Did Rumi Know?

[Crystalline]

And in my view not a helpful one. If I wish to make a clear statement, I make it as well as I can, and use metaphors only for backup.

You say you understand separateness, and at the same time you assert it doesn't exist.

I regret to report I think that's nonsense. Separateness is built into reality. The only place things that might be called universal are found are in strictly defined notions in physics eg 'the energy of the vacuum', where they're fully automated and anyway aren't accessible at the human scale.

Atanu, I really like your post, and for being so real. Even so, once I had the epiphany we are all one, it has been difficult to shake. IMO, the "illusion" of separateness is a wonderful thing and returning to a universal mind... not so good... because we would lose discussions like this and many joys of relationships.

Think how everything came out of one tiny singularity. Creator... the big bang. So everything is part of the Singularity. We don't remember being at one and our connection to it. Once language named things and classified things more precisely, the more separated we made that image. But our boundaries are never really clear cut but a continuum that transitions into what is around it.

This is revealing... if you talk to someone with multiple personalities, they often have an amnesic barrier between altars. One altar swears they are not the other altar, some hate each other, and studies have even shown different blood types and medical conditions may only be in one altar and not the other altars. BTW, some altars can be a dog or a tree. Sometimes it is difficult to convince them to never set up their altar to have bad things happen to them!

I think Jesus was indicating this when he said that whatever we do to the least of us, we do unto Him. Also, to love God with all our heart and soul, which is basically the same as to love our neighbor as our self because God and our neighbor is our self..

 

[blü 2]

Atanu, I really like your post, and for being so real. Even so, once I had the epiphany we are all one, it has been difficult to shake. IMO, the "illusion" of separateness is a wonderful thing and returning to a universal mind... not so good... because we would lose discussions like this and many joys of relationships.

Think how everything came out of one tiny singularity. Creator... the big bang. So everything is part of the Singularity. We don't remember being at one and our connection to it. Once language named things and classified things more precisely, the more separated we made that image. But our boundaries are never really clear cut but a continuum that transitions into what is around it.

This is revealing... if you talk to someone with multiple personalities, they often have an amnesic barrier between altars. One altar swears they are not the other altar, some hate each other, and studies have even shown different blood types and medical conditions may only be in one altar and not the other altars. BTW, some altars can be a dog or a tree. Sometimes it is difficult to convince them to never set up their altar to have bad things happen to them!

I think Jesus was indicating this when he said that whatever we do to the least of us, we do unto Him. Also, to love God with all our heart and soul, which is basically the same as to love our neighbor as our self because God and our neighbor is our self..

This appears to be addressed to Atanu.

@atanu, IF YOU'RE LISTENING!

 

[atanu]

And in my view not a helpful one. If I wish to make a clear statement, I make it as well as I can, and use metaphors only for backup.

You say you understand separateness, and at the same time you assert it doesn't exist.

I regret to report I think that's nonsense. Separateness is built into reality. The only place things that might be called universal are found are in strictly defined notions in physics eg 'the energy of the vacuum', where they're fully automated and anyway aren't accessible at the human scale.

I hate when debaters use words like ‘non sense’ etc. I never use such terms.

We can discuss further, subject to some recognition of the following.

You cannot objectively prove your sensations to me. You cannot explain how a particular food tastes. Under such circumstances, we use metaphors to kindle alternative thought process.

You cannot get hold of your mind or your consciousness like you can get hold of a sample of a specific chemical. But whatever you know directly or through report is entirely permeated by consciousness. Nothing that you can know is separate from your own consciousness. So, IMO, asking for objective physical proof for self evident statements shows bias and dogma ( and ego).

I am not writing this in debate mode to score points. I genuinely believe that recognition of oneness and interdependence gives peace, removing all negativity arising out of notions of separateness. So, I share my view since I wish good for me and good for others.

 

[blü 2]

Under such circumstances, we use metaphors to kindle alternative thought process.

But first we do our best to supply a clear statement of what we're talking about.

whatever you know directly or through report is entirely permeated by consciousness.

If I have any doubts about what I read or am told, I run a check. Otherwise I don't. How do you handle information supplied to you?

Nothing that you can know is separate from your own consciousness.

I don't think that's correct. For example, these words I'm typing at this instant aren't in my consciousness before or when I type them. They're the products of my nonconscious brain. The same with speech (hence Auden's famous dictum, 'How do I know what I think till I hear what I say?')

So, IMO, asking for objective physical proof for self evident statements shows bias and dogma ( and ego).

What "self-evident statement" are you referring to? Certainly not the one I was referring to.

I am not writing this in debate mode to score points. I genuinely believe that recognition of oneness and interdependence gives peace, removing all negativity arising out of notions of separateness.

Separateness is part of the animal condition, even with gregarious creatures like sheep and humans. And personally, it's not something that worries me. Sometimes I like to be separate, and sometimes I like to be social ─ doesn't everyone?

 

[atanu]

..
I don't think that's correct. For example, these words I'm typing at this instant aren't in my consciousness before or when I type them. They're the products of my nonconscious brain. The same with speech (hence Auden's famous dictum, 'How do I know what I think till I hear what I say?')

This is the point that gives rise to confusion. Our definitions of consciousness differ. I may try to explain the differences with some examples, although the effort may turn out futile.

In deep sleep we are not conscious yet we wake up as the person that went to sleep. This point may seem mundane and pleabian, but IMO, it is not. In deep sleep the identity information is preserved and is read correctly on waking up. We understand that as a form of awareness/consciousness that is beyond the intellect (so called conscious mind). The information regarding what shapes and forms will manifest in dream and in waking states is present in deep sleep state. Mind's inability to read that information does not mean that such information does not exist or that such information are unreadable at all levels.

 

[atanu]

Separateness is part of the animal condition, even with gregarious creatures like sheep and humans. And personally, it's not something that worries me. Sometimes I like to be separate, and sometimes I like to be social ─ doesn't everyone?

Yes. But that does not mean that the truth is separateness. Allow me to use another example. Different kinds of god jewellery are different in form but have the same content.

 

[blü 2]

Our definitions of consciousness differ.

There's a range of choices, certainly, from being awake to being alert to musing with conscious thought to being self-aware, and no doubt more. Loosely, I mean the sense of self when awake.

In deep sleep we are not conscious yet we wake up as the person that went to sleep. [...] In deep sleep the identity information is preserved and is read correctly on waking up. We understand that as a form of awareness/consciousness that is beyond the intellect (so called conscious mind).

Yes, a function of the nonconscious brain, which does all the heavy lifting.

The information regarding what shapes and forms will manifest in dream and in waking states is present in deep sleep state. Mind's inability to read that information does not mean that such information does not exist or that such information are unreadable at all levels.

The nature and, if there is one, the purpose, of dreams is the subject of considerable research. These days it's associated with the process of ridding the brain of cell debris and other by-products of being alive. In the past it's been hypothesized that since the physical process of storing long-term memory occurs mainly in sleep, deep-sleep dreams may be a by-product of the sorting-and-editing process; or they may have some function of that or analogous kind. If there's presently a firmer consensus, I haven't come across it.

Waking dreams can involve a more quasi-conscious interplay between various thoughts and emotions, sometimes resulting in a sense of plot, which deep-sleep dreams lack.

 

[blü 2]

Yes. But that does not mean that the truth is separateness. Allow me to use another example. Different kinds of god jewellery are different in form but have the same content.

Therefore?

 

[atanu]

There's a range of choices, certainly, from being awake to being alert to musing with conscious thought to being self-aware, and no doubt more. Loosely, I mean the sense of self when awake.

For me, the competence to discern runs though all states, else the differences in states would not be known and the identity (with all its infinite attributes) maintained.

Yes, a function of the nonconscious brain, which does all the heavy lifting.

Here is a very crucial point, on which I can only request you to ponder.

Obviously, the form of consciousness is of different quality in states of waking (gross world and a gross me), dreaming (subtle world and a subtle me), and deep sleep (apparent unconsciousness yet information of identity is maintained). Now when you say that the maintaining an identity is function of a non conscious brain, you are superimposing he waking state consciousness form on a deep sleep consciousness form, which has no form at at all. And by doing that you are not examining the true subjective consciousness that underlies KNOWING through the three states of waking/dreaming/sleeping.

 

[blü 2]

For me, the competence to discern runs though all states, else the differences in states would not be known and the identity (with all its infinite attributes) maintained.

Do you mean personal identity? That's primarily a function of particular memories.

Obviously, the form of consciousness is of different quality in states of waking (gross world and a gross me), dreaming (subtle world and a subtle me), and deep sleep (apparent unconsciousness yet information of identity is maintained).

The states are physically different, sure. But I have no definition of consciousness that would apply to me in sleep, or in deep-sleep dreaming. Waking dreams may have touches of consciousness.

 

[atanu]

Therefore?

Therefore? So, vanishing of a shape made of gold does not destroy gold. And a shape of gold is not gold itself.

Do you mean personal identity? That's primarily a function of particular memories.

The states are physically different, sure. But I have no definition of consciousness that would apply to me in sleep, or in deep-sleep dreaming. Waking dreams may have touches of consciousness.

So, should we understand consciousness as only pertaining to the waking and dreaming experiences? There is a lot of information in deep sleep state that helps to maintain our whole identity through the states of sleep, dream, and waking. The I sense is preserved through these states. Is that not consciousness to which the intellect has no access? Whatever the reality is, IMO, it does not need to "wait" upon human logic or definition.

 

[blü 2]

Therefore? So, vanishing of a shape made of gold does not destroy gold. And a shape of gold is not gold itself.

Shaped gold is not gold? A shape must have some form, so all shapes are formed of something, be it pencil, ink, pixels or gold, iron, selected sausages.

So, should we understand consciousness as only pertaining to the waking and dreaming experiences?

The point is to have some or other clear definition of 'consciousness' on the table so that the colloquists don't talk past each other.

 

[atanu]

Shaped gold is not gold? A shape must have some form, so all shapes are formed of something, be it pencil, ink, pixels or gold, iron, selected sausages.

The point is to have some or other clear definition of 'consciousness' on the table so that the colloquists don't talk past each other.

I agree. The whole point is to first recognise that what we consider consciousness — that is the impressions upon mind and senses, Is only the manifestation. What we experience as waking form, as dream form, and the infinite timeless-worldless deep sleep form, are but three forms of consciousness that which runs through all these forms as sense of I.

I use one example often. The three states of water and the actual underlying substance. The forms change but the substance remains the same.

The ‘I’ sense remains the same. The forms change without ceasing.

 

[blü 2]

I agree. The whole point is to first recognise that what we consider consciousness — that is the impressions upon mind and senses, Is only the manifestation. What we experience as waking form, as dream form, and the infinite timeless-worldless deep sleep form, are but three forms of consciousness that which runs through all these forms as sense of I.

Trouble is, I don't think of sleep or of dreams as being part of consciousness; nor do I think the contents of dreams form part of reality; nor do I hold with the notion that any aspect of reality can properly be called infinite or timeless, and if worldless means wholly immaterial, worldless.

The three states of water and the actual underlying substance. The forms change but the substance remains the same.

That analogy won't work for me. I regard objective reality as existing independently of me, and I don't think consciousness continues during sleep (though it can interact with the nonconscious brain in half-sleep).

 

[atanu]

Trouble is, I don't think of sleep or of dreams as being part of consciousness; nor do I think the contents of dreams form part of reality; nor do I hold with the notion that any aspect of reality can properly be called infinite or timeless, and if worldless means wholly immaterial, worldless.

That analogy won't work for me. I regard objective reality as existing independently of me, and I don't think consciousness continues during sleep (though it can interact with the nonconscious brain in half-sleep).

I understand all of that. And I hold, with valid reasons, that the materialistic paradigm is self refuting. My view is that nothing that one knows can ever be separate from one’s mind. It is another paradigm.

 

[blü 2]

the materialistic paradigm is self refuting.

Self-refuting how, exactly?

 

[atanu]

Trouble is, I don't think of sleep or of dreams as being part of consciousness;

Why? You see and know yourself and other objects in dream. Why is it not a form of consciousness? You wake up knowing that you slept well. So, why do you consider deep sleep to be devoid of any form whatsoever of consciousness? If there is no connecting consciousness between the three states: waking, dreaming, and sleeping, how identity with all its peculiarities are maintained across states?

nor do I think the contents of dreams form part of reality; nor do I hold with the notion that any aspect of reality can properly be called infinite or timeless, and if worldless means wholly immaterial, worldless.

You think or you know?

That analogy won't work for me. I regard objective reality as existing independently of me, and I don't think consciousness continues during sleep (though it can interact with the nonconscious brain in half-sleep).

But the objective reality is never separate from your mind.

 

[blü 2]

Why? You see and know yourself and other objects in dream. Why is it not a form of consciousness?

Because I don't regard myself as conscious when I'm asleep.

If there is no connecting consciousness between the three states: waking, dreaming, and sleeping, how identity with all its peculiarities are maintained across states?

They don't have to be connected by unsleeping consciousness. It's sufficient if they're understood through wakeful awareness, which is how I approach it.



You think or you know?



But the objective reality is never separate from your mind.[/QUOTE]

 

[atanu]

Because I don't regard myself as conscious when I'm asleep.

That is limitation of intellect. By do we equate that to absence of consciousness?

They don't have to be connected by unsleeping consciousness. It's sufficient if they're understood through wakeful awareness, which is how I approach it.

I think, it is like saying that knowledge of liquid state of water is sufficient to describe or understand other states of water, namely of steam and ice. Actually the reality of water is transcends the the three forms of water.



Note: I do not know why my statements are being attributed to PureX.

 

[Crystalline]

How can consciousness be anything other than a state of awaken awareness? We can be aware that we had a dream in a predominantly sleeping unconscious state, yet while also transitioning into an awakening consciousness. Or we are consciously aware we are daydreaming while only vaguely consciously aware it is only a fantasy or dream. Wouldn't this suggest our mentality is never fundamentally limited to clear cut states but can transition on a continuum?

Dreams, according to Carl Jung, are primarily metaphorical ways of unconsciously resolving issues we didn't have time to deal with in our conscious state. It is suggested that most dreams are forgotten because the problems they addressed were resolved and the ones we remembered were repeated with slightly different variations because it failed to deliver a certain degree of resolution. Hence, when asked to make a significant decision it is often recommended to "sleep on it."

Aren't conscious and subconscious states built only on subjective experiences? How can our own identity be anything other than our subjective interpretations, made consciously and subconsciously, of our history and accepted labels given to us by others or our self? Strip away all your labels and history forever, then what are you? Nothing? No thing? Rumi suggests God is no thing.

We aren't consciously aware of our subconscious info, unless we take time to ponder into a subconscious state to retrieve info we forgot, to be recognized and remembered consciously. Sometimes this happens spontaneously by a trigger or assistance from outside sources. The subconscious tends to take things literally and is more likely to accept a presupposition unchallenged. It lacks the ability to evaluate or validate a claim or insinuation and is mostly stored info, not necessarily true but believed to be true. Therefore, imposed presuppositions have the greatest propensity to be identified and called into question of its veracity by the conscious mind, yet are more commonly unnoticed... so are often mindlessly accepted without question and stored in the subconscious. That can be fortunate or unfortunate when it automatically goes into our subconscious beliefs and labeling processes, depending on what the presupposition was.

Limited by our individualized and unique subjective ways to discern the world probably contributes to the illusion of everything being independent from us. Even though subjective experiences are uniquely different from each other, we have generally established a way of correlating these similar experiences with each other by naming them. My interpretation of pink may look differently than what you see, but we have agreed on that correlation between us. The illusions of separation may be enhanced by our automatic rendering of all things into clear cut categories, but as Carl Sagan suggests, it might be part of the process of being part of the universe trying to know itself.

Self awareness probably contributed to a sense of separateness but I also believe it eventually leads us back to oneness. An introspection and an awareness that our thoughts are not us, but that actual "awareness" of our thoughts is us, could conclude our real "self" is really no thing. Reverting back to a universal mind means no relationships, and wouldn't relating only to one's self be boring? I think this illusion of separateness is a wonderful and miraculous manifestation.