The Neutral Consciousness state

[Prevailer]

@Serotoninluv Thoughts are the problem in a mind that moves.Why go somewhere in your mind to think.Stay where you are.Dont engage.Put autopilot on the right and manual on the left as these form part of a mind that moves.If you do this the the physical mind will just mirror image it anyway so you won’t know which is which.Then put a neutral on the right and a neutral on the left and then reject them both.The I am is....the is...the was ....and the always will be.

[Prevailer]

@Prevailer You want to be totally wearing your body with a still mind.Not totally outside of your body stuck in your head with a moving mind.

[Forestluv]

@Prevailer I’m not saying the state you propose is good or bad. It sounds like you’ve found a mind state that is good for you and works for you. That’s awesome. And I’ve experienced thoughtless states that are wonderful. 

What I’m referring to is the creation of “problems”, avoiding those “problems” that one just created, and seeking states free of that “problem”. If I define thoughts as a “problem”, I would then reject and avoid thoughts. I would try not to engage with them. I would seek states free of thought. I’m not saying those thoughtless spaces are bad. I’m pointing to the energetic orientation of believing what is happening now is a problem to be avoided and seeking a “better” space free of that problem. Of course this can have relative practical value to one’s sense of personal welfare. If I accidentally cut my finger off, I would consider this a problem. I would avoid making it worse and I would seek to make it better. That has value. Yet there is also an unconditional state in which there are no “problems”. It’s a paradox. There is no problem in the midst of a problem. If the mind focuses and believes on the problem it will not be able to simultaneously see it is also not a problem. 

A mind filled with thinking is both a problem and not a problem. A mind filled with the sounds of bird chirps is both a problem and not a problem. I find it helpful not to judge thoughts, yet rather to observe the mind-bodies relationship to thoughts.

And I’m not saying this is universally true for everyone. If someone finds this helpful, great. If not, great. It seems like you have had some insights and developed understanding that is working for you. Perhaps what you’ve found might be helpful to others. If so, that’s great too.

[Prevailer]

@Serotoninluv There appears to be two dual states in the split (out of synch) consciousness state.The split consciousness creates one each.

[Nahm]

On 3/14/2020 at 7:11 AM, Prevailer said:

.If we think of an atom there is a positive;negative and a neutral.We can’t deny that there is a neutral.

”There appears to be...”

[Prevailer]

@NahmNot sure what you mean are you redefining science ? 

[Nahm]

@Prevailer “Atom” is like “cup” in that the actuality is a thought rather than perception. Thus, so too is positive, negative and neutral. Belief is a glass ceiling. 

[Prevailer]

@Nahm The glassy sea is completely full of light and darkness in equal measure. That's why you can only define it as glassy

[Nahm]

@Prevailer “Glassy sea” is a ‘write off’, an a priori belief. A definition is also a thought, and not perception. “It” is also a ‘write off’, as is “equal measure” (hence the undefinability of ‘science’). The Prevailer is not anything it thinks it is.

[Prevailer]

51 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Prevailer “Glassy sea” is a ‘write off’, an a priori belief. A definition is also a thought, and not perception. “It” is also a ‘write off’, as is “equal measure” (hence the undefinability of ‘science’). The Prevailer is not anything it thinks it is.

All things come down to a belief system if reasoning is done away with surely.

[Prevailer]

Can we just agree to disagree...quite frankly it comes down to ones own personal experiences. You believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe.

[Forestluv]

@Prevailer If you are interested, it's possible to dissolve attachment and identification to belief such that beliefs are no longer held. There are simply appearances of thoughts, images, concepts without holding onto it as a "belief". Similar to how bird chirps may appear in the mind without any attachment or identification. . . I've found this very liberating and allows for clearer observation and freedom to explore, without being encumbered by holding onto beliefs. . . This doesn't resonate with everyone, yet it is available to those with interest. 

(btw, I find appearances of ideas about different states of consciousness to be interesting and fascinating. Yet holding onto those appearances as beliefs is a drag.)

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, Prevailer said:

All things come down to a belief system if reasoning is done away with surely.

Totally agree.    ...and...“Surely” might have different connotations....might, might not, ultimately, be neutral. 

 

[Prevailer]

11 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Prevailer If you are interested, it's possible to dissolve attachment and identification to belief such that beliefs are no longer held. There are simply appearances of thoughts, images, concepts without holding onto it as a "belief". Similar to how bird chirps may appear in the mind without any attachment or identification. . . I've found this very liberating and allows for clearer observation and freedom to explore, without being encumbered by holding onto beliefs. . . This doesn't resonate with everyone, yet it is available to those with interest. 

My focus is on getting back in synch with myself and stilling the mind and so yes the above principle is a viable concept...but only to still (neutralize) the mind (the two computers) of their belief systems i.e. the is there..... isn't there......but thanks anyway.I know you don't take this view.We can look as deep as we want into things but ultimately my view is that we need to get back fully in synch with our physical bodies and then focus on stilling the mind. I see things very practically. If we think too deep we get trapped in our heads and lose focus on the ultimate aim of building oneself up i.e. my view is that we should not be dismantling ourselves, which does happen if we disappear and remain in our heads constantly searching.

[Prevailer]

6 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Totally agree.    ...and...“Surely” might have different connotations....might, might not, ultimately, be neutral. 

 

Peace then....

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, Prevailer said:

I know you don't take this view.

What I'm pointing at has nothing to do with the view. It's more about the "ownership" of the view. There is no "my view" and "your view" there are simply views. If we were standing on a mountain top admiring views, would we say "the view to the west is my view and the view to the east is your view". Of course not, there are simply views that are free to all. There is noone taking ownership of any view.

17 minutes ago, Prevailer said:

If we think too deep we get trapped in our heads and lose focus on the ultimate aim of building oneself up

That is part of the pointer. Thinking too deep. We could also rephrase it as getting too immersed in thinking or believing thinking is true. It is more about the attachment/identification to thoughts as "my thoughts, my view etc." that is the contraction. Or getting lulled into believing that thoughts are true. 

17 minutes ago, Prevailer said:

my view is that we should not be dismantling ourselves, 

Who/what is this "self"? How can one dismantle an illusion? If I am walking in a desert and see a mirage, how could I dismantle that mirage?

[Prevailer]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

What I'm pointing at has nothing to do with the view. It's more about the "ownership" of the view. There is no "my view" and "your view" there are simply views. If we were standing on a mountain top admiring views, would we say "the view to the west is my view and the view to the east is your view". Of course not, there are simply views that are free to all. There is noone taking ownership of any view.

That is part of the pointer. Thinking too deep. We could also rephrase it as getting too immersed in thinking or believing thinking is true. It is more about the attachment/identification to thoughts as "my thoughts, my view etc." that is the contraction. Or getting lulled into believing that thoughts are true. 

Who/what is this "self"? How can one dismantle an illusion? If I am walking in a desert and see a mirage, how could I dismantle that mirage?

I know you are not going to agree with the second and third points below but here goes....

I agree with you on the first point.I look at both views east and west ...no problem with that.

In my view ...to say all thoughts aren’t true is  simply not true...just my view......so we are back to considering neutral again.My view is that you have to block/stop what I describe as the east/west etc thoughts and tune into what left.You have to block the robot thoughts which consist of voices/visions and refuse to engage with them...the aim is to tune into the in synch pure thoughts that are difficult to recognise because we are too busy listening to the computer thoughts (voices/visions)

Self/neutral/the i am......is the recognition that you are more than a biological robot with a split computer brain that has a voice and feeds you information in the form of voices/visions if you engage with them..My view is that you can spend your whole  life engaging with them or you can shut them up and not engage with them.You can then stay still and tune into the neutral voice more.

Just my opinion so please don’t take offence.

[Forestluv]

@Prevailer I’m pointing to something else that you don’t seem to be interested in - which is totally fine. 

[Prevailer]

@Serotoninluv I’m not interested only because I’ve been where you are pointing to already.

[SOUL]

Consciousness is comprised of multiple facets that combine into a whole that many consider 'consciousness' and if we become aware of them and their influence intimately. One facet is the self conscious and it is not very neutral, it's creating stimuli to motivate behavior to perverse the biological entity, it's acting on behalf of the body living.

The ego creates a narrative perspective to motivate behavior to preserve identity. It's an extension of the self conscious in that our identity can provide the motivation to preserve the body but it's not a necessary component because identity can 'die' while the body lives on yet when the body dies the identity dies with it.

There is another part of consciousness that we know as awareness which is the present moment facet and though the self conscious and the ego exert influence in the present to stimulate behavior in the present the conditioning of them comes from past events and often seeks to motivate for preservation into an imagined future.

Our awareness is the part of consciousness that is by it's nature neutral but this doesn't mean it remains neutral. In fact, if we are unawakened to it's place in consciousness it can very easily be co-opted by the self conscious and ego into doing it's bidding by attaching to the stimuli and identity creates and ceasing to be neutral.

If we grow aware of this transpiring we can stay present in awareness as an observer of what passes through the mind without becoming attached to it. In being a 'passive observer' in awareness we can create the inner environment instead of allowing the ego to create it and it can be one that could be referred to as neutral.

If we create imaginary conditions our mind needs to exist in to be neutral we are actually ceasing to be neutral in awareness. If we hold the perspective that things are good or bad we are taking a less than neutral position about them. This isn't to say that this is good or bad, just that it's the way it is and we can be aware of it's influence in consciousness.