 

Sean

[el_tortugo]

This is what I'm getting at. A recognition of no-self. There is no fixed location where a self resides. There are just habits. Habits of perception. In energetic terms a habit that occludes natural flow is a blocked flow. Natural flow is without fixed reference point. Like the wind.

 

No-self is really more like no-executive. No-self is really another way of saying infinite selves, infinite diversity, in dynamic, inseparable relationship.

 

Allow me to ramble, this isn't necessarily directed to you Trunk, or anyone else specifically, I just feel drawn to clarify.

 

There is a very common human habit of perceiving as if there were a fixed location, ie: in the head somewhere - behind the eyes. The sense is that this place is where all our perceptions get filtered through and where major decisions get made. The sense is that this is where the "real you" is and there is often a strong accompanying identification. "This is ME." Yet this sense of a fixed location ME is just a sense amongst many other senses. It just happens to be arising so frequently, and without insight into the fact that the "fixed" location is not only not fixed at all, but can never be found. (What is looking for it?) This is what Buddhists and Taoists and many other great contemplative traditions call delusion.

 

"In humans the 5 spirits arrive (from ancestors, Heaven or Dao) to animate a developing fetus, take residence in/near the 5 yin organs, dwell within the body during life and depart/disperse unchanged and certainly undead at the moment of so-called death. Together they give us the phantom impression of being alive as a solitary and abiding self. This delusional impression comes from what might be called a lack of reflection on our components and their relationships and the exertions and outflows of qi that result."

--- Liu Ming

 

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the sense that there is a fixed reference point for "self" or "you" or "I". It's just a sense that arises and crowds out deeper truth. Like a noisy neighbor that interupts your silence for so long, it's forgotten to exist. All that it really takes to see an insight into this is to just try to find a fixed location where your self is. "Where am I?" Truly try to pinpoint a self. This is a scientific method of contemplative spirituality. Maybe you think there is a self or all this sounds really abstract and far out. Fair enough. So look! And the answer is immediate.

 

Do by not doing.

Practice by not practicing.

 

"This advice is not about being passive or lazy but relaxing the compulsion to be active, busy, successfull. It suggests relaxing the subjectivity of your life/path/practice. This subjectivity is based on the false notion of an abiding self - an extremist view that we are the masters of our destiny and/or the creators of our life in some absolute sense. Laozi challenges the roots of such false views. Dao, nature itself, and de, self-nature (common to all beings/things), are mutually arising in an interwoven experience too vast to comprehend. Relaxation of our subjectivity and our compulsive activity describes entry into Laozi's transcendent and yet constant naturalness where Daode is our experience."

-- Liu Ming

Sean

 

In light of this post, has anyone here heard of turning on or activating the 4,000 or so, meridian points, or the ancestral flow?

[Wayfarer64]

These are great points to make El T...

When I lived in England '71/'72 I was into trying to concentrate on my chakra levels as I sensed my consciousness/energies flowing. It seemed to me at that time that the several chakra points were centers of their respective energies. I could not suss-out what the me noting these centers of energy was to do with them at that time, but I thought of them as sort of storage bins where my energies could be cherished - (as within the temple of my body), or be directed out from their places of storage when needed.

 

The me noting my body's functions then seems to have remained the same being as the me now, though I believe that my body's cells from those years are gone 5 times over.

 

I have been wondering why my sense of my "being me" seems so strong when so many posts on this thread are full of questions as to the "me-ness" of ourselves...

 

I have saught to disolve the me of egoism through meditation, but not the consciousness I believe is me. I guess at some level I have given-up trying to not be a seperate being and tried instead to make that seperate being an integral part of the "whole" by mindfulness and compassionate efforts to open my heart (4th chakra -isn't it)?

 

If I concentrate on higher chakras I open up those other levels of being me that seem to be more connected to outside of me...in a way it dissolves the me- like LSD can do too.

 

I know we can transcend and give our consciousness of self -(spirit) -flight, but while alive the body will have it's way, if allowed to.

 

By the way, I do not concider my personality to be that which I call my self. I have noticed too many variations in mood and "will" in that. As in why do I eat foods that are not good for me? Or any other "self-distructive" thing. personality is sort of a body manifestation. The more we control it with our higher consciousness the more goody-goody we will be.- the super-ego explanation as it were...

 

I realize my consciousness sometimes lets my body's mechanisms have free rein and deside things from my lower chakra centers. They have powers that the mindful consciousness of the more "eternal self", indulges...

 

And thus the expanded consciousness of my true being returns to being a captive of my temple's senses.

The divinity within, that gets the namaste from others...Will not deny life its druthers sometimes.

 

And if the many small joys we share while being alive build Kharma and add to our consciousness's burdons in later lives - so be it, be good to each other and trade-up as it were.

 

And dat be my take on consciousness...

[Pero]

Are you saying we are all already enlightened?

 

But isn`t that exactly what dzogchen teaches? Everything is perfect since the very begining.

I agree with the Tibetans who say the Buddha knew about these practices and taught them. When kings with massive harrems would request teachings from the Buddha, he taught them sexual cultivation.

Yeah, I forgot about that.

 

In Dzogchen they believe you need both.

 

Need both for what?

 

 

Actions are also just a creation of your thinking. The idea is that you are your thinking. Thinking here, in anyform, is just the act of grasping 'I.'

But I`m not my thinking.

 

If I remember right, people become Arhats not because they don`t have any compassion, but because they don`t practice bodhiccita. Their intention is only on liberating themselves, they don`t think about others.

Almost forgot. Here`s a little story about a boddhisattva, an arhat and a preta. May not go exactly like this, but maybe it can be found online.

 

There was once an arhat who heard there was this great boddhisattva staying near him. So, he goes to check him out. He finds the boddhisattva sitting on a chair and eating. And he has a preta on a leash next to him. The arhat thought this is very strange. He eats and gives nothing to the preta who is hungry and keeps him on a leash. The bodhisattva notices the arhat, and says: "Hello, I have to go away for while for some bussiness. Can you watch over this preta while I`m gone?". The arhat agrees. But before he goes, the boddhisattva tells to the arhat: "Whatever you do, do not give any food to the preta!" and then he leaves. The arhat thought it very strange: "What kind of a boddhisattva is this, he has no compassion." So after a little while he wanted to show some compassion and decides to give the preta some food. And the preta is very happy and satisfied as he will get some food. But as soon as he takes the food into his mouth and swallowes it down, the food turns into burning fire, something like lava and it causes the preta infinite pains. The boddhisattva then just returned and was upset, he says to the arhat: "What have you done? I told you not give him any food." The arhat replied: "I am sorry. I thought you have no compassion. I was wrong, I now see you have great compassion.".

 

 

Pero, I agree. Lot's and lot's of teaching strategies. I find that some teachings are better pointers than others, but I can only really speak for my own experience.

 

 

Of course. Ones own experience is most important.

 

Minds don't really have a whole lot to do with what happens in our life anyway. Our lives unfold in a deep mystery. This is what I mean by saying we have no control. When we try to control things, that is almost always are mind getting involved. And our minds have so very little say in how our destiny unfolds.

You don`t really believe that? (mystery or not...)

 

If you`re really awake you are enlightened. Although, I guess there could be stages of awekeness (?). Like the 10 stages of bodhisattvas or something like that. Interesting thing that happens to me occasionally is that when I see other people, they all seem asleep, sort of like sheep or maybe zombies haha... Unfortunately I would say I am asleep most of the time myself.

 

 

There is always a higher teaching. There is always a more evolved teacher. There is always a more evolved you. There is always room for advancement. There is always room to embody truth more deeply. There is always something being left out or under emphasized. There is always something missing. There is always misinterpretation. There is alway space for clarification. There is always something bigger and better. There is always a way to make a hierarchy out of anything. There is always "what's next?" There is always something moving. There is always evolution.

 

But where is silence in this unending cacophony? Where is there stillness within this infinite dance? Where ever is there to rest in this constant commotion?!

... ?!

Nowhere.

 

All of the above exists in our dualistic vision...

And, have you never meditated? (I know you have of course...)

 

 

Many find a level of enlightenment that is not a constant, but it is a far cry from barbarism and seems to be a great step forward in the world. We can each only be mindful of where we are at and take it from there.

I would say, that even though someone apears "barbaric" on the outside, it`s still possible that he`s already enlightened. Actions of enlightened beings don`t neccesseraly make sense to us.

 

There's a lot of Buddhists in town who tell me that the point of meditation is to experience emptiness.

Yes, I think that is coming from sutra teaching, where emptiness is more like the goal.

 

I have no inclination to be part of a blissful void.

Lol, the void is part of you.

Wayfarer, what is artha? I checked on google, but don`t know what you mean.

 

 

EDIT: hmmm, why aren`t the quotes working right? Ok, I think everything should be fine now.

And I shouldn`t forget, all what I said is my understanding and view, which is impure, so I could have said something wrong. If so, I`m sorry (don`t want to be spreading wrong view). Ok, damn, quotes still not good. Will try again. Ok, will try to separe into two post. Maybe there`s to many quotes for one post.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Pero

[Pero]

On the emptiness side it just leads to deadness. Maybe what SeanD is calling Pratyeka.

I think I read, that cultivating emptiness only, can lead to rebirth in the formless realms, if one dies before he realizes anything.

 

 

Emptiness is only possible because of fullness. This is a nondual view.

I`m not sure if this (and what you said next) is right view, not sure.

 

I'm sure there are dozens of ways to personify it all.

Maybe, but I think that is dualistic view...

 

God Bless.

Hilarious.

 

I have a hard time with the idea that we are all perfect just as we are.

That`s why there are different teachings.

 

 

Also, I think happiness is an emotion. Buddha is beyond that. Perhaps more like perpetual bliss.

Interesting topic. Gives lots of food for thought. Which may or may not be so good.

 

Ok, hope this works now.

[el_tortugo]

These are great points to make El T...

When I lived in England '71/'72 I was into trying to concentrate on my chakra levels as I sensed my consciousness/energies flowing. It seemed to me at that time that the several chakra points were centers of their respective energies. I could not suss-out what the me noting these centers of energy was to do with them at that time, but I thought of them as sort of storage bins where my energies could be cherished - (as within the temple of my body), or be directed out from their places of storage when needed.

 

The me noting my body's functions then seems to have remained the same being as the me now, though I believe that my body's cells from those years are gone 5 times over.

 

I have been wondering why my sense of my "being me" seems so strong when so many posts on this thread are full of questions as to the "me-ness" of ourselves...

 

I have saught to disolve the me of egoism through meditation, but not the consciousness I believe is me. I guess at some level I have given-up trying to not be a seperate being and tried instead to make that seperate being an integral part of the "whole" by mindfulness and compassionate efforts to open my heart (4th chakra -isn't it)?

 

If I concentrate on higher chakras I open up those other levels of being me that seem to be more connected to outside of me...in a way it dissolves the me- like LSD can do too.

 

 

Wayfarer64,

 

Have you noticed where exactly your me-ness is located while you concentrated on your chakra levels?

 

Where is it in your body though your body's cells from those years are gone 5 times over?

 

I am not being philosophical or mystical, I really mean where are you located in your body? where does it feel that you are? Can you change locations?

 

Where are you after concentrating on higher chakras and dissolving, like LSD can do too?

 

Though all your normal reference points vanish, you are still aware. Where are you when you dissolve and what are you experiencing?

[Wayfarer64]

The Artha level has been discribed as that between Kharma and Dharma... Not related to the sensual aspects of life but the human inter-active,,, Seeking job, family, teachers, political interaction. These sorts of activities not related to staying alive per se but building a life once you sustain your body. They may be altruistic but still not tied to the Dharma as the intent is still for the interests that are not spiritual as it were.

 

And Hi ! El T.

 

It may be that we can't know or maybe remember these things before we die, but for me these ideas and experiences are still a function of being alive. I will not know what the result of my life will offer as a Me to go on, until I die and the process of rebirth takes place.

 

Thw where of the me that observes all of these aspects of being seems to be where my consciousness is focused. I am not sure it has a residence that is constant. The out of body experiences I have had seem to indicate that the me of my conscious mind does not need to have a place within my body to call "home". When I return to this body after an out of body experience I seem to enter just below my solor-plexus, but I am not sure this is an accurate discription. It seems to be just out then in more than in my brain, heart or various chakras.

 

It is said that people who lose limbs have a residual sense of the limbs being there. This is explainable due to nerves sending messages. But the mind knows the limb is gone and still allows the perception to exist as if it is real. My point is that while we are alive the body has a strong hold on our conscious minds to pay attention to it.

 

That my consciousness has been gifted with a body makes me very happy, most of the time. When I am ill or hurt my conscious mind seems to center where there is pain. I guess that consciousness just goes where it is needed.

[el_tortugo]

 

 

It may be that we can't know or maybe remember these things before we die, but for me these ideas and experiences are still a function of being alive. I will not know what the result of my life will offer as a Me to go on, until I die and the process of rebirth takes place.

 

Thw where of the me that observes all of these aspects of being seems to be where my consciousness is focused. I am not sure it has a residence that is constant. The out of body experiences I have had seem to indicate that the me of my conscious mind does not need to have a place within my body to call "home". When I return to this body after an out of body experience I seem to enter just below my solor-plexus, but I am not sure this is an accurate discription. It seems to be just out then in more than in my brain, heart or various chakras.

 

It is said that people who lose limbs have a residual sense of the limbs being there. This is explainable due to nerves sending messages. But the mind knows the limb is gone and still allows the perception to exist as if it is real. My point is that while we are alive the body has a strong hold on our conscious minds to pay attention to it.

 

That my consciousness has been gifted with a body makes me very happy, most of the time. When I am ill or hurt my conscious mind seems to center where there is pain. I guess that consciousness just goes where it is needed.

 

Would you say the consciousness that goes where it is needed is you or do you direct or put consciousness where it is needed?

 

Have you ever been aware and existant, yet unconscious?

 

Have you ever experienced you yourself in different parts of your body?

[sean]

Pero,

 

More mushrooms for the soup here -- how about form and emptiness, movement and stillness, sound and silence, duality and nonduality, are always present, they are not different, they are one. Being absorbed into a nondual experience, the question is naturally raised, can a nondual view even be expressed? To attempt to express a nondual view would seem to involve an effort to extract what is nondual over here in this corner from what is dual over here in this corner. The very act of saying "that is a dualistic view" involves one in separating dualistic and nondualistic, which is an act of dualism. Quite a dilemna, agreed? And yet, since dualism and nondualism are, in reality, not separate, any act of apparent separation is really also at one with nonduality. LOL!

 

I felt drawn to share it like this, because I think this is the gist of a pretty funny angle on teachings explicitly labeled as nondual. Maybe you will find this avenue of contemplation reaps as much nonstop laughs as I have.

 

Be well,

Sean