Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

George Lanroh's Forum Activity | 271 posts in 3 forums


Forum: General Discussion Thu, 29 Jan 2015
Topic: test

Please excuse this test.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 29 Jan 2015
Topic: test

Pavil Davidov wrote: That's OK, George. Let us know if we've passed :-)

To funny.

Yes with flying colors. Something smells of a flag in what I just said :) maybe I failed.

Forum: There is no other. Sun, 10 May 2015
Topic: The formation of my self

David T wrote: What does the direct observation of yourself show you?

David, it shows me that by some freak of nature the conditioned (myself) has become self aware. The content of consciousness is consciousness and the content is ever changing, some of it faster then other parts. Content such as our self image is constantly being reaffirmed by a self feedback loop and also each other and the environment. To be there is an awakening of intelligence of sorts when we as this conditioned center comes upon its own interdependent nature and seeks to negate the unnecessary (duality) while all the same maintain the center responsible for awareness. Many speak or hint of throwing out the baby with the bath water, throwing out the center all together, but that takes a center to do that. I have been exploring myself as a conditioned center (really no independent self) in that very light. Not throwing the baby out with the bath water but negating to the point that one comes to understand one is limitation its self. As we can all get the feel of any identity is limitation, any conceptualization is limitation, and yet to exist that is what seems to me the only door. Yet we can in my eyes appear as a center ( limitation) and at the same time understand the transient nature of ourselves and this limitation. In other words we can know our nature so as concrete/limitation we never allow ourselves to dry. We actually become aware that the more we are fixated to who and what our world is the more concrete and fixated we become. And the more liquid we allow ourselves to be the more limitless we find ourselves to be. Is it here that attention should be placed? Here where we nether become to thin or to thick :)

Forum: There is no other. Mon, 11 May 2015
Topic: The formation of my self

David T wrote: Hi George, Surely the self is not compulsory.

Hi David

Only compulsory in the sense that all things of our earth and cosmos seem to be the outcome of many things coming together to form more and more complex structures. To me the human being both physically and psychologically represents at the present moment the sum total of the many conditions responsible for its present state of being. Take away or negate completely all the conditions responsible for the human brain, its imprinted software producing self and your very question is no longer asked, no question is asked. This is why I have been saying and I don't mind being correct through inquiry, that we must learn about ourselves our nature and how we have came about not by throwing out the questioner but by exploring its/our boundaries. Maybe you will agree that where ever the self is found limitation is found with it. One can observe that every time we draw a conclusion we are actually shaping our present (self) story by the boundaries we are putting in place. No boundaries no story and no self. In my eyes we have the opportunity and it has been experienced here with some success to gain freedom by making the limited, ourselves, very flexible. Isn't this what has been going on all along, as we all read Krishnamurti and other greats? enquired together, all along the fixated (us) the limited has been breaking down and has been becoming more liquid. Our freedom in my eyes is in our liquidity not in our fixation. So lets don't throw out the questioner, lets allow the questioner (ourselves) to see the harmony and balance required between being liquid or solid. There is no freedom in being solid, fixated, and there is no self and no questioner and no questions if one becomes so liquid that the brain drains :) Is it not possible to embrace temporary limitation to create because when we limit we create forms and embrace liquidity when we wish to erase, change and start over. I can't help but feel that is between these two walls that human life is lived and in truth the distance between them is unknowable. We are always trying to bring it into the known and we fixated/crystallize become concrete.

Forum: There is no other. Fri, 15 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Max wrote: Do We Say What We Mean?

Hi Max

I always try to say what I mean but sometimes I don't always agree with what I say a few days or months years later :)

The other day I made a mistake calling us in a sense the sum total of our psychological conditioning at any given time. Today I find myself to be in error about that and would like to share my latest revelation. As awareness/consciousness we are awareness/consciousness period. It is so easy finding ones self identifying with some fragment of the content of consciousness instead of just plain awareness/consciousness. I find it helpful to notice that one is the unchanging awareness, consciousness responsible for the illumination of ever changing content but never the idea's and notions passing through. Much like the light of a projector not caring when it gets right down to it what movie is playing.

Max, next week I would like to address you on thought, if it should stop what will respond. I don't think its fair to say life or awareness without qualifying where the action of response is going to comes from. It maybe that I am just not getting what your pointing at and I need to work harder to hear you. I hope that together we can throw this topic on the table and take a good look at it together, you, me and anyone else wanting to see if we can meet understanding one another even if that understanding isn't agreement :) For now I am leaving you with this sense I have developed that we in essence are awareness/consciousness and our powers conscious or not are attention, belief and identification. Power in unconscious hands, what a mess :)

Forum: There is no other. Sat, 16 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Peter Kesting wrote: We have no powers. Only the illusion of that.

Hi Peter

I would agree in the sense that we never really go anywhere and that there really isn't anyone to get or go anywhere. Yet isn't that the creative playground for us? The world of time. It appears to me that our attention or attention is required in order for the dimension of time we are holding together to stay in place. No attention and it falls from existence. Belief to me is another requirement, our self image requires our belief or at least our conscious buy in. How much of our story is written through our identification? My house, my job, my kids, my wife, my friends. Identification, belief, attention all seem pretty powerful to me. But yes I do not feel the image we identify with has any powers. Any more thoughts on this Peter? Or something you can point out more clearly that I may be missing?

Forum: There is no other. Sat, 16 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

max greene wrote: As I see it, we have an existing physical body with a brain capable of receiving, or channeling, awareness. Awareness is the present moment, and the "present moment" is always before, is the source of, sequence and existence!

Max

How does this awareness and the body decode the present moment? How does it decipher out of the cosmic soup what it is encountering and how does a response come about from it?

For me awareness/consciousness coming upon a world which is not separate from its own projection and play responds to it non dualistically. Response as if creator and creator are one. What I am seeing is if conflict develops a self aware awareness/consciousness responds as if it has projected the terms of the conflict its self. What I am seeing through my own experience is: If I am in conflict the buck stops with me, I have dealt all the cards and supplied the rules of the game. If I wish the conflict to end it is me who needs to be more liquid. I am not saying that cooperation is not needed to complete some form of a project, I am just saying in the area of self identity and feeding the needs for the development of that structure oneness is an absolute necessity between creator/awareness and the self identity it maybe temporary playing. Why play one? We both are now, its very practical and creative. I am interested in your response to my first paragraph because I am very interested in where your coming from Max, really. I have been missing your point for a long time and I think you have something important to express that I am missing.

Forum: There is no other. Sat, 16 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

max greene wrote: I'm glad that you haven't been convinced by what I've been saying. This isn't a sales job. I'm not a seller and you're not a buyer. It's a discussion.

I couldn't agree with you more. This is what I mean, you point something out and I see if it makes sense or that I at least understand how you arrived at your statement, at least we meet.

max greene wrote: Awareness creates; existence (form) is the created. Awareness is understanding and action. Existence is sequence, cause and effect, stimulus and response, reaction.

I am still having trouble understanding how the awareness of your view deciphers, decodes what is unfolding in the present moment, why it is not a complete mystery to it and how it bases its action or how action comes about. From a bystander one would see Max's doing this that and the other thing and if they were to say to you " Why are you doing that" what would you say? I don't know? I have never heard or seen of an action that has no root cause for its movement, what is the root cause of your actions? Mine is becoming more clear that it is derived ether through unconscious conditioned motives or conscious needs or play.

Forum: There is no other. Sat, 16 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: We have to understand the functioning of our own brain/body unit in our daily living/life. It is of no practical use dealing with abstractions.

What part of human life which is not eating, drinking and shelter is not an abstraction? Do we really wish to remove the playground of self from human existence? If so who would like to remove it? I think we have to be careful before we say the brain/body unit has no practicality in abstractions. I find our whole human life beyond the sense Of 'I am' to be an abstraction. Even the sense 'I am' is an abstraction because the word or words are never the thing. Its a miracle that from out of sensory stimulation upon the brain and body and their associated impressions upon the brain a self image has came forward, has not only came forward but has created a dimension its own story in time. And now this story book self wants to disassociate its self all together from the dimension responsible for its creation. Aseem, I could be in error but I have been pointing out lately that I feel we must discover our own nature (what we are) and then act upon what we have discovered. I have discovered even though I may exist separate from time being I am not dependent on any particular structure of time, I am dependent on time for any existential expression of myself. Take this example: I can say I am George Lanroh and I am a doctor and I live in such and such a place. Without this information what would I have to show you of my existence? My body? It could belong to any source of awareness. I am also saying the use of time appears to me to have very practical purposes. What I do see is when time takes over the time maker and ones identity becomes so fixated that one looses sight of ones original unborn to time nature we get lost in our own creation and all hell breaks loose. We no longer remember the moment we moved into time and developed a story as a way to express ourselves and play. WE stop playing and the becoming of the ego becomes life and death to what truly lives on no matter if our image comes to an end or not. I guess what I am saying is we live or exist with or without a story about ourselves. But Aseem, can we really function in in this world without any story, without a calling card? Conscious or not one is right now in a story, I just think its the difference between night and day if one is aware that they are an actor playing just one of uncountable roles or one is the very identity one is behaving as now. The second (unconscious) being in my eyes is fixated and mostly the rest of their world is also fixated and everything to have peace must follow strict rules according to their fixated idea's of how things should be. The first kind of being to me is like we spoke of before, can move from one room of the psychological house to another, or if they wish they can step out of the whole house they and time has built. By the way there is no out, there is only redecoration and the wisdom to know any arrival is a new story. Between the lines, between the stories, between the project one comes upon the silly putty that we are :)

Forum: There is no other. Sat, 16 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: George, will you agree to the fact that unconscious conditioning very easily manipulate the conscious activities (thinking, feeling and actions)?

If unconscious is influencing one field of daily living, then it is influencing one's total life, would you accept this?

Yes I would Aseem. But would you also agree with me that any world is of ones own creation or accepted authority responsible for its creation. In other words the world that you or I are facing does not exist outside our projection. Now the physical world in all its unknown qualities does but I don't know it, never will. At best I can project a map, give everything value and meaning, but this map will die with me in less I become an authority to others. In my story I have no interest in being an authority to others. I am more interested in sharing that we are all living in dreams that we feel we are awake in :) In other words most of us including myself most of the time are unaware that we are still inflicted by time we see as separate from ourselves, our creation/projection.

Forum: There is no other. Sat, 16 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

max greene wrote: Yes, all of existence is caught in stimulus and response, cause and effect, inertial movement.

Max, what about you? I mean it old friend. If you exist your caught in cause and effect. You have to exist to answer my question. If not you are the present moment and your opinion is unborn till you are born (exist) and I have been saying this all along. George: You are both the born and the unborn. Problem is for humanity is he/she only recognizes his or her born nature, their time identity, never their unlimited essence.

Forum: There is no other. Mon, 18 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

max greene wrote: Is there any form (1) until (2) ceases? In physics, it may be that particle identification has reached the point where there is no particle until the movement (motion, speed, momentum) stops. (The eye at the microscope can see only "stops." The eye cannot see "speed.")

Max

It is the sense here that even though one is making an appearance in form ones formless essence can also be intuited, not as an idea but as the one who is appearing in the present moment not separate in form from the idea they have of themselves.

Forum: There is no other. Tue, 19 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: The part in bold, you wouldn't say that it is either this or that kind of situation for the two states, George? OR

The two states are all the time interchanging their positions? OR

Is it some different kind of relationship between the two states?

Aseem

This may help to point to my sense on this relationship between the formless and form. A painter is not a painter without a brush. I feel we have no way to express ourselves without time. Sure time is after the moment of creation pointing to where the brush has been but it also points to the painter ourselves who without the brush, creation and then time would remain captive of the unknown. You may say "But George ones still remains unknown?" Do we? Are we not the creator, each of us of our own and shared world? Aseem, I think God is an outer manifestation of our own inner condition. Think everyone wants to know God, the God appearance has shown up in almost all cultures. I think the creator phenomenon has fallen into the same separation complex that the rest of our projected world has fallen into, separate from ourselves. When we sit in the seat of creation I find that we come to experience that it is we ourselves holding all the cards and if we live in heaven or hell its our responsibility.

Forum: There is no other. Tue, 19 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: Are you saying that there is no possibility of human mind momentarily contacting/touching/merging (or whatever) into that which is beyond/deeper than the physical world or from which the physical world is arising?

I'm not saying, I'm telling you that everyday, many times, one is in contact without touching, merging no duality, with ones essence that is earlier then any identity that one is playing. Actually it is becoming more often that one feels timeless as for identity then it is that one feels one is who is being played. Its like getting back into ones own non-skin :)

Forum: There is no other. Tue, 19 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem

As your aware the word is not the thing as any arrival state/image is not the thing, our unborn nature.

Forum: There is no other. Wed, 20 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: George, first we are the expression of that which is "inexpressible/unknowable" and then we express ourselves in time, right?

It is our accumulated knowledge and experiences that give form to our expression. When such 'expression' is coming into being, what role the 'inexpressible' is playing?

I agree with all you wrote above, but like to add or leave room for the new which expands the data base.

Aseem Kumar wrote: The 'me' might be taking credit for the 'expression', but the ultimate approval/sanction/whatever is coming from the 'inexpressible', won't you say?

Yes yes!, maybe I have more to learn about myself as the inexpressible but for now I feel with awakening the self the proxy we invent returns to its proper place, the cart is once again behind the horse. Before the awakening comes that one is not the self being played its as if the self image has gained the power of attorney do to its filter cutting off the source from its/our very creation. This cutting off as seen here leaves the source still as creator but temporarily limited into the frame work of its conditioned beliefs instead of the limitless possibilities which is inherent it seems in our very nature. Aseem, its exciting to realize just how unlimited we are when the door opens or as the poet Rumie said our roof is torn off. Still for some time habitual tendencies are there. But the experience here is one resides more and more as the unlimited and less and less the limited.

Forum: There is no other. Wed, 20 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: Well, don't get addicted to timeless, O blessed one! :)

Yes, I understand what you are saying. Krishnamurti said about the truth, don't organized it, or their is a danger in organizing it. Ether one and one can see that the word is not the thing and "From the first not a thing is" P.S Accept for the limitless one :) And if this is true we are all blissed. Its just a matter if one knows it or not. Is bliss part of the known? I just feel we know it when we are at peace. No carrot at the end of a stick, no duality.

Forum: There is no other. Thu, 21 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: You will agree that this itching is very deep seated/compelling and stays alive both in pleasure and pain arising out of our search for all that has been projected as 'divine'!

Aseem

The experience here is that the whole movement of thought begins to be comprehended. The search, the root of searching its self becomes exposed as well as the searcher. One comes to understand watching the whole show and being still brings about the understanding that one is really nothing and always has and always will be nothing. But this nothing is the source of dreams of being a person searching for meaning in a world not separate from the fantasies of the dream maker. Aseem our conditioned beliefs in these eyes till us nothing is a dead lifeless thing, yet here the understanding has come about that nothing is just another word for being, just without a single trace of who or what. To me its our unborn nature or pure consciousness.

Forum: There is no other. Thu, 21 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: It is very important to understand directly where one was residing just before and is residing just after the residence in the limited. What do you say, George?

Yes, as seen here one resides between the two events but also during and always. The limitless as seen here is not a place or a state of mind its more so a potential and states of minds are momentary passing crystallizations of that potential. Like water can be liquid or solid to me consciousness can be liquid or parts of it temporarily solid or more dense. Maybe this is why Krishnamurti said the content of consciousness is consciousness :) In my view everything is consciousness, the content of consciousness is consciousness and consciousness is consciousness. The only difference between pure consciousness and the content of consciousness is content is consciousness appearing as form, whatever form that maybe. That is why I said and feel that each of us as consciousness are unlimited and also blissed in the unlimited forms we can actually appear as if we know ourselves as pure consciousness. The danger here and I think you stress often between the lines of your replies and that is if we conceptualize pure consciousness into an image, then we make it content and we become lost in the limited once again. Pure consciousness self aware of its two sides of its one beingness or coin affords it the freedom not only to step between stories, rooms of a house, but also affords it/us to step out of the whole dam house. Aseem, you know I never attempt to be an authority, I only attempt to share with my friend and friends here what I am seeing. Great care must be taken due to the fact that we are pointing to ourselves and to the fact that from the first there is only pure consciousness and no distance to be traveled and no problems to be solved. Yet we go a great distance to say that :)

Forum: There is no other. Fri, 22 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem

In the end we do not get out of it what we started looking for, an enlightened ego. In a sense we get a big fat nothing in which we would not trade anything for. Aseem, we start with the conditioned idea of self as you know and the conditioned idea we are lacking happiness. Later it is just seen as an unnecessary journey and happiness is ours.

Forum: There is no other. Mon, 25 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

max greene wrote: One does not hesitate to act when aware of an oncoming car. It is that awareness that saves his life. Thinking about it, the hesitation and indecision invariably involved in thinking, gets him killed.

Hi Max

I don't know if I agree with the above Max. Often one has found themselves in some form of dangerous emergency where without an exit plan awareness using thought one would jump out of the way of one car only to land in front of another. Have you ever found yourself falling off of something, my work use to keep me climbing ladders and objects to accomplish my work. Once in awhile a slip or a poor move causes one to scramble for the best solution. Often one in a split second chooses between the best of two evils, the one you will get hurt the least if it all goes wrong. To recognize the lay of the land an its potential risk thought is brought in to decode the potential danger and the lowest risk is chosen all in one or two seconds. If not and sometimes it is the case that one is just plain at the mercy of 'what is'. I know I have been on ladders and started to drop something, maybe over materials which are expensive if damaged. You start to drop the object, find yourself starting to loose balance as you try to catch the object and decide to abandon to catching of the object because the risk was becoming to high of falling. I say all this is being weighed and analyzed, at least that is the experience here. Its not the self using thought, it is the awareness which can be aware that at times it uses a self image that is using thought in an emergency. During an emergency the self image as to being an American or a Russian, black or white are most likely far far away don't you think :) Max, don't you sense awareness, you and I can come upon its self as only awareness? Everything else appears to me as extra.

Forum: There is no other. Fri, 29 May 2015
Topic: An opportunity to wordsmith in 150 characters or less.

An opportunity to wordsmith in 150 characters or less.

I thought it maybe fun to create a thread where we the members of this forum can have the opportunity to create, wordsmith out our own inspirations in 150 characters or less. I hope that members will hit ( Like ) if they like the zinger their fellow member has stated. I also hope that we could comment on a particular statement private message or a new thread directing attention to the particular statement in order to keep this thread focused and available for word craftsmanship.

Forum: There is no other. Fri, 29 May 2015
Topic: An opportunity to wordsmith in 150 characters or less.

We are the potential to make something out of nothing through identification, who? The limitless one, you, before you.

Forum: There is no other. Fri, 29 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: So, the question that first arises is this : What is inner to the outer which includes the false division of inner and outer of the superficial kind?

Hello Aseem and all.

So if I could take a crack at the above question I would say: I would say as usual "From the first not a thing is" No inner and no outer only psychologically speaking the source of each. Now here is the brain twister if one can say. The source you for conversational purposes has no form and in its essence will eternally remain formless. Why is this important to see in these eyes? Because we as the source, our dream world will rise in orbit/connection around our most fundamental root assumption ( who and what am I ). If you ever heard the expression "Raise one particle of dust and the whole world appears". This statement to me points to the fact "That from the first not a thing is". The source, you, are not a thing, things belong to time and the source belongs to the timeless. So if one had to answer the above question one would say: Both the inner and the outer are creations of an underlying source you who in yourself are timeless but create time to give ones self a world and a form to appear in it, why? For the fun of it. It just looses all its fun when we forget that any world and I mean any world and the form we give ourselves to appear in it becomes separate, divided, conflicted. Explanations as I see it are antidotes only useful within one who is caught up in time, divided. For one who's world is not separate, they do not need an antidote, they only need to pull themselves together and become one. As seen here of course, if there is really anything to really see.

Forum: There is no other. Sat, 30 May 2015
Topic: What are we believing into existence right now?

What are we believing into existence right now?

What is the content of consciousness in this land before time? Before you answer is any answer your about to give a belief your believing into existence and now has become time in and as the content of consciousness.

When the land before time is vacant of content when one is making tea there is only the making of the tea. Any effort to bring about an empty mind applies content. Can one just like in a noisy room go about ones business of making tea and stumble upon the room of consciousness/awareness has fallen silent? Is this the action/non action that Krishnamurti talked about when he said in my words 'the truth would hit you from behind if and when you held still'.

Forum: There is no other. Sun, 31 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Jean Gatti wrote: Aseem, asking someone to give a "valuable input" means that there is an 'evaluator' capable of 'evaluating' the input ...

What is the nature of this 'evaluator' ?

Hi Jean

In the human realm its just two old friends talking things over with appreciation for each other love for understanding. This appreciation is extended to all our friends here, kinda a kinship we all are in our focus to understand our human condition. The nature of the evaluator as seen here is the evaluator is an extension of consciousness as all things are. But this is very subtle as you know and this is what we are here to investigate and find out. How would we as consciousness come to understand our own powers without coming to understand our extensions such as I am a person and a evaluator :) A recent insight from the eyes of this ladle of consciousness: The house is large and each room holds a cell, one maybe "I am a depressed person" another " I am an important man" another the seeker and yet another "I am an awakened being". Some may say they do not want to go just from one room of the house to another, they want out of the whole house. I say you are out when you realize that there is not even a house, the house was a manifestation, a projection, a creation of you consciousness who originally has no house and no evaluator to escape. Yet the consciousness responsible for extending Jean does so because it cannot help like a flower to express its self. Most of our lives most of us as consciousness expresses ourselves by extending that we are a person and then have become lost in our own creation. To me our journey has been to find out that the life out there is a mirror of our creative abilities. Till we see that we fight with what's reflected on the mirror, when we see it the mirror reflection becomes a reflection of ourselves. What to you say old friend?

Forum: There is no other. Sun, 31 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: The one rising particle of dust need not result in appearance of the whole world...or must it always become the whole world?

Hi Aseem

The raising of a particle of dust is always the first and most fundamental extension of consciousness as seen here, it appears to of come in the form of "I am" Here to me consciousness is extending into its content by creation its own presence in the form of the projection "I am" before this projection the content of consciousness was empty. Around this fundamental projection by consciousness the whole psychological world will orbit and build around. Here left off the leash the "I am" will become a person and become and become. Who is going to keep this becoming "I am" on a leash? The truth, consciousness coming upon its own timeless original essence. There maybe a few roads to this understanding one of them being that the entire world, the map is a reflection of our own creation which for a very long time has become our beliefs our assumptions and a world which we took separate from ourselves as seen here. But to answer you question to the best of ones ability I would say the whole world does not have to appear because consciousness raised one particle of dust, consciousness just can leave it at " I am" then later be the witness to the rise of the world. But you and I know the "I am" was first and most fundamental to that rise :)

Forum: There is no other. Sun, 31 May 2015
Topic: What are we believing into existence right now?

Aseem Kumar wrote: Emptiness...content...emptiness and so on is one thing.

Content...emptiness...content and so on is another.

In later the emptiness is an illusion/projection produced by thought.

To the former applies K's statement "Somehow one has to start from the other shore."

Absolutely beautiful Aseem your message was load and clear awakening consciousness here as to which shore its eternally on. Excuse me for dreaming at first that one was on the other shore attempting to get back to lets say the awakened shore. Now when not dreaming I see the shore K was talking about, the ocean of limitless consciousness where both shores are seen as its own extensions. This is K's other shore where the words are not the thing but between the lines a shore of understanding.

All wake up tomorrow due to habitual tendencies being a person who if they could just get back to the other shore all will be ok.

That's when you need a good friend to slap you conscious :)

Forum: There is no other. Sun, 31 May 2015
Topic: Do We Say What We Mean?

Aseem Kumar wrote: That emptiness which is the beginning of all that is, it might be directly responsible for producing physical, physiological, mental and psychological contents. The analytical mind might see/conclude that all is arising down the chain starting from "I am", but all contents may be arising out of the unknowable original emptiness directly...just like "I am" is arising. The first particle raised can as easily be psychological memory and back to emptiness...and so on with action or emotion or feeling...

Aseem

If as we have seen the "I am" is an extension, a product of consciousness then a chooser would also be an extension/product of consciousness. Extensions are not doers are they? Its more like they are being done, The "I am" as the witness of the mind can come into being sitting before the womb door of creation, but who is really sitting there if not consciousness its self watching its own creations come forward? Can consciousness its self pick and choose what will come forward next, can consciousness see where its own inclinations of creations come from or must it always remain a mystery? There is not even a mystery when it comes to universal consciousness which nothing is separate from. Consciousness is even responsible for the extension we are calling a mystery. Without the extension of "I am" would there be a mystery? For me I must focus on the fact that there is only one and all returns to the one :) Beyond that "From the first not a thing is". If I say everything is happening spontaneously if its taken by the intellect a dimension gets born, the story of a world which is spontaneous in its behavior and all rules come to orbit this announcement. I am saying as consciousness we makers of worlds and we are also not makers of worlds, do you see what I mean. To be spontaneous and free we must not have a single trace of time upon us. Our purity, without the accumulation of time is imperative if the anew should be aloud to come in. Doesn't that mean if we are going to stand before unlimited possibilities we need to be ether empty or the sole responsible party for all we see and the way we relate to what we see? Isn't this the end of conflict?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 31 May 2015
Topic: Effort

max greene wrote: Aseem, Aseem . . . I'm surprised. Are you still arriving at conclusions like that? ("NO!") "Life is a journey, not a conclusion."

Hi Max

Isn't the journey to find the conclusion that: "There is no other"

I hope I just didn't stoop so low to give another forum a plug :)

In these eyes there will always be effort as long as the world which has come about through measurement and evaluation is seen as separate from ourselves. Often here it has been found that I hold the roots of whatever problem I am facing, that "From the first not a thing is". My conclusion is that its all inclusive in the sense of self and problem, you can't have one without the other in less you realize that there is only one, the holder of projection that are separate from ones self. When that is seen don't you become the one who without effort ended a problem or problems?