Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 17:24:53 GMT -5
The sense of existing is not a false I. Sugar and sand mixed together still tastes sweet. It may be sweet but it's hard to digest.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 17:26:42 GMT -5
Attending ego to remove ego. Perhaps you've stumbled onto a new practice? It's as old as the hills. It's using self to remove self, isn't it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 17:34:06 GMT -5
One reason the perpetugasm is useful for the one telling the story is that it's an easy way to put the person back into the picture "after enlightenment".  The person never goes away, not before, not after. The end of self referencing means someone sets up an ashram for you because you will be incapable of taking care of yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2017 18:13:06 GMT -5
It's as old as the hills. It's using self to remove self, isn't it? No. |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jun 23, 2017 18:33:06 GMT -5
The question is what is the nature of the small s self? Do you derive your sense of being from self, or Self? Is that a silly question? No, that's not a silly question. We derive our sense of being from Self because Self is all there is. The small self is simply a structure of thought, a fictitious story. When the thought structure/story of "me" collapses, the truth becomes evident. Imagining a separate self is like imagining a cartoon character. It doesn't exist except in our imagination. According to brain studies that Weber cites, self-referentiality is one of three primary modes of mental functioning. Most brain researchers now think that the brain has plasticity and is physically altered by many things, including meditation. I suspect that by focusing upon sensory input rather than thoughts (ATA-T) the sense of "me," as a thought structure, eventually collapses. IOW, imagination, as a primary focus of mental activity, loses its dominance in relationship to direct perception. Yes absolutely why many teachers point at getting back in touch with the body as just one part of their teaching when a seeker says where has all the life in me gone!!! |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 23, 2017 18:56:59 GMT -5
He makes a distinction between inner and outer ego. The outer ego belongs to the physical realm and can only perceive what belongs to the physical realm because that's it's function, and the inner ego belongs to the non-physical realm. Together, inner and outer ego, make a personality. Personalities are part of a larger entity. Seth is also mentioning that there's a certain order and mathematics behind the creation process. Kinda reminds me of astrology. Okay. He says in the video that the persons have to have supportive emotional conditions or else such influences couldn't occur. And I think that's key to this cloaking issue and pain body or the Id. Even though cloaking and possessions sound like something asserting itself into your reality, there is no actual assertion. It's just LOA at work again. ETA: I finally watched a video of Jane channeling Seth on youtube. Wow! Talk about theatrics!  However, A-H say that this is a sign of resistance in the channel. In the early days, Esther used to have a strange accent as well when she was channeling Abraham. Seth talks a lot about Jane's mental hiccups and she's been physically sick a lot, too. So this actually makes sense. I came across some interesting information about how Seth contacted Jane. He didn't contact her directly. He did it thru someone who was closer to her, Frank Watts. You can see that in the first few sessions where Jane and Robert were using the ouija board, they were talking to Frank Watts, not Seth directly. Seth told Frank to contact them, sorta. Ok so inner ego is like spirit body, and then of course there is the consciousness that transcends. Yea, on the math. Because of the logic function implicit in mind and energy, the personal experience can be fragmented and brought back together, seemingly. Minds think illogically on the surface for logical reasons beneath the surface, and then we can use ideas like inner ego and spirits to talk about the driving forces of delusion. A natural law class would be nothing more than a class on logic. My buddy called it life math. In life math, we can talk about things like parallel planing and the highlander syndrome, and this is very much in tune with the spirit cloaking discussion. Parallel planing takes place when minds are in competition for the best dream, and can lead to some really nasty stuff. The highlander syndrome is the result of seeking and cloaking others, and then using the best dream or the illusion of the best dream to maintain cloaks, premised on the delusion that one is a person in control of life that needs to enhance or maintain the identity structure. The two tenants of shared dreaming are that the best dream always wins, and the best dream is the one shared, which happens to be the one we're in. Yes, on the supportive emotional conditions, it really comes down to the unhealed emotional condition of primary caretakers, parents, etc. That allows spirit cloaking and influence that can do funky things to a child's law of attraction, which then rolls over into adulthood where it degrades and disconnects consciousness from the person through identification. There is a built in correction in that everyone can become conscious and de-cloak, and this brings to life a new dimension to experience that would not be possible through unconscious living, the universe flying together, so to speak. That sounds pretty cool about contacting the spirit. With Maharaj, I mentioned I was meditating on I Am That for about 6 months prior to the spirit visiting me. I read this book on Mentalism, and made the decision one day, to contact the spirit world. I sat alone in my then house (where I was living alone like a true hermit), had the lights off, and asked if there are any spirits present, and if there are, make your presence known. I sat in silence for maybe 30 seconds, and BAM! There was a little box on a table in the room, and the sound was as if something lifted the lid and then slammed it shut. Needless to say, I almost wet myself, but didn't see the lid lift and close, so can't say for sure what it was. Then the Maharaj spirit shows up not but a week later. So it would make sense that was old Nizzy. I'm resonating a lot as I'm writing, so I could probably channel Niz at any point I want to. Ironically, with the house dream, and this is where I've come to believe in the idea of spirit repoir, I stumbled onto the site www.themystic.org . And from reading his writing I got the idea to attempt a spiritual healing. And it was perhaps the most selfless act I could have done from my state of consciousness, but this healing was nuts. My body lit up like a Christmas tree and after a certain period of time I had to stop the healing meditation because I got scared at how intense the energy was. I guess this is a kundalini experience, or whatever. Anyway, the person who I was attempting to heal had a tumor in her lung. She had a successful operation after receiving a bad prognosis. I can't say what effect the healing had on her (prior to the surgery), but the next time I saw her, she said, Jason, you always give the best hugs. I'd never hugged the woman in my life, but based on how I found the house, and the texture of the dream preceding the OBE, I notice a direct link to that event. Can a kundalini-bliss healing actually be a poltergeist possession? Did I remove the potergeist from her and invite it into my aura? I don't actually know. But hey, maybe I'll try channeling Niz one day. Thanks for the exchange Reefs. Wow. Enjoyed reading all this you guys. I'm interested to know what you think about Energy workers, and having your energy cleared etc? One seems to have come into my life, hence my question. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 20:30:46 GMT -5
As long as one or the other of you agrees that the other one has been explaining it correctly all along, it will be all clear. Otherwise, just unending speaking past each other. It's just that satch has not been precise with words, he even said he doesn't care about words. That's fine when you are talking to yourself, but if you are conversing with other people, having the same definitions of words...kind of helps communication. What? I have been totally forensic! But it won't work on you if you can't let go of the concepts you'd rather believe in. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 20:37:16 GMT -5
Niz talked about it. It's a concept. Maybe he should just take some time out and read I am That and Prior to Consciousness again. Niz is clear about going beyond I am and the dissolution of I am. Mind you I've never considered Niz to be the clearest teacher out there in the same way as say Shankara was. And there are some very clear texts as well such as the Ashtavakra Gita which it is claimed can wake you up just by reading it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 20:39:47 GMT -5
It's just that satch has not been precise with words, he even said he doesn't care about words. That's fine when you are talking to yourself, but if you are conversing with other people, having the same definitions of words...kind of helps communication. At this point we've all gone around enough times on this and other topics that precise definitions aren't necessary in order to understand where we're each coming from and what it is that we're trying to convey. Most peeps won't grasp the profundity behind what you just said. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 20:50:38 GMT -5
How can the "I am" not be the root of ego? Gotta start somewhere. Yes, that's one context. You feel like Satch denies Niz used different contexts? Are you sure? Satch himself slips around in contexts like an otter in water. That is, easily and comfortably and out of fun. No biggy. Yes, quite sure. He's directly rejected the idea. Multiple times. And I disagree that satch is comfortable with context shifts. In my opinion he doesn't recognize when the existential contexts have been conflated. "I am" can be said to be the root of the ego. I already acknowledged the relationship between the two. I'm all for fun and games ...  and at this point I've got zero illusions about trying to change minds or really any interest in that or even the debate about the semantics. When the dialog reaches full circle, I'm out. But I'm not so disinterested as to agree with you that there's no substantive disagreement. The fact that conveys the largest gap here is how much attention he and andy have focused over the years on the times Niz spoke about the "I am concept". By far, most of the times Niz used the phrase "I am" he wasn't referring to the "I am concept", he was referring to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort. Someone unfamiliar with the dialogs reading what satch' and andy have written about the topic on this forum could easily come to the exact opposite conclusion. Niz advised people to attend an open, embodied moment of being. He didn't advise them to harden their sense of self-reference. From what satch' and andy have written about this -- repeatedly -- I honestly don't believe they have an experiential point of reference for the difference. Satch' is very well studied on the topic of Advaita and sometimes writes in a very clear 2nd-mountain voice, but when he goes off that script what he conveys is more along the lines of the positionless position. Come on Laffy. You know that's not true. That Niz used the phrase "I am" to refer to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort is exactly what I have been saying incessantly since I arrived here and will continue to say. It's very clear from what I write. I'm actually quite shocked you would suggest otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 21:20:46 GMT -5
At this point we've all gone around enough times on this and other topics that precise definitions aren't necessary in order to understand where we're each coming from and what it is that we're trying to convey. Most peeps won't grasp the profundity behind what you just said.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 21:24:24 GMT -5
Yes, quite sure. He's directly rejected the idea. Multiple times. And I disagree that satch is comfortable with context shifts. In my opinion he doesn't recognize when the existential contexts have been conflated. "I am" can be said to be the root of the ego. I already acknowledged the relationship between the two. I'm all for fun and games ... and at this point I've got zero illusions about trying to change minds or really any interest in that or even the debate about the semantics. When the dialog reaches full circle, I'm out. But I'm not so disinterested as to agree with you that there's no substantive disagreement. The fact that conveys the largest gap here is how much attention he and andy have focused over the years on the times Niz spoke about the "I am concept". By far, most of the times Niz used the phrase "I am" he wasn't referring to the "I am concept", he was referring to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort. Someone unfamiliar with the dialogs reading what satch' and andy have written about the topic on this forum could easily come to the exact opposite conclusion. Niz advised people to attend an open, embodied moment of being. He didn't advise them to harden their sense of self-reference. From what satch' and andy have written about this -- repeatedly -- I honestly don't believe they have an experiential point of reference for the difference. Satch' is very well studied on the topic of Advaita and sometimes writes in a very clear 2nd-mountain voice, but when he goes off that script what he conveys is more along the lines of the positionless position. Come on Laffy. You know that's not true. That Niz used the phrase "I am" to refer to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort is exactly what I have been saying incessantly since I arrived here and will continue to say. It's very clear from what I write. I'm actually quite shocked you would suggest otherwise. So is that like a sense of humor test? Sorry dude, this one takes first place tonight.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 21:28:47 GMT -5
Come on Laffy. You know that's not true. That Niz used the phrase "I am" to refer to the simple sense of aliveness unassociated with ego or really, even a sense of division of any sort is exactly what I have been saying incessantly since I arrived here and will continue to say. It's very clear from what I write. I'm actually quite shocked you would suggest otherwise. So is that like a sense of humor test? Sorry dude, this one takes first place tonight. So it was a joke was it? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2017 21:31:33 GMT -5
So is that like a sense of humor test? Sorry dude, this one takes first place tonight. So it was a joke was it? Oh, ok, were you serious? Seriously?  Do you want me to go back, take it seriously and reply to it as if it wasn't a joke? I mean, no worries dude. I'll be glad to. But first you have to unequivocally say that you weren't joking, ok? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2017 21:34:37 GMT -5
Oh, ok, were you serious? Seriously? Do you want me to go back, take it seriously and reply to it as if it wasn't a joke? I mean, no worries dude. I'll be glad to. But first you have to unequivocally say that you weren't joking, ok? I'm just confused. |
|
and at this point I've got zero illusions about trying to change minds or really any interest in that or even the debate about the semantics. 