Something that maybe helpful from this day forward and to take with ones self into the new year.
On who’s behalf has this present thought risen? Thoughts rise if we notice in relationship to who or what we take ourselves to be. Is our present thought rising from a present belief in a finite separate self, or is it rising in relationship to our true nature where we are the world and both inner and outer world are one, and are the present precipitation for the lack of better words of our inner condition.
How would we know the difference?
“How would we know the difference?”
The separate self identity John, Bob or Nancy and all the structure that comprises it is not essential for there to be the presence of awareness. There must be at least for there to be a moment of insight the passing away of infinite awareness’s association with being for example Bob, to see the Bob image as not essential, that awareness is not only alive and kicking but infinite awareness/consciousness was all there ever was. For a moment there was an appearance of two Bob and infinite consciousness but in truth there was only one. It is the same with the world which for most of our lives appears to be separate from us, yet like the Bob image that has been changing and altering for many years our perception of the world has changed over the years so cannot be essential because like the self image it comes and goes and yet we as awareness remain. Our enquiry into our true nature as to what is the essential self that can not be negated begins to expose through choieless insight that we are not only projecting the world as we see it, we have also manufactured a separate idea of ourselves who interacts with it.
I heard a saying once: "If all returns to the one where does the one return? Answer: The one. The dog has seen his tail and decides to lay down for a rest. A questions bubbles up such as what now? This question if taken, if picked up by awareness/consciousness has awareness assuming the existence of a questionor that exist to ask such a question. OR?
Or awareness can remain steadfast in its conviction through negation and insight that in truth There is no place to go or anyone to get there. Awareness its essential nature is formless and all seeing as to the rising of thought forms and the creation of a word and a separate self.
As one writes one is also in the process of enquiry and negation hopefully with ears wide open to hear and see the pointing by others to fabrications that may lie unconscious.
It’s just thought. (demand for 20 characters)
1 Like
Peter
“Its just thought”
Yes, from the first not a thing is. Accept awareness/consciousness modulating between formlessness and form. The one becoming two for all appearances yet still and always one. Man has manifested his position as awareness in his outward projection of God and his situation, alone in not even the cosmos, the cosmos has yet to be created. There is only the one, and that being, nothing could possibly be separate, creator and creation are one.
But your right the truth is spoken in silence. If no one is sick why provide an antidote, or is the antidote like in the case of Krishnamurti teaching a mirror reflecting back that there is no one to take any antidote. Cured.
Merry Christmas Peter, I look forward to more exchanges in the new year.
Ah good - I’ll take it we don’t have to discriminate between the 2 then.
But since we’re here, I’ll have a go anyway.
On whose behalf has this thought arisen? : On behalf of fear. Thought arises on behalf of security and progress.
What do you reckon? Is this conclusion useful?
Douglas
Thought rises in association of fear.
I would agree with that, and fear is associated with the self-image, the separate self. Could we also say thought is the outcome of conditioning an association with the separate self? Even when the separate self that for so many years we’ve had associated with ends momentarily or completely at such a moment thoughts may still rise yet never mate with a notion of a thinker separate from thought so they go on their way till their end or melt back in to the conditioned content. Thoughts associated with the separate self begin to no longer rise when the nature of the separate self is seen through. The same with the fear of death, the death or end of an image which has been seen as a fabrication and one is still present even if it ends is not scary, it’s almost laughable. A step forward from this is to lose fear of the physical body ending because when look upon deep enough the experience is the body idea takes place no outside but within consciousness. Everything becomes very subtle here if not shooken off as delusion but is enquiry based on direct experience and not conditioning.
The ‘self’ does not want the body to breakdown or actually die because if that happens, who then, will it be able to abuse?
I have no experience of this - are you saying that there are some sort of special thoughts that arise from somewhere that is not the result of conditioning? If so, how do we tell the difference ?
I was under the impression that all thoughts are of the the same source : ie the past, the known, conditioning.
Or maybe you are saying that there are times when no thoughts arise?
Question: How does one know the difference between thoughts that arise from conditioning and thoughts that arise that are of a different order?
A different order: A different order where thoughts rise outside the house that conditioned thought built.
Reality: In reality there is no outside material world with a separate selves that travels it. It’s all a dream within Consciousness, the content of consciousness is consciousness. What does that mean, the content of consciousness is consciousness? Doesn’t it mean that the content is made out of consciousness. If this is true our self image is made out of consciousness and what we call the outside world is not outside of consciousness but is also made of consciousness. Thoughts arising out of this reality are of a different order then thoughts within the dimensions formed between the pages of an unconscious dream. Peace is the outcome of consciousness being self aware that nothing is separate and all experience is of it’s own modulations between formlessness and form. In future replies I will try to articulate better what im.trying to say.
1 Like
Thank you - though I think that you are managing to convey a picture that we can appreciate.
Just one (maybe troubling) question : these thoughts/theory that you are sharing with us, have they arisen out of past conditioning (dependant on past conclusions, knowledge, concepts) or are they from “outside”?
If they are from outside (of the known) how do we tell?
Whether they are free from, or dependant on conditioning - do we need to hold on to them as true? ie. Dogma, new conditioning?
If we can discriminate between the 2 (conditioned and unconditioned thought) - should we treat them differently ? (Actually - rereading your post - you seem to be saying no difference between the 2? - so maybe the question is : why discriminate at all?)
(Oups! I added a whole load more questions there)
Question:
Just one (maybe troubling) question : these thoughts/theory that you are sharing with us, have they arisen out of past conditioning (dependant on past conclusions, knowledge, concepts) or are they from “outside”?
The more that It becomes apparent through negation that nothing, accept an essential aware formless knowing, escapes being that of creation as if out of thin air. The aware knowing, the awareness presence in consciousness can be disputed but that dispute will fail in the light of: We are aware and we know that we are aware, it’s self evident. What is not plain and evident and what we have all struggled with for so many years is to the reality of the content of consciousness. All consciousness is a creation a modulation of consciousness, nothing escapes this except the unmanifest state of consciousness and its seeing, its knowing. “From the first not a thing is” Except for awareness, a knowing must be present to greet the first movement, the first rising of a content within consciousness. As you can see the more one moves away from the emptiness of consciousness adding a conceptual idea, picture of our position as aware consciousness the more we move into its inventions.
Yet what about the global intuitive unfolding of our predicament as an aware consciousness? Can we dispute that we are the awareness? We do not become it, we already are it. Can we dispute that there is no experience unless it happens within consciousness and is registered by an aware consciousness? And can we dispute the fact that the whole world and ourselves as we know it is taking place for us within consciousness? We cannot honestly say there is an outside world at all do to the fact that all sensations, seeing,hearing, tasting, sensing are all taking place as modifications of consciousness into form and then the awareness of content as it makes its appearance on the stage of consciousness. What happens if we begin here? Begin with any movement into the birth of forms creates forms not separate from our own creation including ourselves. No more duality of self and other, world and self, everything is from the one originally aware formless presence.
I have taken you on a journey, I hope back to our essential self for there to be any experience, it is formless, unlimited consciousness and its indisputable presence of awareness. In one sense we are nowhere because we stand together empty before the door of time where on the other side is our world as we made it.
It is now fun to go outside because I know I’m stepping into the content of consciousness, in the most basic sense I’m looking at my mind or should I say me as consciousness in form.
1 Like
Would you say that it is the not-seeing of this that has created the “monstrous” situation Man finds himself in? And that ignorance of this is what is meant by “the house is on fire”?
Yes, Krishnamurti if I’m not in error spoke about a wrong turn or a fork in the road. Here is where man and the mind moved into duality and from that day forward mans actions has been In the illusive state of his world being separate from him. We must ask ourselves, in what form would of the world taken, and its still not to late if man acted and behaved as if nothing was separate from him/herself? When I first stumbled upon this during enquiry it rocked my world, I knew the love for the first time that Krishnamurti spoke about, it simply meant not two. Till then my house was on fire and the water that was going to put it out was ones ever expanding inclusion of everything as not just my own body but the body of anything and everything. We are all drawing of the same well of aware consciousness, the same being ness, the reason we all equally sense the same feeling “I am” And we know we are that “ I am”. A lizard is that same beingness although maybe without the possibility of self realization beyond “I am”, but who knows Lol. The important thing I sense is we can now throw out the Ten Commandments that a separate self unconsciously used to imitate brotherly love and now we can replace it with true love. True love of seeing everything as an aspect of ourselves. The sense here is upon acting as if every single thing is not separate from the wholelistic body we share we return this body to good health. I think it has to be authentic, the Ten Commandments for a separate self although may have its value it did not stop of from almost blowing ourselves up for God and country. No, I think the seeing must be so complete that it could be compared to a healthy mother’s love, her care for her child.
1 Like
So as this, that you write so well, is seen, the ‘need to belong’ that MacDoug just mentioned in another thread, started out for Man in packs, then families and tribes and extended to territories and nations, …that ‘belonging’, ultimately must include all living things as himself. I quoted Rumi before and write it again here since it seems so perfectly in line with what you are saying about awareness:
“In my father’s house, there is room for only one ‘I’.”
[quote=“DanMcD, post:16, topic:468”]
“In my father’s house, there is room for only one ‘I’.”
Rumi insight said it perfectly.