Skip to content

1 Comment

  1. Mike
    December 27, 2018 @ 3:03 pm

    Interesting read, especially detangling the author’s use of “me” when “conscious” is already accepted as not of free will. The section on interpreting mental states (reading between the lines!) is particularly intriguing of this. “If I have to interpret their own ‘reliabilty’ of their own mental state, the immediacy required for communication wouldn’t work”. So if they are insincere when offering help, they are “relying” accurately on their mental state to know they are being insincere! Knowing there is not a separate person, that assumption “they” are accurately being insincere (reinforcing a separate-hood “here”/me that is able, at least hopefully!, to discern that “surface” level insincerity) is shortcuted. Not reading between the lines, I might take up that offered help, and provide unconscious Awakeness with the opportunity it is arising, the one to not “materialize” the separate-hood assumption. And the “person” hiding behind the mis-identifcation as “insincere person” might fall away without its “backup” support from “another” person. I bring this up too because I’m curious whether ANY reading between the lines is meaningful sometimes. Like would I register “my” intuition of insincerity, that might prompt me to say no to the offer? Or would I just say “no, thank you” very sincerely, equally not providing any food for the pattern of insincerity (no judgement “here” for insincerity to hang it’s hat on and find its “verification”). I guess I’ll ask you this when I see you in two days!

Disclaimer:  The information found on this site read more


Fred Davis, Creator & Editor-in-Chief
Betsy Hackett-Davis, Minister of Detail
Roland Jackman, Web Master
Mike Zerbel, Sangha Coordinator
John Ames, Editor Emeritus