|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2019 19:00:08 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. Is this the point of disagreement with ZD?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 14, 2019 19:17:09 GMT -5
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. No. It means everything happens, all thoughts, feelings and actions just happen. It means you can't change your wants. It means what we normally call will is in service to our wants, which merely happen (according to our conditioning, which we didn't choose in the first place).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 14, 2019 19:31:45 GMT -5
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. Is this the point of disagreement with ZD? I do not have a lot of disagreement with ZD. I mostly say there is further. He thinks there is no further, for him. I have no problem with that, but he feels a compulsion to keep correcting me, to keep saying what is so. I also have no problem with that, it comes with the territory. I give alternatives for consideration. ZD considers he is giving the truth. I posted here for a few years without giving my background, and would have continued so. But then in a post ZD gave an incorrect explanation of self-remembering, which he had heard from someone else. I explained that that was incorrect. And so then...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2019 20:31:17 GMT -5
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. No. It means everything happens, all thoughts, feelings and actions just happen. It means you can't change your wants. It means what we normally call will is in service to our wants, which merely happen (according to our conditioning, which we didn't choose in the first place). Then I can't will what I want. I agree with your statements but I disagree that's what your 'quote' said. It's also not what Schopenhauer said. "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills" Schopenhauer
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2019 20:36:38 GMT -5
Is this the point of disagreement with ZD? I do not have a lot of disagreement with ZD. I mostly say there is further. He thinks there is no further, for him. I have no problem with that, but he feels a compulsion to keep correcting me, to keep saying what is so. I also have no problem with that, it comes with the territory. I give alternatives for consideration. ZD considers he is giving the truth. I posted here for a few years without giving my background, and would have continued so. But then in a post ZD gave an incorrect explanation of self-remembering, which he had heard from someone else. I explained that that was incorrect. And so then... So, how do your views of the false sense of self differ.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 15, 2019 9:26:12 GMT -5
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. Is this the point of disagreement with ZD? In answer to your last post, above. I gave my view above (essentially bumping it). ZD has said any sense of self is illusory. ZD has said the Whole is operating as what we consider self to be. So ZD says there isn't a self acting. I say what's acting, for most people, is the conditioning (reacting), and again, what's acting is a false sense of self. For me what acts is localized (but it is a false sense of self). For ZD the Whole is acting, and to attribute the acting to a self-acting, is what's illusory (IOW, for ZD there isn't a self acting). The differences should be obvious.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 15, 2019 11:00:02 GMT -5
Is this the point of disagreement with ZD? In answer to your last post, above. I gave my view above (essentially bumping it). ZD has said any sense of self is illusory. ZD has said the Whole is operating as what we consider self to be. So ZD says there isn't a self acting. I say what's acting, for most people, is the conditioning (reacting), and again, what's acting is a false sense of self. For me what acts is localized (but it is a false sense of self). For ZD the Whole is acting, and to attribute the acting to a self-acting, is what's illusory (IOW, for ZD there isn't a self acting). The differences should be obvious. It's not obvious at all. It's actually very subtle. You can't say a false sense is what's acting. That's like saying if you thought you were a rabbit, that false sense of being a rabbit is what's acting. The actor cannot be a sense of something, it needs to be that which is having the sense. So what is it that's having the false sense of being a self? ZD calls it the whole. There are many names for it, but clearly it is not localized.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 15, 2019 11:34:42 GMT -5
In answer to your last post, above. I gave my view above (essentially bumping it). ZD has said any sense of self is illusory. ZD has said the Whole is operating as what we consider self to be. So ZD says there isn't a self acting. I say what's acting, for most people, is the conditioning (reacting), and again, what's acting is a false sense of self. For me what acts is localized (but it is a false sense of self). For ZD the Whole is acting, and to attribute the acting to a self-acting, is what's illusory (IOW, for ZD there isn't a self acting). The differences should be obvious. It's not obvious at all. It's actually very subtle. You can't say a false sense is what's acting. That's like saying if you thought you were a rabbit, that false sense of being a rabbit is what's acting. The actor cannot be a sense of something, it needs to be that which is having the sense. So what is it that's having the false sense of being a self? ZD calls it the whole. There are many names for it, but clearly it is not localized. But my tradition says there IS a true sense of self, there IS a true self, essence. But essence is a tiny seed. Essence is the true individuation, the potential individuation. But before essence can grow enough to ACTUALLY BE the individuation, ego/personality/cultural self-the false sense of self, forms and usurps essence, actually covers over and takes the place of essence. That's why it's also called mask (as Greek actors wore a mask to portray a role, mask = persona, meaning persona-lity). The thoughts, feelings and actions which arise from neural connections ARE-NOT one's true self, essence. And essence is re-activated via conscious efforts (via attention and awareness), which you and ZD say are impossible because of nonvolition. Being aware of being aware is very close to essence (the first Being aware). So, for ZD and E essence is never (re)activated. But I say to a certain extent, it is, because ATA-T is a kind of conscious effort. But the point of the OP and the thread is to invite a further step, but of course, conundrum, stalemate. But that's just the nature of...the situation. But I would say ZD loves to just ATA-T and recently other forms of formal meditation, because this puts one in essence. (Any one person usually either "loves" the false sense of self, or essence. Crossing from one to the other is usually a difficult period). So for me, yes, essence is localized, but it begins as a tiny seed (quite literally, not metaphorically). So if one's attention or awareness is always going-in-to some thought, feeling, action or some thing, essence cannot re-activate.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 15, 2019 15:02:45 GMT -5
It's not obvious at all. It's actually very subtle. You can't say a false sense is what's acting. That's like saying if you thought you were a rabbit, that false sense of being a rabbit is what's acting. The actor cannot be a sense of something, it needs to be that which is having the sense. So what is it that's having the false sense of being a self? ZD calls it the whole. There are many names for it, but clearly it is not localized. But my tradition says there IS a true sense of self, there IS a true self, essence. But essence is a tiny seed. Essence is the true individuation, the potential individuation. But before essence can grow enough to ACTUALLY BE the individuation, ego/personality/cultural self-the false sense of self, forms and usurps essence, actually covers over and takes the place of essence. That's why it's also called mask (as Greek actors wore a mask to portray a role, mask = persona, meaning persona-lity). The thoughts, feelings and actions which arise from neural connections ARE-NOT one's true self, essence. And essence is re-activated via conscious efforts (via attention and awareness), which you and ZD say are impossible because of nonvolition. Being aware of being aware is very close to essence (the first Being aware). So, for ZD and E essence is never (re)activated. But I say to a certain extent, it is, because ATA-T is a kind of conscious effort. But the point of the OP and the thread is to invite a further step, but of course, conundrum, stalemate. But that's just the nature of...the situation. But I would say ZD loves to just ATA-T and recently other forms of formal meditation, because this puts one in essence. (Any one person usually either "loves" the false sense of self, or essence. Crossing from one to the other is usually a difficult period). So for me, yes, essence is localized, but it begins as a tiny seed (quite literally, not metaphorically). So if one's attention or awareness is always going-in-to some thought, feeling, action or some thing, essence cannot re-activate. (That's pretty much everything I've been saying for almost ten years, in a nutshell). SDP: I assume you know that from my perspective it doesn't matter whether I'm walking in the woods looking and listening, sitting in silence, imagining potential architectural designs, engaging in mind talk about alternative ways of explaining some existential issue, etc. Whatever's happening is just life, THIS, the cosmos, doing what it does. No inside, outside, or sense of separateness--just a flow of being. I certainly don't meditate to put anything "in essence" because, using your terminology, all there is is essence, so there's no possible movement into or out of it. Movement into or out of different states or conditions can be imagined, but that movement and those states/conditions are imaginary. If essence could be localized, there would have to be boundaries to it, and if you ever find any boundaries, please tell us where they are.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 15, 2019 15:27:05 GMT -5
But my tradition says there IS a true sense of self, there IS a true self, essence. But essence is a tiny seed. Essence is the true individuation, the potential individuation. But before essence can grow enough to ACTUALLY BE the individuation, ego/personality/cultural self-the false sense of self, forms and usurps essence, actually covers over and takes the place of essence. That's why it's also called mask (as Greek actors wore a mask to portray a role, mask = persona, meaning persona-lity). The thoughts, feelings and actions which arise from neural connections ARE-NOT one's true self, essence. And essence is re-activated via conscious efforts (via attention and awareness), which you and ZD say are impossible because of nonvolition. Being aware of being aware is very close to essence (the first Being aware). So, for ZD and E essence is never (re)activated. But I say to a certain extent, it is, because ATA-T is a kind of conscious effort. But the point of the OP and the thread is to invite a further step, but of course, conundrum, stalemate. But that's just the nature of...the situation. But I would say ZD loves to just ATA-T and recently other forms of formal meditation, because this puts one in essence. (Any one person usually either "loves" the false sense of self, or essence. Crossing from one to the other is usually a difficult period). So for me, yes, essence is localized, but it begins as a tiny seed (quite literally, not metaphorically). So if one's attention or awareness is always going-in-to some thought, feeling, action or some thing, essence cannot re-activate. (That's pretty much everything I've been saying for almost ten years, in a nutshell). SDP: I assume you know that from my perspective it doesn't matter whether I'm walking in the woods looking and listening, sitting in silence, imagining potential architectural designs, engaging in mind talk about alternative ways of explaining some existential issue, etc. Whatever's happening is just life, THIS, the cosmos, doing what it does. No inside, outside, or sense of separateness--just a flow of being. I certainly don't meditate to put anything "in essence" because, using your terminology, all there is is essence, so there's no possible movement into or out of it. Movement into or out of different states or conditions can be imagined, but that movement and those states/conditions are imaginary. If essence could be localized, there would have to be boundaries to it, and if you ever find any boundaries, please tell us where they are. I understand that's your perspective.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 15, 2019 17:51:40 GMT -5
I understand that's your perspective. And what is your major disagreement with what ZD wrote there?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 15, 2019 19:21:29 GMT -5
It's not obvious at all. It's actually very subtle. You can't say a false sense is what's acting. That's like saying if you thought you were a rabbit, that false sense of being a rabbit is what's acting. The actor cannot be a sense of something, it needs to be that which is having the sense. So what is it that's having the false sense of being a self? ZD calls it the whole. There are many names for it, but clearly it is not localized. But my tradition says there IS a true sense of self, there IS a true self, essence. But essence is a tiny seed. Essence is the true individuation, the potential individuation. But before essence can grow enough to ACTUALLY BE the individuation, ego/personality/cultural self-the false sense of self, forms and usurps essence, actually covers over and takes the place of essence. That's why it's also called mask (as Greek actors wore a mask to portray a role, mask = persona, meaning persona-lity). The thoughts, feelings and actions which arise from neural connections ARE-NOT one's true self, essence. And essence is re-activated via conscious efforts (via attention and awareness), which you and ZD say are impossible because of nonvolition. Being aware of being aware is very close to essence (the first Being aware). So, for ZD and E essence is never (re)activated. But I say to a certain extent, it is, because ATA-T is a kind of conscious effort. But the point of the OP and the thread is to invite a further step, but of course, conundrum, stalemate. But that's just the nature of...the situation. But I would say ZD loves to just ATA-T and recently other forms of formal meditation, because this puts one in essence. (Any one person usually either "loves" the false sense of self, or essence. Crossing from one to the other is usually a difficult period). So for me, yes, essence is localized, but it begins as a tiny seed (quite literally, not metaphorically). So if one's attention or awareness is always going-in-to some thought, feeling, action or some thing, essence cannot re-activate. So it's the 'true self' that's acting, whether it's through a correct sense of self or an erroneous one. ZD would agree that it's what you are that is acting in both cases as there is only what you are. The whole thing about literal seeds and reactivation seems overly complicated to me, but maybe we can agree that ultimately what you are steps into the foreground and mind steps into the background, even though mind is not other than what you are, it ceases to be master and continues in it's proper role as a tool. My suspicion has always been that most of the differences you see are really just languaging and your insistence upon a detailed story of awakening. On the issue of 'further', I don't have much to say as how much further one needs to go depends entirely on how far one has come.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 16, 2019 11:55:57 GMT -5
I understand that's your perspective. And what is your major disagreement with what ZD wrote there? The human body is a chemical laboratory (an alchemical laboratory). I say there is further because ZD makes no provision for saving energy, transforming energy and accumulating energy. I have zero problem with ZD's view, for him. To each his own.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 16, 2019 11:57:48 GMT -5
But my tradition says there IS a true sense of self, there IS a true self, essence. But essence is a tiny seed. Essence is the true individuation, the potential individuation. But before essence can grow enough to ACTUALLY BE the individuation, ego/personality/cultural self-the false sense of self, forms and usurps essence, actually covers over and takes the place of essence. That's why it's also called mask (as Greek actors wore a mask to portray a role, mask = persona, meaning persona-lity). The thoughts, feelings and actions which arise from neural connections ARE-NOT one's true self, essence. And essence is re-activated via conscious efforts (via attention and awareness), which you and ZD say are impossible because of nonvolition. Being aware of being aware is very close to essence (the first Being aware). So, for ZD and E essence is never (re)activated. But I say to a certain extent, it is, because ATA-T is a kind of conscious effort. But the point of the OP and the thread is to invite a further step, but of course, conundrum, stalemate. But that's just the nature of...the situation. But I would say ZD loves to just ATA-T and recently other forms of formal meditation, because this puts one in essence. (Any one person usually either "loves" the false sense of self, or essence. Crossing from one to the other is usually a difficult period). So for me, yes, essence is localized, but it begins as a tiny seed (quite literally, not metaphorically). So if one's attention or awareness is always going-in-to some thought, feeling, action or some thing, essence cannot re-activate. So it's the 'true self' that's acting, whether it's through a correct sense of self or an erroneous one. ZD would agree that it's what you are that is acting in both cases as there is only what you are. The whole thing about literal seeds and reactivation seems overly complicated to me, but maybe we can agree that ultimately what you are steps into the foreground and mind steps into the background, even though mind is not other than what you are, it ceases to be master and continues in it's proper role as a tool. My suspicion has always been that most of the differences you see are really just languaging and your insistence upon a detailed story of awakening. On the issue of 'further', I don't have much to say as how much further one needs to go depends entirely on how far one has come. See response to justlikeyou. If there is a free flow of energy (no boundary) then energy cannot be accumulated. By analogy, if this were the operation in human affairs, a baby would forever remain a baby. (That's why the human boundary is semipermeable, it's a boundary without being a boundary).
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 16, 2019 17:04:59 GMT -5
ZD makes no provision for saving energy, transforming energy and accumulating energy. Not sure what this means. Can you say it differently or give an example of something ZD said demonstrating your point?
|
|