|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2020 14:05:13 GMT -5
So satch, I'm happy for you, that you did not and do not have this nasty aspect like I did, I consider you fortunate. But over the years sdp learned how to deal with this (false) self, and life and people. This ~model~ explains almost everything I see and encounter in myself, and in life and in the world. Well actually I had a very unhappy childhood as a result of a very domineering and violent father. But what I wanted to ask is how you think you can have peace of mind if you don't love your own personality. I don't see self, people and world as false because all those things are me, the totality, unity, oneness and it's all real. Being happy about your essence but then seeing falsity everywhere else is not a good recipe for unconditional peace. Other people and the world are real. Things are real, people, places and events, real. Personality/false self can, and in most people (that would mean at least 51%, but it's much higher), gives a distorted impression of 'what's out there', a false view of what's out there. Personality/false self is a distorting filter, *it* causes a view that corresponds to itself, it sees what it is. We think we see the world how it is, but most people don't. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For example, this is how President Trump has a base of 40% of the voters. He said during the campaign he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his base would not desert him. He learned how to tell enough lies to reflect 40% of the voter base. They mirror each other, but not really. If and when they find out that Trump actually doesn't care about them, he cares only for power and to build monuments to himself (Trump Towers), they will desert him. I hope that happens before November 2020. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To understand essence and personality, one has to experience it in themselves. I consider myself lucky to have hated myself. This drove the search. I'm not interested in peace. Gurdjieff called self calming the only devil in us. Self calming means we will do anything to get rid of discomfort. Some kinds of peace costs too high a price. Gurdjieff said we all have a sheep, a wolf and a cabbage in ourselves. The trick is to keep them all alive, each has their own value and function. Personality/ego/false self also has a value and function, fertilizer. I actually had what seems a pretty normal childhood and environment. So I don't know why all the trouble, the internal trouble. But one thing, I loved my Grandfather dearly, spent every minute I could with him. He died when I was four (+ 5 months). Maybe that had an effect. Also think I was very nearly autistic, probably part of the why of living inside myself, too much. Other reasons explored...but you have to start from where you are anyway. How you got there, not so much. ~~~~~~~~~ One's personality is mostly formed by about the age of six. So we don't remember too much any of the how it was formed. So your unhappy childhood was experienced on the basis of the already-formed personality.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2020 14:57:02 GMT -5
Yes, I am is a sense of existence . Beyond mind is beyond I AM existing . You only know that I was not existing when I AM aware of I AM . But you had to exist to recall/conclude that you weren't existing. Isn't this really the same argument you've been making for weeks? I haven't a clue what you are talking about . What is difficult to understand in regards to what I have said? I have said You only know that 'I AM' was not existing when I AM aware of I AM .I have said you only know you have been asleep the moment you wake up . Please tell me you understand this because you experience this daily .. You can't RECALL that I AM was absent .. You only know that I AM was absent when there is a thought of yourself that returns .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2020 14:59:12 GMT -5
.. If a dude had a N.S. realisation then this supersedes S.R. using your premise hands down for this is beyond S.R. You can't have a N.S. realisation and not realise Self . To suggest that peeps who have N.S. realisations don't necessarily S.R. makes no sense, it's the cart before the horse . Let me put it this way, what is beyond pure awareness as a realisation had .. What supersedes pure awareness ..
Seeing through the the so called illusory self doesn't that is for sure .I hope somebody untangled this? I wouldn't hold your breath, it's perhaps because no-one has experienced what I am talking about .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2020 15:03:01 GMT -5
I hope somebody untangled this? I couldn't untangle it because NS is not a realization, and it's not connected to what we call "SR" in any way that I'm familiar with. Well I have spoken about beyond mind as not being a realisation as such it is only referred to as that when one returns back to self awareness . No-one it seems has a reference for what I am speaking of here . What I have asked as a question is straightforward . What supersedes pure awareness? S.R. doesn't does it, because S.R. is mindful according to you because it refers to seeing thru illusions .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2020 15:06:27 GMT -5
It sounds to me as if what happened to you was a CC event similar to what happened to Tolle. Zen people distinguish between those kinds of events and satori, which is equivalent to SR. Some people apparently attain SR as a result of a CC event, but that's pretty rare. SR is usually a separate realization/event. AAR, I now have a better understanding of what you've been writing aboutDoesn't sound like CC to me. Tenka once said that Bernadette Roberts best describes what he experienced. Here's a link to an interview with BR: awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/07/bernadette-roberts-interview.htmlMaybe this helps. No, I actually referred to Bernadette Roberts because she said that you need to know of no self to know self . I absolutely see the need for this and this is why I speak about needing the comparison . She also say's that beyond self is beyond consciousness which I totally agree with also .. I would also go as far to say that beyond self is beyond awareness ...
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 12, 2020 15:14:19 GMT -5
You're probably correct. After Tenka responded, I realized that he was describing something else, but I'm not sure what. Maybe there isn't a name for it yet lol .. But to me and perhaps only me, it makes perfect sense and it is not difficult to understand at all . There is I AM of the mind and there is no I AM beyond . What you are is present regardless of mind or no mind, self or no self, that is why I used the sun and the clouds analogy . When I AM is absent what you are simply is . What you are that simply is can be referred to as Bliss, Love, Peace etc, but there is no I AM present to realise this or experience this, it is simply what you are . Only when there is I AM awareness that returns then I AM can say I realised this and that and I AM this or that .. It's very straightforward ..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2020 15:29:57 GMT -5
I couldn't untangle it because NS is not a realization, and it's not connected to what we call "SR" in any way that I'm familiar with. Well I have spoken about beyond mind as not being a realisation as such it is only referred to as that when one returns back to self awareness . No-one it seems has a reference for what I am speaking of here . What I have asked as a question is straightforward . What supersedes pure awareness? S.R. doesn't does it, because S.R. is mindful according to you because it refers to seeing thru illusions . Nothing supersedes pure awareness as far as I know, but no one lives in a state of pure awareness more than a few hours, perhaps one or two days at the most, and subconscious mental functioning obviously continues because the body continues to live and breathe. NS has nothing to do with SR because NS is not a realization, and it doesn't help us understand anything. It MAY help trigger future realizations that will result in new understanding, but all we can say about it is that it's a deep state of mind. NS is like being unconscious but highly aware because the "outside world" does not exist for the organism abiding in that state. What does one learn from abiding in NS? Only that such a deep state of mind is possible, that it's blissful, that it relaxes the body and probably loosens up the intellect, and that it seems to precede various subsequent realizations. The only state of mind that really matters is SS because that state of mind can continue in the midst of ordinary life, and it manifests as peace, freedom, flow, and equanimity. It's like being at home, knowing you're at home, and knowing that home is the only place one can BE because it's the only place there IS. We could also call it "abiding in the Self, as Self" if we wanted to put it in spiritual terms.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 12, 2020 15:35:34 GMT -5
Nothing supersedes pure awareness as far as I know, Nisargadatta would agree with you. "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginning-less, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2020 15:40:41 GMT -5
Well I have spoken about beyond mind as not being a realisation as such it is only referred to as that when one returns back to self awareness . No-one it seems has a reference for what I am speaking of here . What I have asked as a question is straightforward . What supersedes pure awareness? S.R. doesn't does it, because S.R. is mindful according to you because it refers to seeing thru illusions . Nothing supersedes pure awareness as far as I know, but no one lives in a state of pure awareness more than a few hours, perhaps one or two days at the most, and subconscious mental functioning obviously continues because the body continues to live and breathe. NS has nothing to do with SR because NS is not a realization, and it doesn't help us understand anything. It MAY help trigger future realizations that will result in new understanding, but all we can say about it is that it's a deep state of mind. NS is like being unconscious but highly aware because the "outside world" does not exist for the organism abiding in that state.What does one learn from abiding in NS? Only that such a deep state of mind is possible, that it's blissful, that it relaxes the body and probably loosens up the intellect, and that it seems to precede various subsequent realizations. The only state of mind that really matters is SS because that state of mind can continue in the midst of ordinary life, and it manifests as peace, freedom, flow, and equanimity. It's like being at home, knowing you're at home, and knowing that home is the only place one can BE because it's the only place there IS. We could also call it "abiding in the Self, as Self" if we wanted to put it in spiritual terms. I don't recall you ever using this term before in relation to NS. Is that precisely correct?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2020 15:58:33 GMT -5
You're probably correct. After Tenka responded, I realized that he was describing something else, but I'm not sure what. Maybe there isn't a name for it yet lol .. But to me and perhaps only me, it makes perfect sense and it is not difficult to understand at all . There is I AM of the mind and there is no I AM beyond . What you are is present regardless of mind or no mind, self or no self, that is why I used the sun and the clouds analogy . When I AM is absent what you are simply is . What you are that simply is can be referred to as Bliss, Love, Peace etc, but there is no I AM present to realise this or experience this, it is simply what you are . Only when there is I AM awareness that returns then I AM can say I realised this and that and I AM this or that .. It's very straightforward .. Okay. I think I finally understand. I think what you're pointing to is the same thing that I point to when I say that pure awareness is foundational, and that even if the universe disappeared, awareness would still be here. That fact can be realized, but not through NS. What you seem to be pointing to would be one aspect of the realization that can be stated as, "Reality is not what it is imagined to be, and what it actually is is beyond imagination." I say that it would be ONE aspect because other aspects of the same realization (besides the foundational nature of awareness) include realizing the fundamental unity of reality, realizing the incomprehensibility of reality, realizing the infiniteness of reality, realizing that love is in some way also foundational, etc. The realization that makes all of this obvious usually occurs in a single instant, but it can also occur via a CC event (because it does not involve time in any usual sense). I've never heard of it occurring via NS, but perhaps if someone stayed in NS for a long enough period of time, they might come out of that state with these kinds of realizations being obvious. I doubt that, but I guess it's possible.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2020 16:01:19 GMT -5
Nothing supersedes pure awareness as far as I know, but no one lives in a state of pure awareness more than a few hours, perhaps one or two days at the most, and subconscious mental functioning obviously continues because the body continues to live and breathe. NS has nothing to do with SR because NS is not a realization, and it doesn't help us understand anything. It MAY help trigger future realizations that will result in new understanding, but all we can say about it is that it's a deep state of mind. NS is like being unconscious but highly aware because the "outside world" does not exist for the organism abiding in that state.What does one learn from abiding in NS? Only that such a deep state of mind is possible, that it's blissful, that it relaxes the body and probably loosens up the intellect, and that it seems to precede various subsequent realizations. The only state of mind that really matters is SS because that state of mind can continue in the midst of ordinary life, and it manifests as peace, freedom, flow, and equanimity. It's like being at home, knowing you're at home, and knowing that home is the only place one can BE because it's the only place there IS. We could also call it "abiding in the Self, as Self" if we wanted to put it in spiritual terms. I don't recall you ever using this term before in relation to NS. Is that precisely correct? I don't know how else to state it. From within the state of NS there is neither an outside nor an inside world; there is only pure awareness. NS is like the experience of pure awareness without an experiencer. It doesn't make sense logically.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2020 16:05:05 GMT -5
Nothing supersedes pure awareness as far as I know, Nisargadatta would agree with you. "Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginning-less, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change." Yes. That's perfectly stated.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2020 16:33:31 GMT -5
I don't recall you ever using this term before in relation to NS. Is that precisely correct? I don't know how else to state it. From within the state of NS there is neither an outside nor an inside world; there is only pure awareness. NS is like the experience of pure awareness without an experiencer. It doesn't make sense logically. But you've never used the word organism before (versus pure awareness).
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 12, 2020 16:45:47 GMT -5
I don't know how else to state it. From within the state of NS there is neither an outside nor an inside world; there is only pure awareness. NS is like the experience of pure awareness without an experiencer. It doesn't make sense logically. But you've never used the word organism before (versus pure awareness). One definition of organism refers to a “living being“. Maybe that's what he means by organism in this case?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jan 12, 2020 17:00:40 GMT -5
Yes, I am is a sense of existence . Beyond mind is beyond I AM existing . You only know that I was not existing when I AM aware of I AM . But you had to exist to recall/conclude that you weren't existing. Isn't this really the same argument you've been making for weeks? Yup, but he refuses to apply it to his experience. That's what I was arguing with him about. Somehow he can be aware of the fact of his own absence -- without having been there in any way during the absence. Totally inconsistent with what he says otherwise.
|
|