[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Michael;

I remember I had a student who came to my class with a T shirt on that read " THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE." It was a saying from the X Files an American TV show. After reading his T shirt I said " No the truth isn't out there it's in here " tapping on my chest.
I don't know how many students caught my meaning, hopefully a few.

Best to you,

Pat

Thank you Profpat,

Out there is material for science.imho



In here is the immaterial, of the Spirit,
and getting to know that,
is getting closer to
the real Heart of the matter.imho

there's a mystic hero in all of us ..

Namaste` Profpat,
(I got your 'drift', Sir)
D.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

When we look into the mirror we are looking at a reflection of reality,we are the outer
manifestation of an inner reality/be-ing.

We can search forever outwards for clues as to what is the meaning and purpose of life
and existence,however it is not until we look within ourselves that we begin to find answers to the very questions that haunt us at times of reflective thought.


regards michael

That same 'mirror' when polished properly, cleaned of all its dark spots,is capable of reflecting the wisdom of the divine truths (attributes) manifested in man as exemplars(gems) of that wisdom and truth, "shining beacons" for the rest of humanity so they may attain to those attributes as well and in doing so, further the ascent of society, which is for the good of all humanity and a lasting peace, hopefully .

Consciousness without an object, is "Awareness".
The Still and Latent Potential in-which-everthing, i.e. objects- arise.
http://www.tphta.ws/TPH_FMWO.HTM#aphorisms

For the mathematically minded.

http://www.tphta.ws/TPH_FMWO.HTM#mathematics

Namaste` Michael,
D.

[Drifter]

[quote=north;31446]

Originally Posted by Guille

Michael,

I think we loook at the outside because it's easier. However, now that science is finding hard to look at the outside, it is starting to look in the inside: the mind (or consciousness) is the only study area shared by all sciences, weather social science or exact science. Our limitations are within, not only without; if we didn't have a mind we would be objects and thus objectives. All objecs in the universe know the truth of the universe, but they don't know for they don't have a mind. It's the paradox. You can have the thing or have the thing for having the thing, but not both.

" can we really know the reality of ourselves " what a load of non-sense. of course we can and do. we can affect things.

" for there is no reality of ourselves " really . okay don't drink any water for a year in any form.

who confused you?







explain further

The thing within itself is baffling to many, beause like the eye can't see itself, Consciousness cannot know itself, therefore, the paradox.It's "The Ghost in the machine."


If you consider that 'awareness' is the blank screen upon which all 'things'(consciousness) arise, just like the monitor you are looking at with all these words on a blank background, it may give you some insight into what I am attemting to convey to your understanding.

Do 'you'SEE IT'? Being 'mindful' is the same no thing appearing as the all that arises within it.

Step back into your 'original self', the primal point, the subject of all objects,and be the witness of all there is, "THAT", is our "True Essence". (if so it might be said, and, "it came into being" at the time of 'our' Conception'.)

So 'you' is not the "I" you think you are, solely a seperate and only a physical "being", you is the "I you Is", "Seeing" itself, see?

Namaste`
D.

[Drifter]

"So Who Are You?"
The witnessing of awareness can persist through waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The Witness is fully available in any state, including your own present state of awareness right now. So I'm going to talk you into this state, or try to, using what are known in Buddhism as "pointing out instructions." I am not going to try to get you into a different state of consciousness, or an altered state of consciousness, or a non-ordinary state. I am going to simply point out something that is already occurring in your own present, ordinary, natural state.
So let's start by just being aware of the world around us. Look out there at the sky, and just relax your mind; let your mind and the sky mingle. Notice the clouds floating by. Notice that this takes no effort on your part. Your present awareness, in which these clouds are floating, is very simple, very easy, effortless, spontaneous. You simply notice that there is an effortless awareness of the clouds. The same is true of those trees, and those birds, and those rocks. You simply and effortlessly witness them.
Look now at the sensations in your own body. You can be aware of whatever bodily feelings are present-perhaps pressure where you are sitting, perhaps warmth in your tummy, maybe tightness in your neck. But even if these feelings are tight and tense, you can easily be aware of them. These feelings arise in your present awareness, and that awareness is very simple, easy, effortless, spontaneous. You simply and effortlessly witness them.
Look at the thoughts arising in your mind. You might notice various images, symbols, concepts, desires, hopes and fears, all spontaneously arising in your awareness. They arise, stay a bit, and pass. These thoughts and feelings arise in your present awareness, and that awareness is very simple, effortless, spontaneous. You simply and effortlessly witness them.
So notice: you can see the clouds float by because you are not those clouds-you are the witness of those clouds. You can feel bodily feelings because you are not those feelings-you are the witness of those feelings. You can see thoughts float by because you are not those thoughts-you are the witness of those thoughts. Spontaneously and naturally, these things all arise, on their own, in your present, effortless awareness.
So who are you? You are not objects out there, you are not feelings, you are not thoughts-you are effortlessly aware of all those, so you are not those. Who or what are you?
Say it this way to yourself: I have feelings, but I am not those feelings. Who am I? I have thoughts, but I am not those thoughts. Who am I? I have desires, but I am not those desires. Who am I?
So you push back into the source of your own awareness. You push back into the Witness, and you rest in the Witness. I am not objects, not feelings, not desires, not thoughts.
But then people usually make a big mistake. They think that if they rest in the Witness, they are going to see something or feel something-something really neat and special. But you won't see anything. If you see something, that is just another object-another feeling, another thought, another sensation, another image. But those are all objects; those are what you are not.
No, as you rest in the Witness-realizing, I am not objects, I am not feelings, I am not thoughts-all you will notice is a sense of freedom, a sense of liberation, a sense of release-release from the terrible constriction of identifying with these puny little finite objects, your little body and little mind and little ego, all of which are objects that can be seen, and thus are not the true Seer, the real Self, the pure Witness, which is what you really are.
So you won't see anything in particular. Whatever is arising is fine. Clouds float by in the sky, feelings float by in the body, thoughts float by in the mind-and you can effortlessly witness all of them. They all spontaneously arise in your own present, easy, effortless awareness. And this witnessing awareness is not itself anything specific you can see. It is just a vast, background sense of freedom-or pure emptiness-and in that pure emptiness, which you are, the entire manifest world arises. You are that freedom, openness, emptiness-and not any itty bitty thing that arises in it.
Resting in that empty, free, easy, effortless witnessing, notice that the clouds are arising in the vast space of your awareness. The clouds are arising within you-so much so, you can taste the clouds, you are one with the clouds. It is as if they are on this side of your skin, they are so close. The sky and your awareness have become one, and all things in the sky are floating effortlessly through your own awareness. You can kiss the sun, swallow the mountain, they are that close. Zen says "Swallow the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp," and that's the easiest thing in the world, when inside and outside are no longer two, when subject and object are nondual, when the looker and looked at are One Taste. You see?
© 1999 Ken Wilber

From 'The journals of Ken Wilber'.


Namaste`
D.

[Drifter]

~Roger-Paul Droit

Look in vain for "I"
It's one of the terms you employ most frequently. During the day, the word "I" crops up in nearly all your sentences. Since your most tender childhood you have ceased referring to yourself by your own first name. "I" has become the word by which you express your desires, disappointments, projects, hopes, acts of all kinds, physical sensations, illnesses, pleasures, plans, resentment, tenderness, your weakness for vanilla and your aversion to fennel. For a long, long time you have linked this tiny word to your multifarious mental states. It is intimately involved in your feelings and your memories. Apparently, nothing is possible without it. It is there in all your stories and all your judgements. Not a single decision, not the slightest rumination escapes it.
The curious thing is, everyone uses the same word. The most irreducible intimacy, the most singular existence, for each one of us, is linked to a word that we neither chose nor coined, and that everyone else employs in exactly the same way. A pronoun in the language. There's nothing less personal than this "personal" pronoun. The particular existence it refers to remains, linguistically speaking, completely interchangeable. It could be anyone who says "I'm happy" or "I'm sad." All of us, in all our difference, refer to ourselves by exactly the same word as everyone else. A most paradoxical situation. But you don't think about it, and nor does anyone else, of course. You have enough to do without worrying your head about questions of that order.
And yet, try to pin down this "I." Does it exist? How can you find it? What does it look like? If you apply yourself to asking these questions, and trying to resolve them, you'll find that this "I" is neither simple to localize nor to authenticate.
This is not a brief experiment, whose limits are easy to circumscribe. It can come to seem, on the contrary, like a long pursuit. You need time, different occasions, a certain application, and stubbornness. So where is this blindingly obvious "I?" You will seek for a long time, in different places and under different aspects. And there is a strong chance that, at the end of it all, you'll return somewhat at a loss. Which is where things start to get interesting.
Among the avenues of inquiry you might like to pursue, it's worth remembering the existence of the body. Is not this "I," which is both individual and yet assimilable to others, in fact identical with the body that houses it, with its habits, its weaknesses, its vulnerabilities and its particularities? But there's no trace of an "I" in your body. Not one of your cells lives longer than ten years. No part of your body has persisted unchanged. So what will you address as "I?" The form? The ensemble? The general organization? There remains, famously, the phenomenon of thought. All may change, but not your memories, not your sense of remaining unchanged despite corporeal alterations. But even here, you cannot put your finger on an "I." All you will ever discover are thoughts, sequences of thoughts, memories, associations of ideas, desires-all of them pressed into service by what you call your "I."
To all these sensations, to all these mental events, the "I" seems to provide a common denominator. But it neither supports nor drives them. It merely imparts to them something like a family resemblance, a shared aspect to what are very diverse notions and feelings-something like a color or an odor. A way of seeming, a style. Nothing more. "I" is not a someone or a something. And yet neither is it just a word. It must be a refrain of the self, a secondary quality, at one remove.
If you manage to carry the experiment thus far, you will need to know what to do about this sensation. What impact will this impossible discovery about your "I" have upon your existence? How will you cope once your "I" has gone missing? That is another story.


The Parable of the Raft:
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=204 071222

The Parable of The Night Watchman:
http://www.pecina.cz/files/www.ce-review.org/01/10/books10_stastna.html

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Play_Dough

I, for the most part, am in agreement with your extraordinarily insightful and illuminated comment.
I wish to contribute to evolving your ideas.
There is a 'reality' 'without' but the 'external reality' is a 'transitory reality' and not 'ultimate reality'.
'Science' is, for the most part, the investigator of the 'external reality' and scientific processes can and do discover 'laws' that govern the physical 'reality'.
Howsoever, 'ultimate reality' will never be discerned or understood as long as 'consciousness' is projected 'outwardly'.
'Ultimate reality' (ultimate truth) can be and is discovered (Quote) "When we look within ourselves we peel back the many layers, revealing finer and finer vibrations of livingness." (End Quote).

The key to grasping 'reality' (ultimate truth) is found by decompiling the human ego.... as you said, "to peel back the many layers" (of self) and to gradually and finally reveal (to the investigating consciousness) the 'root of consciousness'.

What then is 'the root of consciousness'? The answer (opinion) is that consciousness has no 'root'. Consciousness is a 'thing unto itself' and exists independent of any other phenomena. Consciousness is not a by-product of biology but (rather) expresses (also) through biology, like water 'expressing' through a spigot.

So, it seems that we (consciousness) begin our quest for 'ultimate reality' from 'within' (contained) the human experience but gradually come to realize that 'human' is the box that consciousness needs to 'think outside of'.
As the layers (accessories) of consciousness are peeled away, we gradually discover purer and purer (i.e., fewer 'animal' attributes) expressions and experiences of consciousness. In the process of peeling away the multifarious layers of consciousness we also find that our thoughts and beliefs also had a part in 'shaping' the 'external ephemeral reality'. In other words, we recognize that 'consciousness' also has a 'creative component'; one (a creative component) which we were unaware of previously.

Ultimately, we come to realize that all of 'external reality' is/was the 'context' (container) of consciousness and that 'consciousness' (our true 'self') exists, eternally, outside of space/time.

'Ultimate reality'?
'Ultimate reality' is that we 'think and will' the ephemeral external reality into existence. 'Consciousness' has the power to weave a compelling 'illusion' and whatever 'illusion' we have woven remains in place.... lifetime after lifetime, after lifetime.... until we 'consciously' change the external illusion by decompiling the illusion 'from within'.

The investigation of consciousness by consciousness has not, typically, been a process of mainstream science but is, however, the underpinning of metaphysics (a branch of philosophy).

Bottom line: (Opinion) 'Man' at his/her 'root' has a 'divine component' that can and does 'fade into the background' in order to make the external 'reality' seem more 'real'. The fading of the divine component is (ultimately) temporary ('temporary' = eternity minus some duration) and is ever-present even though, at times, it is undiscernable.
The 'divine component' is, typically, in an 'inverse proportion' to the human ego. As the human ego is diminished the divine component 'resurrects'... as the human ego is fortified the divine component withdraws.

Religion, somewhat, addresses the issue of the transitory nature of external material reality and places its emphasis upon 'the creator' rather than the 'created'.
In other words, it (religion) attempts to encourage us to 'dis-empower' the illusion of self and externals, and to set us upon the path (one of them) that leads to the discovery of our 'higher' divine self.

Metaphysics, with its particular reason and logic, does the same thing as religion except that metaphysics takes a more 'scientific' approach. Metaphysics places 'consciousness' within the chain of causality (cause / effect) and recognizes that 'consciousness' participates in both 'cause' and 'effect'.

So... if we turn the 'microscope' of science around 180 degrees and then look into the other end... then this is what we will find:
1) Consciousness, eternally interfacing with
2) Raw creative power, leading to
3) infinite expression and experience in an eternal context

The hmmmm.... 'blessed trinity' of 'ultimate reality'.

If there is a 'dilemma', anywhere in this cosmology, then the 'dilemma' is that 'consciousness' can, eventually, produce a 'conundrum' which is the manifestation of a situation that is so blindingly compelling that 'ultimate reality' no longer seems possible. We can (and do) create compelling illusions which can 'hold us fast' in a temporal and material context.... and this is 'the only downside' of 'God'.... to create an illusion (game, adventure, etc.) and have that illusion be so compelling that 'God' forgets that the illusion is un-real.
The way out? ...... to peel away the layers of present consciousness (by going within) and to, once again, uncover 'ultimate reality'.

To dismiss this cosmology as 'nonsense' underscores its accuracy. Why? Because 'consciousness' will then proceed to have the cosmology seem to be 'nonsense' by reinforcing the illusion's stature as 'real'.

We are both the chicken and the egg, and the cause of both.

'Metaphysics' is 'self-proving' and cannot provide 'proof' to anyone (other consciousnesses) other than 'the self'.

Clarity note:
A Rhesus monkey is trapped by placing nuts into a small-mouthed container which is attached to a tree or bush or some stationary object.
The Rhesus monkey sticks its hand into the bottle and graps a handful of the nuts and, as a result, cannot withdraw its engorged hand from the narrow mouth of the container. It remains in that condition and is easily captured because of its refusal to 'let go'.

An identical situation happens with the 'human' consciousness.
Unless we 'let go' of externals and 'go within' (to "peel away", etc.) we remain 'trapped' in the external illusion (temporal material reality) and can remain 'trapped' for a very, very long time.... lifetime after lifetime after lifetime..... refusing to 'let go' of our nuts!

.

For your perusal: http://www.answers.com/Parthenogenesis?gwp=12&method=2

[melanie]

Originally Posted by Source

“When no discriminating thoughts arise,
the old mind ceases to exist.
When thought objects vanish,
the thinking-subject vanishes.
Things are objects because of the subject;
the mind is such because of things.
Understand the relativity of these two
and the basic reality: the unity of emptiness.
In this Emptiness the two are indistinguishable
and each contains in itself the whole world.
If you do not discriminate between coarse and fine
you will not be tempted to prejudice and opinion.”

Look in vain for "I"

[mkirkpatrick]

A principle of life made manifest and animated by consciousness that is what we are!We are the very embodiment of reality.

Many things "seem" to occur at the surface,this confuses us and causes much misunderstanding,it is only when we look deeper within that we approach "stillness"
and within that clarity find the answer to our question,"who are we really".





regards michael.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by melanie

Look in vain for "I"

Thank you Mel.

Wikipedia: paean


Paean (pronounced as the last two syllables of "European", IPA: /ˈpiːən/) is a term used to describe a type of song. It comes from the ancient Greek use of the term, which was also used as the name of the healer of the gods.

Ancient Greek Paean

In Homer, Paean was the Greek physician of the gods. In other writers the word is a mere epithet of Apollo in his capacity as a god of healing, but it is not known whether Paean was originally a separate Deity or merely an aspect of Apollo.
Homer leaves the question unanswered. Hesiod definitely separates the two, and in later poetry Paean is invoked independently as a health god. It is equally difficult to discover the relation between Paean or Paeon in the sense of "healer" and Paean in the sense of "song." Farnell refers to the ancient association between the healing craft and the singing of spells, and says that it is impossible to decide which is the original sense. At all events the meaning of "healer" gradually gave place to that of "hymn," from the phrase Ιή Παιάν.
Such songs were originally addressed to Apollo, and afterwards to other gods, Dionysus, Helios, Asclepius. About the 4th century the paean became merely a formula of adulation; its object was either to implore protection against disease and misfortune, or to offer thanks after such protection had been rendered. Its connection with Apollo as the slayer of the Python led to its association with battle and victory; hence it became the custom for a paean to be sung by an army on the march and before entering into battle, when a fleet left the harbour, and also after a victory had been won.
The most famous paeans are those of Bacchylides and Pindar. Paeans were sung at the festivals of Apollo (especially the Hyacinthia), at banquets, and later even at public funerals. In later times they were addressed not only to the gods, but to human beings. In this manner the Rhodians celebrated Ptolemy I of Egypt, the Samians Lysander of Sparta, the Athenians Demetrius, the Delphians Craterus of Macedon.
Musically, the paean was a choral ode, and originally had an antiphonal character, in which a leader sang in a monodic style, with the chorus responding with a simple, informal phrase; however, later in its development, the paean was an entirely choral form. Typically the paean was in the Dorian mode (note that the Ancient Greek Dorian was different from the modern Dorian mode; see musical mode), and was accompanied by the kithara, which was Apollo's instrument. Paeans meant to be sung on the battlefield were accompanied by aulos and kithara.
Two musical fragments of paeans survive from late antiquity: one by Limenius of Athens, and another anonymous. The fragment by Limenius has been dated to 128 BC.

Modern Paean

Paean is now usually used to mean an expression of praise or exultation (such as its coining in the tautological expression "paeans of praise").

Namaste`
D.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

A principle of life made manifest and animated by consciousness that is what we are!We are the very embodiment of reality.

Many things "seem" to occur at the surface,this confuses us and causes much misunderstanding,it is only when we look deeper within that we approach "stillness"
and within that clarity find the answer to our question,"who are we really".





regards michael.

For more about The Paean of Immortality (aka Inter connectedness)

1 Corinthians 15:35-55
It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever. Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies. Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die, this Scripture will be fulfilled: "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" (Excerpt Verses 42-44; 54-55 NLT)
1 Thessalonians 4:16
"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." (NIV)

For more on this Go to

http://christianity.about.com/od/christi...

Such is our "Awakening" to the "Christ Consciousness", within( our not so common, and quite extra-ordinary, imho, Common Denominator.