|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2013 2:10:30 GMT -5
That's right. The person is literally an expression of fragmentation. That's not meant to put anybody down, it's just built into the nature of experiencing itself. Experience is, by definition, the experience of this and not that. On another level, if you knew yourself to be whole and complete, you would never move, never change, never improve or desire or accomplish or be motivated as there would be nothing to add and nothing to become. Life is in constant movement, constant improvement, continuous becoming. a fragmatised person can heal themself with-in relationship. Relationships, especially love relationships can be enlightening for both parties. Sure, its not about putting one up or down...its about having a good sharing. On another level... the only thing constant is change. One gotta change to remain the same. Not so oddly, changing doesn't result in sameness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2013 4:12:25 GMT -5
are you not having fun? All the while I come here to see you I am in Joy! Where is JOY housed in your appreciation of things? Didn't your mom tell you? It's all fun and games til somebody gets an 'I' poked out. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 28, 2013 21:16:55 GMT -5
A clinical depression or a dark night of the soul in your spiritual resume may be impressive assets on a personal growth forum but are rather irrelevant on a non-duality forum. self denyal in a Non-self forum is a bit weird isnt it? Sounds like a misconception. It's not about denial here. It's about seeing the false for what it is and the real for what it is and not mixing/confusing the two. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 28, 2013 21:21:35 GMT -5
are you not having fun? All the while I come here to see you I am in Joy! Where is JOY housed in your appreciation of things? Didn't your mom tell you? It's all fun and games til somebody gets an 'I' poked out. That's when 'exploring' non-duality ends.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 22:45:07 GMT -5
Sounds like a misconception. It's not about denial here. It's about seeing the false for what it is and the real for what it is and not mixing/confusing the two. That's all. So....it's about "seeing the false for what it is and the real for what it is" eh? I'm still awaiting an answer to my question. "Was enigma seeing something false or real, when he said this: Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2823/strange-woo?page=156&scrollTo=147153#ixzz2cczpYB2ZYou seem to be saying that what you saw was indeed 'real', but then it also seems that you started seeing things differently very soon after. (was that 'real' too?) Enigma says that you were 'clearly' having an emotional disturbance and that altered your perspective for a time, but then, he kinda has to see things that way, OR he'd have to look into the possibility that maybe he is "stuck, investing a lot of time into his supreme teacher image, having constant altercations with others, has been riding giraffes all along, is abiding in mind, is unbalanced, accuses projection as a defense, boasts to the point of being embarassing, and posts here due to boredom." Why is it, you're so very interested in what is false and what is real, when it comes to pointing at others, but when it's YOU we're talking about, not so very interested at all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 23:59:54 GMT -5
self denyal in a Non-self forum is a bit weird isnt it? Sounds like a misconception. It's not about denial here. It's about seeing the false for what it is and the real for what it is and not mixing/confusing the two. That's all. Non-self indicates an individual exists?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 29, 2013 0:52:58 GMT -5
acknowledging what that sticky substance is, is the first step. Because I Am split, "I" seek an appropriate healing 'substance' which has proven to unify my split nature, temprorarily bringing me a moments relief. Thus addiction is set-up 'if' i believe there is only One Way when many are available. By loving our illness to death we extract substance back into our awareness reuniting the illusion of two back into its former state. Looking at why we split is useful. OK... being split is an interesting view, and unification of that split nature... because I think being whole as a person is better than a disparity between 'self' and 'ego'. It seems to me that these words are used as nouns that name some things, whereas I believe 'ego' refers to habitual behavior as 'self' becomes associated with events... and basically, highly traumatic events create very unpleasant sensations and emotions, and if the aversion to that is extreme enough, a section of the person is hidden away (maybe in shame), and that hidden section retains the emotional content, and continues to act accordingly. I don't believe we need to love everything, but I think we need to acknowledge things as opposed to concealing them, and recognize how our mentality behaves, and see what is detrimental or beneficial to us... and instead of sheltering it under secret shadows, bring it out into the light a bit. Indeed, bringing that back into our awareness sums it up really well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 1:51:10 GMT -5
"Indeed, bringing that back into our awareness sums it up really well." Sure thing. Seeing (like believing) is very powerful in its own right. Unfortunately, alot of us loose awareness... some never have it so seeing is out of the solution.
Should the "I" try to escape rebirth? In a web-site that alerts the I to Non-self what's the point of bothering.
One can be quite content having a non-relationship with other non-people and then death comes and...are they both on the astral plane or one left on the mental plane, that which dies a few days after brain-death?
And what's it like to die in the astral plane an can one become like a body of light, full an brilliant like the person that floated through here one day when my partner was playing her guitar on the threshold.
The heart is the seat of knowledge, go there: Dont settle for the Non-person.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 30, 2013 4:06:16 GMT -5
The theory of it is sense, but the doing of it is a complicated process. Spiritual doesn't seem to like complexity and prefers to pretend things are simple, which is why it's kinda shallow and irrelevant to any particular person, and name dropping like Niz is used to validate own ideals and beliefs... and wonder, who really speaks as themselves? It the person slagging the other person a true speaker, or the one bithching to admin over the back fence? Until recently I never read much spiritual stuff, because the popular culture of Tolle, Hicks, Chopra and ilk was such a turnoff, but I did latch on to Krishnamurti, Ramana, Watts and some cool poets like Gibran, Rumi and Hafiz... but I fine one-ness and non-dual rhetoric is a sage like drone, until Mooji does it in that Barry White voice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 8:44:03 GMT -5
"until Mooji does it in that Barry White voice"
LOLololol, you should tell Mooji this!
Reading can lead one astray as well as strengthen ones resistance against entering the transcendental life.
Being trusting assisted in taking me through yogic-death early in life to realise deathlessness. Just one moment in time allowed eradication of heaps of fear... all at once. That was my beginning. Looking back today, if I had taken on-board intellectual knowledge(books an there were none in my country)about what I was about to investigate, I wouldn't have taken the route I took. I would still be frightened of having an experience.
Many years later I came across Ramana's early life story an that gave me words to put to the experience. Not having words myself I learnt quickly to silence my self as other people would become alarmed when I spoke. In my country I was a freak of nature an death an dying was taboo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 16:35:29 GMT -5
We never actually experience a self...so the denial of a self that we never actually experience is weird, very weird... Everybody has had the experience of a self. It's not necessary for it to be based on something true in order for the experience to happen. When that illusion is seen through, it's perfectly natural to deny the actuality of that illusion. No nobody has ever experienced a self... We actually only ever experience a feeling, then a sensation, then a smell, then a sound, then a taste. Then we fill in the blanks and conceive that an amorphous entity called my self is experiencing these senses. It's the difference between perceiving the senses and conceiving that there is an actual body that is perceiving the senses...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 30, 2013 17:05:11 GMT -5
Everybody has had the experience of a self. It's not necessary for it to be based on something true in order for the experience to happen. When that illusion is seen through, it's perfectly natural to deny the actuality of that illusion. No nobody has ever experienced a self... We actually only ever experience a feeling, then a sensation, then a smell, then a sound, then a taste. Then we fill in the blanks and conceive that an amorphous entity called my self is experiencing these senses. It's the difference between perceiving the senses and conceiving that there is an actual body that is perceiving the senses... Perchance mystery - is romantic, and much more appealing than say, a solid X on a map - a truth.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 30, 2013 17:10:57 GMT -5
Everybody has had the experience of a self. It's not necessary for it to be based on something true in order for the experience to happen. When that illusion is seen through, it's perfectly natural to deny the actuality of that illusion. No nobody has ever experienced a self... We actually only ever experience a feeling, then a sensation, then a smell, then a sound, then a taste. Then we fill in the blanks and conceive that an amorphous entity called my self is experiencing these senses. It's the difference between perceiving the senses and conceiving that there is an actual body that is perceiving the senses... The filling in the blanks part is kind of important because it's taking the experience beyond simple sensations and completely altering one's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 30, 2013 17:29:21 GMT -5
Everybody has had the experience of a self. It's not necessary for it to be based on something true in order for the experience to happen. When that illusion is seen through, it's perfectly natural to deny the actuality of that illusion. No nobody has ever experienced a self... We actually only ever experience a feeling, then a sensation, then a smell, then a sound, then a taste. Then we fill in the blanks and conceive that an amorphous entity called my self is experiencing these senses.It's the difference between perceiving the senses and conceiving that there is an actual body that is perceiving the senses... Right, that's called an experience. It's not necessary for it to be based on something true in order for the experience to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2013 19:55:19 GMT -5
Everybody has had the experience of a self. It's not necessary for it to be based on something true in order for the experience to happen. When that illusion is seen through, it's perfectly natural to deny the actuality of that illusion. No nobody has ever experienced a self... We actually only ever experience a feeling, then a sensation, then a smell, then a sound, then a taste. Then we fill in the blanks and conceive that an amorphous entity called my self is experiencing these senses. It's the difference between perceiving the senses and conceiving that there is an actual body that is perceiving the senses... LOL
|
|