|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 11:54:46 GMT -5
Yes, its nothing that you wouldn't say yourself. Its just a shame that you have objectified 'realizations' and set them aside as something more special than they are. Yes, clarity is 'special'. You imply as much when you say it's a shame I don't see what you see. I value clarity but I don't objectify it or set it aside from the rest of Life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 11:56:11 GMT -5
Haha, then somebody should hit them with a broom in the forehead as quickly as possible, before that truth has a chance to set in. What if somebody follows your advice and the broom hitting works? I would suggest he finds a new Guru before he gets a concussion...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 1, 2013 11:58:48 GMT -5
And there's the full circle personal freedom plan. You aren't phucked at all, are you? You've rationalized your way back to full out self delusion. I wouldn't say I'm phucked, no, but there was a time when I was, and I didn't rationalize my way out. We surrender to being phucked. I read a Jed Mckenna quote recently on here, I think Fig put it up, it resonated with me...I will see if I can find it Okay....''To re-enter the amusement park is to re-suspend dis-belief; to accept the ‘virtual’ reality of the dreamstate as real reality. For instance, I like to pretend that I’m sane and a I have free will. Might as well right? I also like to pretend that I’m my character, that my memories are trustworthy, and that time and space and the world are as them seem. Kinda gotta.'' But when the realizations never happened, pretending to rejoin the dreamstate is just a pretense to re-activate the egoic self as an enlightened self. Nothing has changed except the addition of some spiritual arrogance.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 11:59:31 GMT -5
I don't really understand what you are asking, but perhaps I just answered it above. No you didn't answer it above. How does the word "cow" get its meaning? The three letters C O W are put next to each other and it has a meaning attached. Where did the meaning come from? How did the association happen? All ideas/meanings have meaning in relation to other ideas/meanings. In this sense, they float free. They are not grounded in an objective reality. That's the most I can say really.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 12:01:16 GMT -5
Realizations CAN do. Hence why so many spiritual seekers end up identified with Awareness or some such thing. Nobody has ever realized that they are an awareness thingy. That's mind concluding stuff. Many many spiritual seekers have had the realization that they are not the bodymind. What they then do is identify with what they conceive to be 'not' the bodymind. Spiritual forums are littered with the carcasses of this type of identification issue. You are correct though that that a conclusion has been formed, but it was after the initial realization. Similar to you realizing that ideas have no solid foundation and then concluding that 'no idea is ultimately true'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 12:02:39 GMT -5
I wouldn't say I'm phucked, no, but there was a time when I was, and I didn't rationalize my way out. We surrender to being phucked. I read a Jed Mckenna quote recently on here, I think Fig put it up, it resonated with me...I will see if I can find it Okay....''To re-enter the amusement park is to re-suspend dis-belief; to accept the ‘virtual’ reality of the dreamstate as real reality. For instance, I like to pretend that I’m sane and a I have free will. Might as well right? I also like to pretend that I’m my character, that my memories are trustworthy, and that time and space and the world are as them seem. Kinda gotta.'' But when the realizations never happened, pretending to rejoin the dreamstate is just a pretense to re-activate the egoic self as an enlightened self. Nothing has changed except the addition of some spiritual arrogance. Quick somebody hit me with a broom...
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 12:03:50 GMT -5
rolling of eyes happening again. I don't believe I am a separate person, but then I don't believe I am not a separate person. I can comment on the experience, and the experience is that it certainly seems that there are other individuals in a different location in space, it seems as if I have the power to cause certain things happen, it seems as I am able to control certain things (like my car). Its not about true/false, its about the path of least resistance and its about intelligence. Right, that's what I'm talking about. You came 'full circle' back from Mt Woowoo and brought all your personal baggage back with you instead of tossing it off the mountain. Transcending means including and going beyond. The goal is NOT to toss the personal away.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 12:06:32 GMT -5
Right, that's what I'm talking about. You came 'full circle' back from Mt Woowoo and brought all your personal baggage back with you instead of tossing it off the mountain. Transcending means including and going beyond. The goal is NOT to toss the personal away. In my experience, it's not that the personal is tossed away, but that it falls away of its own accord.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 12:08:41 GMT -5
I wouldn't say I'm phucked, no, but there was a time when I was, and I didn't rationalize my way out. We surrender to being phucked. I read a Jed Mckenna quote recently on here, I think Fig put it up, it resonated with me...I will see if I can find it Okay....''To re-enter the amusement park is to re-suspend dis-belief; to accept the ‘virtual’ reality of the dreamstate as real reality. For instance, I like to pretend that I’m sane and a I have free will. Might as well right? I also like to pretend that I’m my character, that my memories are trustworthy, and that time and space and the world are as them seem. Kinda gotta.'' But when the realizations never happened, pretending to rejoin the dreamstate is just a pretense to re-activate the egoic self as an enlightened self. Nothing has changed except the addition of some spiritual arrogance. As I just said, transcending is inclusion and going beyond. We don't get rid of 'ego', we dont get rid of the 'I-thought, we don't get rid of 'Andrew/Phil', we don't get rid of experiencing ourselves as an individual/person, we don't get rid of experiencing the ability to make something happen, we don't get rid of the sense of being able to control something, we don't even get rid of all our attachments and fears. That stuff just loses it primacy.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 12:13:23 GMT -5
Transcending means including and going beyond. The goal is NOT to toss the personal away. In my experience, it's not that the personal is tossed away, but that it falls away of its own accord. In the process I would say attachments fall away, conditioned fears fall away, egoic needs, limiting beliefs fall away....but 'the personal' itself stays present. In an 'intimacy' sense, everything is actually much more personal these days.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 12:17:10 GMT -5
In my experience, it's not that the personal is tossed away, but that it falls away of its own accord. In the process I would say attachments fall away, conditioned fears fall away, egoic needs, limiting beliefs fall away....but 'the personal' itself stays present. In an 'intimacy' sense, everything is actually much more personal these days. But attachments, conditioned fears, egoic needs, limiting beliefs are all characteristics of the personal, silly. Saying that the personal yet remains is like saying that although the leaves, branches, and trunk of a tree may be felled, the tree remains. I dunno, Andrew. You really say some srewey stuff, sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 1, 2013 12:18:08 GMT -5
No you didn't answer it above. How does the word "cow" get its meaning? The three letters C O W are put next to each other and it has a meaning attached. Where did the meaning come from? How did the association happen? All ideas/meanings have meaning in relation to other ideas/meanings. In this sense, they float free. They are not grounded in an objective reality. That's the most I can say really. As I said, to you the following is a dog: The following is a cat: The following is a bird: The following is a flea:
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 12:23:20 GMT -5
In the process I would say attachments fall away, conditioned fears fall away, egoic needs, limiting beliefs fall away....but 'the personal' itself stays present. In an 'intimacy' sense, everything is actually much more personal these days. But attachments, conditioned fears, egoic needs, limiting beliefs are all characteristics of the personal, silly. Saying that the personal yet remains is like saying that although the leaves, branches, and trunk of a tree may be felled, the tree remains. I dunno, Andrew. You really say some srewey stuff, sometimes. I am saying 'the personal' is the 'individual sense', or just 'individuality'. In one way, the 'I' is experienced here much more intensely than it used to be. Not the 'I-thought', but the 'I-I', the atman, or soul.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 1, 2013 12:30:30 GMT -5
All ideas/meanings have meaning in relation to other ideas/meanings. In this sense, they float free. They are not grounded in an objective reality. That's the most I can say really. As I said, to you the following is a dog: The following is a cat: The following is a bird: The following is a flea: Might be wrong, but sounds to me as if you like to keep 'ideas' apart from 'territory', and 'reality' apart from 'imagination'.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 1, 2013 12:34:08 GMT -5
But attachments, conditioned fears, egoic needs, limiting beliefs are all characteristics of the personal, silly. Saying that the personal yet remains is like saying that although the leaves, branches, and trunk of a tree may be felled, the tree remains. I dunno, Andrew. You really say some srewey stuff, sometimes. I am saying 'the personal' is the 'individual sense', or just 'individuality'. In one way, the 'I' is experienced here much more intensely than it used to be. Not the 'I-thought', but the 'I-I', the atman, or soul. Okay. Thanks for clarifying. And, screwy as it may sound, I can kinda rez with the 'more intense' characteristic of the 'I', post detachment.
|
|