Pure Consciousness Is Better?

[WelcometoReality]

1 hour ago, Dodoster said:

If they are real, they are not an illusion, I thought they are illusion to be transcended?

As Mooji says: A mirage looks real, you can swear it's real, but it's not there. I agree that the experience of those is real, but not the stuff itself. Right, on to transcending now  

As we said before the thought appears in reality but the content is not real. So don't attach to the thoughts. Don't hold any truth. Detach yourself from the thoughts for a day and see what happens.

[zazed]

@Prabhaker I think we can agree to disagree.  
I'm just sharing my experiences, there is no purpose to trying to prove each-other wrong. There is no reason for anyone to even agree here.

What you say is not my experience, perhaps because I've never taken to these "everything is one" statements. It's too dogmatic for me, and i abhor dogma. I would be interested to hear in detail your experiences or ideas. I am not at all interested in you saying my experience is wrong  
I didn't ask for teaching, i just shared my views.

 

[Dodo]

14 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

As we said before the thought appears in reality but the content is not real. So don't attach to the thoughts. Don't hold any truth. Detach yourself from the thoughts for a day and see what happens.

So the thinker that I currently kinda by force of habit identify with, even though I acknowledge im also witnessing can continue to think actively and I should just hold attention on the witness also?

Here you say who holds attention. Man. Im sure I can guide someone else to enlightenment before I get there myself

Wait, Or am I not already there? Mindfuuuuuuuuuuuck

Edited April 18, 2017 by Dodoster

[Dodo]

27 minutes ago, zazed said:

@Prabhaker I think we can agree to disagree.  
I'm just sharing my experiences, there is no purpose to trying to prove each-other wrong. There is no reason for anyone to even agree here.

What you say is not my experience, perhaps because I've never taken to these "everything is one" statements. It's too dogmatic for me, and i abhor dogma. I would be interested to hear in detail your experiences or ideas. I am not at all interested in you saying my experience is wrong  
I didn't ask for teaching, i just shared my views.

 

Here's a question to you: Who is the one saying I am not this, I am not that, etc.. Is it the silent observer that only witnesses or the noisy ego that does things.

You are defending yourself and your position, we are still playing a game of Ego. We don't have to agree with each other yes. 

If you are not any thing, what are you defending here and why do I feel defensiveness when someone tells you you're wrong. There is still identification, you may be the witness, but the Ego does not yet seem to me like an integrated one. 

These thoughts come from my point of vew ofcourse. 

I am disagreeing with your ego and the mind's interpretation, not disagreeing with you, awareness.

Also its not me who is disagreeing, but my mind, my Ego, since you already claim to know I am the witness, why are you not Ramana Maharshi?

Edited April 18, 2017 by Dodoster

[Scholar]

Why is the ego, or the mind, aware of the witnessing?

[Dodo]

40 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Why is the ego, or the mind, aware of the witnessing?

I would say, that the mind is not aware of the witnessing, it's awareness that is aware and the mind is just a tool which helps to make sense of and store the things you are aware of in the now, because mind does not exist in the now, it exists only in past, or so my mind thinks

Using an earlier analogy which I intuit to be right- the mind is only the tail of the real, which is the witness ultimately. Without the witness, there is nothing, without the comet, there is no tail. The tree falling doesn't make a sound. In fact there is no tree, because all of the illusion is the tail of the comet that is real.

You are aware, the mind is your tool to use and you express yourself through it. 

 

 

 

[WelcometoReality]

1 hour ago, zazed said:

Not to you as consciousness. It's kind of irrelevant, because you can only see the brain-interpreted tree.
You can never see the tree as it truly is. The concept of trunk, leaves, tree are thought in school, consciousness does not know about them.
A baby when watching a tree, knows nothing, it doesn't even know it's green (because it hasn't been thought the names of colors).
But it still perceives something right? What exactly and how?

It just perceives.

It is possible to transcend the mind. Then the constant labeling of the mind will disappear and reality will start to blend together. The tree and ground will be one.

 

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Dodoster said:

I would say, that the mind is not aware of the witnessing, it's awareness that is aware and the mind is just a tool which helps to make sense of and store the things you are aware of in the now, because mind does not exist in the now, it exists only in past, or so my mind thinks

Using an earlier analogy which I intuit to be right- the mind is only the tail of the real, which is the witness ultimately. Without the witness, there is nothing, without the comet, there is no tail. The tree falling doesn't make a sound. In fact there is no tree, because all of the illusion is the tail of the comet that is real.

You are aware, the mind is your tool to use and you express yourself through it. 

 

 

 

Do you mean that the mind is awareness? The witnessing is what is being the mind?

[WelcometoReality]

1 hour ago, Dodoster said:

So the thinker that I currently kinda by force of habit identify with, even though I acknowledge im also witnessing can continue to think actively and I should just hold attention on the witness also?

Here you say who holds attention. Man. Im sure I can guide someone else to enlightenment before I get there myself

Wait, Or am I not already there? Mindfuuuuuuuuuuuck

Here I say the thoughts come and go but is there really a thinker, a creator of the thoughts or is that also a thought? ?

Relax into the observing rather than force it.

Edited April 18, 2017 by WelcometoReality

[zazed]

46 minutes ago, Dodoster said:

If you are not any thing, what are you defending here and why do I feel defensiveness when someone tells you you're wrong. There is still identification, you may be the witness, but the Ego does not yet seem to me like an integrated one. 

I was more aware, that instead of contributing to the discussion, someone was just making one liners, claiming these words were wrong without adding to it. It's hard to discuss dogma, if one is saying "The world is like this, you are wrong". It was kinda sad, when i noticed this conversation devolving into a circular discussion. Go back and read again, if you'd like.

Being enlightened does not mean you cannot think anymore, one does not become brain-dead and blind... 
It also does not mean, you can't tell anyone you disagree with them. 
 

53 minutes ago, Dodoster said:

Here's a question to you: Who is the one saying I am not this, I am not that, etc.. Is it the silent observer that only witnesses or the noisy ego that does things.

This body was thought English in school, that is how languages work. Should we replace everything with one or we or it?

I can mean many things in English, it can refer to the body. The I referring to the body is the mind, so I can also mean the mind in English.
What I really is tho, is the one perceiving both these things. My true self is pure consciousness of my mind sharing about it's interpretation of consciousness.  This is consciousness aware of mind talking about consciousness. It's perfectly ok, and no contradiction  

The I who is talking then, is the brain making sense of consciousness, and trying to use its knowledge of English to communicate. 
No Buddha can be consciousness speaking or thinking, because consciousness doesn't form words and sentences, not with it's voice and not with it's mind. Consciousness doesn't speak English, English is thought in schools...  






 

[Dodo]

13 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Do you mean that the mind is awareness? The witnessing is what is being the mind?

My current understanding is that the Mind is not real, but the illusion of it is needed in order for life to be. Mind made by awareness just like the tail of the comet is made by the comet, but the comet is not actively creating the tail, it is just happening, and then the comet takes itself to be the the tail, because it doesn't see itself, but it sees what is behind it.

Just what @zazed was talking about: The witness cannot see itself as an object, but here is where we differ since I've read and seen too much non-duality teachings of many masters who say the same story - awareness can sense it's own presence. It is not an object to be seen, it is the eternal subject, and the eternal subject is the only 'thing' that can be aware of the eternal subject - the mind cannot know infinity or nothingness, although it can talk about them. It can point to them.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Dodoster

[Ramu]

@Dodoster i think pure consciousness is ethereal nothingness with intelligence.  You are NOW spirit in the form of body/mind.  However you are basically still pure consciousness as the true self.  You can do whatever you want and be whatever you want to be.  You don't have to struggle and suffer like others because you've awoken to your true nature.  You don't have to worry about death, because that's a gateway to new things, new existences, new manifestations of spirit, similar to your human manifestation.  You are in form as spirit because You got sick and tired of being formless and wanted to mix it up a little.  Let's have fun in this Form and not take everything so damn seriously, folks!

[zazed]

1 minute ago, Dodoster said:

The witness cannot see itself as an object, but here is where we differ since I've read and seen too much non-duality teachings of many masters who say the same story - awareness can sense it's own presence

Dodoster, funny thing is, i follow non-duality now, and it has given me these insights. I follow Rupert Spira, love him, and especially Paul Hedderman.
Paul says often, you can't use the Buddha to seek the Buddha. You can't use light to find light. He also says awareness can only be aware of that which it is not.

And i agree, it is my experience.

But you have to realize, it is a very fine line here, it's almost both correct in a way. And it is not explicable in words, the nuance is so tiny.
In a sense both statements are correct. But I've found the way Paul said it, very helpful in my realization of awareness. This is why i stand by my interpretation of awareness cannot be directly aware of itself (added a word here).
Awareness is aware of itself in a sense, but it cannot directly perceive itself. It is aware through the perceiving of that which it is not.
This i have truly felt and seen, and am quite certain about.

[abrakamowse]

What is "pure" consciousness? Our bodies are consciousness too... that's why Buddha and Jesus say we have to take care of our bodies.

[Dodo]

 

7 minutes ago, zazed said:

Dodoster, funny thing is, i follow non-duality now, and it has given me these insights. I follow Rupert Spira, love him, and especially Paul Hedderman.
Paul says often, you can't use the Buddha to seek the Buddha. You can't use light to find light. He also says awareness can only be aware of that which it is not.

And i agree, it is my experience.

But you have to realize, it is a very fine line here, it's almost both correct in a way. And it is not explicable in words, the nuance is so tiny.
In a sense both statements are correct. But I've found the way Paul said it, very helpful in my realization of awareness. This is why i stand by my interpretation of awareness cannot be directly aware of itself (added a word here).
Awareness is aware of itself in a sense, but it cannot directly perceive itself. It is aware through the perceiving of that which it is not.
This i have truly felt and seen, and am quite certain about.

I know I told you I totally agree with the neti-neti method and self enquiry (or maybe I didn't tell you). But this does not mean that everything is not you. Every single thing one by one is not you, but Everything together? Why do you not believe about the end point of non-duality if you follow nonduality teachers? Not that you have to believe, but we're having a forum conversation, so I don't want to circlejerk around  

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Dodoster

[zazed]

1 minute ago, Dodoster said:

Why do you not believe about the end point of non-duality if you follow nonduality teachers?

This is a good question. Perhaps i'll believe it one day.

I believe awareness does not believe anything. In that sense it is irrelevant what my brain believes  
Just sitting here, i can be aware, i do not need to think or believe to be aware, when i'm aware, then i'm aware. That is all there is.

I cannot prove or disprove this non-dual end point, perhaps i can someday realize it, if i don't i'll never have proof either way.
I also admit, Rupert sometimes goes into what i would call hocus-pocus land, and that's when i zone out  
Over time, i have gotten a natural aversion for anything too far-fetched, seen many new-agey tropes that pulled me in when I was younger. I've had my fill with believing things without proof, and I've had some minimal proofs so perhaps i have some luxury of not needing to.

Perhaps one day i will experience this one-ness, and i'm only just discovering this being.
Possibly, i would not experience it as one-ness. It's not as if being comes with a manual, it just is. I've felt things resembling oneness and connectedness with everything, but i don't label them as implying everything is one. Consciousness doesn't talk back, so the things teaching us, are the human brains of all these teachers, trying to make some logical sense of something incomprehensible. Do you really fully trust their mortal brains to do a good job of that? I don't trust my own brain to make sense of it, but hell, it's trying it's best, and probably failing, and that's ok.

In the end, it matters not. The only thing that matters is being consciousness.
This is what they mean, when they say, "all this is just a sign to consciousness, it is not consciousness itself."
 

[Dodo]

12 minutes ago, zazed said:

This is a good question. Perhaps i'll believe it one day.

I believe awareness does not believe anything. In that sense it is irrelevant what my brain believes  
Just sitting here, i can be aware, i do not need to think or believe to be aware, when i'm aware, then i'm aware. That is all there is.

I cannot prove or disprove this non-dual end point, perhaps i can someday realize it, if i don't i'll never have proof either way.
I also admit, Rupert sometimes goes into what i would call hocus-pocus land, and that's when i zone out  
Over time, i have gotten a natural aversion for anything too far-fetched, seen many new-agey tropes that pulled me in when I was younger. I've had my fill with believing things without proof, and I've had some minimal proofs so perhaps i have some luxury of not needing to.

Perhaps one day i will experience this one-ness, and i'm only just discovering this being.
Possibly, i would not experience it as one-ness. It's not as if being comes with a manual, it just is. I've felt things resembling oneness and connectedness with everything, but i don't label them as implying everything is one. Consciousness doesn't talk back, so the things teaching us, are the human brains of all these teachers, trying to make some logical sense of something incomprehensible. Do you really fully trust their mortal brains to do a good job of that? I don't trust my own brain to make sense of it, but hell, it's trying it's best, and probably failing, and that's ok.

In the end, it matters not. The only thing that matters is being consciousness.
This is what they mean, when they say, "all this is just a sign to consciousness, it is not consciousness itself."
 

I do believe the spiritual masters that I'm watching . Indeed, what you say is great, and it's awesome that you don't believe what you have not experienced yourself, but for me there is this knowing when someone is being sincere. When so many sincere beings are saying the same things my mind has no other choice than to believe what they are saying - YES - belief is not necessary, but I think is helpful. 

I believe they do not speak from mind, they have lost the sense of self, which is located anywhere and speak from the Self. Speak as God, as consciousness itself. I trust their hearts you can say! 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Dodoster

[zazed]

1 minute ago, Dodoster said:

YES - belief is not necessary, but I think is helpful. 

That is a beautiful thing. I did this a very long time myself, and there is nothing wrong with this.
For myself, i found it easy to self-indoctrinate. I've been certain of a lot of crazy stuff  

You are actually starting to convince me to perhaps investigate this perspective deeper. So Rupert is back on the playlist tonight, with some of his thoughts on these topics  

 

1 minute ago, Dodoster said:

I believe they do not speak from mind, they have lost the sense of self, which is located anywhere and speak from the Self. Speak as God, as consciousness itself. I trust their hearts you can say! 

This would be a contradiction of most what they are saying, and they are not saying they are speaking from enlightenment.
They may have lost their sense of self. And as such are very open and non egoistic, this comes over easily, you can feel it. So you can trust their hearts yes.

But if we can agree that, consciousness is consciousness, and that it means being fully aware. Then we must also agree that consciousness does not speak. Oh how easy it would be if our consciousness could just reveal itself. Here I am, this is me, your consciousness.  
Consciousness does not speak, it is pure perception, pure being, now.

So their brains/minds have to make sense of all they are feeling, seeing, and the way in which they are aware. As such it is an interpretation done by a lesser entity. Still, i watch a lot of their talks, i watch Rupert or Mooji and especially Paul every evening. Yes they are enlightened, so their brain works better than most brains, it's not without merit.  

I think Paul implies he can barely explain it, and that the one explaining is not him, in some of his talks

[Loreena]

12 minutes ago, Dodoster said:

I do believe the spiritual masters that I'm watching . Indeed, what you say is great, and it's awesome that you don't believe what you have not experienced yourself, but for me there is this knowing when someone is being sincere. When so many sincere beings are saying the same things my mind has no other choice than to believe what they are saying - YES - belief is not necessary, but I think is helpful. 

I believe they do not speak from mind, they have lost the sense of self, which is located anywhere and speak from the Self. Speak as God, as consciousness itself. I trust their hearts you can say! 

@Dodoster This was a great thread you started. 

[Dodo]

14 minutes ago, Loreena said:

@Dodoster This was a great thread you started. 

You're super nice to me, I don't deserve it  I was procrastinating at work all day (where my muse for the Leo video suggestion popped up )