The why question

[Mr H]

1 hour ago, Campion said:

  

I keep promising myself I'll refrain from getting into nondual discussions like this because the language is always inadequate and they often end up in arguments over ... nothing really.  But I've relapsed again.   

I mean, being is already everything so the notion that I can notice it, or experience it through some special spiritual practice, plays into the belief that "I" am separate from something out there called "being".  The very illusion we're trying to dispel, of course.  But that's where we're starting from I guess, and the spiritual teachings have to play along with our delusions otherwise there'd be no way in, no handle to grasp.  What we need to do is to find the space prior to the illusion, prior to conceptual thought rather than prior to mind imo, but that's just a difference in the inadequate language.    

Totally right. You are it and are experiencing it 24/7. You don't need to do anything to notice it. This is why in Advaita there is no spiritual practice, meditation is defined as who you are.

 

Practices is for those that have placed their attention predominantly in mind. Mind knows nothing about these matters and can never. It can only know objective experience. So for that one a practice of quietening the mind, a relaxing back prior to mind will assist them in doing so. That is also why I suggested going prior to mind rather than prior to conceptual thinking, because even in that state, what you experience will be objective experience(allbeit subtle) and not pure being, although it will probably still be quite peaceful and relaxing.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Mr H

[Campion]

9 minutes ago, Mr H said:

Totally right. You are it and are experiencing it 24/7. You don't need to do anything to notice it. This is why in Advaita there is no spiritual practice, meditation is defined as who you are.

 

Practices is for those that have placed their attention predominantly in mind. Mind knows nothing about these matters and can never. It can only know objective experience. So for that one a practice of quietening the mind, a relaxing back prior to mind will assist them in doing so. That is also why I suggested going prior to mind rather than prior to conceptual thinking, because even in that state, what you experience will be objective experience (allbeit subtle) and not pure being, although it will probably still be quite peaceful and relaxing.

 

Hmm ...  well experience is only objective if I think it is.  Objectivity and subjectivity are a duality that belongs to thought not to pure sensation and perception.  I can breathe and feel the sensation of breathing, prior to any conceptualisation of whether it's an objective or subjective experience.  It's not me experiencing breathing, it's just breathing. Me having the experience is layered on top by thought.  Yeah I guess you could say being isn't mind, if mind is also a creation of thought, which is also a valid pov. In that case, mind/matter is a duality which we 'transcend' (to use another term).  

[Mr H]

28 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

Hmm ...  well experience is only objective if I think it is.  Objectivity and subjectivity are a duality that belongs to thought not to pure sensation and perception.  I can breathe and feel the sensation of breathing, prior to any conceptualisation of whether it's an objective or subjective experience.  It's not me experiencing breathing, it's just breathing. Me having the experience is layered on top by thought.  Yeah I guess you could say being isn't mind, if mind is also a creation of thought, which is also a valid pov. In that case, mind/matter is a duality which we 'transcend' (to use another term).  

Breathing has to be known, otherwise how do you know there is such a thing called breathing? It cannot exist without pure knowing. This pure knowing which has nothing to do with mind or THOUGHT I'm suggesting is you. It's not overlayed. Experience if you like, is over layed and you witness it. We can trace this back prior to both mind and thought via meditation if we wish. Thought and mind are as well objective experiences.

[Campion]

14 minutes ago, Mr H said:

Breathing has to be known, otherwise how do you know there is such a thing called breathing? It cannot exist without pure knowing. This pure knowing which has nothing to do with mind or THOUGHT I'm suggesting is you. It's not overlayed. Experience if you like, is over layed and you witness it. We can trace this back prior to both mind and thought via meditation if we wish. Thought and mind are as well objective experiences.

  

Breathing and awareness of breathing are the same thing. It's just one movement not two (breathing and knowing breathing).  So I differ from you in that I don't see any such thing as pure knowing. There is knowing as an abstract thought process, but say if I know how to do carpentry and hang a door (which I do), then I can either remember how to do it in thought, or I can go ahead and do it in reality so that knowing and doing are the same thing, just one. 

  

Objectivity doesn't exist in isolation, it exists as the dualist pair of object/subject so an objective experience needs a subject to observe it .  There's pure oneness, out of which these dual opposites are created like object/subject or mind/matter. Then they fall back into oneness.  Call it an illusion if we want, but that's how we create the story and drama of life. 

Edited December 29, 2024 by Campion

[Mr H]

1 minute ago, Campion said:

  

Breathing and awareness of breathing are the same thing. It's just one movement not two (breathing and knowing breathing).  So I differ from you in that I don't see any such thing as pure knowing. There is knowing as an abstract thought process, but say if I know how to do carpentry and hang a door (which I do), then I can either remember how to do it in thought, or I can go ahead and do it in reality so that knowing and doing are the same thing, just one. 

  

Objectivity doesn't exist in isolation, it exists as the dualist pair of object/subject so an objective experience needs a subject to observe it .  There's pure oneness, out of which these dual opposites are created like object/subject or mind/matter. Then they can fall back into oneness.  Call it an illusion if we want, but that's how we create the story and drama of life. 

Yes I pretty much agree. I think we run into the old word problem here. And that's why I offered an alternative word to pure knowing so not to confuse with knowing - consciousness.

 

The way we know something in your example is indeed via a mind. Memory, observation. I am not referring to that. I am referring to that which doesn't have a name, some call it consciousness or pure knowing. This is prior to mind rising. It is non dual. It is the stuff that all experience appears in and the stuff everything is made of. It is the content of all experience. It always remains the same, just aware.

 

If it wants to create experience, it must formulate itself into seeming subject object relationship which as you say rises together. But what I am speaking of is one step back from this departure from source.

[Campion]

12 hours ago, Mr H said:

Yes I pretty much agree. I think we run into the old word problem here. And that's why I offered an alternative word to pure knowing so not to confuse with knowing - consciousness.

 

The way we know something in your example is indeed via a mind. Memory, observation. I am not referring to that. I am referring to that which doesn't have a name, some call it consciousness or pure knowing. This is prior to mind rising. It is non dual. It is the stuff that all experience appears in and the stuff everything is made of. It is the content of all experience. It always remains the same, just aware.

 

If it wants to create experience, it must formulate itself into seeming subject object relationship which as you say rises together. But what I am speaking of is one step back from this departure from source.

  

Oh god I've gone and done it again, got into a nondual discussion and ended up quibbling about meanings of words   This is what happens in the other nondual forums I belong to.  Yes let's leave it there, I don't think there's a major disagreement. 

[lobster]

13 hours ago, Mr H said:

Yes I pretty much agree. I think we run into the old word problem here. And that's why I offered an alternative word to pure knowing so not to confuse with knowing - consciousness.

 

The way we know something in your example is indeed via a mind. Memory, observation. I am not referring to that. I am referring to that which doesn't have a name, some call it consciousness or pure knowing. This is prior to mind rising. It is non dual. It is the stuff that all experience appears in and the stuff everything is made of. It is the content of all experience. It always remains the same, just aware.

 

If it wants to create experience, it must formulate itself into seeming subject object relationship which as you say rises together. But what I am speaking of is one step back from this departure from source.

Why doesn't it have a name?

[Mr H]

3 minutes ago, lobster said:

Why doesn't it have a name?

Words are objects, and we are referring to objectiveless experience. So people use words such as , consciousness, God, universe, knowing, empty space, void interchangeably.......all have merit, but none wholely accurate...

[Mr H]

30 minutes ago, Campion said:

  

Oh god I've gone and done it again, got into a nondual discussion and ended up quibbling about meanings of words   This is what happens in the other nondual forums I belong to.  Yes let's leave it there, I don't think there's a major disagreement. 

 

Just to be clear brother I am not arguing with you

 

But the nature of the direct path is to instantaneously collapse the mind into the heart via understanding and experience. Which can only happen via this method with accuracy of words. Direct path certainly not the only path, and not for everyone for sure.

Edited December 29, 2024 by Mr H

[lobster]

10 minutes ago, Mr H said:

Words are objects, and we are referring to objectiveless experience. So people use words such as , consciousness, God, universe, knowing, empty space, void interchangeably.......all have merit, but none wholely accurate...

No, words are not objects, lot of non physical concepts have names. If no one has named it yet, why dont you name it ?

[Mr H]

5 minutes ago, lobster said:

No, words are not objects, lot of non physical concepts have names. If no one has named it yet, why dont you name it ?

All experience is made of objects, some more subtle than others. In the case if words it's made of mind. 

 

Ok, I will name it Ronald...

[peter]

On 12/28/2024 at 10:10 AM, Mr H said:

No. I was suggesting existence is illusiory by nature.

I think it was good old albert that said reality is an illusion although a very persistent one, weather I'm right or wrong I don't believe anything exists until our brain decodes the electrical signals from your respective senses. Case in point take sight for instance, science says light is reflected of an object into the eyes is converted into electrical signals the brain decodes them and we see the object, the two problems I have with that is ( take a tree for instance, one with really dark nobly bark as an example) since you generally need a polished surface to reflect light  how does the light reflect into your eyes ,one might say the reflection is very minimal but just enough for you to see the object, fair enough but given the rough nature of the bark  the light would be reflected in all directions and not focused into your eye therefor one would expect that the object you see before you should be nonexistent in places (have bits missing) because the light is being reflected in the wrong direction however you see a complete solid object. 

[Mr H]

4 hours ago, peter said:

I think it was good old albert that said reality is an illusion although a very persistent one, weather I'm right or wrong I don't believe anything exists until our brain decodes the electrical signals from your respective senses. Case in point take sight for instance, science says light is reflected of an object into the eyes is converted into electrical signals the brain decodes them and we see the object, the two problems I have with that is ( take a tree for instance, one with really dark nobly bark as an example) since you generally need a polished surface to reflect light  how does the light reflect into your eyes ,one might say the reflection is very minimal but just enough for you to see the object, fair enough but given the rough nature of the bark  the light would be reflected in all directions and not focused into your eye therefor one would expect that the object you see before you should be nonexistent in places (have bits missing) because the light is being reflected in the wrong direction however you see a complete solid object. 

I feel same. And kinda see like a soup with all potentialities that come into existence via supra consciousness mind - to collective mind - individuated mind. Beliefs play a big role in this in the subconscious mind.

 

We collectively create this shizz. If we want to change it we must change ourselves 

[peter]

1 hour ago, Mr H said:

I feel same. And kinda see like a soup with all potentialities that come into existence via supra consciousness mind - to collective mind - individuated mind. Beliefs play a big role in this in the subconscious mind.

 

We collectively create this shizz. If we want to change it we must change ourselves 

I agree with this  to a certain extent, I think everything is conscious ,I don't believe that  consciousnesses is  created by the brain I think the brain is a tuning device that allows us to access consciousnesses  (super consciousness).

(If we want to change it we must change ourselves) this is a statement we here all the time , in my opinion this will only change an individuals circumstances  with regards to the physical world 

The collective mind is interesting, I think our reality is governed or limited if you will by two factors the first being the Planck distance ( the smallest thing our universe that can produce) and the speed of light (the fastest any thing can travel) nothing in our particular reality can exist outside those two parameters, so therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that there must be some kind of consensus within the collective consciousnesses eg: the saying people can create their own reality rings true to a certain extent however, but we must all agree that an orange is an orange  and not a ten story building or a waterfall.

The other thing I find interesting is,  just say you want to move your hand the electrical signals in the brain light up at least half a second before you had the conscious thought to move your hand so what initiated the original command

[Mr H]

9 hours ago, peter said:

I agree with this  to a certain extent, I think everything is conscious ,I don't believe that  consciousnesses is  created by the brain I think the brain is a tuning device that allows us to access consciousnesses  (super consciousness).

(If we want to change it we must change ourselves) this is a statement we here all the time , in my opinion this will only change an individuals circumstances  with regards to the physical world 

The collective mind is interesting, I think our reality is governed or limited if you will by two factors the first being the Planck distance ( the smallest thing our universe that can produce) and the speed of light (the fastest any thing can travel) nothing in our particular reality can exist outside those two parameters, so therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that there must be some kind of consensus within the collective consciousnesses eg: the saying people can create their own reality rings true to a certain extent however, but we must all agree that an orange is an orange  and not a ten story building or a waterfall.

The other thing I find interesting is,  just say you want to move your hand the electrical signals in the brain light up at least half a second before you had the conscious thought to move your hand so what initiated the original command

Yes I agree. I would align with your first statement, everything is consciousness. Therefore, in your later statement about the brain, it is itself made of consciousness rather than connecting to consciousness, i.e no separation between consciousness and anything. To your first statement, everything is consciousness itself. I think there's different levels of thinking (also made of consciousness) which people are able to develop....

 

This is just an hypothesis. But it would be interesting as an experiment, if everyone changed their beliefs on an individual level how that would effect the collective consciousness and whether human viewed reality could change as a result....does earth appear because collectively we all believe and expect it every morning? Do we all move onto the next phase when all human minds realise the truth a d ready to evolve to the next plane? I have no idea, just a morning coffee speculation

 

Yes I've seen those amazing experiments. Everything seems to happen long before we action or are aware of it....

[peter]

20 minutes ago, Mr H said:

Yes I agree. I would align with your first statement, everything is consciousness. Therefore, in your later statement about the brain, it is itself made of consciousness rather than connecting to consciousness, i.e no separation between consciousness and anything. To your first statement, everything is consciousness itself. I think there's different levels of thinking (also made of consciousness) which people are able to develop....

Yes I see what your saying  however you were referring to three types of minds so I was trying to explain the differences  I will put it like this ,in the K9 world there is a great number of different breads  however they all have one overarching thing in common, they're  all dogs ( except for dingoes they're geneticly different and are the only k9 which has a head wider than the shoulders)

 

i.e no separation between consciousness and anything!     absolutely correct

Edited December 30, 2024 by peter

[peter]

On 12/28/2024 at 3:34 AM, Mr H said:

Since man could thinketh the question, why are we here? What is the purpose of life? has been asked

Great question and I would say that we are hear to inform the universe what is going on  and I don't mean we as in mankind I  mean we as in every type of biological entity there is ,I'm off for tea so I will explain it later hopefully

[Mr H]

19 minutes ago, peter said:

Great question and I would say that we are hear to inform the universe what is going on  and I don't mean we as in mankind I  mean we as in every type of biological entity there is ,I'm off for tea so I will explain it later hopefully

Awesome. look fwd to it...

[Campion]

3 hours ago, Mr H said:

 

Just to be clear brother I am not arguing with you

 

But the nature of the direct path is to instantaneously collapse the mind into the heart via understanding and experience. Which can only happen via this method with accuracy of words. Direct path certainly not the only path, and not for everyone for sure.

 

Sure, no worries man. I suppose it's our nature that we want to give a name to whatever's at the ultimate reality, for some folks it's consciousness, mind, heart, God, or even 'nothing' or void. 

[peter]

13 hours ago, Mr H said:

Awesome. look fwd to it...

I have been thinking about this and right now I'm going to be slack, if I have something to say I like to choose my own words however in this case I don't think my own words will be adequate. Suffice to say, if you are familiar  with the work and theories of Nassim Harriman over the last 30 years then you will know exactly what I'm on about.

PS if you think that's a cop out ,I'm inclined to agree

Edited December 30, 2024 by peter

[peter]

however I will say that the universe is one feed back loop and all physical matter  is moving in and out of existence continually but it happens at such a high frequency it is not noticeable, even mainstream science agrees that subatomic particles are moving in and out of the vacuum constantly (meaning they exist then don't exist ),now if you extend that, atoms are made up of sub atomic particles that means that the atoms are constantly moving in an out of existence (appearing ,disappearing etc etc) since everything is made out of atoms everything, including us, is appearing disappearing appearing disappearing ,which begs the question what are we and where are we when we don't exist.

 I have been thinking about this stuff for a dam long time  and there is one thing I'm certain of ,the more you think about it the more you go around and around in ever decreasing circles until one day you find your head stuck firmly up you own ass and your still none the wiser 

Edited December 31, 2024 by peter