|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 8, 2017 19:03:11 GMT -5
Maybe we can all agree that freedom is really freedom from the separate identity, and so the question is really how that comes about. Certainly, the realization of what one is, is one way, but the realization of what one is not is another. IOW, along with the realization that seeking one's true identity is merely an intellectual exercise comes the clarity that the original identity was also such an exercise. This is simply seeing through the illusion and not finding anything true on the other side of it. It's anti-climactic, but nothing else is needed. My interpretation is you're only addressing people who accept SR is the absolute truth about reality. Or to put it another way; seems to me you're speaking from Advaita World, where word definitions are not the same as those found in secular dictionaries. Advaita World has it's own definitions that are only of use or benefit to those that choose to exist in this realm. For there is no way I could agree to your definition of Freedom, for I do not perceive reality through Advaita glasses. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 8, 2017 19:54:57 GMT -5
Maybe we can all agree that freedom is really freedom from the separate identity, and so the question is really how that comes about. Certainly, the realization of what one is, is one way, but the realization of what one is not is another. IOW, along with the realization that seeking one's true identity is merely an intellectual exercise comes the clarity that the original identity was also such an exercise. This is simply seeing through the illusion and not finding anything true on the other side of it. It's anti-climactic, but nothing else is needed. My interpretation is you're only addressing people who accept SR is the absolute truth about reality. Or to put it another way; seems to me you're speaking from Advaita World, where word definitions are not the same as those found in secular dictionaries. Advaita World has it's own definitions that are only of use or benefit to those that choose to exist in this realm. For there is no way I could agree to your definition of Freedom, for I do not perceive reality through Advaita glasses. Well, I mean freedom from identifying oneself as the limited mind/body that is born, and dies, and in the interim is subject to the vagaries of life. This is the source of all existential suffering. I don't know if that changes anything for you because I don't know what your definition is. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2017 9:41:17 GMT -5
Maybe we can all agree that freedom is really freedom from the separate identity, and so the question is really how that comes about. Certainly, the realization of what one is, is one way, but the realization of what one is not is another. IOW, along with the realization that seeking one's true identity is merely an intellectual exercise comes the clarity that the original identity was also such an exercise. This is simply seeing through the illusion and not finding anything true on the other side of it. It's anti-climactic, but nothing else is needed. From my limited reading on the topic, it seems that there can be either a realization or an experience that informs mind of what is, or what isn't, without it being the end of the road. That's the story I'd tell as well. The intensity of the energy of these events, as well as whether that's positive or negative in relative and personal terms, seems to me to be all over the map, and that's what I'd expect: forget about expectation. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2017 9:48:28 GMT -5
I like the concept of "the elect." It could also just be a statistical anomaly. Fact is, billions and billions don't SR. You're wondering about particular details in the story of the teeny fraction that do. Maybe it's just not meant to be, as evidenced by the vast majority of data. The anomalous few have individual narratives. True. I understand what happens when "the little guy/gal in one's head" disappears, but I remain curious about the kind of realization that occurs to people who never had the sense of being an entity animating the body. For people in the former category, the realization that frees them from the illusion of separateness is the discovery that there never was a person inside the body doing anything. The familiar "little guy/gal" literally disappears. One looks inside, and there's no longer anyone there. The "inside" is empty. In fact, inside and outside are then seen as fictional distinctions. For people who never identified themselves as a person in that way, however, I have no idea what kind of realization leads to unity. When I talk to people about this issue, some people know exactly what I'm describing when I say "little guy/gal in the head," but many people have no idea what those words refer to. They say that they have no such highly-defined or locational sense of self. Those are the people I'm particularly interested in if SR has been attained. The sense of identity, in terms of a machine, is quite complex, and for many people it's not static but can vary over time, and for some us, quite radically. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 9, 2017 10:21:02 GMT -5
I like the concept of "the elect." It could also just be a statistical anomaly. Fact is, billions and billions don't SR. You're wondering about particular details in the story of the teeny fraction that do. Maybe it's just not meant to be, as evidenced by the vast majority of data. The anomalous few have individual narratives. True. I understand what happens when "the little guy/gal in one's head" disappears, but I remain curious about the kind of realization that occurs to people who never had the sense of being an entity animating the body. For people in the former category, the realization that frees them from the illusion of separateness is the discovery that there never was a person inside the body doing anything. The familiar "little guy/gal" literally disappears. One looks inside, and there's no longer anyone there. The "inside" is empty. In fact, inside and outside are then seen as fictional distinctions. For people who never identified themselves as a person in that way, however, I have no idea what kind of realization leads to unity. When I talk to people about this issue, some people know exactly what I'm describing when I say "little guy/gal in the head," but many people have no idea what those words refer to. They say that they have no such highly-defined or locational sense of self. Those are the people I'm particularly interested in if SR has been attained. I'm definitely in the category of folks who aren't cognizant of a little guy/gal. But also still waiting for the word re SR. Perhaps not being cognizant of the little guy/gal is symptomatic of having further to go -- it's so identified with that there is no possible space to get around it. Perhaps when there is a distinguishable homunculus, then there is the capacity to see it as an illusion/mirage and poof it is gone, with a little Grace. But if one is fully identified/merged with that voice, there is no ability to distance from it. dunno |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 9, 2017 12:40:28 GMT -5
True. I understand what happens when "the little guy/gal in one's head" disappears, but I remain curious about the kind of realization that occurs to people who never had the sense of being an entity animating the body. For people in the former category, the realization that frees them from the illusion of separateness is the discovery that there never was a person inside the body doing anything. The familiar "little guy/gal" literally disappears. One looks inside, and there's no longer anyone there. The "inside" is empty. In fact, inside and outside are then seen as fictional distinctions. For people who never identified themselves as a person in that way, however, I have no idea what kind of realization leads to unity. When I talk to people about this issue, some people know exactly what I'm describing when I say "little guy/gal in the head," but many people have no idea what those words refer to. They say that they have no such highly-defined or locational sense of self. Those are the people I'm particularly interested in if SR has been attained. I'm definitely in the category of folks who aren't cognizant of a little guy/gal. But also still waiting for the word re SR. Perhaps not being cognizant of the little guy/gal is symptomatic of having further to go -- it's so identified with that there is no possible space to get around it. Perhaps when there is a distinguishable homunculus, then there is the capacity to see it as an illusion/mirage and poof it is gone, with a little Grace. But if one is fully identified/merged with that voice, there is no ability to distance from it. dunno That's an interesting thought. Like you, my wife has no sense of the little gal in the head thingy, and says that she has never known or had any sense of who or what she is. She used to joke that she'd need to create a sense of self before she could ever get rid of it. Haha. Our daughter, OTOH, knows exactly what I mean when I refer to the little homunculus in the head. She therefore psychologically experiences a distinct difference between a volitional "me" inside and a world outside. Just out of curiosity, Max, if you think, "I want to know x," or "I feel x," or "I think/believe x," what is the sense of "I" that the word refers to in statements like that? If it doesn't refer to anything distinctly identifiable (homunculus), then maybe pursuing the question, "Who am I, really?" is a waste of time. If someone who doesn't have a strong sense of self says, "I want to know who I am," why would s/he even ask that kind of question?" My wife theorizes that she started asking that question because the people all around her seemed to have a strong sense of self, and she thought that perhaps she needed to acquire one. Perhaps for people without a hard-core sense of selfhood (homunculus) finding one's True Self or absolute identity is not necessary because they don't suffer from that particular illusion. As a result of talking to people about this issue, I suspect that there are lots more people without a homunculus in the head than with one. If that's true, then why would people without a sense of self worry about dying? Is that because they solely identify with a body that dies? People with a homunculus worry about dying because they think that the inside "me" will disappear. For those people the body and the inside "me" are a single unit, but the "me" is probably the dominant aspect of the entity--or, the whole thing (interests, sense of volition, homunculus, body, etc) are the same big ball of wax. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 9, 2017 14:21:08 GMT -5
I'm definitely in the category of folks who aren't cognizant of a little guy/gal. But also still waiting for the word re SR. Perhaps not being cognizant of the little guy/gal is symptomatic of having further to go -- it's so identified with that there is no possible space to get around it. Perhaps when there is a distinguishable homunculus, then there is the capacity to see it as an illusion/mirage and poof it is gone, with a little Grace. But if one is fully identified/merged with that voice, there is no ability to distance from it. dunno That's an interesting thought. Like you, my wife has no sense of the little gal in the head thingy, and says that she has never known or had any sense of who or what she is. She used to joke that she'd need to create a sense of self before she could ever get rid of it. Haha. Our daughter, OTOH, knows exactly what I mean when I refer to the little homunculus in the head. She therefore psychologically experiences a distinct difference between a volitional "me" inside and a world outside. Just out of curiosity, Max, if you think, "I want to know x," or "I feel x," or "I think/believe x," what is the sense of "I" that the word refers to in statements like that? If it doesn't refer to anything distinctly identifiable (homunculus), then maybe pursuing the question, "Who am I, really?" is a waste of time. If someone who doesn't have a strong sense of self says, "I want to know who I am," why would s/he even ask that kind of question?" My wife theorizes that she started asking that question because the people all around her seemed to have a strong sense of self, and she thought that perhaps she needed to acquire one. Perhaps for people without a hard-core sense of selfhood (homunculus) finding one's True Self or absolute identity is not necessary because they don't suffer from that particular illusion. As a result of talking to people about this issue, I suspect that there are lots more people without a homunculus in the head than with one. If that's true, then why would people without a sense of self worry about dying? Is that because they solely identify with a body that dies? People with a homunculus worry about dying because they think that the inside "me" will disappear. For those people the body and the inside "me" are a single unit, but the "me" is probably the dominant aspect of the entity--or, the whole thing (interests, sense of volition, homunculus, body, etc) are the same big ball of wax. Thoughts? Thoughts come and go. That's about the extent of it. "I want this or that" comes and goes along with everything else. One thing that really struck me once was "you aren't your thoughts." I don't remember when I understood that but it resounded when it did. There was a time previous to that where I dwelled alot -- a very self-lacerating process. Dwelling into misery. Sometime after soaking in dharma and meditating a lot, including long silent retreats, I was walking on the sidewalk and just recognized the dwelling and it went away and never returned. In the past year I've learned that the particular content or subject matter of thoughts is highly related to what is happening in the body. It's really a no brainer but I've viscerally understood and witnessed this and have a deeper appreciation for it. Whereas the sidewalk dwelling event was a recognition of the activity of thinking, especially of the self-flagellating stripe, this 'insight' has been more around the specific text of the thoughts. I witnessed a whole genre of thoughts disappear because of changes in body chemistry. Occasionally thoughts with the content that I dwelled on previously do arise but they are just clear flags now. No ensuing dwelling happens because they are just recognized, like potholes in the road. Just drive by. On "You aren't your thoughts", wrt SR, it's primarily another form of neti neti. Maybe this is why that particular practice resonated well -- I'd already known it. But whereas neti neti may be an negative approach, with that illusive Grace, and "result" in SR, SR seems fundamentally a positive thing. There is "you are not your thoughts" and there is "what am I then?" The nonconcept of Oneness or _____, and not being other than that, is yet something I understand. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2017 20:25:32 GMT -5
Maybe we can all agree that freedom is really freedom from the separate identity, and so the question is really how that comes about. Certainly, the realization of what one is, is one way, but the realization of what one is not is another. IOW, along with the realization that seeking one's true identity is merely an intellectual exercise comes the clarity that the original identity was also such an exercise. This is simply seeing through the illusion and not finding anything true on the other side of it. It's anti-climactic, but nothing else is needed. From my limited reading on the topic, it seems that there can be either a realization or an experience that informs mind of what is, or what isn't, without it being the end of the road. That's the story I'd tell as well. The intensity of the energy of these events, as well as whether that's positive or negative in relative and personal terms, seems to me to be all over the map, and that's what I'd expect: forget about expectation. My perspective, which is probly clear by now, is that, while experience can influence mind, it doesn't actually inform mind the way realization does. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2017 20:42:24 GMT -5
True. I understand what happens when "the little guy/gal in one's head" disappears, but I remain curious about the kind of realization that occurs to people who never had the sense of being an entity animating the body. For people in the former category, the realization that frees them from the illusion of separateness is the discovery that there never was a person inside the body doing anything. The familiar "little guy/gal" literally disappears. One looks inside, and there's no longer anyone there. The "inside" is empty. In fact, inside and outside are then seen as fictional distinctions. For people who never identified themselves as a person in that way, however, I have no idea what kind of realization leads to unity. When I talk to people about this issue, some people know exactly what I'm describing when I say "little guy/gal in the head," but many people have no idea what those words refer to. They say that they have no such highly-defined or locational sense of self. Those are the people I'm particularly interested in if SR has been attained. But also still waiting for the word re SR. Perhaps not being cognizant of the little guy/gal is symptomatic of having further to go -- it's so identified with that there is no possible space to get around it. Perhaps when there is a distinguishable homunculus, then there is the capacity to see it as an illusion/mirage and poof it is gone, with a little Grace. But if one is fully identified/merged with that voice, there is no ability to distance from it. dunno I actually don't understand how anyone can grow up in this world and not see themselves as 'in the body' looking out on the world. The illusion is all but seamless. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2017 20:46:06 GMT -5
From my limited reading on the topic, it seems that there can be either a realization or an experience that informs mind of what is, or what isn't, without it being the end of the road. That's the story I'd tell as well. The intensity of the energy of these events, as well as whether that's positive or negative in relative and personal terms, seems to me to be all over the map, and that's what I'd expect: forget about expectation. My perspective, which is probly clear by now, is that, while can experience can influence mind, it doesn't actually inform mind the way realization does. How do you remove the scent of dwad from the influence/inform dichotomy? My primary interest wasn't in the realization/experience distinction, but rather, in the different biographies people have written where the distinction between via-positive and via-negative would apply. It seems to me that experience becomes relevant in those cases where someone pockets one half of the coin, but is still in a state of questioning. Now I understand the position that none of these intermediate states are important as they're all relative, but I don't completely agree with it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2017 20:58:31 GMT -5
I'm definitely in the category of folks who aren't cognizant of a little guy/gal. But also still waiting for the word re SR. Perhaps not being cognizant of the little guy/gal is symptomatic of having further to go -- it's so identified with that there is no possible space to get around it. Perhaps when there is a distinguishable homunculus, then there is the capacity to see it as an illusion/mirage and poof it is gone, with a little Grace. But if one is fully identified/merged with that voice, there is no ability to distance from it. dunno That's an interesting thought. Like you, my wife has no sense of the little gal in the head thingy, and says that she has never known or had any sense of who or what she is. She used to joke that she'd need to create a sense of self before she could ever get rid of it. Haha. Our daughter, OTOH, knows exactly what I mean when I refer to the little homunculus in the head. She therefore psychologically experiences a distinct difference between a volitional "me" inside and a world outside. Just out of curiosity, Max, if you think, "I want to know x," or "I feel x," or "I think/believe x," what is the sense of "I" that the word refers to in statements like that? If it doesn't refer to anything distinctly identifiable (homunculus), then maybe pursuing the question, "Who am I, really?" is a waste of time. If someone who doesn't have a strong sense of self says, "I want to know who I am," why would s/he even ask that kind of question?" My wife theorizes that she started asking that question because the people all around her seemed to have a strong sense of self, and she thought that perhaps she needed to acquire one. Perhaps for people without a hard-core sense of selfhood (homunculus) finding one's True Self or absolute identity is not necessary because they don't suffer from that particular illusion. As a result of talking to people about this issue, I suspect that there are lots more people without a homunculus in the head than with one. If that's true, then why would people without a sense of self worry about dying? Is that because they solely identify with a body that dies? People with a homunculus worry about dying because they think that the inside "me" will disappear. For those people the body and the inside "me" are a single unit, but the "me" is probably the dominant aspect of the entity--or, the whole thing (interests, sense of volition, homunculus, body, etc) are the same big ball of wax. Thoughts? I had the same question. Surely there is a 'me' that one wants to protect, and it is associated with the body. That's not different from identifying as mind/body. Maybe for those peeps, a 'man inside the head' is being objectified by the self and found to be absent. IOW, the self cannot find a self outside of itself. (No insult intended to the no-selfers) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2017 21:28:07 GMT -5
My perspective, which is probly clear by now, is that, while can experience can influence mind, it doesn't actually inform mind the way realization does. How do you remove the scent of dwad from the influence/inform dichotomy? Soaking overnight in bleach usually does the trick, but really you just trade one scent for another.  One can be influenced by experience in such a way as to drive one deeper into illusion, or informed by realization by which we mean oriented away from illusion. You mean experiencing what one is rather than realizing what one is not? Which one are you thinking is pocketed? Agree with what? |
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 9, 2017 22:17:22 GMT -5
My interpretation is you're only addressing people who accept SR is the absolute truth about reality. Or to put it another way; seems to me you're speaking from Advaita World, where word definitions are not the same as those found in secular dictionaries. Advaita World has it's own definitions that are only of use or benefit to those that choose to exist in this realm. For there is no way I could agree to your definition of Freedom, for I do not perceive reality through Advaita glasses. Well, I mean freedom from identifying oneself as the limited mind/body that is born, and dies, and in the interim is subject to the vagaries of life. This is the source of all existential suffering. I don't know if that changes anything for you because I don't know what your definition is. My interpretation is all you've done is clarify what Advaita claims people need to detach from. That is, all you've done is clarify Advaita freedom. None of that addresses this... Maybe we can all agree that freedom is really freedom from the separate identity, ..where I interpret you're saying the true\real defination of freedom is freedom from the separate identity, and that simply is not the secular or common definition of freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 10, 2017 6:02:04 GMT -5
Maybe we can all agree that freedom is really freedom from the separate identity, and so the question is really how that comes about. Certainly, the realization of what one is, is one way, but the realization of what one is not is another. IOW, along with the realization that seeking one's true identity is merely an intellectual exercise comes the clarity that the original identity was also such an exercise. This is simply seeing through the illusion and not finding anything true on the other side of it. It's anti-climactic, but nothing else is needed. It's kind of like that bowl of oatmeal which is just right. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 10, 2017 6:05:39 GMT -5
That's an interesting thought. Like you, my wife has no sense of the little gal in the head thingy, and says that she has never known or had any sense of who or what she is. She used to joke that she'd need to create a sense of self before she could ever get rid of it. Haha. Our daughter, OTOH, knows exactly what I mean when I refer to the little homunculus in the head. She therefore psychologically experiences a distinct difference between a volitional "me" inside and a world outside. Just out of curiosity, Max, if you think, "I want to know x," or "I feel x," or "I think/believe x," what is the sense of "I" that the word refers to in statements like that? If it doesn't refer to anything distinctly identifiable (homunculus), then maybe pursuing the question, "Who am I, really?" is a waste of time. If someone who doesn't have a strong sense of self says, "I want to know who I am," why would s/he even ask that kind of question?" My wife theorizes that she started asking that question because the people all around her seemed to have a strong sense of self, and she thought that perhaps she needed to acquire one. Perhaps for people without a hard-core sense of selfhood (homunculus) finding one's True Self or absolute identity is not necessary because they don't suffer from that particular illusion. As a result of talking to people about this issue, I suspect that there are lots more people without a homunculus in the head than with one. If that's true, then why would people without a sense of self worry about dying? Is that because they solely identify with a body that dies? People with a homunculus worry about dying because they think that the inside "me" will disappear. For those people the body and the inside "me" are a single unit, but the "me" is probably the dominant aspect of the entity--or, the whole thing (interests, sense of volition, homunculus, body, etc) are the same big ball of wax. Thoughts? Thoughts come and go. That's about the extent of it. "I want this or that" comes and goes along with everything else. One thing that really struck me once was "you aren't your thoughts." I don't remember when I understood that but it resounded when it did. There was a time previous to that where I dwelled alot -- a very self-lacerating process. Dwelling into misery. Sometime after soaking in dharma and meditating a lot, including long silent retreats, I was walking on the sidewalk and just recognized the dwelling and it went away and never returned. In the past year I've learned that the particular content or subject matter of thoughts is highly related to what is happening in the body. It's really a no brainer but I've viscerally understood and witnessed this and have a deeper appreciation for it. Whereas the sidewalk dwelling event was a recognition of the activity of thinking, especially of the self-flagellating stripe, this 'insight' has been more around the specific text of the thoughts. I witnessed a whole genre of thoughts disappear because of changes in body chemistry. Occasionally thoughts with the content that I dwelled on previously do arise but they are just clear flags now. No ensuing dwelling happens because they are just recognized, like potholes in the road. Just drive by. On "You aren't your thoughts", wrt SR, it's primarily another form of neti neti. Maybe this is why that particular practice resonated well -- I'd already known it. But whereas neti neti may be an negative approach, with that illusive Grace, and "result" in SR, SR seems fundamentally a positive thing. There is "you are not your thoughts" and there is "what am I then?" The nonconcept of Oneness or _____, and not being other than that, is yet something I understand. Good holistic perspective there. |
|
