GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla Shen wrote:

The social roles are still there, so yes, I do call my mom "mom." Good question. It's more like I'm aware of how others perceive me, much like how you said you operate, except there's no identification with the role. It's just an idea in the mind.

Just an idea in the mind? Am I to conclude from this that you take no part in society, and society has no part in you?

I'm taking part in society as I speak to you, am I not? It's just that my attention is entirely involved in myself, my self being intimately connected to you but still individual.

Well, I'm not sure about that.

(1) Just an idea in the mind? (2) Am I to conclude from this that you take no part in society, and society has no part in you?

The reason I asked you the second question in the context of the first is because your reply preceding those questions does not deal with what was being questioned in the first place, which was:

Drop the mental image of yourself. You see yourself as a person, but you're really all that is. You need to dis-identify from the definitions of self relating to society. "I am so and so's daughter or mother, for example.

What's the difference between "just an idea in the mind" and "dropping the mental image of yourself/disidentifying from definitions of self relating to society"?

These terms you are using are so indistinct as to be hardly discernable each from the other. So, I for one have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Leyla Shen wrote:The reason I asked you the second question in the context of the first is because your reply preceding those questions does not deal with what was being questioned in the first place, which was:

Drop the mental image of yourself. You see yourself as a person, but you're really all that is. You need to dis-identify from the definitions of self relating to society. "I am so and so's daughter or mother, for example.

What's the difference between "just an idea in the mind" and "dropping the mental image of yourself/disidentifying from definitions of self relating to society"?

Another good question. The idea in the mind is not an image of myself. It's an awareness of the relationship. It's actually in the heart, not the mind. That wasn't entirely clear to me earlier.

I can't say much about what it means to have a mental image of oneself, because I don't have one and haven't had one for a while. I can't compare it to my current experience. I just know that it vanishes as a result of consciousness awakening. You realize yourself to be complete and perfectly alright just as you are. And because you're OK, the world is OK, too. It's a nondual realization. That's not the end of the process, though. Further growth results in enlightenment and greater enlightenment until you realize the subject of your individual self, your conscious self being the object to the subject.

divine focus wrote:I can't say much about what it means to have a mental image of oneself, because I don't have one and haven't had one for a while. I can't compare it to my current experience. I just know that it vanishes as a result of consciousness awakening. You realize yourself to be complete and perfectly alright just as you are. And because you're OK, the world is OK, too.

But you're describing right now just another mental image of yourself and the world. So while you say don't have one, you instead are describing a very specific one ("OK", relation to the world etc). Perhaps it's hard to see the contradiction in this right now but it's certainly there. It means, probably, that while you have rejected a set of undesired mental images as relief effort, you have not stopped doing it altogether. It's a state of tranquilization, of self-medication which you appear to confuse with awakening. A common lull to be spotted with the spiritually inclined.

So, feeling OK is a mental image?

Why is being content with yourself a "lull" or a "self-tranquilization?" (I'm more than content, btw). To be enlightened does not mean to be stressed or agitated. Is that what you think enlightenment is about?

If you think that the enlightened never experience stress or agitation.. well, good luck with that.

divine focus wrote:So, feeling OK is a mental image?

The quote was

divine focus wrote:You realize yourself to be complete and perfectly alright just as you are. And because you're OK, the world is OK, too.

Completeness is an evaluation.
Perfect is a mental concept.
"You" are a mental image to yourself.
"Okay" means it's "all correct". It's a judgment.
The world is nothing but image.

While you wrote that you "can't say much about what it means to have a mental image of oneself because I don't have one and haven't had one for a while". At the same time through language you cannot help but create images about you, your world, your judgments. It doesn't seem wise to disown them. It might be possible to drop self-consciousness somehow but that's not the same as having no idea anymore of what you are in some instance, some context or that you don't even know what it means to have a mental self-image. Unless you are thinking of something completely different with "self-image", some kind of concern or criticism perhaps?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

divine focus wrote:You realize yourself to be complete and perfectly alright just as you are. And because you're OK, the world is OK, too.

Completeness is an evaluation.
Perfect is a mental concept.
"You" are a mental image to yourself.
"Okay" means it's "all correct". It's a judgment.
The world is nothing but image.

No, it's just a feeling and a state. At consciousness awakening there is still a sense of me and other, me and world. There is a sense that everything in the world, including yourself, is the same "substance."

While you wrote that you "can't say much about what it means to have a mental image of oneself because I don't have one and haven't had one for a while". At the same time through language you cannot help but create images about you, your world, your judgments. It doesn't seem wise to disown them. It might be possible to drop self-consciousness somehow but that's not the same as having no idea anymore of what you are in some instance, some context or that you don't even know what it means to have a mental self-image. Unless you are thinking of something completely different with "self-image", some kind of concern or criticism perhaps?

I have transcended the person. It may still be there, but it is out of my awareness. It's an entirely different mode of being than what it seems you are used to. I don't decide anything; it's all an effortless flow. Even editing what I'm writing, it's like I'm being operated by an unknown intelligence (not to be forever unknown). There really is no image, no self-reflection, no position. There's not even any time in a sense, it's all now. Not a present moment that moves in time, but an eternal moment.

divine focus wrote:No, it's ["all right"] is just a feeling and a state. At consciousness awakening there is still a sense of me and other, me and world. There is a sense that everything in the world, including yourself, is the same "substance."

It appears then to me that you haven't explored very far into what it means to have "images". For me it's hard to discuss these things when someone is still evoking feelings, states, others, "me" and the world but at the same time refuses to speak of them as mental images which one owns up to to some degree. I mean, where to begin?

I have transcended the person. It may still be there, but it is out of my awareness. It's an entirely different mode of being than what it seems you are used to. I don't decide anything; it's all an effortless flow. Even editing what I'm writing, it's like I'm being operated by an unknown intelligence (not to be forever unknown). There really is no image, no self-reflection, no position. There's not even any time in a sense, it's all now. Not a present moment that moves in time, but an eternal moment.

First a joking reference: "'The advantage of a bad memory is that one enjoys several times the same good things for the first time.' -- Nietzche

It seems to me that, when one would think about it, being "awake" and "aware" would include knowing about the images being projected and engaged in through the consciousness of language and expression. It might not be ones "essence" but it doesn't mean one can disown it or run away from the images and shadows which continue to be projected. At least one could remain aware of some of their effects on others.

As for "eternal moment", you are not even there or "nowhere" just like you cannot sit in "no position". You are just the position you take (or end up in) within a given instance. Why would you try to undo that? To cease being caught up means to cease desiring to exist (attach) or cease desiring to "not exist" (detach). Transcending "personhood" does not mean forgetting where it is and remove it out of your awareness. You don't remove houses, trees or the "world" out of awareness either! So why would you remove the person, traits, thoughts and responsibilities, as they occur, fleeting as they may be?

L: What's the difference between "just an idea in the mind" and "dropping the mental image of yourself/disidentifying from definitions of self relating to society"?

respondent: Another good question. The idea in the mind is not an image of myself. It's an awareness of the relationship. It's actually in the heart, not the mind. That wasn't entirely clear to me earlier.

I can't say much about what it means to have a mental image of oneself, because I don't have one and haven't had one for a while. I can't compare it to my current experience. I just know that it vanishes as a result of consciousness awakening. You realize yourself to be complete and perfectly alright just as you are. And because you're OK, the world is OK, too. It's a nondual realization. That's not the end of the process, though. Further growth results in enlightenment and greater enlightenment until you realize the subject of your individual self, your conscious self being the object to the subject.

If ("full/absolute") enlightenment involves a realisation of the subject of your individual self and your conscious self is the object to the subject, then it follows that conscious awakening, as realisation of object self to the subject self, is the mental image you are suggesting is to be dropped.

Furthermore, if an idea in the mind is not an image of yourself but an awareness of the relationship, why would you assert in the very next breath that the idea is in the heart and not the mind?

Leyla Shen wrote:If ("full/absolute") enlightenment involves a realisation of the subject of your individual self and your conscious self is the object to the subject, then it follows that conscious awakening, as realisation of object self to the subject self, is the mental image you are suggesting is to be dropped.

I never said consciousness awakening was a realization of object self to the subject self.

Furthermore, if an idea in the mind is not an image of yourself but an awareness of the relationship, why would you assert in the very next breath that the idea is in the heart and not the mind?

I said it wasn't clear to me before that it was an awareness in the heart, not an image in the mind.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

divine focus wrote:No, it's ["all right"] is just a feeling and a state. At consciousness awakening there is still a sense of me and other, me and world. There is a sense that everything in the world, including yourself, is the same "substance."

It appears then to me that you haven't explored very far into what it means to have "images". For me it's hard to discuss these things when someone is still evoking feelings, states, others, "me" and the world but at the same time refuses to speak of them as mental images which one owns up to to some degree. I mean, where to begin?

Huh?

I have transcended the person. It may still be there, but it is out of my awareness. It's an entirely different mode of being than what it seems you are used to. I don't decide anything; it's all an effortless flow. Even editing what I'm writing, it's like I'm being operated by an unknown intelligence (not to be forever unknown). There really is no image, no self-reflection, no position. There's not even any time in a sense, it's all now. Not a present moment that moves in time, but an eternal moment.

As for "eternal moment", you are not even there or "nowhere" just like you cannot sit in "no position". You are just the position you take (or end up in) within a given instance. Why would you try to undo that? To cease being caught up means to cease desiring to exist (attach) or cease desiring to "not exist" (detach). Transcending "personhood" does not mean forgetting where it is and remove it out of your awareness. You don't remove houses, trees or the "world" out of awareness either! So why would you remove the person, traits, thoughts and responsibilities, as they occur, fleeting as they may be?

It's all the subjective. I don't know, don't ask me. I'm just describing my experience.

L: If ("full/absolute") enlightenment involves a realisation of the subject of your individual self and your conscious self is the object to the subject, then it follows that conscious awakening, as realisation of object self to the subject self, is the mental image you are suggesting is to be dropped.

respondent: I never said consciousness awakening was a realization of object self to the subject self.

Oh? Did you have trouble with what I said here?

You said: "Further growth results in enlightenment and greater enlightenment until you realize the subject of your individual self, your conscious self being the object to the subject."

What's the difference between what you said and what I said? And in both cases, could you explain whether or not what each of us said was said by the subject of our individual selves or by the object of the subject of our individual selves?

L: Furthermore, if an idea in the mind is not an image of yourself but an awareness of the relationship, why would you assert in the very next breath that the idea is in the heart and not the mind?

respondent: I said it wasn't clear to me before that it was an awareness in the heart, not an image in the mind.

But you're just substituting different terms for the same thing (to someone who isn't living in your head) and adding absolutely no clarity to the idea you are taking upon yourself to convey in your relation with others on this forum. We were talking here about the distinction "an idea [not an image as you have now rephrased the idea in question] in the mind". So, what (viz: the "it" referred to in your sentence above) is an awareness in the heart? An idea in the mind?

divine focus wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

divine focus wrote:No, it's ["all right"] is just a feeling and a state. At consciousness awakening there is still a sense of me and other, me and world. There is a sense that everything in the world, including yourself, is the same "substance."

It appears then to me that you haven't explored very far into what it means to have "images". For me it's hard to discuss these things when someone is still evoking feelings, states, others, "me" and the world but at the same time refuses to speak of them as mental images which one owns up to to some degree. I mean, where to begin?

Huh?

Exactly. Perhaps you've never thought about it, that "senses", "feelings" and "states" are also mentation and the subjective here just as well? As long as you're having a sense of yourself ("me") and the world, your feelings and states, you have not "transcended the person", let alone the "world" which comes with it. It's still there, indeed "out of your awareness", meaning here less awareness or just simply obscured. Naturally that is providing much relief. But it's not truthful.

It's all the subjective. I don't know, don't ask me. I'm just describing my experience.

No, you're just describing the ignorance you prefer to abide in. Any further thought on this would only destroy your "OK" so it's perfectly understood.

Leyla Shen wrote:

L: If ("full/absolute") enlightenment involves a realisation of the subject of your individual self and your conscious self is the object to the subject, then it follows that conscious awakening, as realisation of object self to the subject self, is the mental image you are suggesting is to be dropped.

respondent: I never said consciousness awakening was a realization of object self to the subject self.

Oh? Did you have trouble with what I said here?

You said: "Further growth results in enlightenment and greater enlightenment until you realize the subject of your individual self, your conscious self being the object to the subject."

What's the difference between what you said and what I said? And in both cases, could you explain whether or not what each of us said was said by the subject of our individual selves or by the object of the subject of our individual selves?

Ultimate enlightenment is the realization of the subject like you said, but consciousness awakening isn't the realization of the object self. You are already the objective self. You know you're physical. The realization that you're the object of the subject self just means you know about the subject self and have been shown that it is the subject. Not a major development, just something interesting. You carry on as before.

L: Furthermore, if an idea in the mind is not an image of yourself but an awareness of the relationship, why would you assert in the very next breath that the idea is in the heart and not the mind?

respondent: I said it wasn't clear to me before that it was an awareness in the heart, not an image in the mind.

But you're just substituting different terms for the same thing (to someone who isn't living in your head) and adding absolutely no clarity to the idea you are taking upon yourself to convey in your relation with others on this forum. We were talking here about the distinction "an idea [not an image as you have now rephrased the idea in question] in the mind". So, what (viz: the "it" referred to in your sentence above) is an awareness in the heart? An idea in the mind?

Awareness in the heart is just awareness in the heart. What more can be said?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

divine focus wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It appears then to me that you haven't explored very far into what it means to have "images". For me it's hard to discuss these things when someone is still evoking feelings, states, others, "me" and the world but at the same time refuses to speak of them as mental images which one owns up to to some degree. I mean, where to begin?

Huh?

Exactly. Perhaps you've never thought about it, that "senses", "feelings" and "states" are also mentation and the subjective here just as well? As long as you're having a sense of yourself ("me") and the world, your feelings and states, you have not "transcended the person", let alone the "world" which comes with it. It's still there, indeed "out of your awareness", meaning here less awareness or just simply obscured. Naturally that is providing much relief. But it's not truthful.

I was describing the experience right after consciousness awakening. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I am much further along in the path of development than consciousness awakening.

It's all the subjective. I don't know, don't ask me. I'm just describing my experience.

No, you're just describing the ignorance you prefer to abide in. Any further thought on this would only destroy your "OK" so it's perfectly understood.

How can you say that when you have no clue? I'm telling you what I know about myself. How do you know more than me?

divine focus: Awareness in the heart is just awareness in the heart. What more can be said?

My interpretation of awareness in the heart is that it exists just because one has concluded that the world is not OK (to be conscious is to suffer) and in order to come to this conclusion and to heal it or reconcile it within one's consciousness, mental images must be present. Why else would awareness in the heart exist if not a reaction to that which is lacking awareness in the heart and how would one be aware of these things without imagery?

Leyla Shen wrote:What's the difference between what you said and what I said? And in both cases, could you explain whether or not what each of us said was said by the subject of our individual selves or by the object of the subject of our individual selves?

As to your second question, it is both. Whatever the objective does is also done by the subjective, but the subjective operates beyond the objective.

movingalways wrote:

divine focus: Awareness in the heart is just awareness in the heart. What more can be said?

My interpretation of awareness in the heart is that it exists just because one has concluded that the world is not OK (to be conscious is to suffer) and in order to come to this conclusion and to heal it or reconcile it within one's consciousness, mental images must be present. Why else would awareness in the heart exist if not a reaction to that which is lacking awareness in the heart and how would one be aware of these things without imagery?

IF you're saying awareness comes about because of suffering, this is not true. There is nothing to reconcile with awareness itself. You always have awareness in the heart, only you may not notice because awareness in the head may be primary. You don't need imagery to be aware of awareness in the heart, although it may be helpful. In my case, there can be subjective imagery--imagery direct from the subject that bleeds through into my awareness.

How can you say that when you have no clue? I'm telling you what I know about myself. How do you know more than me?

A particular view maintains that all who fail to divine and abide by the rules of the imagined world are classified as ignorant.

IF you're saying awareness comes about because of suffering, this is not true.

Like clothing for the body, suffering is but a garb of consciousness, not a requirement. Awareness allows consciousness to change outfits, or go naked as when born.

divine focus wrote:

movingalways wrote:

divine focus: Awareness in the heart is just awareness in the heart. What more can be said?

My interpretation of awareness in the heart is that it exists just because one has concluded that the world is not OK (to be conscious is to suffer) and in order to come to this conclusion and to heal it or reconcile it within one's consciousness, mental images must be present. Why else would awareness in the heart exist if not a reaction to that which is lacking awareness in the heart and how would one be aware of these things without imagery?

divine focus: IF you're saying awareness comes about because of suffering, this is not true. There is nothing to reconcile with awareness itself. You always have awareness in the heart, only you may not notice because awareness in the head may be primary. You don't need imagery to be aware of awareness in the heart, although it may be helpful. In my case, there can be subjective imagery--imagery direct from the subject that bleeds through into my awareness.

I know nothing of how awareness comes about, however, I have observed that suffering exists and in order to observe that suffering exists, awareness is necessary.

If by awareness in my heart you are referring to having a conscience, then yes, I have always had a conscience, one that "pricks" me when I act against its wisdom. Along with this "prick" come associated images and feelings. Is your awareness in the heart the same thing as my conscience of doing the right thing?

I know nothing of how awareness comes about, however, I have observed that suffering exists and in order to observe that suffering exists, awareness is necessary.

In relation to being, awareness reveals what suffering is, what it is not, why it is, and why it is not.

In relation to conceptual abstractions, suffering is an interpretation of transitory experience; suffering is not who you really are; suffering is caused by attachment to memory which also influences current perceptions; and when and why suffering no longer is involves self-concept aligning with who you really are.

divine focus wrote:I was describing the experience right after consciousness awakening. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I am much further along in the path of development than consciousness awakening.

But you need still to progress a bit on the path of expressing that without sounding like you never really thought about it much.

It's all the subjective. I don't know, don't ask me. I'm just describing my experience.

No, you're just describing the ignorance you prefer to abide in. Any further thought on this would only destroy your "OK" so it's perfectly understood.

How can you say that when you have no clue? I'm telling you what I know about myself. How do you know more than me?

You appear to be telling me that I have no clue, so at least you admit it's possible to know that about someone? (refreshing logic 101).

What you know about yourself is here purely subjective and speculative. What there's to know about knowing is more firm territory.

Cahoot wrote:

movingalways: I know nothing of how awareness comes about, however, I have observed that suffering exists and in order to observe that suffering exists, awareness is necessary.

In relation to being, awareness reveals what suffering is, what it is not, why it is, and why it is not.

In relation to conceptual abstractions, suffering is an interpretation of transitory experience; suffering is not who you really are; suffering is caused by attachment to memory which also influences current perceptions; and when and why suffering no longer is involves self-concept aligning with who you really are.

Since we are all attached to transitory experience and memory and have no choice but to interpret these things, we all suffer. When this default attachment of consciousness to its things (suffering) is finally accepted, the suffering of the denial of suffering at least is removed.

movingalways wrote:

Cahoot wrote:

movingalways: I know nothing of how awareness comes about, however, I have observed that suffering exists and in order to observe that suffering exists, awareness is necessary.

In relation to being, awareness reveals what suffering is, what it is not, why it is, and why it is not.

In relation to conceptual abstractions, suffering is an interpretation of transitory experience; suffering is not who you really are; suffering is caused by attachment to memory which also influences current perceptions; and when and why suffering no longer is involves self-concept aligning with who you really are.

Since we are all attached to transitory experience and memory and have no choice but to interpret these things, we all suffer. When this default attachment of consciousness to its things (suffering) is finally accepted, the suffering of the denial of suffering at least is removed.

Memories are heavily influenced by self-concept. Memories are not a constant and over time the memory of an event will change to maintain the consistency of a self-concept, even if this requires ignoring facts, or altering the memory of facts. Self-concept is influenced by all kinds of things, such as ideology, which leads to all kinds of irrational behaviors and beliefs (common in liberal/progressive ideology). Another example, those with a Horatio Alger self-concept require the memory of suffering to enhance the impressiveness of any subsequent boot-strap lifting that overcame the suffering, though these memories are often softened by a nostalgia that is also shaped by self-concept.

People even become martyrs to their suffering to preserve a self-concept.

This is why the conscious and deliberate practice to never lie to oneself (or others) is a powerful transformative spiritual practice that permeates perception, and leads to the skillful means (which is the marriage of wisdom and compassion), of memory aligning with the reality of who you are, rather than aligning with a self-concept shaped by attachment to delusion. Everyone has delusions, but seeing them for what they are weakens and eventually eliminates the attachment, which can be a painful and final suffering for strong egos.

Your Memory Isn't What You Think It Is
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am- ... hink-it-is