|
Post by tenka on Nov 22, 2019 15:15:31 GMT -5
Some perceive the individual self that is not separate as being illusory in regards to their being no self present at all . That is why you have dream characters presented and not real life peeps.One can see their own sense of self individuality without shooting up a warning flare of separation . Peeps can think they have lost self even when self is present . These as explained are mindful realizations and confusion can reign because they have no comparison for no self . This is why you have peeps running about thinking no one is here . If there was S.R. had and a knowing of the mind of self's absence, one would not conclude that, nor would they suggest that their presence is in some way illusory. It depends on what you mean by self. If you mean a separate, volitional person, then no, there is no self. If you mean an appearance in/as what you are (a kind of dream occurring in what you are) then you can say there is a self. To say it's a kind of dream in Consciousness doesn't address the idea of 'real life' because they are in different contexts. In the context of Consciousness being all there is, real and unreal lose their meaning, as do life and death. self is just a thought or a representation of what it is that you are . self can think what it likes from this perspective . self is the individual and self can think they are separate or not . Self in totality doesn't think about being separate or not or being an individual or not . Self in totality doesn't have the means to know what a dream is or what is illusory .. As said before, the mind is the means to know and the environment to know based upon one's experiences and realisations . Each to their own on what is thought of and concluded, but as said there are peeps that run around thinking that self is no more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2019 18:24:40 GMT -5
It depends on what you mean by self. If you mean a separate, volitional person, then no, there is no self. If you mean an appearance in/as what you are (a kind of dream occurring in what you are) then you can say there is a self. To say it's a kind of dream in Consciousness doesn't address the idea of 'real life' because they are in different contexts. In the context of Consciousness being all there is, real and unreal lose their meaning, as do life and death. self is just a thought or a representation of what it is that you are . self can think what it likes from this perspective . self is the individual and self can think they are separate or not . Self in totality doesn't think about being separate or not or being an individual or not . Self in totality doesn't have the means to know what a dream is or what is illusory ..As said before, the mind is the means to know and the environment to know based upon one's experiences and realisations . Each to their own on what is thought of and concluded, but as said there are peeps that run around thinking that self is no more. Not true.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2019 20:39:35 GMT -5
Do you really think something has been forgotten, or is 'remembering' being used metaphorically? I saw this posted somewhere a few years ago and again just recently .. God is love. And Love must love. And to love there must be a Beloved. But since God is Existence infinite and eternal there is no one for Him to love but Himself. And in order to love Himself, He must imagine Himself as the Beloved whom He as the lover imagines He loves. Beloved and lover implies separation. And separation creates longing; and longing causes search. And the wider and the more intense the search, the greater the separation and the more terrible the longing. When longing is at its most intense, separation is complete, and the purpose of separation, which was that love might experience itself as lover and Beloved, is fulfilled; and union follows. And when union is attained, the lover knows that he himself was all along the Beloved, whom he loved and desired union with; and that all the impossible situations that he overcame were obstacles which he himself had placed in the path to himself. To attain union is so impossibly difficult because it is impossible to become what you already are!Meher BabaIn the same breath it's in a way difficult to remember what you already are and already know on some level ..
For some reason the physical experience for many has a veil of forgetfulness that comes with each lifetime ..I understand why because otherwise it's like watching a movie with knowing the ending before it ends . It's a children's story of veils of forgetfulness and remembering. I'm uncertain how it relates to MB's story beyond the similar child-like quality. Nothing is forgotten or remembered. The dynamic is one of innocence lost followed by transcendence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2019 21:00:25 GMT -5
It depends on what you mean by self. If you mean a separate, volitional person, then no, there is no self. If you mean an appearance in/as what you are (a kind of dream occurring in what you are) then you can say there is a self. To say it's a kind of dream in Consciousness doesn't address the idea of 'real life' because they are in different contexts. In the context of Consciousness being all there is, real and unreal lose their meaning, as do life and death. self is just a thought or a representation of what it is that you are . self can think what it likes from this perspective . self is the individual and self can think they are separate or not . Self in totality doesn't think about being separate or not or being an individual or not . Self in totality doesn't have the means to know what a dream is or what is illusory .. As said before, the mind is the means to know and the environment to know based upon one's experiences and realisations . Each to their own on what is thought of and concluded, but as said there are peeps that run around thinking that self is no more. If there is ultimately just the 'Self in totality', then it is only that Self that can think it is separate or not, right? If there is only what you are, then there is not what you are... and self that can think they are separate or not. It is in this sense that there is not a self at all. It is not semantics. It's a fundamental difference in the way 'that which you are' is viewed; in the way Oneness is conceptualized.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 22, 2019 21:05:04 GMT -5
self is just a thought or a representation of what it is that you are . self can think what it likes from this perspective . self is the individual and self can think they are separate or not . Self in totality doesn't think about being separate or not or being an individual or not . Self in totality doesn't have the means to know what a dream is or what is illusory ..As said before, the mind is the means to know and the environment to know based upon one's experiences and realisations . Each to their own on what is thought of and concluded, but as said there are peeps that run around thinking that self is no more. Not true. Being, in the largest context, is mindless; prior to mind. I assume that's what he means by "Self in totality". This 'Self' can know nothing as there is nothing to know prior to knowledge, meaning prior to mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2019 21:50:30 GMT -5
Being, in the largest context, is mindless; prior to mind. I assume that's what he means by "Self in totality". This 'Self' can know nothing as there is nothing to know prior to knowledge, meaning prior to mind. You're writing about Satori. I stand by my statement. Self can know what is illusionary.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 23, 2019 2:21:27 GMT -5
All you have to do is ask them, who thinks there is no one here? If they say no one, don't ask any more questions. 😀 So, are you saying that thinking requires a separate entity (as in “I think, therefore I am”), that sometimes there is an entity and sometimes not, or that there is someone? Just thought to ask since we’re discussing snakes, ropes, and, dare I say, perhaps some newly crea-perceived snapes and rokes. If you can say I then there is ego/personal self. But it is not an entity because you will never find such an entity wherever you look. Dictionary definition of entity is a thing with distinct and independent existence. The manifestation of the personal is not independently separate from consciousness. It is consciousness appearing as mind. And mind is just a series of thoughts one after the other. What does it matter what you think about it? To just be and to act is enough.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 23, 2019 3:15:16 GMT -5
self is just a thought or a representation of what it is that you are . self can think what it likes from this perspective . self is the individual and self can think they are separate or not . Self in totality doesn't think about being separate or not or being an individual or not . Self in totality doesn't have the means to know what a dream is or what is illusory ..As said before, the mind is the means to know and the environment to know based upon one's experiences and realisations . Each to their own on what is thought of and concluded, but as said there are peeps that run around thinking that self is no more. Not true. Perhaps my word reference of Totality creates a problem here, I just wanted to emphasise that self as an individual can live life and entertain the notion of being in someway separate or not from God or whatever other word reference suits here. Self that is not individualised as perhaps a better word choice won’t have a thought about being separate or not from Self, God or what they are .. E has explained this as I would of in that Self in Totality or Self beyond the individual within or of the mind is beyond the knowing of anything that is mindful or self related.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 23, 2019 3:22:37 GMT -5
Being, in the largest context, is mindless; prior to mind. I assume that's what he means by "Self in totality". This 'Self' can know nothing as there is nothing to know prior to knowledge, meaning prior to mind. You're writing about Satori. I stand by my statement. Self can know what is illusionary. Don't you mean Self is writing about Satori? Self in the way that E and I are referring too is not individualised or personalised . self is personalised and individualised even though there is only Self. This is part issue of why I have tried to explain the differences of self and no self to sifting, because what you are that is Self is present even when the thought of self isn't. There is no reason to refer to Self of the mind as Self when the thought of oneself is absent beyond the mind. There is either the thought of oneself or not and this is key to what realisations are so to speak. This was another straightforward question I made to sifting about realisation.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 23, 2019 3:26:07 GMT -5
I saw this posted somewhere a few years ago and again just recently .. God is love. And Love must love. And to love there must be a Beloved. But since God is Existence infinite and eternal there is no one for Him to love but Himself. And in order to love Himself, He must imagine Himself as the Beloved whom He as the lover imagines He loves. Beloved and lover implies separation. And separation creates longing; and longing causes search. And the wider and the more intense the search, the greater the separation and the more terrible the longing. When longing is at its most intense, separation is complete, and the purpose of separation, which was that love might experience itself as lover and Beloved, is fulfilled; and union follows. And when union is attained, the lover knows that he himself was all along the Beloved, whom he loved and desired union with; and that all the impossible situations that he overcame were obstacles which he himself had placed in the path to himself. To attain union is so impossibly difficult because it is impossible to become what you already are!Meher BabaIn the same breath it's in a way difficult to remember what you already are and already know on some level ..
For some reason the physical experience for many has a veil of forgetfulness that comes with each lifetime ..I understand why because otherwise it's like watching a movie with knowing the ending before it ends . It's a children's story of veils of forgetfulness and remembering. I'm uncertain how it relates to MB's story beyond the similar child-like quality. Nothing is forgotten or remembered. The dynamic is one of innocence lost followed by transcendence. As said before as an example, most don't remember being conscious of being awake when they have the belief when they awake that they have been asleep . This is not a child's story .. I could say a lot more about this subject but I won't because I know how the audience would react so I will save myself the hassle .. As Meher Baba points out 'To attain union is so impossibly difficult because it is impossible to become what you already are' .. all you have to do is ask the question why do I not know what I AM and have always been? Why is there ignorance to that which I AM when what I AM is always present . Why do peeps Self enquire, it is because on some level one knows the answers are there within ..
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 23, 2019 3:33:29 GMT -5
self is just a thought or a representation of what it is that you are . self can think what it likes from this perspective . self is the individual and self can think they are separate or not . Self in totality doesn't think about being separate or not or being an individual or not . Self in totality doesn't have the means to know what a dream is or what is illusory .. As said before, the mind is the means to know and the environment to know based upon one's experiences and realisations . Each to their own on what is thought of and concluded, but as said there are peeps that run around thinking that self is no more. If there is ultimately just the 'Self in totality', then it is only that Self that can think it is separate or not, right? If there is only what you are, then there is not what you are... and self that can think they are separate or not. It is in this sense that there is not a self at all. It is not semantics. It's a fundamental difference in the way 'that which you are' is viewed; in the way Oneness is conceptualized. Yes, there is only Self but as said to shaz there is no point in referencing Self as the individual when Self is also beyond the individual. If you believe that you are separate or not, that belief is a belief that reflects the individuals realisation or experience it doesn't reflect the totality ... Gopal believing that his daughter might not be real is not Self's belief in totality .. If you have a thought of what you are and believe whatever that is to be True then that isn't Self in totality's point of reference or belief, so it's going to create issues if you start your reply with If there is ultimately just the Self in Totality, because the individual doesn't constitute that or reflect that .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2019 4:43:10 GMT -5
Perhaps my word reference of Totality creates a problem here, I just wanted to emphasise that self as an individual can live life and entertain the notion of being in someway separate or not from God or whatever other word reference suits here. Self that is not individualised as perhaps a better word choice won’t have a thought about being separate or not from Self, God or what they are ..E has explained this as I would of in that Self in Totality or Self beyond the individual within or of the mind is beyond the knowing of anything that is mindful or self related. If God doesn't know what is illusionary, then me thinks there is a great deal of re-writing necessary in them there great old books.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2019 10:44:21 GMT -5
If there is ultimately just the 'Self in totality', then it is only that Self that can think it is separate or not, right? If there is only what you are, then there is not what you are... and self that can think they are separate or not. It is in this sense that there is not a self at all. It is not semantics. It's a fundamental difference in the way 'that which you are' is viewed; in the way Oneness is conceptualized. Yes, there is only Self but as said to shaz there is no point in referencing Self as the individual when Self is also beyond the individual. If you believe that you are separate or not, that belief is a belief that reflects the individuals realisation or experience it doesn't reflect the totality ... Gopal believing that his daughter might not be real is not Self's belief in totality .. If you have a thought of what you are and believe whatever that is to be True then that isn't Self in totality's point of reference or belief, so it's going to create issues if you start your reply with If there is ultimately just the Self in Totality, because the individual doesn't constitute that or reflect that . Agreed. (S)elf and self are ways of falsely bifurcating the 'Totality' so that we can talk about different aspects of it. As long as it's understood that self is Consciousness engaging thought, then there's no problem.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 23, 2019 11:01:36 GMT -5
Perhaps my word reference of Totality creates a problem here, I just wanted to emphasise that self as an individual can live life and entertain the notion of being in someway separate or not from God or whatever other word reference suits here. Self that is not individualised as perhaps a better word choice won’t have a thought about being separate or not from Self, God or what they are ..E has explained this as I would of in that Self in Totality or Self beyond the individual within or of the mind is beyond the knowing of anything that is mindful or self related. If God doesn't know what is illusionary, then me thinks there is a great deal of re-writing necessary in them there great old books. Yes, some re-writing would be helpful. The title can be "God's immutable Truth (rev. a)". The first page can read "There is no God". In case anybody cares to read further, it can say things like: "What you thought was an omniscient creator is actually prior to knowledge and knows nothing. What you thought was omnipresent and eternal is simply prior to space and time. Where else would a creator be found but prior to his creations?"
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 23, 2019 12:51:37 GMT -5
So, are you saying that thinking requires a separate entity (as in “I think, therefore I am”), that sometimes there is an entity and sometimes not, or that there is someone? Just thought to ask since we’re discussing snakes, ropes, and, dare I say, perhaps some newly crea-perceived snapes and rokes. If you can say I then there is ego/personal self. But it is not an entity because you will never find such an entity wherever you look. Dictionary definition of entity is a thing with distinct and independent existence. The manifestation of the personal is not independently separate from consciousness. It is consciousness appearing as mind. And mind is just a series of thoughts one after the other. What does it matter what you think about it? To just be and to act is enough. If you can say "I", it may just be serving as a function of communication, which would not necessarily require an entity. The ego/persona could be more like masks being worn at the Halloween/costume party. But, yeah, it is likened to a construct in mind, so that's what I was curious about with respect to your comment to Tenka. For the sake of discussion along these lines, it seems apparent that referring the ego/persona as more like a mask/tool, rather than "real", is closer to being useful, especially in helping peeps see absurdity of being butt hurt on the "personal level" when it comes to being challenged on these topics. Points for clarity are usually hard won via losing, if you know what I mean.
|
|