it's all ONE "experience"

[Faceless]

54 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

@Faceless @WelcometoReality

 

for you two, how do you see all these posts or questions here?

or for my questions... like do you just directly see that here is another you, asking yourself a question and now expecting an answer from itself?

 

 

I usually hesitate with such questions, but I will share my view wth you since you asked. 

 

I see the human consciousness (conditioned consciousness-thought) as one stream. 

 

We think of our consciousness-thought being distinct from one another’s. 

 

To me, it’s not my consciousness or my thought, or it’s not your consciousness or your thought, but consciousness-thought being one unitary movement. 

 

I consider every particular aspect of that stream, “seemingly” being a private mixture(self), that is a part of that stream in movement. This is what thought-self does, it measures, distinguishes, narrows down, and cuts “things” into pieces. 

 

This division only takes place within the movement of thought-time as the i. 

 

 

That is part of the way I view the stream of consciousness and our relationship with one another, on a simple and down to earth level that is. 

 

This is all seen when emptiness is actualized. 

 

But never take anyone’s word for it. Until there is this emptiness of things of the mind, it will be another concept born of things(thought)...The truth of this will not be seen as an absolute fact unless the mind is empty of things actually. 

 

This is what I refer to as consciousness empty of its content-conditioned movement, or mind empty of the conditioned stream of consciousness. 

Hope this has been an interesting perspective to you.

Again, don’t believe a shred of what is said here. See for yourself friend??

 

 

 

[WelcometoReality]

6 hours ago, Faceless said:

Thank you

Is that so...

Or in nothing is the absence of that question-realization,(identification), there at all? 

 

I wouldn't say realization and identification with the mind is the same thing but after the realization mind did try to grasp and reject the realization. For me it was quite active but gradually has become more and more silent.

Edited July 18, 2018 by WelcometoReality
Tpyo

[WelcometoReality]

6 hours ago, SoonHei said:

@Faceless @WelcometoReality

 

for you two, how do you see all these posts or questions here?

or for my questions... like do you just directly see that here is another you, asking yourself a question and now expecting an answer from itself?

 

 

There is no recognition that these questions come from any other until mind comes in. The words appear on the screen here and now. That is it really. 

[WelcometoReality]

@Faceless That sounds complicated. From which of the five senses and thought does this come from?

[SoonHei]

@WelcometoReality @Faceless

 

wow thanks !

 

and yes, interesting take indeed.

 

10 hours ago, Faceless said:

Again, don’t believe a shred of what is said here. See for yourself friend??

 

that's the one thing i have picked up along this journey

read/listen, register, let go  

[Faceless]

6 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

@Faceless That sounds complicated. From which of the five senses and thought does this come from?

I dont understand your question buddy. 

9 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

I wouldn't say realization and identification with the mind is the same thing but after the realization mind did try to grasp and reject the realization. For me it was quite active but gradually has become more and more silent.

No, I meant, in and as nothing, there is no identification or asking of the question of what my nature is. That is just a manifestation-movement of time as the i that seeks such an answer to that question. 

But yeah the mind can’t hold the actual truth. That truth can act in the mind and thought can become aware of its action in thought, but thought can’t maintain the actual perception itself (the essence) of it, in its entirety. 

So what I mean is, truth is not somthing we hold on to, but acts directly in reality-thought. “To hold on” is the very preventing factor of truth coming into being. Truth puts order in thought and makes for whole (complete-inifinte) action.

Truth-whole perception, only comes about when there is complete order in thought, in which comes silence. In order-silence, the action of truth is. 

If that makes sense. That is a quick few words to explain something quite difficult to explain.  

Edited July 18, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

For me silence was the result total order in thought. This came into being when I saw holistically the futility in moving in accordance to the seeking of psychological time. I saw the falsity in there being the experiencer-experience duality. I saw the whole movement of time and it’s consequences and ended that movement of time as the i, seeking to capture and maintain permanence. 

For me this silence was not gradual. It was uninvited and instant-simultaneous as one unitary holistic perception. 

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Faceless

[WelcometoReality]

16 hours ago, Faceless said:

I dont understand your question buddy. 

Is there a stream of thought or is that also a thought?

16 hours ago, Faceless said:

No, I meant, in and as nothing, there is no identification or asking of the question of what my nature is. That is just a manifestation-movement of time as the i that seeks such an answer to that question. 

All attempts to define truth is not truth itself. Yes.

16 hours ago, Faceless said:

But yeah the mind can’t hold the actual truth. That truth can act in the mind and thought can become aware of its action in thought, but thought can’t maintain the actual perception itself (the essence) of it, in its entirety. 

I don't follow.Can thought be aware?

16 hours ago, Faceless said:

Truth-whole perception, only comes about when there is complete order in thought, in which comes silence. In order-silence, the action of truth is. 

If that makes sense. That is a quick few words to explain something quite difficult to explain.

Yes truth is quite difficult to explain isn't it?

[Faceless]

6 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

Is there a stream of thought or is that also a thought?

No hehe, when I describe that throught is a stream, thought is used in that description. 

But the conditioned consciousness being a stream (thought) is not an invention of thought. Thought is a manifestation of that stream itself. 

Do you noticed that people actually think there thoughts are there’s. This has a lot to do with thinking that the thinker is the creator of thoughts. 

Anyway there has to be a stepping out of that stream in order to see the stream itself.

Don’t believe what I say though, you can see for yourself. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

6 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

No, I meant, in and as nothing, there is no identification or asking of the question of what my nature is. That is just a manifestation-movement of time as the i that seeks such an answer to that question. 

Here I am just expressing when there is this actuality of consciousness with nothing in it, there is no identification at all. There is no such activity of the mind in movement. 

There is no saying ahh, this is my true nature and so on. There is no self conscious awareness even. There is only the happening, and no slef recognition to say, this is my true nature. 

Or What I call being headless. 

If that clears it up a little. 

Lolol it won’t clear it up unless your head falls off?

Edited July 19, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

6 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

But yeah the mind can’t hold the actual truth. That truth can act in the mind and thought can become aware of its action in thought, but thought can’t maintain the actual perception itself (the essence) of it, in its entirety. 

Thought can be aware of the action that truth makes in thought. Thought is not aware of truth in its Essence though. 

Truth brings about order in the field of thought. Conscious awareness can be aware of that action of order just as it can be aware of its disorder. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

6 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

Is there a stream of thought or is that also a thought?

All attempts to define truth is not truth itself. Yes.

I don't follow.Can thought be aware?

Yes truth is quite difficult to explain isn't it?

The essence, Truth cannot be expressed through thought, thought about, experienced, but only pointed to as a description. 

But that is never what is being described. 

Thanks for your interest buddy. Hope I further clarified. 

You will have to see for yourself if it is correct. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Faceless

[WelcometoReality]

1 hour ago, Faceless said:

No hehe, when I describe that throught is a stream, thought is used in that description. 

But the conditioned consciousness being a stream (thought) is not an invention of thought. Thought is a manifestation of that stream itself. 

Stream is a concept, a thought

 

3 hours ago, Faceless said:

Thought can be aware of the action that truth makes in thought. Thought is not aware of truth in its Essence though. 

Truth brings about order in the field of thought. Conscious awareness can be aware of that action of order just as it can be aware of its disorder. 

Thought is never aware. What is aware of thought?

[Faceless]

1 minute ago, WelcometoReality said:

Stream is a concept, a thought

Your saying that the movement of thought itself is just a concept (content) ? 

Or is this movement an actuality taking place? 

Anything said takes the form of a concept. But we are pointing at the actuality (that which is taking place) or “movement” itself. 

The word Movement is concept describing a actual phenomenon taking place. 

 

[Faceless]

14 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

What is aware of thought?

Self Consciousness awareness, implies being self aware. As in, being aware of the phenomenon as a me as an independent an entity seperate from that which “i” think. 

The thinker being a manifestation of thought but it thinking that thought is a product of the thinker. 

AWARNESS..Being aware without the movement-content of the i influencing that awareness incompletely.

Thought can be aware of itself, but in that is still a division that takes place. 

Its only in “AWARENESS” that this division is not. 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Faceless

[WelcometoReality]

2 hours ago, Faceless said:

Your saying that the movement of thought itself is just a concept (content) ? 

Or is this movement an actuality taking place? 

Anything said takes the form of a concept. But we are pointing at the actuality (that which is taking place) or “movement” itself. 

The word Movement is concept describing a actual phenomenon taking place. 

 

A thought arises and passes. Is that what you mean by a stream? Then yes the stream is an actuality (I would use occurrence).

[WelcometoReality]

2 hours ago, Faceless said:

Self Consciousness awareness, implies being self aware. As in, being aware of the phenomenon as a me as an independent an entity seperate from that which “i” think. 

The thinker being a manifestation of thought but it thinking that thought is a product of the thinker. 

AWARNESS..Being aware without the movement-content of the i influencing that awareness incompletely.

You express it well. Bravo.

2 hours ago, Faceless said:

Thought can be aware of itself, but in that is still a division that takes place. 

Its only in “AWARENESS” that this division is not

Because there is no separation between awareness and the thought yes. I can see that what I expressed wasn't pointing exactly to truth. Thank you.

[WelcometoReality]

6 hours ago, Faceless said:

Here I am just expressing when there is this actuality of consciousness with nothing in it, there is no identification at all. There is no such activity of the mind in movement. 

There is no saying ahh, this is my true nature and so on. There is no self conscious awareness even. There is only the happening, and no slef recognition to say, this is my true nature. 

Or What I call being headless. 

If that clears it up a little. 

Lolol it won’t clear it up unless your head falls off?

Yes I know what you mean. There is that here but there is still some reactivity left. From the "knot" in the gut that says "NO" to certain experiences. If I'm making sense?

[Faceless]

On 7/19/2018 at 2:02 PM, WelcometoReality said:

A thought arises and passes. Is that what you mean by a stream? Then yes the stream is an actuality (I would use occurrence).

Yes that is the stream as it flows as an actual process of reaction-action-reaction...

This stream presents itself as mine and yours, hence, “psychological”, as the i... The Psychological stream of thought. 

The stream is the constant human psychological struggle; the seeing through our own “particular” imagined-invented image, our being divisive by the notion as being an “individual”, our antagonism, violent reactions, all of which imply fear in reaction. 

Also the contradiction, conflict, confusion, sorrow, anxiety, anticipation, attachment, dependence, and so on. The stream being the conditioned “I” who seeks security in time, or the perpetual movement of psychological becoming. This is how this psychological stream, or conditioned stream of consciousness flows. 

In this there is a repetitive compulsion to accumulate various information (content), and cling to that content. This accumulation and attachment to content is in itself the “i”...That “i”, is perpetualy attempting to escape from itself by means of psychological time. It’s a constant movement (conditioned process), of fear, (the content), attempting to end that fear through that very content. This is a conditioned reaction-response, and noirishes that very conditioned stream. 

This is what I mean by the conditioned movement-content of thought, or the stream of conditioned consciousness. An endless conflict of conflict, contradiction, and suffering. 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Faceless

[Nevon]

On 7/17/2018 at 9:24 PM, Victor Mgazi said:

Guys the notion of an experience and an experiencer is the product of dualistic thinking. I have tried to explain this but it seems like people aren't getting it or I'm just bad at explaining. 

Experience is objective, it's the experiencing that I'm referring to - the now. And it's neither direct or indirect because that would be a duality which is again the product of the dualistic mind that is occurring in the movement of time. And also the past, present and future are things which only exist in the now (experiencing), this is all about relativity. The past and future can only exist relative to the present because once perceived - it becomes a present phenomenon. 

Experience is the nature for information so it requires that which cannot be experienced to be conscious of it and that would ultimately be nothing (that which is not of existence or information) . The experiencer is something thus of information. 

great explanation,based on direct experience, there is only experiencing but no experiencer(because "i" don't exist)