Sensual Snapshots

[pseudonymous]

We take sensual snapshots all of the time when we come into contact with other people. As an unawakened person, we would take our snapshots unconsciously from the filter of our emotions. A sensual snapshot is all of the data, in the present moment, that we record while interacting with our environment. This data can be skewered by our automatic emotional responses.

The human brain takes a sensual snapshot, and as is its nature, it compares it to other snapshots on file, in order to let the dreaming witness know how it should react. So when we meet a person, countless #'s of these info packets are being processed and compared, and in the milliseconds it takes to do this, a reaction is suggested. This happens when we are unconsciously going through life. We are not present when we are in our brain only, because our mind is telling us what we are sensing based upon past data comparisons. Our first impressions are not trustworthy whatsoever if we are not Self aware,because they are not based on the present moment.



This may explain to you why we all have sudden, inexplicable mood swings. The brain is not perfect in what data it coughs up. We walk past a certain shade of blue table cloth, and our mind picks up the data. The table (no problem) the shape of the table (no problem), and the color of the cloth (big problem). There was a man that molested you as a child who wore that same color of tee shirt. Suddenly out of nowhere comes feelings of fear, paranoia, and anxiety.

Can you see where this is possible, and how it might explain a lot of the mystery behind emotions that don't seem to be correlative?. We know that the brain may be holistic according to some theories and scientific data, and gets info in packets that when added together, tell us what we are sensing. These info packets may be a correct comparison to whatever we are perceiving, but the trauma or joy or sex or anger or jealousy connected to that experience may not be.

Asleep we will not ask, but will assume. We will not sense causally, but will react. We will be limited to the senses from the neck up for the most part, which operate from the nature of reactionary perception. Most folks are limited because they are in their head. The entire body is a sensual tool, from the point of Witness outward ~ all one sense tool, with the systems to keep it healthy and reproducing.

Causal awareness is experiencial, rather than reactionary. When present we can take a sensual snapshot of someone, and be able to penetrate beyond the walls and masks of the person, and this allows us to get a present moment picture of the person's complete state of being. It is done by "tapping" into the other person's aura. This is where all the information is contained externally for the internal witness. It is the creative threshhold that connects the witness to the dream.

It is key to remember that what a person is presenting to us may not be the truth. In causal awareness we know that words can lie, but that energy cannot. It takes experience in intuition (heightened sensing) to learn to trust these higher sensual snapshots that we take.We are borderless when causal aware, so we can tap into anyone's aura as an action, rather than a reaction. Most people are reacting when they sense someone.

We have all had the experience of being judged. People all of the time have first impressions, from a place of unconscious awareness, and take sensual snapshots of us. If on first impression they have decided you a threat on some level, then every time they meet you in the future, they will take up where they left off.

One of the hallmarks of unconscious sensual snapshots is that they do not allow for change. We may have become much more aware since the person's last meeting with us, but since they receive their information from reaction, they will see us and the last impression is the one they begin with. A causal aware person always allows for change, and growth, and takes new sensual snapshots on every meeting.

This is something the religious & spiritual community in general are guilty of. They often say they don't judge people, or that they love them unconditionally, but you have to be present in order to accurately claim that, because the brain is a tool of judging and conditions. If you are not Self-aware, that is the nature of your perceptions. A person who is present will allow for evolution.

©2004 DC Vision

 

[Mus Zibii]

I had a problem with that when I was a kid. That contributed to a lot of my anxiety. I couldn't look at particular things lest it remind me of something else and so on. Six degrees of separation from a source of anxiety. So yeah, mental processing is flawed, and that's probably the source of personality, humor and everything else. Its a Catch-22.

 

[pseudonymous]

So yeah, mental processing is flawed, and that's probably the source of personality, humor and everything else. Its a Catch-22.

humor is one of those interesting aspects of Self. people like myself, with lightning wits, you have to wonder where that manifestation of humor comes from. i know the brain processes in milliseconds, but often times a complex humorous retort seems to come out of thin air. do you suppose humor comes from the same "place" as eurekas?

 

[Mus Zibii]

Definitely.

I have a poor sense of humor (a decent appreciation of it, though) but there are times when a... blip or something with surface and I'll find myself chuckling as if the part of my brain that made the joke were functioning independently of the part that laughed.

 

[pseudonymous]

Definitely.

I'll find myself chuckling as if the part of my brain that made the joke were functioning independently of the part that laughed.

i know exactly what you mean by this. either we (including Self) are organic creatures and much cooler than we give ourselves credit for, or we are these mysterious Selves and dummy ourselves down by attachment to the flesh organism. either way, humor has always been my rock in the river.

dcv-

 

[Karehndiujo Mohmid]

..has always been my rock in the river. dcv-

Yes, I'm inclined to favour Rumi's take on Sensuality, myself -- well, sans the Tabloid critique usually included in every index.

Rumi, or...J'al Al'Aadin Bal'Khi, as he was known to his close friends.

 

[neoxenos]

humor is one of those interesting aspects of Self. people like myself, with lightning wits, you have to wonder where that manifestation of humor comes from. i know the brain processes in milliseconds, but often times a complex humorous retort seems to come out of thin air. do you suppose humor comes from the same "place" as eurekas?

It is incongruent to examine bioelectrical/chemical causality for investigations of the self. I have noticed it many times in different places, it is making wonder if spiritual people really think the brain plays a significant role in the self. The bioelectrical causality (what physical brain does) is a result of the mind (psyche, soul). The brain is nothing more than the physical analouge of the inferior aspect of the mind. The brain is just a computer that does the input/output of the human machine: an interface. Really, the mind/soul/consciousness/essence/Buddhata is what should be observed.

When we read a massive book like Zen and Brain it is easy to believe that science has apporached answers to what the soul, or the self is. However, true investigations (meditations) have concluded that no radical answer has been found, just a lot of scientific jargon of events without any real comprehension.

So, what does it matter if the brain processes in milliseconds? The mind is the constant now.

I do agree though, that humor is a very complex subject. There are many different types of humor. There is laughing at the expense of others, and that is not a positive use of energy. But there is a good use of laughter too, but what comes to mind in my attempt to verbalize it is innocient laughter or laughter due to innocience.

We can laugh through hate and pride, being uncomfortable or nervous (because of novelty, something new in life), by seeing something strange, but also through happiness and love, so it needs to be examined on a case by case basis.

A lot of laughter by a stand up comic is due to novel interpolations of ordinary things. We laugh at something like this because we have not comprehened the subject material, because otherwise, we would have already known the wierd connection, and it would not be funny. However this is counteracted through the bias of the comic who paints a false reality (even if it is just slightly), and therefore an infinite number of pseduo-connections can be made. If the audience buys the false reality, its funny, if not, its just stupid.

Which results in, "If one is omniscient, than what could be funny (novel)?"

I do not think anything is, one loses the novelity but gains the Absolute.

Comics that I used to love now sound really stupid and arrogant, not because I wish to judge them, but rather because it has become self evident. What they say no longer make me laugh because the view of reality they wish to show, I have found out, is falsely rooted, although they believe it to be true. So although I gained much pleasure from listening to those comics (or any comedy at all) in the past, but now can not enjoy them at all, I find myself much happier.

This bleeds into the happiness thread. I see happiness as eternal, a piece of which I have gained (so far), while pleasure and pain is temporal, a piece of which I have given up.

 

[pseudonymous]

It is incongruent to examine bioelectrical/chemical causality for investigations of the self.

it can be said that reading about the self via religion & philosophy is equally as useless. the only way to know you as Self is to be the Self. however, some folks need pointers, and learning about the mechanics of the body we are naturally using as a sensual vehicle seems just as valid as the conjecture and speculation of philosophical/spiritual/religious sources.

the problem with reading other people's perceptions, and adopting them as your own, is that you set up boundaries to experiencing. i have the absolute. i am enlightened. and i can assure you that it did not make me an automaton of seriousness and detachment.

Self awareness explains our relationship and connectivity to creation & creator, and if anything, makes it all that much funnier. enlightenment is not losing your sense of humor and finding humor as pointless - it is expansion in the world of what is funny. from what i have seen, masters tend to have rich senses of humor.

perhaps ease back from the intellectual a little, and enjoy the sensual from a place of presence...and then you might get the joke of unconsciousness, and the gift of consciousness.

dcv-

 

[neoxenos]

it can be said that reading about the self via religion & philosophy is equally as useless. the only way to know you as Self is to be the Self. however, some folks need pointers, and learning about the mechanics of the body we are naturally using as a sensual vehicle seems just as valid as the conjecture and speculation of philosophical/spiritual/religious sources.

I agree that any reading with out practical application is useless. The theory vs. direct expereince is a tightrope that is difficult to walk on. For example, science says that we have hard-wired responses to stimuli, so something like getting angry at someone is beyond control. Many people use this logic to justifiy thier anger. In reality though, it is a theory that we have hard wired responses, so this justification is improper.

i have the absolute. i am enlightened. and i can assure you that it did not make me an automaton of seriousness and detachment.

If you are enlighted, then tell me, how many atoms compose your body? The Enlightened One knows this. If you do not know this then you are not Enlightened in the Absolute. It is as simple as that.

About everything else I said... it was not said well. Masters do have good sense of humor.

 

[pseudonymous]

If you are enlighted, then tell me, how many atoms compose your body? The Enlightened One knows this. If you do not know this then you are not Enlightened in the Absolute. It is as simple as that.

says who? that is entirely a vicarious definition of enlightenment. where did you read that? do you honestly believe that enlightenment is like telling how many jellybeans are in the jar? the accurate guess wins? again, put down the books - they are giving you boundaries that you are experiencing within.

enlightenment is nothing more than realization of the Self within the present moment - presence. that is an experiencial statement, not defined by someone else. and it is the beginning of the journey to Self awareness - not the end of it. it is the recognition of the passive principle as creation's origin...next comes the recognition of Self - the cell of the creator (active principle) - again, an experiencial statement, defined by no one but myself and my experiences of transcendence to the passive, and transcendence to the active.

i set no boundaries in those statements, because they were realized as i went - not told to me by someone else. most eastern philosophy i have found to be half a loaf - because i read of it from other people after i had experienced awareness, and not before. if i had read these boundaries to experience before, i would never have gone further than transcendent meditation - something now, for me, which has become obsolete. contemplation is the tool for the awakening Self once it has become enlightened.

meditation is to get you to enlightenment. once enlightened, you never go back to sleep, and contrary to popular vicarious beliefs - you are not a perfect shining being who sits on a cushion going "aum" all day. it is only presence - and it is still within a body that has a history, with a brain that has a perception. being Self overrides the tendencies of that...but not perpetually. that as well as a lot of the other bunk associated with appearances is a shortcoming of eastern philosophies - attachment to how one is seen by their peers.

enlightenment is a state of being - not being in states, and not a checklist of attributes. it is not nearly as complicated as the masters make it out to be once realized.

dcv-

 

[neoxenos]

says who? that is entirely a vicarious definition of enlightenment. where did you read that? do you honestly believe that enlightenment is like telling how many jellybeans are in the jar? the accurate guess wins? again, put down the books - they are giving you boundaries that you are experiencing within.

There are more degrees of enlightenment than the grains of sand on a beach, but at some point the knowledge of objective quantity will be reached. It is not the peak of enlightenment, but if one says they are enlightened, then it should be at least to a degree that is beyond any normal human ability. I choose just one to question about.

enlightenment is nothing more than realization of the Self within the present moment - presence. that is an experiencial statement, not defined by someone else. and it is the beginning of the journey to Self awareness - not the end of it. it is the recognition of the passive principle as creation's origin...next comes the recognition of Self - the cell of the creator (active principle) - again, an experiencial statement, defined by no one but myself and my experiences of transcendence to the passive, and transcendence to the active.

They are good topics, and it is wonderful that you have found a method to express them, but they are not new. Enlightenment, strictly, is the process of turning darkness into light. Synthetically it means many things, however I think it is more accurate to call the realization of the self within the state of now "Observation of the Self," a process that leads to Enlightenment, which is a state that when achieved takes no thought or action to accomplish. So, we enlighten ourselves, hopefully everyday, by willfully apply effort on top of that which comes to us without effort.

But all of that is merely jargon, mine or yours or theirs, that, without true comprehension, is just a bunch of meaningless words.

i set no boundaries in those statements, because they were realized as i went - not told to me by someone else. most eastern philosophy i have found to be half a loaf - because i read of it from other people after i had experienced awareness, and not before. if i had read these boundaries to experience before, i would never have gone further than transcendent meditation - something now, for me, which has become obsolete. contemplation is the tool for the awakening Self once it has become enlightened.

Mostly, my life has been the same. So yes you are special, but wrong to assume me to be any different. The difference is that I have found all religions to be fully compatible, true, and unilateral.

meditation is to get you to enlightenment. once enlightened, you never go back to sleep, and contrary to popular vicarious beliefs - you are not a perfect shining being who sits on a cushion going "aum" all day. it is only presence - and it is still within a body that has a history, with a brain that has a perception. being Self overrides the tendencies of that...but not perpetually. that as well as a lot of the other bunk associated with appearances is a shortcoming of eastern philosophies - attachment to how one is seen by their peers.

We need to clarify that enlightenment is Positive Awakening of Consciousness. I agree that the one who awakens can never fall asleep but I want you can everyone else reading that there is also the Negative Awakening of Consciousness. The former is more often than not confused with the latter, because the latter is easy and pleasing while the former takes effort and is not pleasing. The awakened one can fall, which is worse than going back to sleep, because this one remains powerful, yet mistaken about what is good and bad. With the awakening of consciousness comes greater responsibility.

Daniel 12:2 explains the duality of Awakening:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2

enlightenment is a state of being - not being in states, and not a checklist of attributes. it is not nearly as complicated as the masters make it out to be once realized.

I agree with you. But to even consider the state of being where I consciously observe myself within my body does not mean I can say "I am Enlightened." This is because the Enlightened has nothing but light, meaning there is no darkness, or unconsciousness. The one who is enlightened has 100% awakened consciousness, which means they are conscious of everything. So something arbitrary as the number of atoms that compose New York City is trivial, because the natural function of awakened consciousness is intuition (not logic or reason). On the other hand, to the normal person who has 97% unconscious activity, the Observation of Being can only reach 3% of Enlightenment while the Being is within the Mind. To go beyond this, to reach temporal enlightenment, means to erupt out of the mind (which is sleeping) into the Illuminating Void, and that is only if the person is in profound Samadhi, but still, that person cannot say they are Enlightened, because the Enlightened one maintains that state even in the physical body because that One will have ubiquitous consciousness.

To say that absolute enlightenment is anything but omniscience is false! It does not take a book or anyone special to understand that.

 

[pseudonymous]

There are more degrees of enlightenment than the grains of sand on a beach, but at some point the knowledge of objective quantity will be reached. It is not the peak of enlightenment, but if one says they are enlightened, then it should be at least to a degree that is beyond any normal human ability.

again, says who? why have boundaries set in your experiences? since when is a state of presence "normal" human ability. greater than 99% (likely) of the human race is unconscious of Self and go through life on autopilot. i have no problem expressing that i am enlightened, because i have yet to have anyone besides the conceptual argue that point...and their opinions are near to useless if they do not have experience to back up their borrowed beliefs. i will dance toe to toe with anyone who only knows how to quote what they have read...because do they know if it was an esoteric or symbolic statement that they read and memorized?

They are good topics, and it is wonderful that you have found a method to express them, but they are not new.

yes they are new...new to me - derived through contemplation, just me, the active principle, and the moment. that means original thinking. that means experiencial awareness. that means the defining came direct, and not vicariously.

Enlightenment, strictly, is the process of turning darkness into light.

enlightenment is not a process whatsoever...it is a state of being. the definition you give here is new age 101. so you have many diverse sources for your definition of enlightenment...except one - your Self, and its perceptions.

Synthetically it means many things, however I think it is more accurate to call the realization of the self within the state of now "Observation of the Self," a process that leads to Enlightenment, which is a state that when achieved takes no thought or action to accomplish.

now you are talking in circles. synthetically? say what? it is more accurate to call...? says who? you? how would you know, if not enlightened, what is the more accurate way to define it? what you said here is that - enlightenment (more accurately referred to as "observation of the Self") is a process that leads to enlightenment...ok. the quote before it is a process leading to a state, and now it is a state without a process that leads to itself.

we enlighten ourselves, hopefully everyday, by willfully apply effort on top of that which comes to us without effort.

so we enlighten ourselves by applying effort - although enlightenment comes without effort?

But all of that is merely jargon, mine or yours or theirs, that, without true comprehension, is just a bunch of meaningless words.

don't lump my practical wording in with your's and their's meaningless words. mine words come from experience, and therefor are practical and easily understandable - as long as the other person is not comparing what i express to their pre-formed boundaries. my perceptions may not be correct for the next person, but comparing them to someone else's words, with no personal experience to back them up, is where the jargon enters the equation.

So yes you are special, but wrong to assume me to be any different. The difference is that I have found all religions to be fully compatible, true, and unilateral.

when did i say i was special? in a short bus sort of way i may be special, but in no other way. i am blessed quite nicely. i never assumed anything of you. i stated you were conceptual, which you seem to fully agree with. but then again, finding all religions to be compatible, true, and unilateral may qualify you as special...come to think of it.

We need to clarify that enlightenment is Positive Awakening of Consciousness

We do? perhaps you do, but for me, that just sounds like more memorized vicarious defining going on...and i will not particpate. sorry.

I agree that the one who awakens can never fall asleep...The awakened one can fall, which is worse than going back to sleep,

how do you know? have you encountered these states in your experiences? an enlightened person can fall, and often do...because it is only the present moment that was discovered...the journey to becoming lucidly causal Self is one of peaks and valleys...high and low tides. if i fall, i place no value on it besides it likely made me more aware of my Self, and the undertow of being incarnated.

With the awakening of consciousness comes greater responsibility

says who? i do not feel more responsibility...when i became enlightened i felt less responsibility, because awakened i was less likely to do those things that brought about negative results. greater responsibility sounds like a catch phrase for a religious belief based on guilt and sin. there is no good/bad right/wrong in enlightenment...everything is as it is, and can be changed manually, or will be changed (for optimum lucidity) naturally by the effects of evolution of Self.

Daniel 12:2 explains the duality of Awakening:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2

i suppose that is one way of looking at this statement...or it could just be the heaven/hell myth used to get the sheep in line to receive their koolaid and crackers.

But to even consider the state of being where I consciously observe myself within my body does not mean I can say "I am Enlightened." This is because the Enlightened has nothing but light, meaning there is no darkness, or unconsciousness.

says who? there are a lot of enlightened people supposedly in eastern disciplines who look rather fleshly and bloody to me. "light" is a new age theme, and not widely used by serious eastern philosophy as far as i have run into it. again, too many books, too little actual experiencing...and then telling me what is wrong with my experiencial perceptions...

The one who is enlightened has 100% awakened consciousness, which means they are conscious of everything. So something arbitrary as the number of atoms that compose New York City is trivial

i think a lot of "masters" are going to be upset when they find out the new measuring stick to enlightenment is how many atoms are in a body, or worse yet, in new york city. i think your definitions of enlightenment are all over the board, and need the rough edges smoothed out a bit...but you will still be a sugar free cake...nice to look at, but not much calories.

To go beyond this, to reach temporal enlightenment, means to erupt out of the mind (which is sleeping) into the Illuminating Void, and that is only if the person is in profound Samadhi, but still, that person cannot say they are Enlightened, because the Enlightened one maintains that state even in the physical body because that One will have ubiquitous consciousness.

the illuminating void...samadhi...enlightened...one (in capitol letters)? this sounds a wee bit conceptual too, and not based in experience. i think you misunderstand what ubiquitous consciousness meant. it seems to me that it refers to there being no boundaries to where this consciousness can be causally used, although ability to use it may not be fully manifested...but that does not mean they are the northern lights for everyone to see and experience...nor does it have anything to do with enlightenment, aside from it takes an enlightened person to learn its lack of boundaries.

To say that absolute enlightenment is anything but omniscience is false! It does not take a book or anyone special to understand that.

don't you throw your damned exclamation points at me...or i will toss a few back at you (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <---see i have a few around here)...omniscience it would appear is an absolute myth...or consciousness would not bother evolving over the past 10+ billion years.

dcv-

 

[samabudhi]

Enlightenment, strictly, is the process of turning darkness into light.

Sounds more like Alchemy, or Tantra.

when did i say i was special?

greater than 99% (likely) of the human race is unconscious of Self and go through life on autopilot. i have no problem expressing that i am enlightened

We do? perhaps you do, but for me, that just sounds like more memorized vicarious defining going on...and i will not particpate. sorry.

enlightenment is nothing more than realization of the Self within the present moment - presence.

Nitpicker to the rescue!

But to even consider the state of being where I consciously observe myself within my body does not mean I can say "I am Enlightened." This is because the Enlightened has nothing but light, meaning there is no darkness, or unconsciousness.

says who? there are a lot of enlightened people supposedly in eastern disciplines who look rather fleshly and bloody to me.

Form is one of the aggregates of the illusory self. Enlightenment is not destruction of the aggregates, it is realisation of their nature.

"light" is a new age theme, and not widely used by serious eastern philosophy as far as i have run into it. again, too many books, too little actual experiencing...and then telling me what is wrong with my experiencial perceptions...

The term 'Light' is simply a simile for awareness. The highest state of meditation in Tantric Buddhism is the 'clear light'. When describing meditative states, the closest one can get to a useful description is through the sense gates. Visual sensations are some of the most vivid. Light is used to describe visual awareness, but really, it's not about site or any of the senses for that matter. Senses are divisions of the same awareness.

don't you throw your damned exclamation points at me...

Jees, relax. For someone who claims to be enlightened, you certainly have your feathers ruffled easily.

 

[iBrian]

I think Brucegdc has had words.

 

[pseudonymous]

Nitpicker to the rescue!

don't be so sure of that

Form is one of the aggregates of the illusory self. Enlightenment is not destruction of the aggregates, it is realisation of their nature.

and it might be noted that form is unconsciously created.


The term 'Light' is simply a simile for awareness.

perhaps it is for you, but in the context it was used in before, it sounded like a spiritual term, and not an eastern term. there was no elaboration on the usage to lead anyone to think differently.


Senses are divisions of the same awareness.

and necessary divisions it would seem for the awareness to have evolved to the point of expressing itself (to itself or others).


Jees, relax. For someone who claims to be enlightened, you certainly have your feathers ruffled easily

if the use of humor in the exclamation point address was missed, then i would say you were reading it through a filter of expectation. my feathers do not ruffle - i find humor where dialogue has its limitations.

as to your picking quotes from my previous posts, and using them as examples of where i claim "specialness", i think you have demonstrated one of the common attributes of the spiritual community since it become politically correct - a person of experience is not allowed to claim any expanded awareness for fear of making those of less awareness feel inferior. the reaction to my claims is the property of those reacting.

i share my experiences, and i do not walk on egg shells around people's feelings...it would not make me a very affective in sharing my exploration. nothing that you used to demonstrate my sense of superiority demonstrated anything but a man who is sure of himself because he is not expressing perceptual truths vicariously. saying the majority of the world runs on autopilot seems an accurate assessment, but seeing that as stating my "specialness" is your reaction to the words...i have never made any personal value judgments on myself except that i was an enlightened dipsh*t (again, humor for those looking and hoping for a good fight).

dcv-

 

[samabudhi]

The term 'Light' is simply a simile for awareness.

perhaps it is for you, but in the context it was used in before, it sounded like a spiritual term, and not an eastern term. there was no elaboration on the usage to lead anyone to think differently.

So by default it is a spiritual term, unless otherwise stated?!

Senses are divisions of the same awareness.

and necessary divisions it would seem for the awareness to have evolved to the point of expressing itself (to itself or others).

Yes. Necessary for survival, which is dependent on it's driving mechanism, suffering, which is exactly what Buddhists want, and everyone else should be trying, to transcend.

if the use of humor in the exclamation point address was missed, then i would say you were reading it through a filter of expectation. my feathers do not ruffle - i find humor where dialogue has its limitations.

Nah, I don't buy that. Just have another look at your post. You could have at least used an emoticon, but after that post, it probably would just have sounded sarcastic.

as to your picking quotes from my previous posts, and using them as examples of where i claim "specialness", i think you have demonstrated one of the common attributes of the spiritual community since it become politically correct - a person of experience is not allowed to claim any expanded awareness for fear of making those of less awareness feel inferior. the reaction to my claims is the property of those reacting.

You can make all the claims you want, but it only puts you up for scrutiny. If I was counting, you would be in the negatives by now.

i share my experiences, and i do not walk on egg shells around people's feelings...it would not make me a very affective in sharing my exploration.

A common misconception, that is, that we have to be bombastic and insensitive until anyone listens to us. In other words, we have to shove our bums in their faces.

nothing that you used to demonstrate my sense of superiority demonstrated anything but a man who is sure of himself because he is not expressing perceptual truths vicariously.

You say less than 1% of the human race is conscious of self, and you're part of that statistic. What do you consider special if not this?

saying the majority of the world runs on autopilot seems an accurate assessment, but seeing that as stating my "specialness" is your reaction to the words...i have never made any personal value judgments on myself except that i was an enlightened dipsh*t (again, humor for those looking and hoping for a good fight).

Where dipsh*t? I don't see that word in previous post?

 

[Ciel]

We appear to be witnessing all previous scripts played out.
May there enter peace and allowance in the heart of humanity.

 

[samabudhi]

Indeed, but how is this possible if we regard our state of mind as having reached it's climax?

So long as one suffers, one is not enlightened. And yes, this is experiential. I am not enlightened and I'm still suffering, so there we go.

 

[Ciel]

Exactly that.
Higher consciousness is motivated through love and compassion and understanding of the human scenario.

 

[pseudonymous]

So by default it is a spiritual term, unless otherwise stated?!

in the context that it was used, i replied that it sounded spiritual.

Necessary for survival, which is dependent on it's driving mechanism, suffering, which is exactly what Buddhists want, and everyone else should be trying, to transcend.

this is a conceptual statement - rote buddhism 101. it can equally be perceived that senses were necessary for the evolving consciousness to become aware of itself - no form, and no arena for perception of Self. what you term "suffering" i would see as the necessary steps from unconsciousness to conscious Self awareness.


Nah, I don't buy that. Just have another look at your post. You could have at least used an emoticon, but after that post, it probably would just have sounded sarcastic.

whether you buy it or not is none of my concern - because you own your reactions. i stated it was used as humor to lighten the barbs.

You can make all the claims you want, but it only puts you up for scrutiny. If I was counting, you would be in the negatives by now.

why does it put me up for scrutiny? why the need to be a sniper in waiting for anyone who claims enlightenment? why should anyone be concerned with your "count" as you have admitted you are not enlightened, and have only concepts of other people to measure my enlightenment. experience it your Self, then we can have a dialogue without you "scrutinizing" me.


A common misconception, that is, that we have to be bombastic and insensitive until anyone listens to us. In other words, we have to shove our bums in their faces.

your reaction is your property. what you see as "bombastic" and "insensitive" i see as being sure of my Self, through my experiences, and when someone tells me my experiences are false because they have read this book, or heard that teaching, i have a right to express my truths/perceptions. you find my appearance as abrasive because you are focused on the form, and not the substance.


You say less than 1% of the human race is conscious of self, and you're part of that statistic. What do you consider special if not this?

i consider it a blessing, but in the context used, it was referring that i found myself better than others because of my awareness. this simply is not true. i cannot accept my awareness, while denying my neighbor their potentials too. again, your reaction is your property, and not a reflection of my intent/motives.


Where dipsh*t? I don't see that word in previous post?

dig around in other posts and you will spot it. i use it on occasion to let others know that i do not take my Self too seriously, or the comparison of my experiences and perceptions to concepts.

dcv-