The Voice Is Not You [Let's discuss, also help me]

[Jack River]

Careful not to disidentify with the voice as well. Thought will attribute to itself as being an independent reality that stands outside thought itself. It may also identify with an idea that has been picked up along the way. The self/voice is structured to self-sustain this “independent existense”. It does so by thinking to itself I am the voice and also by saying I am not the voice. In order to not get caught here understand its subtle movement patterns and how they all connect and can be identified as one unit of psychological motion. 

This was most excellent for me.?

Edited October 27, 2018 by Jack River

[Joseph Maynor]

7 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Careful not to disidentify with the voice as well. Thought will attribute to itself as being an independent reality that stands outside thought itself. It may also identify with an idea that has been picked up along the way. The self/voice is structured to self-sustain this “independent existense”. It does so by thinking to itself I am the voice and also by saying I am not the voice. In order to not get caught here understand its subtle movement patterns and how they all connect and can be identified as one unit of psychological motion. 

This was most excellent for me.?

Here's a question for you -- what is "the voice" actually?  Before you say don't dis-identify with the voice, you should be able to tell me what the voice actually is.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[non_nothing]

7 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This is one of the first insights that I had very early on in my Enlightenment Path -- and it's a profound insight that is huge for Enlightenment.  The voice is not me.  I'm not in control of the voice.  I observe the voice, just like I observe thought, just like I observe the body.   One of the most basic of assumptions of the Egoic self is to think that voice is me/mine, those thoughts are me/mine, this body is me/mine -- and I'm in control of all of them!

Awareness is picking up the voice, but the voice is just an aspect of Experience with nothing behind the scenes.  The you-ness of the voice is an illusion.  You seeing the voice is like you seeing a mountain on the horizon.  You wouldn't think the mountain is your mountain.  But for some reason we think the voice is my voice.

 

7 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm not in control of the voice.

THIS!

[Arkandeus]

To me im both the voice and the one understanding the voice

[DecemberFlower]

On 26.10.2018 at 10:53 AM, non_nothing said:

Excerpt from a book called Solve for happiness:

 

Bold italic ones are the points that I've stuck right now. I need more explanation for help

There is no thinker of thought.

There is no separate entity called the voice.

The real you is awareness where thoughts occur.

[Jack River]

34 minutes ago, Arkandeus said:

To me im both the voice and the one understanding the voice

It being one process or movement. Fosho.  

Edited October 27, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

But when those thoughts stop occurring. Wow. The me thoughts/voice/psychological judgement & evaluation. What when awareness has silenced all psychological movement/thought? As in Mental commentary. When there is no mental chatter anymore, then what is left?..

Is it awareness or actually a type of unawareness? mind blowing, most excellent. 

 

[Jack River]

7 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Here's a question for you -- what is "the voice" actually?  Before you say don't dis-identify with the voice, you should be able to tell me what the voice actually is.

Sometimes Gilbert Gottfried, sometimes Robert Francis Goldthwait. 

[Arthur]

 

[Tony 845]

@Javfly33 nice way of putting it.

[Joseph Maynor]

11 hours ago, Jack River said:

Sometimes Gilbert Gottfried, sometimes Robert Francis Goldthwait. 

Of course, no serious answer even attempted.  It's deep love of the literal truth that makes a person Enlightened.  You should want to answer that question.  I wanted to answer that question.  

Edited October 28, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Tony 845]

@Joseph Maynor beautifully said.

[Jack River]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Of course, no serious answer even attempted.  It's deep love of the literal truth that makes a person Enlightened.  You should want to answer that question.  I wanted to answer that question.  

“I” don't pursue enlightenment/truth. Order in living is what I am all about brah. “You” don’t find truth. The person does not “become” enlightened. And what this “enlightenment” points too is not a thing fixed. It involves an activity of awareness that doesn’t resist the inevitable change of a series of the continuous NOW’s. That means no doing, no psychological momentum of will/time/effort which is really the voice/self. 

Truth comes when the self is not. And truth is also not fixed. And there is no path to it. You don’t do anything to attain it. Namean dude

But wait, you already knew that  

 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

13 hours ago, Jack River said:

Sometimes Gilbert Gottfried, sometimes Robert Francis Goldthwait. 

This was kinda funny by the way. Did you know who I meant by those names? 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Jack River

[Joseph Maynor]

Just now, Jack River said:

“I” don't pursue enlightenment/truth. Order in living is what I am all about brah. “You” don’t find truth. The person does not “become” enlightened. And what this “enlightenment” points too is not a thing fixed. It involves an activity of awareness that doesn’t resist the inevitable change of a series of the continuous NOW’s. That means no doing, no psychological momentum of will/time/effort which is really the voice/self. 

Truth comes when the self is not. And truth is also not fixed. And there is no path to it. You don’t do anything to attain it. Namean dude

But wait, you already knew that  

 

Sure.  Are you telling me or asking me?  You con't seem to care what I say.  You've already got your mind made up.  

Edited October 28, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Leo Gura]

The metaphor of the image and the LCD screen comes in handy here. The image is both separate from the screen but also not other than the screen itself.

The voice IS you, but not all of you. The voice is like one image on a screen.

Perception is actually only possible because you ARE the things you perceive. Perception is BEING plus ego. Being is perception minus ego.

[Joseph Maynor]

Awareness is not the voice.  The voice is part of Experience.  Awareness is aware of the voice.  And the voice is simply vocalizations (heard inside rather than outside) triggering Thoughts.  Now, how do these sounds and Thoughts relate to Awareness?  Is there some kind of connection between Awareness and these aspects of Experience?  Is there a connection at all between Awareness and Experience?  Is what's actual in Experience me, or is that a Thought?  How could we confirm that what's actual in Experience is part of the true Self (Awareness) not by Thinking but by seeing?  What aspects of of the voice are not actual but are illusory?  This is a very similar analysis to looking at your hand and asking "what's actual here vs. what is the mind augmenting into this"?  Part of Experience is actual and part of it is illusory.  The illusory part of Experience is called Maya.  And Experience includes Thought.  But even what's actual in Experience is always changing.  On the contrary, God Awareness never changes.  God Awareness is actual truth that never changes.  And Experience seems to have no impact on God Awareness at all.  What Ego is is when God Awareness forgets that and starts to buy into Experience and into thinking Experience is on the same frequency as God Awareness is.  That's the big ignorance, the big no no that enables Samsara a.k.a. Hell to exist.  God Awareness is liberated from Experience, actual or otherwise, because He realizes Experience is not even on the same frequency as He is.  This is what enables Moksha a.k.a. Heaven.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[SageModeAustin]

@non_nothing hmmmmm good post 

[non_nothing]

16 hours ago, Arthur said:

 

This was a good listen thanks.

[Jack River]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The metaphor of the image and the LCD screen comes in handy here. The image is both separate from the screen but also not other than the screen itself.

This is the way it’s perceived as seen here too. There is no actual distinction made between thought and truth. That distinction arises with awareness yes, but when awareness puts enough order in thought/self it dissolves and there is no thinking/voice. In that there are still separating/distinctions made. It seems If we are still dividing the image and the screen we are still in the pattern of identification. 

 

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The voice IS you, but not all of you. The voice is like one image on a screen.

Perception is actually only possible because you ARE the things you perceive. Perception is BEING plus ego. Being is perception minus ego.

I do see it this way. Only I would say being is comes from identifying that I am awareness. But to me awareness is an energy or essence of this source nonbeing/unawareness. When nothingness/Truth itself acts as awareness, that observes “the parts”, like the function of thought/voice etc. It is seen in this “state” of nonbeing/unawareness that there is only truth/the whole. There seems no division actually. Division only holds up in mind. 

This is why I don't like to say I am this or I am that. If I identify with what ever, that just seems to be short changing it all. But for explanation purposes I would say nonbeing/unawareness is what( I )am. And awareness is an expression or function/essence of unlimited energy that is aware of the functions of self/thought/voice. 

@cetus56 understands what I mean by nonbeing/unawareness. It’s going beyond being/awareness. Here all division actually breaks down. Awareness seems to be an energy that can observe self consciousness, which brings about order/being. But depending on the degree or potency of that awareness there can be a dissolving of the distinction between awareness and self consciousness, which is what seems to be left as the ground, as in nonbeing/unawareness. 

To me Nonbeing underlies being, and being underlies the conditioned consciousness/self/voice. 

 

Self consciousness

————————

BEing

————————

NONBEING 

 

Really all one. 

Anyway that’s how I see it dudes?

 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Jack River