|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 10:08:31 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 11, 2019 10:08:31 GMT -5
The fact that there is no separate self does not mean there is no self.
(Poking around, this could have been a reply on another thread, but this is just the beginning of Why?)
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 10:15:34 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 11, 2019 10:15:34 GMT -5
"Arguably, to question your deep assumptions, especially those that define you (or your relationships or society), is the most "dangerous" thing you can do, as it has the greatest potential to lead to transformation and destruction in "equal" measure". pg 194 Deviate, Beau Lotto
(Edit: Wanted to leave just that a while, as is, but Lotto has stumbled upon self inquiry, and Jed's spiritual autolysis).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 11, 2019 10:30:21 GMT -5
The fact that there is no separate self does not mean there is no self. (Poking around, this could have been a reply on another thread, but this is just the beginning of Why?) It's not clear what this statement means unless it's intended in an extremely superficial way. I doubt that anyone who's seen through the illusion of "me" would agree with it the way it's written. "No self" means no imaginary entity inhabiting or animating a body. From the standpoint of conventional language we can refer to a body as "me" or "self," but if the illusion has been seen through, it isn't believed in or experienced in the same way as before.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Mar 11, 2019 10:53:07 GMT -5
The fact that there is no separate self does not mean there is no self. (Poking around, this could have been a reply on another thread, but this is just the beginning of Why?) It's not clear what this statement means unless it's intended in an extremely superficial way. I doubt that anyone who's seen through the illusion of "me" would agree with it the way it's written. "No self" means no imaginary entity inhabiting or animating a body. From the standpoint of conventional language we can refer to a body as "me" or "self," but if the illusion has been seen through, it isn't believed in or experienced in the same way as before. is the awareness that the voice in my head that we react to and think of as ME,is not who I am called awakening?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 11:04:58 GMT -5
The fact that there is no separate self does not mean there is no self. (Poking around, this could have been a reply on another thread, but this is just the beginning of Why?) It's not clear what this statement means unless it's intended in an extremely superficial way. I doubt that anyone who's seen through the illusion of "me" would agree with it the way it's written. "No self" means no imaginary entity inhabiting or animating a body. From the standpoint of conventional language we can refer to a body as "me" or "self," but if the illusion has been seen through, it isn't believed in or experienced in the same way as before. This is where ND gets funky. Because in my view even getting angry is evidence that you, whatever "you" is, has bought into the illusion of a separate self, even if it's only for an instant. There's always that tug in the story. And for the life of me it seems that it's a continuum. Some folks who are SR seem to buy into it more or less often. You can counter that by saying that it's not the "real" me. It's the body/mind, but somehow that seems hokey. Spira comes to terms with it by saying that the realization of oneness or no separation is just the beginning, that it needs to followed by a slow but willed purging of the body/mind's habits. Fig and E just say that you still "engage" in the dream. But that doesn't explain why SR folk REACT to the dream at times very much like the rest of us.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 11:46:01 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 11, 2019 11:46:01 GMT -5
It's not clear what this statement means unless it's intended in an extremely superficial way. I doubt that anyone who's seen through the illusion of "me" would agree with it the way it's written. "No self" means no imaginary entity inhabiting or animating a body. From the standpoint of conventional language we can refer to a body as "me" or "self," but if the illusion has been seen through, it isn't believed in or experienced in the same way as before. This is where ND gets funky. Because in my view even getting angry is evidence that you, whatever "you" is, has bought into the illusion of a separate self, even if it's only for an instant. There's always that tug in the story. And for the life of me it seems that it's a continuum. Some folks who are SR seem to buy into it more or less often. You can counter that by saying that it's not the "real" me. It's the body/mind, but somehow that seems hokey. Spira comes to terms with it by saying that the realization of oneness or no separation is just the beginning, that it needs to followed by a slow but willed purging of the body/mind's habits. Fig and E just say that you still "engage" in the dream. But that doesn't explain why SR folk REACT to the dream at times very much like the rest of us. Yes, this is closer to what "I"'m getting at.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 12:10:55 GMT -5
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 11, 2019 12:10:55 GMT -5
It's not clear what this statement means unless it's intended in an extremely superficial way. I doubt that anyone who's seen through the illusion of "me" would agree with it the way it's written. "No self" means no imaginary entity inhabiting or animating a body. From the standpoint of conventional language we can refer to a body as "me" or "self," but if the illusion has been seen through, it isn't believed in or experienced in the same way as before. This is where ND gets funky. Because in my view even getting angry is evidence that you, whatever "you" is, has bought into the illusion of a separate self, even if it's only for an instant. There's always that tug in the story. And for the life of me it seems that it's a continuum. Some folks who are SR seem to buy into it more or less often. You can counter that by saying that it's not the "real" me. It's the body/mind, but somehow that seems hokey. Spira comes to terms with it by saying that the realization of oneness or no separation is just the beginning, that it needs to followed by a slow but willed purging of the body/mind's habits. Fig and E just say that you still "engage" in the dream. But that doesn't explain why SR folk REACT to the dream at times very much like the rest of us. This is a reply to ZD('s post) via zazeniac's post. The mind-body ZD has certain characteristics, certain learned skills, ways of seeing and acting in the world, "pouring concrete", handling finances, etc. If you want to call that superficial, fine, but ZD is unique to ZD. I think E would be fine with calling this the individuation (broadly). Previously, I have compared this ~self~ to the narrow part of an hourglass, where "All This" ~passes through~ (the "characteristics"). ZD has always said no, that the Whole is always and only acting, there is no glass narrowing. It's obvious to me, each mind-body has certain characteristics, call it conditioning or reaction to conditioning or whatever, but that's what I mean by self, but no, it is not a separate self. "Personalized" characteristics of an "individual" mind-body = (superficial?) self. ZD also maintains that this (imaginary) self cannot act in the world, because it doesn't exist. But skill exists, there are certain things ZD can accomplish (the mind-body can accomplish) which other mind-bodies cannot accomplish, to the same extent and creativity. Chuang Tzu makes this point in the story of the Wheelwright, who can't pass on what he knows even to his own sons. wayofoneness.com/2013/05/17/the-duke-and-a-wheelwright-by-zhuangzi/ This is what I mean by self, the narrow part of the hourglass that is the Wheelwright. (sdp would not say it's superficial). zazeniac has rightly understood the point(ing). And, what should we call that not-self?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 12:28:05 GMT -5
It's not clear what this statement means unless it's intended in an extremely superficial way. I doubt that anyone who's seen through the illusion of "me" would agree with it the way it's written. "No self" means no imaginary entity inhabiting or animating a body. From the standpoint of conventional language we can refer to a body as "me" or "self," but if the illusion has been seen through, it isn't believed in or experienced in the same way as before. This is where ND gets funky. Because in my view even getting angry is evidence that you, whatever "you" is, has bought into the illusion of a separate self, even if it's only for an instant. There's always that tug in the story. And for the life of me it seems that it's a continuum. Some folks who are SR seem to buy into it more or less often. You can counter that by saying that it's not the "real" me. It's the body/mind, but somehow that seems hokey. Spira comes to terms with it by saying that the realization of oneness or no separation is just the beginning, that it needs to followed by a slow but willed purging of the body/mind's habits. Fig and E just say that you still "engage" in the dream. But that doesn't explain why SR folk REACT to the dream at times very much like the rest of us. More concrete example of what I'm saying. A. Maniac, me, sees a man beating his dog with his fists. He loses his mind, starts raving like a mad dog and attacks the dog owner.. Gets bit by the dog and arrested by the po-po. After he's in hand-cuff, he asks himself why did I do that? B. ZD sees the dog getting beat and feels compassion for the dog and for the dog owner. He calmly asks the dog owner to stop and convinces him to give the dog up for adooption. Takes the guy out for a beer and converts him to ND. C. Laughy sees the dog getting beat. Hums his favorite salsa song and begins to salsa. He engages the dog beater by asking him to salsa with him. The man falls over laughing, drops the dog leash and E grabs the dog leash and runs off with the dog which he gives to an adoption shelter. Question 1) Who's SR and who isn't? 2) Is it possible to tell? 3) why did all three intervene? 4) Could an SR person simply walk away?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 12:55:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 12:55:31 GMT -5
This is where ND gets funky. Because in my view even getting angry is evidence that you, whatever "you" is, has bought into the illusion of a separate self, even if it's only for an instant. There's always that tug in the story. And for the life of me it seems that it's a continuum. Some folks who are SR seem to buy into it more or less often. You can counter that by saying that it's not the "real" me. It's the body/mind, but somehow that seems hokey. Spira comes to terms with it by saying that the realization of oneness or no separation is just the beginning, that it needs to followed by a slow but willed purging of the body/mind's habits. Fig and E just say that you still "engage" in the dream. But that doesn't explain why SR folk REACT to the dream at times very much like the rest of us. More concrete example of what I'm saying. A. Maniac, me, sees a man beating his dog with his fists. He loses his mind, starts raving like a mad dog and attacks the dog owner.. Gets bit by the dog and arrested by the po-po. After he's in hand-cuff, he asks himself why did I do that? B. ZD sees the dog getting beat and feels compassion for the dog and for the dog owner. He calmly asks the dog owner to stop and convinces him to give the dog up for adooption. Takes the guy out for a beer and converts him to ND. C. Laughy sees the dog getting beat. Hums his favorite salsa song and begins to salsa. He engages the dog beater by asking him to salsa with him. The man falls over laughing, drops the dog leash and E grabs the dog leash and runs off with the dog which he gives to an adoption shelter. Question 1) Who's SR and who isn't? 2) Is it possible to tell? 3) why did all three intervene? 4) Could an SR person simply walk away? One who is abidingly SR does not 'lose his mind' in the way that common term generally means. He's actually 'free from mind' in the sense that he does not become 'lost' to or within it. But even in the most trying of circumstances, conscious awareness, Being, abides and remains acutely present. Thus, one never finds him/herself getting swept up and away in the drama of life. Awareness/Presence, abides every appearance, every experiential happening....even the really crappy stuff.
That does not necessarily though preclude intervening in a physically aggressive manner in a circumstance such as you describe above. The physical aggression though would be happening 'consciously' with full abiding awareness of what was happening vs. the result of an angry knee-jerk, unconscious reaction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 13:06:51 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:06:51 GMT -5
More concrete example of what I'm saying. A. Maniac, me, sees a man beating his dog with his fists. He loses his mind, starts raving like a mad dog and attacks the dog owner.. Gets bit by the dog and arrested by the po-po. After he's in hand-cuff, he asks himself why did I do that? B. ZD sees the dog getting beat and feels compassion for the dog and for the dog owner. He calmly asks the dog owner to stop and convinces him to give the dog up for adooption. Takes the guy out for a beer and converts him to ND. C. Laughy sees the dog getting beat. Hums his favorite salsa song and begins to salsa. He engages the dog beater by asking him to salsa with him. The man falls over laughing, drops the dog leash and E grabs the dog leash and runs off with the dog which he gives to an adoption shelter. Question 1) Who's SR and who isn't? 2) Is it possible to tell? 3) why did all three intervene? 4) Could an SR person simply walk away? One who is abidingly SR does not 'lose his mind' in the way that common term generally means. He's actually 'free from mind' in the sense that he does not become 'lost' to or within it. But even in the most trying of circumstances, conscious awareness, Being, abides and remains acutely present. Thus, one never finds him/herself getting swept up and away in the drama of life. Awareness/Presence, abides every appearance, every experiential happening....even the really crappy stuff.
That does not necessarily though preclude intervening in a physically aggressive manner in a circumstance such as you describe above. The physical aggression though would be happening 'consciously' with full abiding awareness of what was happening vs. the result of an angry knee-jerk, unconscious reaction.
Apologize for using E as the initial person in example C. But this is a good conversation, where we can get down to brass tacks, something meaningful. If it's an illusion, why is this crappy stuff? Just labeling this as "crappy" indicates that there is some pull from the drama, some for lack of a better term compassion, giving in to the story. Right? Isn't there a bit of resistance, not liking what life is giving you, not accepting what's offered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 13:09:00 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:09:00 GMT -5
It's not clear what this statement means unless it's intended in an extremely superficial way. I doubt that anyone who's seen through the illusion of "me" would agree with it the way it's written. "No self" means no imaginary entity inhabiting or animating a body. From the standpoint of conventional language we can refer to a body as "me" or "self," but if the illusion has been seen through, it isn't believed in or experienced in the same way as before. This is where ND gets funky. Because in my view even getting angry is evidence that you, whatever "you" is, has bought into the illusion of a separate self, even if it's only for an instant. There's always that tug in the story. And for the life of me it seems that it's a continuum. Some folks who are SR seem to buy into it more or less often. You can counter that by saying that it's not the "real" me. It's the body/mind, but somehow that seems hokey. Spira comes to terms with it by saying that the realization of oneness or no separation is just the beginning, that it needs to followed by a slow but willed purging of the body/mind's habits. Fig and E just say that you still "engage" in the dream. But that doesn't explain why SR folk REACT to the dream at times very much like the rest of us.It's very easy to look upon a particular behavior to conclude that it is definitively indicative of deep, pervasive anger, but just from looking on, you cannot say for certain what is actually going on inside.
There may be times where a seemingly 'harsh' response arises, perfectly, appropriately. It's not so easy to tell whether or not there is conscious awareness behind that response or whether mind has taken over and the response is indicative of getting swept away with the story.
Yeah, I talk about 'engagement' with the dream continuing, but I also say that that engagement only goes so far...that there are limits to how deeply the story captures attention/awareness. Being awake means that awareness of Being never gets obscured by the ensuing drama. Being asleep means the drama at times takes over and temporarily obscures Being.
Again, the behavior may look the same on the outside, but if there is groundedness in being, whatever behavior is happening, there will be conscious awareness of that. In wakefulness, Nothing is happening in an unconscious, knee-jerk manner. Discordant emotions/feelings no longer have the power to 'take over.' They still arise to some degree, because there is still a degree of caring about the dream, (likes and dislikes continue) but the depth of those discordant feelings is limited by the presence/peace of Being.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 13:17:09 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:17:09 GMT -5
One who is abidingly SR does not 'lose his mind' in the way that common term generally means. He's actually 'free from mind' in the sense that he does not become 'lost' to or within it. But even in the most trying of circumstances, conscious awareness, Being, abides and remains acutely present. Thus, one never finds him/herself getting swept up and away in the drama of life. Awareness/Presence, abides every appearance, every experiential happening....even the really crappy stuff.
That does not necessarily though preclude intervening in a physically aggressive manner in a circumstance such as you describe above. The physical aggression though would be happening 'consciously' with full abiding awareness of what was happening vs. the result of an angry knee-jerk, unconscious reaction.
Apologize for using E as the initial person in example C. But this is a good conversation, where we can get down to brass tacks, something meaningful. If it's an illusion, why is this crappy stuff? Just labeling this as "crappy" indicates that there is some pull from the drama, some for lack of a better term compassion, giving in to the story. Right? Isn't there a bit of resistance, not liking what life is giving you, not accepting what's offered. It IS a good conversation.
There is still 'crappy' stuff, because there are still likes and dislikes, still some things and happenings that are preferred and others that are not.
Even in a nightime dream where I am fully aware I am dreaming, I can still identify a 'crappy' storyline...or crappy happening.
The drama still has a degree of pull, sure, but it does not extend so deep that suffering would ensue. (I define 'suffering' as becoming lost to the dream...losing sight of the peace of Being.....becoming unconsciously swept up in the drama of it all to the degree that Being is completely, but temporarily, obscured.)
There can still be some resistance, but again, it only goes so deep...resistance, if/when it arises is very surfacey when awareness abides.
Acceptance/allowance goes much deeper than just the surface of things. For ex: I can dislike really frigid weather, but in a deeper sense, be in full acceptance that that's just how it currently is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 13:18:32 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:18:32 GMT -5
This is where ND gets funky. Because in my view even getting angry is evidence that you, whatever "you" is, has bought into the illusion of a separate self, even if it's only for an instant. There's always that tug in the story. And for the life of me it seems that it's a continuum. Some folks who are SR seem to buy into it more or less often. You can counter that by saying that it's not the "real" me. It's the body/mind, but somehow that seems hokey. Spira comes to terms with it by saying that the realization of oneness or no separation is just the beginning, that it needs to followed by a slow but willed purging of the body/mind's habits. Fig and E just say that you still "engage" in the dream. But that doesn't explain why SR folk REACT to the dream at times very much like the rest of us.It's very easy to look upon a particular behavior to conclude that it is definitively indicative of deep, pervasive anger, but just from looking on, you cannot say for certain what is actually going on inside.
There may be times where a seemingly 'harsh' response arises, perfectly, appropriately. It's not so easy to tell whether or not there is conscious awareness behind that response or whether mind has taken over and the response is indicative of getting swept away with the story.
Yeah, I talk about 'engagement' with the dream continuing, but I also say that that engagement only goes so far...that there are limits to how deeply the story captures attention/awareness. Being awake means that awareness of Being never gets obscured by the ensuing drama. Being asleep means the drama at times takes over and temporarily obscures Being.
Again, the behavior may look the same on the outside, but if there is groundedness in being, whatever behavior is happening, there will be conscious awareness of that. In wakefulness, Nothing is happening in an unconscious, knee-jerk manner. Discordant emotions/feelings no longer have the power to 'take over.' They still arise to some degree, because there is still a degree of caring about the dream, (likes and dislikes continue) but the depth of those discordant feelings is limited by the presence/peace of Being.
It's a good explanation. I can see that. I've been in situations where anger is volitional, where I'm calm and relxed, not SR, but I select the appropriate emotion and can watch myself get angry, and display anger, to avoid a bad outcome. It's almost feigned anger, but still there's a buy into the story. I'm trying to avoid a bad outcomee. I believe this stuff is real. Even when mind stops I never act as if this stuff happening is an illusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 13:40:53 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:40:53 GMT -5
Apologize for using E as the initial person in example C. But this is a good conversation, where we can get down to brass tacks, something meaningful. If it's an illusion, why is this crappy stuff? Just labeling this as "crappy" indicates that there is some pull from the drama, some for lack of a better term compassion, giving in to the story. Right? Isn't there a bit of resistance, not liking what life is giving you, not accepting what's offered. It IS a good conversation.
There is still 'crappy' stuff, because there are still likes and dislikes, still some things and happenings that are preferred and others that are not.
Even in a nightime dream where I am fully aware I am dreaming, I can still identify a 'crappy' storyline...or crappy happening.
The drama still has a degree of pull, sure, but it does not extend so deep that suffering would ensue. (I define 'suffering' as becoming lost to the dream...losing sight of the peace of Being.....becoming unconsciously swept up in the drama of it all to the degree that Being is completely, but temporarily, obscured.)
There can still be some resistance, but again, it only goes so deep...resistance, if/when it arises is very surfacey when awareness abides.
Acceptance/allowance goes much deeper than just the surface of things. For ex: I can dislike really frigid weather, but in a deeper sense, be in full acceptance that that's just how it currently is.
Much deeper than preferences. I like vanilla ice cream. I don't like chocolate ice cream. I like children. I don't like child molesters. See my drift. I love children and loathe child molesters. It's much deeper than mere preferences. Now I recognize that I am the child and the child molester, and I know, but for the grace of "cabbage" go I. I see all this and am moved by an abiding awe for creation. No amount of illusion self talk can convince that it isn't real. But I am the first one to admit that I am not awake. It's just that argument, about mere preferences, is a bit tepid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 13:45:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:45:29 GMT -5
It's a good explanation. I can see that. I've been in situations where anger is volitional, where I'm calm and relxed, not SR, but I select the appropriate emotion and can watch myself get angry, and display anger, to avoid a bad outcome.[/quote]
That's a good explanation of remaining conscious vs. getting sucked into the drama. And although you seem to be saying there was a 'you' present who wanted to avoid a bad outcome....there really was/is no entity there...rather, just an arising preference for one outcome over another. If you move past that, to look beyond at what is watching/witnesses the whole thing, which includes those arising likes/dislikes, that's 'unfettered Being/Awareness' which has no likes/dislikes, to which likes and dislikes arise within.
That's a good descriptor.
Caring about outcomes does not go away just because wakefulness abides. Being awake does not mean that experience comes to a grinding halt. It continues and it remains to some degree, captivating.
The caring, the likes and dislikes are themselves just arisings that appear to/within the Awareness (that is what you really are.) That said, caring and liking/disliking only go so deep when it's seen that what I am is not an arising within the story...that likes and dislikes arise to that which I really am and thus, likes and dislikes like all else that arises within the story, are empty of Truth.
|
|