|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 1, 2019 13:11:29 GMT -5
Yes, my question above, how having seen through the nature of self, is self still functional? Self (small s) is never functional and never does anything. That's the illusion. There is no twoness; it only seems that way. The Whole is what sees, hears, feels, thinks and manifests "just like this." In the novel, "Moby Di*k," Ahab raises his arm toward the sky and asks, "Is it I or God who lifts this hand?" The most accurate answer to that question is non-verbal. Words cannot capture the truth. From recent posts (concerning conditioning) I think I'm finally getting to understand how I need to talk to you. When I used the word functional above I meant in terms of conditioning, not a self. The next post will be more clear concerning conditioning acting, not a self acting. I will try never to use the word self with you again when I'm really referring to the conditioning of a mind-body. *Our* language for the small s self, which I have tried to use more often, is Imaginary I (meaning no SVP).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 1, 2019 13:36:01 GMT -5
Self (small s) is never functional and never does anything. That's the illusion. There is no twoness; it only seems that way. The Whole is what sees, hears, feels, thinks and manifests "just like this." In the novel, "Moby Di*k," Ahab raises his arm toward the sky and asks, "Is it I or God who lifts this hand?" The most accurate answer to that question is non-verbal. Words cannot capture the truth. From recent posts (concerning conditioning) I think I'm finally getting to understand how I need to talk to you. When I used the word functional above I meant in terms of conditioning, not a self. The next post will be more clear concerning conditioning acting, not a self acting. I will try never to use the word self with you again when I'm really referring to the conditioning of a mind-body. *Our* language for the small s self, which I have tried to use more often, is Imaginary I (meaning no SVP). Okay, but conditioning is impersonal. Animals have no conception of selfhood, but they become conditioned in the same way as Pavlov's dog--through physical experiential events. If the process that we call Reality, or THIS, is undivided and infinite, then whatever happens is a movement of THIS. We can say that most humans are conditioned to think that they're SVP's, and we can also say that some of these humans eventually penetrate the illusion of being a SVP and realize their oneness with "what is." After one discovers that which is infinite and undivided, and knows that s/he is one-with THAT, it seems to me that any conception of levels or hierarchies would be like adding legs to a snake.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 1, 2019 13:36:19 GMT -5
Yes, I understand all that. But I disagree that the Whole is always manifesting through particular organism. I would say if that were true then everyone would always be in flow all the time. I don't see that as the case. From my viewpoint, conditioning creates clogs in the flow, that's what ego/persona/false sense of self IS. But I also understand that you will never agree with this, as it disagrees with your paradigm. (But my post stands as is). edit: I just now read sca's reply to my post after this reply to you. You say there is no real difference between your view and that of sca. But he admits there is a self. You always say there is no SVP and the Whole is acting through the mind-body. Those sound like two different things. For you is there a difference between self and SVP? Is there a self? (Because I have no problem with sca's post). The only illusory "clogs" in the flow of life are ideas ABOUT what's going on, and the idea that anything is happening to a "me" as a separately-existing entity. ATST, we can talk about being a person, or a body, or a functioning organism, and that's just a normal part of ordinary communication, but all things are one-with the absolute, whether we conceive of the absolute in terms of pure consciousness or as a unified field of being. The basic realization that we call "SR" is the realization that there is no entity inhabiting or directing a body, and that whatever the body is doing is a manifestation of the whole. What we are is unbounded, and there is nothing (no thing) apart from that unboundedness. The infinite is the infinite, and THAT is all there is. Satch has said that when he looks at the world, he knows that he is looking at himself. I would say exactly the same thing. In this sense Self and self are one and the same. The observer and the observed are one. Does that answer your question? No, it didn't. This post gets to the gist of my ongoing discussion with you, a reply to a recent post where you said that you have never discounted conditioning. The post above seemed to discount conditioning, to my continual frustration, as it seems anyone can see that conditioning is acting in the world. I understand and have no problem when from a recent post you consider conditioning as *included* within the Whole. However, I need some further clarification. In the post previous to this one, I tried to clean up my language to distinguish between the use of the word self (which for me IS the conditioning), and conditioning. For me the majority of people act in the world and function through conditioning. I agree that there is no-thing acting outside the Whole (I have said many times I don't even know what that would mean). So the question is quite simple, leaving out a self which I agree FAIAP is imaginary, does conditioning act/react in the world? Does the conditioning of a mind-body act in the world?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 1, 2019 13:49:08 GMT -5
From recent posts (concerning conditioning) I think I'm finally getting to understand how I need to talk to you. When I used the word functional above I meant in terms of conditioning, not a self. The next post will be more clear concerning conditioning acting, not a self acting. I will try never to use the word self with you again when I'm really referring to the conditioning of a mind-body. *Our* language for the small s self, which I have tried to use more often, is Imaginary I (meaning no SVP). Okay, but conditioning is impersonal. Animals have no conception of selfhood, but they become conditioned in the same way as Pavlov's dog--through physical experiential events. If the process that we call Reality, or THIS, is undivided and infinite, then whatever happens is a movement of THIS. We can say that most humans are conditioned to think that they're SVP's, and we can also say that some of these humans eventually penetrate the illusion of being a SVP and realize their oneness with "what is." After one discovers that which is infinite and undivided, and knows that s/he is one-with THAT, it seems to me that any conception of levels or hierarchies would be like adding legs to a snake. I think we've (I've) made enough progress for one day not to spoil it with discussion of this, today... But let's just say that for me ND doesn't reduce everything to zero...or maybe more specifically, to equality...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 1, 2019 14:44:22 GMT -5
I haven't said that SR is all that's necessary. It can be helpful to realize some other important things along the way, but SR is what ended the search for me, and it's often what ends the search for other people. The result is peace of mind as well as understanding the limitations of mind. Upon seeing that the "me" had totally vanished, it became obvious to THIS that THIS had been the only actor on the stage, ever. As E often says, "God falls into His/Her own dream." When S/he wakes up, free from the illusion of being a limited entity, S/he understands that there was never an entity who sometimes experienced states of unity consciousness and sometimes experienced states of dualistic self-reference. It was all one unified flow of being witnessed by THIS even though it didn't seem like that until after the illusion collapsed. Yes, there's a high correlation between meditation practices and waking up, but it's a correlation, not causation. There are some people who discover the Infinite who never meditated prior to that discovery. ATST, it helps to remember that there are activities that function exactly like meditation, but are not generally considered meditation. Simply wanting to understand, intensely, "What's going on?" or "What is reality?" can be a form of contemplation that shuts off mental reflection. Also, there are people like Morgan-Somers, who apparently had a very simple non-reflective mind, and at the age of 16 the Infinite knocked on his door, so to speak, and he fell into a state of permanent unity consciousness. It's rare, but it happens. Ramana was another 16 year old that it happened to as a result of a single question. Children often have glimpses of the Infinite because they spend a lot of time just looking at the world rather than thinking about it. Tolle is another interesting case because his only question was rather he should hang around or not? I was fascinated to learn that he began contemplating suicide at the age of 6, and one of the things that gave him a bit of peace was a huge scaffolding beside his home that he realized he could jump off of if it became necessary. Everyone is unique. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, just trying to understand (you/your position) better, the conditioning (that which gives the basis of self, even an illusory self) of a "person"-mind-body, it is irrelevant to think of it as ~located~ in a particular mind-body?, that the conditioning is merely the Whole acting? Further, is that how you view other people? You don't see a "person" there, you see the Cosmos operating? zd, I'm not sure you ever got back to this, but it's pertinent to my 3 recent posts (today). Again, I have previously worded these questions badly, using the word self when I should have used the word conditioning (of a mind-body). Does conditioning act/react?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 1, 2019 15:26:04 GMT -5
SDP: You asked if I see persons or if I see the cosmos operating when I view other people. Neither. I see "what is." The idea of "a person" or the idea of "the cosmos" are both ideas. No one sees an idea with their eyes, and if the mind is quiescent, ideation is absent. Being able to stop thinking at will is helpful in this respect because one can look around in silence and clearly see __________________in the total absence of mind talk. One can then see the territory rather than the map, the food rather than the menu.
As for conditioning acting or reacting, I don't know what that means. Humans act or react, but "conditioning" is a term we use for describing a causal effect. How can a causal effect linking prior events act or react? I may be too dumb to understand your question, but from my POV there is just "what is" unfolding however it unfolds, and "what is" cannot be captured in words.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 3, 2019 18:14:55 GMT -5
SDP: You asked if I see persons or if I see the cosmos operating when I view other people. Neither. I see "what is." The idea of "a person" or the idea of "the cosmos" are both ideas. No one sees an idea with their eyes, and if the mind is quiescent, ideation is absent. Being able to stop thinking at will is helpful in this respect because one can look around in silence and clearly see __________________in the total absence of mind talk. One can then see the territory rather than the map, the food rather than the menu. As for conditioning acting or reacting, I don't know what that means. Humans act or react, but "conditioning" is a term we use for describing a causal effect. How can a causal effect linking prior events act or react? I may be too dumb to understand your question, but from my POV there is just "what is" unfolding however it unfolds, and "what is" cannot be captured in words. The question of conditioning is tied to your conversation with lopezcabellero. Today I browsed a very good book called, Unbinding by Kathleen Dowling Singh. She talked about how our ego traps our attention so that in a very real sense our attention is bound by our conditioning. That's all I'm talking about, our conditioning narrows our interests to a small territory, and holds it there. For most people this is not a problem, because they are all about self, they don't question the central basis of their life, they are just who they are. But the lucky ones sense that something is wrong. Conditioning is an unconscious "knee-jerk" reaction to people, places and things. Psychological autopilot is acting from conditioning. Most people, unless they have in some manner worked through it, have some negative unpleasant conditioning that their friends or family have to deal with. They themselves don't usually have to deal with it unless it gets nasty and consequences blow back on them. This is not rocket science. "Hurt people hurt people". A lot of conditioning can be perfectly innocent. Even in a loving family if a child's needs are not met, through maybe ignorance or just unintentional neglect, it's recorded in the neural structure and effects behavior, now or down the road. And what's recorded unconsciously is acted out unconsciously, it's psychological autopilot. I have personally seen both ends of the spectrum acted out, brutality by parents upon the child-young adult-teenager on one end, and innocent neglect on the other end. When people do bad things to other people they are acting out violence that was perpetrated on them, and it's 99% unconscious, they-don't-know-why-they-are-doing-what-they-are-doing. It's very nasty business. And this is tied to Tolle's concept of the actual, pain body. So it's not just "what is" unfolding however it unfolds. There exists perpetuating cycles of abuse *handed down* from parent to child that grows up to abuse their own children who grow up to abuse their children. And in most cases they tell themselves, I will never treat my kids the way I was treated, but then they do. Why? Unconscious processing, they can't help it. ..... And then some of it is deliberate, terrorists who have children teach them to hate...to hate.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 3, 2019 20:37:58 GMT -5
SDP: You asked if I see persons or if I see the cosmos operating when I view other people. Neither. I see "what is." The idea of "a person" or the idea of "the cosmos" are both ideas. No one sees an idea with their eyes, and if the mind is quiescent, ideation is absent. Being able to stop thinking at will is helpful in this respect because one can look around in silence and clearly see __________________in the total absence of mind talk. One can then see the territory rather than the map, the food rather than the menu. As for conditioning acting or reacting, I don't know what that means. Humans act or react, but "conditioning" is a term we use for describing a causal effect. How can a causal effect linking prior events act or react? I may be too dumb to understand your question, but from my POV there is just "what is" unfolding however it unfolds, and "what is" cannot be captured in words. The question of conditioning is tied to your conversation with lopezcabellero. Today I browsed a very good book called, Unbinding by Kathleen Dowling Singh. She talked about how our ego traps our attention so that in a very real sense our attention is bound by our conditioning. That's all I'm talking about, our conditioning narrows our interests to a small territory, and holds it there. For most people this is not a problem, because they are all about self, they don't question the central basis of their life, they are just who they are. But the lucky ones sense that something is wrong. Conditioning is an unconscious "knee-jerk" reaction to people, places and things. Psychological autopilot is acting from conditioning. Most people, unless they have in some manner worked through it, have some negative unpleasant conditioning that their friends or family have to deal with. They themselves don't usually have to deal with it unless it gets nasty and consequences blow back on them. This is not rocket science. "Hurt people hurt people". A lot of conditioning can be perfectly innocent. Even in a loving family if a child's needs are not met, through maybe ignorance or just unintentional neglect, it's recorded in the neural structure and effects behavior, now or down the road. And what's recorded unconsciously is acted out unconsciously, it's psychological autopilot. I have personally seen both ends of the spectrum acted out, brutality by parents upon the child-young adult-teenager on one end, and innocent neglect on the other end. When people do bad things to other people they are acting out violence that was perpetrated on them, and it's 99% unconscious, they-don't-know-why-they-are-doing-what-they-are-doing. It's very nasty business. And this is tied to Tolle's concept of the actual, pain body. So it's not just "what is" unfolding however it unfolds. There exists perpetuating cycles of abuse *handed down* from parent to child that grows up to abuse their own children who grow up to abuse their children. And in most cases they tell themselves, I will never treat my kids the way I was treated, but then they do. Why? Unconscious processing, they can't help it. ..... And then some of it is deliberate, terrorists who have children teach them to hate...to hate. I still don't understand what the focus upon conditioning has to do with the fundamental truth of ND. Kindness is an aspect of "what is," and abuse is also an aspect of "what is." There is just THIS however it manifests. There is no entity apart from the whole even though THIS may cognize an aspect of Itself in that way. If John Doe thinks he is John Doe, that;s THIS thinking it is a human named "John Doe." If Jane Doe sees through the illusion of being an entity named "Jane Doe," that's THIS seeing through the illusion of being Jane Doe. Conscious or unconscious makes no difference; there's just THIS doing whatever is being done.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 6, 2019 15:35:21 GMT -5
The question of conditioning is tied to your conversation with lopezcabellero. Today I browsed a very good book called, Unbinding by Kathleen Dowling Singh. She talked about how our ego traps our attention so that in a very real sense our attention is bound by our conditioning. That's all I'm talking about, our conditioning narrows our interests to a small territory, and holds it there. For most people this is not a problem, because they are all about self, they don't question the central basis of their life, they are just who they are. But the lucky ones sense that something is wrong. Conditioning is an unconscious "knee-jerk" reaction to people, places and things. Psychological autopilot is acting from conditioning. Most people, unless they have in some manner worked through it, have some negative unpleasant conditioning that their friends or family have to deal with. They themselves don't usually have to deal with it unless it gets nasty and consequences blow back on them. This is not rocket science. "Hurt people hurt people". A lot of conditioning can be perfectly innocent. Even in a loving family if a child's needs are not met, through maybe ignorance or just unintentional neglect, it's recorded in the neural structure and effects behavior, now or down the road. And what's recorded unconsciously is acted out unconsciously, it's psychological autopilot. I have personally seen both ends of the spectrum acted out, brutality by parents upon the child-young adult-teenager on one end, and innocent neglect on the other end. When people do bad things to other people they are acting out violence that was perpetrated on them, and it's 99% unconscious, they-don't-know-why-they-are-doing-what-they-are-doing. It's very nasty business. And this is tied to Tolle's concept of the actual, pain body. So it's not just "what is" unfolding however it unfolds. There exists perpetuating cycles of abuse *handed down* from parent to child that grows up to abuse their own children who grow up to abuse their children. And in most cases they tell themselves, I will never treat my kids the way I was treated, but then they do. Why? Unconscious processing, they can't help it. ..... And then some of it is deliberate, terrorists who have children teach them to hate...to hate. I still don't understand what the focus upon conditioning has to do with the fundamental truth of ND. Kindness is an aspect of "what is," and abuse is also an aspect of "what is." There is just THIS however it manifests. There is no entity apart from the whole even though THIS may cognize an aspect of Itself in that way. If John Doe thinks he is John Doe, that;s THIS thinking it is a human named "John Doe." If Jane Doe sees through the illusion of being an entity named "Jane Doe," that's THIS seeing through the illusion of being Jane Doe. Conscious or unconscious makes no difference; there's just THIS doing whatever is being done. Conscious or unconscious makes no difference? I'm sure we will all agree, babies are unconditioned. Now, there are certain genetic proclivities and also limitations, but we all begin unconditioned. So how does a (newborn) baby function, act in relation to the world? Their senses are functioning, that is, they collect data from the outside world. Why say outside world? Because the body is a limiting factor in relation to the world. The body is a kind of gateway. The sense of touch is easy to understand here. Touch is what the body comes in contact with, if the body doesn't touch something exterior, there is no sensation of touch. Likewise taste. Hearing, smelling and seeing have to be examined a little, as they seem to *reach out* from the body. But no, they function in exactly the same way as touch and taste. The eyes are a gateway, the nose is a gateway, the ears are a gateway. We know nothing of the exterior world that does not come in contact with the sensory organs. But what is it, in a baby, that *collects* the data from the senses? It is awareness. Babies are born with awareness. So then what occurs as a result of baby encountering the world through awareness through the senses? Every sensation is stored in the neural structure of the baby, as pathways of connections between neurons. Thousands and hundreds of thousands of crisscrossing and haphazard synaptic links are formed in the neural structure of the brain. These crisscrossing neural links are associative, that is, they are connected in the relationship of time and space wherein they were formed via sensations. All this is what conditioning is. Why does conditioning exist? Once something is learned, then awareness doesn't have to be *spent* on the process of encountering the exterior world. The mind-brain-body operates below the level of being conscious, that is, the mind-brain-body functions automatically, unconsciously. Awareness can then be utilized on novel situations. But does this occur? The sad answer is that as a person gets older, almost their entire functioning operates through conditioning. Awareness operates through our conditioning. What does this mean? It means that incoming data received through the senses almost invariably activates the previously recorded network of associations and the person lives through their past instead of directly encountering novel situations ~in the world~. That, is what sleep is, psychological in a very real sense suggestive-hypnotic sleep. It's living within the confines of one's own neural-pathways-associative-structure, and having actually very little contact with *What Is*. That's the difference between the conscious and the unconscious. Now, if you say it makes no difference to you how you live (and I presume you really live this way, because you have been teaching this for years here), then, that's OK, it just is what it is. ...But then, anyone who has really seen all this can't possibly tell other people it's OK to live this way...that it makes no difference. ...But all this is not so easy to see. Now, the self you say we are not, is precisely this conditioning, and you are correct. Most people consider they *are a self* and think and feel and act according to the wishes and desires of who they think they are. But this ~self~ is merely constituted of this haphazard and random collection of stored data. There is indeed no actual self. But no one can just accept this intellectually. It has to really be seen through, and this is not so easy to do. One has to begin to live through their awareness, as they did as a baby. The mind-brain-body-awareness has to reverse the process, cease to function through conditioning. That's why there is a difference. An individual mind-brain-body has to begin to see how their awareness is functioning. Is it free, like a baby-child, or is it captured and manipulated by the network of associations, conditioning?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 17, 2019 13:39:05 GMT -5
History will likely always be ugly. Before history, was right beautiful though. well, not if you ask this guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2019 14:14:02 GMT -5
Before history, was right beautiful though. well, not if you ask this guy. La Cueva de las Manos
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 18, 2019 11:39:11 GMT -5
well, not if you ask this guy. La Cueva de las Manos That's worth reading or youtubing 'bout.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 2:19:12 GMT -5
At best, it was somebody's interpretation, which regularly goes horribly wrong. At worst, it's made up. I'm not big on trying to explain hearsay evidence from 2500 years ago. Unless it supports your agenda of course. 'Xcuse me! Wasn't it you that first said you had 'evidence' that Prince Siddhartha barked at someone once?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 2:30:02 GMT -5
E has had this Realization. It's nonsense. So all day every day he has to make the obvious fit into his Realization, which makes him distort what's actual all day every day. He turns the whole universe upside down. He throws out time and space and cause and effect and makes this world into a dream world. He's far from alone. The spirituality forums and FB groups are full of this kind of non-duality crap. You'll be writing it yourself soon. It happens to everyone who stays too long. Either that or you'll start posting random quotes from scripture expecting everyone to think that you're learned.. oh..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 2:35:09 GMT -5
I heard something the other day about a lady who supposedly went through the enlightening process for use of a better word and she was asked about the bliss bunny status, again for use of a better word . She said that she is far more open than she ever was and that she felt more sensitive to normal life situations . There's a chap from Cardiff in Wales who had a full awakening and who has been interviewed on batgap, called Paul Morgan-Somers who ZD has mentioned a couple of times. I recall him saying that since awakening he is much more grumpy.Link please.
|
|