|
Post by Reefs on Feb 8, 2018 9:12:13 GMT -5
The true self (Inner Being) doesn't suffer. True self means the realization of oneness. Suffering is the belief in separation. Therefore the true self that suffers is not the true self. I guess I shouldn't use words that are "pre-loaded". E seemed to be saying that there isn't a self until about 2 years of age, so there isn't any suffering until then. But there is an authentic self from birth. Ask parents who have several kids, difference and uniqueness shows up from a very early age. Ego/cultural self/conditioned self forms to a great extent as a means to protect the authentic self, protection from suffering. However, eventually a shift occurs, the sense of being (unconsciously) shifts from the authentic self to ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self. Ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self is formed to shield and protect authentic self, but instead, eventually, this shift occurs, and 'we' mis-take the false for the real, we ~become~ the false self. And then most people live the remainder of their lives through an inauthentic sense of self. The spiritual journey is about recovering and living through the authentic self. The intended aim of the forming cultural self is for it to take abuse, be-a-shield, thus protecting authentic self from harm. But this shift occurs. The shift has different names, the fall, original sin, becoming lost. And instead of inauthentic self protecting authentic self, ~we~ become the inauthentic self. The personality is there at the moment of birth and will remain post SR. So personality and suffering are not related. It has something to do with perspective. A-H once defined suffering as depriving yourself of the fullness that you are. So it is basically an extreme case of misidentification or being out of alignment.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 8, 2018 9:42:51 GMT -5
It's not that simple in actuality. I would agree that babies come very close to that ideal. But babies also do have needs. And there have been some (rather sick) experiments with babies in the past that would prove you wrong. Babies can and do suffer. But they are not willing to put up with it at all or endure it for long. And I think that's the actual difference between the baby and the adult here (and also the difference between the animals in the wild and humans). But just in case, what is your definition of suffering? My definition of suffering would be an acute awareness of a feeling of separation. Of course babies have needs, as do the animals in the wild. That doesn't imply they suffer. I would be interested in the experiments that prove they do. To start with, I'm not sure how subjective suffering is determined objectively.Then how can we be sure those beings don't/can't suffer? I'm guessing your answer may be along the lines of what you said earlier here, about "reversing the process of suffering …", in which case I assume you're doing that, and applying it to a perception about the potential capacity of babies, and animals (i.e. their capacity for self-awareness). Putting aside the assumption there for the moment, presumably this is done through a process of observation, and application, so at the risk on going off on a tangent, how can we do that in this instance accurately, but not when it comes to determining the perceptual capacity of other beings, (i.e. in the others as perceivers scenario)?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 8, 2018 9:49:12 GMT -5
It's not that simple in actuality. I would agree that babies come very close to that ideal. But babies also do have needs. And there have been some (rather sick) experiments with babies in the past that would prove you wrong. Babies can and do suffer. But they are not willing to put up with it at all or endure it for long. And I think that's the actual difference between the baby and the adult here (and also the difference between the animals in the wild and humans). But just in case, what is your definition of suffering? My definition of suffering would be an acute awareness of a feeling of separation. The question "what is suffering?" can't be disentangled from the question of "what suffers?", so there's no idea in answer to it, no conceptual structure that will ever reduce the process of suffering to relative, mechanistic terms. But there are some facts that we can apply to gain clarity. In terms of the current forum dialogs, machines can't suffer, and any and all suffering for a human being can cease during the course of their lifetime, as this is, essentially, a defining characteristic of self-realization. The babies that suffer don't have the bogus belief that leads to emotional pain. While we could point to what we mean by saying that emotional pain is an illusion, we still have to contend, practically speaking, with how emotional pain and physical pain can weave together in a sequence of events such that teasing out cause and effect becomes a meaningless exercise in futility. Also, out at the extremes, the distinction between physical pain and suffering loses it's efficacy as a pointer. I don't think I need to state the gruesome hypotheticals that would make this point. As you said, those experiments (that I'm completely unfamiliar with) were diseased. In terms of LOA and vibration, a person free of suffering will still have some sort of reaction in encountering energy patterns destructive of their person or the persons proximate to them or otherwise strongly related to them somehow. But these reactions happen one way when the pattern of false identification is manifest, and another way otherwise. To simplify this scenario in terms of personal resistance is a misconception that only one who isn't really free of that identification would ever consider as a conclusive basis for an explanation of the process, because the opposition to destructive patterns of energy is entirely situational. I stumbled upon this when I was reading about Wilhelm Reich many years ago (cloud busting, hehe). He actually did some work on personality and social conditioning and how it led to suffering when the personality became inflexible (he called it character amour). That was in the 1920's or 1930's, a time that he experienced as very brutish and lacking any sense or sensibility in terms of what a human being actually is. He said that infants were considered as having no personality or sense of self or even a capacity to feel. Seth has been speaking about biological optimism and how there are certain minimum requirements in terms of quality of experience for every individual consciousness in order to stay focused in the physical. When that basic requirement can't be fulfilled, the individual consciousness will withdraw from the physical. That seems to work perfectly and effortlessly in the animal kingdom but it's obviously a different story with humans. There's an enormous willingness to put up with suffering. Animals don't have that willingness, and infants don't seem to have that willingness either. Which doesn't mean that they don't have the capacity to suffer. Pets obviously do at times. Well, being fully free of any resistance in this world is only an ideal, even A-H admit that. They actually said once that it would be an impossibility to live in this world in this day and age and be totally free of resistance. And I agree with that. So those like BK who think they are totally allowing are mostly kidding themselves (as their manifestations show). As long as there is contrast, there is wanted and unwanted and therefore the potential for resistance. And as long as you know the way back to the watering hole and replenish often, then it isn't a problem anyway. It's only a problem if you want to live an idea/ideal.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 8, 2018 10:09:48 GMT -5
It's not that simple in actuality. I would agree that babies come very close to that ideal. But babies also do have needs. And there have been some (rather sick) experiments with babies in the past that would prove you wrong. Babies can and do suffer. But they are not willing to put up with it at all or endure it for long. And I think that's the actual difference between the baby and the adult here (and also the difference between the animals in the wild and humans). But just in case, what is your definition of suffering? My definition of suffering would be an acute awareness of a feeling of separation. Of course babies have needs, as do the animals in the wild. That doesn't imply they suffer. I would be interested in the experiments that prove they do. To start with, I'm not sure how subjective suffering is determined objectively. I think the difference between animals in the wild and humans is that humans are self aware. It's this self awareness that the humans build a self identity around, which animals can't do. I wouldn't define suffering as a feeling of separation. I would say suffering is any feeling from which one struggles to escape. From my perspective, your definition is a bit problematic because it may contain a hidden Katie trap.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 8, 2018 10:16:47 GMT -5
This is interesting, three different positions on the nature of suffering. Two contrasting definitions from E & R, and a declaration from L that it's pretty much impossible to satisfactorily define, if I'm not mistaken.
I also tend to go with that last approach, giving only examples that qualify as suffering, and fwiw I'm fairly sure the Buddha worked the same way. I admire you guys for offering definitions though.
I've mentioned before that I don't use the phrase as narrowly as most folks here, (which seems to be suffering as; merely extreme psychological angst arising only upon an overlay of a complex set of self-referential thoughts).
For me both acute psychological angst, and acute physical pain are different forms of suffering, so I use it as a umbrella term. I tend not to divorce the psychology, and physicality too much, as obviously mind and body are interdependent.
I'm also not entirely adverse to employing the phrase to talk about milder prevailing dissatisfaction, (which seems to be in keeping with E's definition). But accept that can be problematic, insofar as it could potentially be classed as over-statement.
It's also seems fairly clear that it all depends on what level we deem the necessary component of 'self awareness' to ultimately be happening. For example, I tend to envisage that as happening on a much subtler, more primal level than conceptualisation, or sets of self-referencing thoughts.
I'll say this much. If we find ourselves in the position where, say, an elephant shuffling along with it's foot hanging off coz it got caught in a wire snare isn't/can't be suffering, then I think something's gone awry. I say their entire countenance and demeanor suggests otherwise, and have it on good authority that anyone who has worked closely in such situations would corroborate that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 8, 2018 10:32:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2018 12:34:00 GMT -5
Yes. True self exists from birth (and before), and can suffer. Suffering before 2 actually malforms the cultural self (conditioned self). Thus can arise rather nasty people. I think the whole problem here is that there's no true self. Yes, of course I know that's your opinion. True self is the (a) middle layer.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2018 12:36:57 GMT -5
I guess I shouldn't use words that are "pre-loaded". E seemed to be saying that there isn't a self until about 2 years of age, so there isn't any suffering until then. But there is an authentic self from birth. Ask parents who have several kids, difference and uniqueness shows up from a very early age. Ego/cultural self/conditioned self forms to a great extent as a means to protect the authentic self, protection from suffering. However, eventually a shift occurs, the sense of being (unconsciously) shifts from the authentic self to ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self. Ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self is formed to shield and protect authentic self, but instead, eventually, this shift occurs, and 'we' mis-take the false for the real, we ~become~ the false self. And then most people live the remainder of their lives through an inauthentic sense of self. The spiritual journey is about recovering and living through the authentic self. The intended aim of the forming cultural self is for it to take abuse, be-a-shield, thus protecting authentic self from harm. But this shift occurs. The shift has different names, the fall, original sin, becoming lost. And instead of inauthentic self protecting authentic self, ~we~ become the inauthentic self. There's no authentic self either. The only self that shows up in a human is an imagined one, and a child has to be able to form some deceptively complex concepts in order to form one. Takes a couple of years. In the 4th Way teaching, essence (true self as I'm using the words) is defined as that which one is born with(as). [And I've said this many times here]. You can explore that, or not.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2018 12:45:16 GMT -5
You're responding to something I didn't write (in this post). I didn't reference a timeline before or after birth. The only thing the 4th Way says in relation to this is, your essence comes from the stars. "The stars" represent a higher order of reality, a higher dimension. There is knowledge and then there is direct experience. What is merely knowledge for some, is direct experience for others. So there are maps and then there is the territory the maps refer to. If a map does not reference a territory, then yes, it's merely imaginary. IOW, not all ideas are worthless. Actually, there is knowledge and experience, and then there is realization. The former is fundamentally illusion. Knowledge can be a map. If you are in a new city and stop and ask me directions to so-n-so. If I tell you "go 1 mile to x street, T/R, go 3 miles T/L on to x street, follow it until it dead ends, T/R go 2.8 miles, your destination is there; if you end up at the place you intended, then the knowledge was not illusory. If you do not end up where you wanted to be, the knowledge was either illusory, or you did not follow precisely the directions. It's illusory to say all knowledge is illusory.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2018 12:58:42 GMT -5
I guess I shouldn't use words that are "pre-loaded". E seemed to be saying that there isn't a self until about 2 years of age, so there isn't any suffering until then. But there is an authentic self from birth. Ask parents who have several kids, difference and uniqueness shows up from a very early age. Ego/cultural self/conditioned self forms to a great extent as a means to protect the authentic self, protection from suffering. However, eventually a shift occurs, the sense of being (unconsciously) shifts from the authentic self to ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self. Ego/cultural self/conditioned self/inauthentic self is formed to shield and protect authentic self, but instead, eventually, this shift occurs, and 'we' mis-take the false for the real, we ~become~ the false self. And then most people live the remainder of their lives through an inauthentic sense of self. The spiritual journey is about recovering and living through the authentic self. The intended aim of the forming cultural self is for it to take abuse, be-a-shield, thus protecting authentic self from harm. But this shift occurs. The shift has different names, the fall, original sin, becoming lost. And instead of inauthentic self protecting authentic self, ~we~ become the inauthentic self. The personality is there at the moment of birth and will remain post SR. So personality and suffering are not related. It has something to do with perspective. A-H once defined suffering as depriving yourself of the fullness that you are. So it is basically an extreme case of misidentification or being out of alignment. Just my perspective. I would say essence is there at birth (the definition of essence in the 4th Way, what we are born with[as]). Living completely through essence would therefore mean "the fullness that you are". This self that begins when one is about 2/3 is defined in the 4th Way, as personality, it's just a word so defined (and I've used many terms here on ST's, ego/cultural self/conditioned self/false (sense of) self/mask/persona). Ego/personality/cultural self almost inevitably forms, and covers-over our essence. This, is as you say, misidentification, being out of alignment (because one can't be both simultaneously the true sense of self and the false sense of self). So what you say fits perfectly the 4th Way teaching. I could draw a few more arrows...but I've done so previously...[The purpose of the formation of "self", is to protect essence/true self. Part of this is Reich's body armor. But what happens is that when the "self" is mostly formed, instead of protecting essence, there is an unconscious shift of identity, the child takes-its-self-to-be that which was supposed to be its protection, it "~ becomes~" the formed false sense of "self", essence is covered over, lost, still there, but ~forgotten~]. And so when ZD says that there is no separate self, it's illusory, that's an absolute fact, this false sense of self IS a fiction.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2018 13:00:34 GMT -5
Of course babies have needs, as do the animals in the wild. That doesn't imply they suffer. I would be interested in the experiments that prove they do. To start with, I'm not sure how subjective suffering is determined objectively.Then how can we be sure those beings don't/can't suffer? I'm guessing your answer may be along the lines of what you said earlier here, about "reversing the process of suffering …", in which case I assume you're doing that, and applying it to a perception about the potential capacity of babies, and animals (i.e. their capacity for self-awareness). Putting aside the assumption there for the moment, presumably this is done through a process of observation, and application, so at the risk on going off on a tangent, how can we do that in this instance accurately, but not when it comes to determining the perceptual capacity of other beings, (i.e. in the others as perceivers scenario)? He's fitting a square peg into a round hole.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 8, 2018 14:00:52 GMT -5
I think the whole problem here is that there's no true self. Yes, of course I know that's your opinion. True self is the (a) middle layer. SDP: Apparently you're defining "True Self" in some way other than "Source." People who attain SR realize that what we call "the universe" is a unified living intelligent whole, and THAT, or Source, or "what is," is all there is. It's an incomprehensible Presence in which there is no real separation of any kind. Many of us consider "True Self" to be a synonym for THAT-- for what Ramana called "Self." This is why some of us disagree with the idea of progress or improvement. After the illusion of selfhood is seen through, Self/Source/THAT realizes that THAT, alone, is the only "no-thing-which-is-everything" that's ever been here. It's why E. talks about "God falling into her own dream."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2018 14:11:01 GMT -5
Yes, of course I know that's your opinion. True self is the (a) middle layer. SDP: Apparently you're defining "True Self" in some way other than "Source." People who attain SR realize that what we call "the universe" is a unified living intelligent whole, and THAT, or Source, or "what is," is all there is. It's an incomprehensible Presence in which there is no real separation of any kind. Many of us consider "True Self" to be a synonym for THAT-- for what Ramana called "Self." This is why some of us disagree with the idea of progress or improvement. After the illusion of selfhood is seen through, Self/Source/THAT realizes that THAT, alone, is the only "no-thing-which-is-everything" that's ever been here. It's why E. talks about "God falling into her own dream." See the bottom of page three, the juggling thread, I just elaborated on the meaning of essence/true self. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4193/more-conscious-juggling?page=3Yes, I understand all that, have for years. I would say (from my perspective, I guess I have to say that always) the illusion of selfhood which is seen through, is indeed that, what is seen through is the false sense of self, ego/persona/mask/cultural self/conditioned self. I have no problem with any of that. But that is merely a stage upon the way. The way is through essence ("True Self"). But if one does not believe there is an essence, a kernel, if one thinks the journey has been completed, then that's just the end, indeed. I have no problem with any of that, it is what it is. But I present something else, as invited by Richard Rose, and Shawn ("A library and clubhouse of philosophers"). Anybody can read what I write, or not.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Feb 8, 2018 17:00:14 GMT -5
Actually, there is knowledge and experience, and then there is realization. The former is fundamentally illusion. Knowledge can be a map. If you are in a new city and stop and ask me directions to so-n-so. If I tell you "go 1 mile to x street, T/R, go 3 miles T/L on to x street, follow it until it dead ends, T/R go 2.8 miles, your destination is there; if you end up at the place you intended, then the knowledge was not illusory. If you do not end up where you wanted to be, the knowledge was either illusory, or you did not follow precisely the directions. It's illusory to say all knowledge is illusory. The problem with maps is that one needs to know where one is first in order to get to where one's going. Have you found that out yet? Now, what is being pointed to is that the necessary condition for having to get from here to HERE requires one thinking one is somewhere other than HERE. As for identification, Source is Truth. Identifying with something that one is NOT is ignorance of what one is as being primary. Identification with the false self is the condition needed for having to search for the labeled True Self. That is, you must identify with something false to need to get to Source/Truth. If one didn't, one wouldn't have to. Therefore, as Source, one doesn't. Pain happens. Suffering requiring ignorance is a pointer to Truth, which is unconditional. Now, where was I....?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Feb 8, 2018 18:04:53 GMT -5
Identification with the false self is the condition needed for having to search for the labeled True Self Not even Batman could riddle his way out of that one.
|
|