SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:37 pm
Dimebag wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:10 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 3:23 pm
I don't honestly see the logic in statements like "Awareness can’t be seen, because it is the seeing". It just seems like a Speculation without proof or explanation. When you realize that you are the Light then you realize you are aware of yourself when you Experience the Light. In fact the only thing you are aware of is yourself.
But the light comes and goes, if that is you, it is always changing, what is the part of you that doesn’t change?
Imagine you are trying to answer the question, “what am I?”
In a sense you are correct Steve, but usually before you can recognise that you are everything, you need to realise that you aren’t the body, or your thoughts, because most people are highly identified with the body and their thoughts, they can’t see them without being sucked into them so to speak.
So before you can become everything, you first need to become nothing.
Sounds nonsensical, I know. This is not logic, this is understanding our own self from the inside. The brain is tied up in loops, so in untying those loops, we end up tying reality itself up in strange ways.
The Light seemingly comes and goes in a form that I can Experience, but I know that when it is there it is still what I am. In the Physical world I can look at my Hand and say that is Me, but if I look away and don't see my Hand anymore it doesn't mean my Hand is not part of my Physical existence. By the way I talk pretty boldly about being the Light because that is the state of my understanding at this time. I could be wrong, but it seems right to me right now. It's a work in progress.
I can't become Nothing because I am not Nothing.
That might be your experience Steve, and I don’t disagree with you. But I don’t think it is most people’s experience or belief about themselves. Most people when they feel pain, don’t think they are the feeling of pain, they think they are a separate entity that “has” pain, or is “in” pain. The normal state of being is to being a subject to whom experiences belong or happen to.
This subject is ultimately this observer we refer to. But it is the root construct of the mind that it uses to represent our organism in a world created by our own mind (I am referring to this internally created world, not any possible external worlds to which they represent).
It is also associated with conceptual thought and overt planning of action, I.e. intentionality. So selfhood is tied to thought and future oriented behaviour (as well as rumination in the past). It acts as a central “controller”, yet it is like a micro-manager, who thinks they do everything in a company, but who really has no bottom up control, only top down alteration, which it uses conceptual thought and “knowledge” to achieve. But this knowledge is not its own, it is fed information to which it takes ownership, whatever is the most appropriate information pertinent for a situation will “occur” to it, and it takes this as its own.
What I am describing is analogous to the ego structure of Freudian psychology. It develops with the organism as the brain develops. Sometimes it is active, other times it becomes passive and “observes”, letting the built in intelligence of the brain take the lead. But it has its roots everywhere in the mind. This passive mode is something like “flow state” that people describe. The ego goes silent and actions happen wherever necessary. Why is this? Because evolution has dictated that whenever an external situation is demanding enough, the ego needs to back off and let the brain do its thing, stop micro managing and allow the most appropriate responses to occur, unhindered. But once such a flow inducing state subsides, the ego takes the imaginary reigns again and reinstates itself as self declared master of the mind.
The “observer” is the root of the ego, the conceptual centre of experience, the subject to which experiences happen. Without this observer, the ego cannot take root. There can be no controller. Control is of course illusory, but the sense of control is still different to no control. The ego has many defences, and so those typical defences are no longer elicited. It’s interesting that these kind of “spiritual” experiences usually happen later in life, maybe the organism knows it has already served its necessary reproductive protocol and thus allows a greater freedom to emerge, one which allows the possibility of contentment, and therefore wisdom which might serve a different purpose to the wider community. After all, we are nothing without each other, and if the removal of self enables the group to work more cohesively then it makes sense that this would happen in evolutionary terms.
