The Faith of Uncertainty.

reply to post by bb23108


Would you mind elaborating a little on what you mean by the term 'the point-of-view illusory self'? And is it different from 'point-of-view self'? I am having a little difficulty following your post because I am not sure what these terms mean.

reply to post by Itisnowagain
Sure. The terms "point-of-view illusory self" or ""point-of-view self" are just a more descriptive way of saying "ego-I' because the term "ego-I" tends to make people think of some kind of entity rather than an activity or process.

The sense of separate self is no different from the ego-I, and can be described in terms of one's assuming, in any given moment, a point-of-view via the mechanism of attention. It is the activity of creating a "point-of-view" via attention that we are always animating, identifying with, defending, etc. - until the limits of this mechanism are transcended in awareness or consciousness, which is prior to attention, mind, etc., as you already understand.

reply to post by bb23108


Ok. I still dont see the benefit really. Are you saying someone who is aware of their awareness (in the manner you described) lives a "better?" ,"happier?", "more fulfilled" life? Or are you saying everyone who realizes their awareness will from that point on exist in the same manner, in effect becoming clones of that type of, aware person?

reply to post by ImaFungi
I am simply saying that one should recognize what is self-evident. If you are anticipating some kind of result, you are in that moment not noticing what is self-evident about awareness.

You are awareness - it is not a matter of being aware that your are awareness, because you cannot objectify your awareness like we tend to observe an object as objective. There is no subject knowing awareness - you are that awareness. Notice this, more and more profoundly, moment to moment. It is reality.

reply to post by bb23108

Sure. The terms "point-of-view illusory self" or ""point-of-view self" are just a more descriptive way of saying "ego-I' because the term "ego-I" tends to make people think of some kind of entity rather than an activity or process.

How does this "ego-I" encourage the personification of this activity or process? And what activity or process are you talking about?

I am simply saying that one should recognize what is self-evident. If you are anticipating some kind of result, you are in that moment not noticing what is self-evident about awareness.

You are awareness - it is not a matter of being aware that your are awareness, because you cannot objectify your awareness like we tend to observe an object as objective. There is no subject knowing awareness - you are that awareness. Notice this, more and more profoundly, moment to moment. It is reality.

And how does this impact your previous assertion that "ego-I" personifies this activity or process?

reply to post by AfterInfinity
Notice that any form of knowing is from a single point-of-view in any given moment. This point-of-view is assumed to be the subject that knows the object. This observing subject arises in response to objects and assumes it is separate from the object - as a knower or point-of-view self.

This moment to moment separative process of attention becoming point-of-view is what we typically identify as ego-I. It is simply the mechanism of attention arising in awareness and becoming a particular point-of-view in response to any object in the field of awareness. It is not any kind of entity but simply a process that changes in each moment as a modification of fundamental awareness or consciousness.

This can be noticed, as well, the seniority of unchanging awareness or consciousness.

P.S. By the way, given your prior comment to me, why are you asking me about any of this?

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Notice that any form of knowing is from a single point-of-view in any given moment. This point-of-view is assumed to be the subject that knows the object. This observing subject arises in response to objects and assumes it is separate from the object - as a knower or point-of-view self.

This moment to moment separative process of attention becoming point-of-view is what we typically identify as ego-I. It is simply the mechanism of attention arising in awareness and becoming a particular point-of-view in response to any object in the field of awareness. It is not any kind of entity but simply a process that changes in each moment as a modification of fundamental awareness or consciousness.

This can be noticed, as well, the seniority of unchanging awareness or consciousness.

P.S. By the way, given your prior comment to me, why are you asking me about any of this?

edit on 5/16/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

And you think this is the first and foremost most important idea or piece of information a human can and should know?

reply to post by ImaFungi
Yes, one should recognize who they are most fundamentally. And yes, this is first and foremost.

This recognition is necessary in each and every moment because it is who we are - but we are tending to assume otherwise. This recognition does not abstract one from life, nor turn the mind into soup, or whatever. It heightens one's inherent capacity to love, to learn, to freely discriminate between what is true and what is not, to feel, and to act as the whole body-mind. This recognition integrates the being, the body-mind, and all that one experiences, in the unity that is consciousness itself.

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Yes, one should recognize who they are most fundamentally. And yes, this is first and foremost.

This recognition is necessary in each and every moment because it is who we are - but we are tending to assume otherwise. This recognition does not abstract one from life, nor turn the mind into soup, or whatever. It heightens one's inherent capacity to love, to learn, to freely discriminate between what is true and what is not, to feel, and to act as the whole body-mind. This recognition integrates the being, the body-mind, and all that one experiences, in the unity that is consciousness itself.

edit on 5/16/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

Hm ok... It seems like it may be distracting to have to think about that in every moment. Cant one read it or discover that they are aware and alive for themselves, and then forever know that they exist and are conscious and then go about their life living as they do? Can you describe people who are going about living wrong, are there a lot of them? Or its not a general person like all engineers and mechanics and retail store owners and fishermen arent aware enough? I really dont understand what you want to see achieved or your goal, you are saying you have found a philosophical-psychological esoteric pill, that once consumed will make life better, and your ideal goal would be for all humans to think this same way? What do you imagine would happen then?

reply to post by bb23108


In response to your explanation: what does that have to do with the faith of uncertainty?

In response to your question: while I stand by the contents of the post you refer to, I thought better of leaving myself uninformed regarding the details of your esotericism. Just because you are inevitably biased in regard to the subject, does not inherently guarantee such a degree of inaccuracy as to warrant the complete dismissal of your views. I consider such cautionary measures worthwhile in this case, as much of what you just told me makes sense.

But again, I am uncertain as to how such information pertains to the discussion at hand. Perhaps you would be willing to enlighten me.

reply to post by ImaFungi
It is not a matter of thinking about who we are. It is simply noticing this to be self-evidently true. Any thinking about it tends to make it into an object that the observer function of the mind wants to know. Awareness simply is. Notice this more and more. Even set aside some time simply for this noticing, if you want.

One should persist in this noticing because by tendency we do not recognize this - we tend to be motivated by fear, so we identify with this internal process of the knower to feel separate and secure. This ego-I is an illusion.

I am not going to judge the lives of others who don't see this self-evident truth of who they are. At best, we can point it out to others.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

I believe narcotics and brain injury can help reach unity as well...so I've been told.

It is my impression that you are perfectly content with your individualized state of experience in this life. I respect that about you, as it can be speculated that to seek a universal union as an individual is futile in the same sense that a lizard may attempt to participate in a choir. It is logical to accept the inherent nature of our physical existence - that of individuality.

Out of curiosity, what have you chosen as your purpose in this lifetime?

reply to post by AfterInfinity
Admittedly, this topic has branched out! I tried on the prior page to point this out, here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But to little avail. So I spoke about esotericism as being the key component that is left out of both the institutions of science and religion, in response to NorEaster's post. Here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway, let's see... Relevance to the topic of "The Faith of Uncertainty"...
These matters we are discussing cannot be proven by science, they can only be seen as self-evident. So in that sense one has to have some faith in their uncertainty before discovering this truth (that we are awareness) is self-evident!

reply to post by bb23108

But to little avail. So I spoke about esotericism as being the key component that is left out of both the institutions of science and religion, in response to NorEaster's post. Here:

That's because both science and religion have been expanded to include the many, while esotericism, by its very definition, is reserved for the few. I would go so far as to suggest that science is merely esotericism that has become ubiquitous.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
That's because both science and religion have been expanded to include the many, while esotericism, by its very definition, is reserved for the few.

Certainly not by definition. The esotericism involved in noticing one is awareness could be readily noticed by anyone.

Also, Christianity could be revived if its esoteric roots were re-discovered and lived.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I would go so far as to suggest that science is merely esotericism that has become ubiquitous.

Care to elaborate?

reply to post by bb23108

Certainly not by definition. The esotericism involved in noticing one is awareness could be readily noticed by anyone.

Also, Christianity could be revived if its esoteric roots were re-discovered and lived.

I doubt it, considering the esoteric principles of Christianity never belonged to Christianity to begin with.

es·o·ter·ic
adjective \ˌe-sə-ˈter-ik, -ˈte-rik\
Definition of ESOTERIC
1
a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone
b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group ; broadly : difficult to understand

Many areas of scientific study would undoubtedly have fallen beneath such a heading in older times.

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

It is not a matter of thinking about who we are. It is simply noticing this to be self-evidently true. Any thinking about it tends to make it into an object that the observer function of the mind wants to know. Awareness simply is. Notice this more and more. Even set aside some time simply for this noticing, if you want.

One should persist in this noticing because by tendency we do not recognize this - we tend to be motivated by fear, so we identify with this internal process of the knower to feel separate and secure. This ego-I is an illusion.

I am not going to judge the lives of others who don't see this self-evident truth of who they are. At best, we can point it out to others.

edit on 5/16/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

But dont you think every human that ever lived was aware they were living? Doesnt one have to be aware they are aware to for example; get out of bed in the morning, eat breakfast, go to work, do work, raise children etc.

Also if this is self evidently true to all people, why do you feel the need to notify or point it out to others, dont they self evidently already know?

If this is not self evidently true to all people, but self evidently true to you, how do you know that what is self evidently true to your self, is self evidently true for all other people. If all you are stating that is self evidently true is that we are aware, then of course I and everyone else agrees, and speaking for my self, I promise I wont forget.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I doubt it, considering the esoteric principles of Christianity never belonged to Christianity to begin with.

This is not true, as we have already discussed this ad nauseum, I will leave it at that.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Many areas of scientific study would undoubtedly have fallen beneath such a heading in older times.

Yes, the olden times, but I thought you were talking about current times.

Traditionally, esoteric spiritual matters have typically been reserved for the more advanced (prepared) practitioners, etc. But relative to the self-evident nature of awareness, this truth is available to all. However, its import is not usually understood - except to those who are prepared enough to notice it moment to moment. So it tends to remain esoteric in the midst of being always the case anyway!

reply to post by bb23108

This is not true, as we have already discussed this ad nauseum, I will leave it at that.

Christianity was not the world's first religion. It makes sense that just like so many other religions that came before it, Christianity also borrowed a significant portion of its precious symbols and traditions. It's funny that all of the Judaic religions are the ones fighting the hardest to maintain their foothold in the world and demonstrate their authenticity, and everyone else is like, "Eh, live and let live, bro. To each their own."

Authenticity is usually the one that fights the least and lives the best.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
But dont you think every human that ever lived was aware they were living? Doesnt one have to be aware they are aware to for example; get out of bed in the morning, eat breakfast, go to work, do work, raise children etc.

Sure, but when you ask someone who they are, they do not say awareness. Also, they rarely notice that awareness never ages. Many people tend to believe that awareness dies when the body-mind dies given scientific-materialism's views on this.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Also if this is self evidently true to all people, why do you feel the need to notify or point it out to others, dont they self evidently already know?

See reply above.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
If this is not self evidently true to all people, but self evidently true to you, how do you know that what is self evidently true to your self, is self evidently true for all other people. If all you are stating that is self evidently true is that we are aware, then of course I and everyone else agrees, and speaking for my self, I promise I wont forget.

Many people already understand this truth - and also its import to one degree or another. That awareness never changes, is the one constant in all of our lives, is interesting, don't you think?