Is the "I AM" consciousness a clue that existence is not purely evolutionary, but fundamentally intentional?

[Piero]

Just now, Mr H said:

"it's the same thought process. It's probably the same belief system that the globalists use to justify their globalist agenda, which is how they can bomb countries to oblivion and kill innocent women and children, and still sleep comfortably at night. They believe their reality is perfect, but the higher reality is that they don't have a conscience. They are not perfect, and they are not gods, even though they believe that they are."

 

I have no idea how you made the leap from what we were discussing and psychopaths.

 

To clarify what I was saying before. It is not beliefs. It is all 8 billion of our experiences. That is. Your primary experience is infinite consciousness. You can check that out for yourself. If you explore it's qualities it's, peaceful, ever loving and accepting, lacks for nothing. I don't see how this would lead to bombing and raping folks. Rather, people who overlook this experience and identify as limited human are more likely to engage in these activities out of fear.

 

All we can PROVE and know, is that there cannot be any experience without consciousness. Consciousness is all there is. And it's our primary experience. In religious language all there is, is called God. So again it's not a belief, it's your experience which can be evidenced.

I did explain the connection between the "direct path" to enlightenment and the psychopathic mindset, but you've obviously chosen to ignore what I wrote, and I'm not going to repeat it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. If you were truly enlightened, you wouldn't need to engage in arguments.

 

[Campion]

32 minutes ago, Piero said:

I understand the view that "reality is perfect", but I beg to differ because this is the kind of sophistry that psychopaths use to justify any indulgence under the sun that they may care to indulge in. They say, "there is no evil", "there is no justice", "there is no right or wrong" because everything is perfect. These highly intelligent psychopaths believe they can do whatever they like.

  

I guess there is that problem. Plus other problems such as people who say that morality is relative and subjective.  The psychopaths can come up with justifications in whichever culture they come from, they may claim that God has spoken directly to them to do some deed which is therefore not evil. 

 

On the other hand, if they say they can do whatever they like; then logically so can everyone else - we're all equally perfect in this theory.  And it so happens that in every society most people like to have rules and legal systems enforced by some means or other.  And arresting the psychopaths and sending them to prison is perfect too. 

It's the same argument for the extreme libertarians who believe we should all be able to do just what we want.  Well, perhaps we are already! 

 

All this does rely on believing in free will though, as far as I can see.  If free will or free choice doesn't exist, then all this is just illusory thoughts! 

 

Edited June 14 by Campion

[Piero]

5 minutes ago, Campion said:

  

I guess there is that problem. Plus other problems such as people who say that morality is relative and subjective.  The psychopaths can come up with justifications in whichever culture they come from, they may claim that God has spoken directly to them to do some deed which is therefore not evil. 

 

On the other hand, if they say they can do whatever they like; then logically so can everyone else - we're all equally perfect to in this theory.  And it so happens that in every society most people like to have rules and legal systems enforced by some means or other.  And arresting the psychopaths and sending them to prison is perfect too. 

It's the same argument for the extreme libertarians who believe we should all be able to do just what we want.  Well, perhaps we are already! 

 

All this does rely on believing in free will though, as far as I can see.  If free will or free choice doesn't exist, then all this is just illusory thoughts! 

That's a well thought out reply, thanks. I think the use of the word "perfect" can be misused. If everything is already perfect, then what does responsibility mean? If everything is already perfect, then what does responsibility mean? If this world is perfect, why do we long for something better?

 

Perfect for me implies that something has achieved a state that can't be improved upon, and that it doesn't need to be, or can't be, improved.

 

Edited June 14 by Piero

[Campion]

39 minutes ago, Mr H said:

What I'm saying is. There is no path. What is essential to you is consciousness. Nothing else is essential to you. What people describe as the spiritual path, is wanting to be or experience self as consciousness.

 

This is silly. This is your forever primary experience. There is nothing to do here. And nothing you can do to become consciousness.

 

 

I replied to this earlier but it disappeared somehow. Anyway, I suppose that the names of direct path and sudden path are a bit misleading because in these schools of thought there isn't a path to travel and spiritual progress to be made (I didn't create those names btw).  Krishnamurti used to say that 'truth is a pathless land'. 

 

But you are describing an insight about the way things already are.  Maybe you've always known that?  But, lots of people haven't and so they watch videos or attend seminars, or meditate etc hoping to have that sudden realisation or insight that they are the consciousness itself, there isn't a separate self looking for consciousness or enlightenment or whatever they call it. 

[Campion]

34 minutes ago, Piero said:

That's a well thought out reply, thanks. I think the use of the word "perfect" can be misused. If everything is already perfect, then what does responsibility mean? If everything is already perfect, then what does responsibility mean? If this world is perfect, why do we long for something better?

 

Perfect for me implies that something has achieved a state that can't be improved upon, and that it doesn't need to be, or can't be, improved.

  

Well yes indeed, I don't believe that it's a perfect world.  My own life has taught me that many times, let alone what goes on anywhere else!    

 

I've just heard other people talk about perfection in a spiritual context, and I don't think they mean what most of us understand by perfection.  It's along the lines that if we look for happiness and improvements by re-arranging the external world, or even our psychology, then it will only ever be a temporary and limited happiness. The eternal or perfect happiness which is neither born nor dies is on a much deeper level, so abiding in that rather than the shallow level of the material world and the passing emotions of our psyche, is where we find it.  I.e. find our true eternal selves. But there can still be suffering at the shallow level too, even at the same time. 

 

Edit ... try experiencing awareness itself, rather than the contents of your awareness.  To use an analogy, be the TV screen of your mind, instead of the movie that's playing on the TV. 

 

Edited June 14 by Campion

[Piero]

20 minutes ago, Campion said:

  

Well yes indeed, I don't believe that it's a perfect world.  My own life has taught me that many times, let alone what goes on anywhere else!    

 

I've just heard other people talk about perfection in a spiritual context, and I don't think they mean what most of us understand by perfection.  It's along the lines that if we look for happiness and improvements by re-arranging the external world, or even the surface level of our psychology, then it will only ever be a temporary and limited happiness. The eternal or perfect happiness which is neither born nor dies is on a much deeper level, so abiding in that rather than the shallow level of the material world and the passing emotions of our psyche, is where we find it.  I.e. find our true eternal selves. But there can still be suffering at the shallow level too, even at the same time. 

In a spiritual context, if perfection is along the lines that the eternal or perfect happiness is neither born nor dies, and that's what we should strive for, then this is a perfection in the sense that it's a process. In this context, perfection doesn't have to be a static, never changing thing. This kind of perfection also distances itself from the inferior form of striving for happiness and improvements by re-arranging the external world. So yes, if there's a channel, or a way, for striving for the eternal that is neither born nor dies, then I would be happy to call that process perfection. The principles of alchemy, for example, could be considered a form of perfection because it's based on a perfect structure that leads to true enlightenment.

Apologies for quoting George Bernard Shaw, but this quote seems to resinate with some of what you said:

 

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

 

Edited June 14 by Piero

[Campion]

4 minutes ago, Piero said:

In a spiritual context, if perfection is along the lines that the eternal or perfect happiness is neither born nor dies, and that's what we should strive for, then this is a perfection in the sense that it's a process. In this context, perfection doesn't have to be a static, never changing thing. This kind of perfection also distances itself from the inferior form of striving for happiness and improvements by re-arranging the external world. So yes, if there's a channel, or a way, for striving for the eternal that is neither born nor dies, then I would be happy to call that process perfection. The principles of alchemy, for example, could be considered a form of perfection because it's based on a perfect structure that leads to true enlightenment.

Apologies for quoting George Bernard Shaw, but in this quote seems to resinate with some of what you said:

 

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." 

  

The thing is that you already are that eternal source or ground of being, so striving for it creates all sorts of thought loops. Even though, we do need to strive until we find it!  

You missed my edit with the analogy. That there is the TV screen, and the movies played on the screen. If we identify with the characters in the movie, then yes we will experience all the emotional highs and lows of the movie.  But the screen just is, before and after any movie gets played, it's there at peace with whatever is happening.  

[Campion]

21 minutes ago, Piero said:

Apologies for quoting George Bernard Shaw, but in this quote seems to resinate with some of what you said:

 

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

 

Nice ... as long as there aren't too many unreasonable people around.  In that case the reasonable ones are trying to adapt themselves to whatever the unreasonable ones are doing to the world!!  Actually, that seems kind of familiar with the world at the moment  

[Piero]

13 minutes ago, Campion said:

  

The thing is that you already are that eternal source or ground of being, so striving for it creates all sorts of thought loops. Even though, we do need to strive until we find it!  

You missed my edit with the analogy. That there is the TV screen, and the movies played on the screen. If we identify with the characters in the movie, then yes we will experience all the emotional highs and lows of the movie.  But the screen just is, before and after any movie gets played, it's there at peace with whatever is happening.  

I didn't mean striving in the sense of striving for something external. The context of what I wrote should've made that clear. It's a cleansing process to reveal what already is.

 

“Ogni blocco di pietra ha una statua dentro di sé ed è compito dello scultore scoprirla” - Michelangelo

(Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it)

 

It's why Jesus Christ said the kingdom lies within.

 

Another analogy, which is similar to TV screen, is Plato's cave. We can't go from being a prisoner chained to the back wall of the cave, watching the flickering images, and then immediately appear outside the cave in an instant. Leaving the cave is a process that involves making our internal darkness conscious. It's a lifetime's work and more!

 

Edited June 14 by Piero

[Piero]

45 minutes ago, Campion said:

Edit ... try experiencing awareness itself, rather than the contents of your awareness.  To use an analogy, be the TV screen of your mind, instead of the movie that's playing on the TV.

Thanks for drawing my attention to the edit. I would've missed it otherwise!

 

[Campion]

2 minutes ago, Piero said:

I didn't mean striving in the sense of striving for something external. The context of what I wrote should've made that clear. It's a cleansing process to reveal what already is.

 

“Ogni blocco di pietra ha una statua dentro di sé ed è compito dello scultore scoprirla”

(Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it)

 

It's why Jesus Christ said the kingdom lies within.

 

Another analogy, which is similar to TV screen, is Plato's cave. We can't go from being a prisoner chained to the back wall of the cave, watching the flickering images, and then immediately appear outside the cave in an instant. Leaving the cave is a process that involves making our internal darkness conscious. It's a lifetime's work and more! 

 

I see what you mean, and yes I've never known anyone to not have some sort of process or path or practice or whatever.  Or if there is, they're extremely rare.  Even if the truth they realise is described as something that's always been there.  

 

I don't get the analogy of the block of stone though. Aren't there infinitely many sculptures possible from each block?  I can kind of see it with something like wood if there's a pattern and grain to work with.  

 

[I make lots of mistakes and forget things when I click Submit so usually end up editing!] 

[Piero]

7 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

I see what you mean, and yes I've never known anyone to not have some sort of process or path or practice or whatever.  Or if there is, they're extremely rare.  Even if the truth they realise is described as something that's always been there.  

 

I don't get the analogy of the block of stone though. Aren't there infinitely many sculptures possible from each block?  I can kind of see it with something like wood if there's a pattern and grain to work with.  

 

[I make lots of mistakes and forget things when I click Submit so usually end up editing!] 

I also forget to include things in a post, and then have to do an edit, so you're not alone in that! I realised I forgot to credit the Italian quote, so I edited it in. The quote was by Michelangelo, which should help more with the analogy, but the analogy would only work if the form inside the rock is the unique essence. It's not a perfect analogy. Plato's cave is better. 

[Mr H]

4 hours ago, Campion said:

 

I '. 

 

But you are describing an insight about the way things already are.  Maybe you've always known that?  But, lots of people haven't and so they watch videos or attend seminars, or meditate etc hoping to have that sudden realisation or insight that they are the consciousness itself, there isn't a separate self looking for consciousness or enlightenment or whatever they call it. 

You see here my friend. This is what I'm trying to explain.

 

Who is the I you refer to when you qu have you always known that?

 

I or we, have always known that. And could never not know that. 

 

It is the human charecter which isn't "real" that is only made of thoughts and feelings that didn't know this. We could kinda say the illusiory appearance of MR H didn't always know this. But this self doesn't actually exist in its own right. It's not me! I the real one always knew. Now the difference is thoughts and feelings are aligned.

 

Using my experience. Sharing this information, these misunderstandings - will save others a lot of time so to speak.

 

If you want thoughts and feelings to be aligned with the real self, then you have to accept and abide in primary experience. You are already doing this, thought is over looking it deliberately to perpetuate itself. Once you see clearly it is so simple....

Edited June 14 by Mr H

[Mr H]

Before the chaos starts. Just STOP. Pause. Notice your primary experience, not with thoughts....go to being......as soon as you go into thought you will be seduced.....

 

 

 

Then stay there as long as you can. Then again, and again until we see clearly........

 

Once you make primary experience your home, then you can invite back.in thoughts and feelings and have a lovely party with them. But they will no longer lead the show. They become willing participants under your guide....

 

 

[Mr H]

8 hours ago, Piero said:

That's a well thought out reply, thanks. I think the use of the word "perfect" can be misused. If everything is already perfect, then what does responsibility mean? If everything is already perfect, then what does responsibility mean? If this world is perfect, why do we long for something better?

 

Perfect for me implies that something has achieved a state that can't be improved upon, and that it doesn't need to be, or can't be, improved.

 

The etymology of the word responsibility 

 

The ability” to “promise (spond) anew (re).” Responsibility implies the ability to bring forth a new future as a commitment through the act of promising anew. Responsibility requires

the ability to approach today’s problem with tomorrow’s solution. As opposed to what usually happens, approaching today's problem with yesterday's solution, which is a sure way to perpetuate the problem 

 

 

Who says the illusiory world is perfect? What is perfect?  (for reference I previously said you or we are perfect & I stick by that. If you disagree it's your problem)

Edited June 14 by Mr H

[Piero]

2 hours ago, Mr H said:

Who says the illusiory world is perfect? What is perfect?  (for reference I previously said you or we are perfect & I stick by that. If you disagree it's your problem)

We're going round in circles I've already acknowledged that the essence of ourselves is perfect, but the expression of ourselves is not, due to mind, ego, and intellect, so to save needless intellectual argument, let's leave it there. Enjoy your weekend!

 

[Mr H]

On 6/14/2025 at 2:57 AM, Campion said:

 

I see what you mean, and yes I've never known anyone to not have some sort of process or path or practice or whatever.  Or if there is, they're extremely rare.  Even if the truth they realise is described as something that's always been there.  

 

 

A mind operates in time and cause and effect. It has to travel from point a to b to c. If we speak of minds being and behaving in an enlightened manner I would agree with you, this takes time usually and looks like a path.

 

Are you the mind though? I suggest not. Mind is only thoughts and perception and these come and go all the time, they are not essential to you because in their absence you remain. They veil your true nature which is already perfect, already enlightened "underneath" thoughts.

 

However, if you remove the locus of control, that you gave to the human mind, claim it back, you see instantly with no path needed what you are. Then thoughts start to play ball too...this happens and can happen instantly. This is what waking up is. Taking back the captains armband . Way to do it, go prior to where thought arises and stay there until you realize that is the only essential self there is

Edited June 16 by Mr H

[Campion]

2 hours ago, Mr H said:

Are you the mind though? I suggest not. Mind is only thoughts and perception and these come and go all the time, they are not essential to you because in their absence you remain. They veil your true nature which is already perfect, already enlightened "underneath" thoughts. 

...

 Way to do it, go prior to where thought arises and stay there until you realize that is the only essential self there is 

 

Maybe but it depends on how you define 'mind'.  Your definition "Mind is only thoughts and perception" is valid but not the only version. If we add in feelings I would say that defines the conscious mind; but even mainstream psychology recognises a subconscious, unconscious and even preconscious mind. These are perhaps the source of thought, what you call prior to thought. Consider memory - we recall memories from the unconscious to the conscious part when we remember something.  Otherwise it would be impossible to have all our memories conscious all the time!  Similarly, thought, which is language taken from memory and strung together into sentences in the conscious mind, is something which bubbles up from the subconscious into the conscious and we can't have our entire dictionary in awareness simultaneously.  

 

There are many theories of mind of course so I'm not trying to say one is better than another; I don't think it's worth trying to argue about it. We've had this discussion before methinks   One source which brings together a modern psychology of mind and meditation practice is 'The Mind Illuminated' by Culadasa (John Yates).  

 

Whatever I call I, me or myself (rather than that which belongs to me) is a matter of preference and convention and not that important imo.  My latest theory is that 'self' and 'other' are a dualistic pair which arises as a combination of thought and attention. Attention is awareness + direction so it is dualistic, it has a boundary with a focus and a background. When we focus attention inwards, that is the self; outwards is 'other'. Or subject and object if you prefer.  When there is no attention and awareness is boundless or boundaryless, which is nondual.  So we create duality with our attention and thought takes it further and puts it into words.  

[Mr H]

37 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

Maybe but it depends on how you define 'mind'.  Your definition "Mind is only thoughts and perception" is valid but not the only version. If we add in feelings I would say that defines the conscious mind; but even mainstream psychology recognises a subconscious, unconscious and even preconscious mind. These are perhaps the source of thought, what you call prior to thought. Consider memory - we recall memories from the unconscious to the conscious part when we remember something.  Otherwise it would be impossible to have all our memories conscious all the time!  Similarly, thought, which is language taken from memory and strung together into sentences in the conscious mind, is something which bubbles up from the subconscious into the conscious and we can't have our entire dictionary in awareness simultaneously.  

 

There are many theories of mind of course so I'm not trying to say one is better than another; I don't think it's worth trying to argue about it. We've had this discussion before methinks   One source which brings together a modern psychology of mind and meditation practice is 'The Mind Illuminated' by Culadasa (John Yates).  

 

Whatever I call I, me or myself (rather than that which belongs to me) is a matter of preference and convention and not that important imo.  My latest theory is that 'self' and 'other' are a dualistic pair which arises as a combination of thought and attention. Attention is awareness + direction so it is dualistic, it has a boundary with a focus and a background. When we focus attention inwards, that is the self; outwards is 'other'. Or subject and object if you prefer.  When there is no attention and awareness is boundless or boundaryless, which is nondual.  So we create duality with our attention and thought takes it further and puts it into words.  

We can add feelings in too it makes little difference.

 

what I call prior to thought is awareness. It is in which thought is made of and appears in. Subconscious mind is a model - we can speak about this but it's a completely different conversation.

 

Are you sure memories exist in a subconscious mind?

 

You are right, there are many theories of mind which requires belief, why not Instead stick to our actual experience, what we know for sure, which is what we're speaking of here. I could say thoughts are from a god, or from the universe or from aliens. Sounds great doesn't it? Any evidence? No! 

 

Attention comes from latin attendere to stretch out from. It only has one direction, it cannot look upon its own source. It only knows duality. It won't help us in this conversation therefore only in conversation about the illusion. We are speaking of the place from which attention arises from.

 

 

[Campion]

1 hour ago, Mr H said:

what I call prior to thought is awareness. It is in which thought is made of and appears in. Subconscious mind is a model - we can speak about this but it's a completely different conversation.

  

I could ask does awareness itself exist, apart from the contents we mentioned as thoughts, feelings, perceptions etc?  What happens when the mind goes so very quiet and empty that there's nothing within it. 

 

1 hour ago, Mr H said:

Are you sure memories exist in a subconscious mind?

 

Deja vue again ... I'm not sure but trying to consider the possibilities.  They probably exist within the brain, because we can see the effect on memory if there is a brain injury or dementia. Memories can be triggered by electrical stimulation of the brain.  That speaks to a body-mind unity and to a model where the mind has different regions, some conscious (= awareness) and others unconscious with information transfer between the two.  I'm not up to date on the latest neuroscience. 

 

There's theories that memories exist within another realm like the akashic record, and our mind contains a receiver to access them.  Possible, but more complex therefore requiring more evidence - I'm not a fan of Occam's razor though which dismisses all but the simplest explanation.  

 

1 hour ago, Mr H said:

Attention comes from latin attendere to stretch out from. It only has one direction, it cannot look upon its own source. It only knows duality. It won't help us in this conversation therefore only in conversation about the illusion. We are speaking of the place from which attention arises from.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the etymology. I've also seen "from attendere, past participle attentus (“to attend, give heed to”); see attend."   But in any case, we are brought up to believe in an outer objective material world 'out there', and a subjective mental world 'in here'.  In that belief system it appears like directionality, pointing inwards to the mind or pointing outwards to the world.   

 

Attention is really just the total awareness carved up into a foreground and background so the mind can process that information in priority to the rest. What causes that process?  Hard to imagine any animal surviving without it. So attention arises from how awareness is processed. And where does awareness arise from?  

[Mr H]

12 minutes ago, Campion said:

  

I could ask does awareness itself exist, apart from the contents we mentioned as thoughts, feelings, perceptions etc?  What happens when the mind goes so very quiet and empty that there's nothing within it. 

 

 

Deja vue again ... I'm not sure but trying to consider the possibilities.  They probably exist within the brain, because we can see the effect on memory if there is a brain injury or dementia. Memories can be triggered by electrical stimulation of the brain.  That speaks to a body-mind unity and to a model where the mind has different regions, some conscious (= awareness) and others unconscious with information transfer between the two.  I'm not up to date on the latest neuroscience. 

 

There's theories that memories exist within another realm like the akashic record, and our mind contains a receiver to access them.  Possible, but more complex therefore requiring more evidence - I'm not a fan of Occam's razor though which dismisses all but the simplest explanation.  

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with the etymology. I've also seen "from attendere, past participle attentus (“to attend, give heed to”); see attend."   But in any case, we are brought up to believe in an outer objective material world 'out there', and a subjective mental world 'in here'.  In that belief system it appears like directionality, pointing inwards to the mind or pointing outwards to the world.   

 

Attention is really just the total awareness carved up into a foreground and background so the mind can process that information in priority to the rest. What causes that process?  Hard to imagine any animal surviving without it. So attention arises from how awareness is processed. And where does awareness arise from?  

1. Well there is something that is aware of the contents of mind. Everyone has this experience. I call it awareness. It is everyone's primary experience.

 

What happens when the mind goes quiet? In the waking state deep relaxation - and when it goes completely silent then we have this experience every night when we sleep. Which is peaceful and quiet. No objects unless you're in dream state.

 

Yes there is correlation with thoughts, memory and the brain. We can see them register in the brain via scans. But they are not produced by the brain.

 

Awareness doesn't arise from anywhere, as far as we know, it's the only real, permanent thing there is, of which the content of experience is made within.