Motion = Consciousness

[A Fellow Lighter]

According to modern physics, everything is in motion. This concept is known as the Principle of Universal Motion. It states that everything in the universe, from particles to galaxies, is in a state of constant motion. This idea encompasses various types of motion: translational, rotational, vibrational, and etc.

Even seemingly stationary objects like a rock or a building are composed of atoms and molecules that are constantly vibrating and moving due to thermal energy.

What if consciousness is not a void? What if all this motion is the consciousness? Not an expression of consciousness, but the actual thing – actually consciousness? The ego mind has fabricated this re-occurant thought that it is conscious. What if no one is conscious? What if this adjective is a misnoner? What if consciousness is the movement itself: the thought, the feelings, the sensation, the decisions, the impressions and the expressions, the interactions? What if all this motion and emotion is pure consciousness?

At the end of the day, awareness is existence, and existence is motion – in one form or another. If nothing moves, nothing is.

Edited June 11 by A Fellow Lighter

[Someone here]

Robert Adams uses the analogy of a TV screen and a movie . The TV screen is pure consciousness. It's pure indiscriminate spacious void . The movie is like the content of existence.  Humans..cats..trees ..insects ..cars ..etc the screen can display ANYTHING.  Horror movies ..comedy..porn movies etc anything..but it's not touched or affected by the content .

Identify with the screen and you resolve all suffering because suffering is in the content.  And you are the screen. Which doesn't move .unlike the images of the movie .

[Leo Gura]

Everything is Consciousness.

But Consciousness is not limited to the forms that arise within it. Motion arises within Consciousness and is a function of it dreaming.

Edited June 11 by Leo Gura

[Someone here]

Here it is ..a quote from silence of the heart by Robert Adams..life changing book. Must read if you care about awakening 

Edited June 11 by Someone here

[A Fellow Lighter]

What I am trying to communicate here is actually difficult to grasp with the conventional way of thinking about consciousness.

@Someone here the content and the screen are the same thing, like ocean and wave. Literally, the content is the screen, there is no difference. So Rupert is actually over looking a lot because the second that you identify with the screen, that's the ego mind doing its thing again. 

There is literally no screen. The screen is a thought. It is a wave of consciousness. It will rise and it will fall. When it does fall, there won't be any screen. There will be nothing, until it rises again.

@Leo Gura I agree. I'm only using physical science as an analogy. I'm describung consciousness as pure motion because of it's inherent and independent dynamic nature. Of course it's not limited to form. But consciousness goes to unfathomable depth to become that very form which it is not limited to. So much so that when consciousness does take form, its identity is the form it has taken until the dream reaches its nstural conclusion.

What I'm trying to eliminate here is the observer or "void screen" element. There is no such thing. I as the so called "content" am the consciousness. I, the form, am consciousness. There is no one or nothing outside of me. I am literally the soil and rocks and anyrhing else living or nonliving. I am also you. I am anything and everything conceivable. Ultimately, I Am. And I am definitely not still. I am very much MOVING.

This world is my movement. This forum is my movement. Everyone in this forum, every individual life here, is my movement. Whatever you say or do, that is also my movement. I am motion. Without motion, there is nothing. I am the movement that has no begining and no end. I'll forever be moving. I am eternal movement. The appearance of finitude is but an appearance created in my infinite movement.

My movement has always been one, it cannot be segmented nor fragmented. Because anything you might think that you're doing to it is also part of my movement. Literally no weapon formed against me shall prosper, for all weapons are mere appearances in my movement. That includes your prestiged logic. All these debates, this is also me. All these fights and squabbles, they are me. All relationships, mariages, etc – still me. Your feelings are me. Your thoughts are me. Your body is me. I am all of it. 

This is what I'm taljing about. The motion, the emotion, the vibration on a quantum scale and locomotion on a bigger scale, it's all consciousness. Motion is consciousness.

Edited June 11 by A Fellow Lighter

[Leo Gura]

@A Fellow Lighter That's correct but then what I'd also tell you is to not overlook the pure motionless emptiness aspect of Consciousness.

[Ishanga]

The Root of consciousness is Stillness and Silence, just like motion is routed in how Still you are, and Sound is rooted in Silence... Darkness is the root of Light, as there is more Darkness in the Universe than Light.. 

[A Fellow Lighter]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@A Fellow Lighter That's correct but then what I'd also tell you is to not overlook the pure motionless emptiness aspect of Consciousness.

There is only stillness in terms of me not going anywhere as the consciousness, otherwise I am pure motion all the way. And there is only emptiness with regards to there being nothing but me, otherwise i am absolutely whole. Not a space or somwthing that is capable of being empty or filled. I am both the appearance of the content and the appearance of the space. But these appearances do not define me, I define them.

14 hours ago, Ishanga said:

The Root of consciousness is Stillness and Silence, just like motion is routed in how Still you are, and Sound is rooted in Silence... Darkness is the root of Light, as there is more Darkness in the Universe than Light.. 

I am rootless, I am foundationless. I am all polarities, all dichotomies, all appearances.

[Someone here]

23 hours ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

the content and the screen are the same thing, like ocean and wave. Literally, the content is the screen, there is no difference. So Rupert is actually over looking a lot because the second that you identify with the screen, that's the ego mind doing its thing again. 

There is literally no screen. The screen is a thought. It is a wave of consciousness. It will rise and it will fall. When it does fall, there won't be any screen. There will be nothing, until it rises again.

When you watch a movie in a TV screen and try to grab the characters in the movie with your hands ..what do you actually end up grabbing?  The screen. The movie images are superimposed on the screen. The screen can display something..anything..or it can display nothing .can be turned on or off .that's consciousness or existence. Before you were born or when you are in deep sleep the screen is turned off..no movie. When you are in  the waking state..the screen is turned on. So in both cases the screen exists. But in both cases the images of the movie are not necessarily there .so that means the screen is more fundamental and prior to the movie . And the screen is consciousness. Consciousness is prior to form. And form cannot exist without consciousness. 

Edited June 12 by Someone here

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Awareness = Consciousness

[Fountainbleu]

On 6/11/2024 at 3:38 PM, A Fellow Lighter said:

What I am trying to communicate here is actually difficult to grasp with the conventional way of thinking about consciousness.

@Someone here the content and the screen are the same thing, like ocean and wave. Literally, the content is the screen, there is no difference. So Rupert is actually over looking a lot because the second that you identify with the screen, that's the ego mind doing its thing again. 

There is literally no screen. The screen is a thought. It is a wave of consciousness. It will rise and it will fall. When it does fall, there won't be any screen. There will be nothing, until it rises again.

@Leo Gura I agree. I'm only using physical science as an analogy. I'm describung consciousness as pure motion because of it's inherent and independent dynamic nature. Of course it's not limited to form. But consciousness goes to unfathomable depth to become that very form which it is not limited to. So much so that when consciousness does take form, its identity is the form it has taken until the dream reaches its nstural conclusion.

What I'm trying to eliminate here is the observer or "void screen" element. There is no such thing. I as the so called "content" am the consciousness. I, the form, am consciousness. There is no one or nothing outside of me. I am literally the soil and rocks and anyrhing else living or nonliving. I am also you. I am anything and everything conceivable. Ultimately, I Am. And I am definitely not still. I am very much MOVING.

This world is my movement. This forum is my movement. Everyone in this forum, every individual life here, is my movement. Whatever you say or do, that is also my movement. I am motion. Without motion, there is nothing. I am the movement that has no begining and no end. I'll forever be moving. I am eternal movement. The appearance of finitude is but an appearance created in my infinite movement.

My movement has always been one, it cannot be segmented nor fragmented. Because anything you might think that you're doing to it is also part of my movement. Literally no weapon formed against me shall prosper, for all weapons are mere appearances in my movement. That includes your prestiged logic. All these debates, this is also me. All these fights and squabbles, they are me. All relationships, mariages, etc – still me. Your feelings are me. Your thoughts are me. Your body is me. I am all of it. 

This is what I'm taljing about. The motion, the emotion, the vibration on a quantum scale and locomotion on a bigger scale, it's all consciousness. Motion is consciousness.

Are you saying Ramana Maharshi is over looking? When Ramana refers to the I Am he is referring to the screen. The screen is the I Am. I understand that ego and the I am are all one, God. But don't you think it's important to differentiate between the two and identify as the screen, as the I AM?

Edited June 18 by Fountainbleu

[A Fellow Lighter]

On 18/06/2024 at 2:00 PM, Fountainbleu said:

Are you saying Ramana Maharshi is over looking? When Ramana refers to the I Am he is referring to the screen. The screen is the I Am. I understand that ego and the I am are all one, God. But don't you think it's important to differentiate between the two and identify as the screen, as the I AM?

Whether it's important to differentiate or not is a matter of experience. In my ezperience, such a differentiation is on its own ego (or self-serving) mind. I'm concerned more about the truth. And the truth is that there is no screen. It is only the appearance of the so called content which makes it seem like there's a screen. 

The I Am is whatever It Is at the moment that it is up until it is no longer that thing because it has become something else entirely. The truth is that which is the case no matter what. Consciousness is that which is the case no matter what. So why should one speak of a screen as if the content is something less than the consciousness?

So, yes, Ramana Maharshi is in deed overlooking.

On 12/06/2024 at 11:26 PM, Someone here said:

The screen. The movie images are superimposed on the screen. The screen can display something..anything..or it can display nothing .can be turned on or off .that's consciousness or existence.

Except the real consciousness cannot be turned on and off, because every movement is its own movement. 

 

On 12/06/2024 at 11:26 PM, Someone here said:

But in both cases the images of the movie are not necessarily there .so that means the screen is more fundamental and prior to the movie

But there only reason you assume that there is a screen is because of the so called content. So why assume that the screen is consciousness and the content isn't? But really, why assume a screen at all when there is no reason to? 

 

On 12/06/2024 at 11:26 PM, Someone here said:

Consciousness is prior to form. And form cannot exist without consciousness.

Why create this dichotomy between form and consciousness? Why have you disregarded the form as something less than consciousness? Isn't it because of the form that you know that there is consciousness? And if so, then why continue to devalue the form or attempt to separate it from the existence of consciousness? It is though the form comes from somewhere else, somewhere other than consciousness. But there is no where and no other. All is one motion, and that motion is without a beginning or end. That motion is consciousness.

[Someone here]

20 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Except the real consciousness cannot be turned on and off, because every movement is its own movement. 

The screen can be turned off during deep sleep ..where is no images but the screen still exists ..it's just not displaying any form.

You get it ?

21 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

But there only reason you assume that there is a screen is because of the so called content. So why assume that the screen is consciousness and the content isn't? But really, why assume a screen at all when there is no reason to? 

 

Of course its just an analogy to convey a point . Which is that consciousness is your true nature regardless of whether you have this colourful experience you are experiencing now or when you are asleep..in coma ..or "dead ".

24 minutes ago, A Fellow Lighter said:

Why create this dichotomy between form and consciousness? Why have you disregarded the form as something less than consciousness? Isn't it because of the form that you know that there is consciousness? And if so, then why continue to devalue the form or attempt to separate it from the existence of consciousness? It is though the form comes from somewhere else, somewhere other than consciousness. But there is no where and no other. All is one motion, and that motion is without a beginning or end. That motion is consciousness.

Same point above .

[A Fellow Lighter]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

The screen can be turned off during deep sleep ..where is no images but the screen still exists ..it's just not displaying any form.

You get it ?

Though I may not agree with the precise wording ("turned off", "displaying"), I do get it. Consciousness, or the screen (as you put it), still exists without form. 

But, now, do you get that even this formlessness is a motion? And that there are not two motions but one motion which moves into colourful experience or unto deep sleep but without one being permanent or more (or less) impermanent than the other? This is the main position of my thread. That consciousness is motion – one motion that is. 

[Dodo]

On 11/06/2024 at 6:53 PM, A Fellow Lighter said:

According to modern physics, everything is in motion. This concept is known as the Principle of Universal Motion. It states that everything in the universe, from particles to galaxies, is in a state of constant motion. This idea encompasses various types of motion: translational, rotational, vibrational, and etc.

Even seemingly stationary objects like a rock or a building are composed of atoms and molecules that are constantly vibrating and moving due to thermal energy.

What if consciousness is not a void? What if all this motion is the consciousness? Not an expression of consciousness, but the actual thing – actually consciousness? The ego mind has fabricated this re-occurant thought that it is conscious. What if no one is conscious? What if this adjective is a misnoner? What if consciousness is the movement itself: the thought, the feelings, the sensation, the decisions, the impressions and the expressions, the interactions? What if all this motion and emotion is pure consciousness?

At the end of the day, awareness is existence, and existence is motion – in one form or another. If nothing moves, nothing is.

Stillness speaks. Motion is time. 

[Leo Gura]

Motion and time are different things.

Time is a figment of consciousness.

Edited June 20 by Leo Gura

[Dodo]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Motion and time are different things.

Time is a figment of consciousness.

Im aware they are different as in I even know equations, but I mean they are interrelated. One implies the other. There are equations linking them. 

Time, distance and motion are interrelated like the father the son and the holy spirit. Neither can "exist" by itself. 

Consciousness cant create time without also creating motion and vice versa. My 2 cents

 

 

 

Edited June 20 by Dodo

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Dodo said:

Consciousness cant create time without also creating motion and vice versa.

False.

[Dodo]

55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

False.

"In physics, equations of motion are equations that describe the behavior of a physical system in terms of its motion as a function of time."

Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion 

"One of the so-called 'equations of motion' is v = u+at where v = final speed, u = initial speed, a = acceleration, and t = time."

Ref: Mathcenter.ac.uk

 

If you can change speed, then that implies time. If you were at rest and then started to be in motion, this implies time. All change happen in time, the Now is the Grand Conductor of this play, thats my opinion here. 

The now never changes, its not in time, but that doesnt mean the play is not in time, imho

Edited June 20 by Dodo

[Girzo]

@Dodo You talk of time as a concept in physics and not time as a phenomena consciousness creates for yourself. Time =/= time. The time physics measures is not the time I experience.