|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 12, 2019 13:48:11 GMT -5
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~. Well, remember that selfhood never manifests; it's just an idea or a story. The only thing that manfests is a thought about selfhood. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 12, 2019 16:16:33 GMT -5
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~. Well, remember that selfhood never manifests; it's just an idea or a story. The only thing that manfests is a thought about selfhood. I mean thoughts manifesting. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 12, 2019 20:06:22 GMT -5
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~. The goal is not to stop experiencing, so an individualization is going to keep appearing. That's not necessarily a problem requiring further baking. The goal is to remove the illusion so that what appears is seen for what it is instead of what one imagines or thinks it is. As such, it matters very much what the source is seen to be. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 12, 2019 20:11:07 GMT -5
Well, remember that selfhood never manifests; it's just an idea or a story. The only thing that manfests is a thought about selfhood. I mean thoughts manifesting. Thoughts, as such, are not a problem to be baked away. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 12:32:06 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) Sounds like a residue to me. Can you explain how it's different. Give an example if you can please. Hedderman calls it a residue as well. He says that when he sees uniforms at the airport, his body tenses up. Because in the past, when he was a raging drug addict, uniforms meant getting thrown in jail. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 14, 2019 19:14:29 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) Sounds like a residue to me. Can you explain how it's different. Give an example if you can please. Hedderman calls it a residue as well. He says that when he sees uniforms at the airport, his body tenses up. Because in the past, when he was a raging drug addict, uniforms meant getting thrown in jail. Residue is okay. My point was that the 'residue' is not a self or in any way wilful. This is what we call identity poker; trading in one self for another self while pretending the self has been seen through. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2019 23:41:46 GMT -5
Sounds like a residue to me. Can you explain how it's different. Give an example if you can please. Hedderman calls it a residue as well. He says that when he sees uniforms at the airport, his body tenses up. Because in the past, when he was a raging drug addict, uniforms meant getting thrown in jail. Residue is okay. My point was that the 'residue' is not a self or in any way wilful. This is what we call identity poker; trading in one self for another self while pretending the self has been seen through. See for me, in listening to Paul, Rupert and others. This residue seems to me to mean that on occasion they still forget that it's a dream. They still get sucked into the dream. Hedderman calls it riding the train. When he's "aligned" or whatever-- he calls it not selfing, the trains still stop at the station. In other words, he still has those thoughts about "what's not happening," but he doesn't get on. I thought the residue was that you still get on the train and go for ride every once in a while. What is this residue to you? Give me an example of how this residue affects you.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 15, 2019 11:11:37 GMT -5
Residue is okay. My point was that the 'residue' is not a self or in any way wilful. This is what we call identity poker; trading in one self for another self while pretending the self has been seen through. See for me, in listening to Paul, Rupert and others. This residue seems to me to mean that on occasion they still forget that it's a dream. They still get sucked into the dream. Hedderman calls it riding the train. When he's "aligned" or whatever-- he calls it not selfing, the trains still stop at the station. In other words, he still has those thoughts about "what's not happening," but he doesn't get on. I thought the residue was that you still get on the train and go for ride every once in a while. What is this residue to you? Give me an example of how this residue affects you.
I don't know what somebody else chooses to call residue. I only know it's being used as filling in the layer cake. The residue is being assigned to an imaginary self. What remains is engagement with life. Maybe that's their residue, maybe not, but if so we need not make it a problem to be solved. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2019 11:45:02 GMT -5
See for me, in listening to Paul, Rupert and others. This residue seems to me to mean that on occasion they still forget that it's a dream. They still get sucked into the dream. Hedderman calls it riding the train. When he's "aligned" or whatever-- he calls it not selfing, the trains still stop at the station. In other words, he still has those thoughts about "what's not happening," but he doesn't get on. I thought the residue was that you still get on the train and go for ride every once in a while. What is this residue to you? Give me an example of how this residue affects you.
I don't know what somebody else chooses to call residue. I only know it's being used as filling in the layer cake. The residue is being assigned to an imaginary self. What remains is engagement with life. Maybe that's their residue, maybe not, but if so we need not make it a problem to be solved. For there to be life to engage with in any fashion, there needs to be a mind. Ramana said the world arises with the I-thought. So to me without the I thought, without the self( little s) in some capacity, there is no world. Hedderman handles this by saying the I, little s self, isn't real, because there is no distinction, separation with it and objects, the illusion is the separation, but the hearing, thinking, tasting, seeing etc. is real. How do you engage with objects without mind? Do objects exist separate from mind? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 15, 2019 12:47:32 GMT -5
I don't know what somebody else chooses to call residue. I only know it's being used as filling in the layer cake. The residue is being assigned to an imaginary self. What remains is engagement with life. Maybe that's their residue, maybe not, but if so we need not make it a problem to be solved. For there to be life to engage with in any fashion, there needs to be a mind. Ramana said the world arises with the I-thought. So to me without the I thought, without the self( little s) in some capacity, there is no world. Hedderman handles this by saying the I, little s self, isn't real, because there is no distinction, separation with it and objects, the illusion is the separation, but the hearing, thinking, tasting, seeing etc. is real. How do you engage with objects without mind? Do objects exist separate from mind? Zen people get around the language problem by referring to objects as no-objects. Sages see the same world as anyone else, but they don't think about it in the same way because they've seen through the illusion of separateness. Also, the word "mind" is used differently in different contexts. When Zen people use the term "mushin," which means "no-mind," they're usually pointing to an absence of mind talk--to a mind that is quiescent. Mental processing at a subconscious level is still occurring, but there is no internal dialogue accompanying it. All seeing, hearing, etc, is direct and unmediated by thought. FWIW, none of the Zen people I ever met thought of the world as a dream without substance. Zen koans are often answered by physical actions and activities that are substantive in nature. If someone asked a Zen person if a particular object was real or unreal, the answer would require a non-verbal but very direct response. OTOH, some Buddhists refer to the cosmos, or THIS, as Mind, and they certainly do not think of Mind as separate from objects. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 15, 2019 19:30:48 GMT -5
I don't know what somebody else chooses to call residue. I only know it's being used as filling in the layer cake. The residue is being assigned to an imaginary self. What remains is engagement with life. Maybe that's their residue, maybe not, but if so we need not make it a problem to be solved. For there to be life to engage with in any fashion, there needs to be a mind. Ramana said the world arises with the I-thought. So to me without the I thought, without the self( little s) in some capacity, there is no world. Hedderman handles this by saying the I, little s self, isn't real, because there is no distinction, separation with it and objects, the illusion is the separation, but the hearing, thinking, tasting, seeing etc. is real. How do you engage with objects without mind? Do objects exist separate from mind? I don't seem to have a problem with any of that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2019 19:50:33 GMT -5
For there to be life to engage with in any fashion, there needs to be a mind. Ramana said the world arises with the I-thought. So to me without the I thought, without the self( little s) in some capacity, there is no world. Hedderman handles this by saying the I, little s self, isn't real, because there is no distinction, separation with it and objects, the illusion is the separation, but the hearing, thinking, tasting, seeing etc. is real. How do you engage with objects without mind? Do objects exist separate from mind? I don't seem to have a problem with any of that. So is little s self just God identifying with mind? I get it now. Took me long enough. So SR is basically a perspective, "behind" mind. Sort of like the dreamer, in bed, in the head of the dream's main character. And the dreamer knows that character isn't really him/her. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2019 10:30:52 GMT -5
I don't seem to have a problem with any of that. So is little s self just God identifying with mind? I get it now. Took me long enough. So SR is basically a perspective, "behind" mind. Sort of like the dreamer, in bed, in the head of the dream's main character. And the dreamer knows that character isn't really him/her. Eggzakly |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 16, 2019 18:43:22 GMT -5
I don't seem to have a problem with any of that. So is little s self just God identifying with mind? I get it now. Took me long enough. So SR is basically a perspective, "behind" mind. Sort of like the dreamer, in bed, in the head of the dream's main character. And the dreamer knows that character isn't really him/her. Well, dang, man. What the hell did they teach you at that wing ding zen-do anyway?! :-) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 16, 2019 18:57:13 GMT -5
So is little s self just God identifying with mind? I get it now. Took me long enough. So SR is basically a perspective, "behind" mind. Sort of like the dreamer, in bed, in the head of the dream's main character. And the dreamer knows that character isn't really him/her. Well, dang, man. What the hell did they teach you at that wing ding zen-do anyway?! :-) How to answer koans?  |
|
