A Wonderful Site about Awareness, Ego, Mind and False ID

[Alisima]

A wonderful vision about awareness, ego, mind and false identification. A must read.

http://www.nonduality.info/awareness&absolute.html

[InfoSource]

Well I read this as soon as it was posted last week, and I can see where your viewpoints come from Alisima in regards to some of your previous posts and I wasn't sure if I disagreed or agreed with the interviews contents

But having re-read it, I think the answers given in the interview are missing two fundamental points: the Astral Body & reincarnation

: Q: What do you mean 'just is'?

A: The pure Awareness is seeing everything just as it is, kind of like a video camera sees everything just as it is. A video camera doesn't make judgements or exclude things from what it is seeing, it just sees everything just as it is. The Awareness is the same, it sees everything just as it is. It is the Thinking Mechanism which then makes changes to 'what is'. The thoughts ALTER the pure seeing.

I don't think that's accurate, According to TP the Spirit created everything in order to have spiritual experience, now since everything we do isn't always spiritual, the Spirit needed a filter (i.e. the Higher Selves) so the materialistic thoughts and experiences are filtered out from the spiritual ones

According to that answer the Higher Selves have no reason to exist!

A: Try and pinpoint the exact spot where 'you' are. Where is the core point?

Q: I am essentially the mind I guess.

A: Are you the body?

Q: I am the body and the mind.

A: If you were about to die of old age and I told you that science had advanced so much that we could put your 'thinking' in some sort of virtual container and keep it alive once your body had died would you accept to do it if it meant that it was the only way you could keep living? I'm sure that many people would jump at the chance. You would never have to worry about the cumbersome body ever again. Would you accept this deal?

Q: Yes. I guess I would.

A: So you agree that you are essentially not your body, right? I mean if I removed your arms , (hypothetically of course), would you still be here?

Q: Yes, I would.

A: If I removed your legs, would you still be here?

Q: Yes.

A: If I took away your eyesight, hearing, sense of touch, taste, smell... would you still be here?

Q: Yes.

A: So , where is the point in the body, if I keep taking parts away, that if I took it away, you would not be here any more?

Q: I guess there isn't one. My heart maybe.

A: So people who have heart transplants, do they become the person who was the previous owner of the heart?

Q: No, of course not. I guess I am situated in my brain.

A: So people who are brain dead are not here anymore?

Q: Well, yes, they are still classed as being alive.

A: So are you your brain?

Q: No I suppose not, because if I was brain dead but still alive then I'd still be here.

.......... but, if I didn't have a brain I wouldn't be alive.

A: Yes, but you could say that for any of the vital organs. And once the body is gone the Individual Awareness has no 'housing' to shine in.

So... if the body was still alive but the person was brain dead would they still be here?

Q: Yes.

A: So are 'you' situated in your brain?

Q: No.

A: So is there any particular point in your body which you can say is you?

Q: No, I guess not.

A: Ok, so at least we have arrived at the point where we agree that YOU ARE NOT THE BODY, the essential 'you' is not situated in the body.

We are astral beings, that's where our awareness comes from and it's our true self

Q: So where is the soul?

A: The soul is a concept which doesn't exist in reality. It is an extension of the ego idea. There is just one Universal Awareness that flows through everything. It has only SEEMINGLY split. Much like the one Awareness of a dreamer flows through all the SEEMINGLY separate characters in a dream. They too have no separate centre of Awareness (or soul), it's all the ONE Awareness of the dreamer even though it very convincingly SEEMS like there are many.

Q: And reincarnation?

A: 'Who' is there to be reincarnated?

I agree that there is a singular universal awareness (The Spirit) but that doesn't mean everything is just an illusion, our astral bodies are fragments of the Spirit (according to TP) and they can be considered our souls

The above quote makes it seem like there is no purpose in life (no soul, no reincarnation) and therefore after we die we just get reabsorbed in the absolute

Well if that's true then a murderer and a saint will have the same fate, and it wouldn't matter what you do, this is where reincarnation and the astral body comes in

The astral body takes on a physical body (vehicle) in order for spiritual development, and since no ones going to be perfect the first time, it needs to relive (reincarnate) over and over again till it emerges perfect, and then it can rejoin the creator (according to TP)

I liked the site but I never really liked the idea of oneness, which is what the interview was discussing

[Alisima]

Well I read this as soon as it was posted last week, and I can see where your viewpoints come from Alisima in regards to some of your previous posts and I wasn't sure if I disagreed or agreed with the interviews contents

Well, I just read this interview last week, it just 'happened' to correspond with 'my' viewpoints.

: Q: What do you mean 'just is'?

A: The pure Awareness is seeing everything just as it is, kind of like a video camera sees everything just as it is. A video camera doesn't make judgements or exclude things from what it is seeing, it just sees everything just as it is. The Awareness is the same, it sees everything just as it is. It is the Thinking Mechanism which then makes changes to 'what is'. The thoughts ALTER the pure seeing.

I don't think that's accurate, According to TP the Spirit created everything in order to have spiritual experience, now since everything we do isn't always spiritual, the Spirit needed a filter (i.e. the Higher Selves) so the materialistic thoughts and experiences are filtered out from the spiritual ones

According to that answer the Higher Selves have no reason to exist!

Indeed. But then again, has anyone seen them?? Those Higher Selves?? I have not yet seen them.

Q: So where is the soul?

A: The soul is a concept which doesn't exist in reality. It is an extension of the ego idea. There is just one Universal Awareness that flows through everything. It has only SEEMINGLY split. Much like the one Awareness of a dreamer flows through all the SEEMINGLY separate characters in a dream. They too have no separate centre of Awareness (or soul), it's all the ONE Awareness of the dreamer even though it very convincingly SEEMS like there are many.

Q: And reincarnation?

A: 'Who' is there to be reincarnated?

I agree that there is a singular universal awareness (The Spirit) but that doesn't mean everything is just an illusion, our astral bodies are fragments of the Spirit (according to TP) and they can be considered our souls

The above quote makes it seem like there is no purpose in life (no soul, no reincarnation) and therefore after we die we just get reabsorbed in the absolute

We never left the absolute. We only think so.

Well if that's true then a murderer and a saint will have the same fate, and it wouldn't matter what you do

Sometimes a murderer is more saint then a saint, and a saint more a murderer then a murderer. But it DOES matter what you do!! The whole article is about your misidentification with your mind/soul/bla/bla.

[Yothu]

Actually, who is the author of this text you have presented Alisima?

[Robanan]

We and the GI clearly are far far more evolved than just being "aware". I mean apart from "purely seeing" we have the ability to "understand" and all a man can come to know about the self brings witness to the point that "understanding" is the way to go everything else doesn't really matter as much.

We never left the absolute. We only think so.

Indeed. But then again, has anyone seen them?? Those Higher Selves?? I have not yet seen them.

The book is clear about the Higher Selves and my experince in life appeals to the explanation given by the book. There are some moments in life that you really start to feel a Higher presence indeed. Only those who seek shall find.

In contrast I have never met anything absolute in life, nature teaches that nothing (no single thing) can be absolute at all, you certainly are not going to argue that the absolute didn't have anything to be "purely aware" of and eternally creates illusions for itself just to entertain it's absolute awareness forever?

How is it that you and me have different opinions about one single thing? if there really was "the absolute" as you call it no life would have been possible in first place, just imagine that the very first illusions needed for "the awareness" which is absolute would remain just aware of eachother (you and me just would be aware of eachother) until the awareness would turn to something which is not absolute and able to develop before those "illusions" would be ignited with individual thinking capabilities and the ability to experience feelings such as love and become able to develop individually.

I'm enjoying the development of my intellect if we all were nothing but "The absolute" we would have all enjoyed it together as much as I do

Sometimes a murderer is more saint then a saint, and a saint more a murderer then a murderer. But it DOES matter what you do!!

How is that Alisima? Could you turn on your intellect a little while as you aim to make a post please, you could turn it off again and enjoy yourself the rest of the day. You are messing things up here I cannot even imagine how did you define "Murderer" and "Saint" here.

The whole article is about your misidentification with your mind/soul/bla/bla.

One has to know the self, some degree of the ability to think, find out and understand is inevitable and necessary.

What misidentifiation? There is no thinker inside you it is you who has the capability to think, people think and have thoughts because they can, and they do; notice also that they are aware of it. You seem to be not aware of the capabilities of your own self. Notice that as you think, you make extensive use of your imagination and there you find out more things to be aware of. How can pure awareness be of any use to anyone who has nothing to be aware of?

You can disintegrate all your intellectual capabilities up to the point that you will be left aware without anything to be aware of. Is this the absolute you are talking about? It must be worse than the hell which religions talk about so much (In hell one would be aware of pain and suffering at least).

There is nothing to worry about, saying that misidentification of the self is dangerous is complete nonesense, because anyone who would start the A,B,C of knowing the self would simply notice that it is the I who can think, identify, know, understand, love, hate, kill, preach etc.

[Alisima]

Actually, who is the author of this text you have presented Alisima?

Yeah, I noticed it too. I have no idea.

We and the GI clearly are far far more evolved than just being "aware". I mean apart from "purely seeing" we have the ability to "understand" and all a man can come to know about the self brings witness to the point that "understanding" is the way to go everything else doesn't really matter as much.

I see your point.

In contrast I have never met anything absolute in life, nature teaches that nothing (no single thing) can be absolute at all, you certainly are not going to argue that the absolute didn't have anything to be "purely aware" of and eternally creates illusions for itself just to entertain it's absolute awareness forever?

I have no idea why the absolute, or actually 'we', would do that. But I intend to find out.

How is it that you and me have different opinions about one single thing?

That is because we misidentify with our "mind"/"ego" and believe that to be "us". Just like your foot is longer or shorter than mine, and perhapse a bit wider, or perhapse shorter too. Just like that your "mind"/"ego" differs from my mind. Not to forget the difference in youth ofcourse.

if there really was "the absolute" as you call it no life would have been possible in first place, just imagine that the very first illusions needed for "the awareness" which is absolute would remain just aware of eachother (you and me just would be aware of eachother) until the awareness would turn to something which is not absolute and able to develop before those "illusions" would be ignited with individual thinking capabilities and the ability to experience feelings such as love and become able to develop individually.

First off all it is not I who mentioned "the absolute", it was the article, I merely agree with it. Secondly, I do not have all the answers. Nor can I answer the questions YOU are asking. The article, and the idea presented with it, is just a mere way of looking at life. It is obvious to me that most here on this forum don't agree with this way of looking. That is ok. But you have to understand that neither TP nor the article I presented are The Truth. Just like the article said: "Words can never be IT, they can only point to IT. IT is prior to words. All I can give you is pointers to IT."

Sometimes a murderer is more saint then a saint, and a saint more a murderer then a murderer. But it DOES matter what you do!!

How is that Alisima? Could you turn on your intellect a little while as you aim to make a post please, you could turn it off again and enjoy yourself the rest of the day. You are messing things up here I cannot even imagine how did you define "Murderer" and "Saint" here.

Well, a murderer and a saint are defined according to the society they live in. So, a murderer is not perse bad, nor is a saint always good. We just call them murderer and saint. Anyway, I reckon that that is too much for this discussion, let us focus on other things.

The whole article is about your misidentification with your mind/soul/bla/bla.

One has to know the self, some degree of the ability to think, find out and understand is inevitable and necessary.

Can an eye see itself?

What misidentifiation? There is no thinker inside you it is you who has the capability to think, people think and have thoughts because they can, and they do; notice also that they are aware of it. You seem to be not aware of the capabilities of your own self. Notice that as you think, you make extensive use of your imagination and there you find out more things to be aware of. How can pure awareness be of any use to anyone who has nothing to be aware of?

If there is awareness, then the awareness can be aware of the awareness.

You can disintegrate all your intellectual capabilities up to the point that you will be left aware without anything to be aware of. Is this the absolute you are talking about? It must be worse than the hell which religions talk about so much (In hell one would be aware of pain and suffering at least).

I never said, nor did the article, that you should trade one thing for another. In a society like this, intellectual capabilities are neccesary to function.

There is nothing to worry about, saying that misidentification of the self is dangerous is complete nonesense, because anyone who would start the A,B,C of knowing the self would simply notice that it is the I who can think, identify, know, understand, love, hate, kill, preach etc.

It is not dangerous, it is unreal. You are living a lie. This I who can think, know, love and hate is the ego.

[Robanan]

The article, and the idea presented with it, is just a mere way of looking at life. It is obvious to me that most here on this forum don't agree with this way of looking. That is ok. But you have to understand that neither TP nor the article I presented are The Truth. Just like the article said: "Words can never be IT, they can only point to IT. IT is prior to words. All I can give you is pointers to IT."

I wanted to say that the article doesn't point to IT, it also doesn't definetly point to the same thing, the Thiaoouba prophecy book points to. Regardless of what is written in the book and the article, i think that the only immutable truth for each of us is that we have a life to live and that there is nothing closer to us than our own selves.

So I try to make a distinction between what is written and said with what I have lived through and experienced myself.

The article is not about awareness, it presents some defaults to set your mind with, I mean it brings about another worldview and insists that it reveals the answer to questions that no man can ever answer and only god knows so only god can say.

I'm simply over with such nonesense... at one point in my life I understood that it is not fair that god knows only, and how is it that "the one who seeks shall find" if I was not to know by myself? After so much I went through I kept on clicking through the sites and there it is "Believing is not enough, you need to know" which was and is and always will be simply true.

Well, a murderer and a saint are defined according to the society they live in. So, a murderer is not perse bad, nor is a saint always good. We just call them murderer and saint. Anyway, I reckon that that is too much for this discussion, let us focus on other things.

I see your point now thank you for having made yourself clear to me.

It is not dangerous, it is unreal. You are living a lie. This I who can think, know, love and hate is the ego.

If according to that article and your understanding of my life I'm living a lie, it means that there is nothing I should be worrying about at all.

Can an eye see itself?

First, the eye won't see if there is no one looking through it. Second it depends on where you are looking.

Append what I said just now to the original sentence you quoted on this regard in your last post, I hope you will understand what I'm trying to tell you...

[Alisima]

The article, and the idea presented with it, is just a mere way of looking at life. It is obvious to me that most here on this forum don't agree with this way of looking. That is ok. But you have to understand that neither TP nor the article I presented are The Truth. Just like the article said: "Words can never be IT, they can only point to IT. IT is prior to words. All I can give you is pointers to IT."

I wanted to say that the article doesn't point to IT, it also doesn't definetly point to the same thing, the Thiaoouba prophecy book points to.

Well, both TP, or at least a part of it, and the article are about union with the divine.

Regardless of what is written in the book and the article, i think that the only immutable truth for each of us is that we have a life to live and that there is nothing closer to us than our own selves.

I could not have said it better myself.

The article is not about awareness, it presents some defaults to set your mind with, I mean it brings about another worldview and insists that it reveals the answer to questions that no man can ever answer and only god knows so only god can say.

I'm simply over with such nonesense... at one point in my life I understood that it is not fair that god knows only, and how is it that "the one who seeks shall find" if I was not to know by myself? After so much I went through I kept on clicking through the sites and there it is "Believing is not enough, you need to know" which was and is and always will be simply true.

God = awareness.

It is not dangerous, it is unreal. You are living a lie. This I who can think, know, love and hate is the ego.

If according to that article and your understanding of my life I'm living a lie, it means that there is nothing I should be worrying about at all.

You are absolutely correct. You don't have to worry. Misidentification is not a bad thing, nor will it destroy you or harm you in ANY way. However, it still remains unreal.

Can an eye see itself?

First, the eye won't see if there is no one looking through it. Second it depends on where you are looking.

Append what I said just now to the original sentence you quoted on this regard in your last post, I hope you will understand what I'm trying to tell you...

My reply, "Can an eye see itself?", was merely regarded towards "One has to know the self". It had nothing to do with the rest of the sentence. Sorry, for that.

Anyway, an eye cannot see itself. Neither can you. Thus, everything you do see, is not you.

[Robanan]

Well, both TP, or at least a part of it, and the article are about union with the divine.

About TP: Joining -or I should better say- Rejoining with the creator doesn't in no way mean becoming "one" with the divine.

About the article: I don't have troubles understanding that I'm not my thoughts, and there is no point to make such a fuss over people who misidentify themselves with their thoughts unless you want to make others also believe that they do the same.
I also noticed that it is not the case with the person who is asking questions in the article the person is persuaded to think that he cannot be happy because he thinks that he is his thoughts and he is drawn to engage in a whole discussion that in the end dismisses the individual existence of the self (in no way or form).

Why would anyone need to be proved that they don't exist? why would someone want to proove to people that they are not real and they don't exist?
If you have noticed in the article they don't really talk about union with the devine they say that behind everything there is only one single awareness "the" awareness that came from the absolute (God as pointed by the article) as matter of fact they say that we already are the absolute.

God = awareness.

And most likely very very intelligent too. The article discolses intelligence in it's big picture as if intelligence is something completely irrelevant since the author of the article seems to have assumed that thoughts appear because of a pointless "thinking mechanism".

You are absolutely correct. You don't have to worry. Misidentification is not a bad thing, nor will it destroy you or harm you in ANY way. However, it still remains unreal.

So the mumbo-jumbo in the article is all you can tell me about reality?

My reply, "Can an eye see itself?", was merely regarded towards "One has to know the self". It had nothing to do with the rest of the sentence. Sorry, for that.

Anyway, an eye cannot see itself. Neither can you. Thus, everything you do see, is not you.

I cannot provoke you to think, well... ok; I'll try to make it easier on you.

I said:

First, the eye won't see if there is no one looking through it. Second it depends on where you are looking.

Remember?

Let's expand the concept:
I said that "you" need to be there so that "you" would be able to see through your eye first before your eye would be able to see itself. It means that "you" have to "want/aim" to see your eye before your eye could see itself. There is simply no other way around, because such things don't happen just like that and without any reason.

Then...

I said that "It depends on where you are looking". As I assume that you have a mirror in your house I suppose you are very familiar with "Reflections". Reflections are as real as the eye we are talking about, The reality of the existence of reflections (in nature/universe) is as objective as the reality of the existence of the eye.

So if "you" want to see your eye you can look at the "reflection" of your eye (supposing all natural and elementary conditions are provided).

Do you know how it feels to be Consciously aware that you are aware and conscious? It makes me feel as if I'm really the one and only one who sees everything and everyone else and as if everything that I do even if I do exactly the same thing someone else does, is absolutely unique and irrepeatable. An amazing experience really.

Can you relate what I'm trying to communicate with the concept of "Knowing the self"? I really wouldn't want to spoil all the fun for you.

Cheers

[Alisima]

Well, both TP, or at least a part of it, and the article are about union with the divine.

About TP: Joining -or I should better say- Rejoining with the creator doesn't in no way mean becoming "one" with the divine.

No, it is more like realizing you are one with the divine, that there is no seperation between you and god.

About the article: I don't have troubles understanding that I'm not my thoughts, and there is no point to make such a fuss over people who misidentify themselves with their thoughts unless you want to make others also believe that they do the same.

I also noticed that it is not the case with the person who is asking questions in the article the person is persuaded to think that he cannot be happy because he thinks that he is his thoughts and he is drawn to engage in a whole discussion that in the end dismisses the individual existence of the self (in no way or form).

Why would anyone need to be proved that they don't exist? why would someone want to proove to people that they are not real and they don't exist?

But what if people, like the one presented in the article, start asking questions?? Don't you think you should answer them?? It is not about making a fuss about other people's misidentification, but it is about answering questions. That is what all sage/masters/etc. do, don't they?? This is just another guy who answers questions. I personally don't think he minds about people misidentifing themselves, nor do I.

If you have noticed in the article they don't really talk about union with the devine they say that behind everything there is only one single awareness "the" awareness that came from the absolute (God as pointed by the article) as matter of fact they say that we already are the absolute.

Yes, they do say that. I myself said somewhere else that we are already enlightened. We simply don't realise it. Or you could say, we have 'lost' it.

God = awareness.

And most likely very very intelligent too.

How can awareness be intelligent?? It is the mind which is intelligent.

The article discolses intelligence in it's big picture as if intelligence is something completely irrelevant since the author of the article seems to have assumed that thoughts appear because of a pointless "thinking mechanism".

No, not pointless. It has its use.

You are absolutely correct. You don't have to worry. Misidentification is not a bad thing, nor will it destroy you or harm you in ANY way. However, it still remains unreal.

So the mumbo-jumbo in the article is all you can tell me about reality?

It is not me who wrote the article, it just covers some of my ideas, not all. Anyway, I can tell you a lot about how I think reality is. But lets do that in a different thread, or perphase outside the TP forum.

My reply, "Can an eye see itself?", was merely regarded towards "One has to know the self". It had nothing to do with the rest of the sentence. Sorry, for that.

Anyway, an eye cannot see itself. Neither can you. Thus, everything you do see, is not you.

I cannot provoke you to think, well... ok; I'll try to make it easier on you.

I said:

First, the eye won't see if there is no one looking through it. Second it depends on where you are looking.

Remember?

Let's expand the concept:
I said that "you" need to be there so that "you" would be able to see through your eye first before your eye would be able to see itself. It means that "you" have to "want/aim" to see your eye before your eye could see itself. There is simply no other way around, because such things don't happen just like that and without any reason.

Then...

I said that "It depends on where you are looking". As I assume that you have a mirror in your house I suppose you are very familiar with "Reflections". Reflections are as real as the eye we are talking about, The reality of the existence of reflections (in nature/universe) is as objective as the reality of the existence of the eye.

Yes, yes I understand that. But now replace the eye, with self. How can you see you?? Do you know any mirror that reflects the self?? You can only BE you, not see.

Do you know how it feels to be Consciously aware that you are aware and conscious? It makes me feel as if I'm really the one and only one who sees everything and everyone else and as if everything that I do even if I do exactly the same thing someone else does, is absolutely unique and irrepeatable. An amazing experience really.

Yes I know that, I have had 3 moments the past months in which I realised my awareness. It felt like all the ignorance fell away for a moment. Sadly, only for seconds. After that I fell back into 'normal' awareness. Although I kept searching for the "experience" I had just seconds ago.

Anyways, lets just appreciate more than one way of looking at things.

[Robanan]

No, it is more like realizing you are one with the divine, that there is no seperation between you and god.

Those who realize that they are one with the devine, have only imagined it that way. Those who realize that they are devine, understand that they are not separated from God.

That's just how good it can get as one keeps on learning and understanding who he/she really is.

But what if people, like the one presented in the article, start asking questions?? Don't you think you should answer them?? It is not about making a fuss about other people's misidentification, but it is about answering questions. That is what all sage/masters/etc. do, don't they?? This is just another guy who answers questions. I personally don't think he minds about people misidentifing themselves, nor do I.

I judge the article by the results of it's deductions... to me it is clear that the writer has fabricated the questions himself, much like what Tom did when he wrote TFOC.

I don't like the outcoming final result of the whole conversation presented in the article.

Yes, they do say that. I myself said somewhere else that we are already enlightened. We simply don't realise it. Or you could say, we have 'lost' it.

I know, I'm saying that I don't agree with you or with the article on this point.

How can awareness be intelligent?? It is the mind which is intelligent.

Such equations as the God = Awareness or God = Intellect are simply wrong because both sides of these equations don't have the same value look 5 isn't equal with 1 right? but 5 contains five one's in it and we can't say that 5 = 1 because there is at least a one in five.

When we say God (at least when I say God) we mean a composite being who is not only aware, but also intelligent, loving, conscious, compassionate, just, creative, ... etc.

The article discolses intelligence in it's big picture as if intelligence is something completely irrelevant since the author of the article seems to have assumed that thoughts appear because of a pointless "thinking mechanism".

No, not pointless. It has its use.

Are you trying to say that Intellect doesn't have any use in the spiritual development of a human being?

In this case we all would pretty much end up in the absolute as the article says but wait, everyone has an intellect and it determines how much one is capable to understand and the level of understanding must count when you are talking about spiritual evolution. So it seems that what the writer of the article has imagined to be "the truth" is not really based on real facts and thorough observations of reality. What about feelings? Consciousness? according to the article their existence also doesn't make a difference, that's why the writer puts his/her emphasis on forgetting about everything.

From the universe, I don't expect anything less than the full satisfactory realization of everything that I am as a human being by the end of time.

The absolute doesn't appeal to my intellect... Thiaoouba is better, there... my awareness is satisfied as much as my intellectual needs.

Yes, yes I understand that. But now replace the eye, with self. How can you see you?? Do you know any mirror that reflects the self?? You can only BE you, not see.

You tell me... isn't the SELF a composite being too? isn't the SELF aware? isn't it intelligent? isn't it conscious? Doesn't every aspect of the SELF project itself in percievable ways? What do you think your thoughts, your words, your deeds, and your feelings are? I expect you to think more carefully this time...

You "can" see, feel, hear... and "you" ARE "you" all along, I'm not saying that you turn into seeing or hearing or feeling... If there is anyone who thinks "You are seeing" means you have turned into seeing, then... I can only smile and be polite in response.

[Alisima]

Those who realize that they are one with the devine, have only imagined it that way. Those who realize that they are devine, understand that they are not separated from God.

Uhmm, that basically is the same thing. When someone is one with the divine, he/she and the divine are the same thing. So, they are the divine.

I judge the article by the results of it's deductions... to me it is clear that the writer has fabricated the questions himself, much like what Tom did when he wrote TFOC.

That crossed my mind too. Nevertheless, it are very realistic questions.

Such equations as the God = Awareness or God = Intellect are simply wrong because both sides of these equations don't have the same value look 5 isn't equal with 1 right? but 5 contains five one's in it and we can't say that 5 = 1 because there is at least a one in five.

When we say God (at least when I say God) we mean a composite being who is not only aware, but also intelligent, loving, conscious, compassionate, just, creative, ... etc.

No, God is an concept we have created ourselves. God is a personification of the unkown. A personification of some "hidden" forces. God, and the devil, are created to prevent people from "wrongdoings". The reason I say God = Awareness, is to emphasize awareness. To say that awareness is godly, divine and/or sacred.

You WANT god to be intelligent, loving, conscious, compassionate, just, creative, ... etc. However, the concept intelligent, or the concept loving, is CREATED by US, or rather, by our minds. God, if he were to exist, wouldn't understand love because the concept love is an intellectual concept, just like intelligent, or compassion. Similar to a small child, God does not know love. And that is, IF he exists.

Imagine that God would walk around in some city and gave a begger some money, or a little bit of food. That would be very loving right?? However, if you were to approach him and say: "Oh my god, that is very loving of you!". He would say: "What is that, love?? I just gave him some food."

Are you trying to say that Intellect doesn't have any use in the spiritual development of a human being?

Yes. Both intellect and spirit are concepts we, our minds, created for our survival.

You tell me... isn't the SELF a composite being too? isn't the SELF aware? isn't it intelligent? isn't it conscious? Doesn't every aspect of the SELF project itself in percievable ways? What do you think your thoughts, your words, your deeds, and your feelings are? I expect you to think more carefully this time...

You "can" see, feel, hear... and "you" ARE "you" all along, I'm not saying that you turn into seeing or hearing or feeling... If there is anyone who thinks "You are seeing" means you have turned into seeing, then... I can only smile and be polite in response.

My thoughts, my words, my deeds and my feelings originated from my nervous system, i.e. mind. It is the mind and body which does all the work, not me.

[Robanan]

Uhmm, that basically is the same thing. When someone is one with the divine, he/she and the divine are the same thing. So, they are the divine.

Being one with the divine is different than being devine.

So... how comes "The Devine" in not a fabrication of the mind while according to what you are saying everything else (intellect, god, spirit...) is just a fabrication of the mind and not real?

That crossed my mind too. Nevertheless, it are very realistic questions

Not all round objects are coconuts.

The reason I say God = Awareness, is to emphasize awareness. To say that awareness is godly, divine and/or sacred

I think you are getting a little bit shady on this point, because when I said that God is likely to be intelligent too, you asked how can awareness be intelligent?

Awareness is not to be worshipped or idolized so there is no use of trying to emphasize awareness as something godly, devine and/or sacred at all.

You WANT god to be intelligent, loving, conscious, compassionate, just, creative, ... etc. However, the concept intelligent, or the concept loving, is CREATED by US, or rather, by our minds. God, if he were to exist, wouldn't understand love because the concept love is an intellectual concept, just like intelligent, or compassion. Similar to a small child, God does not know love. And that is, IF he exists.

You are again saying that God = Awareness, is presenting the conclusion above the reason why you wanted to emphasize awareness as something devine and/or sacred?

Who told you that love is an intellectual concept anyway? The fact that you use your mind and intelligence to understand what is love as you feel and experience it doesn't make love to be an intellectual concept either. You clearly have not experienced love yourself if you talk about such things in this manner.

Even though let's suppose a loving and intelligent God doesn't exist and all is absolute awareness as you say. Then the awareness is aware of love only (cannot know or understand it) and is not aware of how it feels to experience it too?:

1- YES, then such awareness is clearly either not absolute or it doesn't exist at all since there is the feel and the experience of love that the awareness is not aware of.

2- No, then the awareness is clearly not absolute plus that it also has the capability and the necessary facilities to feel and experience love too.

3- There is no such feeling as love and love clearly cannot be experienced, in this case no awareness cannot be aware of such thing as love so the awareness is not absolute or it doesn't exist at all.

Imagine that God would walk around in some city and gave a begger some money, or a little bit of food. That would be very loving right?? However, if you were to approach him and say: "Oh my god, that is very loving of you!". He would say: "What is that, love?? I just gave him some food."

Such an act doesn't have to be necessarily very loving as one's common sense may dictate. Such parables are clrealy born out of misunderstanding or ignorance toward individuality and intelligence plus that they don't make any sense at all.

Yes. Both intellect and spirit are concepts we, our minds, created for our survival.

Survival? You need food and shelter in order to be able to survive not concepts.

My thoughts, my words, my deeds and my feelings originated from my nervous system, i.e. mind. It is the mind and body which does all the work, not me.

You are practically saying that you don't look at the contents of your feeling, thoughts, words, and deeds and that you have never tried to make something useful out of it and that all these things happen by themselves without reason or purpose.

You are not there to see through the eye, you are saying that the eye does the seeing by itself.

You are not looking where you should be looking at in order to see the reflection of your own self, as you should be looking inside.

Your next post will determine if I'm going to continue this conversation with you.

[Alisima]

Before I reply let me get this straight. I am trying to describe something (non-duality)which, obviously, cannot be described by words (duality). That is the whole problem of it.

Being one with the divine is different than being devine.

Well, ok, I am not going to argue about that. However, in the context in which I originaly wrote it I meant for it to be the same.

So... how comes "The Devine" in not a fabrication of the mind while according to what you are saying everything else (intellect, god, spirit...) is just a fabrication of the mind and not real?

You are right. But what words are there left to use?? Can't use God, can't use Divine, can't use Absolute, because ALL are concepts of the mind. But then, how can I explain it?? Obviously, I have to use words. This is the word I choose to use. Words are very limited. I hope we both agree on that.

The reason I say God = Awareness, is to emphasize awareness. To say that awareness is godly, divine and/or sacred

I think you are getting a little bit shady on this point, because when I said that God is likely to be intelligent too, you asked how can awareness be intelligent?

Awareness is not to be worshipped or idolized so there is no use of trying to emphasize awareness as something godly, devine and/or sacred at all.

Again, I don't believe in anything sacred, in anything godly or divine. Nor do I worship awareness. However, I do believe that awareness, not the word of definition, but the act, is very important to our understanding of reality. Therefor, in a quest towards reality awareness can be presented as a solution. And to point out that awareness IS the solution one can say it is divine. (Which it isn't, I know.)

Who told you that love is an intellectual concept anyway? The fact that you use your mind and intelligence to understand what is love as you feel and experience it doesn't make love to be an intellectual concept either. You clearly have not experienced love yourself if you talk about such things in this manner.

Have you ever wondered why in our western culture, but it many others also, hate get supressed and love gets to be 'suger-coated'? In fact when someone gets angry, we often say "it is just in there head", "they have no reason for being angry", or "they need to cool down." We still have this greek idea of vice and virtue, where hate gets to be dismissed and love to be invited. AS IF love is somehow better than hate. I think love and hate are made of the same thing. Back to your question: "Who told you that love is an intellectual concept anyway?" Well, it is a word, it has a definition, which both point to 'something'. We mistakenly believe this 'something' to be different than other 'somethings', like hate or pride or self-esteem. Have you ever been EXTREMLY hateful?? If you have then you propably noticed that underneath this hate there flows EXACTLY the same energy as when you where deep in love. So somehow this energy, when present, gets to be labeled as love, and in a different scenario it is labeled as hate.

Have you ever noticed that upon close inspection toward both love or hate (or any other label) that they tend to disappear?? And that you are left with simple energy?? We, or minds, mislabel this energy as love or as hate. And I just now mislabeled it as energy. Do you understand were I am going to?

If you were never taught the word love, would you still experience it??

Before humans, (i.e. before the brain) was there righteousness, or morality??

These all are concept WE have created. Sadly we now believe that they are ACTUALLY there.

Imagine that God would walk around in some city and gave a begger some money, or a little bit of food. That would be very loving right?? However, if you were to approach him and say: "Oh my god, that is very loving of you!". He would say: "What is that, love?? I just gave him some food."

Such an act doesn't have to be necessarily very loving as one's common sense may dictate. Such parables are clrealy born out of misunderstanding or ignorance toward individuality and intelligence plus that they don't make any sense at all.

It was to illustrate a point. Ofcourse you can crawl your way out of it, or you can try to understand what I meant with it.

Yes. Both intellect and spirit are concepts we, our minds, created for our survival.

Survival? You need food and shelter in order to be able to survive not concepts.

You'll be suprised at the amount of things which actually originated from "I need to survive." Where do you think the idea of an afterlive came from?? Although our society seems very advance we are still in the age of "survivalism". I need only to mention two words, "jihad" and "anti-terrorism". It is the survival of our ideas, the survival of our believes, and the survival of our EGO. It is very primitive if you look at it like this, isn't it?

Another one, survival of the fittest. Everyone wants to be goodlooking, to be smart, to have charisma. Why?? because we believe we will survive better with those qualities. I can go on for hours about survival, fortunatly, for me, and for you, many psychoanalists have already presented similar ideas into millions of pages, spread over thousands of books.

My thoughts, my words, my deeds and my feelings originated from my nervous system, i.e. mind. It is the mind and body which does all the work, not me.

You are practically saying that you don't look at the contents of your feeling, thoughts, words, and deeds and that you have never tried to make something useful out of it and that all these things happen by themselves without reason or purpose.

How can I NOT look at what my mind creates. You know there are people going INSANE because of there mind's content. And then you suggest that I simply don't look at it. Ofcourse I look at what my mind comes up with. Ofcourse I investigate into those thoughts and come up with even better stuff. I only know that whatever I think I create is actually created by my mind, by my body, by my nervous system.

You are not there to see through the eye, you are saying that the eye does the seeing by itself.

There have been studies which suggest that the eye ITSELF is in fact the first organ to FILTER information coming through. It is not I that needs to make an effort to breath, to repair tissue, to take a ***, to make my blood flow, to grow my nails, and it is not I that needs to make an effort to see, to hear, to feel or to smell. My body does that for me.

[InfoSource]

Sometimes a murderer is more saint then a saint, and a saint more a murderer then a murderer. But it DOES matter what you do!! The whole article is about your misidentification with your mind/soul/bla/bla.

I'd like to go back to this point, I think I understand your point about the saint and murderer, but your point about it mattering what you do seems to contradict some of your other statements

You pointed out to Robanan that it doesn't matter if you misidentify with your ego, living a lie isn't something to worry about (no negative consequences), so if living a lie and living in Truth don't matter therefore it doesn't matter what you do

Yes, they do say that. I myself said somewhere else that we are already enlightened. We simply don't realise it. Or you could say, we have 'lost' it.

I remember you saying somewhere else that you didn't like the fact that TFOC and TP tell people to change their ways and go along a spiritual path and that is wrong simply because there is no path to enlightenment, were already enlightened but have lost it

If we have lost it, then we can regain it, and in order to regain it don't we have aim for it, isn't that what Buddha did? It won't happen spontaneously nor will it happen by just observing/detachment, understanding your thoughts and feeling are important right?

You are right. But what words are there left to use?? Can't use God, can't use Divine, can't use Absolute, because ALL are concepts of the mind. But then, how can I explain it?? Obviously, I have to use words. This is the word I choose to use. Words are very limited. I hope we both agree on that.

I think the concept (If I can call it that) of awareness is limiting not just in words to describe it but also because it doesn't explain much, it doesn't explain why there is a universe, and because it can't answer questions like that it doesn't satisfy peoples mind

On the other hand TP & TFOC at least try to answer questions like why is there a universe and what purpose does it serve and are therefore more satisfying to the majority of people on this forum (I think)

Tom pointed out the limits and contradiction that non-duality bring about

Key to the One? (pt. 1 & 2)
http://bioresonant.com/cgi-bin/htmlos.c ... 7619277604

Have you ever wondered why in our western culture, but it many others also, hate get supressed and love gets to be 'suger-coated'?

Hate gets suppressed because people over time have realized that hate doesn't lead anywhere, not to progress, but to more hate

Love is the opposite, it's a different emotion than hate, you can love something as passionately as you can hate something as passionately, but they’re still different

Love is better than hate because love brings about happiness, hate doesn't

Another one, survival of the fittest. Everyone wants to be goodlooking, to be smart, to have charisma. Why?? because we believe we will survive better with those qualities.

About the needs arising for survival, I don't think good looks, smarts, and charisma are needs for survival

People want those qualities because the perception is if you have them they we lead to better social interactions and status and therefore brings about a more happiness

Today's society is not just about survival, it's also about quality of life, and technology is supposed to help us in this regard