How do I know myself as Consciousness?

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Really? This is what I am talking about. How is separating the finite from the infinite non-duality, when there is no seperation in non-duality, and there are no opposites in non- duality?

Well I think what can be problematic is that peeps from a finite point of self aware ness tries to emulate the infinite from what is declared.

Each individual person has a unique energy signature that reflects their self awareness and vice versa.

Seeing through separation doesn't change this point of self awareness. It doesn't allow one to perceive / be aware of everything.


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

What u refer to are parts of whole infinite and NOT the infinite per se .

As just touched upon with Mike. This is the point I am making.
To say you are the Tree comes from a place of individualised - finite - awareness.
The person that say's I am the Tree is not coming from infinite awareness.
One has to infinitely be what they are in awareness to make such statements be truly experienced / lived.
Having an understanding that I am everything from a realisation had is not the same as being in awareness of everything.
It's a statement made from a point of self awareness that reflects what was realised.


x daz x

[Starman]

Goldcup7, we are not human beings but we are in a state which we call “human.” there are many states of being within the one being. Singularity is not a word which I often use because it implies a distinctive thing and I do not view the oneness of being as a “thing.” A thing has borders and boundaries, and I do understand that all words have limitations, and non-duality is limitless.

A popular saying is that “we are spiritual beings having a human experience.“ In considering myself, “I” view me as an expression of the one being and the one being has a multitude of expressions. The expressions are as real as the one primordial state of being, which many call “non-duality.” Expressions are projections, or vibrations, of the one being; they are much more than appearances in my opinion.

I am in essence a vibration and “I“ transform myself by changing my vibration. Vibration is sound and in metaphysics it is said, “in sound all things come into creation and in silence all things dissolve and leave creation.” The first material thing to manifest was sound, scientists call that primordial sound “the big bang,” yogis emulate that primordial sound by chanting the word “Om.” Sufis emulate the primordial sound with their whirling dervishes, etc.

The physical world, in my opinion, is made of a spiritual substance vibrating at a denser frequency then what we refer to as “spiritual.” There is no place where non-duality is not. Form comes from the formless. All forms are vibrations at various frequencies. The physical world is an ocean of currents, waves some crashing into each other, we can also observe this in outer space among the stars and planets, comets, etc., and of course it is also true of humans, in my opinion.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

In a way, it's not even correct to start from a position of I am, because that is a point of individualised self awareness.

Yes, even if a person has no Thought of "I Am", The person still has an internal sense or feeling of just being or existing. This sense or feeling of just being or existing (both physically and Non-physically), is what creates the thought "I am".

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Well I think what can be problematic is that peeps from a finite point of self aware ness tries to emulate the infinite from what is declared.

So true.

Originally Posted by God-Like

Each individual person has a unique energy signature that reflects their self awareness and vice versa.

Not when the individual is an illusion and does not exist-#sarcasm

Originally Posted by God-Like

Seeing through separation doesn't change this point of self awareness. It doesn't allow one to perceive / be aware of everything.

Yep, that is why it is called self awareness. Imagine trying to learn to know thyself, if we were aware of everything at once or perceived everything at once. Perceiving and being aware (of non-duality) as an individual is constructive, and does not mean "you" perceive / are aware of everything at the same time.

Maybe some people do believe that they can perceive and be aware from the non-duality infinite point of view or persective, and this is where all the talk about everything being an illusion, not real, a dream etc comes in. Perhaps these people do not understand that consciousness is the non-dual infinite, but the non-dual infinite is not litterally conscious or aware of anything on its own, like how a group or collective of people, is not conscious or aware, as a group or collective, the individuals that make up the group or collective are conscious and aware.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Maybe some people do believe that they can perceive and be aware from the non-duality infinite point of view or persective, and this is where all the talk about everything being an illusion, not real, a dream etc comes in.

It's a knowing that everything perceived by the senses and everything rattling around in mind aren't what they appear to be. A knowing that in fact they all Shine with the very same Light of Pure Knowing and that is all they are, ultimately speaking, and not the things they appear to be.

It's not a belief. It's a direct experience. If something like this cannot be experienced then all of this is just philosophy or belief. An exercise of mind.

What might that experience be like? Here's a poetic take with nods to Starman:

Originally Posted by Starman

“... when all you see is the light of God in everything, when all you hear is divine music vibrating from everything, when all you taste is divine nectar flowing through your being ...

[HITESH SHAH]

Hi God-like , Mikes80 , oldchap ,

We have described a way of seeking God using non-duality affirmations . These are spiritual assertions made to us . When we go out in the world, we dont keep on repeating these assertions to the world and we not only recognize and appreciate duality we use it actively in our daily life. Because knowledge of duality borders/limitations/attributes are very key in dealing with world. Else we can not navigate this world if we are simply repeating non-duality assertions .

Another part of difference is that approach one use in life. Some people use '100% idealistic ' approach . This is great and can definitely lead to progress in life knowledge of ideal is perfect and intensity be 100% real ideal is real. On the other hand some like me have a 'progressive incremental approach'. With this approach , people like me try to progress like 35% God mandated compulsory non-duality ==> 50% aware of goodness in life ==> 60% liking goodness ==> 70% actually be good .......==> 100% perfect non-duality.
These are number for understanding in our communications which God alone can do it and can not be known to any individuals by himself/herself. So if we see/compare '100% idealistic ' , person feeling 50% or 60% grades are incomplete , its not entirely wrong.

Further we are fairly same on many things and we have some differences in aspects of verbiage to use , intensity , directions/ orientations etc. If I see on the whole we have far more similarity and goodness among us than differences . So I am very happy to be part of this post and have healthy interactions with you all including many others who too tried their best to explain non-duality orientations . I thank all of you for wonderful exchange and conclude my post here.

[Starman]

I feel like it is all incremental, even the idealistic approach is not absolute. Absolute infers a final stage and there is no final stage in infinity. I see in temporal existence we latch on to something as truth, stay with it for a while until something clearer comes along. Although many stay with only one perspective, religion, or school of thought, their entire life. Here on Earth truth is determined by the majority but the higher truths are very individual.

My perspective has been unfolding for sometime and I am still learning. In the here and now I do self referral more than I refer to other teachers, masters, or teachings, but I was once there and those teachers and teachings were as stepping stones for me along the way. They pointed to something which words could not touch.

Its like preparing a meal, we read a cookbook and it has lots of recipes. We can get hungry and even inspired reading those recipes. Recipes which others have written over thousands of years which point to something. But we really don’t know the meal until we ourselves have partaken in it and experienced it.

I feel like any person sharing their experience is just as good as those who we may call a master. We can learn from fools and from sages, and the most direct teaching comes from our own experience. We can speak in an original voice, our own, based on self referral, instead of parroting what we read in a so-called “holy book” or said by someone we may consider a master. We are all simultaneously teachers and students, even those we consider masters, they too are students.

[Ewwerrin]

Consider that existence is absolute in being unique, because non-existence doesn't exist. So existence has no equivalancy. It is therefor absolute and not relative.
And so the only thing it can be, is unique.
So since every experience is the same experience, same moment, simply being Unique, simply being unlike anything else. We cannot define existence, because it is unlike anything else.
Right now, what you are reading, is unlike anything else. So how can we define it, if we have never experienced it before? There exists nothing like this. And existence doesn't actually become unique, it simply is being unique in absolute terms. That may give the illusion of change or time, but existence absolute doesn't become.
So any subject or object is realised to be an illusion. Anything defined simply doesn't exist.
Something cannot occur twice, because there is only one moment, and it is absolute in uniqueness. Even something "similar" happening requires existence to have equivalence, but existence doesn't have equivalence. Non-existence literally does not exist, by its very own literal definition. This is simply obvious. So existence, and therefor all and nothing can only be unique, ineffable. Eternally and infinitely, meaning, without end or beginning.


-Jim Newman quote: From online meeting Nonduality intro.
To begin, I guess we should be very clear that what we're pointing to or what we're talking about, can't actually be said, because it's not objectifiable.
So, take whatever I say with a grain of salt, because it's just a suggestion and it's not the reality.
In a sense, there isn't a reality. There is just what is. And as I said, it's not an object.
It's just "this."

And what the suggestion is, is that "this" is without beginning or end.
It just appears.
And even saying it appears, is too much, because it sounds that that is happening.
Doesn't really happen.
It just simply is, but not as an object.
There is simply what is, and isn't.

And "this" can and does appear as anything. It can appear as faster than light. It can appear as a personal experience.

And that's actually kind of what we're talking about. This conversation can clarify, can make clear, that the experience of "I am", the experience of knowing what "this" is, is an illusion.

And the illusion has certain qualities to it. One of the basic qualities is that knowing what this is, gives rise to the experience that there is something else. That there is something hidden. That the appearance is part of something, which I experience as my life. And my life then has, or seems to have, meaning, purpose and intention.

So the appearance is no longer, or what is, is no longer just simply happening, but it's happening in relation to "me." And that relationship has with it the quality that something needs to happen.

It might be that what's being spoken about here, seems to be something that could be found, or equally could be lost. And that there's a need, intrinsic in it, to find "something."
Which is really the threadmill of "me", the experience that "something" needs to be found.
That the appearance in and of itself, what's happening, is somehow missing something.
And it's up to the individual, the seperate experience, to find it.

Now I wanna become clear, as we discuss it, is that experience of trying to find something, is hopeless. Well... Of trying to find fulfillment, or the end of seeking, is hopeless.
Because it can' t help but make an object of what it's looking for.
It lives exclusively, it is exclusively, of subject object reality. And what we're suggesting is, that is an illusion.

And at the same time that its hopeless, it doesn't matter. Because there is only what is. It just appears as "something", to that seperate experience. But its still "simply this".
It's still simply without intention, without need to become.

So we might talk about the end of that experience, of needing or becoming.
But as this isn't "really" happening, it isn't "really" objectifiable; the end of that "becoming" doesn't really happen.

It just reveals that nothing really ever happens. That all there is, is what is, and it's already unspeakably what it is. It just doesn't need to be defined.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

It's a knowing

You and I have discussed knowing enough already, it is time to move ahead, instead of going around in circles. You may know it but you do not experience it or percieve it as an individual upper/lower case self (as I said in a previous post. the point of non-duality teachings is to get you to perceive or be aware of non-duality with the senses and mind of the individual upper/lower case self, therefore the individual mind, body, senses, awareness and perception becomes or is non-duality in physical relative reality. It is pretty easy to understand. The only thing that will not agree with this is a person's personal bias, interests, likes and dislikes against physical relative reality. Experience is a mind phenomenon, possibly following a sense perception or an action, and you keep trying to justify it by saying it is a knowing, which you and I have discussed more than enough before.knowing is a non sense perception, whereas, experience is a having a sense perception, there is a big difference between the two.

Originally Posted by J_A_S_G

What might that experience be like? Here's a poetic take with nods to Starman:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
“... when all you see is the light of God in everything, when all you hear is divine music vibrating from everything, when all you taste is divine nectar flowing through your being ...

I do not understand how you think or know, this is so or possible when you have said many time that the senses that sense and perception of mind (that senses and perceives the divine music and divine nectar) is an illusion, not real, a dream or what have you. This is what I mean by people not being consistent. You have to play mental gymnastics to say in one post that all the senses and perception are an illusion, then in this posting, in response to me, somhow or some way the opposite it true, the senses do perceive divine music and divine nectar. only one of the above can be true, both can not be true at the same time.

I am trying to understand the subjects, the way you understand the subjects.