|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2013 9:39:25 GMT -5
Any thoughts about the OP? Sure. The experience of a self is literally that movement of mind interpreting the experience and forming timelines and conclusions around it. What seems to happen for many is a simplified misunderstanding through which a particular sensation or thought pattern is identified with. When this sensation (perhaps abdominal contraction) ceases, a conclusion is formed by drawing on the knowledge they have gathered and out comes "I've lost my self, help!". I'd say Segal didn't lose the experience of a self but rather dramatically altered her interpretation of her experience and made it problematic for herself. She then sought help for it, perhaps unconsciously looking for a more suitable interpretation and was told that the interpretation itself must end thereby focusing the light precisely on the problem.
The end of that reflective interpretation is not nearly as simple as most would like. Genuine clarity can actually intensify this compulsion rather than ending it. You see it here constantly when someone has some new insight or whatever and they can't stop talking about it, looking at it from different angles and fitting it into some grander theory or method of advice. Even more ironically, while this is going on and the experience of a self has actually been intensified, they may be trying to show others how to see through the self.
Actually leaving the experience alone decimates the entire thing. No more selves being lost and gained. No spiritual timeline, no closer or further away from God union or whatever the newest craze might be. Precisely. That's the end of the spiritual resume.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2013 9:40:14 GMT -5
Sure. The experience of a self is literally that movement of mind interpreting the experience and forming timelines and conclusions around it. What seems to happen for many is a simplified misunderstanding through which a particular sensation or thought pattern is identified with. When this sensation (perhaps abdominal contraction) ceases, a conclusion is formed by drawing on the knowledge they have gathered and out comes "I've lost my self, help!". I'd say Segal didn't lose the experience of a self but rather dramatically altered her interpretation of her experience and made it problematic for herself. She then sought help for it, perhaps unconsciously looking for a more suitable interpretation and was told that the interpretation itself must end thereby focusing the light precisely on the problem. The end of that reflective interpretation is not nearly as simple as most would like. Genuine clarity can actually intensify this compulsion rather than ending it. You see it here constantly when someone has some new insight or whatever and they can't stop talking about it, looking at it from different angles and fitting it into some grander theory or method of advice. Even more ironically, while this is going on and the experience of a self has actually been intensified, they may be trying to show others how to see through the self. Actually leaving the experience alone decimates the entire thing. No more selves being lost and gained. No spiritual timeline, no closer or further away from God union or whatever the newest craze might be. Yeah, that's why I'm not so much into bloody ego death, death, death, or even in the personal accomplishment of permanent absence in Samadhi. It's much more like just losing interest in the story and not thinking about it anymore. That's the difference between glorious victory or the agony of defeat, vs turning and walking off the battlefield. This whole notion of being terribly disturbed because there is no me, sounds absurd. It's a bit like the rope being all despondent because he's not a snake. Yup, yup.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2013 9:43:57 GMT -5
I suspect for most, "no me" instantly gets translated into "I don't exist" and off the dissociation and fear wagon goes. Most likely, yeah, but then mayhaps a moments reflection on how one can contemplate one's own non-existence is in order. One clearly does exist, and there's no reason that issue can't be put out of it's misery. As for that existence having a center that one needs to point to with one a them fancy laser pointers, maybe the absurdity of that one can be seen through too. Bizarre discussions, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 15, 2013 9:48:42 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why I'm not so much into bloody ego death, death, death, or even in the personal accomplishment of permanent absence in Samadhi. It's much more like just losing interest in the story and not thinking about it anymore. That's the difference between glorious victory or the agony of defeat, vs turning and walking off the battlefield. This whole notion of being terribly disturbed because there is no me, sounds absurd. It's a bit like the rope being all despondent because he's not a snake. Yes, either one loses interest in the story or simply sees that the story is a story, only. The logical consequence of seeing that a story is only a story is to shift attention away from all stories to "what is." Klein helped Segal by advising her to stop telling herself a story about a past experience and to embrace the reality of what is always present. Klein's advice is kinda nonsense, too. Dealing with mind? All the genuine pointers are pointing prior to mind. Mind stays untouched.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 15, 2013 11:11:48 GMT -5
Yes, either one loses interest in the story or simply sees that the story is a story, only. The logical consequence of seeing that a story is only a story is to shift attention away from all stories to "what is." Klein helped Segal by advising her to stop telling herself a story about a past experience and to embrace the reality of what is always present. Klein's advice is kinda nonsense, too. Dealing with mind? All the genuine pointers are pointing prior to mind. Mind stays untouched. From my POV Klein was, in E.'s words, pointing beyond the intellect by "informing the intellect" concerning its limitations. What Segal IS includes intellect, and apparently intellect became informed, understood what had been happening, and stopped making up a story about what the lack of an "inside sense of selfhood" meant. This resulted in attention shifting to "what is" rather than a story ABOUT "what is." Klein's advice, in essence, is no different than the advice many of us give people when we say, "stop imagining and look." In this case his words referred to the specific activity that was causing Segal so much fear. I recently listened to a person who was obviously consumed with a particular fantasy. I advised that person that his whole imaginary world revolves around a fantasy, and I advised him to let go of it. His entire identity and sense of self importance is tied up in the fantasy, but it's the same sort of thing. Whether he'll drop the fantasy after being told that its a fantasy remains to be seen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2013 11:32:39 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why I'm not so much into bloody ego death, death, death, or even in the personal accomplishment of permanent absence in Samadhi. It's much more like just losing interest in the story and not thinking about it anymore. That's the difference between glorious victory or the agony of defeat, vs turning and walking off the battlefield. This whole notion of being terribly disturbed because there is no me, sounds absurd. It's a bit like the rope being all despondent because he's not a snake. Yes, either one loses interest in the story or simply sees that the story is a story, only. The logical consequence of seeing that a story is only a story is to shift attention away from all stories to "what is." Klein helped Segal by advising her to stop telling herself a story about a past experience and to embrace the reality of what is always present. It's difficult to lose interest in the story when it's the same one who is defending the story... What perception sees and hears appears to be real because it only allows the awareness to conform to the wishes of the perciever. When you have been caught in the world of perception you are caught in the story.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 15, 2013 17:26:14 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why I'm not so much into bloody ego death, death, death, or even in the personal accomplishment of permanent absence in Samadhi. It's much more like just losing interest in the story and not thinking about it anymore. That's the difference between glorious victory or the agony of defeat, vs turning and walking off the battlefield. This whole notion of being terribly disturbed because there is no me, sounds absurd. It's a bit like the rope being all despondent because he's not a snake. Yes, either one loses interest in the story or simply sees that the story is a story, only. The logical consequence of seeing that a story is only a story is to shift attention away from all stories to "what is." Klein helped Segal by advising her to stop telling herself a story about a past experience and to embrace the reality of what is always present. I'd say it is not an either or situation. The interest must be lost, period. While the interest remains, the compulsion to be consumed by imagination will continue regardless of how the stories are viewed. Why simply shifting attention away from stories to "what is" does not work for most is precisely because mind is more than happy to juggle multiple conflicting interests. Which is why I see the "shifting attention to what is" piece as actually the end result and not the initial cause that with enough practice breaks the house of cards so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 15, 2013 17:42:59 GMT -5
Klein's advice is kinda nonsense, too. Dealing with mind? All the genuine pointers are pointing prior to mind. Mind stays untouched. From my POV Klein was, in E.'s words, pointing beyond the intellect by "informing the intellect" concerning its limitations. What Segal IS includes intellect, and apparently intellect became informed, understood what had been happening, and stopped making up a story about what the lack of an "inside sense of selfhood" meant. This resulted in attention shifting to "what is" rather than a story ABOUT "what is." Klein's advice, in essence, is no different than the advice many of us give people when we say, "stop imagining and look." In this case his words referred to the specific activity that was causing Segal so much fear. I suspect the words fundamentally changed the paradigm such that there was no longer any way to avoid the fact that she was the source of all her distress and not some outside occurrence 10 years earlier that left her in shambles. Where and who or what the words were directed at is likely not even remotely being pondered about by Klein before they leave his mouth.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 15, 2013 18:02:16 GMT -5
I suspect for most, "no me" instantly gets translated into "I don't exist" and off the dissociation and fear wagon goes. Most likely, yeah, but then mayhaps a moments reflection on how one can contemplate one's own non-existence is in order. One clearly does exist, and there's no reason that issue can't be put out of it's misery. As for that existence having a center that one needs to point to with one a them fancy laser pointers, maybe the absurdity of that one can be seen through too. Well I'm sure you know as well as anyone after years of discussions with Andrew that absurdity can reach limitless proportions.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 15, 2013 21:16:42 GMT -5
Klein's advice is kinda nonsense, too. Dealing with mind? All the genuine pointers are pointing prior to mind. Mind stays untouched. From my POV Klein was, in E.'s words, pointing beyond the intellect by "informing the intellect" concerning its limitations. What Segal IS includes intellect, and apparently intellect became informed, understood what had been happening, and stopped making up a story about what the lack of an "inside sense of selfhood" meant. This resulted in attention shifting to "what is" rather than a story ABOUT "what is." Klein's advice, in essence, is no different than the advice many of us give people when we say, "stop imagining and look." In this case his words referred to the specific activity that was causing Segal so much fear. I recently listened to a person who was obviously consumed with a particular fantasy. I advised that person that his whole imaginary world revolves around a fantasy, and I advised him to let go of it. His entire identity and sense of self importance is tied up in the fantasy, but it's the same sort of thing. Whether he'll drop the fantasy after being told that its a fantasy remains to be seen. So ZD, you were talking to a T-Party House Republican who wants to not-fund Obama-Care? (Or you know Ted Cruz?) :-) sdp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 3:44:07 GMT -5
Klein's advice is kinda nonsense, too. Dealing with mind? All the genuine pointers are pointing prior to mind. Mind stays untouched. From my POV Klein was, in E.'s words, pointing beyond the intellect by "informing the intellect" concerning its limitations. What Segal IS includes intellect, and apparently intellect became informed, understood what had been happening, and stopped making up a story about what the lack of an "inside sense of selfhood" meant. This resulted in attention shifting to "what is" rather than a story ABOUT "what is." Klein's advice, in essence, is no different than the advice many of us give people when we say, "stop imagining and look." In this case his words referred to the specific activity that was causing Segal so much fear. I recently listened to a person who was obviously consumed with a particular fantasy. I advised that person that his whole imaginary world revolves around a fantasy, and I advised him to let go of it. His entire identity and sense of self importance is tied up in the fantasy, but it's the same sort of thing. Whether he'll drop the fantasy after being told that its a fantasy remains to be seen. Hello ZD, I'm curious about what your interest in this case is? Also, whats moving you to start redefining things like mind versus intellect and identifying where problems and issues lay etc.? I ask because I find it interesting that your energy to respond and interact here at this forum seems to be on an upswing, while mine is on a downswing. I read through what is written here and most of it just holds no interest for me, and even less of what is written here moves me to write something...seems like it goes in cycles though ;-) For me, all "this stuff" has become very simple....most of the time its just about kinda effortlessly Not Knowing....just BEING so to speak, without a lot of thought about this stuff or anything else... I'm curious about what seems like an upswing in "activity" and mentation about this stuff on your part, while at the same time I have lost ALL interest in defining or clarifying any of this stuff lol? Its interesting, all the postulating and defining, and conversing a out this stuff that use to be so interesting now seems like a big hubahbahlu about nothing....and when I read stuff here, its kinda like: "Its a lot of talking and thinking, but not a lot of being quiet and not knowing" And I'm much more interested in letting all this take care of itself while the "I" that is this body mind goes and quietly walks in the grace of god, or just sits in empty silence that is the natural state.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 16, 2013 11:02:19 GMT -5
From my POV Klein was, in E.'s words, pointing beyond the intellect by "informing the intellect" concerning its limitations. What Segal IS includes intellect, and apparently intellect became informed, understood what had been happening, and stopped making up a story about what the lack of an "inside sense of selfhood" meant. This resulted in attention shifting to "what is" rather than a story ABOUT "what is." Klein's advice, in essence, is no different than the advice many of us give people when we say, "stop imagining and look." In this case his words referred to the specific activity that was causing Segal so much fear. I recently listened to a person who was obviously consumed with a particular fantasy. I advised that person that his whole imaginary world revolves around a fantasy, and I advised him to let go of it. His entire identity and sense of self importance is tied up in the fantasy, but it's the same sort of thing. Whether he'll drop the fantasy after being told that its a fantasy remains to be seen. Hello ZD, I'm curious about what your interest in this case is? Also, whats moving you to start redefining things like mind versus intellect and identifying where problems and issues lay etc.? I ask because I find it interesting that your energy to respond and interact here at this forum seems to be on an upswing, while mine is on a downswing. I read through what is written here and most of it just holds no interest for me, and even less of what is written here moves me to write something...seems like it goes in cycles though ;-) For me, all "this stuff" has become very simple....most of the time its just about kinda effortlessly Not Knowing....just BEING so to speak, without a lot of thought about this stuff or anything else... I'm curious about what seems like an upswing in "activity" and mentation about this stuff on your part, while at the same time I have lost ALL interest in defining or clarifying any of this stuff lol? Its interesting, all the postulating and defining, and conversing a out this stuff that use to be so interesting now seems like a big hubahbahlu about nothing....and when I read stuff here, its kinda like: "Its a lot of talking and thinking, but not a lot of being quiet and not knowing" And I'm much more interested in letting all this take care of itself while the "I" that is this body mind goes and quietly walks in the grace of god, or just sits in empty silence that is the natural state. Steve: Each body/mind must do what it must do. What a particular body/mind does does not necessarily conform to what is imagined. My interest in the website, which had almost ceased, increased after we began having no-attack threads. It appeared that it might be possible to have discussions without bickering and personal attacks, and that was appealing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2013 12:38:31 GMT -5
Hello ZD, I'm curious about what your interest in this case is? Also, whats moving you to start redefining things like mind versus intellect and identifying where problems and issues lay etc.? I ask because I find it interesting that your energy to respond and interact here at this forum seems to be on an upswing, while mine is on a downswing. I read through what is written here and most of it just holds no interest for me, and even less of what is written here moves me to write something...seems like it goes in cycles though ;-) For me, all "this stuff" has become very simple....most of the time its just about kinda effortlessly Not Knowing....just BEING so to speak, without a lot of thought about this stuff or anything else... I'm curious about what seems like an upswing in "activity" and mentation about this stuff on your part, while at the same time I have lost ALL interest in defining or clarifying any of this stuff lol? Its interesting, all the postulating and defining, and conversing a out this stuff that use to be so interesting now seems like a big hubahbahlu about nothing....and when I read stuff here, its kinda like: "Its a lot of talking and thinking, but not a lot of being quiet and not knowing" And I'm much more interested in letting all this take care of itself while the "I" that is this body mind goes and quietly walks in the grace of god, or just sits in empty silence that is the natural state. Steve: Each body/mind must do what it must do. What a particular body/mind does does not necessarily conform to what is imagined. My interest in the website, which had almost ceased, increased after we began having no-attack threads. It appeared that it might be possible to have discussions without bickering and personal attacks, and that was appealing. I'll express what I currently understand no-attack to mean at this point in the next thread with that in the title.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2013 12:41:32 GMT -5
Hello ZD, I'm curious about what your interest in this case is? Also, whats moving you to start redefining things like mind versus intellect and identifying where problems and issues lay etc.? I ask because I find it interesting that your energy to respond and interact here at this forum seems to be on an upswing, while mine is on a downswing. I read through what is written here and most of it just holds no interest for me, and even less of what is written here moves me to write something...seems like it goes in cycles though ;-) For me, all "this stuff" has become very simple....most of the time its just about kinda effortlessly Not Knowing....just BEING so to speak, without a lot of thought about this stuff or anything else... I'm curious about what seems like an upswing in "activity" and mentation about this stuff on your part, while at the same time I have lost ALL interest in defining or clarifying any of this stuff lol? Its interesting, all the postulating and defining, and conversing a out this stuff that use to be so interesting now seems like a big hubahbahlu about nothing....and when I read stuff here, its kinda like: "Its a lot of talking and thinking, but not a lot of being quiet and not knowing" And I'm much more interested in letting all this take care of itself while the "I" that is this body mind goes and quietly walks in the grace of god, or just sits in empty silence that is the natural state. Steve: Each body/mind must do what it must do. What a particular body/mind does does not necessarily conform to what is imagined. My interest in the website, which had almost ceased, increased after we began having no-attack threads. It appeared that it might be possible to have discussions without bickering and personal attacks, and that was appealing. :-) Just to be clear, I am not judging or imagining how you or I should be, or you or your actions in any way, I'm just curious about the shift. Shifts are often interesting ;-)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 16, 2013 15:35:12 GMT -5
This last weekend I had an interesting conversation that made me think of the young guy who tried the Mooji meditation and either (1) lost his sense of personal selfhood or (2) suffered from what psychiatrists call "depersonalization syndrome." These two things may be the same phenomena talked about differently. In either case, he did not enjoy what had happened, and wished that his old sense of selfhood would return. When Suzanne Segal had the same sort of thing happen to her, her response was similar to that of the young man--fear, horror, dismay, etc. Whether awareness continued 24/7 for the young man as Segal claimed is unknown, and her experience certainly sounds more dramatic as far as the way she described it. AAR, I re-read the part of her story where she met Jean Klein in an effort to understand what his advice was. She explained to Klein that her sense of being an individual separate person had disappeared 10 years prior, and had never returned. He replied, "You mean there is no experience of a 'me'?" Segal responded, "That's right. There's no 'me.' There used to be one, but now there isn't anymore." Klein said, "Well, that's perfect." Segal: But Jean, why is there so much anxiety? And why is there no joy?" Klein: You must stop the part of the mind that constantly keeps trying to look back at the experience. Get that part out of the way, then joy will come." Segal explains: No one else in the room could possibly have known how appropriate his words were. There was a part of the mind--perhaps what we call the self-reflective or introspective function--that kept turning to look and, finding emptiness, kept sending the message that something was wrong. It was a reflex that had developed during the years of living in the illusion of individuality, a reflex we commonly consider necessary to know ourselves. We "look within" repeatedly to determine what we think and feel, to make a study of ourselves and track our states of mind and heart. Now that there was no longer an "in" to look "into," the self-reflective reflex was adrift, but it persisted. It kept turning in and turning in, unable to come to terms with the fact that there was no "in" anymore, only emptiness. Later she writes: What I had lacked during the entire twelve-year journey was calm acceptance. For twelve years I had recived no reassurance; I had been alone. The mind did not know what to make of it all, and it constantly searched for understanding and meaning. It took close to eleven years to finally accept that mind was simply incapable of grasping the vastness of the experience of no personal self. This acceptance cleared the way for the mind to comprehend that an ungraspable experience is just that. It's neither wrong nor crazy--its simply ungraspable. Later in her book she has a quote from Ramana that seems appropriate. Ramana: The fact is that any amount of action can be performed by the jnani without his identifying himself with it in any way or imagining that he is the doer. Some power acts through his body and uses his body to get the work done. Questioner: You say the jnani sees no differences, yet it seems to me that he appreciates differences better than an ordinary man. In fact, all forms, all sounds, all tastes, etc. are the same to him as to others. If so, how can it be said that these are mere appearances? Ramana: I have said that equality is the true sign of a jnani. The very term equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity that the jnani perceives in all differences, which I call equality. Equality does not mean ignorance of distinctions. When you have the realization, you can see that these differences are very superficial, that they are not substantial or permanent and what is essential in all of these appearances is the one truth, the real. That I call unity. The line that most interested me in Segal's account was what Klein said to her--"You must stop the part of the mind that constantly keeps trying to look back at the experience." Klein, as a person/Reality, is saying to a person/Reality, "Stop reflecting upon what happened, stop reflecting upon your story of what happened, and stop reflecting upon your interpretation of what happened. It's just a bad habit." During this last weekend someone asked me, "Do you mean to say that in the past you felt as if you were an entity inside the body looking out at the world, and that that all changed on a particular day?" I said, "Yes, isn;t that you way you experience it? " He replied, "No, I have never felt like there was someone 'in here' looking 'out there. I have never known what I am or where I was located other than this body, and I have always looked to other people to help me figure out, from their reactions, what I should think or feel." After further conversation, I wondered how many people feel as I once did, and how many feel the way this fellow described? IOW, how many people look within, reflectively, and check on their mental states, ideas, feelings, etc, and feel as if they are "inside" looking at a world "outside?" and how many people do not locate their selfhood inside at all? In my case, the "inside/outside" duality ceased on a particular day, and that is what ended the search. I realized that I was not "someone in here" looking at "a world out there;" I was Reality/the universe/beingness looking at Itself. If someone does not identify as a person "in here," what is it that makes her feel like she is separate from the world around her? Any feedback? I find this entire Seagal account very odd. Obviously there was still a lot of minding going on and existential question haven't been wiped out. Sounds very much like depersonalization disorder, i.e. split mind taken to an extreme. It sounds a lot like that to me too.
|
|