|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 11, 2017 9:24:40 GMT -5
Camouflage structures: successive time & cause and effect
Seth: The idea of past, present and future is a necessary one on your plane, but this certainly does not mean that time exists in the manner which you suppose. You are obsessed with the theory of beginning and end, because in your situation your camouflage constructions seem to have a beginning and an end. For the same reason you are also obsessed with the idea of cause and effect, with the illusion of successive time bringing forth the other. Here we have two of your most basic idea camouflage structures: your conception of time as a succession, and your idea of cause and effect. There is no cause and effect in the terms in which you understand the words. Nor is there a succession of moments that follow one after the other; and without a succession of moments following one after the other you can see that the idea of cause and effect becomes meaningless.
An action of the present in your terms cannot be based or caused by an action in the past, and neither action can be the cause of a future action in a basic reality where neither past nor future exist. The distortive illusion of successive moments, and of the resulting conception of cause and effect, are both on your plane the result of the observation by the outer senses, and are practical and useful on your plane and therefore have a certain validity, if for you only.
(Session 41)
|
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 11, 2017 9:48:30 GMT -5
Occam's Razor would suggest that the likeliest explanation would be that I don't really understand Self. I can go with that. No one ever really does.  can't..quite. wrap. my. mind.around it |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 11, 2017 9:49:54 GMT -5
Hmm it seems like they are different to me. "The inner ego is the part of the personality that actually runs the show in the background and is focused on multiple planes of existence simultaneously." I can't really grok that as Self. Self is the whole show, to my understanding. It is the Ocean. All. The inner ego sounds more like the forces that create a wave. (okay metaphor breaks down with wind -- wind would be part of wave). Not getting that part. The wind is the subconscious. The wind is created by differences in temperature and pressure. IOW, it's turtles all the way down. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 11, 2017 10:03:25 GMT -5
Hmm it seems like they are different to me. "The inner ego is the part of the personality that actually runs the show in the background and is focused on multiple planes of existence simultaneously." I can't really grok that as Self. Self is the whole show, to my understanding. It is the Ocean. All. The inner ego sounds more like the forces that create a wave. (okay metaphor breaks down with wind -- wind would be part of wave). Not getting that part. The self takes separation for real. The Self knows no separation. The outer ego takes separation for real. The inner ego knows no separation. Self is All-That-Is. And so the outer ego is also all that is as is the inner ego. All these distinctions are arbitrary and are just being made so that the intellect can analyze it. So in theory, the inner ego is unlimited, as is the outer ego! In practical terms, however, not so much. It all depends on how you look at it and with what purpose in mind. You see, non-duality just makes a distinction between self and Self. Which is okay and serves its purpose. But, as Andrew used to say, it also has its limits. If you just distinguish between self and Self then you can't really explain much in terms of manifestations and how creation works. So what Seth does is divvying up Self (the part that doesn't know separation) a little more so that we can talk about the creation process. And so now Self consists of inner egos, entities and numerous other energy gestalts. At the end of the day, it's all one, however. And distinctions are just for convenience's sake again so that we can talk about some specifics more easily. It does serve the purpose of getting to know what's behind the physical in more detail, how it is affecting the physical and how to deal with (or manipulate) the physical. All very practical stuff. Non-duality can't really help you there. The inner ego idea seems to involve distinctions and activities that influence outer ego. Whereas Self is just All. In other words, inner ego seems like a concept from the outer ego perspective, looking inwards and trying to grok how the Self relates to it. Nonduality proposes a nondual perspective, looking from Self (so to speak). The inner being concept seems to be from the perspective of outer ego. As my case indicates, from the outer perspective, no amount of relaxation or understanding is able to grok Self. One can only be Self, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2017 11:55:07 GMT -5
I don't even know what that means. The Pogo quote means the false sense of self is the enemy. Does that help? But it says that us, is the enemy. Is your problem with us being plural? It's a line in a comic strip, I don't think he was worried about correct grammar. I take it to mean, for the individual, the enemy is inside the person. I know the enemy is the false sense of self, because ~it~ has gotten me into numerous ~escapades~ of trouble, some taking multiple years to play out. The false sense of self is a filter which alters everything that enters the organism. So, that's me, one person. I take it to be the same for everyone else (unless the false sense of self has been dealt with). The everyone else makes us the correct word. Now, to make this true for any one person, they have to see it in themselves. If it's not true for you, then I'm happy for you. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2017 12:25:51 GMT -5
I would say this is [just] incorrect. (You qualification doesn't help much). tbc in your response to me. Can Essence only appear to be individuated by how the outer ego perceives it? Essence is defined as that which you were born with (or as), that which one truly is, what is truly one's own. Some of that you can surmise easily, some not. It is also said that essence is a seed. I take the meaning of outer ego to be our ordinary sense of self, you live at a certain address, you have a certain job, etc. You derived most of your outer ego from gathering data from the world, mostly from birth to about age 6, this is also what I have called cultural self, it may or may not correspond to one's true nature, usually not unless a child is raised under rather extraordinary circumstances, so the cultural self is usually what is not one's own, IOW, a false sense of self. So everybody is part essence (inner ego) and part personality/cultural self/mask (formed from data collected after birth). So the person is kind of like an iceberg, 10% above water (outer ego) and 90% below water level (inner ego). OK, that gets us to your question. Essence grows and is nourished, from birth, until the cultural self is formed, and then cultural self takes most of the energy, and essence ceases to grow. Most people remain like this for the rest of their lives, living through a false sense of self. So, a person is truly individuated only to the extent essence has grown. And the outer ego knows hardly anything of essence (I'm saying inner ego). So essence and outer ego hardly know one another. Essence in a very real sense threatens outer ego, because they both cannot grow and thrive. But all this is mostly unconscious processing, which outer ego is the result of, so it make take a long time for outer ego to come to know essence, and for outer ego to ~assume its right place~ (begin to accept that essence is, and outer ego is second place). So the answer to your question is really no. FAPP and FAIAP, essence can see outer ego but outer ego cannot see essence (except conceptually). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2017 12:49:24 GMT -5
Hmm it seems like they are different to me. "The inner ego is the part of the personality that actually runs the show in the background and is focused on multiple planes of existence simultaneously." I can't really grok that as Self. Self is the whole show, to my understanding. It is the Ocean. All. The inner ego sounds more like the forces that create a wave. (okay metaphor breaks down with wind -- wind would be part of wave). Not getting that part. The self takes separation for real. The Self knows no separation. The outer ego takes separation for real. The inner ego knows no separation. Self is All-That-Is. And so the outer ego is also all that is as is the inner ego. All these distinctions are arbitrary and are just being made so that the intellect can analyze it. So in theory, the inner ego is unlimited, as is the outer ego! In practical terms, however, not so much. It all depends on how you look at it and with what purpose in mind. You see, non-duality just makes a distinction between self and Self. Which is okay and serves its purpose. But, as Andrew used to say, it also has its limits. If you just distinguish between self and Self then you can't really explain much in terms of manifestations and how creation works. So what Seth does is divvying up Self (the part that doesn't know separation) a little more so that we can talk about the creation process. And so now Self consists of inner egos, entities and numerous other energy gestalts. At the end of the day, it's all one, however. And distinctions are just for convenience's sake again so that we can talk about some specifics more easily. It does serve the purpose of getting to know what's behind the physical in more detail, how it is affecting the physical and how to deal with (or manipulate) the physical. All very practical stuff. Non-duality can't really help you there. I'm trying to get a sense of how you can see SR the same as ZD and E, yet bring in the Seth material. Maybe the bold helps in that. But another thing, ZD is adamant that there is no evolution of consciousness (that such a thing is even possible). I take these worlds and dimensions Seth speaks of, to be actual and tangible, from the level they are, to be as real as the salad I ate for lunch, and to serve a purpose. In the bold you seem to be denying that, that what Seth speaks about is merely conceptual, "are just for convenience sake". And then also this difference, for ZD, his realizations (SR) have answered the questions and ended the journey. This does not seem to be the case for Reefs. I guess that's my question, why not? (But I agree, I still want and need "existential" answers, and consider the answers to exist, and they exist between ~this world~ and Source/Ground/SOCI). That's why your journey interests me. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2017 13:07:39 GMT -5
The first part, where you said I misunderstood, I'm just going by what you said (see post above). You said the inner ego is Self (as used here on ST's). As used here on ST's Self isn't personal, the people who use this word say there isn't even a separate self. I'm just saying it's very difficult to try to sit on the fence, between the evolution of consciousness-people and the no-evolution of consciousness-people. But I think you have defined Self correctly here, Source/God/All-That-Is. But then "modern" strict NDist, it seems to me, say there is no evolution of consciousness, there is just Consciousness appearing. (I've had this discussion numerous times with ZD, and E, and they just basically shake their head. But of course you know I agree with you, consciousness evolves. But I am bleeding into the next section, your argument is not with me, it's with the strict ND-people. I agree with you, but I don't think they will, satch thinks this whole Seth business is superfluous. Okay, I see. You are just comparing philosophies. Then I misunderstood. I think the problem here is with the term 'personal'. Personal in the Seth sense means individual, having distinct and unique characteristics. Personal in the ND sense means that too but mostly in the sense of separation. Seth talks about two kinds of reality, basic reality and reality. Basic reality is consciousness or energy that is conscious. Reality is everything that is experienced. In the case of the outer ego, reality means everything that happens in the physical format. That means dreams are not real. Imagination is not real. In case of the inner ego, physical is as real as dreams is as real as imagination. This basic reality isn't going to change. The expression of basic reality (which Seth calls 'action') however, is constantly changing/evolving. Well, Satch thinks CC is also a load of nonsense. Do you think you use the words SR, that is, what you mean by the words, in the same manner as say E or ZD or satch? (I would guess that they would say with all this alignment business, you are putting legs on a snake). I'm not asking who's right (you or them), I'm just looking for clarity in the use of language. Yes, the way I use it is identical with E and ZD. Satch never really gave a definition for what he calls SR. But he's once said that samadhi is a prerequisite. And so it always seemed to me that he is confusing NS with SR. I can understand virtually anything from my paradigm (or understand that certain posts cannot be understood, period). When I read stuff I usually translate it into my view, see it, the try to ask from my view, so usually translate back-into the posters language and view. But sometimes I answer from within the posters paradigm, staying from within their view (not-taking it to my view). Maybe that helps. But the following follows up on my last post. Asking again, SR seems to end the journey for most, answer all the significant questions (or otherwise resolve them). I guess I'm asking, for you, what is the relationship of ND to "basic reality (which Seth calls 'action'), constantly changing/evolving"? Do you see, why do you see consciousness evolving, yet ZD says consciousness is not evolving? I'm not asking you to speak for him, or ~start something~ between you (and ZD). And this carries over to the Enlightenment vs Purification thread also, so you can answer here or there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 2:14:04 GMT -5
The wind is the subconscious. The wind is created by differences in temperature and pressure. IOW, it's turtles all the way down. "I am the wind" ~ said the mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 2:15:48 GMT -5
Can Essence only appear to be individuated by how the outer ego perceives it? Essence is defined as that which you were born with (or as), that which one truly is, what is truly one's own. Some of that you can surmise easily, some not. It is also said that essence is a seed. I take the meaning of outer ego to be our ordinary sense of self, you live at a certain address, you have a certain job, etc. You derived most of your outer ego from gathering data from the world, mostly from birth to about age 6, this is also what I have called cultural self, it may or may not correspond to one's true nature, usually not unless a child is raised under rather extraordinary circumstances, so the cultural self is usually what is not one's own, IOW, a false sense of self. So everybody is part essence (inner ego) and part personality/cultural self/mask (formed from data collected after birth). So the person is kind of like an iceberg, 10% above water (outer ego) and 90% below water level (inner ego). OK, that gets us to your question. Essence grows and is nourished, from birth, until the cultural self is formed, and then cultural self takes most of the energy, and essence ceases to grow. Most people remain like this for the rest of their lives, living through a false sense of self. So, a person is truly individuated only to the extent essence has grown. And the outer ego knows hardly anything of essence (I'm saying inner ego). So essence and outer ego hardly know one another. Essence in a very real sense threatens outer ego, because they both cannot grow and thrive. But all this is mostly unconscious processing, which outer ego is the result of, so it make take a long time for outer ego to come to know essence, and for outer ego to ~assume its right place~ (begin to accept that essence is, and outer ego is second place). So the answer to your question is really no. FAPP and FAIAP, essence can see outer ego but outer ego cannot see essence (except conceptually). No, Essence can't even appear to be individuated, by how the outer ego perceives it? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 12, 2017 7:06:57 GMT -5
Essence is defined as that which you were born with (or as), that which one truly is, what is truly one's own. Some of that you can surmise easily, some not. It is also said that essence is a seed. I take the meaning of outer ego to be our ordinary sense of self, you live at a certain address, you have a certain job, etc. You derived most of your outer ego from gathering data from the world, mostly from birth to about age 6, this is also what I have called cultural self, it may or may not correspond to one's true nature, usually not unless a child is raised under rather extraordinary circumstances, so the cultural self is usually what is not one's own, IOW, a false sense of self. So everybody is part essence (inner ego) and part personality/cultural self/mask (formed from data collected after birth). So the person is kind of like an iceberg, 10% above water (outer ego) and 90% below water level (inner ego). OK, that gets us to your question. Essence grows and is nourished, from birth, until the cultural self is formed, and then cultural self takes most of the energy, and essence ceases to grow. Most people remain like this for the rest of their lives, living through a false sense of self. So, a person is truly individuated only to the extent essence has grown. And the outer ego knows hardly anything of essence (I'm saying inner ego). So essence and outer ego hardly know one another. Essence in a very real sense threatens outer ego, because they both cannot grow and thrive. But all this is mostly unconscious processing, which outer ego is the result of, so it make take a long time for outer ego to come to know essence, and for outer ego to ~assume its right place~ (begin to accept that essence is, and outer ego is second place). So the answer to your question is really no. FAPP and FAIAP, essence can see outer ego but outer ego cannot see essence (except conceptually). No, Essence can't even appear to be individuated, by how the outer ego perceives it? I went through all that to try to define your question, I guess that didn't help. Essence and outer ego are sort of separated by a swinging door, I've used the example of a two-way mirror before. Essence on one side outer ego on the other side. You walk through the door, on the side of essence, you're in the viewing room, you can see through the glass into the "interrogation room". But if you walk back through the door, you're in the interrogation room, and see only your own reflection in the "mirror" (it's a one-way mirror or a two-way mirror depending on which side you are on, the outer ego side or inner ego side). Inner ego sees the whole, outer ego only sees itself. Now, answer your own question. And all the dimensions/planes operate in the same manner. ~You~ can see where you are, and below, but you cannot see what's above. This is based on the quantum nature of reality, discontinuity. When you see as far as you can see, you think that's the whole, but it's not, you merely can't see past the ~gap~ (the discontinuous gap). I could elaborate, but have done so before... Will just say this, CC is like outer ego jumping the gap. Outer ego is not really ~made~ to ~be on the other side~. And this gap exists between all the dimensions. This is the meaning of the allegory of (Abbott's) Flatland. The 2-dimensional being can't see the 3-dimensional object passing through its world. It sees a 3-D sphere only-as a circle that gets bigger, then smaller again, then disappears. (And jumping threads, the sphere would be in the "quantum world". And the 2-D physicist is asking, how can this thingy, be both a small circle and a big circle? How can reality be this crazy?  And I can measure the momentum, how fast the smaller circle becomes a bigger circle, but I can't measure simultaneously a bigger circle and a smaller circle, or vice versa). [If this is new to anybody, just stick a pencil (3-D) into a piece of paper (2-D), move it backwards and fowards. Better yet, a pencil with writing on it. .....This could take us to the film Interstellar. The daddy makes it to 5-D "pencilworld", in the "future", going through the black hole. Sends message to little daughter in the past (just a different ~place~ in pencilworld, yet simultaneous time, but her 3/4-D time-bound world, the two worlds overlap... |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 12, 2017 8:24:42 GMT -5
The inner ego idea seems to involve distinctions and activities that influence outer ego. Whereas Self is just All. In other words, inner ego seems like a concept from the outer ego perspective, looking inwards and trying to grok how the Self relates to it. Nonduality proposes a nondual perspective, looking from Self (so to speak). The inner being concept seems to be from the perspective of outer ego. As my case indicates, from the outer perspective, no amount of relaxation or understanding is able to grok Self. One can only be Self, I suppose. The outer ego is not set in stone. It is constantly changing and it can expand. The outer ego can learn to understand its own role in all of this. It can learn to accept its boundaries and step aside when necessary. From the inner ego perspective, the outer ego is absolutely necessary for manipulating/creating in the physical realm. The limits of the outer ego are the outer senses and the intellect. The outer ego cannot go beyond that. The outer ego cannot see what the inner ego sees with the inner senses. The outer ego can however consciously open up to that (to him hidden) inner (or non-physical) reality and accept data that is coming from the inner senses and the inner ego via intuition or dreams. That's actually the purpose of the Seth material. The goal is not to toss the ego aside, the goal is to take the ego along and expand its understanding instead of letting it only work on its own goals. That way the outer ego will get in alignment with the goals of the inner ego and the larger personality. In that sense, all parts of the personality benefit and so All-That-Is or Self benefits as well. The outer ego is after all just a tool of the inner ego, a tool with a certain degree of freedom, but a tool nevertheless. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 12, 2017 8:43:04 GMT -5
The self takes separation for real. The Self knows no separation. The outer ego takes separation for real. The inner ego knows no separation. Self is All-That-Is. And so the outer ego is also all that is as is the inner ego. All these distinctions are arbitrary and are just being made so that the intellect can analyze it. So in theory, the inner ego is unlimited, as is the outer ego! In practical terms, however, not so much. It all depends on how you look at it and with what purpose in mind. You see, non-duality just makes a distinction between self and Self. Which is okay and serves its purpose. But, as Andrew used to say, it also has its limits. If you just distinguish between self and Self then you can't really explain much in terms of manifestations and how creation works. So what Seth does is divvying up Self (the part that doesn't know separation) a little more so that we can talk about the creation process. And so now Self consists of inner egos, entities and numerous other energy gestalts. At the end of the day, it's all one, however. And distinctions are just for convenience's sake again so that we can talk about some specifics more easily. It does serve the purpose of getting to know what's behind the physical in more detail, how it is affecting the physical and how to deal with (or manipulate) the physical. All very practical stuff. Non-duality can't really help you there. I'm trying to get a sense of how you can see SR the same as ZD and E, yet bring in the Seth material. Maybe the bold helps in that. But another thing, ZD is adamant that there is no evolution of consciousness (that such a thing is even possible). I take these worlds and dimensions Seth speaks of, to be actual and tangible, from the level they are, to be as real as the salad I ate for lunch, and to serve a purpose. In the bold you seem to be denying that, that what Seth speaks about is merely conceptual, "are just for convenience sake". And then also this difference, for ZD, his realizations (SR) have answered the questions and ended the journey. This does not seem to be the case for Reefs. I guess that's my question, why not? (But I agree, I still want and need "existential" answers, and consider the answers to exist, and they exist between ~this world~ and Source/Ground/SOCI). That's why your journey interests me. I don't see any conflict. ND tells you what is, Seth/A-H tell you how it is (or how it works). SR will answer your existential questions and end existential angst. But it is not going to give you an answer to why some people get cancer and some others don't. And that was exactly my dilemma. It was only after I discovered the A-H material that those questions could be answered. Planes of existence are not places in the physical sense. Higher planes of existence don't take up any space. They actually exist within your time and space reality. You just don't see them, because you are not tuned into it. Seth talks a lot about the dream world because that's something we all have some kind of experience with. The places you visit in your dreams don't actually take up any space in the physical sense and they also don't happen in time in the physical sense. The physical plane also reaches into other planes. This earth actually exists on multiple planes simultaneously. That's why our cause and effect theory is so laughable. Often events that happen on our plane have their origin on another plane (see astrology or quasars). But since we are not aware of those other planes and how they influence our plane, we construct a false story of cause and effect that only accounts for what can be observed with the physical senses (aka 'objectively'). I've seen ZD talking about integration, integrating realizations into everyday life. That's basically what this alignment stuff is about. It's true that ZD doesn't get into this stuff but he has said repeatedly that he is open to something like reincarnation, channeling and different planes of existence etc, aka the Seth stuff. I guess it's just not his interest. A-H say that our purpose here is thriving on all fronts, and Seth says that our purpose here is to live our full potential. I absolutely agree with that. But ND won't help you there. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jul 12, 2017 8:55:26 GMT -5
The inner ego idea seems to involve distinctions and activities that influence outer ego. Whereas Self is just All. In other words, inner ego seems like a concept from the outer ego perspective, looking inwards and trying to grok how the Self relates to it. Nonduality proposes a nondual perspective, looking from Self (so to speak). The inner being concept seems to be from the perspective of outer ego. As my case indicates, from the outer perspective, no amount of relaxation or understanding is able to grok Self. One can only be Self, I suppose. The outer ego is not set in stone. It is constantly changing and it can expand. The outer ego can learn to understand its own role in all of this. It can learn to accept its boundaries and step aside when necessary. From the inner ego perspective, the outer ego is absolutely necessary for manipulating/creating in the physical realm. The limits of the outer ego are the outer senses and the intellect. The outer ego cannot go beyond that. The outer ego cannot see what the inner ego sees with the inner senses. The outer ego can however consciously open up to that (to him hidden) inner (or non-physical) reality and accept data that is coming from the inner senses and the inner ego via intuition or dreams. That's actually the purpose of the Seth material. The goal is not to toss the ego aside, the goal is to take the ego along and expand its understanding instead of letting it only work on its own goals. That way the outer ego will get in alignment with the goals of the inner ego and the larger personality. In that sense, all parts of the personality benefit and so All-That-Is or Self benefits as well. The outer ego is after all just a tool of the inner ego, a tool with a certain degree of freedom, but a tool nevertheless. Totally agree here. I also think ND can also bring you naturally into alignment. If you are not in the 'small self', all those mind issue naturally and then everything turns out well to match your natural state of wellbeing. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 12, 2017 9:10:48 GMT -5
The outer ego is not set in stone. It is constantly changing and it can expand. The outer ego can learn to understand its own role in all of this. It can learn to accept its boundaries and step aside when necessary. From the inner ego perspective, the outer ego is absolutely necessary for manipulating/creating in the physical realm. The limits of the outer ego are the outer senses and the intellect. The outer ego cannot go beyond that. The outer ego cannot see what the inner ego sees with the inner senses. The outer ego can however consciously open up to that (to him hidden) inner (or non-physical) reality and accept data that is coming from the inner senses and the inner ego via intuition or dreams. That's actually the purpose of the Seth material. The goal is not to toss the ego aside, the goal is to take the ego along and expand its understanding instead of letting it only work on its own goals. That way the outer ego will get in alignment with the goals of the inner ego and the larger personality. In that sense, all parts of the personality benefit and so All-That-Is or Self benefits as well. The outer ego is after all just a tool of the inner ego, a tool with a certain degree of freedom, but a tool nevertheless. Totally agree here. I also think ND can also bring you naturally into alignment. If you are not in the 'small self', all those mind issue naturally and then everything turns out well to match your natural state of wellbeing. Yes, good point. And without SR, you'll never be fully in alignment anyway. SR does remove a huge road block. But there's more. In order to skillfully manipulate in the physical realm and thrive, you have to know how mind works, you have to know about LOA and focus and stuff. |
|
And I can measure the momentum, how fast the smaller circle becomes a bigger circle, but I can't measure simultaneously a bigger circle and a smaller circle, or vice versa). [If this is new to anybody, just stick a pencil (3-D) into a piece of paper (2-D), move it backwards and fowards. Better yet, a pencil with writing on it. .....This could take us to the film Interstellar. The daddy makes it to 5-D "pencilworld", in the "future", going through the black hole. Sends message to little daughter in the past (just a different ~place~ in pencilworld, yet simultaneous time, but her 3/4-D time-bound world, the two worlds overlap...