Hi Rodger,
It’s early morning over here in Thailand so I’ve only had a couple of
hours of consciousness to get used to, whereas you’ve presumably had a
whole day…
Your definition of consciousness designates it as the ‘supreme’ non-
duality that somehow invents a non-separate idea of ‘I’ to ask ‘what
is consciousness’, thus creating an idea of duality which it is not.
I think we’re on the same page here and I agree that nothing can
oppose unicity…… and yet you say ‘what’s so interesting about
nothing?’ ……to which I would say, ‘what’s so interesting about
something?’ – revolving day after day confronted by forms that never
stop changing, sleep/wake up, sleep/wake up etc…… a momentary play
that itself ends every day, then starts again.
And yet I would agree that to make any distinctions is to play the
game.
And perhaps you are right…… as long as the game is ‘interesting’… why
look anywhere else? Yet what defines ‘interesting’ – other than
consciousness playing with itself? Is it not, as you say, sufficient
unto itself…… as a fleeting appearance or not? But without the
recognition of non-appearance - the understanding that appearance is
the appearance of what is, in fact, not an appearance……… ie. just an
appearance via a temporary body, senses and mind… sleeping/waking,
sleeping waking…… where is the interest in that?
Yes, I just wanted to start another thread :)
And I much prefer this insanity………… I hear quite enough giggling
puerile penis jokes and ‘I’m better than you’ from the kids at school,
for whom the game of I and you is relatively fresh and new. Not to
mention an inner sense of insecurity expressing itself in, again,
puerile racism.
Distinctions, preferences and choices – the name of the game.
Quiet (and polite) companionship is more my style these days.