|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 11, 2013 9:56:06 GMT -5
This is prompted by berlake, the intention to start a thread on Bernadette Roberts, Suzanne Segal and UG Krishnamurti, looking forward to it. Many years ago, probably about 20 years, I read The Experience of No-Self, then The Path to No-Self and later I discovered through Joseph Chilton Pearce, What Is Self? and read it over a period of several years. About seven years ago I found out about and read her privately printed book, Essays on the Christian Contemplative Journey. Last week I ordered her new book, The Real Christ, which, like the former book, you have to order from the web site created by her friends.
Here's her journey (which fits other stuff I've written here, fits my paradigm). There is a distinction between ego and Self. Ego is sort of like a garment we wear. Self equates to our True Self, who we are essentially, who we are born to be. Ordinarily, we acquire and ego through enculturation, this acquired self assumes our identity, but in most cases it corresponds little to our true self and is therefore a false self (these terms were created by Thomas Merton in his writings, I think very appropriate).
On the spiritual journey, the movement is from false self to true self. False self cannot reach beyond what it is, conceptual, abstract, tied to time and space, memory and the neural network. So false self cannot reach God, our connection to anything above can only come through True Self, I'll just use Self from now on here. In the Christian mystical journey the final stage is called union, the mystical marriage. Bernadette Roberts lived this union with God for about 20 years. She called this living in the market place.
So, first there is the loss of ego and one lives through Self. God is experienced through the union of God and Self. Roberts was a former nun, but left that paradigm, got married and had kids. Eventually over some period of months (after 20 years of union with God in the marketplace) she had a couple of episodes of the loss of Self. Eventually Self fell away in what Roberts called the experience of No-Self. She later described this period like a doughnut, Self being the doughnut, No-Self being the hole in the doughnut. The doughnut kept being chipped away until in the experience of No-Self only the hole was left. Now, what also disappeared when self fell way was Roberts experience of God. She later realized that her experience of God was merely a sort of experience of Self.
Roberts described Self as a reflexive mechanism, when Self fell away the reflexive mechanism no longer operated. So everything Roberts did from then on was from effort. It's almost like a stroke victim who has to learn to speak again, or walk or use their arms and hands. It was sort of like gears being disengaged.There no longer existed a self which could engage the world. She describes this as being almost unimaginably difficult. berlake is right, this seems a great tragedy, but Roberts believes not so, this is journey is.....the next step... berlake is also right in that what was left was the body of Roberts and the operation of the senses.
The little bit of Jed is that Self is essentially Jed's C-Rex. So Roberts has gone beyond Jed, but not really. I read Ken Wilber's first few books, The Spectrum of Consciousness, The Atman Project, Up From Eden. My favorite was (and still is) No Boundary. We can take in more and more of what is, we can keep expanding our boundaries. I would describe this as an increase in our level of being. Eventually, according to Wilber, we can take in everything when there is No Boundary. Jed covers Roberts No-Self by saying that at any level, C-Rex is how we experience the world. Roberts still experiences the world or else she couldn't function (but for her, there is no "psychology" behind the functioning). I'll just stop....right there....
sdp
|
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 11, 2013 10:48:51 GMT -5
This point is crucial.
And this is exactly false. "C-Rex vs U-Rex" is a duality made up by the reflexive mechanism, it has no existence whatsoever except as an idea. So if you say that you're experiencing through "C-Rex" then you're still caught in the same mechanism. It's very simple, whenever you think or say something that makes sense, then you can be 100% certain that it's from mind.
Ken Wilber is an idiot, and so is Jed. The only "nonduality" guy whose intelligence I can vouch for is UG.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 12, 2013 7:38:04 GMT -5
This point is crucial. And this is exactly false. "C-Rex vs U-Rex" is a duality made up by the reflexive mechanism, it has no existence whatsoever except as an idea. So if you say that you're experiencing through "C-Rex" then you're still caught in the same mechanism. It's very simple, whenever you think or say something that makes sense, then you can be 100% certain that it's from mind. Ken Wilber is an idiot, and so is Jed. The only "nonduality" guy whose intelligence I can vouch for is UG. C-Rex is not that complicated to understand, it's not just a concept. U-Rex is everything that is. C-Rex is our individual window seeing what is. Without (somebody's) C-Rex, there is no U-Rex (for them). The question is what is there when C-Rex falls away. There is a body, a living body. It seems it's sort of like amnesia, permanent amnesia. The body still understands English, knows practically what it knew. Jed is a character in a book, and author as part of that character. We don't know much about the author that wrote the Jed-stuff......... sdp |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 12, 2013 9:43:06 GMT -5
C-Rex is not that complicated to understand, it's not just a concept. U-Rex is everything that is. C-Rex is our individual window seeing what is. Without (somebody's) C-Rex, there is no U-Rex (for them). You're correct to say that it's a primitive idea, but you're wrong when you say that it's more than idea. And that it's just an idea is not that complicated to understand unless intuition gets in the way. Who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 12, 2013 14:58:12 GMT -5
C-Rex is not that complicated to understand, it's not just a concept. U-Rex is everything that is. C-Rex is our individual window seeing what is. Without (somebody's) C-Rex, there is no U-Rex (for them). You're correct to say that it's a primitive idea, but you're wrong when you say that it's more than idea. And that it's just an idea is not that complicated to understand unless intuition gets in the way. What or who is Doer? You've had a certain upbringing, education, a certain cultural setting, friends, family, co-workers, etc., etc., etc. You can say all that's conceptual in the sense that all of that is stored as information in the neural network of your brain, but everything you see, hear, think and feel is through the filter of self. That's Jed's C-Rex. If you want to call that an idea (that Doer is simply and idea), then, I'll not try to correct you. sdp |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 13:40:04 GMT -5
This is prompted by berlake, the intention to start a thread on Bernadette Roberts, Suzanne Segal and UG Krishnamurti, looking forward to it. Many years ago, probably about 20 years, I read The Experience of No-Self, then The Path to No-Self and later I discovered through Joseph Chilton Pearce, What Is Self? and read it over a period of several years. About seven years ago I found out about and read her privately printed book, Essays on the Christian Contemplative Journey. Last week I ordered her new book, The Real Christ, which, like the former book, you have to order from the web site created by her friends. Here's her journey (which fits other stuff I've written here, fits my paradigm). There is a distinction between ego and Self. Ego is sort of like a garment we wear. Self equates to our True Self, who we are essentially, who we are born to be. Ordinarily, we acquire and ego through enculturation, this acquired self assumes our identity, but in most cases it corresponds little to our true self and is therefore a false self (these terms were created by Thomas Merton in his writings, I think very appropriate). On the spiritual journey, the movement is from false self to true self. False self cannot reach beyond whatsoever it is, conceptual, abstract, tied to time and space, memory and the neural network. So false self cannot reach God, our connection to anything above can only come through True Self, I'll just use Self from now on here. In the Christian mystical journey the final stage is called union, the mystical marriage. Bernadette Roberts lived this union with God for about 20 years. She called this living in the market place. So, first there is the loss of ego and one lives through Self. God is experienced through the union of God and Self. Roberts was a former nun, but left that paradigm, got married and had kids. Eventually over some period of months (after 20 years of union with God in the marketplace) she had a couple of episodes of the loss of Self. Eventually Self fell away in what Roberts called the experience of No-Self. She later described this period like a doughnut, Self being the doughnut, No-Self being the hole in the doughnut. The doughnut kept being chipped away until in the experience of No-Self only the hole was left. Now, what also disappeared when self fell way was Roberts experience of God. She later realized that her experience of God was merely a sort of experience of Self. Roberts described Self as a reflexive mechanism, when Self fell away the reflexive mechanism no longer operated. So everything Roberts did from then on was from effort. It's almost like a stroke victim who has to learn to speak again, or walk or use their arms and hands. It was sort of like gears being disengaged.There no longer existed a self which could engage the world. She describes this as being almost unimaginably difficult. berlake is right, this seems a great tragedy, but Roberts believes not so, this is journey is.....the next step... berlake is also right in that what was left was the body of Roberts and the operation of the senses. The little bit of Jed is that Self is essentially Jed's C-Rex. So Roberts has gone beyond Jed, but not really. I read Ken Wilber's first few books, The Spectrum of Consciousness, The Atman Project, Up From Eden. My favorite was (and still is) No Boundary. We can take in more and more of what is, we can keep expanding our boundaries. I would describe this as an increase in our level of being. Eventually, according to Wilber, we can take in everything when there is No Boundary. Jed covers Roberts No-Self by saying that at any level, C-Rex is how we experience the world. Roberts still experiences the world or else she couldn't function (but for her, there is no "psychology" behind the functioning). I'll just stop....right there.... sdp Thanks for this post sdp. Bernadette describes a falling away of aesthetic pleasures such as music appreciation that I find interesting. I think UGK said something to the effect that the sound of wailing cats and the sound of Mozart are both equally valid to the eardrum, operating independently of conceptual thought. Tough for me to accept as a musician, but I also can see how allowing those things to fall away could be a step toward sanity. Painful sacrifice, but "Thy will be done", I suppose. Thnx again. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 13, 2013 14:36:17 GMT -5
This is prompted by berlake, the intention to start a thread on Bernadette Roberts, Suzanne Segal and UG Krishnamurti, looking forward to it. Many years ago, probably about 20 years, I read The Experience of No-Self, then The Path to No-Self and later I discovered through Joseph Chilton Pearce, What Is Self? and read it over a period of several years. About seven years ago I found out about and read her privately printed book, Essays on the Christian Contemplative Journey. Last week I ordered her new book, The Real Christ, which, like the former book, you have to order from the web site created by her friends. Here's her journey (which fits other stuff I've written here, fits my paradigm). There is a distinction between ego and Self. Ego is sort of like a garment we wear. Self equates to our True Self, who we are essentially, who we are born to be. Ordinarily, we acquire and ego through enculturation, this acquired self assumes our identity, but in most cases it corresponds little to our true self and is therefore a false self (these terms were created by Thomas Merton in his writings, I think very appropriate). On the spiritual journey, the movement is from false self to true self. False self cannot reach beyond whatsoever it is, conceptual, abstract, tied to time and space, memory and the neural network. So false self cannot reach God, our connection to anything above can only come through True Self, I'll just use Self from now on here. In the Christian mystical journey the final stage is called union, the mystical marriage. Bernadette Roberts lived this union with God for about 20 years. She called this living in the market place. So, first there is the loss of ego and one lives through Self. God is experienced through the union of God and Self. Roberts was a former nun, but left that paradigm, got married and had kids. Eventually over some period of months (after 20 years of union with God in the marketplace) she had a couple of episodes of the loss of Self. Eventually Self fell away in what Roberts called the experience of No-Self. She later described this period like a doughnut, Self being the doughnut, No-Self being the hole in the doughnut. The doughnut kept being chipped away until in the experience of No-Self only the hole was left. Now, what also disappeared when self fell way was Roberts experience of God. She later realized that her experience of God was merely a sort of experience of Self. Roberts described Self as a reflexive mechanism, when Self fell away the reflexive mechanism no longer operated. So everything Roberts did from then on was from effort. It's almost like a stroke victim who has to learn to speak again, or walk or use their arms and hands. It was sort of like gears being disengaged.There no longer existed a self which could engage the world. She describes this as being almost unimaginably difficult. berlake is right, this seems a great tragedy, but Roberts believes not so, this is journey is.....the next step... berlake is also right in that what was left was the body of Roberts and the operation of the senses. The little bit of Jed is that Self is essentially Jed's C-Rex. So Roberts has gone beyond Jed, but not really. I read Ken Wilber's first few books, The Spectrum of Consciousness, The Atman Project, Up From Eden. My favorite was (and still is) No Boundary. We can take in more and more of what is, we can keep expanding our boundaries. I would describe this as an increase in our level of being. Eventually, according to Wilber, we can take in everything when there is No Boundary. Jed covers Roberts No-Self by saying that at any level, C-Rex is how we experience the world. Roberts still experiences the world or else she couldn't function (but for her, there is no "psychology" behind the functioning). I'll just stop....right there.... sdp Thanks for this post sdp. Bernadette describes a falling away of aesthetic pleasures such as music appreciation that I find interesting. I think UGK said something to the effect that the sound of wailing cats and the sound of Mozart are both equally valid to the eardrum, operating independently of conceptual thought. Tough for me to accept as a musician, but I also can see how allowing those things to fall away could be a step toward sanity. Painful sacrifice, but "Thy will be done", I suppose. Thnx again. Merrell-Wolff talks about the "High Indifference". It's not that pain and pleasure are no longer experienced, but that Happiness and Contentment are not arrived at through avoiding pain or seeking pleasure. Whether a cat is wailing or Mozart is playing, there is an indifference to all experience. Meaning, that the experience is not needed for completion of what is already complete. There is nothing added by listening to Mozart, nothing lost by hearing the wailing of a cat. |
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on May 13, 2013 14:50:19 GMT -5
You're correct to say that it's a primitive idea, but you're wrong when you say that it's more than idea. And that it's just an idea is not that complicated to understand unless intuition gets in the way. What or who is Doer? You've had a certain upbringing, education, a certain cultural setting, friends, family, co-workers, etc., etc., etc. You can say all that's conceptual in the sense that all of that is stored as information in the neural network of your brain, but everything you see, hear, think and feel is through the filter of self. That's Jed's C-Rex. If you want to call that an idea (that Doer is simply and idea), then, I'll not try to correct you. sdp I can only repeat myself. That there is an unfiltered reality, a filter, and then a filtering of unfiltered reality - this is an extremely primitive view, it's based on an entirely flawed paradigm. In the other thread I've already given you detailed suggestions how to make the next step. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 14:58:36 GMT -5
Thanks for this post sdp. Bernadette describes a falling away of aesthetic pleasures such as music appreciation that I find interesting. I think UGK said something to the effect that the sound of wailing cats and the sound of Mozart are both equally valid to the eardrum, operating independently of conceptual thought. Tough for me to accept as a musician, but I also can see how allowing those things to fall away could be a step toward sanity. Painful sacrifice, but "Thy will be done", I suppose. Thnx again. Merrell-Wolff talks about the "High Indifference". It's not that pain and pleasure are no longer experienced, but that Happiness and Contentment are not arrived at through avoiding pain or seeking pleasure. Whether a cat is wailing or Mozart is playing, there is an indifference to all experience. Meaning, that the experience is not needed for completion of what is already complete. There is nothing added by listening to Mozart, nothing lost by hearing the wailing of a cat. Hey Top this is off subject and probably needs it's own thread but how do you see the Course's view on relationships? At one time it seems to suggest a renunciation of relationships in toto, then it suggests that a relationship is a means of finding God or Truth. What gives here? And thank you for the Merrill-Wolf, one of my favs. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 13, 2013 15:57:22 GMT -5
www.merrell-wolff.org/node/12Merrell-Wolff talks about the "High Indifference". It's not that pain and pleasure are no longer experienced, but that Happiness and Contentment are not arrived at through avoiding pain or seeking pleasure. Whether a cat is wailing or Mozart is playing, there is an indifference to all experience. Meaning, that the experience is not needed for completion of what is already complete. There is nothing added by listening to Mozart, nothing lost by hearing the wailing of a cat. Hey Top this is off subject and probably needs it's own thread but how do you see the Course's view on relationships? At one time it seems to suggest a renunciation of relationships in toto, then it suggests that a relationship is a means of finding God or Truth. What gives here? And thank you for the Merrill-Wolf, one of my favs. (search for where it talks about relationships) The Course says it (ACIM) is a correction on our perception of the world. Where else are you going to bring up how you perceive the world in order for the correction to take place but by entering into relationship with the world (and its contents)? I would be interested in seeing where you see the course saying that a renunciation of relationships is what is called for. I can understand if it says that relationships are unnecessary (for completion), but active denial or rejection of relationships (because it satisfies the idea of holiness) is no less from the ego than seeking to get one's selfish needs met through relationships. In ACIM, relationships (anything from friendships to life-partners) are the primary fodder for examination and practicing forgiveness. While you have a desire to be in a relationship you can get into the relationship to get a closer look at your motives and see what needs you are trying to meet through the relationship. What you discover is your own perception of lack and how you are trying to fill that void through the relationship instead of realizing that the perception of lack is itself what is amiss and no filling of the void is required (there is no real void in this sense). It's not that relationships are avoided. Through engaging in relationships and practicing self-awareness and the course's idea of forgiveness, you get to a place where you no longer have a need to enter into relationships. It's not that relationships don't happen any more, but that they are not sought out for the sake of completion. One is already complete. The progression of a loss of interest in pursuing relationships comes naturally through the practice and is not something that need be forced before its time. While you want to be in relationship, enjoy the relationships for what they are and what they bring you, opportunities to see yourself and understand yourself a little bit better. They are opportunities to practice being present and conscious. The loss of a need to be in relationships will come at its own time and pace. The real question at this point is why there is a need to hasten its arrival? It would seem that the desire to actively renounce relationship is coming from the ego wanting to be "advanced" within a framework or system. (a surrogate way of deriving self-worth to cover up a perception of a lack of self-worth.) The Course provides a "practice" which is really just a new way of moving through the world. You don't push the practice along, your progress is in allowing the practice to carry you forward. Being present, being aware of how you perceive every situation, and continually letting go of those perceptions to see the world anew. If the question is "would someone who feels complete ever enter into an intentional relationship with another person?" Then we can look and see if there are any motives which are not sourced from lack and a sense of needing to be complete. Enjoyment seems to be one motive. Communion and sharing in each other's presence another. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 16:48:29 GMT -5
Hey Top this is off subject and probably needs it's own thread but how do you see the Course's view on relationships? At one time it seems to suggest a renunciation of relationships in toto, then it suggests that a relationship is a means of finding God or Truth. What gives here? And thank you for the Merrill-Wolf, one of my favs. (search for where it talks about relationships) The Course says it (ACIM) is a correction on our perception of the world. Where else are you going to bring up how you perceive the world in order for the correction to take place but by entering into relationship with the world (and its contents)? I would be interested in seeing where you see the course saying that a renunciation of relationships is what is called for. I can understand if it says that relationships are unnecessary (for completion), but active denial or rejection of relationships (because it satisfies the idea of holiness) is no less from the ego than seeking to get one's selfish needs met through relationships. In ACIM, relationships (anything from friendships to life-partnership) are the primary fodder for examination and practicing forgiveness. While you have a desire to be in a relationship you can get into the relationship to get a closer look at your motives and see what needs you are trying to meet through the relationship. What you discover is your own perception of lack and how you are trying to fill that void through the relationship instead of realizing that the perception of lack is itself what is amiss and no filling of the void is required (there is no real void in this sense). It's not that relationships are avoided. Through engaging in relationships and practicing self-awareness and the course's idea of forgiveness, you get to a place where you no longer have a need to enter into relationships. It's not that relationships don't happen any more, but that they are not sought out for the sake of completion. One is already complete. The progression of a loss of interest in pursuing relationships comes naturally through the practice and is not something that need be forced before its time. While you want to be in relationship, enjoy the relationships for what they are and what they bring you, opportunities to see yourself and understand yourself a little bit better. They are opportunities to practice being present and conscious. The loss of a need to be in relationships will come at its own time and pace. The real question at this point is why there is a need to hasten its arrival? It would seem that the desire to actively renounce relationship is coming from the ego wanting to be "advanced" within a framework or system. (a surrogate way of deriving self-worth to cover up a perception of a lack of self-worth.) The Course provides a "practice" which is really just a new way of moving through the world. You don't push the practice along, your progress is in allowing the practice to carry you forward. Being present, being aware of how you perceive every situation, and continually letting go of those perceptions to see the world anew. If the question is "would someone who feels complete ever enter into an intentional relationship with another person?" Then we can look and see if there are any motives which are not sourced from lack and a sense of needing to be complete. Enjoyment seems to be one motive. Communion and sharing in each other's presence another. Acim-"The illusion and reality of love". It says that if you choose certain partners in any aspect of living that does not include others, you are trying to live with guilt rather than die of it. Is this a call to communual living? Those situations usually do not turn out so well. Excellent and helpful post btw, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 13, 2021 9:47:54 GMT -5
I didn't want to 'pollute' the new Suzanne Segal thread, but wanted to say that Bernadette Roberts virtually confirms Segal's story, she had a loss of self very-nearly-like Segals. She came to call what occurred The Experience of No-Self (title of her first book). She described her experience as a donut hole, when self, the donut, fell away all that was left was the hole. She journaled what she was going through at the time, and these became the books. She said if it were not for the journaling she probably would have disappeared into obscurity with no record of what had occurred. I read her first 2 books either the late '80's or early '90's. I was still really weary of (my) self. I also read the Segal book later. I wanted to say, Lady, what do you think you've been working towards for years doing TM? I've also studied pretty extensively the 'perils of the path' literature, spiritual emergency. If one is merely interested in repairing self, the spiritual path isn't the place for that.
I think Segal had a kind of phantom-limb experience. Her self actually did disappear, but she could never get used to what had happened because there still existed a kind of shadow self as/in her old neural circuits, very nearly like a phantom limb, feeling the pain of an amputated limb. She couldn't resolve the two.
But Bernadette Roberts fully accepted what had happened to her, and felt it was part of the Christian journey. (She also says that the church today is almost completely divergent from the journey of Jesus, knows virtually nothing about the real journey JC was the model for. I concur on this). IOW, JC wasn't unique, he just showed us what is possible. He actually said specifically this. If today's Christians actually read the words in red, it would blow their minds and they would probably leave the church. But people can't separate the actual from their own context, the context their own particular brand gives.
self is the brand.
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Aug 23, 2021 11:30:02 GMT -5
|
|
