> > > > the real you is self effulgent awareness > Define good - a light - that shines bright?
If "I" try and explain what has been experienced here - maybe it is a case of terminology - as a "self" serving entity the language "I" use to explain awareness may be different conceptually so a description of the kinaesthetic - visceral experience may help? This experience is of something like mercury perhaps? though more like looking through a crystal ball albeit a molten one - it reminds me of when they put a layer of clear glass over the screen on laptops - changed the experience of light coming from a TFT screen - same screen - different experience - more glossy. the gloss however appears as "me" and three dimensional objects and the way things move on the horizon is infinitely fascinating - even moving my head in this small environment there is a sense of magic and amazement at the way objects and their depth is perceived. None of this is really happening to an individual - the feeling I thought was me was just a badly labelled emotion - actually I think it was satisfaction - so there was only ever a "me" when I felt satisfied in "my" illusion. As things have progressed there is an experience of wonder at the mechanism of it all. But none of it is good or bad. Effulgent is just some flowery word for something which is intrinsically very ordinary. Nothing really shines brightly. It's just the way it is and always was. Perhaps a little more noticed because it is not being judged against a false self based on disatisfaction. > > not as an object amongst other objects > > > > > but awareness itself > > > > yeah sure but awareness isn't you it is just awareness..... > > it is what you are > I don't know what it is. Not knowing seems to be a more powerful place than attaching labels. Give up your nonsense and look again. > > - the "me" feeling is > > just a feeling I identify as a "me" that was being used as a reference > point > > for emotions and thoughts > > > > emotions and thoughts are still happening but the me they apparently > > happened "to" needs not be referenced > > the usual "me" referred to is the body/mind, yes > but this is merely the reflector > a bouncing-off point, so to speak > Give up that the "me" is real, you are making it up, a story of you that things are happening to. No bouncing needs to happen. Reflections however pure are still filters to experience. Or are we stuck on terminology again? > > therefore a purer awareness arises > > > > it is still a game regardless of how good it feels > > > > I am saying "me, me, me" or "you, you, you" is an illusion > > > > > > you are just shifting the game of you > > > > > no > > > > you are! > > the average human's quality of awareness is not perceive-able > > the quantity and quality must change dramatically before > > it can recognize itself, in most cases the nervous system > > must undergo a transformation to allow the change disagree - babies are born and they are fine nothing changes physically when they invent the concepts "I" and "me" I am guessing you are more Advaita than Zen and I am more Zen than Advaita We both need stories we are human beings Ultimately how do we convey to one another a shared experience without making one another wrong with language Perhaps you are right We merely sit in one another's presence and see Kind regards Mark
