The Fact of Death

To the measure one is prepared (or is driven) to self-examine, the more the window dressing is stripped away. The 'I' can get to see that it uses its thoughts, emotions and body to serve itself. If one observes closely enough (its hard because its not a pleasant sight) one will often notice that at the beginning of each "thought movie" there is an unannounced, unthought of instigating thought. Christianity would call that temptation. It comes out of the blue. Certainly not to be dismissed. As I say, the glimmerings of totally selfish ego are there for anyone who won't reject it. If the rock is pulled back a little then all that crawls underneath can be viewed. I would contend that all religions/philosophies suggest that "we must go beyond" (and I am interested in how aspect will pan out in the conversation with Lfen). I would also contend that Christianity is the only one where "we must be brought beyond"This message has been edited by iano, 08-May-2006 12:28 PM

...there is no practical way to make up for those things (if I may be so bold as to complete your sentence). That they have slipped the grasp of your ability to cut through the brambles that encapsulate the the heart of the issues left unresolved.Knowing what needs to be resolved is not the same as being able to resolve you might agree. Joel speaks of restoration. Restoration is what we seek. Redemption from what we have done and can't put right. Its what He offers.This message has been edited by iano, 08-May-2006 03:08 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 08-May-2006 03:10 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 08-May-2006 03:10 PM

The only thing you forgot to take account in your forecast Omni is that for all the (acknowledged) thrill of risk taking , the actually consequences of the risk being taken was one about which you have no knowledge. Cease to exist is assumed.Your a bottle or two shy of a six-pack in your philosophy of life and death here. For want of a peek at death

According to Christianity, there exists person called Satan who desires your damnation. He works by using temptation, doubt, guilt and deceit. A real bag of worms altogether and far more powerful than us on our own.Its a sobering thought to come to realise that you have not actually been your own. That you have willingly and eagerly danced to the tune of another for so long.He's licking his lips at the prospect of your delivery at the moment Omni. "Carry on risk-taking" he is sure to be whispering to you "Don't consider what the actual consequences might be". Look out for it. You'll see it if you go looking.And if you do see it, perhaps at some point (given you ignorance about the actual risk you are taking) you might consider saying "Geronimo!". This time to life.A perfectly blissful existance precludes any notion of boredom. I'm an engineer and I enjoy concieving and desigining objects to fulfill a function. I enjoy overcoming the many constraints that stand in the way. The fun is in the constraints overcome. The risk.There is no reason not to suppose the enjoyment of constraint won't be a attribute of heaven. We would be taking up the position of children: and children, as we all know, are in need constraint.This message has been edited by iano, 08-May-2006 03:00 PM

I'm an individual. An "I am". And I wouldn't have been able to describe what it is that sits above my thoughts had it not been for the fact that another individual moved in and sat above me (as I do above my thoughts) and said "I am too"

An adult atheist is one who holds an intellectual position. I don't expect describing Satan to make so much as a dent in an adult atheists intellectual position. Give me a little credit JM.But while we're at it intellectually. It makes little sense for a being whose aim it is to terminally decieve us to pop out from under the bed and shoot his wad early by shouting "Peekaboo!" at us.Give him a little credit too!

I would prefer if you would put things in your own words Lfen. Its not that I object to links but this issue is tricky enough without having to wade through the likes of this: ...if you catch my drift. What I see is somebody struggling to find equilibrium. Where it all makes sense. My own life history can be pictured as me, the ball bearing, trying to roll himself up the side of a bowl to reach the summit of it. Hobbies, sex, drugs, career, danger - all paths taken in an attempt to summit. But invariably I'd run out of steam and roll back down to the bottom.A question. If tying the strands together is your aim. Why do you exclude a potential strand? The dual strand. God/you > separate. Surely it is no less to be struggled with than any other.If one includes all strands then one might tie a knot that will endure.This message has been edited by iano, 08-May-2006 05:25 PM

Okay. No offence intended re: links.So where are we so far? My recollection presents the following highlights. If I'm off track then maybe you could edit what you think I'm off we can take stock. If there is something I've forgotten it could be added. Maybe this highlight list could be used as a reference and be added to/modified as we progress.General conclusions arrived at:We're looking at things with the view of arriving at a nondual inclusive result?...We aren't really out with what the mind is. Your definition: ..might need some further discussion. Is the mind the 'whole lot' or an action exclusive of consciousness + thoughts/memories/fantasies (which we might group as one 'thing'). Or is the mind something else in your opinion?...We've established the 'I' is not our thoughts, emotions, physical presence. 'I' sits above that? Maybe we could use i instead of 'I' for brevity?...We haven't figured out I think, how to describe what the i actually is. We are aware of it, but our awareness seems to stem from the i itself. i is self-aware thus....i, individual, (self) consciousness: seem to be synonymous....The end we are looking to arrive at is where the i awakens. What this entails or how it is achieved hasn't been discussed much. But its result would be (without knowing what this means necessarily)

quote:

---

the individual wakes up and comes to see that it is not the individual but the source of the individual

---

..provided i and conciousness and individual are indeed synonymous...That about it so far, Ifen?IanThis message has been edited by iano, 09-May-2006 12:54 AM

You can see the same difficulty as me. What value words as a route to understanding what one is getting into before one decides to start into it? If the Buddha observed his "mind" then what was it that he was doing? Inexplicable it may well have to remain this side of actually venturing down that path. The element of Faith arise here. Trust in another (failing knowing any differently) man.Failing comprehension, one can carry out (the works element?) an experiment on the usual activity of their own 'minds' and subject it to some de/reconstruction and so result in it being in a different than when they started. In this case, the view one arrives at at the end can be as easily a product of the reconstructed mind as it is a description of the way things actually are. How could one hope to tell?This message has been edited by iano, 09-May-2006 10:45 AM

That seems to be an impossibility to me. Naturalistic man arriving at the knowledge that he is naturalistic man is arguing in a circle. "How do I know I am naturalistic man? Because deep down I know I am naturalistic man. But how do you know deep down that you are naturalistic man? Because I am deep down a naturalistic man - or at least I have no evidence to the contrary."Lack of evidence doesn't equate to knowing. Knowing is knowledge. And that requires you to have some evidence. Evidence that breaks you out of the circle of your reasoning.A man can be of the opinion that he is naturalistic. But he cannot know it.This message has been edited by iano, 09-May-2006 11:00 AM

True, it is possible for us to know we are (trying to) deceiving ourselves. But if we successfully deceive ourselves then, by definition, we will not know it.If you are saying we cannot successfully deceive ourselves then you are again arguing in a circle. "I know I cannot deceive myself. How do you know? Because I know I cannot!" Some evidence is necessary to break out of that circle too

'you are observing' is the nub of it. Me, as self aware, is doing this observation. Irrespective of how much I am observing of the ice-bergs, the ice-bergs aren't me. The brain might in that case be thought of as an orchestra. And any orchestra would do me. The essential is i, the sheet music and the conductor. An idea, but difficult if not impossible to investigate. The i can still sit there observing jumbled thoughts. The i may well cease to have a mode of expression. But it doesn't necessarily cease to exist. A baby doesn't have memories but that is not to say that it is not an i. i=identity/memories appears to be an arbitarily arrived at convention Again this points to a problem with looking purely at a crashed vehicle in which i travels. We can see the wreck but we can't look inside to see if the driver, i, is okay or not. It seems (Ifen and myself agreed in any case) that the i sits above and outside thoughts at times. i being able to observe thoughts implies a certain separation between them. Damage to one (evidence: autism/alzheimers) doesn't necessarily mean damage to another (how does one get evidence?)

I think I know what you mean. You have been tracing various connections and interactions as a person would if they were driving a car. One moment, driving in busy traffic and all the attention is on the environment outside and only slight attention to the music playing on the cd player. Automatically check rearview mirror, indicate to turn, check for motorcycles (I wish) and turn.Into quiet, deserted country road.Then you become more aware of the environment inside the car. You are listening to the music playing more closely. Humming along in fact. You notice the imperceptible corrections you are making to the steering wheel as it tracks it path down the road. Zen and the Art - like, you take inexplicable, baby-in-a-womb pleasure in the gentle movement of the car as it follows the contours and irregularities in the road.Another glance in the rearview mirror, out the windshield, in the drivers side mirror. But crane you neck as you might - you can't see the drivers face.Maybe this is what the Buddha was after when he, by looking at his own mind, did as we are doing here. He was a driver trying to catch a glimpse of the drivers own face.A hand trying to grasp itself. Attempting to pull oneself up by ones own bootlacesWhat would be the quantum flutter which would enable a breakout from this state which any of us can do? How does observing ourself driving ever cause the rear view mirror to turn us-wards?This message has been edited by iano, 10-May-2006 05:56 PM

I don't think the occurance of what both yourself and Javaman describe are particularily unique - although they may not be commoner garden experiences. I'd have my own (rare enough) unusual occurances where the normal way in which I work is superceded by almost superhuman ability. I've had a few riding my motorcycle, where I find myself moving out of danger before any perceptible (according to my normal mode of riding) hints arrive. And then that which would have gotten me into real trouble happens - but I am no positioned on the road where I would normally have been - and pass by untroubled. No matter how hard I concetrate and take the environment in I cannot beat such 'pre-event insight'. If only I would know it would operate all the time so!An relevant aside...I read a book some time ago which talked about how the brain functions. And it seemed that the brain was an ever adapting organ. Habitual behaviour which seems almost cemented in place can be dropped just-like-that when one goes on holiday - the neural connections in the brain which are so established as to form habit at home (say tv watching patterns) are simply bypassed by the new environment and the habit disappears. If long enough away on holidays, then the neural connections dissolve. Arrival back home will see the old habit gone.Back to the point...
Now if someone got curious and investigated why this superhuman ability arose and discovered techniques whereby it could be entered into in ways other than by 'accident' - and propagated the ability - then it is reasonable to suppose that new neural connections would be built up. And say the reason for this superhuman ability was actually sub-concious attentiveness spilling out so far that the conscious notices it. Then well-aimed techniques would draw the sub-conscious into playing a more central role than normal. Propagated (if the effect was deemed desirable) still further and the conscious (or self) would play less and less a role.It is known that people can take action to break habits and so manipulate (or steer) the the normal functioning of the brain. Could "awakening" merely be the same kind of thing but on a much larger scale. Could awakening be the result of getting hooked on a drug called sub-conscious?