|
Post by enigma on Dec 19, 2014 2:11:40 GMT -5
That implies that you can describe the self. Would you care to do so? Sure. There is true self and false self. True self, aka essence, is what you are born as. So the physical body is part of essence. And part of the body are the centers, the intellectual center, the emotional center, the moving center (the muscles that 'move' the body), the sexual center and the instinctive center (the five senses and the operation of the body, that which doesn't have to be learned). False self, aka ego, personality or cultural self, begins being formed at birth. It is the acquired "self", the contents of the centers stored as memory. This is also known as conditioning. This is what we normally think of as self. This is the self referred to in the post. Going at least all the way back to the BC Greeks, they knew just how hard it is to see self, thus the Delphic and Socratic injunction, "Know Thyself". And Socrates also said, The unexamined life is not worth living. So, the self referred to is what we think, feel and do, plus the subconscious, also consisting of information stored in the centers. It's difficult to know self because most of what we think, feel and do comes from the subconscious. It's true self that can see false self, objectively. This is rather difficult to do, as our own self-image (again, who we think ourselves to be) obstructs the process. .......One place this shows up is in 12-step programs. The first step you have to get by is denial, seeing what actually is the case. Okay, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 19, 2014 9:44:36 GMT -5
Sure. There is true self and false self. True self, aka essence, is what you are born as. So the physical body is part of essence. And part of the body are the centers, the intellectual center, the emotional center, the moving center (the muscles that 'move' the body), the sexual center and the instinctive center (the five senses and the operation of the body, that which doesn't have to be learned). False self, aka ego, personality or cultural self, begins being formed at birth. It is the acquired "self", the contents of the centers stored as memory. This is also known as conditioning. This is what we normally think of as self. This is the self referred to in the post. Going at least all the way back to the BC Greeks, they knew just how hard it is to see self, thus the Delphic and Socratic injunction, "Know Thyself". And Socrates also said, The unexamined life is not worth living. So, the self referred to is what we think, feel and do, plus the subconscious, also consisting of information stored in the centers. It's difficult to know self because most of what we think, feel and do comes from the subconscious. It's true self that can see false self, objectively. This is rather difficult to do, as our own self-image (again, who we think ourselves to be) obstructs the process. .......One place this shows up is in 12-step programs. The first step you have to get by is denial, seeing what actually is the case. Okay, thanks. No, thank you.........thanks for asking........... .
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 19, 2014 12:35:07 GMT -5
Obviously, the question "is a brain dead body self-realized?" is similar in form to "does a dog have Buddha nature?". History and culture can be quite useful sometimes. ... some conditioning can save a peep some time! Yes, and if one can stop thinking for a while, the answers to both questions will become obvious. Perhaps. yes. But surely, if an answer were to arise to either of those questions, one would have to have an understanding of what is meant by 'self-realization' and 'buddha nature'...? It's also possible the question may be seen through. For me, the question itself of a brain dead body being self realized, could be deemed more of a misconception..but that's based upon how I define 'self realization.' I asked the question of Reefs, not because it is active for me, but because of what I deemed to be his assertion of the overriding absence of mind in realization. I wanted to see how deep he sees that absence as being. AS I see it, there is indeed a mind component to self realization....it's all about a new seeing, that collapses a previous seeing....a way of seeing and way of experiencing, which can indeed entail less minding, but so long as experience continues, there must necessarily be some mind involvement. This is really all I'm trying to ascertain from Reefs; His definition of 'self realization.' As I see it, self realization refers to a seeing that collapses a previous identification of self, as being limited and finite, and a sense of being apart from the totality of 'this.' As I recall, you describe such a collapse...where one moment you were on a construction site (i think), identified as being a very specific person in a body, and the next, you saw through it all, and there was a falling away of that sense of identification with limitation. I would term your description of that seeing and subsequent falling away, 'self realization.' Cells of the body may indeed have a certain 'intelligence' (by design), but I don't see the capacity to identify, and thus, no capacity to 'realize' self. So, if one were to say, the cells of the body are 'already self realized' it's likely an indicator of a different definition of 'self realization' that what I am using. How do you define self realization?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 19, 2014 13:27:31 GMT -5
Yes, and if one can stop thinking for a while, the answers to both questions will become obvious. Perhaps. yes. But surely, if an answer were to arise to either of those questions, one would have to have an understanding of what is meant by 'self-realization' and 'buddha nature'...? This is really all I'm trying to ascertain from Reefs; His definition of 'self realization.' As I see it, self realization refers to a seeing that collapses a previous identification of self, as being limited and finite, and a sense of being apart from the totality of 'this.' As I recall, you describe such a collapse...where one moment you were on a construction site (i think), identified as being a very specific person in a body, and the next, you saw through it all, and there was a falling away of that sense of identification with limitation. I would term your description of that seeing and subsequent falling away, 'self realization.' Cells of the body may indeed have a certain 'intelligence' (by design), but I don't see the capacity to identify, and thus, no capacity to 'realize' self. So, if one were to say, the cells of the body are 'already self realized' it's likely an indicator of a different definition of 'self realization' that what I am using. How do you define self realization? In order to see the "answers" to the above two questions the definitions are not that important. A general sense of what is meant is sufficient. One could ask, "Does a dog partake of the oneness of God?" and the answer would be the same. The question, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" is a classic Zen koan. A monk asked Joshu that question, and he responded "Mu!" In Chinese "mu" means no. The Buddha, however, had said that all things and beings in the universe have Buddha nature (are part of God, or the Absolute), so this became a classic test question. A Zen student is often asked: 1. What is mu? 2. Who was correct, the Buddha or Joshu? 3. Does a dog really have Buddha nature? The same sort of thing is true regarding the question concerning self realization. Yes, I would define Self-realization as seeing through the illusion of selfhood, or having the sense of selfhood collapse, or discovering who the real searcher for truth is, but the question refers to a brain-dead or comatose human being, so the answer to that question is direct and quite humorous. One could also ask, "Are electrons self-realized?" or "Is a rock self-realized?" and the answers would all be similar. In Reefs response to you, he either intentionally or otherwise threw in what Zen people call a "mind hook"--the bit about self-realized cells. You don't have to take the bait. As soon as you start to think about the issue, the words and associated thoughts will send you in the wrong direction. Your body already understands the answer to the question. A monk once came to meditation from a polo match. He told his Zen Master that he was very tired. The ZM asked, "Were the horses tired?" The monk replied, "yes, very tired." The ZM then asked, 'Were the goal posts tired?" The monk did not know how to answer. He contemplated the question all night until the answer dawned on him. The next day he rushed to see the ZM. What did he say?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 19, 2014 13:31:12 GMT -5
Perhaps. yes. But surely, if an answer were to arise to either of those questions, one would have to have an understanding of what is meant by 'self-realization' and 'buddha nature'...? This is really all I'm trying to ascertain from Reefs; His definition of 'self realization.' As I see it, self realization refers to a seeing that collapses a previous identification of self, as being limited and finite, and a sense of being apart from the totality of 'this.' As I recall, you describe such a collapse...where one moment you were on a construction site (i think), identified as being a very specific person in a body, and the next, you saw through it all, and there was a falling away of that sense of identification with limitation. I would term your description of that seeing and subsequent falling away, 'self realization.' Cells of the body may indeed have a certain 'intelligence' (by design), but I don't see the capacity to identify, and thus, no capacity to 'realize' self. So, if one were to say, the cells of the body are 'already self realized' it's likely an indicator of a different definition of 'self realization' that what I am using. How do you define self realization? In order to see the "answers" to the above two questions the definitions are not that important. A general sense of what is meant is sufficient. One could ask, "Does a dog partake of the oneness of God?" and the answer would be the same. The question, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" is a classic Zen koan. A monk asked Joshu that question, and he responded "Mu!" In Chinese "mu" means no. The Buddha, however, had said that all things and beings in the universe have Buddha nature (are part of God, or the Absolute), so this became a classic test question. A Zen student is often asked: 1. What is mu? 2. Who was correct, the Buddha or Joshu? 3. Does a dog really have Buddha nature? The same sort of thing is true regarding the question concerning self realization. Yes, I would define Self-realization as seeing through the illusion of selfhood, or having the sense of selfhood collapse, or discovering who the real searcher for truth is, but the question refers to a brain-dead or comatose human being, so the answer to that question is direct and quite humorous. One could also ask, "Are electrons self-realized?" or "Is a rock self-realized?" and the answers would all be similar. In Reefs response to you, he either intentionally or otherwise threw in what Zen people call a "mind hook"--the bit about self-realized cells. You don't have to take the bait. As soon as you start to think about the issue, the words and associated thoughts will send you in the wrong direction. Your body already understands the answer to the question. hehe..funny, I just edited my last post to add this: "It's also possible the question may be seen through. For me, the question itself of a brain dead body being self realized, could be deemed more of a misconception..but that's based upon how I define 'self realization.' Foundational to 'self realization' is the capacity for self awareness. I asked the question of Reefs, not because it is active for me, but because of what I deemed to be his assertion of the overriding absence of mind in realization. I wanted to see how deep he sees that absence as being. AS I see it, there is indeed a mind component to self realization....it's all about a new seeing, that collapses a previous seeing....a way of seeing and way of experiencing, which can indeed entail less minding, but so long as experience continues, there must necessarily be some mind involvement." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3912/real-illusion?page=9#ixzz3MMzf9kvESo, again, to be clear, the question was asked of Reefs in hopes of ascertaining his own definition of self realization. ..I really don't have many of those types of questions that have any power to 'hook me' these days....years ago though, lots of that kind of focus. Thanks for sharing your definition...sounds like we're on the same page there pretty much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 15:02:28 GMT -5
I was listening to a fellow talk about the source and end of social anxiety. ( Noah Elkrief) Basically he was saying that social anxiety is the fear of losing yourself (due to criticism). And this is because (a) criticism from others is believed; and (b) there is a fundamental belief in one's story of self (I am this and that). But the fact is that nothing you think about yourself is who you are. You are what is there witnessing all the various themes and subthemes of the selfstory. No more self story no more social anxiety. The practical minded might be motivated to end social anxiety (or other fears) and see giving up belief in self / separation to further that end. And it seems like that is a pivotal aspect of shifting from a perspective of duality to nonduality. Good stuff, but really, 'giving up belief in self' needs to take the form of losing interest. Otherwise, it is a self that wants to give it up for his own 'self'ish interests, and that's remarkably ineffective. Losing interest, or as I say, walking off the battle field, may become a very important focus at some point in the seeker's career. The practically minded, seeing the possibility of the source/cause of irrational fear and existential suffering being uprooted with a single realization, it's not such a bad calculation. But I get your point -- it's still about self-improvement, just enlightened self improvement. And therefore ultimately lacking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 15:05:25 GMT -5
I was listening to a fellow talk about the source and end of social anxiety. ( Noah Elkrief) Basically he was saying that social anxiety is the fear of losing yourself (due to criticism). And this is because (a) criticism from others is believed; and (b) there is a fundamental belief in one's story of self (I am this and that). But the fact is that nothing you think about yourself is who you are. You are what is there witnessing all the various themes and subthemes of the selfstory. No more self story no more social anxiety. The practical minded might be motivated to end social anxiety (or other fears) and see giving up belief in self / separation to further that end. And it seems like that is a pivotal aspect of shifting from a perspective of duality to nonduality. But non-duality is pointing to something much more fundamental than just self-stories. As you can see here on the forum, basically everyone is aware of those stories, but it's a tiny minority that is also aware of the actual origins of that story. You will find that basically everyone here will agree that letting go and releasing those stories is something useful. But you will only see a tiny minority pointing further at the actual origin of those stories, the structure that makes those stories possible - and that's the belief in a separate volitional person, or a co-coordinator as UG calls it. That's why peeling off the story layers of the self-story onion (i.e. paths and practices) is basically just a distraction. Methinks Elkrief is also pointing to the actual origin. I think he may be mistaken about how realization happens. It was accidental for him, but now he has a cornucopia of how-to videos. Not uncommon on the scene it seems.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 19, 2014 15:19:00 GMT -5
Good stuff, but really, 'giving up belief in self' needs to take the form of losing interest. Otherwise, it is a self that wants to give it up for his own 'self'ish interests, and that's remarkably ineffective. Losing interest, or as I say, walking off the battle field, may become a very important focus at some point in the seeker's career. The practically minded, seeing the possibility of the source/cause of irrational fear and existential suffering being uprooted with a single realization, it's not such a bad calculation. But I get your point -- it's still about self-improvement, just enlightened self improvement. A nd therefore ultimately lacking.Worse than that. Much much worse than that.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 20, 2014 0:50:57 GMT -5
In order to see the "answers" to the above two questions the definitions are not that important. A general sense of what is meant is sufficient. One could ask, "Does a dog partake of the oneness of God?" and the answer would be the same. The question, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" is a classic Zen koan. A monk asked Joshu that question, and he responded "Mu!" In Chinese "mu" means no. The Buddha, however, had said that all things and beings in the universe have Buddha nature (are part of God, or the Absolute), so this became a classic test question. A Zen student is often asked: 1. What is mu? 2. Who was correct, the Buddha or Joshu? 3. Does a dog really have Buddha nature? The same sort of thing is true regarding the question concerning self realization. Yes, I would define Self-realization as seeing through the illusion of selfhood, or having the sense of selfhood collapse, or discovering who the real searcher for truth is, but the question refers to a brain-dead or comatose human being, so the answer to that question is direct and quite humorous. One could also ask, "Are electrons self-realized?" or "Is a rock self-realized?" and the answers would all be similar. In Reefs response to you, he either intentionally or otherwise threw in what Zen people call a "mind hook"--the bit about self-realized cells. You don't have to take the bait. As soon as you start to think about the issue, the words and associated thoughts will send you in the wrong direction. Your body already understands the answer to the question. hehe..funny, I just edited my last post to add this: "It's also possible the question may be seen through. For me, the question itself of a brain dead body being self realized, could be deemed more of a misconception..but that's based upon how I define 'self realization.' Foundational to 'self realization' is the capacity for self awareness. I asked the question of Reefs, not because it is active for me, but because of what I deemed to be his assertion of the overriding absence of mind in realization. I wanted to see how deep he sees that absence as being. AS I see it, there is indeed a mind component to self realization....it's all about a new seeing, that collapses a previous seeing....a way of seeing and way of experiencing, which can indeed entail less minding, but so long as experience continues, there must necessarily be some mind involvement." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3912/real-illusion?page=9#ixzz3MMzf9kvESo, again, to be clear, the question was asked of Reefs in hopes of ascertaining his own definition of self realization. .. I really don't have many of those types of questions that have any power to 'hook me' these days....years ago though, lots of that kind of focus. Thanks for sharing your definition...sounds like we're on the same page there pretty much. And yet you still just can't let go and stop thinking about it. Your walk doesn't match your talk. Not to mention that your assertion re discussing volition was exactly the opposite, that the mere arising of the question would be indicative of the question being still very much active. It's this double standard issue again which prevents real understanding from happening. Why don't you apply the same standards that you apply to others to yourself or vice versa for a change? You'd be surprised about the results. It would be the end of your food-fights and the beginning of a real dialog.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 20, 2014 0:52:48 GMT -5
But non-duality is pointing to something much more fundamental than just self-stories. As you can see here on the forum, basically everyone is aware of those stories, but it's a tiny minority that is also aware of the actual origins of that story. You will find that basically everyone here will agree that letting go and releasing those stories is something useful. But you will only see a tiny minority pointing further at the actual origin of those stories, the structure that makes those stories possible - and that's the belief in a separate volitional person, or a co-coordinator as UG calls it. That's why peeling off the story layers of the self-story onion (i.e. paths and practices) is basically just a distraction. Methinks Elkrief is also pointing to the actual origin. I think he may be mistaken about how realization happens. It was accidental for him, but now he has a cornucopia of how-to videos. Not uncommon on the scene it seems.Well, think about it, without how-to advice, how many followers would he have?
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 20, 2014 2:44:05 GMT -5
hehe..funny, I just edited my last post to add this: "It's also possible the question may be seen through. For me, the question itself of a brain dead body being self realized, could be deemed more of a misconception..but that's based upon how I define 'self realization.' Foundational to 'self realization' is the capacity for self awareness. I asked the question of Reefs, not because it is active for me, but because of what I deemed to be his assertion of the overriding absence of mind in realization. I wanted to see how deep he sees that absence as being. AS I see it, there is indeed a mind component to self realization....it's all about a new seeing, that collapses a previous seeing....a way of seeing and way of experiencing, which can indeed entail less minding, but so long as experience continues, there must necessarily be some mind involvement." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3912/real-illusion?page=9#ixzz3MMzf9kvESo, again, to be clear, the question was asked of Reefs in hopes of ascertaining his own definition of self realization. .. I really don't have many of those types of questions that have any power to 'hook me' these days....years ago though, lots of that kind of focus. Thanks for sharing your definition...sounds like we're on the same page there pretty much. And yet you still just can't let go and stop thinking about it. Your walk doesn't match your talk. Not to mention that your assertion re discussing volition was exactly the opposite, that the mere arising of the question would be indicative of the question being still very much active. It's this double standard issue again which prevents real understanding from happening. Why don't you apply the same standards that you apply to others to yourself or vice versa for a change? You'd be surprised about the results. It would be the end of your food-fights and the beginning of a real dialog. Why not simply answer my very simple question: What does self realization mean to you..? how do you define self realization? We can throw the 'brain dead' issue/question out window at this point....I'm honestly just curious as to your definition of self realization....there's apparently many different takes on the meaning, as I've learned through some discussions I've had recently with others (off forum) on the subject of such.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 20, 2014 3:45:46 GMT -5
Another important point regarding one who ascertains what is real and what is illusory is the point that one relates self too . What is happening is one either relates themselves of the mind as illusory and thus relates to what is real from that point or one relates their point of relations from a point of realness .
It is likened to a dream had of a hall of mirrors and the reflections had are not real, the one that casts the reflections can be seen as the real deal so to speak but if it is a dream then the the caster and the reflections are illusions .
So it would be interesting to perhaps lead the enquiry in regards to what is real and what is not in relation to how they perceive what they are within an environment that can ascertain what is what ...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 20, 2014 4:57:29 GMT -5
And yet you still just can't let go and stop thinking about it. Your walk doesn't match your talk. Not to mention that your assertion re discussing volition was exactly the opposite, that the mere arising of the question would be indicative of the question being still very much active. It's this double standard issue again which prevents real understanding from happening. Why don't you apply the same standards that you apply to others to yourself or vice versa for a change? You'd be surprised about the results. It would be the end of your food-fights and the beginning of a real dialog. Why not simply answer my very simple question: What does self realization mean to you..? how do you define self realization? We can throw the 'brain dead' issue/question out window at this point....I'm honestly just curious as to your definition of self realization....there's apparently many different takes on the meaning, as I've learned through some discussions I've had recently with others (off forum) on the subject of such. I see several options for you: 1) take Earnest's advice and look within 2) take ZD's advice and stop thinking for a moment 3) take my first advice and pay attention to what has actually been written (just hafta look into my post dumpster) 4) take my second advice and let the body answer 5) just let it go
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 20, 2014 4:58:59 GMT -5
Another important point regarding one who ascertains what is real and what is illusory is the point that one relates self too . What is happening is one either relates themselves of the mind as illusory and thus relates to what is real from that point or one relates their point of relations from a point of realness . It is likened to a dream had of a hall of mirrors and the reflections had are not real, the one that casts the reflections can be seen as the real deal so to speak but if it is a dream then the the caster and the reflections are illusions . So it would be interesting to perhaps lead the enquiry in regards to what is real and what is not in relation to how they perceive what they are within an environment that can ascertain what is what ... Don't make it more complicated than it actually is. What is real exists in its own right. It does not come and it does not go. What is false does not exist in its own right. And it does come and go.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 20, 2014 5:45:25 GMT -5
Another important point regarding one who ascertains what is real and what is illusory is the point that one relates self too . What is happening is one either relates themselves of the mind as illusory and thus relates to what is real from that point or one relates their point of relations from a point of realness . It is likened to a dream had of a hall of mirrors and the reflections had are not real, the one that casts the reflections can be seen as the real deal so to speak but if it is a dream then the the caster and the reflections are illusions . So it would be interesting to perhaps lead the enquiry in regards to what is real and what is not in relation to how they perceive what they are within an environment that can ascertain what is what ... Don't make it more complicated than it actually is. What is real exists in its own right. It does not come and it does not go. What is false does not exist in its own right. And it does come and go. I don't necessarily see that anything is over complicated about ascertaining what is real and what is not . The evaluation of what is or what isn't has to come from a point of evaluation . Such a point of evaluation is perceived in relation to whom or what you are that perceives / evaluates . If the observer is in someway illusory then the illusionary self is trying to ascertaining what is real . That is never going to bring about an evaluation of how anything really is . The point of perception had in relation to self must be real in the first instance in order to ascertain or notice / recognise self as being real or having a real sense of what is and what isn't self . Otherwise it would be likened to the blind leading the blind, the fool being fooled by their own perception of self . Realizing what is real in relation to self will then and only then allow self to perceive with clarity .. Otherwise one will only relate to anything through an awareness that is in reflection of how they perceive self ..
|
|