|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2019 16:43:44 GMT -5
What does it mean that self is illusory? .......OK, I get all that. Even if self is seen to be illusory, what is it that is still manifesting? For example, your wife knows it ~you~ when you walk in the door. If a "Freaky Friday" or a "Big" occurred (2 minds swapped bodies) she would probably know within ten minutes that something was wrong, the *normal* Tom, D!ck or Harry would not be present, there is a "~self~" manifesting, a certain set of thoughts, a certain set of emotions, a certain set of bodily actions. So what is it that is still manifesting such that your best friend knows it you? That's what the self is, even if you don't want to call it a self, even if one has seen through the illusory nature of self. Whatever was there previous to ~seeing~ is still there post seeing.
So then, what now is one's center of gravity? OK, tell me there is no inside, no outside, but something is acting through the body, the organism. What is this something? I'm fine with there not being a self at the center, but that which we once called the self, thinking, feeling and actions, still ~present~ (still manifest), and there is a ~something~ that is at the center. Let's just call this something awareness. Awareness is. So now, what does this awareness do? Recently on another thread I stated that one usually finds one's awareness connected to either a thought, a feeling, an action or some *thing* in the world, stuff.
OK, here is where I diverge from the common stance put forth here, why there is an inside and an outside. There is a pretty common reference spoken about here called awareness of awareness or being aware of being aware. The distinction, the ~line~ between the two is a semipermeable membrane. On one side is the inside, on the other side, the outside. You could say that with awareness-only, there is only one. If that is enough for you, fine. But there is more. Being aware of being aware is the beginning of the more. Now, this has absolutely zero to do with self-referential thinking. What are you aware of, now? It's easy to do. More than likely your awareness now is one-sided. It doesn't matter if your awareness is on a thought, what might be called inside, or on a TV program (but right now your awareness is on the computer screen), an outside thingy. It's on one thingy. It's on the *other side* of the semipermeable membrane. And thus so you are squandering energy, something that is precious. But if you are aware of being aware, ~you~ are inside the semipermeable membrane, and are therefore saving energy.
Now I'm fine with seeing that self is illusory. But if one's ordinary thoughts, feelings and actions are simply manifesting, despite seeing they-are-what-constitute the illusory self, then the journey is not complete, there's more. The more is the maintainence of awareness of awareness. And via this energy accumulates, and via this there is a movement from the known into the unknown. This is the continuation of the journey. Now, is this energy permanent, a permanent something? (Whatever it is). No. If one's awareness ~*leaves*~ the *inside* of the semipermeable membrane, energy begins to leak away. "Energy flows where attention goes". This ends the movement from the known into the unknown. This is just an invitation to explore, if you wish to.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2019 17:21:15 GMT -5
What does it mean that self is illusory? .......OK, I get all that. Even if self is seen to be illusory, what is it that is still manifesting? For example, your wife knows it ~you~ when you walk in the door. If a "Freaky Friday" or a "Big" occurred (2 minds swapped bodies) she would probably know within ten minutes that something was wrong, the *normal* Tom, D!ck or Harry would not be present, there is a "~self~" manifesting, a certain set of thoughts, a certain set of emotions, a certain set of bodily actions. So what is it that is still manifesting such that your best friend knows it you? That's what the self is, even if you don't want to call it a self, even if one has seen through the illusory nature of self. Whatever was there previous to ~seeing~ is still there post seeing. So then, what now is one's center of gravity? OK, tell me there is no inside, no outside, but something is acting through the body, the organism. What is this something? I'm fine with there not being a self at the center, but that which we once called the self, thinking, feeling and actions, still ~present~ (still manifest), and there is a ~something~ that is at the center. Let's just call this something awareness. Awareness is. So now, what does this awareness do? Recently on another thread I stated that one usually finds one's awareness connected to either a thought, a feeling, an action or some *thing* in the world, stuff. OK, here is where I diverge from the common stance put forth here, why there is an inside and an outside. There is a pretty common reference spoken about here called awareness of awareness or being aware of being aware. The distinction, the ~line~ between the two is a semipermeable membrane. On one side is the inside, on the other side, the outside. Not really. When the line between inside and outside disappears, life becomes a kind of seamless flow. Everything is the same, but there is no felt sense of separateness. Whatever the body/mind organism is doing is all there is, but there is no longer a felt sense of being a separate entity inhabiting a body or directing/controlling what happens. We might call this "a unified perspective" rather than a self-centered perspective. A CC makes it obvious that reality is a unified aware intelligent whole, and it is THAT that looks out of all sets of eyes. Call it Source, or God, or THIS, that's all there is, and it is the only actor.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2019 18:08:25 GMT -5
What does it mean that self is illusory? .......OK, I get all that. Even if self is seen to be illusory, what is it that is still manifesting? For example, your wife knows it ~you~ when you walk in the door. If a "Freaky Friday" or a "Big" occurred (2 minds swapped bodies) she would probably know within ten minutes that something was wrong, the *normal* Tom, D!ck or Harry would not be present, there is a "~self~" manifesting, a certain set of thoughts, a certain set of emotions, a certain set of bodily actions. So what is it that is still manifesting such that your best friend knows it you? That's what the self is, even if you don't want to call it a self, even if one has seen through the illusory nature of self. Whatever was there previous to ~seeing~ is still there post seeing. So then, what now is one's center of gravity? OK, tell me there is no inside, no outside, but something is acting through the body, the organism. What is this something? I'm fine with there not being a self at the center, but that which we once called the self, thinking, feeling and actions, still ~present~ (still manifest), and there is a ~something~ that is at the center. Let's just call this something awareness. Awareness is. So now, what does this awareness do? Recently on another thread I stated that one usually finds one's awareness connected to either a thought, a feeling, an action or some *thing* in the world, stuff. OK, here is where I diverge from the common stance put forth here, why there is an inside and an outside. There is a pretty common reference spoken about here called awareness of awareness or being aware of being aware. The distinction, the ~line~ between the two is a semipermeable membrane. On one side is the inside, on the other side, the outside. Not really. When the line between inside and outside disappears, life becomes a kind of seamless flow. Everything is the same, but there is no felt sense of separateness. Whatever the body/mind organism is doing is all there is, but there is no longer a felt sense of being a separate entity inhabiting a body or directing/controlling what happens. We might call this "a unified perspective" rather than a self-centered perspective. A CC makes it obvious that reality is a unified aware intelligent whole, and it is THAT that looks out of all sets of eyes. Call it Source, or God, or THIS, that's all there is, and it is the only actor. I understand that ZD is satisfied with that. And sdp didn't write about a self-centered perspective. It's awareness centered. There is a house that belongs to ZD. A car, a wife, a job, a tax bill, probably several. ZD buys food, clothes, pays for internet acess, probably cable or dish. All that is in some sense ZD centered. In comparison, sdp is suggesting a tiny simple little thing to experiment with... It's merely a kind of cousin to ATA-T. But with ATA-T A is *outside* the semipermeable membrane.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2019 18:33:59 GMT -5
Not really. When the line between inside and outside disappears, life becomes a kind of seamless flow. Everything is the same, but there is no felt sense of separateness. Whatever the body/mind organism is doing is all there is, but there is no longer a felt sense of being a separate entity inhabiting a body or directing/controlling what happens. We might call this "a unified perspective" rather than a self-centered perspective. A CC makes it obvious that reality is a unified aware intelligent whole, and it is THAT that looks out of all sets of eyes. Call it Source, or God, or THIS, that's all there is, and it is the only actor. I understand that ZD is satisfied with that. And sdp didn't write about a self-centered perspective. It's awareness centered. There is a house that belongs to ZD. A car, a wife, a job, a tax bill, probably several. ZD buys food, clothes, pays for internet acess, probably cable or dish. All that is in some sense ZD centered. In comparison, sdp is suggesting a tiny simple little thing to experiment with... It's merely a kind of cousin to ATA-T. But with ATA-T A is *outside* the semipermeable membrane. People can search all they want; they'll never find a membrane or any kind of actual separation.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2019 23:34:48 GMT -5
I understand that ZD is satisfied with that. And sdp didn't write about a self-centered perspective. It's awareness centered. There is a house that belongs to ZD. A car, a wife, a job, a tax bill, probably several. ZD buys food, clothes, pays for internet acess, probably cable or dish. All that is in some sense ZD centered. In comparison, sdp is suggesting a tiny simple little thing to experiment with... It's merely a kind of cousin to ATA-T. But with ATA-T A is *outside* the semipermeable membrane. People can search all they want; they'll never find a membrane or any kind of actual separation. So the awareness-body in relation to ZD wouldn't wish to play a "bigger" role in relation to the Intelligence seen in CC? (That's the meaning of the evolution of consciousness).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2019 23:59:57 GMT -5
I understand that ZD is satisfied with that. And sdp didn't write about a self-centered perspective. It's awareness centered. There is a house that belongs to ZD. A car, a wife, a job, a tax bill, probably several. ZD buys food, clothes, pays for internet acess, probably cable or dish. All that is in some sense ZD centered. In comparison, sdp is suggesting a tiny simple little thing to experiment with... It's merely a kind of cousin to ATA-T. But with ATA-T A is *outside* the semipermeable membrane. People can search all they want; they'll never find a membrane or any kind of actual separation. And all your talk about body-knowledge, you don't know its most important role.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2019 5:19:35 GMT -5
People can search all they want; they'll never find a membrane or any kind of actual separation. So the awareness-body in relation to ZD wouldn't wish to play a "bigger" role in relation to the Intelligence seen in CC? (That's the meaning of the evolution of consciousness). There is no "awareness-body in relation to ZD;" there is just THIS, undivided. States that are bigger or smaller are imaginary, as are all acts of psychological severance.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 13, 2019 5:41:57 GMT -5
People can search all they want; they'll never find a membrane or any kind of actual separation. And all your talk about body-knowledge, you don't know its most important role. "Body knowledge" is only a pointer. As they say in Zen, "Don't get attached to words.; look where they're pointing." Out of curiosity, if you think most of the people who post on this forum are ignorant, why not go to a Gurdjieff forum where the Gurdjieff belief system will be supported and reinforced? Here, most people are interested in non-duality. Non-dual means undivided. The Whole cannot become more or less Whole. All desire is based on ideas of becoming or getting something that is not here now. If all ideas cease, then what remains? This forum has one major admonition--stop (let go of all ideas) and look.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 14, 2019 9:24:23 GMT -5
And all your talk about body-knowledge, you don't know its most important role. "Body knowledge" is only a pointer. As they say in Zen, "Don't get attached to words.; look where they're pointing." Out of curiosity, if you think most of the people who post on this forum are ignorant, why not go to a Gurdjieff forum where the Gurdjieff belief system will be supported and reinforced? Here, most people are interested in non-duality. Non-dual means undivided. The Whole cannot become more or less Whole. All desire is based on ideas of becoming or getting something that is not here now. If all ideas cease, then what remains? This forum has one major admonition--stop (let go of all ideas) and look. The Gurdjieff system is not a belief system, it's based on verification, verifying anything that is taught. Primarily it's based on practice, verifying practice. And you are not even living from your own views. If you really considered nonvolition to be the case you would know I am only where the cosmos has placed me, and I couldn't be elsewhere. To ask me to go elsewhere is a violation of your own view.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 14, 2019 9:36:04 GMT -5
"Body knowledge" is only a pointer. As they say in Zen, "Don't get attached to words.; look where they're pointing." Out of curiosity, if you think most of the people who post on this forum are ignorant, why not go to a Gurdjieff forum where the Gurdjieff belief system will be supported and reinforced? Here, most people are interested in non-duality. Non-dual means undivided. The Whole cannot become more or less Whole. All desire is based on ideas of becoming or getting something that is not here now. If all ideas cease, then what remains? This forum has one major admonition--stop (let go of all ideas) and look. The Gurdjieff system is not a belief system, it's based on verification, verifying anything that is taught. Primarily it's based on practice, verifying practice. And you are not even living from your own views. If you really considered nonvolition to be the case you would know I am only where the cosmos has placed me, and I couldn't be elsewhere. To ask me to go elsewhere is a violation of your own view. I didn't ask you to go anywhere. I asked why you're interested in being on a forum where you say no one agrees with you? If non-volition is the case, then I assume you know that I had to ask you this.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2019 11:41:00 GMT -5
"Body knowledge" is only a pointer. As they say in Zen, "Don't get attached to words.; look where they're pointing." Out of curiosity, if you think most of the people who post on this forum are ignorant, why not go to a Gurdjieff forum where the Gurdjieff belief system will be supported and reinforced? Here, most people are interested in non-duality. Non-dual means undivided. The Whole cannot become more or less Whole. All desire is based on ideas of becoming or getting something that is not here now. If all ideas cease, then what remains? This forum has one major admonition--stop (let go of all ideas) and look. The Gurdjieff system is not a belief system, it's based on verification, verifying anything that is taught. Primarily it's based on practice, verifying practice. And you are not even living from your own views. If you really considered nonvolition to be the case you would know I am only where the cosmos has placed me, and I couldn't be elsewhere. To ask me to go elsewhere is a violation of your own view. He didn't, but to the larger point, nonvolition doesn't mean you can't learn a new behavior and choose to do something different. It just means you don't have a choice about the choosing. Teaching is not inconsistent with nonvolition.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 14, 2019 16:00:04 GMT -5
The Gurdjieff system is not a belief system, it's based on verification, verifying anything that is taught. Primarily it's based on practice, verifying practice. And you are not even living from your own views. If you really considered nonvolition to be the case you would know I am only where the cosmos has placed me, and I couldn't be elsewhere. To ask me to go elsewhere is a violation of your own view. I didn't ask you to go anywhere. I asked why you're interested in being on a forum where you say no one agrees with you? If non-volition is the case, then I assume you know that I had to ask you this. No, E is right, there could be 100 different variables up to the point you posted, the tipping point could have been in the last minutes, or even seconds...
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 14, 2019 17:17:18 GMT -5
SDP, ZD said to you "Out of curiosity, if you think most of the people who post on this forum are ignorant..."
Is that true? Do you think most of the people who post on this forum are ignorant? What did you say/post that lead ZD to that conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 14, 2019 18:37:25 GMT -5
SDP, ZD said to you "Out of curiosity, if you think most of the people who post on this forum are ignorant..." Is that true? Do you think most of the people who post on this forum are ignorant? What did you say/post that lead ZD to that conclusion? I do not think most people on this forum are ignorant. ZD and I just have different views of the false sense of self. I consider the false sense of self very constricting, can see only what it is, that is, allows *in* only what confirms itself and thus confines itself, life is a mirror reflecting back to ego/cultural self ~that which it is~. So the false sense if self, which exists in and as neural connections, is a terrible tyrant (but that can be in a gentle form). But this is so very not easy to see. So it's not even a matter of ignorance, it's a more difficult question than mere ignorance. Edit: IOW, the false sense of self determines what we psychologically perceive.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2019 18:52:07 GMT -5
He didn't, but to the larger point, nonvolition doesn't mean you can't learn a new behavior and choose to do something different. It just means you don't have a choice about the choosing. Teaching is not inconsistent with nonvolition. Right. "I can will what I want, but I cannot want what I want". Schopenhauer Does that mean I can't choose what I want but I can choose to take action to get what I do want? If so, I have some issues with it.
|
|