|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 28, 2018 9:45:03 GMT -5
SDP: I understand what you're suggesting here, but to be perfectly accurate the "false self" never even starts the journey because the false self and the journey are both imaginary. THIS, in the form of a human who imagines itself as separate, thinks that it's a person on a journey, and thinks that it's making progress, but that's the illusion. In the form of some humans THIS eventually discovers that THIS is all there is, and that the "false self" was imagined. It discovers that the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is why people who wake up always laugh. They realize that what they ARE got fooled into a cosmic case of mistaken identity. I'm still not sure you understand my view, as I keep giving it and then you reply giving your view. So I tried to think of another way to give it. I'm sure you know the basic story of the Ugly Duckling, a swan gets raised by ducks. The swan is "conditioned" in a very real sense to think/believe/act/and consider itself a duck, albeit an ugly duck. Now, you always maintain that the-swan-thinking-It-is-a-duck comes from the-whole-cosmos. I maintain the swan-error comes from *local* effects, namely, being raised in a duck family. Furthermore, you seem to maintain that it's OK/acceptable for the swan to keep *acting* like a duck as long as the now-knows-it's-a-swan knows the duck-acting is imaginary. Whereas I maintain that no, the now-knows-it's-a-swan, in a real sense, must ~escape~/remove its conditioning as a duck, and now-live as a swan should live. IOW, it's not enough to Realize one's "duckness" Is imaginary. And it is absolutely not a matter of being reconditioned to-be a swan. Once the duck-conditioning is removed, being a swan is perfectly natural. But the conditioning doesn't just go away upon the Realization one is actually a swan. That's what "alignment" is (for). sdp also maintains that as long as the conditioning is functional (the swan is still acting as if it is a duck) the Whole cosmos is not operating through the body-organism, it is acting through the conditioning (that is the conditioning filters and colors what enters). But yes, I know all this is at odds with your paradigm (and yes I know you don't consider that you have a paradigm, that you consider it the case you are ~operating from~ just THIS/What Is). Well, the cosmos/THIS/Source is either infinite or it isn't. If it is Infinite (and it's possible for a human to know this fact without any doubt), it includes everything (every thing), and there is nothing (no thing) outside of it. This means that conditioning, as well as thoughts or any influences of any other kind, are THIS because THIS is all there is. As you know, this is why E. likes to say that God falls into his own dream. Fortunately, God can wake up from his dream of separateness. Anyone who thinks that there is a thingless thing that is infinite needs to explain how there can be anything that is outside of THAT or beyond THAT. I quibbled with your post because if the "false self" is false/imaginary, how can it do anything? If it is false/imaginary, who/what is imagining it? What is it that gives rise to imagining, and what is it that remains when all imagining ceases? You understand ATA-T, so what is it that sees when there is no thought? What is it that looks out of a baby's eyes when they first open and imagination is not yet operative? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2018 10:16:26 GMT -5
I'm still not sure you understand my view, as I keep giving it and then you reply giving your view. So I tried to think of another way to give it. I'm sure you know the basic story of the Ugly Duckling, a swan gets raised by ducks. The swan is "conditioned" in a very real sense to think/believe/act/and consider itself a duck, albeit an ugly duck. Now, you always maintain that the-swan-thinking-It-is-a-duck comes from the-whole-cosmos. I maintain the swan-error comes from *local* effects, namely, being raised in a duck family. Furthermore, you seem to maintain that it's OK/acceptable for the swan to keep *acting* like a duck as long as the now-knows-it's-a-swan knows the duck-acting is imaginary. Whereas I maintain that no, the now-knows-it's-a-swan, in a real sense, must ~escape~/remove its conditioning as a duck, and now-live as a swan should live. IOW, it's not enough to Realize one's "duckness" Is imaginary. And it is absolutely not a matter of being reconditioned to-be a swan. Once the duck-conditioning is removed, being a swan is perfectly natural. But the conditioning doesn't just go away upon the Realization one is actually a swan. That's what "alignment" is (for). sdp also maintains that as long as the conditioning is functional (the swan is still acting as if it is a duck) the Whole cosmos is not operating through the body-organism, it is acting through the conditioning (that is the conditioning filters and colors what enters). But yes, I know all this is at odds with your paradigm (and yes I know you don't consider that you have a paradigm, that you consider it the case you are ~operating from~ just THIS/What Is). Well, the cosmos/THIS/Source is either infinite or it isn't. If it is Infinite (and it's possible for a human to know this fact without any doubt), it includes everything (every thing), and there is nothing (no thing) outside of it. This means that conditioning, as well as thoughts or any influences of any other kind, are THIS because THIS is all there is. As you know, this is why E. likes to say that God falls into his own dream. Fortunately, God can wake up from his dream of separateness. Anyone who thinks that there is a thingless thing that is infinite needs to explain how there can be anything that is outside of THAT or beyond THAT. I quibbled with your post because if the "false self" is false/imaginary, how can it do anything? If it is false/imaginary, who/what is imagining it? What is it that gives rise to imagining, and what is it that remains when all imagining ceases? You understand ATA-T, so what is it that sees when there is no thought? What is it that looks out of a baby's eyes when they first open and imagination is not yet operative? The conditioning is what's operating. The neural structure of the brain, the circuitry, is what's activated. Information enters through the sensory nerves, the brain processes the info according to conditioning and then activates the motor nerves to act n the world. Yes, the ac-tor is imaginary. For the baby, just awareness present. In ATA-T, just attention present. That's what FORMS the neural connections (for the baby). In ATA-T, that's what DISSOLVES the neural connections (the reverse "process", and wherein the traces of the imaginary self, end, actually end. That is, no longer influence behavior. That is, the motor nerves don't function ~in-service-of~ the self one once considered the body-organism to be. The software ceases to function). It's the ultimate neual plasticity. One is then free to respond to the cosmos. {IOW, I maintain that this is what was occurring all those years when you were ATA-T(ing). You were reordering your brain structure, "emptying your cup"}. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2018 11:45:15 GMT -5
SDP: I understand what you're suggesting here, but to be perfectly accurate the "false self" never even starts the journey because the false self and the journey are both imaginary. THIS, in the form of a human who imagines itself as separate, thinks that it's a person on a journey, and thinks that it's making progress, but that's the illusion. In the form of some humans THIS eventually discovers that THIS is all there is, and that the "false self" was imagined. It discovers that the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is why people who wake up always laugh. They realize that what they ARE got fooled into a cosmic case of mistaken identity. I'm still not sure you understand my view, as I keep giving it and then you reply giving your view. So I tried to think of another way to give it. I'm sure you know the basic story of the Ugly Duckling, a swan gets raised by ducks. The swan is "conditioned" in a very real sense to think/believe/act/and consider itself a duck, albeit an ugly duck. Now, you always maintain that the-swan-thinking-It-is-a-duck comes from the-whole-cosmos. I maintain the swan-error comes from *local* effects, namely, being raised in a duck family. Furthermore, you seem to maintain that it's OK/acceptable for the swan to keep *acting* like a duck as long as the now-knows-it's-a-swan knows the duck-acting is imaginary. Whereas I maintain that no, the now-knows-it's-a-swan, in a real sense, must ~escape~/remove its conditioning as a duck, and now-live as a swan should live. IOW, it's not enough to Realize one's "duckness" Is imaginary. And it is absolutely not a matter of being reconditioned to-be a swan. Once the duck-conditioning is removed, being a swan is perfectly natural. But the conditioning doesn't just go away upon the Realization one is actually a swan. That's what "alignment" is (for). sdp also maintains that as long as the conditioning is functional (the swan is still acting as if it is a duck) the Whole cosmos is not operating through the body-organism, it is acting through the conditioning (that is the conditioning filters and colors what enters). But yes, I know all this is at odds with your paradigm (and yes I know you don't consider that you have a paradigm, that you consider it the case you are ~operating from~ just THIS/What Is). Yes, that's why I often talk about becoming conscious and purification. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2018 11:54:17 GMT -5
I'm still not sure you understand my view, as I keep giving it and then you reply giving your view. So I tried to think of another way to give it. I'm sure you know the basic story of the Ugly Duckling, a swan gets raised by ducks. The swan is "conditioned" in a very real sense to think/believe/act/and consider itself a duck, albeit an ugly duck. Now, you always maintain that the-swan-thinking-It-is-a-duck comes from the-whole-cosmos. I maintain the swan-error comes from *local* effects, namely, being raised in a duck family. Furthermore, you seem to maintain that it's OK/acceptable for the swan to keep *acting* like a duck as long as the now-knows-it's-a-swan knows the duck-acting is imaginary. Whereas I maintain that no, the now-knows-it's-a-swan, in a real sense, must ~escape~/remove its conditioning as a duck, and now-live as a swan should live. IOW, it's not enough to Realize one's "duckness" Is imaginary. And it is absolutely not a matter of being reconditioned to-be a swan. Once the duck-conditioning is removed, being a swan is perfectly natural. But the conditioning doesn't just go away upon the Realization one is actually a swan. That's what "alignment" is (for). sdp also maintains that as long as the conditioning is functional (the swan is still acting as if it is a duck) the Whole cosmos is not operating through the body-organism, it is acting through the conditioning (that is the conditioning filters and colors what enters). But yes, I know all this is at odds with your paradigm (and yes I know you don't consider that you have a paradigm, that you consider it the case you are ~operating from~ just THIS/What Is). Well, the cosmos/THIS/Source is either infinite or it isn't. If it is Infinite (and it's possible for a human to know this fact without any doubt), it includes everything (every thing), and there is nothing (no thing) outside of it. This means that conditioning, as well as thoughts or any influences of any other kind, are THIS because THIS is all there is. As you know, this is why E. likes to say that God falls into his own dream. Fortunately, God can wake up from his dream of separateness. Anyone who thinks that there is a thingless thing that is infinite needs to explain how there can be anything that is outside of THAT or beyond THAT. I quibbled with your post because if the "false self" is false/imaginary, how can it do anything? If it is false/imaginary, who/what is imagining it? What is it that gives rise to imagining, and what is it that remains when all imagining ceases? You understand ATA-T, so what is it that sees when there is no thought? What is it that looks out of a baby's eyes when they first open and imagination is not yet operative? Yes, that the 'one volitional thing in an otherwise non-volitional self' idea that I also have 'quibbled' with. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2018 13:48:36 GMT -5
Well, the cosmos/THIS/Source is either infinite or it isn't. If it is Infinite (and it's possible for a human to know this fact without any doubt), it includes everything (every thing), and there is nothing (no thing) outside of it. This means that conditioning, as well as thoughts or any influences of any other kind, are THIS because THIS is all there is. As you know, this is why E. likes to say that God falls into his own dream. Fortunately, God can wake up from his dream of separateness. Anyone who thinks that there is a thingless thing that is infinite needs to explain how there can be anything that is outside of THAT or beyond THAT. I quibbled with your post because if the "false self" is false/imaginary, how can it do anything? If it is false/imaginary, who/what is imagining it? What is it that gives rise to imagining, and what is it that remains when all imagining ceases? You understand ATA-T, so what is it that sees when there is no thought? What is it that looks out of a baby's eyes when they first open and imagination is not yet operative? Yes, that the 'one volitional thing in an otherwise non-volitional self' idea that I also have 'quibbled' with. The false self cannot do anything. It is merely a mechanism. It can only react according to the buttons pushed. The false self/false sense of self is a shadow cast. The false self cannot ATA-T, it is the minus part. The false sense of self *operates* (non-operates) completely within the ~realm~ of nonvolition. (I've never said anything different). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 29, 2018 10:54:12 GMT -5
Yes, that the 'one volitional thing in an otherwise non-volitional self' idea that I also have 'quibbled' with. The false self cannot do anything. It is merely a mechanism. It can only react according to the buttons pushed. The false self/false sense of self is a shadow cast. The false self cannot ATA-T, it is the minus part. The false sense of self *operates* (non-operates) completely within the ~realm~ of nonvolition. (I've never said anything different). Sorry, I guess you've said it a thousand times, but what do you call the thing that has just one volitional thing it can do? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 29, 2018 13:22:15 GMT -5
The false self cannot do anything. It is merely a mechanism. It can only react according to the buttons pushed. The false self/false sense of self is a shadow cast. The false self cannot ATA-T, it is the minus part. The false sense of self *operates* (non~operates) completely within the ~realm~ of nonvolition. (I've never said anything different). Sorry, I guess you've said it a thousand times, but what do you call the thing that has just one volitional thing it can do? Essence. The one volitional thing is a conscious effort (but there are different ~kinds~ of conscious efforts). Conscious efforts concern awareness and attention. ATA-T is a *kind* of conscious effort (although ZD might not say so). - (minus) is the key. - means no~self~Involvement. Gurdjieff expressed this as: "No work (meaning conscious efforts) can be done in sleep". Sleep = the ordinary state of the self/persona/mask/cultural self/imaginary I (imaginary I is work language). Sleep means living~through imaginary I/etc., meaning identification~with imaginary I, meaning (functionally) taking oneself to~be one's thoughts, feelings and (bodily) actions. Edit: That means behaving in such a manner as if self exists even if one maintains it's illusory (that's the meaning of functionally). But sleep (versus) awakening does not have the same meaning as used here on ST's. Functionally is the operational word. Identification is an operational (in *real* time, but outside time) word also. But in a word (again) the answer is essence. It has also been put: "In order to get there you have to be there". And: "There isn't any way from here to there, but only from there to here". A newborn baby lives from essence ("there"), makes no conscious efforts, IS awareness. But almost always and for a long time, an adult is awareness + something (awareness is linked to {buried~in, absorbed~in} that which it is aware~of). |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 29, 2018 17:50:37 GMT -5
A newborn baby lives from essence, makes no conscious efforts, IS awareness. But almost always and for a long time, an adult is awareness +something Show me this something so that I may see it with my own eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 29, 2018 18:43:37 GMT -5
A newborn baby lives from essence, makes no conscious efforts, IS awareness. But almost always and for a long time, an adult is awareness +something Show me this something so that I may see it with my own eyes. Stuff. Dogs, trees, bananas, cars, figs, stars, hockey players...stuff. Any time you think to do so ask, where is *my* attention? It will inevitably be on some stuff, or a thought or emotion... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2019 9:32:01 GMT -5
An interesting synthesis of the seemingly opposed perspectives. I ran into this recently and it reminded me of this debate: link |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 11, 2019 10:50:46 GMT -5
An interesting synthesis of the seemingly opposed perspectives. I ran into this recently and it reminded me of this debate: linkYes, that's a fairly good explanation. There's only THIS, and all of us are one-with THIS. All that's required to realize THIS is between 1 and 20 realizations, depending upon how lost in the consensus paradigm one is.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 11, 2019 12:21:47 GMT -5
An interesting synthesis of the seemingly opposed perspectives. I ran into this recently and it reminded me of this debate: linkI spy a 3 layer cake. You did away with the self only to resuscitate it again in the form of an emotional self residue that's less willful than it was. There was never a willful self in a position to give up anything. As you say, there is no one here. The self is a creation of Consciousness (the creative aspect of you as Awareness) that continues to create (on one level) and engage with experience (on another level) in a modified way out of a continuing interest. (Your continued interest) |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 11, 2019 13:51:42 GMT -5
An interesting synthesis of the seemingly opposed perspectives. I ran into this recently and it reminded me of this debate: linkI spy a 3 layer cake. You did away with the self only to resuscitate it again in the form of an emotional self residue that's less willful than it was. There was never a willful self in a position to give up anything. As you say, there is no one here. The self is a creation of Consciousness (the creative aspect of you as Awareness) that continues to create (on one level) and engage with experience (on another level) in a modified way out of a continuing interest. (Your continued interest) Good point. I didn't catch that. Perhaps we should say, "You can't have your 3 layer cake and eat it, too." |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 12, 2019 10:54:48 GMT -5
I spy a 3 layer cake. You did away with the self only to resuscitate it again in the form of an emotional self residue that's less willful than it was. There was never a willful self in a position to give up anything. As you say, there is no one here. The self is a creation of Consciousness (the creative aspect of you as Awareness) that continues to create (on one level) and engage with experience (on another level) in a modified way out of a continuing interest. (Your continued interest) Good point. I didn't catch that. Perhaps we should say, "You can't have your 3 layer cake and eat it, too." Ha! Can't have a worrying, thinking self wandering about where there is no self. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2019 11:11:59 GMT -5
Good point. I didn't catch that. Perhaps we should say, "You can't have your 3 layer cake and eat it, too." Ha! Can't have a worrying, thinking self wandering about where there is no self. Yes, precisely, that's 99% of the whole point, whether it's manifesting or not. It doesn't matter what the source is, Source (the Whole manifesting) or local-neural-structure. If the self-whatever-it-is, is manifesting, even if once having-been-seen-through, the job is not done. (I've been considering a thread on this for several days, I guess it's coming). {self} Seen to be illusory is just {being} ~half baked~. |
|
