awareness = the now ?

[Nahm]

1 minute ago, Red-White-Light said:

@Nahm You can't maintain being the screen though, the movie doesn't play out without the actors being in character.

You can’t maintain being you. You are you. There is no “movie”. 

[levani]

@Nahm me the subject is pointing towards the movie screen literally ∴ I can distinguish between me and the movie / screen ......  why am i imagining the seperation ? i am here and i am experiencing it ...

 

sorry i'm trying to get it here but it's not coming through (i know you are probably right) i am just unaware

[The0Self]

There aren’t 2 things happening. Only one thing happening. Not one in relation to another though, so not even really one.

[Nahm]

3 minutes ago, levani said:

why am i imagining the seperation ? i am here and i am experiencing it ...

Describe, in the most literal sense, that separation, said to be experienced. 

[levani]

me = me

screen = screen

pointing = pointing

seperation between subject/object = yes

two different things = yes

 

 

so how am i imagining it ?

Edited November 26, 2020 by levani

[Nahm]

9 minutes ago, levani said:

@Nahm why is it obvious that there is one (movie) and not two (person and car), if i am watching the movie there is a person and a car in it then there is a person and a car

You can’t tell the difference between a person & a car...and a movie in which there is a person and a car? If you really can’t, just watch a movie for a minute, then go look at a person, then a car. Then go back to the movie and watch it for a minute, and notice it’s a movie, not a person & a car. If it’s still grey, go look at the person & car again, and then the movie again. 

[The0Self]

@levani What does this me feel like, and how is it separate from the screen? If whatever has any feeling at all, must be part of the screen, how is the me that feels like something not part of the screen? And if the me doesn’t feel like anything, well there you go...

[levani]

@Nahm if i can't tell the difference between the person and a car then how come there is 2 different words for it, a person and a car

 

one is alive one isn't ... so they are different, so i just told you the difference, no ? ???

 

@The0Self i look through the eyes of me, the screen is the object, i am the subject

[Nahm]

7 minutes ago, levani said:

@Nahm if i can't tell the difference between the person and a car then how come there is 2 different words for it, a person and a car

The I, person, car, words (thoughts) are all made of the same ‘substance’. 

Quote

one is alive one isn't ... so they are different, so i just told you the difference, no ? ???

Yes, you can create apparent differences, distinctions. Now describe the actual separation. Also notice ‘one is alive one isn’t’, is a thought. Believing the thought, there seems to be that difference. Unattached to thought, the thought is not believed, and there is no difference. (Notice other thoughts arising about other differences, are all thoughts). 

There is no suggestion here to figure anything out, or to think about it. The suggestion is the opposite, to let the thoughts come & go, and notice you’ve been believing there are separate things, by missing you were only believing the thoughts that there are separate things. 

The words you, me, etc, are just for communication. Thoughts and words are movie. Communication is movie. 

[Red-White-Light]

@Nahm There is a clear illusion being maintained, which creates a duality from actuality. And there has to be a reason for it. e.g. survival. It's not as simple as being just you, because if you're deeply focus on a task that just be YOU pretty poetry goes out the window.

[levani]

@Nahm if there is no thoughts then what is there ? awareness ?

[Nahm]

15 minutes ago, Red-White-Light said:

@Nahm There is a clear illusion being maintained, which creates a duality from actuality. And there has to be a reason for it. e.g. survival. It's not as simple as being just you, because if you're deeply focus on a task that just be YOU pretty poetry goes out the window.

The assumption is there is a separate you which is focused on a separate thing. When an illusion is clear, what is clear, is that it was, an illusion. Survival is a thought. Try to point to it precisely, and you find you can not, because there are no individual separate objects, only apparent change, the fore mentioned “illusion” which is not an illusion at all. That’s another thought about something, a separate thing. On a personal note, I love poetry, and of the self would be my favorite. If you hold the connotation of ‘your pretty poetry’, you ‘shoot the messenger’ essentially. There is no ‘problem’ per se with the shooting, but it can be noticed it is diversion from the recognition of what’s being said, to the illusion someone else is saying it. 

[Nahm]

4 minutes ago, levani said:

@Nahm if there is no thoughts then what is there ? awareness ?

If there are thoughts, what is aware of the thoughts?

[levani]

@Nahm my awareness ?

[Red-White-Light]

@Nahm No offence to poetry, I'm just trying to share the brute difficulties of survival, and how, even if truth is understood, experienced and known. It can become opaque with thought. That's how the ego works, it possesses you. That's why people have to meditate or do psychedelics to overcome that opaqueness, clearing the lens as to provide clear vision into the nature of reality. Do you agree? 

[Nahm]

@levani

If awareness is yours, there’s a you and the awareness you have. The fundamental misconception of the materialist paradigm is that awareness (aka consciousness) is a product of the human body mind. 

[The0Self]

24 minutes ago, levani said:

@The0Self i look through the eyes of me, the screen is the object, i am the subject

The screen is only discernible by the pictures (all experience) on it. The screen is just an analogy; there’s no screen separate from the pictures on it.

With that said, there’s an experience that you’re looking through your eyes, right? That there’s a subject? That’s an experience — a picture on the screen. Everything discernible is the self-luminous hologram/screen.

[Nahm]

15 minutes ago, Red-White-Light said:

@Nahm No offence to poetry, I'm just trying to share the brute difficulties of survival, and how, even if truth is understood, experienced and known. It can become opaque with thought. That's how the ego works, it possesses you. That's why people have to meditate or do psychedelics to overcome that opaqueness, clearing the lens as to provide clear vision into the nature of reality. Do you agree? 

‘Brute difficulties of survival’ sentiment, connotation. It is not definition, or definitive. The image of the monk who lit himself on fire and sat burning in peace comes to mind. Truth is never understood, as there is not a separate self which understands, which is in large part what the word truth points to. Thus truth can not rightfully be referred to as an ‘it’, as the indirect implication is there is a separate ‘you’. Thus, ‘it’ (truth) does not, and can not, ‘become opaque’. It would seem so, via attachment to thoughts. The analogy of the clouds in the clear sky comes to mind. The clear sky is ever present and ever clear, and the clouds (thoughts) only seem to obscure the sky, giving the impression such that the clear sky went somewhere. When clouds (thoughts) come & go freely, the clear sky is not veiled, not separate of the clouds. The sky is what is appearing as the very clouds.

It can not be rightfully (honestly, accurately, truthfully) said “that’s how the ego works”, because there is no such thing as an ego. There is the thought there is an ego, but try to point to it, or find it, and it is revealed it was just the thought. One could also google ‘origin of the word ego’, and see that a human made it up, if you will. Because there is not actually an ego (check and verify), it can not be accurately said “the ego possesses you”. This is not possession, but thought attachment. 

A thought can arise, ‘I need to meditate or do psychedelics to overcome x’, and likewise a thought can arise, ‘people need to meditate or do psychedelics to overcome x’. These are the clouds passing in the sky. It could be analogously said that this is to stare at the could, and wonder where the sky went. A cloud, which when not stared at, naturally comes & goes. I do agree being ourself (meditation) is taking some time not starring at a cloud, not focusing on thoughts arising. I do not agree it is needed. It might seem so needed, that meditation is the most viable option. Inevitably, meditation is synonymous with self, and clouds come & go. 

[Red-White-Light]

@Nahm I'm sorry this isn't making any sense to me. If you were enlightened and you went into a job interview that could cost you everything. Like if you didn't get this job, you'd become homeless. You would lose your enlightenment, as your brain is focusing on survival. 

You have freedom to focus on Actuality or something else. It's always true and there subtly, but only increased awareness makes it realized fully.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Red-White-Light

[Nahm]

@Red-White-Light

Maybe try a lens of, or for noticing, the ‘speed’. Notice how quickly the ‘process’ occurs, of the thought arising...being believed...and being expressed: “this isn’t making sense to me”. Notice the arising. Notice the believing. Notice the expressing. Pause, rather than utilize (believe, say, express) the thought. Literally ‘play slow motion’. As that thought arises, slowly inspect the validity of it, long before expressing it. Enjoy ‘the space’ ‘around / in between the thought’ / ‘process’. Hold interest, curiosity about the space. Allow the space, or clear sky, to be primary, by not investing in thought. Put the ‘value of thought’ to the side for a minute. Let it be a distant second. Inspecting that arising thought... precisely where / what is the “me” which the thought is about. Point to the me. If the pointing is to the body, what is aware of the thought, “body”. 

You, awareness, will not ever come across or experience “someone who is enlightened”. What do those words point to. That there are not, separate selves. An enlightened person, aka, an enlightened self - does not exist. Keep in mind, the number of times something is said or heard, is not relative to wether or not that something is true. If one is looking to thought / thinking, for truth...and was missing this...one would ‘find it difficult’ to allow thought to come & go. There might be a misinterpretation of feeling, such that the experience is labeled ‘afraid to give up, or lose, control’. That would also be a thought which can ‘itself’, naturally come & go. Control is paradoxical, in that to experience the actuality of it requires the relinquishing of the contextualization of it (the thought about control, being a ‘thing’, which could be gained or lost). 

 

Now it’s just going to sound like Nahm is being arrogant, or semantic, or pedantic, etc. If that occurs the body will tense in a corresponding manor. If it does, do a body scan, notice where the tensing occurs, and let go, or relax that area and the entire body. Take deep slow big breathes from the stomach. Slowing down is critical to seeing more of what’s transpiring. Think of a train passing you at 100mph, vs 1 mph. The first experience is of a blur, the second experience, serial numbers could be read, much detail and insight of what’s transpiring can be noticed. .....

....it must be noticed, that only the thoughts  about - ‘if you were enlightened’ - and - ‘the job interview’ -and - ‘the costing you everything’...arose. It will initially sound like I’m pointing out something useless, or dumb, or obvious here...but notice, really notice...look around where you are right now....and notice that thought story about the future is only a thought. It is a story about you. It is self referential thinking. The thought might now arise, ‘no, that thought was about you Nahm’...slowly notice that is a thought, not a Nahm. Attached to the thought, there is the indirect implication, that there is a ‘me’...since there is a ‘Nahm’. Without said focus on the thoughts, the clouds...there remains the awareness, consciousness, clarity, focus, peace of mind, of our infinite being. When there is not focus on the thought story about myself, that which is actually happening is found to already have been, that which was wanted. That must be directly experienced, as the thought about it, like the interview, is not the actuality.

It’s a ‘thought about’ what is actually going to happen - almost. Not even, really. Not even close, actually. Not even remotely close at all. Actually, it’s not even related. A thought about ‘what will happen’ is 0% accurate. This is often referred to as ‘the knower’, the ‘one who knows’, or ‘who which knows’. That ‘who’ is a priori - yet to be inspected, because the arising, believing, and expressing of a thought, is a priori. 

Without believing & expressing said thoughts, there is what could be called confidence, but is actually not. Confidence is a word which seems to have meaning, because it’s thought to have an opposite, which is a thought believed & expressed too. If one tells the story about oneself / life / future, the story becomes the very lens of experience. With the story of me / future / life let go, awareness, consciousness, clarity, focus, peace of mind, our infinite being, never has a ‘call for confidence’, because there isn’t the believing of the me in the future and the discord in feeling with that thought (because it’s self referential / not actually about you at all). More simply said, without self defeating thoughts about what is not actually happening, that interview goes splendidly. The interviewer resonates intuitively with that peacefulness, calmness, clarity. That interviewer recognizes how unfortunately exceptionally rare that is, and is highly inclined to hire. That interviewer is also incredibly likely to be moved, and deeply intrigued by your way, your presence, and all the more likely to hire. 

 

‘You would lose your enlightenment’, is a misunderstanding. It’s is believing one’s own arising thought about oneself as the separate self which had enlightenment, while ‘enlightenment’ points precisely to that fact that there are not separate selves. This thought, believed, identified with, veils, in the same discord with feeling manor as in regard to the self defeating ‘future me’ thoughts about the interview. Without discord in feeling, reality literally experientially changes such that ‘you’ and ‘it’ are one. There is not, nor was there ever, a separate self in the first place. There was only the believing & expressing of the arising thoughts, that there were two. Adequately inspected, these thoughts, of that nature, simply no longer arise. Clear sky, clarity, is. 

Likewise, ‘increased awareness’ is a misnomer. This thought reinforces the thoughts that there is a separate self, which / who must do something, to raise their awareness, to ‘get back to’, awareness. Meanwhile, the actuality, is that awareness is aware of these thoughts, passing like speeding trains. 

Similarly, ‘realized fully’ is a misnomer. This thought also appears to awareness, ‘fully realized’, ‘partially realized’, etc, are each thoughts, awareness is aware of. The apparent ‘subject’, the ‘me’ or ‘you’ which these thoughts seem to be about, isn’t actual, isn’t “there”.