|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 9, 2017 6:27:03 GMT -5
Reminds me of the prayer 'let me be an instrument of Thy peace.' John Coltrane was such a master of the saxophone. He could flawlessly express whatever inspiration flowed through him in the moment. Much of his tunes are a recording of his explorations. If the inner being is Thy peace, then the objective would be to unrestrict its expression, deobfuscate, polish the mirror, yada yada. Right. What we call inspiration is actually the inner ego successfully feeding ideas to the outer ego. The outer ego can receive it, but doesn't know where it comes from. I'm interested in this idea that the inner being is too overwhelming. A cc would be when those restraints are uncapped and the overwhelm happens? First of all, those distinctions are only for convenience's sake so that we can talk about it. There are no clear lines and everything is in motion and changing constantly. Secondly, Seth usually talks about 3 parts of a personality - the outer ego, the subconscious and the inner ego. The outer ego is the part of the personality that has the most intense and most narrow focus, it's basically solely focused in the physical realm. To the outer ego belong the physical senses, the brain and the intellect. 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. To the inner ego belong the inner senses and the mind. The subconscious is the buffer between the outer ego and the inner ego. Seth says, the role the physical plane of existence plays from the POV of the inner ego is akin to the the role the dreamworld plays in our waking state from the POV of our ego, i.e. the inner ego isn't that much involved in the physical. What is overwhelming to the outer ego is the richness of the inner sense data. The inner ego exists in the spacious present as Seth calls it, meaning prior to our ideas of time and space, so everything is happening simultaneously. The outer ego, however, is bound by ideas of time and space. And so the inner data, in order to be of any use to the outer ego, has to be translated into a time and space format. Which means it will be cut into pieces, large parts thrown out and then those remaining pieces will be arranged in a past, present, future sequence. That way, what remains of the original incredibly rich inner data is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg. A CC would be seeing the physical realm with the inner senses, A-H call it 'seeing with the eyes of source'. Which gives it this incredible vividness and depth that is so characteristic of CC experiences plus this sense of having transcended those limiting ideas of time and space. I'm sorry if I've missed this, but what was the inner ego's relationship to Self, for example? I've been working with a self/Self model so far but it seems like in this model the self layer may actually be composed of three, all illusory with respect to Self. signed, verified Dummy |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 9, 2017 11:25:43 GMT -5
Right. What we call inspiration is actually the inner ego successfully feeding ideas to the outer ego. The outer ego can receive it, but doesn't know where it comes from. First of all, those distinctions are only for convenience's sake so that we can talk about it. There are no clear lines and everything is in motion and changing constantly. Secondly, Seth usually talks about 3 parts of a personality - the outer ego, the subconscious and the inner ego. The outer ego is the part of the personality that has the most intense and most narrow focus, it's basically solely focused in the physical realm. To the outer ego belong the physical senses, the brain and the intellect. 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. To the inner ego belong the inner senses and the mind. The subconscious is the buffer between the outer ego and the inner ego. Seth says, the role the physical plane of existence plays from the POV of the inner ego is akin to the the role the dreamworld plays in our waking state from the POV of our ego, i.e. the inner ego isn't that much involved in the physical. What is overwhelming to the outer ego is the richness of the inner sense data. The inner ego exists in the spacious present as Seth calls it, meaning prior to our ideas of time and space, so everything is happening simultaneously. The outer ego, however, is bound by ideas of time and space. And so the inner data, in order to be of any use to the outer ego, has to be translated into a time and space format. Which means it will be cut into pieces, large parts thrown out and then those remaining pieces will be arranged in a past, present, future sequence. That way, what remains of the original incredibly rich inner data is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg. A CC would be seeing the physical realm with the inner senses, A-H call it 'seeing with the eyes of source'. Which gives it this incredible vividness and depth that is so characteristic of CC experiences plus this sense of having transcended those limiting ideas of time and space. I'm sorry if I've missed this, but what was the inner ego's relationship to Self, for example? I've been working with a self/Self model so far but it seems like in this model the self layer may actually be composed of three, all illusory with respect to Self. signed, verified Dummy Yes, will be very interested in how Reefs reconciles the two. One will take priority over the other, which is why I say I'm not a nondualist (without explanation). In the short, consciousness can evolve. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 9, 2017 12:50:53 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I've missed this, but what was the inner ego's relationship to Self, for example? I've been working with a self/Self model so far but it seems like in this model the self layer may actually be composed of three, all illusory with respect to Self. signed, verified Dummy Yes, will be very interested in how Reefs reconciles the two. One will take priority over the other, which is why I say I'm not a nondualist (without explanation). In the short, consciousness can evolve. In the bolded, what equals 'one' and what equals 'other'? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 9, 2017 22:37:31 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I've missed this, but what was the inner ego's relationship to Self, for example? I've been working with a self/Self model so far but it seems like in this model the self layer may actually be composed of three, all illusory with respect to Self. signed, verified Dummy What Seth calls the inner ego (or inner self) is what we here call Self. What Seth calls the outer ego (or outer self) is what we here call self (or ego or the person). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 9, 2017 22:38:42 GMT -5
Yes, will be very interested in how Reefs reconciles the two. One will take priority over the other, which is why I say I'm not a nondualist (without explanation). In the short, consciousness can evolve. Right, according to Seth, CC/SR is just the first step, a fundamental one, but it's only the beginning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2017 2:52:16 GMT -5
Yes, will be very interested in how Reefs reconciles the two. One will take priority over the other, which is why I say I'm not a nondualist (without explanation). In the short, consciousness can evolve. Right, according to Seth, CC/SR is just the first step, a fundamental one, but it's only the beginning. Yeah I agree with Seth. And anyone that claims to still think the same way following those steps must be viewed with a healthy dose of scepticism. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2017 7:54:53 GMT -5
Yes, will be very interested in how Reefs reconciles the two. One will take priority over the other, which is why I say I'm not a nondualist (without explanation). In the short, consciousness can evolve. In the bolded, what equals 'one' and what equals 'other'? I would say this is very complicated, and is why satch objects to bringing in all this Seth discussion. Satch thinks it's completely irrelevant to the ~real~ journey. Let me first say I am in disagreement with Reefs definitions of self and Self, outer ego and inner ego. I'd say our use of Self here is impersonal, Seth's inner ego is still personal. (More below). So then I would say the general consensus here is that Self does not evolve, so once you have ~found~ Self, that's the end of the journey. We could call this view the 'other'. Then my view (we could call one [or vice versa], the point is there are two views). We could call Self, Spirit, whatever is fundamental, Source, Ground. IT IS impersonal. But this impersonal "Spirit" is ~implanted~ in the "earth" (a body). This is part of the definition of the law of three, "the higher blends with the lower", and now the remainder, "to actualize the middle". ~We~ are this middle. And this is a process. This "middle" is what can evolve. This middle is the "soul". So, then, this Is why Gurdjieff says we are not born with a soul, but only have a soul in embryo. So here is laid out the difference, the nondual people say (OTOH) we are the impersonal Spirit (Self) and once you recognize THAT, journey over. And (OTotherH) the, let's say evolution of consciousness people, say no, that's not the end, there is still an individuated self that is evolving, or Gurdjieff says has the possibility of evolving. Two very big differences of view. And in a way BOTH are right, but in relation to each other, both wrong. (By way of analogy these are very like quantum mechanics and Relativity). You see, there is no ~have to~, at some point there is choice, but the individuation has to ~grow up to~ the point of the possibility of choice. As I said, very complicated. But the Reefs-type is more correct, ND+"alignment", SR is NOT the end of the journey. Just to add, I would say, yes, outer ego is self, what we generally call ego, but Seth's inner ego is more-like what Gurdjieff calls essence. And also, to add, to get this full and complete view, you have to have what E came to call the three-layer-cake. Now, he hated the 3 layer cake, refused to bring it into the conversation, so it's difficult to talk about, with some. But without the " 3 layer cake", there is NO individuation, or possibility of ~real~ individuation. For me all this (being as brief as possible) reconciles the two views. But ATST you will see that for any one person, one view will take presidence over the other. But yes, FAIAP, Source, Ground, does not evolve. (That's what ~we are for~). edit: I just found the Enlightenment vs Purification thread. I'd say it's very relevant, here. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2017 8:24:59 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I've missed this, but what was the inner ego's relationship to Self, for example? I've been working with a self/Self model so far but it seems like in this model the self layer may actually be composed of three, all illusory with respect to Self. signed, verified Dummy What Seth calls the inner ego (or inner self) is what we here call Self. What Seth calls the outer ego (or outer self) is what we here call self (or ego or the person). More fully explained in the post above, but I would say, yes, the outer ego is what we call here self, ego or person, but I would call Seth's inner ego, essence. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 10, 2017 9:26:44 GMT -5
The cells in your own body
Seth: The cells in your own body have self-consciousness and individuality to some extent, and so on a different scale entirely do they make decisions. Their decisions affect you, though they have but vague awareness that you exist as a whole at all. Their decisions indirectly affect your manipulations of camouflage, and of course directly influence your whole state of being. The cells are independent, as they are individuals. They are also dependent upon the driving organization of your subconscious, following its directions even to cancerous reproductions, which on their part is of course growth. You as a physical being are also dependent upon many forces that you do not understand, so there is no contradiction in saying that the cells are individual and independent, and yet dependent upon stronger organization. There is no coercion put upon the cells, because each cell is what it is because of its innate ability and strength. Nor is there any coercion as far as a personality is concerned, which is a part of an entity.
(Session 29)
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 10, 2017 9:40:19 GMT -5
Free will (limited edition)
Seth: Free will exists on a limited scale on your plane, but it does exist, and the very limitations themselves are the result of free will choices made on another plane by the various entities... Theoretically an animal has free choice, and this will do very well as an example of what I mean by limitations. An animal is free enough to travel to, say, California from New York. There is nothing in his physical makeup to prevent the physical journey, but the point, if you'll excuse the pun, is pointless. Even a pointer would have difficulty. The dog's legs could easily make the trip with planned or unplanned rests, but the animal is simply not aware that such a place or destination exists to begin with. Nor could he purposely set out for such a journey as a rule. Animals, many times using their own inner senses, have made such journeys, but their conscious apparatus alone would not permit it. In like manner such choice possibilities exist for human personalities, but to all intents and purposes they do not exist because the personality is too limited to take advantage of them.
(Session 36)
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 10, 2017 10:18:20 GMT -5
I would say this is very complicated, and is why satch objects to bringing in all this Seth discussion. Satch thinks it's completely irrelevant to the ~real~ journey. Let me first say I am in disagreement with Reefs definitions of self and Self, outer ego and inner ego. I'd say our use of Self here is impersonal, Seth's inner ego is still personal. (More below). I think you misunderstood. The inner ego is also just a small part of the Self in the sense of Self = Source/God/All-That-Is. Yes, the inner ego is personal and so is the personality and even the entity. But personal here means individualized and self-conscious energy, not anything objectified. Objectifying, i.e. standing apart form experience, is what the natural function of the outer ego is. It was just the next logical step in the evolution of All-That-Is. All-That-Is would be impersonal self-conscious energy. So then I would say the general consensus here is that Self does not evolve, so once you have ~found~ Self, that's the end of the journey. That's totally wrong. Self is evolving, forever incomplete. Just read the thread Abraham-Hicks for Dummies (2) - God again. Seth says exactly the same. Once you've realized (or found) Self, you know what your true nature is. And once you know your true nature, you know your true nature. In that sense you are done. But realizing Self opens up a whole new sphere of existence which you previously had no idea that it even existed. In that sense, it's just the beginning. More fully explained in the post above, but I would say, yes, the outer ego is what we call here self, ego or person, but I would call Seth's inner ego, essence. Remember Seth II? That's Seth's entity - consciousness without form (similar to Abraham). And it's still personal in the sense that it is individualized energy. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2017 11:04:07 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I've missed this, but what was the inner ego's relationship to Self, for example? I've been working with a self/Self model so far but it seems like in this model the self layer may actually be composed of three, all illusory with respect to Self. signed, verified Dummy . What Seth calls the outer ego (or outer self) is what we here call self (or ego or the person). I would say this is [just] incorrect. (You qualification doesn't help much). tbc in your response to me. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2017 11:04:44 GMT -5
I would say this is very complicated, and is why satch objects to bringing in all this Seth discussion. Satch thinks it's completely irrelevant to the ~real~ journey. Let me first say I am in disagreement with Reefs definitions of self and Self, outer ego and inner ego. I'd say our use of Self here is impersonal, Seth's inner ego is still personal. (More below). I think you misunderstood. The inner ego is also just a small part of the Self in the sense of Self = Source/God/All-That-Is. Yes, the inner ego is personal and so is the personality and even the entity. But personal here means individualized and self-conscious energy, not anything objectified. Objectifying, i.e. standing apart form experience, is what the natural function of the outer ego is. It was just the next logical step in the evolution of All-That-Is. All-That-Is would be impersonal self-conscious energy. So then I would say the general consensus here is that Self does not evolve, so once you have ~found~ Self, that's the end of the journey. That's totally wrong. Self is evolving, forever incomplete. Just read the thread Abraham-Hicks for Dummies (2) - God again. Seth says exactly the same. Once you've realized (or found) Self, you know what your true nature is. And once you know your true nature, you know your true nature. In that sense you are done. But realizing Self opens up a whole new sphere of existence which you previously had no idea that it even existed. In that sense, it's just the beginning. More fully explained in the post above, but I would say, yes, the outer ego is what we call here self, ego or person, but I would call Seth's inner ego, essence. Remember Seth II? That's Seth's entity - consciousness without form (similar to Abraham). And it's still personal in the sense that it is individualized energy. 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. Last section, I agree. Seth II would be very close to what Gurdjieff called Real I. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2017 11:30:53 GMT -5
Yes, will be very interested in how Reefs reconciles the two. One will take priority over the other, which is why I say I'm not a nondualist (without explanation). In the short, consciousness can evolve. Right, according to Seth, CC/SR is just the first step, a fundamental one, but it's only the beginning. Yes, that's why I say that SR is just a little bump in the road. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 10, 2017 12:13:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I've missed this, but what was the inner ego's relationship to Self, for example? I've been working with a self/Self model so far but it seems like in this model the self layer may actually be composed of three, all illusory with respect to Self. signed, verified Dummy What Seth calls the inner ego (or inner self) is what we here call Self. What Seth calls the outer ego (or outer self) is what we here call self (or ego or the person). 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. |
|
